-3- Hypothetically, if the Queen left England and became an Australian citizen, I would be happy for Her Exellency Ms Windsor to become a transition president. Our Head of State should be an Australian. Herein, we would not be subjects of The Crown. Instead, the President is Defender of the People, and the Office of President subordinate to, We, The People.

Albeit, she would need to recognise the separation of Church and State. The British monarch doesn't.

-4- Why an English Queen, if you want a monarchy? We could replace the British monarchy with an Australian likeness. Is a pomp any better than an Aussie to fulful this role?

In historical terms, The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, renamed The House of Windsor, is quite young , so its not like dropping an Egyptian of Chinese dynasty.

Monarchists could find a deep-rooted Australian family.

- There is othing wrong with the hardworking and dedicated Queen, for Britain, of which, we are no longer a part. I greatly admire her. Moreover, via the Constitution, I recognise her elevated position and would serve under it. But, it is the Constitution, which needs to be modernised. Said, Australian Constitution does need the Queen.

-5- Please note, Britain no longer regards herself under direct/indirect Norman-French rule. The Norse-French can't Constitutionally interfer with Britain's people or its parliament.

-6- Should a Black, a Catholic, an Antheist or a Jew, be allowed to become Chief of State of Australia. Presently, these groups can't.

-7- What historians, Toynbee and Quigley, recognize is that societies die, if power brokers maintain the status quo past its, "used by date"

I am amazed that the nit picking and bloated pseudo intelectualization going on here seems more important than the question of "who" will write this new Republic into law and who will be the guiding hand and as I see it we have not a single statesman that even comes close to the necessary abilities and moral fiber to even attempt this.
Until we have people of stature in this country I will never vote for a change because the risks far outweigh the pros.

We do not need a republic and we do not need to have this whole process engage the nation while other matters are quietly swept under the carpet.
Get real Aussies and take a stand against this madness.

I agree with Kasperle here. The idiots we elect are basically brain dead insofar as a constitution for a republic is concerned. An ideal solution would be to have a truely independent member of the community draft something (who had some balls....no populists please!). Drafting a new constitution by commitee or through some kind of populism would be asinine in the extreme anmd terrible for our country as a republic. The constitution would have to be seen as sacred, not some shabby document fought over by the scrapping bevy of ignorant idiots that we elect.

This is no doubt going to become a "debate we have to have", given St. Kevin's thoughts on the matter. But it doesn't seem to have progressed a great deal.

The emotional arguments are still the same, and Oliver has pretty well covered that ground. Even though it is possible to take issue with some of his wilder examples of the politics involved, there really is no point: all the emotional - as opposed to rational - arguments point to an Australian republic.

To argue against simply boils down to a lazy desire to cling to mummy's apron strings, and avoid the responsibilities of growing up.

It is also valid to point out that mummy thinks it is time for us to move on as well - you don't hear the royal family protesting "don't go, don't go."

But as plerdsus points out, the devil is in the detail.

We have moved, and continue to move, away from a system that effectively represents "the will of the people". For example, the link between what a politician is allowed to say when presenting an agenda prior to an election, and what the country subsequently holds them responsible for, is irretrievably broken.

And the reality is, that until we are able to trust our political leaders to perform their tasks on our behalf diligently, honestly and in full view of the public who elected them, we will continue to be suspicious of change, and powerless to effect it.

Apathy will, unfortunately, continue to rule. Mummy's not going to throw us out, and the system is not sufficiently broken to warrant a popular uprising, complete with violent demonstrations, people chaining themselves to railings etc.

Quite possibly, the best approach would be to simply let Kevin decide for us. We could then whinge happily to each other about how it doesn't work very well, how it was all so much better when Betty ruled, and how outrageous it is that jumped-up politicians earn so much for doing so little.

But at least we could all blame someone, and then simply get on with life.

Mr Right,

"Wrong." - Mr. Right

Yep. Have to admit it. I was wrong. Should have checked a State Constitution.

"States have both a Governor and a Lieutenant-Governorto fill in when the Governor is not available." - Mr. Right

However,

CONSTITUTION ACT 1902 - SECT 9B (5): "The Lieutenant-Governor or Administrator shall not assume the administration of the government of the State or act as deputy to the Governor unless the Lieutenant-Governor or Administrator, as the case may be, has taken on that occasion, or has previously taken, the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance and the Oath or Affirmation of Office in the presence of the Chief Justice or another Judge of the Supreme Court."

States [Example, NSW] administration isn't a relief like Julia Gillard replacing Kevin Rudd, while Rudd is unavailable, say on offshore visits. A Lieutenant-Governor, as an Administrator, apppears more significant circumstance than taking-on the over-flow duties, because the Governor "is unavailable". Opening flower shows and the like.

The Lieutenant-Governor does seem not act causually as a deputy to the Governor.

James Spigelman, sworn in as Chief Justice of NSW in 1998, is Lieutenant-Governor of NSW. The Official State link is not to a Vice-Regal site, rather to the Supreme Court:

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/supreme_court/ll_sc.nsf/pages/SCO_cjspigelman

I note Spigelman is a political appointee, which suggests, that even with an Australian President appointed by Parliament, a party's Man or Women could readily be put in place, e.g., Bill Haydon.

The alternative of direct voting for President, does politicise, the Office, which is supposedly above politics, because the bearer holds a direct mandate.

If realisable, maybe, a comprise position is for the Parliament to produce a list of five candidates to the Public for election on a preferential voting basis. Three candidates must not have belonged to a political party, under oath or statutory declaration. Voting returns requirements would be along the lines of those relating to referenda.

The candidates are put the people by Government not by a policial party.

I settle for nothing less than direct election. The idea that politicians who lie to our faces and pass repugnant laws and taxes against us, don't deserve the right to preselect anyone.

And Oliver, do you really believe politicians making a short list of possible presidents *won't* be political? Really?