six models to elect an Australian Head of State.[sounds like an adjenda]

What we need a head of state for?

There is sovereign 'authority' right here, currently many 'believe' the queen [via CC] is the sovereign authority [but most would be aware its not the fact]

We are no longer the commonWEALTH of australia [read your money no common wealth on it anymore , you just havnt been told that by your self serving [multinationals serving media.

[The Queen is the head of the commonwealth]the chogm meeting is about the only affective proof of that? As a body that assumes any real common/wealth juristiction,
but its essentially dead as a real govt vehicle body.

The adgenda appears to replace the GG [but we only have the gg because its in the constitution
[so to keep the farce of the constitution alive we have this defacto 'authority' over nothing,
those believing he /she takes our laws for ratification to HRH is dreaming
[our courts are under comerce juristiction[the laws of the sea] maritime law ,
[where judgments are restricted by previous decisions [not the constitution's [see act 70 of 2002 Qld for your evidence ,ask to see the signed into law version]

Better is to have hundreds of smaller GG oversight juristictions [effectivly replacing the lord majors title] ,
where we elect locally the local GG who ratifies and checks on the workings and act of our local councils [who get their sovereign juristiction via the local indigenant tribes [who are figure heads under which the GG/lordMajor provides his oversight service to the local juristiction]

^Then taking the power of the referendum to create many local 'state's''[and disolve the current states serving big buisness elites and investment fund managers [and privatising community asset ]

Eaxch sovereign council state sends their personalrepresentative or spokesperson to federal juristiction that ratify and unify laws and govt servise at a commonwealth level
[we are over governd [too many GG's ] too many juris-restrictions
,something needs to be changed
this 2 party Demon autocracy isnt working

A well written article. A little while back my wife and I had a visitor stay with us from Switzerland. She enquired, "Why do you have Elizabeth on your coins". Since 1950s until now migration and Britain engaging the Common Market [1957?]and the EU, the UK has cut links with us. Churchill would have had Australia fall to the Japanese. Moreover, no would convince me that QE II is as much an Australian as she is English.

A majority of the High Court could hold Parliament accountable. A Bill of Rights could hold the Courts and Parliaments accountable.

That said, immigrants should not be expected to forget their mother country, but Australia must come first

“…I believe a further commitment by our elected parliamentary representatives is needed to change the identity and face of our nation…”

There is plenty of commitment from politicians, particularly on the ALP side, but it is noticeable that Rudd doesn’t place it high on his Whitlamesque agenda. Neither do the Australian people who, like Rudd, have more urgent matters in mind.

Changing the “identity and face of our nation” sounds like a nasty piece of vandalism – no more than an attack on the history and achievements of the people who forged our identity and nation. It is an insult by the multi-culties who have lobbed here and, having accepted our hospitality and protection, now want to change Australia to something suiting them. What people like this author, and some fifth column Australians, are suggesting is that we give up our history and culture to foreigners let in by wet, immigration-mad governments.

The idea that we are bound to Britain and the Monarchy now in anything but history and culture is stupid and ignorant. The existing link is important to our history, but we are have been our own boss, our own country, for a long time. We have “absolute independence”.

This author, admitting that there is a mere 15.8% “…of Australians coming from more than 200 countries and ancestries and speaking a language other than English at home” has the cheek to suggest that Australia should change for just for that piddling number of people who should not have come here if they wanted the country to change for them – if, indeed, they do want that.

The Queen is a figure head. She has no say whatsoever in what happens in Australia. She ‘approves’ our Government’s choice of GG ceremoniously because she has absolutely no authority in the appointment, which itself is a little bit of historical ceremony having no affect on our identity or who actually runs the country.

Some people thinks it’s OK for latecomers to hang onto their heritage, but not OK for Australian descendants of the original settlers to hang onto theirs.

BREAKING_NEWS.. TAIL_WAGS_DOG......

In the context of 'national identity' I found an interesting article were the 'national_identity' America is under serious threat from minority groups.

The same applies to Australia, and while we haven't seen anything quite like this story YET... we will in the future.

http://www.jewsonfirst.org/06b/indianriver.html

A community, Indian River, Delaware America, has an obvious sense of identity, in fact a very strong Christian identity.

It is clear, abundantly clear, that this community see's itself as 'Christian' and this is on the cultural level as well as the ideological.

WHO... then, has the right to come and tell them.. "No...you must change your social/educational structure so that my child does not feel left out"
(Paraphrase of the intent of the complaint)

Well one family, out of the 700+ who's children attend the school, decided it should re-structure the local educational culture purely for the sake of their child.
http://www.publicschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/16479

778 students.. and ONE.. 'feels left out' because of not sharing the religious beliefs of the 777.

So.. call in the big stick/jackboot of "human rights law" and attack the school.

HYPOCRISY? u bet there is. The nature of the complaint was "prayer in Jesus name"....but the complainant would be happy with prayer.. as long as it fitted HER religious beliefs which do not include Jesus.

We will find in Australia, that various grous seek to impose their minority view on the majority, purely for the sake of cultural comfort.....i.e. theirs.

Then, the 'human rights industry' gets on the job.. these people are portrayed as 'poor victims' by the broader Jewish community. The Jewish community portrays their experience as one of 'terror/intimidation/threats/harrassment'

Given that this community knows a lot about persecution, one wonders why the poke the bee hive with such an obvious stick which will stir the anger of the bees.

NOT A THOUGHT for the majority who's human rights to persue their culture and faith in a communal way is trampled into the ground.

Our constitution says NOTHING about 'practicing_religion in a school context' it just says you cannot make a LAW to advance_particular religions. They are 2 different_issues

What's up today, is it let the religious nuts day out,wheres Flint, if we are going to have the 3 stooges wheres the third one yoo hoo David.
I will be happy to see the back of the English Queen,the sooner the better.

Hi All
The problem is not that Australia wants to become a Republic but what form that Republic will take. We can argue until 'The cows come home' about the relevance of the British Monarchy and Australian Society but until some one come up with a viable alternative to the present system that is acceptable to the majority of Australian voters then the present and proven system of Government will continue.
Brian