Response to Alechmist:

Thanks for reading my proposal for an Australian Head of State.

It seems you have caught me out trying to enslave the people, tricking them into believing they get to choose the head of state, when my real intent is to sharpen my spin doctoring skills and hasten the march of the corporate regime over the hard won freedoms of ordinary Australians.

If you want to checkout my narrow-minded elitist propoganda, click on: http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~dlatimer/honpres/

Response to David Gothard:
You may remember that the republicans lost the 1999 referendum because the model put lacked a directly-elected Head of State. There should be no argument that the next model should allow any Australian to have the opportunity to be nominated and elected as Australia's most senior officeholder.

In the Copernican Group (http://www.copernican.info) we are determined to achieve this in the simplest possible way, which is by replacing the Queen in her Australia role by an elected, non-exective, apolitical Australian.

Plerdsus, I agree, that's why we need a completely new system of government. "Your of with the fairies", if you think just changing a head of state will improve our dwindling control over our lives. We should be our own country, not a reflection of others that are rapidly failing tbeir people.

David's model is a continuation of the same, with the chance of us losing more control. Considering how honest our politicians are and who they support, once the people say yes to a republic they will say they have a mandate to do it and we'll get their model, not ours.

David's gives a choice between 3 unsupported people candidates, which will end up being from the elite, as they have economic and political power. Against 7 candidates chosen and supported by the political parties, giving the elite more power. Unrestrained by a governor general or non changeable head of state. Governor generals are political appointments, nothing else, they don't reflect the peoples wishes, but the elites. As for anyone being able to become president, sure just like in the USA

We are a unique country, as we have no physical attachments to any other society, we should have a unique system of running this country for us all. Not just the elite getting all the say and benefits.

The legal profession has stuffed our justice system, society and governments, aided by big business and the bureaucracy. Why continue to believe or trust them, they just make things worse for us all. What's the use of a purely powerless head of state anyway, the best promotion we get is by the attainment of ordinary people, not a bunch of flip flops.

I certainly don't believe we should have any alliance with others in government or borders, as others have said, they've already let to many fools in. Time to take a lateral approach, before we sink into the mire with the rest of the world.

I assume by "unsupported candidates" Alechmist means unsupported by political parties. Why is there a problem with that? It's a good thing!

Alchemist says 7 candidates supported by political parties, which is of course not the full story. Every state parliament and the federal parliament may nominate a former governor. This would normally result in a bi-partisan nomination.

Because there are six states and one federal parliament, there are seven nominations under this method. The other three candidates are nominated by public petition. (10 candidates in total)

The Honorary President proposal, and there are others under the Copernican Group (http://www.copernican.info) attains the following:
- Anyone can become Head of State
- Candidates are from every part of Australia
- Some candidates will have the experience of being governor
- It would be rare to have a partisan candidate on the ballot

When I vote in the election for an Australian Head of State, I'll be looking for exception qualities of character and ability, and a record of community service and achievement. Most Australians would do the same. I doubt we'll be put off by arbitary labels like "elite" (as per Alechmist's view). It is too much to looking for the best person for the job?

Not while we are led by Liars.

The trick to becoming a Republic is to phase it in over a sufficient (say 50 years) so that it is Guaranteed to frustrate any citizen who is making plans to PROFIT from the changeover. A Republic MUST be for all AUSTRALIANS. It must NOT be a free for all based on unsound focused immigration where ethnic clusters have excessive voting rights.

EG, Morris Iemma's Italian Labour party has given NSW a 10 year Plan that says it gives control back to NSW citizens but is underpinned with an annual addition of 100,000 immigrants and in excess of 50,000 cars. The TRUTH is Iemma couldn't deliver his plan if he halted DEVELOPMENT and new arrivals to Sydney, If he let them go to say Melbourne or Canberra or Orange where there are no Gridlocks yet. The fact that he says it can be done developing bio-banks and building 100,000 new homes and carports every year for the next 10years is becuase of post-ministerial Jobs and favours. This makes his 10 year plan a joke like the monkey with its hand caught in the rock hole who will never get free because he won't let go of the banana. NSW is MORE than Sydney and east coast resort space. 'Iemma and NSW Labor' are in essence like the Sheriff of Nottingham and his Barons. They are 'Iemma and Sydney Labor' all too willing to tax NSW into abject poverty so they can build better castles in Sydney, aka Nottingham.

This kind of Corporate-Government fraud is rife throughout Australia. Citizens of NSW and Australia can and MUST do better than this and until they do the option of an Australian Republic is an obscene insult to the intelligence of ALL Australians.

Response to KAEP:

Your post makes no sense. You have taken several issues with no connection with each other or to the republic, and called it fraud and lies.

When republicans make honest proposals for a better Australia, and someone cries "Lies! Fraud!" without cause, this has the result of discouraging honesty and hurting Australia. And to make myself clear: if a monarchist honestly identified a problem with a proposed reform, shouting them down would have the same result of hurting Australia also.

With your head so deep in the sand I'm not surprised you don't see the connections to fraud, lies and an Australin Republic Latimer. Or is it that you are just hiding behind your finger.

If I have my way, all repuublican movement leaders will have their pecuniary interests in a future Republic investigated and the results openly published.

How frustrating is that!

I'm sure you'll let us ALL know.