...in my view...that person should be so appointed by the Federal Parliament and not directly elected. Why?
Well a direct election would unavoidably involve.... either a businessman..or a previous politician who would have the financial resources to carry out an election.It will automatically marginalise any other person who has not those financial resources.
In addition, even if another person from a different category is found (e.g. sportsperson, ex-militiary,academic etc) they would require sponsorships with massive financial backing and resources to carry a successful election the aftermath of which can have an outcome of having that elected person as a national President of Australia...indebted to those sponsors/financial backers

I agree. A bipartisan parliamentary appointment for president would be far preferable to conducting a popular vote.

It would save millions of dollars to begin with and would avoid the circus that a presidential campaign would invariably turn into.

I doubt an ex-politician would get far. Politicians, no matter how competent or fair-minded, wouldn't be able to compete in the popularity stakes against sporting and television celebrities.

You're right about big money. The whole process would soon become corrupted by corporate sponsorship. We'd see saturation advertising and the candidate with the most financial backing would be at an advantage. Hardly a fair playing field and as you say that level of financial backing creates indebitness.

Oops, 'indebtedness' is what I meant!

I fully agree with both of you.

I would prefer to see the appointment made by parliament not by popular vote.

As far as appointing a politician goes - if it was someone along the
likes of a Malcolm Fraser (someone of his calibre), I would have no objection. As I wrote in another post - he was the first PM to seriously address the issues of Indigenous Australians, and after leaving office has become very much an elder statesman, focusing much on human rights and poverty.

We need someone who would be above party politics. Someone everyone would respect.

The problem with an elected President is that there is a public mandate outside of the political system and the politicians will quickly work to make political. The idea of a President is for the Chief of State to be outside the political system. Governments can ostracised and then the People determine the governments' fate.

Th Us model is a poor one. It does not allow for adequate separation of power. As Richard Nixon said he had as much power as Louis XIV. Well, he wasn't quite right, but the US system does lean towards an elected King at the top. As Gore Vidal notes, America was never meant to be a democracy.

Over the past five hundred years in the Anglo-West, we developed parliament to protect us from Monarchy. Now we are starting to feel a need to be protected from politicians, whom represent themselves and their parties and only think of us a month before each election.

A non-elected President could be appointed as is G-G is now, and could act to dismiss the government only when he or she agrees to with a full/majority ruling of the high court.

The state Leut.Governors can go, poof!, without replacement and their executive power shifted to the G-G.

I fear for the next ten to twenty years the Anglophiles, whom still believe in Queen and Empire, will be a hinderence. QEII is nice lady but she is England's queen and she does a good job for her English subjects. Well done Betty!

Besides, England has been moving away from us since WWII, the Common Market and very recently ancestoral visas. England is a part of the European Continent. Australia is part of the New World. Forget Great Britain, what about Great Australa?

Should Australia become a republic?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/should-australia-become-republic.html

I am starting to believe that there are very few true republicans in Australia. What we have instead is a bunch of wandering, aimless anti-monarchists who will latch onto any label to cover up the fact that they only have half an idea. When you ask these anti-monarchists what a republic is, they respond in unison 'not a monarchy'. A true republican would be aghast at their lack of interest, lack of knowledge and lack of support for a living, breathing republic.

The republicans had their chance in 1999. They blew that chance because they still hadn't come up with an acceptable model. Only the most naive among them would expect a second chance when they still haven't learned from their mistake. Only the most naive would expect a commitment to a republic from the Australian people without a commitment from the republicans on what the model will be. Nearly a decade out and they are still bleating about becoming a republic while ignoring the reason for their rejection.

Many republicans blame John Howard for their loss, but it is far from Howard's fault. It is true that the proposal put forward by Howard was a bad idea and was doomed to fail, but the same thing would have happened regardless of which model was put forward. Many suggest that we should have first had a referendum on whether to become a republic. However, such a referendum would be pointless. It would not commit the government to any action. If the republicans could not come up with an acceptable model before such a pointless referendum, getting a bunch of people to sit around a table for a summit is hardly going to produce an acceptable model after the referendum. You do not need a referendum to hold a summit. You do not need to commit to a republic before finding out what you are committing to.

Looking for models for an Australian Republic?

Try the following:

http://www.republic.org.au/6models/index.htm

http://members.tripod.com/~ petergc/ConstRef/#Republic%20models

Can't believe this. You people want to cede even authority to the many lying politicians in our government? Unbelievable...

