Hi Foxy,

My point is, if we were truly an independent nation we would not be having this discussion about acts of parliament, the powers of, or lack of powers, that the Queen of England can, or cannot, exercise over our nation and its people. We are like the child who has left home and become "independent" but still brings his washing home for mum, and eats there five times a week.
Remember our past, respect our heritage, but move on and fully take our rightful place in the world, as a totally free and independent people, beholding to no other person, even if she is a lovely old duck, living in a big house in London.

Dear Nick and Paul,

Interesting times ahead.

We now have a new Prime Minister who just may
steer us into a new direction as far as our
"Head of State" is concerned. We'll have to wait
and see what lies ahead for this country.
Thank You for your contributions to this discussion.
They are appreciated.

See you on another discussion.

As much as I'm a dedicated Royalist and have enormous respect for our Queen, I do have to agree with PAUL1405, that it's now time we become our own country, with our own identity, and with our own Head of State.

The only proviso being, that 'Head of State is chosen by the people, not by some group of morally corrupt politician !

Hi o sung wu,

There is the rub, how do you get that person? If the person has to stand for election even with only one other opponent then immediately they become a "politician" even if they have never ever been a member of a political party, they start fronting the media putting their case forward its only natural if they want the gig.
What I favor is a panel of eminent Australians possibly the chief justice of each state to put forward one name only by consensus to be approved by the Australian people at a general election with a tenure of 2 set parliamentary terms, 6 years. If in an emergency the head of state resigns or dies then the new person would hold office until the next general election was due and they could be approved by the people. What happens if they fail to gain the peoples approval, that is a tricky one, and a "special" election would be required, but I would think such an occurrence would be extremely rare if the panel did their job properly.

p/s As a pacifists I am happy with ex-army chief Peter Cosgrove and the job he is doing. It was a bit insulting of Abbott to resign his office by fax, don't you think, could have shown the GG a bit more respect and the office of PM as well.

p/p/s I know we love our sporting heros, but no ex cricketers or footy players please. Although Don Brahman at one time would have made an excellent head of state. Your thoughts.

I have just read a very interesting article by
Monica Dux in The Saturday Age, September 19,2015.

Dux explains - A big part of the problem is that
forward-minded people, who would be inclined to support a
republic, don't tend to worry about the symbolic and
ceremonial underpinnings of our society.
And the question of who should sign the laws
our government
passes is not something most people get excited about.

This is the reason according to Dux - that same-sex
marriage took so long to get traction in the broader community.
Not because the majority opposed it, but because most
forward-thinking people don't consider marriage to be
important.

In a world where de facto relationships are
commonplace, and are generally protected by law, the
institution of marriage is of largely symbolic significance.

Conservatives on the other hand, love symbols. They get all
giddy over honours and titles, and they fall over each
other to salute the flag.

And of course they love to get married, precisely because of
what it symbolises.

The biggest reason that many Australians
can't work up much enthusiasm for the republic is not
because we have a lingering love of the British monarchy,
(although some do) -
but simply because most - don't think it matters.

Unfortunately, it's the conservatives who are right
about symbols and ceremonies.

Symbols are important, as we all discovered when we recently
reached the tipping point on marriage equality. Dux says
that finally, the majority of Australians have woken up
to the fact that a discriminatory marriage regime is
in fact, a statement, an official declaration
that same-sex relationships are not as valued as other
relationships.

She tells us that symbols and ceremonies define our
identity, they impact on our values, and they send a signal,
particularly to our children, about what we consider fair and just.

She states that - I fear it's only when we, as a nation, finally
realise this, that we'll at last take that long overdue
republican bus ride. Perhaps with a new pro-republican PM
this may happen sooner than later.

cont'd ...

As for my own personal opinion?

I tend to agree with Dux in that it will eventually happen -
in its own time. However, agitating for change at the moment
is unnecessary, irrelevant, and distracting. And I have to
admit that I am biased. I don't want a politician as
Head of State. To me, it would be worse than a monarch.

The monarchy has the ability to remove a government if it's
abusing its power and that way the monarchy is like an
extra safety net for our democracy.

Cheers.