David,
Are we merely doing this to appease Republicans?

Quote,"Implementing the paradigm would achieve all that republicans expect out of such reform."

In case you hadn't noticed the Australian constitution is already independent of Britian, and British law in no way governs the Australian people. Australia is already a sovereign Nation.

Quote, "The Australian constitutional system would be independent of Britain. The Australian People would be unambiguously sovereign, their authority deciding the Head of State and therefore above all executive officers, state and federally."

Quote, "Under a constitutional monarchy these remain separate and there is, now, no reason why it can't continue under a republican system."

SO why change?

Who do you think recommends persons as Governors General? Isn't it our elected representatives in Premiers and Prime Ministers?

Quote, "I believe the outcome would be that Australian's would go about the business of electing their Head of State without much fuss or fanfare, but do so responsibly."

I cannot see how our present Governors General are not distinguished and espousing the best of our values. This seems like a Clatons attempt to have a Republic when you are not having a Republic.

Quote, "knowing they are conferring a great honour on a distinguished person and expecting them to represent the values and achievements of Australia both overseas and to inspire and enthuse communities domestically and that is, indeed, the real point of it."

Why is it so difficult for the political elite to understand what the people really think of them?

I am not a constitutional expert, but I believe that Switzerland is the only other country where the people, as opposed to the political elite, are the only ones who can change the Constitution. Throughout my life is has been my delight to observe the occasions when referendums, often supported overwhelmingly by the political elite and by both major parties, have been rejected by the people.

The following four principles, I believe sum up the basic attitudes of most people:

1. The government is the enemy of the people;

2. No taxation with or without representation, with any deficiency being made up from the sale of politician's assets;

3. It doesn't matter whom you vote for at elections, a POLITICIAN is ALWAYS elected.

4. Always vote "NO" in federal referendums.

If any politicians have any doubt about how many people feel, think what they feel when committed, hard core republicans get up in Parliament, as they did in February, and swear on oath that they will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty.

I am sure that a large part of these attitudes spring from our convict heritage, with its profound disrespect for authority, and is not likely to change any century soon. As a result, the only way I can forsee a republic is if the people are given a trade-off.

The only constitutional trade-off I can see is for them to get citizen initiated referendums, on the Swiss model. The thought of a referendum being passed into law in the teeth of the opposition of the whole political class would be wonderful to behold.

Dear Philo,

Thanks for more great questions.

"Are we merely doing this to appease Republicans?": I am not proposing this to "appease" anyone. The question implies a belligerence on the part of republicans towards the electorate, which I do not accept. In contrast, the paradigm attempts to fulfil the expectations of the electorate in establishing an Australian Head of State, who is elected yet apolitical.

In the Australian Constitution, I notice references to the Queen who is British. I do understand the subtitles of crown personalities and don't intend to get into a debate about de facto vs de jure independence. Clearly the model provides separation from the British Monarchy and ultimately the value of such a separation is in the hands of the electorate.

The second "why change" question seems to refer to something which the paradigm suggests should not change, namely the importance of ceremonial/symbolic officials who are above politics. The change is in the selection and source of authority behind these officials, in particular the nationality of the Head of State.

Like you, I believe our Governors and Governors-General are distinguished also and that is why I propose their important role continue. The main distinction is that the governors continue to act as our constitutional umpires and have the reserve powers at their disposal.

Our PM and Premiers make recommendations for G-Gs and Govs and this would continue under the model. I am not sure what you’re getting at here and would welcome another post to help clarify or discuss your point.

There is nothing "Claytons" about a Copernican Republic. Nothing is lacking. The sovereignty of the people and the rule of law are the main criteria. Certainly, the paradigm does not import the forms of overseas republics, but carries our existing institutions forward. That's why it’s better -- we know our Australian institutions work well.

My point, David, is that becoming a republic will not solve a single problem that currently confronts our community. It will not save a single threatened species, it will not save a single marriage, it will not stop a single glue sniffer, addict or gambler. It will not reduce anyone's mortgage by a single dollar or prevent the emission of a single tonne of CO2. It will not eliminate a single traffic snarl, black spot or prevent a single accidental fatality. It will not shorten any medical waiting list nor make a single street safer for anyone's family. It will not save a single drop of water but it will plant fewer trees in total than the average Bush Turkey does with a single turd (that's a literary term, see Chaucer).

In short, it is a distraction. It is a cynical distraction given more legs than it ever deserved by a "failed former Indonesian businessman" who also had a brief stint as Prime Minister. To not put too finer point on it, it is a symptom of an intellectual cull de sac where the participants form a circle with their heads up each others backsides, contracting in an ever smaller cyclical search for a solution to a non-existent problem, until they form;
their
very
own
black hole.

If it aint broke... then break it!

That should give them something to make them look busy.

The need for "an Australian" as our head of state is pure parochialism. Take it a step further: Victorians will need a Victorian head of state, Queenslanders will need a Queenslander as head of state, and before you know it you have undone Federation. Brilliant!

Rather than thinking small, let's stick with the current system. It connects us with something bigger than our little population of 20 million: the other countries in the global British family, like New Zealand, Canada and, obviously, the UK itself.