I agree with this article . The tired old cliche that the British crown symbolises national unity was never true . If it symbolised anything , in the early years of Federation , it symbolised , to some of the dominant group , the British , that Irish Australians [ the outsiders at that time ] were disloyal . Now , it symbolises nothing .
The only remaining significance of the British crown is that whenever a Governor General , or State Governor , needs to be appointed , the British monarch signs a piece of paper [ presented by the Prime Minister or Premier ] to appoint the recommended appointee .

The real reason the constitution was not changed, and never mind the author's muddled reasoning, is that there was no pressing need to do so. The bits left over from another era - the Queen technically appointing governor generals - may be anachronisms but they are harmless ones.

The only ones really keen on the change were activists who think in terms of ideological gestures.

As for Xenophobic, the author is recyling material from the Hanson campaigns of a decade and more ago. Did immigration get much play in the last Federal election? I don't recall so. In any case, our levels of immigration are the highest they have been since the 1950s. Perhaps the author should find some other bandwagon.

What stuff’n- nonsense, and weaker than water diatribe proffered in this article, as support to overthrow a perfectly stable and working model of Democracy and Royalist Government, that Australia displays to the world as example.

And, what lack of fact as truth. A typical “Hysteron Proteron” declaring peace at the pronouncement of a Republic, when we have peace already under the Royalist flag of Australia. so pathetically wrong and irrelevant in detail the argument continues: Calling on, as a primary argument for a republic, Aboriginal dislike to Australia day and all it stands for: Calling on a flawed view of American history, implying the genocide of the North American Aboriginal was entirely due to British expansionism on the American Continent, as an assumed truth; drawing an impossible correlation between the Genocide of Aboriginals, co-incidentally under the Royalist flag of England in Australia, to the genocide of North American Aboriginals, co-incidentally in the hey-day of a murderous pogrom, under the American republican banner of the era, and not actually the flag of England, on the American Continent.

The truth of the matter is, Genocide continues under whatever banner flutters over the bloodbath of death of native cultural destruction at the time, irrespective of the politic of the Nation. Republics are historically and notoriously unstable and inclined to advance the interest of dictators well before the citizens. Are more inclined to be ruled by military regimes and to use military muscle against its people, than has been proved to happen under Royalist rule; especially one, as example, ruled over for such period as ours. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, most definitely no republican instability for Australia thank you

Dear David, or should I say Oh dear David?

Your assertion that somehow all the problems you mention will be fixed by a republic is really, really silly. Secondly, if it ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it. Thirdly, you conveniently confuse the “Crown” with the “royal family”, naughty, naughty. And finally, we live in a democracy and the Australian people have twice said NO THANKS. What part of this don’t you understand and what part of our democracy do you represent?
.

It is my view that only one profession would benefit from an Australian Republic that is the legal profession. Oh boy! Oh boy! How the dollars will roll in as one set of lawyers squabble with another set over all the problems mentioned by the author and many more. For instance, there is the almost impossible problem of reconciling the six state legal systems with the great new republic? Then there is the perennial question of how the president will be appointed?
More and more material to boost legal incomes

The current state of politics, should tell you there needs to be big changes. I think we can have a republic without any over the top expenditure. There does not have to be a revolution, just get rid of the monarchy stamp, and be identified as Australians. Long overdue referendum. [Does AU want to be a republic.]

What a disgustingly misleading article, typical of the condescension, sneer and anglophobic prejudice we read from the pen of Mr Donovan.

David Donovan blames the British for the oppression of Aborigines, well sadly a hell of a lot of Aboriginals were oppressed by Aussies, whether we like to admit it or not.

The early Australian republicans around the time of Federation were also Australia's greatest racists.

The entrenched republicanism of "The Bulletin" magazine also had as its founding credo "Australia for the White man".
At the time of the implementation of the White Australia Policy it was the British who objected most strongly to this racism, which was a condition imposed by the Australian Labor Party for joining in coalition (with the Protectionists ?) in the first Australian national government.

NSW Labor luminary, Jack Lang, was writing in praise of the WAP until about the mid 20th century.

As for Donovan's most ridiculous claims that an Australian republic will virtually solve all outstanding problems with multiculturalism, well nothing could be further from the truth if you just read the nationalist rantings of many republicans.
Australia, as a constitutional monarchy, shares the sovereign with a number of different countries with significant populations of non-anglo ethnic groups including polynesians (NZ), melanesian (Papua New Guinea) Caribbean-Africans and so on.
What could be more multicultural than that ?

David Donovan again resorts to untruths, ridiculous cliches, distortions, anglophobia and sneering condescension against those of us who support our modern, working, successful Constitutional Monarchy.

