"A major reason for an Australian republic is to aid the further development of a distinct and unique Australian identity"

If that's going to be the justification you want to use, I fear it will never be more than mere sentiment.

Who actually wants a distinct Australian identity? Not any of the people who moved here in recent times who were encouraged to retain their own cultural identities so as to "add richness to the multicultural society" being developed here, not lose it.

The only identity evolving is one of hierarchy, who is most or least tolerant of those around them.

Who is demanding everyone else bend to their way while they dig in refusing to change in any way at all - those are the ones to watch, if you show weakness (tolerance) they will eat you alive.

The way things are going here, we will have a self imposed monarchy or at least a system of privilege, probably mostly based on sheer belligerence. Of course then you have the, "we were here first" so everyone else has to change and by the way, we still want to be in charge group.

What a mess this country is in finding an identity, multiculturalism is fine but it can't seem to co-exist with such lofty goals as the republican movement has.

Eventually I suspect that we will end up with a strongman in charge (King/emperor/president) , and his cultural group will then inflict their values on the rest of Australia and all the cherished little privileged pockets will suddenly find they no longer can use emotional methods to get their own way or retain their perks and rewards.

“An Australian republic will embrace our egalitarianism and the concept of a fair go ... It will recognise our British heritage and acknowledge its gifts, including our political and legal institutions ... It will unite all Australians behind an Australian Head of State.”

Yeah, right! Which multi-millionaire or 'BILLIONAIRE ' business person will the Australian sheeple be given the right to (se)elect?

The most important 'gift' from " .. our British heritage" is the Capitalist mode of (social) production, distribution and exchange of life's necessities and 'goods': yet like the so-called UNITED Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland, from the First Fleet INVASION onwards Australia was and remains a socially DIVIDED society ...er, sorry, ECONOMY, enabled entirely by the legal and political institutions 'gifted' to us by an Economy whose expensive-to-maintain titular head (and her disfunctional family) is one of the richest women in the world!

"We need to entrench in our national character all the things we love about our nation, but leave behind the rest, so we can move forwards as a strong, confident and united nation. ... The Australian Republican Movement expresses this very well in its policy statement ..."

Although also of British stock, unlike our convict(ed) boat people, the first caucasian Americans were Christian Protestants fleeing the oppressive and divisive politico-economic and religious system that was The British Empire.

One has only to look at the ideals expressed in the American Constitution which underpins that 'Free Market' Republic to see just how 'united' are the American people ... with its oligarchy of multi-millionaire "people's representatives" and billionaire corporate 'investors, entrepreueners and other 'players' standing in stark contrast to the hundreds of thousands of homless every night, the tens of millions of un-employed, under-employed (increasing daily), millions of illiterate citizens, and the 45 million or so who live in fear of serious injury or ill-health because they have no health insurance cover or insurance controlled by either their employer or the ruthless, profit-driven corporate 'executives' of giant HMOs!

Better stick to watching sport David - like your British and American counterparts.

Australia had a perfectly good identity before we had the obnoxious policy of multiculturalism undemocratically forced upon us. A republic would not restore that identity, nor would it give us a new one.

“The republic” (sounds as though it already exists) is ‘fiction’, as Australian voters pronounced at the last time the republic urgers had their referendum soundly rejected. And, ARM’s encouragement of writing on “Life and Death in the Australian Public” is encouraging more fiction: science fiction even, as the whole thing is a long time in the future, if it ever gets up at all.

David Donovan is right about Australians being foreigners in Britain, and that’s down to the Brits themselves. Their knowledge of Australia, despite the number of British migrants here is appalling: they are USA-like in their ignorance. But, whether he likes it or no, we will always be an “offshoot of Britain”. Despite the best efforts of rabid Left wing historians, our history cannot be re-written to that extent. And there is no proof whatsoever that the mere change to being a republic is going to suddenly do anything about the ‘identity’ of Australia. People would not feel any different just because Australia became a republic.

We are totally independent people who threw off our “Englishness” a long time ago. Even the Queen is not all that interested in us, but she has just made her 220th visit to Canada. She has bothered us very little, but her office and British settlement are an undeniable part of our history, and they do not cost us a red cent.

We should be outraged that this Donovan person regards us as a “…downtrodden outcast.” We are not, and we don’t need the expensive charade of a republic forced on us to prove what we are by social engineers like him and his cronies.

A major reason for becoming a republic is to get out from under the odious mantle of the biggest dysfunctional British royal family

socratease

Sorry David but Australia already has a very strong national identity, despite the many and varied attempts to warp or destroy it. It is just too bad for you and other leftists that this identity isnt to your liking.

"unique Australian identity".
My first question to this dubious proposition would be "why?" Why do we need a unique Australian identity? My next observation would be, "there ain't no such animal"; but in so much as the critter does exist, in some mythical stereotype, I'd have to say, "I don't like the bastard." He's a racist, sexist, red-necked pr!ck, and she's no better. Barbara Baynton wrote some of the best Australian portraits, and Henry Lawson was a close second. The sainted Banjo is largely responsible for this lingering infatuation with the Aussie legend; a load of romantic tosh. Not that the women got much romance out of it! And Les Murray; lovely evocative stuff, even if it is all bullsh!t. Peter Carey had no right to the Booker Prize, which should have gone that year to Ian McEwen's "Atonement".
"egalitarianism and the concept of a fair go" is another mythical beast, hiding out with the Bunyip and the Tasmanian Tiger.
I'm absolutely for republicanism, but beyond token recognition of an abominable past, I'd rather just start again.
I don't want to be united "behind an Australian head of state". I'd rather my voice counted as much as hers does.
But I fear I'm a bit off key.
Good grief, even the republicans in this invaded country are ultra-conservatives!
Altogether, Australia has nothing much to celebrate in terms of identity. A load of bloody wank (a fine Australian colloquialism that is, mind you!).