Peter van Vliet has brought up an old but still unresolved topic, and why not? Growing up means taking on full responsibility for ourselves in every area of policy, and it's precisely this that Australia has been doing de facto for quite some time now.
Rather than handing over tax-payers' funds to finance our various governors-general on federal and state levels, why not spend the money more responsibly on an Australian head of state? An office titled "Federal President" and adorned with appropriate ceremonial and symbolic functions, as well as a few supervisory powers providing checks and balances on the doings of the House of Reps and the Senate, would seem to me a more than practical way forward.
Check out the way the Federal Republic of Germany does this at present. Its Federal President is elected by a combined vote of both houses of the federal parliament. The elected candidate stands above party politics and thus has the respect of the majority of the German population. The Federal President safeguards the Constitution, rather than getting his/her hands dirty in the rough and tumble of everyday politics.
Why shouldn't Australia take a leaf out of this book?

Peter van Vliet,
Could I ask what is your national/political heritage? Could that in any way influence your opinion on a Westminster Parliament under an (English) Monarch?

Quote, "An Australian republic would remain a member of the Commonwealth, but better still, an equal partner standing on its own two feet. We would join a majority of Commonwealth nations that reject monarchy as an organising principle."

The phrase, "an equal partner standing on its own two feet" is a Republican catch-cry. The English Parliament has no power over decisions made by the Australian Parliament as it exists today. We are totally independent of England and its powers. The Queen of Australia, and her Australian appointed Governors is totally independent of any powers of the English Government.

The monarchy is not the organising principle of the Australian Constitution. She is the figure-head (Crown) representing the people of Australia within a Westminster system and herself swears allegiance to serve the people with the help of God under that system of structured powers. A heridetary head of state has the advantage of not soliciting appointment by political populatity, and remains in the background as a regal person independent of any party political agenda to opressively rule over the will of the people.

I wonder if Australians would be happy to appoint a new Queen Mary from Tasmania, as head of Australia? I am wondering if emotion has more to do with their decision than the actual system?

Me dear Philo,
Have you forgotten the events of 1975? In the Queen's name, the Australian representative of the UK's monarchy sacked a government democratically-elected by the majority of the Australian people and turfed it out of office. Not only this power remains in the hands of the governor-general, but one must also take account the fact that, according to the Westminster Statute that poses as our constitution, the Queen of the UK is the Head of Australia's armed forces.
These two facts alone constitute more than enough reason to get our house in order by placing ourselves on the same political level as the UK - that is, on an independent level.
Like other commentators here, I'm a great admirer of the Commonwealth as a positive force in international politics, and I'm a dedicated friend of the British people (my father is one). This doesn't mean, however, that the land I was born in and brought up in should not be an independent country. I would never dream of asking the British to accept the final say of an Australian head of state in regard to the workability of its parliament. Conversely, I can't tolerate the British monarchy's rights over my parliament and the representatives that I elect with my vote.

Monarchy or Rupublic? For me these are minor issues - this country must first attend to the illegalities of acquistion and unrecognised Aboriginal soveriegnty. Mabo did not address these fundamental issues in law and statehood and it continues to be a loose hanging thread in arguements for a civil society.

Bail Up,
It may be so that the Queen of Australia is also Queen of New Zealand and Queen of England, Scotland and Wales. The role of the Governor General is to protect the best interests of the people of Australia by calling an election. This is exactly what happened and the people of Australia also put their seal on the decision Sir John Kerr made. No I havn't forgotten as an original Pickering pen cartoon hangs on my wall as a reminder of that event.

Quote, "Have you forgotten the events of 1975? In the Queen's name, the Australian representative of the UK's monarchy sacked a government democratically-elected by the majority of the Australian people and turfed it out of office."

Quote, "Not only this power remains in the hands of the governor-general, but one must also take account the fact that, according to the Westminster Statute that poses as our constitution, the Queen of the UK is the Head of Australia's armed forces".

Since when has the UK Queen led the Australian armed forces? The Australian Head of State vested with the power of the people (the Crown) - is the Governor General.