"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!).

We must be scraping the bottom of the Barrell if, "A major reason for an Australian republic is to aid the further development of a distinct and unique Australian identity", is being seriously advanced for becoming a Republic.

As we are not presently a Republic , does it then stand that we don't have a "distinct and unique Australian identity' ?

If we do have one then perchance we found it under a cabbage plant in the garden ?

Anyone who suggests we DON'T have a distinct and real national/cultural identity is probably not "Australian".

Why must there be another national identity? Historically, it seems to me the main expression of strong national identities has been the willingness to go and kill those who don't share that national identity. Creating a strong national identity preserves a bloody, brutal past. Instead of killing the enemies of the British Empire we can extend our bloodiness to kill all non-Australians.

Rather than creating a strong national identity I would explore what we have in common with other humans on this planet without considering what national boundaries surround them. Europe is creating a European community partially due to the recognition of the misery that strong national identities produced in the past. I think it much wiser that nations become merely convenient administrative units.

Australia’s national personality is barren of overtly romanticised and sentimentalised national fervour because the nation is relatively new, born in 1901 with the stroke of a pen, not the bloodied thrust of the sword. That disposition is just fine for the descendants of British settlers whom have been established here for at least 4 or 5 generations, which in present days I guesstimate to be at least 70 to 75% of the population. Eventually, in approximately 20 years with natural attrition and multiculturalism that Britishness will be diluted down to less than 50%. Is that good or bad, I dunno.

A characteristic of the British inheritance is a wariness of nationalistic displays which is the opposite of patriotism which is strong......but there remains a cringe factor when it comes to passionate displays of the flag such as flying the flag in your front yard, wearing it as a cape during xenophobic demonstrations or flying the flag from your car whilst driving around. That sort of nationalistic display is wholly assimilated from US movies and in the US is mainly exhibited by newly naturalised immigrants from mainland Europe. I suspect that is also the same here in Australia.

Encouraging patriotism and downplaying nationalism are policies that I would support, so what is patriotism and nationalism? That’s a hard one to define; the simplest way for me to explain would be to impose the qualities of each onto a human personality. A nationalist would be someone like Adolf Hitler loyal to the nation but with all the symbolism of offensive actions, violence, war and xenophobia’s, whereas a patriot would be someone like Mahatma Gandhi still loyal to the nation but with the symbolism of defensive actions, non-violence, peace and tolerance.

Ethnicity is a huge factor and takes many centuries for states to develop separate ethnicities. In the past different ethnicities developed between communities because of distance/isolation and the lack of daily communication. These are no longer factors in 21st century Australia with either US or UK culture impacting just about everything 24/7. Australian ethnicity can presently only apply to native indigenes.

Establishing an Australian identity is not one of the major reasons why this country should become a republic. We already have an identity, like it or hate it, and it changes over time, influenced dramatically by the results of the immigration programs.

Becoming a republic had more to do with political independence and taking the necessary steps to maturity as a nation. Cutting the apron strings with Mother England should happen and must happen before that can occur.

And Leigh.......having a GG costs this country a significant amount. For example,

TAXPAYERS have been left with a $700,000 bill from Governor-General Quentin Bryce's controversial 18-day trek to 10 African countries earlier this year.

Even if she doesn't go on an overseas jaunt, she costs us

Ah, Reductio Ad Hitlerum, commonly known as Godwin's law, ie Nationalism is bad because Hitler used it as one of his motifs, just as he used Socialism.
Following that logic Dogs and children are bad because Hitler was fond of them, vegetarianism and opera too since he was interested in both subjects.
Every country has Nationalist and National Socialist styled movements, so should we, don't like it don't vote for it.
Tell the Arabic Baathists, the BJP, the Mongolians,Dagestanis, Russians, Hungarians and Venezuelans (to name a few) to give up their Nationalists/National Socialist styled groups.
That's the irony, so called White Nationalists have millions if not Billions of potential allies and sympathisers among the other Races, where Leftists do not.
We have Arabic youth in Belgium giving roman salutes to media cameras and kids in Ulan Bator spraying Swastikas on walls while "Skinheads" in China decorate their flats with Third Reich propaganda
Ha Ha.

I'm looking forward to the book which puts Julia Gillard's ascension to the office of Prime Minister in perspective. As with the Governor-General, several justices of the High Court and around ten per cent of Australian executives, women are gaining work experience in men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees in the final stages of the transition over the past century from patriarchy to equal rights governance. After all, the men who established Australia's legislatures never intended they would be anything other than men's legislatures to which women are admitted under supervision. Women would have to wait until they gained sufficient experience before they could have legislatures of their own. Sufficient is the present, the tipping point has been reached. All that remains is to align the instruments of governance with the predilection of the people. A referendum held this weekend on an equal rights republic governed by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees to set a standard of equality for all nations would receive overwhelming support because there's hardly anyone left in Australia who doesn't support equal rights between women and men. I'd write the book myself but lack the literary skills to assemble thousands of words which can be summed up in a single paragraph.

The topic is much bigger than Julia Gillard and the recent shennagins of parliament.
Please dont diminish the literary and cultural history of my country.
Australian identity waseasier to identify in theprevious decade or two but with the arrival of millions of Asians recently it has become more complex. No attempt to identify the present Australian identoty can ignore current history.
Australian literature was written principally by white Anglo-Saxon Australian with liberal contributions from eastern and southern immigrantsbut now it has been considerably expanded, enriched and nuanced by contributions by Asian writers and growing indigenous contributions. It too reflects the complex we are attempting to identify in brief. It can't be done that way.
As for the Dream of becoming a Republic, there is far too strong a Monarchist hurdle to overcome. Too hard. This obtuseness itself also is therefore a part of our contemporary history.

socratease

Since Australia was the first modern democracy to allow women the right to be elected to parliament, the global leader in granting women the democratic right to representation in nationhood, albeit that election was not immediately forthcoming, socratease, and presuming you are Australian, gender equality is a founding and inalienable characteristic of "your" country if you didn't already know. Gender trumps race. If relations between women and men proceed from a foundation of equality so too do demographics comprised of women and men, which is why Australia has accepted ethnic diversity so readily. As to the monarchy, with an equal rights republic what greater honour than for Her Majesty to pass sovereignty to an executive presiding over the first women's legislature of the modern era.