“On a purely practical level…” the author should be considering not what a few foreigners think of our “constitutional arrangements”, but what the monetary cost of dumping the monarchy would be.

While it has to be doubted that these foreigners the author so worries about do find confusion and ‘mirth’ in the Union Jack in the corner of our flag, that tiny piece of the Australian flag recognises our foundations and, still, most of our heritage.

Like most monarchists, the author dumps on our true heritage in favour of a hotchpotch of multiculturalism when most of the hotchpotch came to Australia for our legal system and way of life and freedoms, all of which are based on British law and the Westminster system.

Australia is a different country from Britain – a big improvement in many ways – and so there is a difference in attitudes to the Queen.

Republicans like to refer to Elizabeth 11 as “the Queen of England”; but she is separately, legally and differently also the Queen of Australia.

As for the ‘confusion’ the author’s foreign friends suffer, in relation to the similarities between the NZ flag and our own, anyone with average eyesight can tell them apart by the red borders the NZ flag has around the stars. How many people take notice of different flags,anyway.


As far as Australians are concerned, the Governor General is our head of state; the Queen does not “represent” us in any way whatsoever – she is a mere symbol even in Britain. We don’t have the distasteful class system here, and it is clear to all members of the royal family that we have no respect whatsoever for that nonsense.

We have more to do with that most famous of republics, the United States of America. What sort of state should we call ourselves to disassociate ourselves from the obvious faults of that republic, Mr. Keys. Or, perhaps, we don’t have to do that because you are merely anti-British, and want to heap more unnecessary expense on taxpayers to get what you want?

This article trots out the standard undergraduate arguments for becoming the republic we already are. The author doesn't bother to understand our present system and its advantages and offers instead the blue sky prospects of some undefined nirvana ... or possibly, the depths of drastic changes to our governing with myriad unintended consequences.

He trots out the old "Queen of England" line when he knows (or should) there is no such office and hasn't been for some centuries now - so much for his attempt to educate us. Do please check your facts first.

How about this dilemma - "how would the monarchy resolve a serious dispute between Britain and Australia?" Answer to stupid - the monarchy doesn't solve problems - politicians do, and the Queen stays wonderfully aloof. She stays out of politics, and that is how it should be.

He's also wrong on the GG lacking clout. Simply put, the GG can be requested to spend lots of time overseas, building contacts and enhancing our reputation, being always received as our head of state (royal guard of honour, 21 gun salute, met by the head of government etc). But why doesn't this happen now? Well just ask the politicians who like to do all that stuff themselves strutting the world stage. Then just ask whether the politicians would be grateful of a powerless(?) but fully representative Australian President strutting the stage (with appropriately long retinue) and lapping up the attention they want for themselves.

Note to republicans - tell us the actual changes you want to make and then start the debate. Don't just browbeat us with vapid, mushy air-headded statements about how wonderful it will all be when we are "independent".

As for the flag, I agree somewhat. Our flag is not instantly recognisable to a lot of foreigners. It never will be without a kangaroo. So talk of "our" Southern Cross (visible to the entire S. Hemisphere) is just as vapid. Our present flag was selected by the public after a competition. Do the same again and see what pops up.

Captain Col please go and live in Britain ,and there you can fawn all you want with your beloved Queen.

I understand that some do not like the monarchy - but what about the alternative?

The author summed it up, saying: "Our national identity will be better served by the arrangements described here"

In other words, if the current arrangements are removed, then nationalism in Australia will raise its ugly head.
This vague monarchy as we have now, like it or not, serves as a stop-gap against nationalism and its ultimate expression, Nazism.
How good to have a mechanism, illogical as it may be, to humiliate that sick urge for 'national identity'!

Ojnab, so that's the level of intellectual argument a standard (dare I suggest) "republican" can muster? Still waiting to fawn over your very own el presidente? We decided against that in 1999.

As a devoted Irish Republican, on that side of my heritage, may I say that as an Australian I fully support our current arangments and that the Union Flag in the hoist of our National Flag is entirely appropriate, except that it would be an improvement if the rather silly Cross of Saint Patrick was removed.