Hear , hear ! as the authors point out , despite monarchist arguments that the Governor General is the real head of state , it is clear from the Constitution that the Queen [ of the United Kingdom ] , who appoints the Governor General , is our head of state . As evidence of this fact Australian passports state that the Governor General is the representative in Australia of the Queen . Apart from those countries of the British Commonwealth which retain the Queen as their head of state [ and , apart from Canada , New Zealand and Australia ,these comprise small countries with little international profile ] , no other free countries have a non - citizen as head of state . It is astonishing that a country which is as proud of its distinctive identity as Australia tolerates this anomaly .

Surely the issue not whether Australia has a President but how does it choose a President. Also does Australia have a Vice President? (Presidents are known to be assasinated or impeached). How do we get rid of an incompetent President? Should the term be fixed? What do we do with a Vice President to keep him or her busy?

My personal choice is that we should follow the procedures adopted by the largest democracy in the world: India. Five year terms, President elected by a 2/3rd majority Presidential convention of all the elected members of all the state and federal parliaments. Vice President is Speaker for the Senate and replacement VPs elected by the House of Reps.

As a recent immigrant (early eighties) and an Australian citizen for over twenty years, it never ceases to amaze me that Australia isn't yet a republic. I reckon that even Her Maj will be delighted when we finally overcome our sad obsession with past "glories". She's probably fed up with hearing about the fox hat, apart from anything else.

The only problem we have to guard against is electing Bert Newton. I think that would be a mistake, even though the actual duties required would suit him admirably.

Beyond that... what's the problem, people?

I was always amused by claims that Australia's political stability was a consequence of our constitutional monarchy… Didn't work out that well for Fiji, Zimbabwe, etc and seemed an insult to Australians of all political persuasions.

In previous debates about an Australian head of state it occurred to me that one compromise might be to retain our constitutional monarchy and replace the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (sorry, I forgot the foreigners anglicised their name), correction, the House of Windsor with Australian citizens.

Strangely, no monarchist with whom I have discussed this seemed to like the idea of keeping our monarchical system, but with an Australian royal family!

This compromise could still be valid as the world is replete with superfluous 'royals' some of whom might be interested in sailing their royal yachts to Australia via Ashmore Reef by way of Malaysia – though a temporary protection visa won't cut it. We would need full citizenship presumably, unless we set it up as a work experience trial. Maybe they'd qualify as skilled migrants.

Personally I'd like to see Australia shed the hypocrisy of being a modern secular democracy, whose office of head-of-state is anything but modern, secular or democratic.

I feel very sorry for those who feel a need to boost their self esteem by changing Oz from a nice little monarchy to a republic.

I don't give a damn what other countries think of us, just as long as they think we are very dangerous to offend.

It does seem to me that it is those same people who think that our being a republic is going to impress others are most likely to want a non dangerous Oz.

Every word changed in our constitution will be worth a million dollars to some constitutional lawyer. What a waste.

It would be nice if these people could find something a bit more meaningful to work for.

The best reason in the world why we should be an independent republic is because we the people of Australia want it to be. Having an Australian head of state is a small part of the parcel. Keep the big picture beore us. WE...people of this country... want to own our our country culturrally, economically and politically.
NO COMPROMISES.

socratease

I think the only valid argument I've heard from Monarchists, is the old 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Well this argument could be used for any institution in Australia, and we would not have such things as tax reform, or a whole range of other reforms in this country.

The bottom line is, that Australia no longer has such close ties to the UK, like it or not. Thus, the idea of having a foreigner as our head of state/Queen/King is increasingly unpalatable. One problem is agreeing on a model that will not destabilize Australia in times of crisis. It is easy to claim that Australia has been stable for its history, or that there is no foreseeable crisis ahead, but a knowledge of history allows one to understand that stability in such a rapidly changing world is rare and will not last forever.

I agree that this change needs to be a gradual and inclusive process. We have been debating this since federation, and it is almost time to take our first step. I think that the minimalist model would win in a referendum, and then perhaps over the next 200 years we can debate changing this model to presidential/directly voted/other model of our republic.

Every Australian should have the chance to be President for a day. We could start with the oldest inhabitants and gradually work our way down via a lottery. They could be wheeled around to cut ribbons and shake hands just as well as anyone else, and their minders could carry an MP3 player full of bland general-purpose speeches. The Presidential stipend would make a nice addition to the pension, and unlike the present system we could rest assured that most of the incumbents had done something useful with their lives.

The article is useful in that it gives rise to discussion. Unfortunately, it doesn't contribute much to that discussion. For example, the authors tell us that "by the people being at the top of our constitutional tree, we will preserve and strengthen our democratic system of government and ensure its continuing strength and stability".

In a practical sense, what does that actually mean for the Australian people? For once, I agree with the people who constantly knock academics for sitting in their ivory towers, pondering theory without any attachment to reality. What I want to know is: when we become a republic (and I believe it is a matter of 'when', not 'if'), how will my place 'at the top of our constitutional tree' produce real-world outcomes and improve my life as an Australian?

Then there's the assertion that 'A republic will honour our Indigenous heritage and culture with its timeless connection to the Australian land and sea'. How exactly will a republic do this, and what will be its implications? Will the republic acknowledge (non-existent) nationhood prior to British settlement? Will it simply start anew, as a whole new nation, detached from that which has existed since 1901? Again, what differences will I experience as a citizen of this new republic?

I'm certainly not opposed to the notion of a republic, but I do find articles that propose it as a solution to current problems a little bothersome. Particularly when they assure us that 'an Australian head of state is just part of the reason for an Australian Republic', then neglect to tell us in any meaningful way about the other reasons.