An interesting article. I am ambivalent about the republican issue, as I'm quite happy with my life as it is and the nation as it is. If people want change, that's fine - as long as it is thought-out and minimally disruptive change.

One question I have, though, concerns the assertion that until we become a republic "our entire national structure is inherently unstable". How?

Otokonoko, Friday, 18 February 2011 7:00:36 PM asked "One question I have, though, concerns the assertion that until we become a republic "our entire national structure is inherently unstable". How?"

A good question, Otokonoko.
The simple, straightforward and truthful answer is that it's not at all "inherently unstable".

The suggestion that it is unstable is simply another deliberate and outrageous republican lie by David Donovan.

If you want an example of inherently unstable national structures, then there are any number of republics to look at.

eventually, a republic will be fine but it won't work if the current republic pushers have anything to do with it. Wait for the next ten year coalition government to make Australia a republic after much of the leftie brainwashing has had its day.
I am confident that eventually Australians will wake up & make informed decisions.

Another piece of simplistic drivel.
Allow me to correct it in a 20th of the space:

-Pauline Hanson's stance against Asians is partly racist xenophobia, part percieved cultural incompatability with Asian arrivals.

-Fears regarding Islamic arrivals and Somalis are based on broadly widespread reports and alleged claims of widespread hostility and crime by members of those communities towards Australia, refusal to integrate, and secularist fear of uneducated dogmatic adherents to fundamentalist religion, due to expression of extremist views (hilali), such as endorsement for Sharia law.

-Cronulla Riots, widely covered by news on the first few days, was based on a hostile 'uprising' based on grief of harassment and assaults claimed by Cronulla residents perpetrated by Islamic youth, set off by a lynching of a lifeguard.

All of these, have been met with lazy stereotyping, spin and slogans- just like this article.

Becoming a republic will not change a single one of these situations- from general racism and xenophobia to secularist backlash against backwards, tribalistic wahabis.
The only way to combat these are to actually
1- dispel any falsely-laid perceptions
2- ensure that people that DO correspond to these perceived flaws are not let into the country, not accommodated here, and encouraged to leave.

It's sad how these debates can't distinguish between "White Australia" xenophobia, multiculturalism, and "accommodating anti-secular, anti-western, criminally-inclined, and religious fundamentalists".

I'm rather shocked at the types of people that actually have a more specific perspective on the issue.

-Pauline Hanson's stance against Asians is partly racist xenophobia, part percieved cultural incompatability with Asian arrivals.

shouldn't that read like this ?

Pauline Hanson's stance against Asians is based on evidence of racist xenophobia by them and their cultural unwillingness to be compatible with Australians.

That's what I perceived her as saying.

Well, I was trying to say "percieved (by her and similar-feeling persons) cultural incompatibilities with "Asians":

As even 'mainstream' Australians have substantially different cultural norms to each other (between Darwin, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Sydney, Melbourne etc) I can't exactly say on their behalf (by referring to my own culture and comparing it instead) if THEIR culture corresponds enough to those migrating from overseas or not.

And that goes from everything- down to how groups of people move along footpaths, traffic customs, situations where people are talkative or quiet, littering, ettiquite, anything can rub someone the wrong way.

Either which way, the issue of xenophobia is not some idiotic superficiality like whether we are a republic or not, like the author wants to believe.
Of course, by him making such stupid statements, we ensure that people who ARE xenophobic, and ARE dumb enough to think the notion is true, will have another reason to actively scuttle the next proposal.

Well, I was trying to say "percieved (by her and similar-feeling persons) cultural incompatibilities with "Asians":
King Hazza,
Wrong again. Not incompatabilities with Asians, it's by Asians.

Go to Cabramatta & you'll find it to be Asians incompatible with others. See if Gough Whitlam still lives in Church St. He should be able to speak with his new neighbors by now.
But before you jump up & down it should be pointed out that most Asians are far more inclined to assimilate than those from the middle east. You see the situation changes every decade or so. Just wait for an uprising in South America or Africa & it'll be them who'll wear that crown. It just happened to be a lot of Asians in Pauline Hanson's time. I would like to see a republic model which accommodates every minority group & induces them to harmonize with each other here. Where will the Australian Indigenous stand in a republic ? will they have equal rights & equal responsibility ? Even more important, will a Republic need more Public Servants or less ?

There's an interesting link that lists the pros and cons of having an Australian Republic. It might be worth a read:

http://www.actnow.com.au/Issues/Australian_republic_debate.aspx.

Do we need to change our system of government to properly reflect our independence as a nation? The link provides both sides of the argument.