locutius wrote on Aug 5^th, 2008 at 12:28am:

I believe the issue should be seen in the more profound light of national identity than trivialising it with the notion that it is singularly about an anti-English dummy-spit.

Is it right that no Australian citizen can, with any hope of realisation, aspire to the office of Head of State? It's not good enough for the Scots that they endure a foreign HOS as the current Scottish appetite for secession from the union with England attests.

When immigrants go through the process of becoming citizens, which they are expected to do, one of the advantages of citizenship they are told is the privilege of partaking in the Australian political process either as a voter or a candidate for election to political office. It is ironic that the highest political office is currently necessarily reserved for a foreigner and even more ironic that the HOS is not even required to be resident in the country.

There are details to get right, for sure. I have suggested a republican model in posts to this thread previously that I believe address most of the details that have been a problem to many.

What are the details that need to be got right as you see them?

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2008 at 11:20am:


Well it ain't. The office of Head of State is the highest political office.

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2008 at 11:20am:


This is symptomatic of the cultural cringe - the downplaying of the role of the citizen in developing the nation's highest office and the trivialising of the role.

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2008 at 11:57am:


A nation that has a foreigner as its Head of State needs to define clearly why no citizen should ever considered worthy of the office.

How one defines 'high'??? The roles of Head of State is the highest political office. The Head of Government is usually the penultimate role. The two offices can be combined as with the US model.

How would you define... 'high'?

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2008 at 1:11pm:


A Head of State can dissolve Parliament and with that make vacant the role of Head of Government.

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2008 at 1:30pm:


W@nker

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 5^th, 2008 at 7:52am:


First off Helian, I will make every effort to work through what has been written before in this Subject by yourself and others. I would like to examine the possible solutions that you have provided. Being brand new to the site my enthusiasim was to provide a comment and become involved in some of the discussions taking place. I did read a few pages of this subject, but since there are 19 odd pages and so many other subjects to look at, I felt confident of offering my own take on this subject. Now with that said....

I find that it is you that are labouring this particular point, one that I have not attacked as a fair point. What I have said is that it is not a crucial enough point to modify my position to that of rabid republican.

It's part of my discriminating nature to ask whether this current system (as flawed as it may be) is a lesser system to the vague blank contract (details to be filled in later) that I was expected to support in a referendum. A referendum that was filled with emotional dribble rather than any concrete models to choose from.

It is far from an anti-english dummy spit, thanks for upholding my point there. I was starting to think that was your position with your persistance on the HOS situation. However the anti-english sentiment is a pretty heart felt one, and is often the only argument pursued, by those that don't even know how their existing political system works (not directed at anyone here).

It was not an uncommon catchcry for the Republican lobby, and honestly it just smacked of bloody laziness. In fact it was relying on bloody laziness of the electorat to buy that catchcry.

I hope I like your suggestions, or at least find them thought provoking.

The GG is a rubber stamp appointed by the government and recommended by the PM.

Clearly the head of government ie; the PM is the most powerful politician in the country.

freediver wrote on Aug 6^th, 2008 at 9:27am:


You mean like the 'Cate Blanchett for Queen' republican model?