This is the latest plan for Australia to become
a Republic:

http://sbs.com.au/news/this-is-the-latest-plan-for-australia-to-become-a-republic/97275d56-9112-47db-99bb-e98acc33f73d

Your opinions please?

There ought to be no state, thus no head of state, but...
If there is to remain a "head of state", then s/he rather be the furthest possible, the most remote, the least interested or invested in Australia and its affairs, thus the least likely to disturb us in any way.

And we already have just that in the form of our gracious benevolent Queen: may God bless Her, may She live forever!

Hi Foxy,

I favour a Republic myself, with a President as head of state. Its not something Australia needs to beat itself up over, and its not the number one priority with me, maybe not in the top 10 of things to do in this country, there are far more pressing needs. Limited powers I agree, a joint sitting of parliament, a person nominated by the PM seconded by the Op Leader, 2/3 majority vote.

I approve of this model that has now been brought
out by the Australian Republic Movement. Hopefully
it will go to a Referendum to allow Australians to
decide. Hopefully this will happen soon as it is
long overdue. We are Australian not British and this
should be reflected in who our Head of State is.

So, the only change is replacing the Governor General as an appointed person for a President voted for by the people. So, the Persident becomes a political head of State, rather than informed constitutional lawyer. Whose political whims will change according to popular opinion. Thus, representing the majority rather than the Constitution.

Josephus,

Read the link I gave in my opening statement to this
discussion. It will clarify things for you.