The Forum > Article Comments > Debating our republic: unity is needed to move forward > Comments
Debating our republic: unity is needed to move forward : Comments
By John Warhurst and Richard Fidler, published 13/8/2004John Warhurst and Richard Fidler outline the public debate that will follow from any proposed republic model
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
A number of separate, but similar, models were put to the Senate Committee which proposed to replace the Queen with a directly elected Australian head of state, but also retain the position of Governor-General.
These models proposed different nomination methods, but retained the essential ingredient of a direct election of potential candidates for the Australian head of state. My contribution to this was the "Honorary President Republican Model", involving a nomination process for the office of "Honorary President" involving public petition, each of six states nominating former Governors or Lieutenant Governors, and the Commonwealth nominating a former Governor-General. This would be followed by a direct election with a maximum of ten candidates. See http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/ for more information.
In terms of the role and powers, while these similar models varied slightly, most suggested that the distribution of powers and functions between the new Australian head of state and the Governor-General would remain essentially the same as the current situation with the Queen and the Governor-General.
Should a models plebecite be held, it is expected that ARM Model Four (People Elect the President) will be the clear winner. The job of codification then becomes the next challenge. By retaining the Governor-General, conservatives like Prof Craven will be able to contribute to the codification debate effectively and help bring a safe republican proposal to the electorate come the next referendum.