Otokonoko, sorry to answer your question with a question, but what do you want from a republic? Are there existing problems that you think a republic will solve? (Thinking out loud now)...if becoming a republic does not significantly change anything, then is this a good or a bad thing...

Good point, Stezza.

>>...if becoming a republic does not significantly change anything, then is this a good or a bad thing...<<

If anyone is looking for our becoming a republic to "solve problems", then they will be disappointed. Which is of course the biggest gun in the monarchists armoury - "there isn't a problem, so don't change anything".

But the same argument could - and should - be used to make the point that if becoming a republic doesn't change anything, why don't we just go ahead and do it? We can then concentrate on the issues of independence and self-esteem that get trodden on when we start looking for concrete rationales, such as economic or security issues.

To me it is a no-brainer. And to the outside world we look more and more ineffectual as the years go by without taking action. Which, given the calibre of our political "leadership", is regrettably an accurate assessment.

But it needn't be.

Oz is only a very small fish in a very large ocean containing many current and potential killer whales. We rely very much on a few big guns for our warm sense of security, whether we like it or not. Punch above our weight? What a warm woolly illusion. We rightly hang on the coat tails of some very generous long term allies, and running away from home to gain "independence", for the sake of some overblown sense of political correctness, is nothing more than "sticking it" to those who have stood by us for the greater part of a century. Who are the principal reliable partners in world stability? UK and US - and they go together like "peas and carrots". A stable world, free of conflict, and therefore no reason to maintain valuable and proven friendships? Someone has very rose coloured glasses. Just who do you think needs who in this still cut-throat world of international politics?

Want your own President to make you feel wanted and respected? Grow up and live in the real world. Small fish, 23 million, vast border, valuable resources. Already having "sovereignty" eroded by stealth, and soft underbelly continuously exposed for all to see. Why not break long standing ties and just run up the "all welcome" sign.

Want to elect a President by national ballot - and what powers is such position to have? Like the US, Head of the Armed Services, Head of Everything? This would be so much more alien to the Oz psyche than what we already have it would be a disaster. And GWBuuuush a good example of possibilities?

At maximum Oz can continue with our elected parliament electing a nominal "figurehead". Rock the boat too hard and it won't just be the current generation who will get wet.

Stezza, thanks for your reply. In a way, answering my question with a question helped to reinforce my point, as did Pericles's post. I don't mind if we become a republic or not. If we become a republic and life continues just as it is, that's fine by me. If it brings in broad, sweeping changes, I'd like to know what those changes are before I sign up for them.

My concern relates to the title of the article and the contention that the authors seem to skirt around. If an Australian head of state is just part of the reason for an Australian Republic, then what are the other reasons and why should we like them? The authors constantly hint at other benefits, but don't explain them in any real terms.

As for the opinions of the outside world, I'd suggest that:
a) most world leaders rarely, if ever, think about Australia
b) those who do don't really care about our retention of a constitutional monarchy, and
c) those outsiders who do care tend to be people (such as Robert Mugabe) whose opinions don't carry much weight.

Like I said: I'm happy for our nation to shed its monarchy any time. If that step is going to have implications beyond the installation of an Australian head of state, I'd like to know what those implications are. If it isn't, I think it would be in all of our interests to acknowledge that, rather than presenting a republic as some sort of glorious reawakening as the authors seem to do.

What's the bet that the first "Australian" head of state is going to be someone like Ms Achmed bin Laden, who is a lesbian and who lives with her "partner" in Coogee, where she runs a vegen halal health store and works as a social worker part time counselling "refugees"?

No thanks.

Republic? Carbon Tax? Solar Schemes? Global Warming? Unemployment and Cost of Living? The Murray-Darling? Global Conflict? Third World Poverty, Repression, Abuse? Environmental Degradation? Melting Ice-caps? Animal Welfare? Whales, porpoises, tuna, penguins....? Boat People?

So many priorities demanding attention and action, as WmTrevor has put it, "to leave the world better than we found it", and as I think it was Ammonite who posted, "we have not inherited this earth from our Fathers, we are borrowing it from our children".

In Oz we have so much work to do to correct all the deficiencies in the opportunities afforded to our Indigenous Australians, to revitalise and strengthen our industry, economy and welfare, to manage immigration and the treatment of refugees, to improve education and health care, ... and so the list goes on. And, where in this ever-expanding list of priorities does an Oz Republic fit? Not very highly, I would have thought.

To borrow from many other posters: Emotion and rationality, experience, belief, education, politics, personal philosophy, family, friendships, career, lifestyle, quality of life, etc .. - all competing to determine, shape and mold our "world-view" and our priorities. In the circumstances, what is the possibility of "Oz-think", let alone "global-think"? Science has breached many boundaries, yet a "science" of rationality, of "common sense", seems far off. The world is currently akin to a stampeding herd, voraciously gobbling scarce and non-renewable resources, bursting at the seams with over-population, and running out of control with abuse, starvation and poverty. A "doppelganger" of disparity, disenfranchisement and devil-may-care. At once tremendous potential and enormous destructive capacity. How, when and where will either the denouement or the implosion be determined?

Our compassion is boundless, but rationality and clarity, not love, is what is so desperately needed, before the horse has well and truly bolted.

"A Republic will honour our Indigenous heritage and culture with its timeless connection to the Australian land and sea. It will acknowledgeour British heritage and recogniseits precious gifts, including our political and legal institutions.It will also celebrate our immigrant heritage of opportunity and endeavour, and its vital contribution to our national identity. An Australian Republic will respect our diversity, yet unite us as one."

I have a very nice bridge for sale, second hand , but well cared for by the original owners. You guys may be interested .