In addition to the reasons given by Senator Singh , two other good reasons for changing Australia 's monarchical system are that it is demeaning to Australia 's status as an independent nation , and just plain silly .

The Queen can never be an Australian ,despite any monarchist descriptions of her as Queen of Australia . She and her progeny will always be hereditary aristocrats , chosen to perform their public roles for no reason other than accident of birth .

The British too should retire them permanently , but whether or not they do so , Australia should retire them from any role under the Australian constitution .

The only real function which the British monarch performs in Australia is to sign written instruments appointing the Governor General and State Governors . This adds nothing to Australia 's stability or democracy .

figure/heads of state
yes..the multihydra beast

lets go

""When our new democratic nation..."""

state

""was born out of..the federation movement, through...the granting of a yes..or no vote,..albeit one..with limited franchise.""

yep
the inside joke is it was 'only'' arround 37.000
what was eligable to vote..[ie had money/land]

ie the landed gentry
looking to give the rum corpse..another job..
now the abo-s..are terror/nullus-ed..into british peon-hood

""No other nation..in history had been created through the vote.""

isral was created by a colonisation letter
australia was created by colonisation licence
[..'under the rules and acts of war'[acording to georges order]

""More common were nations born out of war,
rebellions or great heroism.""

why ya avoiding colonisation?

like indonesia/iran/israel etc etc

""From that time on,..the constitution
has only been successfully amended,..through referenda,..eight times.""

and has become a symbol
or an act of the colonisation of yet other peoples lands
and installing them on farm prison camps or islands

death by poisening flour
and lead bullits..nothing like a nig ger hunt..eh wot?

pip pip and all that ol school tie
the faceless men..propping up a figure head
every dictaitor..is only the figure head front man

why is this front man important
ya can kill them...and put in your own man

again and again
heck its a right royal lie

thats why we write the wikseed/wikigeld treaty
but heck its wasted on those swallowing right to rule
or thinking the figure head/front man[woman]..is really running things

lol

Against my better judgement I will attempt to contribute to this discourse. (one under god - do you ever proof read what you write? Meaningless scribble to people who are time poor). Senator, I'm sure you mean well but I would just like to point out that the World is pretty chocka with Republics that make a mockery of anything approaching democratic values, so your point about only them having "the political institutions with which to etch out national values and a national identity" - whatever the hell that means - comes off a tad limp. I HATE to agree with John Howard about anything but he was right when he said this is a low, low (like limbo low) priority for Australia.

Do we need any sort of head of state? The head of state in Australia is generally a public figure and another mouth to feed at the public trough. If the ceremony is important enough the prime minister can go and generally does. For less important occasions the deputy prime minister or some designated person can represent the government. The US does without a head of state. It is enough to have a head of government. The head of state is a standin for a constitutional monarch. We need neither a constitutional monarch nor a standin for one.

david f, forgive me as I agree with most of what you say. But US does have HOS - Barack currently occupies that possie. The Leader of the House of Reps (lower house of Congress) is probably equivalent to our PM - but that's not really that important. Their HOS has power of Veto over Legislation and knows how to use it(ours does too but only in the theoretical sense - the GG would be out of their arse the second they even considered it). We have a pretty sensible, low stress arrangement - 1975 was a blip - whereas in the US they have all the SuperPAC and other funding issues that deliver a truly elitist electoral process that we really don't to replicate here (I hope).

Australians did for 50000 years without a head-of-state, so why this urgent need now? What a silly expense from our tax-money!

As for me, having received my Australian citizenship before 1994, I will remain loyal to my queen, whether she remains the Australian head of state or otherwise!
I didn't know her before, but being here I came to love her and no silly figure-head is going to change that!

I see a need for heads of state, Federal and State, for such occasions as when there is a deadlock in our parliamentary democratic system, which can best be resolved by an impartial office - as appointed by majority bi-partisan decision of both houses of the relevant parliament. (And to represent 'Australian', rather than 'political' values, in appropriate forums.) The key is impartiality, and a conviction to fairness, honesty, virtue and integrity (as well as intellectual acuity) - qualities unfortunately not always evident in our politicians.

