miketrees wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:45pm:

You need to read Bams post, he clearly says they will have a choice between the current and new designs.

If we become a Republic the curtains shall surely fade.

If you think that way,,, just go off and get some help for yourself , no need to drag us through a load of unnecessary work

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:14pm:

Really? Who swears him in? To whom does he pledge allegiance? Who signs bills into Acts of Parliament? Who holds reserve powers?

miketrees wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 1:52pm:

Oh so lets not do it because it doesn't meet your argument?
How do you know it could not be an option?
Even if it wasn't the majority should rule,son.  If you don't like that there is always mother England waiting to embrace you. Oh that's right, you're not even allowed to work there anymore unless you are one of them, they don't want those scum Aussies going over and taking all the pommy jobs now do they?

Since the British stopped sending out Brits to be GG, and legislation stopped in Canberra, I have not been interested in the Republic issue.  The problem with a new flag is that it is almost bound to be changed in bad taste.

Look at all the new flags around the world. Most of them have nothing to do with Flag design. I will vote for a Republic only when the right model is presented. That does not include a President elected by politicians.

I want a President by popular election.

I want a flag that is flag, and not a 3rd World petrol station logo. It must be able to lose a third of its flying side and still be recognized.

The coinage has to be rationalized into sizes, values, and weight closer to the American categories. The heavy 20 and 50 cent pieces have to go.

There must be no mention of race in the Constitution other than their equality.

There are other legislative issues which are almost certain to get tangled, but only if the above items are guaranteed will I consider voting for a Republic.

issuevoter wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 2:03pm:


Our current Head of State isn't elected.

You want our Republic's HOS to be elected by a popular vote, but you have no problem with the current HOS being born into the position.

Why is that?

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2016 at 2:07pm:

True. And constitutional monarchies that belong to the nation they serve are likely to have an excellent track record of using those reserve powers well and are respected for it (such that they are reserve powers outside the Westminster system).

Two good (and respected) examples

      Emperor Hirohito - Ordering the Japanese to surrender (no Japanese commoner could have achieved the same result as quickly).
      King Juan-Carlos of Spain - The Spanish 1981 attempted coup.

One (disrespected) example -

     Vice-Regal John Kerr - The Palace would not comment or intervene - Say no more.

A model for appointing an Australian President (other than by direct election) ?

A 'Sovereign Council' - Say, an eleven member council of Australian 'elders' who do not hold political office (and are ineligible to be appointed or remain on the Sovereign Council if they hold or intend to hold political office) who are appointed to the council by Parliament. The councillors nominate (say every 5 years) an appropriate Australian for President. If the nominee accepts his nomination, the nominee is ratified by Parliament and becomes Australian president for a fixed term.

The Sovereign Council nominates and can recommend to Parliament the dismissal of the President, which has legal effect on ratification by Parliament.