Australians want an elected Head of State: The 1999 referendum was not decided on the issue of whether Australia should have a powerless Head of State. Under proposed section 59, the bi-partisan appointment model handed the reserve powers to the President. It established a Head of State with actual power, where the current Head of State (the Queen) is powerless.
If anything, the 1999 referendum was about abandoning the notion of a powerless Head of State.
Looking into the 1999 NO case, the 10 reasons were: Instant dismissal; Parliamentary Appointment; Ain\'t broke; 69 untried changes; Divisive/Republicans divided; Australia already independent; Not beneficial; A job for life; No secret deals; Job for former MP\'s. In the NO case, at best, the powers of the President where indirectly referred to under reason 1: \"An umpire needs to be independent\" however this was about retaining the existing powers of the GG. In survey after survey, the GG\'s existing powers are regarding as sufficient by the majority.
The crucial issue for voters is establishing a Head of State who is elected by the people. In contrast to your post, a model which provides an elected Head of State is markedly distinguished from and superior to the status quo.
Using the words \"no change at all\" is an exageration for any republican model. Even the McGarvie Model represents profound change. That now said, I do want to elect our Head of State (change). I do want the Head of State able to support and benefit Australia (more change). I do want a Head of State who is independent of the PM (even more change).
The Copernican Group does go against the grain, because it recognises the Queen as the current Head of State of Australia, not the occupant of Yarralumla.
We are replacing the Queen. The Head of State is the Queen. Australia\'s links to the UK are through the Queen. Australia is a monarchy because of the... Queen. In a republic there is no...?
Comments