Our heads of state are now all Australian - to counter just one of many pieces of deliberate mis-information by the author.

It is my understanding that our parliamentarians are supposed to look for and listen to the will of the people - but more and more (as this author clearly declares and demonstrates) our politicians are pursuing their own agendas, and utilising their offices to ram their ideas down the throats of the electorate - whether truly in the interests of the electorate and the nation or not.

We are proudly a part of the Commonwealth of Nations, and our closest ties and mindful associations are with Britain and the US/ Canada - as fundamentally commensurate Western democracies, and through sharing much in peace and in adversity (as well as colonial origins). We (as a majority) do not resile from this. The author's attempt to portray our national historical origins as being based on indigenous habitation and culture is farcical - given our current multicultural, economic and political nature, development and international stature. Honestly!

Some politicians have attempted to push Aus to be more Asian, to 'fit in' geographically, rejecting our hard-earned western cultural and political alliances. ASEAN and APEC see through such nonsense, and so does the majority of Australia. We may be multicultural, but people don't come to Aus because we are Asian, but because we are most definitely NOT.

Do West Papuans love Indonesia? Do Tibetans love Chinese occupation? Did Kevin Rudd not lose all credibility by trying to con China that Aussies wanted to be more Asian? Absolutely laughable!

Dear bitey,

Obama is not the head of state. In the US system unlike the Westminster system the executive is independent of the legislature.

The leader of the House of Representatives unlike the Australian prime minster does not have a cabinet under him which carries out the functions of government. His authority is confined to leading his party in making the laws and organising the House. There is also a senate whish the leader of the House has no authoriy over. The execution of those laws as well as the cabinet is under the executive who is currently Obama, head of government.

As far as the undesirability of the SuperPacs and other funding mechanisms I agree with you. In the US there is not the rigid party discipline that exists in Australia so legislators are freer to vote according to their conscience, the wishes of their constituents, the good of the US and the world and the welfare of special interests.

As a result corporations and other special interests contribute to individual pols rather than to the party as in Australia. In the US politicians are bought retail. In Australia those interests contribute directly to the party. Wholesale is cheaper than retails so SuperPacs are not necessary in Australia.

The US system is more democratic in the way candidates are selected. Instead of a preselection panel there are generally primaries in which all those registered to a party vote. Since it costs nothing to be a member of a party many more people can participate. In the US a small number of people cannot get rid of the president and replace him as was done to Rudd by the Gillard supporters.

I don't find the article very convincing. How does our current Westminster government stop us from engaging with Asian countries? It doesn't. How does it stop us from learning another language? It doesn't.
Republicans are usually those from the left who have an irrational dislike of anything British or Western. This alone should be enough to dismiss their aims.

Well the British did not do a very good job in the Middle East,after they had taken their slice of the resources. ie: Iraq, Iran, Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

Yuyutsu,
49881 to be precise. Btw does anyone know what Australia was called before it became a nation ?

"does anyone know what Australia was called before it became a nation ?"

That's a "have you stopped beating your wife?" type question:

Australia is a continent, and in it people (as well as kangaroos, etc.). That was also the case 10,000 and 20,000 years ago. Other than politicians babbling, has anything so profound in fact happened that turned them all into a "nation"?

Yuyutsu,
Are you implying that the invasion of this country hasn't brought more positives than negatives to the then inhabitants ? Why were/are the invaders' commodities so coveted if they're all so bad ?
To be taken over is never a good thing in the beginning, it's the long term that counts more than anything.
The tribal inhabitants of this continent did to each other long before what the invaders did so, where is the difference ? Just look at the dreamtime stories, most involve a form of violence without the presence of some whitey.

Dear Individual,

"Are you implying that the invasion of this country hasn't brought more positives than negatives to the then inhabitants ?"

I was not implying that, but you raised a good question which I will contemplate on and try to work out the balance.

