Wow, what an inspiring ideology. Pity you can't turn it into something useful.

Clarify what benefit there is in remaining a monarchy?

All I can see is a fear of change.

The simple fact is that monarchies are an outdated system, left over from medieval times, which are largely ceremonial and symbolic.

If you see some positives in having a symbolic head of state, born and living in another country, could you please elucidate on what they might be?

If you are merely stating a preference for a 'Westminster" style of government, then that is more understandable, but does not mean we need to remain a monarchy in order to achieve that result.

The style of government we ultimately choose, will be up to the people, and I agree that some models should be put before the people, so they can make an informed choice.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2008 at 3:23pm:


What is this obsession about not becoming a republic if not about maintaining a foreign head of state. What exactly do you imagine a republic to be per se?

"It has nothing to do with fear, but rather practical concerns with a republican systems."

I have to disagree FD, I believe it is very much about fear, which is not to say it is an unfounded fear, because your concern about ending up with an inferior system to what we now have, could very well happen, if the wrong people steer this debate in the wrong direction.

It is that leap of faith thing again, when we reach the point, which I believe we inevitably must, where we do make the change to a new, independent, and wholly Australian system of government, we will be relying on the politicians of the day to deliver the best option possible.

I think it is the very modern mistrust of politics, and politicians, which stymies this debate.
We do not see any inspirational 'Statesman', whom we trust enough to deliver this best possible outcome we desire.
I do not really believe that people of vision and integrity are no longer around, but I do think it is much more difficult for them to rise to positions of prominence in modern politics.

The point is that we cannot tread water forever, one day we will have to stroke out on our own.

we will be relying on the politicians of the day to deliver the best option possible

No we won't. Whatever model is chosen, it will have to be approved via referendum. if the politicians stuff up, the people will simply reject the idea.

I think it is the very modern mistrust of politics, and politicians, which stymies this debate.

I trust politicians far more than I trust republicans who refuse to engage in debate about specific changes to our constitution.

The point is that we cannot tread water forever, one day we will have to stroke out on our own.

Our system of government is hardly dysfunctional. We could hang onto indefinitly if no suitable replacement is proposed.

OK. Here it is broadly speaking.

I do not have an issue with a Parliamentary Republic which is to say a democracy where executive power is vested in Parliament and the Head of State is largely ceremonial but holds reserve powers similar to those currently vested in the Governor General.

The candidature of the Australian Head of State should be determined by a ‘Sovereign Council’.

The Sovereign Council should be comprised of 11 eminent Australian citizens of good character and each must be the recipient of the Companion of the Order of Australia (the highest Australian award). Each recipient must have held the award for no less than five years. The most senior AC will be declared President of the Sovereign Council and his role will be to break a deadlock. The council members and its President must be approved by Parliament. The council should be comprised equally of men and women (where possible) and be representative of the sciences, law, arts, sport and politics (where possible).

The Sovereign Council selects an eminent Australian (either from within the Council or external to the Council) as the candidate for Australian Head of State. The candidate must be an Australian citizen and the recipient of a Companion of the Order of Australia. He must hold the citizenship of no other nation or state or hold any office that would conflict with or compromise his/her duties as Head of State.

The selected candidate would be presented to Parliament for endorsement and declared the Head of State presumptive.

At the termination of the incumbent HOS’s term of office, the presumptive would be declared by Parliament the Australian Head of State.

After the endorsement of the candidate, the Sovereign Council will be disbanded and have no further role in governance.

The Head of State may serve a maximum of two terms.

The removal of Head of State would require a majority in both Houses of Parliament.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2008 at 4:20pm:


The most senior recipients of the Companion of the Order of Australia have first option. If any one declines, then the next senior etc. until 11 members have been chosen and accepted. The invitations can be sent from the Prime Minister's department or from Parliament itself.

ACs are awarded for eminent achievement and merit of the highest degree in service to Australia or to humanity at large.

The cost would be negligible. Whatever it costs to fly them to Canberra and put them up in a hotel, I guess.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2008 at 4:28pm:


Incapacity due to health would disqualify an AC from membership of the council.

ACs are awarded for eminent achievement and merit of the highest degree in service to Australia or to humanity at large.

Nominations for AC would be reviewed by the Order of Australia Council, independent of any political interference (as they are now), and then approved by the incumbent Head of State.