'Head of state' means nothing: the position is about as significant as that of a Roman kitchen god. We elect politicians, and the boss is the Prime Minister.

The republicans talk about removing the 'British monarch'; only the British can do that. The best that the malcontented wreckers can hope for is to replace the Australian monarch. We shouldn't be listening to people who are that ignorant or, at best, semi-literate.

If the Queen is not needed, neither is another politician, which is all anyone chosen by other politicians, and voted for by the plebs, actually is.

And, we would have to pay for this useless person. The Brits pay for the monarch, who has no say in anything - just like her proposed replacement. What a stupid, costly and pointless waste of time and money.

And this nonsense comes from 'consultation' with only 10,000 people and a few surveys of unrevealed numbers. The 73%, 92%, 8% against the scheme is unbelievable. And Peter Fitzsimons's discarding of the bandana for a smart suit and tie won't fool anyone.

A head of state is not needed. If the occasion is important enough the prime minister can attend. If it is not important enough she or he can appoint someone to attend.

Foxy, I have read the link and it caused me to write my opinion. When comparing Peter Fitzsimons'with her Royal Highness I know whom I vote for if it is voting time. The Red bandana or the Crown?

Malcolm Turnbull put me right off the idea of a republic. I felt his only motivation in the campaign was President Malcolm.

Malcolm Turnbull was typical of politicians who favour a republic, not to be trusted as he swore a false oath to enter Parliament and although a.millionaitr he swore the false oath to get paid as do the rest of the MPs who support a republic.
Why can’t they do the honourable thing and refuse to swear alliegance to the Queen.and forego the salary?

Because they are prepaired to lie and perjure themselves for money and thus none of them can be trusted, ever.

Talking about doing the right thing and being trusted?

We had the dual-citizenship fiasco not so long ago.
How absurd was that. The facts speak for themselves.
There can be no doubt that our head of state is a
British woman, et here we were quibbling about people
we had elected to our federal Parliament whose dad or
mum were of British ancestry?

It's worth remembering that on 3 December 2007 one week
after the election of the new Rudd Federal Labor
Government, a "very Republican moment" occurred when
Kevin Rudd and his minitry swore an oath to:

"The Commonwealth of Australia, its land and its people."

rather than than a foreign monarch.