"Why were/are the invaders' commodities so coveted if they're all so bad ?"

You mean alcohol?

But I wasn't writing about that, I merely meant that calling all the people who happen to be present at a certain location a "nation" is ridiculous. That includes the invaded, but not only them. The convicts for example did not arrive by choice either - why should they and their guards identify with each other? That was just an example of course - why should anyone in fact identify with other people whom s/he doesn't even know or like?!

Yuyutsu,
Sorry, I misinterpreted your post. Am I right in assuming that you mean that the Aborigines who call their particular land 'Aboriginal Nation' are in fact ridiculous ?
As far as alcohol is concerned it is a matter of usage/consumption.
There are countless incidents when alcohol has successfully prevented infection.
What is your stance on housing & health etc. Would you also say "You mean housing & health ?
As to why should anyone identify with other people whom they don't like do you mean the tribes they used to fight with but call their brothers & sisters when it furthers a cause ?

Dear Individual,

"Am I right in assuming that you mean that the Aborigines who call their particular land 'Aboriginal Nation' are in fact ridiculous ?"

-I think that identifying with any group so large that you don't even know the other members personally, is ridiculous. Nations included, as well as the 'Aboriginal Nation' comprising so many tribes who never even met each other over such a vast land.

"As far as alcohol is concerned it is a matter of usage/consumption.
There are countless incidents when alcohol has successfully prevented infection."

-When placed on a pad, yes. In any case, this is not how the aborigines historically have put it to use.

"What is your stance on housing & health etc. Would you also say "You mean housing & health ?"

-As I said, I need to carefully weigh the benefit against the costs. Living a western life-style has certain advantages, but also many negative side-effects. The aborigines may live longer now, but are they happier? Are their lives more fulfilled?

"As to why should anyone identify with other people whom they don't like do you mean the tribes they used to fight with but call their brothers & sisters when it furthers a cause ?"

-Not necessarily. If you don't like someone, then live and let live - why bother considering yourself and him/her to be part of one entity? But mainly here, I was referring to people who don't even know each other, then while they may not hate each other, how can they possibly like each other?

There are two undertones in this article that seem to contradict each other.

1) We should become a republic so the Asians will take us seriously

2) We should follow in the footsteps of the Americans

The first is a problem for me because it seems to be as infantile as hanging onto England while going out to play with the world. A republic purely for the sake of image is a bit petty, I reckon. It's like asking the big kids to let you play because you don't need your mummy anymore. Those Mahathir-like types who make fun of us for being a colonial outpost aren't going to take us any more seriously: they'll just find another reason to object to us. I'm not saying we can't engage with Asia; I'm suggesting that there has to be another way. Simply saying we're not British anymore doesn't mean we're now Asian, despite what some of our politicians (and educators) tell us. Asians (if we are to view the continent as a collective, which is problematic in itself) can see that we are the 'other' - different in many ways. We need to see it too, and find ways of engaging with Asia without imitating or pretending.

Where the second undertone comes into this is that, much as I hate to say it, the American approach was more mature. They didn't become a republic so they could be part of something else. They became a republic for complex reasons, but doing so allowed them to forge their own path in the world. They didn't jump overboard and board another ship - they jumped overboard and built their own ship.

Perhaps we don't have the population, the market share or the political conviction to do that, but it concerns me that we are being encouraged to become a republic simply so that we can follow another leader - one who, regardless of whether or not we maintain ties to England, seems at best ambivalent about us.

I'm not opposed to a republic, but I am concerned by the arguments for one.

head of state...
define.."state"...'an area..or community
forming part of a federal replublic'

'terror-tory..considerd..as an organised
POLITICAL community
under one govt..''

