Eh, Greg, not sure about whether a better knowledge of our so-called democracy could make much difference to our prestige
right now. Regarding out British heritage, should not it be of lower priority at present with non British immigrants having been arriving for years, added on recently in WA with the demand for skilled workers from countries such as India et al.

Further, as regards our British Queen in this discussion, one wonders knowing her proven sensible personality whether she might feel better left out of it.

Also as we are now depending so much on China for future income from both coal and iron ore, it is well to be noted that China is still a Communist country with long memories about the Boxer Rebellion - the concern being that it was mainly Britain speaking for Western nations generally who demanded yearly reparations from China for having messed up what was known in those days as the Principle of Global Free Trade.

I am hoping some of the learned souls who read this may be able to help.

Whay can't we just excise references to the Queen from the Consitution ? Couldn't we put that to a vote ?

Let's get the priorities right. What does it matter who the Governor General or the Governor is vis-a-vis the one trillion dollars owed by Australians - equivalent to $ 125 000 per household - to the banks. The day is coming when those institutions will foreclose and many, now so secure, will be suprised to find themselves at public soup kitchens if not at Vinnies asking for a food voucher.
Let's get the shorter history of Australia right for once!
Billy Macmahon's government was the last which ensured Australia fiscally made its way in the world. The Whitlam/Barnard diumvirate cut tariffs across the board by 25 %. We can't be sure why a noble soul such as Lance would do such a horrid thing without consulting parliament, but the history books tell us that the young Edward Whitlam was very embittered when his father took away his piano lessons during the depression so that the Whitlams senior could feed the out of work off the family table. In revenge Whitlam would deny Australia - in the future a stable middle class.
In order to wind up his morally bankrupt administration, or at least to arrange some magnificent fall from grace, the highly prescient Whitlam - QC remember - made an on-the-spot decision to select John Kerr as the future Governor General of whom Whitlam knew - having studied psychology at Sydney Uni before he commenced law - that he could topple into sacking a PM. Otherwise who cares who belongs to the bunyip aristocracy.

The elites of Australia whose first ambition is power rather than being shepherds over the flock delight in having ordinary Aussies crow or study to crow about knowledge of shallow constitutional niceties while real job opportunities sufficient to pay for a house without gambling on the interest market disappear daily.

Allright, i'll take the bait.

'In short, it is the Australian people who would be deciding the what, when and how of constitutional reform, not the Australian Parliament.'

Ha yeah right.

With the Aus population seeing an increase in Laborphiles on a daily basis, it wont be long before the need for the republicans will simply be to dictate the terms of the "Australian republic" as they see fit. There wont be much need of plebs and referendums for we will be convinced by the agitprop of its need. So, a great deal of the process will be skipped over, and the whole thing will bounce through the court of public opinion and on to an established fact.

Greg Barns is correct though in writing his article with the rehtoric of fait acomplie

This (the change in our national politics) will happen because that is just what the Autocratic Council of Totalitarian Underdogs want. A monoparty, two tiered, Socialist State. One in which the peasants will be shut off from the mechanations of State. Some of us will only be allowed to pay the Gentry Services Tax; and wont be allowed to pay income tax.

And thats just for starters.

Response to WesternRed who asks "I am hoping some of the learned souls who read this may be able to help. Why can't we just excise references to the Queen from the Constitution ? Couldn't we put that to a vote?"

I am very glad to be of help.

In the Australian constitution, the Queen is mentioned in 20 sections. In most of these sections, the reference to the Queen is unimportant. For example it says "Queen's ministers", "royal assent" and "Queen's army and navy". There are two sections which explain discuss appeals to the privy council.

All of these references to the Queen can be removed without any affect on the actual operation of the constitution or government.

The section where this cannot be done is section 2. This explains how the governor-general is appointed and it can only be done by the Head of State. Some of the state constitutions have an equivalent section.

In the last referendum, it was said that the parliament should perform this function, but the people rejected this option.

Along with a majority of Australians, I believe it would be far better for a direct-elected Head of State to perform this function of the Queen.

Thank you David Latimer.

Not to be contrary but wouldn't our system function exactly as it is now if the Constitution was changed so that the Governor General was Head of State in place of the Queen ?