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"?