''a condition..of something[or personified..as someone]
at a ghiven state in time...

what im getrting at is we had 5 states
at federation..they became one state

hence states..voted themselves out of egsistance
as egsemplified under the first law...after the preamble

chapter 1/part 1
''legaslative power..of the commonwealth
shall be vested..in a federal parlement""

thats important
all the other state laws..[made by the state's]
contracted under the terms of federation..AFTER federration
are invalid...

further..all new legislation
'vested..in the federal parliemnt"

.."which shall con-sist of..the queen
a senate,and a house of representative's..and which will hereafter be called 'the parlement'..or the parlement of the commonwealth''

so who 'vested'[bestowed].statehood..
UPON THE COLONY*..LORDED OVER BY STATE govener generals

[the british govt..[the crown]..
[not the queen/king]..

the british state..[crown]..ratified it

then they ratified
the ';australia act'

we still got govener generals
sworn loyalty..to a foreign figure head
running armies/naveys..as their figure head

sworn loyal to the figure head and HER airs and succeses
or her hairs and suck/cessionisist,...heck..you fail to explain..what you want

no queen
no armed forces
will the neo president...have armed forces?
of course it will..and the us pres..serves the force well

forcing us into perpetual war
think on it

if it was simple
or true..they would proudly declare independance
it cant be *granted..by the master

we ourselves must declare it
and ratify it..not by crown[decree]....but by the decree of its people

forcing us into perpetual war,
UOG,
Yes, with home-grown stupidity !

play with the world.
Otokonoko,
From where I'm standing it looks more like the undesirable sector of the world playing with Australia. Going by the state of the game they're winning.

Would it not be useful to address the issues that lie behind the design of a "republic"? As I understand it, a well designed system of government has two main elements - separation of powers and checks and balances. A republic of the US design separates the parliament (congress and senate) from the public service (administration) with the elected President being the CEO in charge of the administration.

The Judiciary is the third recognised and separate entity in the system of government. Power to nominate the Justices is vested in the President of the United States, and appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate.

The press also has a recognised role in the US (the Fourth Estate) where it is expected to hold the government to account. This sometimes has a major impact, as in Watergate.

If we evaluate Australia against this template, we find that we do not separate the parliament from the administration - both report to the PM. Also, the PM has much greater power to appoint Justices to the High Court, unlike the US. It is arguable that much of the press in Australia is muzzled, as is evident by the current "enquiries".

Discussion of issues relating to the Head of State in Australia would surely be enhanced by the consideration of the doctrines of separation of powers and checks and balances that are delivered in a well designed republic.

Herbert/quote..Would it not be useful
to address the issues..that lie behind the design..of a "republic"?''

yes facts are needed

"" a well designed system..has two main elements
- separation of powers and checks and balances.""

we sepperated legislative powers..from the state..to fed
chapter 1..part 1...item 1..!

but the state
still creates legislation

worse..DIVERGENT legslation
note chap v 109..[inconsistancy of laws]
and 117

it made paper money
lawfull tender despite
claus...115

the list gets endless

""A republic of the US design""

begins with something govt wont do
write a charter of rights
[even in the us..they are only UN-RATIFIED ammendments

""separates the parliament..(congress and senate)
from the public service..(administration)""

lol
here the beurorockrats run the three party system

""with the elected President"'

no mate..the winner..gets to elect 'the presedent'
it just happens..they nominated themselves

""being the CEO..in charge of the administration.""

no mate..just like with the governer general here
he is boss-man..over the troops..[armed forces]

if anything the armed forces must be
subject ONLY to..a vast majoprity..of the both houses

""The Judiciary..is the third recognised
and separate entity in the system of government.""

lol
not really...it claims its licence..
from the legitimacy..of the state Power..to adjudicate..dispute
guided..not lorded over by preceedant...[its a mess]

there are two lawfull actionable causes to appear
civil contractual violation..or criminal damages
not revenue raising fines/drug laws..
[non victim creating
statuted crime]

by contractual trick...of unilateral contract[lol..confession].
extracted under juress..with threats/menaces..and capitalist run jails[the american prison industry]

indeed
as the christ said..
;set the prisoners free..!"

Under One God! Que? Excuse me for not following. But am I right in thinking that you consider that these fundamental underlying issues/principles should be addressed?

