Two things:

David Latimer, yes, the Constitution will change in a republic, because we must remove the position of govenor-general (and the Govenors) and his constitutional powers. We can either give them to a president, who will be either partisan or populist, and therefore unable to do his duty, or we can abolish them and loose our important safety-valve. Remember, those powers were excerted twice. The first was to remove Lang in New South Wales when he was about to default on loans to England which would have broke the agreed deal between the States and the Commonwealth, scuttled our nation's links to England - making us unable to sell products to and obtain credit from them, caused renagade states to form (as threatened in the Riverina), caused Western Australia to follow through with its threats to leave the Commonwealth and return to England (as they once voted to do), and maybe brought civil war to Sydney's streets with the New Guard. The second time was when Whitlam was sacked, unable to pass supply and wanting to put us into billions of dollars of foreign debt (again, breaking a deal between the States and Commonwealth on borrowing) to some shady characters. Both of these governments, when sacked, were defeated at the subsequent election, and the people were the better for it. Why, when it has this excellent track-record of protecting our nation, and stopped us twice from becoming a basket-case, would one ditch our Constitution and its protector in the Monarch?

Second thing:

SHONGA, not only does Canada still have our Queen as their head of state, but it also has an unelected Senate. Its senate is chosen by the Govenor-General from recommendations of the Prime Minister. It's strange: we're embarassed that we still have an Englishwoman as our Head of State, probably because the Americans can claim to be able to choose their own. Meanwhile, Canada - observing the real dangers of presidential power to their south, with populism and divisiveness symbolising their nation, not only in the United States, but also in the South Americans republics - is more than willing to keep the tradition of stability, decency in rule, and humility that tends to win out in Westminster system of consitutional monarchy compared to the cults of personality that bloom stronger in republics.

This is the question people need to answer: Do all those who hate Howard passionately and also want a republic want to have someone as popular as Howard as our Head of State, rather than our Queen

DFXK,
dO YOU THINK THIS IS WHY aUSTRALIA WAS JUST SHORT ON BECOMING A REPUBLIC? Because of George.Dubbya? I admit if this is so I can understand. Whay a bloke to be in charge of the largest stock of WMD's on Earth, a bloke you can't string a sentence together. I can see the point there.

I would like to think the ordinary Aussie would have more sense than to elect a lunatic, or someonr who would do them harm, but realisticly they have elected Johnny Bonsai, so I would have to agree.

Response to Philo:

Thanks for accepting my apologies. Again sorry. I felt like Dick Cheney.

You ask about the benefits, which is the most important question and sometimes republicans stumble on it, perhaps do the different proposals having different benefits.

BENEFITS

#1 Australia obtains a self-contained, independent system of government - a practical benefit

#2 Sovereignty is held in the people - this matters to some than others, but does matter.

#3 Our constitutional system becomes consistent with Australia's status as an independent, sovereign nation - our constitution will be accurate.

#4 Some dead constitutional provisions, eg section 59 and 74, become legally dead - we could do this without becoming a republic, but removing them makes most sense in transition to a republic

#5 Some republican proposals restate or reform the relationship between the governor-general and ministers - there is debate about how far to go, meanwhile governments take advantage eg dilution of ministerial responsibility.

#6 We need institutions that foster stability. Monarchists suggest that the Queen is such a force, but the existence of the republican movement is evidence that she is not. Public sentiment is critical here. The Queen is not just above politics, but almost entirely outside Australian reflection.

#7 Governors and Governors-General are critical in developing civil society (our community organisations). In practice they are our leading community workers, but legally and in terms of public perception they are not. A republic would turn this around.

#8 Republicanism is good for Australian business, tourism and culture. We cannot mount a delegation to head overseas except through our political leadership or public service (eg Austrade), which is not even the Queen's position with respect to the UK. An Australian Head of State would be an Ambassador for Australian business, culture, tourism and goodwill-in-general.

#9 Some republican proposals focus on restoring governmental integrity, eg Prof John Power’s constitutional council. We could be cynical, but a mature approach takes each proposal on its merits.

Word limit reached, but republicans are thinking first and foremost about a better constitutional system.

See past article: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3703

See my model: http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/intro/safe.html

The Queen, how does she impinge on our society, do any of our 'informed' know?
Yes there are things which require the Royal signature but rarely has this been denied. Yes ultimately in theory the queen could dismiss our leader, on advice.
However we praise ourselves as a concerned honest society, intelligently interested in the actions of government as they affect the society? Or is it the person, his bank balance?
Yet when it comes to international affairs, foreign policy, we make less use of democracy, in the end beholden to the Queen or not.
Consider the reaction to the Iraq war. A sizeable minority apposed based variously on prejudice and self informed opinion contrary to the propaganda the media as truth revealed by the leaders. Few seemed to worry whether we were told accurately or not. So it is with the Queen?
Subsequently several sources of government origin have revealed that leaders were instigating a scam a sort of Enron in the field of foreign affairs. The Rycroft memo, the record of a Blair cabinet meeting in July 2001 reveals that Saddam was not thought to be a threat did not possess effective WMD’s, see the later statement of Wolfovitz of America, but was seen as necessary to American needs. The Rycroft memo was only leaked in May 2005 but other material could be found suggestive of such a scam being in progress not least the conflicting revelations of the time to say nothing of the obvious hype.
The point of all this is that if as a democratic country we the people cannot be bothered to keep ourselves informed of events, showing approval by expressing an uniformed patriotism, how will altering the head of state improve our lot? We say we abide by Christian values,by international law but in the event prove to be hypocrites, emotionally driven. So is the move for change merely the actions of some who see some profit in change for the sake of change? If we are worried about mummy’s apron strings these would seem to be not the Queens but George Bush’s.

Watching the last two Presidential elections in the US persuaded me that we do not want that type of foolery here.
Money and influence got the present incumbent into the White House, talent or experience never entered the equation.
With our elections, we generally have had experience on how the nominees have performed and if we pick the best of a bad bunch at least we are not lumbered by the worst.
As in shown in America and as shown in Australia.