it puzzles me that whenever there is a royal visit to these shores,
no one in the media, it seems, ever questions the cost.

I am for a republic. However, I see no need for a head of state. If an occasion is important enough the PM can go. If not he or she can delegate an appropriate person. A head of state is just additional, unnecessary expense. The US has survived over two centuries without one. If we are going to get rid of a monarchy why keep its vestiges?

In answer to David f , because Australia , even without the British monarch , will have a different system of government from that of the USA . The President of the USA is both a symbolic head of state [ corresponding to the British Queen / Governor General in Australia ] and the head of government [ corresponding to the Prime Minister in Australia ] .

Without a complete revision of the Constitution , to make the Prime Minister equivalent to the President of the USA , there will need to be a symbolic head of state , replacing the British Queen / Governor General .

There are various ways of achieving this objective , which will not result in significantly greater cost than the present system . The simplest way is for there to be a Governor General elected by both Houses of Parliament . That would be more democratic than at present where the person appointed as Governor General is really chosen by the Prime Minister [ presumably in consultation with the Cabinet ] submitting a letter of appointment , naming the person , to the Queen who has no alternative , except to sign and return that letter .

The other way would be for the voting public to elect the Governor General . Persons seeking election , however , would not be able to promise electors that they would introduce any policies , if elected , as the elected Governor General would not have any powers to introduce legislation in Parliament . That is the present position .

Whatever method of appointment is chosen , it will remove the present outdated and humiliating system whereby Australia 's head of state is chosen by a person who is not an Australian .

<We need to unite Australians, not divide them.>

YOU have such perverse need, or rather a desire - so don't include me in it. It's none of your business whom, if any, I unite with.

<The only way to achieve this is to focus on our modern identity and our future.>

The only way you can achieve this, is normally termed 'Rape'.

I don't want your 'identity' product, how less so your 'modern' version of it.

<We need to demonstrate the benefits for our nation and our people from having one of our own as Head of State.>

Speak for yourself: nationalism is a disease - I don't need your infections!

Dear Yuyutsu,

Nationalism is indeed a disease. May your good health continue.

Well, if we are to have a republic, we need a plebiscite, that asks just one question, Should we have an Australian head of state? Just that, nothing else!
If the answer is in the affirmative, then we should follow with a referendum, which asks just two simple questions, 1: Should our parliament electe the head of state, with a two thirds majority of both houses, yes or no!
If you've answered yes to the parliament making that decision, Then there should be no need to answer question 2: Namely, Should we the people elect our head of state?
Say to time in with senate elections?
Yes or no!
If the majority answer in the negative, the referendum would be defeated.
However if most answer yes, and a majority select one of the models, then we should act, say as soon as the current Queen steps down or simply passes on, to install our own head of state.
The last time this question was asked, a very clever PM Howard, ensured its defeat, I believe, by insisting only a Parliament elected model could proceed or have any oxygen!
Now, if we actually had a proportional election model, that might have been acceptable?
But given a preference model, that can see representatives only supported by minority of primary votes as low as 15%; the question, of fairly representing the actual wishes of the actual electorate equitably, enters in as a viable question!
Whereas, if we the people elect the head of state through a popular election, then the question of fair and equitable representation is hardly likely to ever be called in to question?
For mine, the latter is the way to proceed, if ever!?
Rhrosty.