Herbert Stencil,

The problem with the US system is too much power in the hands of one person - and that person being one who is these days elected on the basis of the best media campaign, and hence the biggest wallet. (No great assurance of a great leader - viz GW Bush.)

Our 'Party' system may not provide us with many truly independent representatives, but at least the power is in many elected hands - and we fortunately don't have the likes of eleventh hour Presidential bills, exonerations and pardons, and the like (as GW Bush employed with some profusion just before leaving office). Our PM doesn't have those sorts of 'special' powers - nor our Governors.

In our system the Governors have very limited powers, but, in their absence, who would carry the power to dissolve both houses of parliament - the judiciary perhaps? (In the case of a deadlock.) Or form parliament, and install new reps and senators? There has to be a formal ceremonial process for such appointments - a signatory.

Though our Governors are elected by parliament, instead of by the people, their powers are limited and strictly defined - so to serve the specified narrow role. It works for me. (And it saves the cost of yet another broad electoral campaign and ballot.) And we rely on our respective parliaments to select and appoint only the most impeccable of persons (Australian) to the offices of Governor - and the track record to date is fairly impressive.

When the time is right for Aus to become a republic, I don't see why there would need to be any other change than simply to dispense with the requirement for the Queen to ratify or endorse the appointment of the Governor(s). However, in my view it would be best to resolve issues with the Constitution and Bill or Rights, or whatever, before we take that step into the future.

Advantages of being a republic? Mostly cosmetic, IMHO. (Maybe to massage a few egos?)

herbert/quote,..""Que?""

yes quite

""Excuse me for not following.""

no worries...read it like short hand
it covers arround ten suggestions
and 5 grievous wrongs..[with egsisting govt]

[i dont comment on anything
unless i got more than one thing to say]

""But am I right in thinking..that you consider that these fundamental underlying issues/principles should be addressed?""

yes..in fairity
they should be addressed
but so too other bigger problems

like federal govt picking winners
and the states...[is s.a..and nt act..population now
lesser..in number..than tassie..when it became a state?]

all should be states
but current states are too big
we need smaller local states..like councils
not like the few who declared...the federation colonies of australia

ion fact i would see the fed powers
disolve into the commonwealth parlement..[in control of one third of the globes people assets]...that represents 144,000 states[based on school district..out of schools]

no states such as they now are
no councils..just representatives[one of each sex]
to represent their state..

[to submit their states..taxation/insurance tithe
as weell as to loodge and accept specific grants/aid....
for their district[state]..

ie many small fish
many big fish..in small ponds
no huge big fish..no 'president..no pm..
minesters there to ioversee and audit their dept portfolio

further..polititions..got to get up to speed
so not just voting./.but all get basic governing education
specific to their service direction in the bigger common wealth

lorded over by hrh
and 144,000 generally elected..govener generals
over 144,000 states..by the end of this year
when it all goes into meltdown

each state gets its own ration of money
services directed direct[if you need anything..
just go to the local school..

and get onto a course
that leads you there

all govt serrvices..based..arround the school
police/fire.roads..parks..emegincy asistance..
passports/licences..planning/complaint

[even local school hospitals..
recall that key buzz word..
*DECENTRALISE*

the school immediatly..is there 24/7
living on site...teaches..the required skill
or arranges that the best
get the best chances

our assets..are our people
and our cultures..and our duties..to mother earth
each other..and all that good...[god]..but not religeon

Why be restricted by a bill of rights, we have unlimited rights now.
Wouldn't the roll of Australian president be, what the govenor; does now.
A reception and hospitality for foreign guests. A place for confidential talks.

"we have unlimited rights now."

Try riding your bicycle without a helmet...

But I won't make a list now because my fingers would hurt if I did, I assume this was a joke anyway.

As for a bill of rights, I agree because other than God there is no authority which could "grant" me such rights: my rights are natural, so I don't ask for them to be granted to me, I only ask that the government will not rob them away.

Remember also, that the hand that gives is also the hand that can take!

