Premiers, ministers unite to sign declaration calling for Australian head of state

[Looper]

All but one of Australia's state premiers and chief ministers have signed a declaration calling for an Australian head of state.

They signed a declaration that states: "We, the undersigned premiers and chief ministers of Australia, believe that Australian should have an Australian as our head of state."

Peter FitzSimons from the Australian Republican Movement said the declaration was timed for tomorrow's Australia Day, along with an online petition.

He said all bar Western Australian Premier Colin Barnett had signed the statement.

"We thought what better time to make [the] affirmation of the strength of feeling there is within the 21st century," Mr FitzSimons said.

"2016, it is time to get moving, and I must say I was thrilled by how enthusiastic the premiers were.

"All of Australia's political leaders now support an Australian head of state, including [Prime Minister] Malcolm Turnbull and [Opposition Leader] Bill Shorten.

"Never before have the stars of the Southern Cross been so aligned in pointing to the dawn of a new republican age for Australia."

The Australian Republican Movement said nearly 4,000 people had signed the petition for an Australian head of state.

Premiers, chief ministers unite to sign declaration calling for Australian head of state - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

[kingwilly]

nearly 4,000 people

They probably thought they were signing up for some free frequent flyer points.

[lom]

Are they trying to break free from being a vassal state?

[Hans Mann]

What's wrong with the current warden?

[AntRobertson]

Peter FitzSimons

I wonder if that's Peter 'Author, Journalist, Former Wallaby' FitzSimons?

Funny and hell of a nice guy.

[Edit: Ahh, Google tells me that it is. Interesting, didn't know he was into all of that]

[sabang]

So, it's back on again- only a matter of time anyway. Turnbull is a strong Republican, and of course a whole lot of vapid media celebrities will be wheeled out to make this sexy PR campaign, full of aussie beaches, aussie sheila's, happy smiling abo's, sports stars, and yeh- ozzie,ozzie,ozzie. Jingoism to the max- but will they learn from their previous lesson, when the Referendum failed miserably? Otherwise there is a good chance it will fail again, and we'll just have the same old sour grapes and bitterness thrust down our throats in the media, from the same old sore losers.

The Australian political sector wanted to grant itself the right to appoint an Australian President (or equivalent), with no recourse to the Australian people. The Australian people do not want that- they want to have their say, and fair enough too. No amount of glitzy PR, ditzy celebrities, and nauseating jingoism was able to change that last time- and I have my doubts it would be the case this time either. It's not a panic right- we don't exactly have a hostile or interventionist Head of State, rather a benign figurehead. So get it right, and give the People their say. Then it will likely pass- but as things stand, this is a wrestling match between a self-entitled political sector, and the 'great mass of the people'. The aussie Prime Minister gets paid more than the Potus, you know- there is a wide perception in Australia that they have granted themself more than enough bluddy Privilege. Considering the country has had the last three elected PM's overturned by internal political machinations, Not the will of the people as expressed by the popular vote, I most certainly side with the People in this regard.

[VocalNeal]

Are they trying to break free from being a vassal state?

Maybe...

But a pound to a pinch of sh1t each of the 5 fancies themselves for the job.

Salary, company house, company cars, company aircraft, free overseas travel. etc..better pension, place in history...

[jamescollister]

There is a lot more to it, then dumping the Queen and appointing a parasite to replace her.
If the people can't directly elect the president and a president with power of veto over the government, plus an new constitution I say no.
Politicians [republican] and their rich backers, don't want a directly elected president with power either.

This has nothing to do with, what's best for Australia, but lots to do with mineral rights, IMF and World bank loans.

It's a big subject and the OZ people will not be informed of the possible outcomes of having a government, that controls everything.
Today it's the Royal Australian Army/Navy/Air force etc tomorrow, they may not need the Queens permission to put them on the streets.

International loans, can be taken on the countries assets by a republic, which they can't do now.
If you fail to make the interest payments on those loans, IMF, World Bank, will then own those assets.

So until I see some honest politicians, who put the interests of the country first [which will be never] my votes NO.

[Iceman123]

Will all Thai rubber farmers get a vote?

[jamescollister]

Will all Thai rubber farmers get a vote?

Just the sort of intelligent response, I'd expect from you.

[VocalNeal]

My vote then go to Neville from the Top End