David, you misrepresent my position. You claim that I say that “the UK is not even another country”, when what I actually said was that I do not see Britain as a foreign country. My statement is there for all to read.

Obviously I recognise that the UK is another country, but I do not see it as a foreign one. It is a simple enough distinction. New Zealand is also another country, but I do not see it as a foreign country. As a New South Welshman, Queensland is another state, but I do not see it as a foreign state. This is because of a thing called Federation, which I see as a positive step and would like to continue and expand.

You suggest that I show no respect for "Australian independence": if our ancestors had been so obsessed with their Victorian independence, their Tasmanian independence and so on, we would not have a federation. Thankfully, they could think beyond their existing borders. I wish to do the same.

In today’s world, an obsession with Australian independence at the expense of potential interconnectedness strikes me as parochial and completely contrary to the spirit of Federation. Instead of bunkering down within our given borders, let's think broader.

Philo, you are just digging yourself in deeper. It is not clear that the final authority to dismiss the government rests with the G-G, there is potential for the Queen to refuse to consent. The Queen may instead receive advice from the PM to dismiss the G-G and may be obliged to do so irrespective of the G-G's wishes. The G-G is there at the PM's pleasure, the people have no role in either his appointment or the end of his period of office. I don't know how you see the G-G as the people's representative when it is the members of parliament who are elected and who are accountable to the Australian people. While no-one trusts politicians much, why should we put any greater trust in unelected heads of state? If your quaint views are typical of Monarchists, it is certain that the Australian Monarchy will eventually go the way of the dodo.

Natasha who?

Many people, both in Australia and all over the world, derive considerable comfort from the notion of an omnipotent God. They cannot prove that such a God exists but his or her presence is often felt by them. And he (she) is regarded as something much greater and more powerful than a head of state.

He or she would appear, on the face of it, to be a foreigner. Yet none of his followers regard this as any excuse for diminishing the legitimacy of his role. He is not elected to that role but this, also, does not appear to produce any diminution of his legitimacy.

I make these observations not to diminish the standing of God in anyone's eyes nor to attach any form of divinity to the monarchy. I simply observe that if a person who's existence cannot be proven can play a very important part in peoples lives then an important precedent exists to enable an unelected foreigner to continue to fulfil a constitutional role in which Australians can continue to take comfort and satisfaction from.

Many Australians would invest an "elected god" with about the same respect and "an elected head of state". Zippo.

I see no impediment to strengthening our trading ties with other Commonwealth nations, by becoming a republic. The queen has nothing to do with that. After all does not 'commonwealth' mean the 'public good'? Hardly appropriate to have something as anachronistic as a monarchy for the good of the public. Just think of where our taxes could be better spent....

I also do not understand how Ian can view Britain as not 'foreign' so far as I know one needs a passport and to go through customs to enter Britain from Australia. I have never regarded myself as a British citizen - I was born in Australia ergot I am Australian.

David L.

I reread your article. While reading I thought of the K.I.S.S. principle. I believe your proposal certainly has a lot of merit. However, you state: "For an Australian republic, this should be as simple as codifying the one actual duty left to the Queen - the appointment of the representative governor on the advice of the prime minister or premier." I would prefer that the appointment be determined by more democractic means, probably by the senate. I am also interested in suggestions as to the pool of people we could select our Head of State/G.G. from, someone neutral, if that's even possible.

Response to Perseus:
The number of people who accept the traditional notions of monarchy are lessening. The challenge for republicans, as I see it, is to propose a position which is fundamentally apolitical (non-executive, ceremonial) and yet elected. Being elected is important not so the Head of State has political legitimacy but so that people know and respect the officeholder.

Response to Scout:

Firstly, thank you for your input.

I've accepted the argument from the Richard McGarvie (former Victorian Governor) that the constitutional role of a governor depends upon being selected by the Prime Minister or Premier and appointed by the Head of State. Most republican reject the McGarvie Model but in my view, it is he who has best explained how our constitutional checks and balances really work.

In the 19th century it was Walter Walter Bagehot who discussed the “elegant” parts of government, referring to the Queen. Under the Copernican proposal this unifying function is performed by an elected Head of State, who does not interfere with governors performing their role or governments making policy.

The dynamic of having an elected Head of State, who's selection is very public and non-elected governors, where the selection is entirely private, is advantageous. The former has no real power or mandate; and the latter lacks independent authority.

Involving the Senate in the process would be acceptable provided that the Senators acted with complete transparency. I am not saying they would not, or could not, however politicians do prefer to deal privately and present a fait accompli in the house.

The proposal we are working on are working their way though the republican movement and there will be more articles published this year in OLO. I will keep in mind your suggestion when talking to other republicans.

Perseus, I think that only on this site would anyone attempt to draw any kind of parallel beween faith in the existence of God and support for the Monarchy. I know that one of the Queen's roles is supposed to be 'Defender of the faith' but I don't think too many republicans or undecided voters would be swayed by an argument such as the one you put. In most people's minds, a republic is inevitable and they are not keen to continue forever with an unelected foreign head of state. Those republicans with a belief in God are evidently capable of separating the two issues.