"He feels that's our best chance of ensuring our head of state
is, at last, one of us"

Does he now?

Elizabeth II is one of us, she is as Queen of Australia as Australian as any of us, even migrants.

Typical of a millionaire politician that he would spend twice as much of the taxpayers' money to achieve that which could be done for half the cost.
The first question on a referendum re becoming a Republic should be,

"That no politician, past or serving, shall be eligible to stand for election as President".

Then watch the interest by the Pollies wither on the vine.

Is Mise,

The Queen is British. Australia is still legally
under the British. You are either ignorant or in
denial about this fact. The British government keeps
a Governor-General with "Reserve Powers"to oversee the
Australian Parliament.

Our Constitution is an act of Queen Victoria's parliament.
It states in the Preamble that the colonies are uniting
under "the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland." It adds that references to the Queen extend to
"Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of
the United Kingdom."

There is no reference to the "Queen of Australia."

Section 59 states that the Queen may disallow
any law within a year of its assent by the
Governor-General. This Constitution
is still very much in force, as was shown recently by the
High Court disqualifying MPs under Section 44.

Australian citizenship did not exist until 1949 and is still
not mentioned in the Constitution.

Over the past decades British citizens (or subjects) received
special status over other immigrants. In 1986 the Australia
Act abolished appeals to the Privy Council in London.

However decisions by British courts remain
binding precedents up to that point. However,
Britain still rules Australia through
the monarchy ((which is constitutionally defined as the
British monarchy) and through the court system, where
British decisions still hold sway.

Foxy,

MT is going to sue a lowly paid political staffer? Seriously? what ever he wins won't cover the legal costs.

I see all the major sellers have slashed the price of the book only a handful of people have paid full price. I guess that it will hit $5 soon.

Foxy,

"He feels that's our best chance of ensuring our head of state
is, at last, one of us."

Actually he feels that's the best way to get the type of republic he wants.

Kim Beazley had a similar proposal and I think its current ALP policy - funny how so many of Turnbull's views marry with ALP policy.

I'll try to explain. Very roughly, the electorate is broken into three equal groups - monarchists, republicans who want an elected presidnet, republicans who want an appointed president.

In the referendum, which put the appointed president option, enough of the 'elected' president supporters joined the monarchists to defeat it.

Equally, in a plebiscite where the option was just between elected and appointed, enough monarchists would join the appointed group that it would win.

The simple solution is to put the elected president option in a referendum. I believe , and previous polls have shown, that a majority of the appointed president people would vote for such a republic that it would get through. That was absolutely the case in 1999.

But those who disdain the opinions of the average voter, don't want that type of republic and work hard to ensure its never put as an option. Which is why the monarchists always win.

Turnbull just brings up the Liz factor as a way to cover his own incompetency. He utterly blew the referendum, played for the fool by Howard/Abbott

mhaze,

I read the chapter - "An Australian Republic"
in Turnbull's book.

There were then, as there are today, two big
questions. What should the powers of the president
be? How should the president be elected?

Turnbull encountered almost no support for a US-style
president who has executive head-of-government powers.

Most people agreed the president should have the same role,
powers and responsibilities as the governor-general.

It is however, not entirely clear what these are.
Not even the Queen's powers are clear-cut. The constitution
isn't helpful - it doesn't even mention the prime minister.

Anyway, Turnbull has remained of the view that we won't have
enough political interest or momentum to win a referendum
on a republic until after the end of the Queen's reign.

And before we have a referendum, Turnbull says we should
have a plebiscite that offers a choice between direct
election and parliamentary appointment and allow this
issue to be thrashed out over months of debate and
resolved.

With that done, the constitutional amendment proposed would
incorporate the mode of election chosen in the plebiscite.
He says that the best chance of success.