It started with Racism, it is the British Monarchy not English. Then meanders into technology having changed a bit. My only question, has the author changed its surname or continued with an outdated allegiance to an outmoded parents name, it is time to invent a new one and cut the shackles! How can it be truly independent when using some others name?

This bloke has been in the entertainment industry, the fantasy world, all his life.

This bit of bumph proves he's still there, & will not be coming out into reality any time soon.

I am happy with most of the first half of this contribution but see the second part as largely a non sequitur. There is only one present problem, that our head of state is not seen as an 'Australian', though I am confident that the formal legal view is that in some respects she is. It really is quite a minor problem. But to try to solve it by moving away from a constitutional monarchy and to some other model like a republic creates a new problem and in my view a much larger one - what will be the selection process? None of the recent writings on that topic make me more sanguine. Especially alarming is the apparent support I have noticed recently for an aboriginal head of state. Can one imagine 97% of Australian parents telling their children that they can be anything they want - except head of state?

No, that's not the solution. But there is a simple answer that is perfectly in accord with our times. Outsource the function of head of state. Outsource it to a reliable service provider that has demonstrated consistent performance over several generations, that has a tradition of political neutrality and discretion, and that has demonstrated transparent procedures for appointing successors. Outsource it to the House of Windsor.

Well, Ian, as a third generation Australian, 3 parts British, and 1 part German, I have never called England 'home'. Nor have I questioned why we have an English head of state - because we have no such thing. The Queen of England is severally and separately, as well as constitutionally, Queen of Australia. And, while I am not an ardent monarchist, I am very happy with the current situation: particularly now, when we are subject to assaults from within and from without by a vicious organisation intent on removing our long-standing traditions, values, religion, and beliefs from us. The only people able to influence Australia are Australians and our democratically elected goverments.

Ian Nance doesn't seem to comprehend the essence of the Australian political system, by discarding the titular head of state that we have for an elected head of state. Somehow that role will be apolitical and be elected by popular vote. The overheads would be enormous and that person would be answerable to whom? We saw the behaviour of John Kerr was reprehensible, such that he was sacked. What would we do with a president Tony Abbott?

McCackie, indeed, perhaps the communist should also move forwards from 1917?

Hasbeen, too true, the Arts, Entertainment, Media & Education industries are the worst of all. We should not listen to any of them.

Tombee, well said.

ttbn, right again.

deadly, wow, a leftist concerned about governments wasting tax payers money, who wudda thunk it?

Our constitution is one of the best in world history. it is us who fail it by not being as active politically as we should be.