Yes, well there is a need to rid ourselves of our religious leader, Betty Windsor, and to take on a new format in Australia as a genuine democratic republic, of, by and for 'the people'.

Sadly, most of 'the people' are about as interested in this topic as they are in a losing Australian sports team, or speaking up for Lay-Down Sally.

Even Geoffrey Robertson runs a mile from calling for an end to the church and state nexus in his striving for a republic here.

And all those Catholic 'republicans', what on Earth are they doing in calling for a republic which still supports gods?

Heavens above!

No, there is simply no willingness to deal with what Mr Wallace raises, and a refusal to see the umbilical connections that we do suffer from with gods always sitting just above our politicians, not that their behaviour would show it.

.

Dear Max,

.

Well done, I couldn't agree more. Perhaps this article may be of interest to you:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9418

.

Strangely enough, if the Republicans cast a model that ensured some kind of Direct Democracy came to practice in Australia or New Zealand; with both nations having a majority of secularists, there would be NO issue or question if these countries were 'secular states' and it would show in policy.

I think, KIng Hazza, that we need to go to base camp here, and alter the Constitution to show very clearly that Australia is a secular nation.

Tax reform would need to flow, removing all tax rorts for religions (and quite a few other freeloaders too).

A republic would have to reflect the secular nature of the nation-state, which would, in effect, be a brand new one.

The Keating models, the Turnbull models, the Gillard models, are all fatally flawed and include God as the highest authority.

A secular nation-state would allow for gods, without elevating God to the pedestal.

NZ seems to be a bit more mature than Australia when it comes to politics.
Whilst I do like the idea of modernising our federation, which "side" of politics would you currently trust in Australia to perform the cut-over and to draft a new constitution?
Since Howard's culture wars and King Murdoch's ascension I don't believe there is any group that could pull it off.

Good point Ozandy, considering they are all just about to cave in to the moronic farmers who demand to drain all the river systems to keep the brussel sprouts growing to feed-the-world.

I might give the job to Windsor, a joy to see him rid us of his grandma's mob, but there seem to be few others there fit to join him.

It requires what Katter and Robbo thought they were bringing, a 'paradigm shift', and that will not come from above, nor, sadly, below either, but that is where it must start from.

A 'Tea Party'... (OK, a tongue in cheek comment there) to drive the enthusiasm for change can only be a popular movement, not a top-down political one.

They'd climb aboard, once they knew it was safe to do so, and their super was not under threat.

The Vatican's newspaper, The Australian, would, of course, oppose it all the way, and wish to install Prince Sheridan and Earl Kelly, perhaps with the Princess Shanahan all in the lead, fighting for God, Queen and the Vatican to remain in place.

They would, naturally, allow the Court Jester, Adams, to continue flogging his dead horse (Rudd) for everyone's amusement

Goes without Saying Blue Cross that none of the models put forward (that is, likely to end up in a referendum in the future) are remotely democratic enough either.

Though obviously I would absolutely delete every reference to God, prayer, etc in the constitution on principle.