"For referendum success the new Head of State needs to be directly-elected, independent of all political parties and the government and...non-partisan". OK, thats what I said.

Bennie's response: "A direct election? You'll get Ray Bloody Martin for President!" It has been a long time since Ray Martin won even logie award. Your prediction seems far fetched. And for Vice President are you going to suggest Guy Sebastian?

In a democracy, the people are the boss. It makes sense that the people choose their Head of State, not the politicians.

My view is we do need someone to promote Australian business, culture, innovation and tourism to the world. This is what the Queen does for Britain, not for Australia. We also need someone who can refect on of Australian values (being apolitical would help), support charities and community organisations, and encourage volunteerism.

The politician's preference is a Head of State who is out-of-sight, out-of-mind. Prime Ministers prefer not to share the box seat, as that helps them stay popular and in power - "don't blame me - I was at the football."

Under an Australian Republic, the Head of State takes the box seat, above politics entirely. The Governor-General is looking over the shoulder of the Prime Minister (constitutional umpire), and the Prime Minister is focused on managing the country and leading the political debate.

It'd be nice if politicians represented their electorates, they don't. They represent their party and vested corporate interests, nothing else. Having them elect a head of state, results in a corporate controlled statehood, no different to now. With the unconstitutional forced preferential voting system, nothing will change, its virtually impossible.

David, I agree with you on many points, particularly regarding promoting Aus. To get the best person for that, we need a free vote with no political involvement, no campaigning. No lawyer, accountant or CEO, but someone who's a good example for this country. Maybe the bloke or sheila down the road, or dame Edna, would it matter as long as the world sees us as happy. I don't see any politician, corporate head or bureaucrat displaying a good example for this country, quite the opposite. I read your site, but couldn't access your constitution. There's nothing on your site that gives me confidence in your ability to provide a fair model, lots of semantics but little substance for the average person.

Writing a long tirade of semantic non speak jargon, is a reflection of the approach your ilk take towards the populace and a reason our system's the way it is. You don't engage, encourage nor give confidence, just non speak lecturing, very boring.

Until we rid the system of elite control, make politicians, bureaucrats and CEO's fully accountable for their actions, nothing will change. Your republic is just another way for fools to keep control. We need to adapt to the future first, our stability, pride, security and strength originally came from our isolation and unique innovative culture. Now the political correct, in allegiance with a despotic corporate and political system, have ruined that.

You have to understand David, its lawyers, academics, bureaucrats and CEO's who've put us in this position. Their uselessness is well documented in the condition of our world and societies. We don't need a republic, but an entirely new sytem that empowers the people, not disenfranchises them, as all political systems do now.

Alchemist, I disagree. Change, even a few words, of the constitution, & those same lawyers & the activist judges will reinterpret it to something entirely different, while having a feeding frenzy.
If you want an expensive catastrophe, just open the door. They are lined up at the door, like shoppers at an after christmas sale. I can see them slobbering at the mouth, from here.

Just when you think they have stopped barking and lain down-up they come again.
Well with a bit of luck we could get another President Mugabe,Castro or even..Bush.
Look at what advantages they have given their countries.

Response to Alchemist: "lots of semantics but little substance."

http://www.copernican.info is a hub to a number of websites and documents written members of the Copernican Group. There is a newsletter and Internet forum, like OLO. Of course, the opening page is a broadsweeping introduction to all of this!

My particular site, which is very extensive, is http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/ The Honorary President site contains both introductory and detailed material, including proposed amendments to the constitution, how the office of Head of State would function and how much it could cost.

It is not possible for any one person to dictate the detail of a republican model. That would not produce the best result for Australia. Hence the introductory pages discuss the general ideas, so to encourage as much input as possible. Even within the Copernican Group there is a collegial approach. We are open to discussion and criticism online 24-7 in the forum http://www.7gs.com/copernican/

So far, the Copernican Group has been criticised for presenting on several detailed models with common themes. I've even had negative feedback simply because several alternative options were provided on a technical point. Then there is are those who complain because we are discussing republicanism instead of their unrelated issue.

However, I am satisfied that we've taken the right approach. We are not trying to sell vacuum cleaners - switch it on and off you go. We are exploring what will work in our constitutional system and what is desirable and beneficial for Australia. Working openly means the results are transparent, honest and realistic.

Please have a look again and offer suggestions which may help Australia move forward OR lets look at what the public really expects a Head of State to do, when and when there is not a constitutional crisis.

David, I've looked through your sites, your constitution's just another formula for continuing political party control. Ruling political parties with huge corporate backing, choosing 7 candidates and the people 3 with no ability to promote, another elitist con. A non political head of state nominated by politicians, very logical.

Your just spinning window dressing change, designed to keep power in vested hands disenfranchising the people. No change in the head of state or status of this country will work, until you re-construct the entire sociological and political system from the bottom up.

As I said before, your site is just a semantic mantra of political spin, with nothing new or beneficial for the progress and sustainability of this country and the people. Any new approach to government and politics, will only succeed when the people have confidence in its outcome. You can only do that when the people feel comfortable, secure and happy with the directions and outcomes they can see. Nothing you write nor any other elitist, will change peoples minds, unlike in the past where you could lord it over them with your supposed superior educated intelligence, we see the results of your control over the last 30 years and its stuffed.

No longer do people see lawyers, doctors, politicians, corporate heads or bureaucrats as being capable, they see the results of elitism in business, education, infrastructure, health, justice and political systems.

The people are looking for those who represent them, who relate to them, who support them, who care for them, who care for equality in life and the right to be free responsibly. They want those who'll give us cheap sustainable energy, not monopolised enslavement to elite profit making.

Once people see the results of real progress, constitutional changes will be easy, as people will have faith and confidence. Instead of now having fear and loathing for the elite.

Hasbeen, once you remove legalese and have plain language bottom line laws, the people judging the outcomes, you don't need judges or lawyers. The same goes for legislation, all laws, plain English with understandable requirements and outcomes.