What a disgustingly misleading article, typical of the condescension, sneer and anglophobic prejudice we read from the pen of Mr Donovan.

David Donovan blames the British for the oppression of Aborigines, well sadly a hell of a lot of Aboriginals were oppressed by Aussies, whether we like to admit it or not.

The early Australian republicans around the time of Federation were also Australia's greatest racists.

The entrenched republicanism of "The Bulletin" magazine also had as its founding credo "Australia for the White man".
At the time of the implementation of the White Australia Policy it was the British who objected most strongly to this racism, which was a condition imposed by the Australian Labor Party for joining in coalition (with the Protectionists ?) in the first Australian national government.

NSW Labor luminary, Jack Lang, was writing in praise of the WAP until about the mid 20th century.

As for Donovan's most ridiculous claims that an Australian republic will virtually solve all outstanding problems with multiculturalism, well nothing could be further from the truth if you just read the nationalist rantings of many republicans.
Australia, as a constitutional monarchy, shares the sovereign with a number of different countries with significant populations of non-anglo ethnic groups including polynesians (NZ), melanesian (Papua New Guinea) Caribbean-Africans and so on.
What could be more multicultural than that ?

David Donovan again resorts to untruths, ridiculous cliches, distortions, anglophobia and sneering condescension against those of us who support our modern, working, successful Constitutional Monarchy.

An interesting article. I am ambivalent about the republican issue, as I'm quite happy with my life as it is and the nation as it is. If people want change, that's fine - as long as it is thought-out and minimally disruptive change.

One question I have, though, concerns the assertion that until we become a republic "our entire national structure is inherently unstable". How?

Otokonoko, Friday, 18 February 2011 7:00:36 PM asked "One question I have, though, concerns the assertion that until we become a republic "our entire national structure is inherently unstable". How?"

A good question, Otokonoko.
The simple, straightforward and truthful answer is that it's not at all "inherently unstable".

The suggestion that it is unstable is simply another deliberate and outrageous republican lie by David Donovan.

If you want an example of inherently unstable national structures, then there are any number of republics to look at.

eventually, a republic will be fine but it won't work if the current republic pushers have anything to do with it. Wait for the next ten year coalition government to make Australia a republic after much of the leftie brainwashing has had its day.
I am confident that eventually Australians will wake up & make informed decisions.

Another piece of simplistic drivel.
Allow me to correct it in a 20th of the space:

-Pauline Hanson's stance against Asians is partly racist xenophobia, part percieved cultural incompatability with Asian arrivals.

-Fears regarding Islamic arrivals and Somalis are based on broadly widespread reports and alleged claims of widespread hostility and crime by members of those communities towards Australia, refusal to integrate, and secularist fear of uneducated dogmatic adherents to fundamentalist religion, due to expression of extremist views (hilali), such as endorsement for Sharia law.

-Cronulla Riots, widely covered by news on the first few days, was based on a hostile 'uprising' based on grief of harassment and assaults claimed by Cronulla residents perpetrated by Islamic youth, set off by a lynching of a lifeguard.

All of these, have been met with lazy stereotyping, spin and slogans- just like this article.

Becoming a republic will not change a single one of these situations- from general racism and xenophobia to secularist backlash against backwards, tribalistic wahabis.
The only way to combat these are to actually
1- dispel any falsely-laid perceptions
2- ensure that people that DO correspond to these perceived flaws are not let into the country, not accommodated here, and encouraged to leave.

It's sad how these debates can't distinguish between "White Australia" xenophobia, multiculturalism, and "accommodating anti-secular, anti-western, criminally-inclined, and religious fundamentalists".

I'm rather shocked at the types of people that actually have a more specific perspective on the issue.

-Pauline Hanson's stance against Asians is partly racist xenophobia, part percieved cultural incompatability with Asian arrivals.

shouldn't that read like this ?

Pauline Hanson's stance against Asians is based on evidence of racist xenophobia by them and their cultural unwillingness to be compatible with Australians.

That's what I perceived her as saying.