No one outside their carefully groomed list will ever be president. This means no true leadership and party-approved persons will be elected...FFS. Just think a little before you nod your heads in agreement to the submitter

Did anyone even check this guy's history? This is his only post here...very suspicious in my mind. Yet people just line up and believe the message without some critical thought going into it.

Foxy, 6 choices is exactly what defines our Australian problem. Also, republicans who say that the Queen of England is queen of another country choose to forget that only 107 years ago we were part of that other country.

Non-republicans are not all "monarchists", it is more the fact that we are realists and see that it is almost impossible to pass smoothly and "organically" from having a Head of State who is a delegate of a continuous monarchy to having one who is called a president. What powers would that president have? It would be a very complicated process resulting in much confusion, if anything, only leading to an unwelcome, rabbit-like multiplication of constitutional lawyers. We cannot say "Oh we'll just do what the Americans do" because every part of our political structure is different from theirs.

Much better to wait about 20 years and see how things pan out in Britain and work from whatever is happening when Queen Elizabeth's reign ends. There is absolutely no need to change now.

I find I can agree with you all.

Elect a President and you elect a politician !
The parliamentary system is far superior to the republican model
as demonstrated in the US, Pakistan and Zimbabwe etc etc.

Why could not the powers of the Governor General be vested in the
Chief Justice of the High Court ?

He would be a man who is knowledgeable of the law and if the
government tried to do something illegal, as did Whitlam he would
not need advice.

I can understand the drift away of Britain, after all it is no longer
a sovereign country as its laws are subject to veto by Brussels.

It's a tough one, but the last people to pick our president should be politicians. We can't trust them most of the time so how can we trust them with such an important decision?

I AGREE with Foxy, the President is only to replace the Govenor General, I was born an Australian, but I still have my BRITISH passport now expired. The generations before me fought for "King and Country" but they were imbued with the values of the British Empire,it is nothing to hurry about now, we are a Republic in all but name, why stir up any thing until "Our Gracious Queen" joins her ancestors? Why not keep the same proceedure of choosing a President as the one we have for the Governor General?

"Why not keep the same proceedure of choosing a President as the one we have for the Governor General?"

Mainly because it is a choice by our political class, that both is carefully selected to protect them and their interests. No one outside their closely vetted favourites will ever come near being president. I don't know about you, but it disturbs me greatly that politicians who often lie to our faces and have private agendas will select our president. I also think the president should possibly have more powers. Having someone who has only a symbolic role is pretty much irrelevant and not worht the investment.

I got a republican to put forward a model. It's actual not that bad. What does everyone think?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1173182998/160#160

It's a 'minimal change' model that doesn't seem to give more power to politicians.

Australia has the best form of Constitutional Government in the World. Why call an appointed Governor General an appointed President? Just by changing names means nothing as far as the powers of State are concerned.

I say leave things as they are.

It is the same old Irish Catholics and Scotts who have always been hostile to an English Monarch. My Scottish ancestors came to Australia under Denmore Lang an avowed Republican. My English and Scottish great grandparents in 1850's to the 1960's constantly dissagreed about Australia should be a Republic. The call for Republicanism and separation from England is as old as Early settlement. It identified the disgruntled rather than propose a superior system of Government.

I feel very bad because the head of our state is a foreigner and even worst the head of our state is a foreigner monarch. The monarchy is exactly the opposite of democracy, is the full violation of the democratic principles and values. WE WANT to be elected ALL OUR PUBLIC PERSONS FROM THE BOTTOM TO THE TOP, ESPECIALLY FROM THE TOP, THE HEAD OF AUSTRALIAN STATE. It is time for Australia to finish with the monarchy, it is time for THE AUSTRALIAN REPUBLIC!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Don't be too disrespectful of the Monarchy. Non-anglo saxons and immigrants should try to understand Australia's history, where it came from, and respect why many Australians feel warmth toward the Queen.

To acknowledge your opinion Philo, my grandfather was driven out of his native IRELAND and would have nothing to do with the Monarch of England, but I am an Aussie of the 21st century and see things from a perspective of past 20th century wars and atom bombs and medical breakthroughs and a wish to tolerate and compromise as my part in the keeping of peace in the world, and especially here in Australia.

Steel
In the 1976 Greek referendum for republic I was against Greek monarchy and I was representative of republicans in a Greek District. We finished the story in one referendum. I feel the same enthusiasm to fight monarchies in any part of the world!