Hasbeen, you said "From where (you) stand, our system, regardless of who is head of state, leaves the USA's republic system for dead." Can I take it then that the Ugandan and Congolese systems are light years ahead of ours! LOL, You didn't bag them so they must be okay.

I am with you on that score, I don't want to model our republic on the US system, although some aspects are good and worth following, along with much of what we have now is worth retaining.

Hasbeen, getting a bit hot under the collar again as usual I see.
How very predictable.
Where did I say I liked the US system? I don't, so don't you put words in my mouth.

I would like to see us throw off the old 'mother country' c##p and get on with developing our own version of a republic.
It's no good going on living in the dark ages forever...

When John Howard was Prime Minister, I voted no towards becoming a Republic, because I felt, John Howard had talked me out of such a move, and generally I didn't object to John Howard as Prime Minister - in fact generally I thought he was very good whilst in the role.

I am (in many ways) a conservative person, and I now think by having a good debate on this issue, good options put to people, along with a reputable Prime Minister in place (like we have now), I believe people can properly look into this issue with a lot of professionalism.

Yes...the Republic issue is always termed a distraction whenever it arises.

I think this time though it's going to gain traction. The new chairman, Peter Fitzsimons, has breathed new life into the cause - and I believe ARM has just reached the number of members and finance to start a decent campaign.

Hasbeen,

"It's time Australia grew up and stopped being a 'colony'", what utter claptrap Suse. It's about time some people actually grew up, & stopped falling for B grade slogans.

I wonder just what it is that these lefties admire so much about the United States, or Uganda or the Congo, for that matter, that makes them want to emulate them? From where I stand, our system, regardless of who is head of state, leaves the USA's republic system for dead."

Australia doesn't have to emulate the US or France.

Peter's minimalist model requires a very small change.

As things presently stand, one person gets to choose the Governor General..."one person"...that's the Prime Minister.

The PM then sends a letter to the Queen requesting she affirms that choice. So the Queen appoints the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister.

That's how it's done at present.

The only change in minimalist model would be instead of the Queen appointing the GG - as she would no longer be part of equation - her role would be given over to parliament with a 2/3 majority appointing the chosen person.

Very little change - one last snip of the apron strings...it won't hurt a bit.

Onb,

Political distraction is right. On the cost alone, the idea of a republic is daft. The Queen is a mere figure head who costs us nothing: the poms do the paying. The queen has no say, in Australia, and the GG, like the queen acts on instruction from the elected government. We also have the Australia Act.

ttbn,

"... The Queen is a mere figure head who costs us nothing: the poms do the paying. The queen has no say, in Australia, and the GG, like the queen acts on instruction from the elected government...."

So she's a mere figurehead - she has no say - we run our own show these days.

What's the point?

Everything you wrote in your post only reiterates the reason Australia should cut the remaining strings.