We do have some rules that protect people from themselves.
The worst thing with written rights is they become outdated.
A referendum should be held at the next election, about a republic, it's about time and i think very popular.

"We do have some rules that protect people from themselves."

We have a tyrant nanny state on our backs which thinks that it knows what's better for us more than we do, which has no respect for our choices and dignity, which never asked our permission whether we want its "protection" in the first place, which considers us to be a pile of flesh and bones with no spirit... oops, just made a spelling error, I should have used w-i-t-c-h!

Indeed, no use in writing down our rights, for these come from heaven, not from the witch - the hand witch writes is also the hand witch can erase.

not percentage..cause the wealthy..are wealthy enough

its insane..govt gives so much more..to the rich

noted yesterday...[public schools serve 2/3 rd]
on 26 billion

privte serves one third
on 34 billion

govt money to private schools..

thats a scam
much like paying..bribing govt gifts..
for soon to be obsolete whip making
or loud lobby nmates

no subsidies
no bailouts

just assure income
and reward work..not overt cleverness..wrought by spin

""..we have a two speed economy""..

what does that mean
what is this godlike 'economy'

two speed...lol...what speed?

see we acceopt spin as some fact
but two speed...that is cr apppp,

there are many speeds
my economy is none

others little
and the one percent is booming
and corperate trusts lord the roost,,[for us exploited]..the shareholder and the tax payers..in a pyramid scam

we need workers to make and sell product
we dont need bosses scopping off bonus

we dont need more beurocrats
we need mor equity

two speed is spin

''some true difficulty's.''..
is an understament

quantive easing...is how the banks stole the treasure
govt did it...and bankers wanted it in gold/silver coin

now govt needs to take it back..finally
on behalf of the people....

and police need to police real crime
make sure those who have the true income
pay their way

not fundraising
by policing policy..in lue of criminal act

I suppose you do not like speed cams; either.
With out rules we would be like America, and who wants that.
The only thing that has come from Heaven is rain.
Bring on a republic.

579,

"I suppose you do not like speed cams; either."

Actually indeed, but we are not discussing personal tastes at this time.

Speed cameras can be defended on the grounds that they, presumably at least, save the lives of others, that fast drivers are more likely to hit other, innocent, people.

No such defense exists for bicycle helmets.

"With out rules we would be like America, and who wants that."

You must be joking - America has so many more rules than Australia (this is part of what makes it a failure and a bad place).
Are you aware that the U.S.A has the highest proportion of citizens in its jails - even higher than China? - that cannot be the result of having no rules...!

"The only thing that has come from Heaven is rain."

This is not the time and place to enter a theological discussion:
you may believe that our rights come from our mother's womb, or from the trees, or from evolution, or from the DNA, or from the elements, etc. etc. - suffice that they don't come from the state and its government.

The government is not the giver of rights - they are the ones who take our rights away... and then they ask us to thank them for leaving us with something, for not taking everything...

"Bring on a republic."

Yawn. The article claims that this is important - I say it is the least. With all the evils we are having, with all the abuse of our freedoms by the state, that's a very minor issue.

But since you mentioned it, all I can say is that it's not worth our tax-payer money to pay for all that pomp, but you know what? here's a deal:

You and your friends raise the funds to pay for your proposal. Support the expense of having an Australian head-of-state yourselves, prove with your pockets (not mine) that it is indeed so important for you. If you do so, I will lift my objection and you can have the republic you want.

numbers not a name quote..""The only thing that has come from Heaven is rain.""

wondering what the underlying....reasoning is
if we are talking materially...what about that huge yellow sun
[you know..sustaining all easy discernable life]

or space dust..you know tons of it each day

but likely you mean spiritual
and there you have no idea
so i will leave you

in your blissfilled state of ignorance
its funny {said}..[the inner voice said
how the most simple..can believe that..the most clever
[in their own eye]..

in ignorances utter..then ignorantly murmmer back..
the mantra's of the sainted [in their own eyes]..
the bleatings..of the science..atheoist's..
not just decrying..this worlds fact
but so too the unseen realm's