Interesting - not one mention of Australia's indigenous peoples. And we are not an ethno-centric, racist mob? I think it is easy to forget that Australia has a history before 1788. That we live in a land where the dispossed are still seeking land justice. Come on - fair go. Let me repeat most of an earlier post of mine for consideration.
Can someone tell me why we can't have a group of people as head of state? I once read that Fiji has an indigenous council which acts as head of state. I think we could do something like that in Australia. What a great way to reconcile with Australia's Indigenous people and honour all of our nation's true beginnings? These representatives (say ten) could do the usual rounds and they could spread the load across the nation. Don't go and get all stroppy on me all you monarchists - my Dad had the flag draped over his coffin - just throwing ideas into the wind. To be truly reconciliatory we need to include the monarchists. It is time Indigenous folk recognised some of the positives of being in the Commonwealth. Yes your country was stolen, yes Indigenous peoples have been treated unfairly and cruelly but it is time we all moved on. I think the stable example that monarchy and Indigenous elders can offer can be of great benefit to our youth. Besides republics still kind of scare the crap out of me. Perhaps our monarch just needs to gracefully hand over her responsibilities to an Indigenous council and give the new heads of state her blessings. No more conspicuous compassion but some serious action. Any other ideas

An interesting idea came up in a discussion with some friends of mine about the Upper Houses of our respective parliaments: an elected Senate in Australia (based on the US model), an appointed Senate in Canada, and an appointed/ hereditary House of Lords in the UK.

One of the Brits was saying that a good feature of the House of Lords is that it can call on the expertise of lots of people who have no desire for political power, but who can look dispassionately at the issues of the day. (It is important to remember that government ministers in the UK all come from the House of Commons: the aristocrats and others in the Lords have no say at all in the formation of the government, but operate as a moderating influence - something our Senate no longer does as well as it did.)

The Canadians and I agreed that it would be a good move to have our indigenous communities directly represented in our respective Senates - after all, they are the hereditary aristocrats of these lands. I think it would be an excellent way of increasing the visibility of Aboriginal peoples and ensuring that Aboriginal voices are heard.

Yes, Rancitas, Fiji does have the Great Council of Chiefs. And what a record for racial harmony! The Fijian constitution explicitly favours indigenous Fijians over the Indian population, which is either a majority or close to being one (certainly was a majority prior to the coups). Indigenous Fijians also have almost exclusive title to land. Sure you want to try a similar idea here? I'm sure Indigenous Australians would go for it - who could blame them? But I fear it might be counterproductive as a reconciliatory gesture.

Can I suggest that those that wish an indiginous council examine the state of countries like New Guinea. How has it benefited them?

Response to Rancitas:

You will be pleased to know that although for onlineopinion this article was shortened, the longer version mentioned that Em. Prof. John Power suggested that reconciliation should be an aspect of a model developed under the Copernican Paradigm. His implementation involves a "council of state" which provides ongoing assurance as to governmental processes at the Executive Council level. I guess that the proposition involves indigenous representation on such council.
(see http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/legcon_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/republic03/submissions/sub28.doc)

Under my implementation, the Honorary President Model, my Senate submission makes the claim that the nomination of an indigenous person in the election of the Head of State would be more likely compared to other models, as state premiers have been choosing governors in recent years with a real sense of diversity.
(see http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/submission/faq.html)

So the issue of reconciliation has been considered and I invite you to use the paradigm to propose a safe, workable and democratic reform which is also to the advantage of the reconciliation process or follow up some of the links above. I'll be waiting for further comments.

Ian, I will have to do a follow up post, but rest assured that my original question about acceptance was an genuine question of which I think is important but not meant as an argument in itself i.e. I did not presuppose the answer as no.

I'll be in Canberra for three days (http://act.republic.org.au/gathering.htm), so this will be my last post until Monday. Thanks for everyones comments. It all helps

Ok, David, I’ll await your reply. I hope the ARM gathering is fruitful.

Now, regarding your question about Australian acceptance of a New Zealander as non-governing Head of State (and vice versa) in the case of an ANZ federation and in the absence of the monarchy: given sufficient time, I feel there would be no problem at all. How much time? I see no reason why we should not commemorate ANZAC Day 2015 as citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand.

Firstly, I think any federation (be it ANZ, CANZ or CANZUK) could only come about if our populations were to accept the notion that our similarities are far greater than our differences. It would seem bizarre to then raise objections about where a figurehead was born.

Secondly, after Federation in the 1900s, people from the different colonies quickly adapted to seeing each other as fellow Australians, without losing their identity as Victorians, Queenslanders and so on. We should have no more difficulty in coming to see ourselves (for want of a better term) as fellow ANZACS, without losing our identities as New Zealanders, Tasmanians, Western Australians and so on.

Thirdly, I don’t think New South Welshpeople have ever complained about having a Victorian Governor-General, so I see no reason for South Australians to raise any objection to having a New Zealander in a similar position.

Fourthly, the Australian and New Zealand populations are already far more integrated than were the colonial populations before Federation, and the two economies are, in fact, far closer to being a single economy than is the EU. Often we can’t even tell if a Russell Crowe or a Crowded House is Australian or New Zealander.

Finally, it would obviously be simpler for such a federation to come about under the monarchy, rather than having to adapt two completely different constitutional arrangements. If our combined population later felt that it really needed a southern hemisphere Head of State, that change could then be made easily enough.