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Whatever method of appointment is chosen , it will remove the present outdated and humiliating system whereby Australia 's head of state is chosen by a person who is not an Australian .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

This Article sums up the problems with the ALP.

Sweat the small insignificant unimportant issues and ignore any important Issues.

I am neither for or anti either position but as it "ain't broke " .....

So basically I couldn't give a Rats' as I suspect is the case with a vast majority of Australians.

More important issues , please , ALP or you will become irrelevant.

Nationalism is indeed a disease, none more evident or more virulent, than the strain currently crippling Russia!
Why, it seems to be ripping out freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the freedom to have or own a countervailing view, to that of officialdom!?
The Gulags seem to be full or overflowing with dissenters, and there seems no trace of disappeared investigative journalists, or freedom of the press!?
I mean, one can be imprisoned for singing and dancing in Church!
It seems to have spread to Eastern Ukraine, where all traces of quite reasonable dissent, seem to be promptly surround by the sick, and bashed to the ground, in the most brutal manner!
Only replicated in nature, by knuckle dragging apes, answering a most primordial call to cannibalism?
And if it should spread even further, it could create another even larger even more unbeatable Afghan for the Russians, who are sure to blame their President, for any loss of Russian lives, and or treasure!
Rhrosty.

Oh God, yes lets have an Australian head of state.

Perhaps we could be so lucky to get another peroxide blond in a pastel suit, like the last Governor General. At least we could say that was just a Labor Kowtow to pacify their feminists, & not our "real" head of state. Just imagine how ashamed we would have been if that had been our president.

Even worse imagine a Gillard or a Rudd, kicked up stairs by a dying Labor government, just to exercise their vindictive streak.

The most amusing thing is that it is the same ratbags who insist in keeping clapped out old buildings in the name of heritage, that want to kick out a perfectly good, proven political system & a flag full of heritage, for some ratbag ideology.

Then they want to rewrite the constitution. I can imagine the number of intended unintended consequences we would find over the next decade or three.

You would have to be one of the three blind mice to fall for this lot. Even the global warming fraud has nothing on this one.

You are right, Hasbeen

Historically, one of the functions of the monarch has been to maintain social stability by imposing limits on excessive greed and corruption on the part of the nobles and bureaucracy. As the Emperor Tiberius put it, "I want my sheep shorn, not shaved." The monarch could do this because he or she was not beholden to the nobles and bureaucrats for his or her position. The modern royal family has no real political power, but they do have moral authority. The more the politicians are seen to be corrupt and ruling only for the 1%, the less support there will be for a republic.

Perhaps the people who want an Australian as head of state should invite a younger member of the British royal family to come here and be our king or queen. After a generation or so, the head of state would be Australian. The Norwegians did something similar in 1905.

It must be a huge comfort Hasbeen, to know you're always right!
Rhrosty.

I agree with Aspley.

Here we have a Labor poly, in a very safe Labor seat, talking crap as though it is important.

Didn't someone note that we have 100,000 homeless and 600,000 unemployed, not to mention the enormous debt that Labor left us with because of stupid schemes and poor management. I know of a few other problems that our wondrous multicultural society has bestowed on us, like FGM, underage marriages, forced marriages, polygamy and fighting and anti social behaviour of some ethnic groups.

At a time when it appears that everyone will have to tighten belts for quite a while, this clown wants us to waste money, and lots of it, on a change to a republic,

No wonder Labor is in opposition. They need some polys with common sense.

And here we have the real motivation for this article:

>If republicans want a republic ..... they need to support a republican candidate for Prime Minister at the next election.<

Pure Labor electioneering spin, pointing 'the finger' at The Hon. Tony Abbott, because he is not openly in favour of an Oz Republic.
Or could anyone really think that Matt could be promoting a push for the return of the former leader of the Republican campaign, The Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, as our next PM? Hardy-ha, ha - as I wet my pants!

Where do Matt's primary allegiances lie - with a Republic, or with a duly aligned 'Labor' Republic?

>With the right leadership, message, alliances and hard work we can build a stronger nation as an Australian Republic.<

How about, we can 'build a stronger nation' (and are in process of doing exactly that, as a nation), without having to be, or to become, a Republic?
The concepts are not mutually exclusive, not even near.

Oz may be unique (or in small company) as a sovereign nation with a notional Head of State who is the Sovereign of another nation - being a nation with which Oz has had a long and memorable history.
I see nothing wrong with continuing that 'relationship'.

We have an 'Australian' representative of that Head of State, and have had for quite some years, and, setting aside Oz' involvement in WWI, this is an historical relationship which has done Oz more good than harm.
(And, even Oz' participation in WWI has forged a bond which runs deep in the Australian psyche, and probably also in many quarters in the UK. One should be careful not to 'make light' of Oz' contribution and sacrifice in that arena of conflict.)
Might I remind, real friends are increasingly hard to find, in a deeply troubled world.

If we want Oz to become a truly 'Asian' nation, a Republic would be a good place to start.

Divergence has nailed the key factor in the debate - the need for a person who has moral, not executive, authority to be the nominal head of state.
We are the a nation which has grown out of a very old series of traditions. While enthusing over our evolving future, there is the risk of overlooking the past, the foundation on which that developing future is based.
That past is not perfect by any means, yet it is a collation of mores which have given a form of detached political stability to the natural turbulence of a forming society by having, as the notional head of our country, a sovereign who is impartial and removed from day-to-day government.
There can surely be little quibble about retaining societal guidance from an overseas structure, as we alreadt do this culturally and politically by grasping hold of habits, lifestyles, attitudes and behaviour from America. Why discard our historic way of life and government for another flawed one?

It seems to me that no-one has addressed the most obvious issue...why? What are the advantages of becoming a republic? Head of state issues are secondary, as is calling ourselves "independent" since we are so intricately entwined into the global economy.

So what are the real advantages of becoming a republic? Who benefits and who loses? What are the ramifications upon our treaties, and from my understanding, they have to be renegotiated?

All I've read so far is people standing upon their own soap boxes of pet issues and words, but no reasoning for the obvious.

Yeah! Lets make the next referendum a priority issue. Things which are important are not a damn republ;ic. How about a referendum on ....

1. Reintroduction of the death penalty in all states.
2. The immediate deportation of any foreign national who engages in serious criminal behaviour, "refugee" or not.
3. The continuance of European culture through restricted Asian and Muslim immigration.
4. Full equality for aborigines with no special benefits.
5. Inequality for aboriginals with special benefits being maintained in exchange for reduced citizenship rights.
6. The sale of the ABC to private enterprise.
7. The removal of all benefits for those not resident in Australia.
8. An end to Muslim immigration into Australia for national security, crime prevention and welfare dependency reasons.

Was this article written by a kid for a school essay? Sure reads like it. No, no more positions of power required in this country, thanks Matt.

Maybe you should forget these trivialities and think about getting a policy or two together.