I think the fact is that we are a Republic in all but name. Surely peerages; elitism and class-based social mobility would be viewed as anachronisms to most modern Australians who would also believe that we elect an Australian head of state in the Prime Minister (whose role and character are becoming increasingly presidential)?

I think it's time we "came out" and became confident as what we really are; Republicans. Our continuing membership of the Commonwealth should be enough to appease those remaining adamant monarchists.

There is no good reason why we can't retain ties to England and be a totally independent nation as well.

We as individuals grow up and move away from our parents. But most of us retain close relations with them after their influence on our lives has become minimal. So it should be with our nation. Let’s retain the ties and traditions, at least to some extent.

Now, if there was a very good reason for becoming a republic, such as us getting the right sort of comprehensive political reform agenda implemented at the same time, or the new governmental system making it easier to do this, then yes, maybe a republic would be good.

But, there really is no reason why we can’t have this political reform while maintaining ties to the British monarchy.

What is important is political reform, not republicanism or monarchy.

I agree with Everald Compton that we should abolish states and move to regional government, with no more Queen’s representatives in the form of state governors. But this can happen while the monarch is still our ultimate head of state.

As for the title of this article: ‘The perils of colonial heritage’; we will always have this heritage even if we move to completely separate ourselves from all ties with Britain.

What are the perils of this heritage or of remaining linked to Britain while expanding links with Asia? There aren’t any that I can see.

The author is trying too hard.

This article implies that republicanism involves:
- Replacement of the Queen as the Australian Head of State by a President.
- Replacement of each of the 6 State Governors.
- Dissolution of the States and Territories.
- Dissolution of the 8 systems of Local Government (Plus a few others in Norfolk Island and the like).
- Replacement of State, Territory and Local Government by "Regional Government", whatever that means.
- a completely re-written Australian Constitution.
- And more.

All that is needed is the first, and even that in two steps. The remainder is irrelevant to the primary objective, so why put at risk the very federation which makes Australia a single nation? There may be many who contemplate secession of Western Australia or the Principality of Lower Hutt or other bits and pieces, but would any of this improve the whole? There are many more Australians who, with determination and passion, would prefer to keep Australia whole.

Progress has been made: The Constitution is now able to be amended by Australians without requiring enabling laws to be passed in Britain. The Governor-General is no longer expected to be a Britisher - he or she is now always an Australian.

The first step is to agree a method of democratic appointment or election of the GG, instead of appointment by the Queen on the "advice" (Here, read "direction") of the Prime Minister, accompanied by or very soon followed by removal of appeals beyond the GG to the Queen. The Governor General need not have any other title, such as President. That is a red rag to those who resist change of any type and implies too much in common with the French or with USA, where the President has far more power than contemporary Australia would entrust to its GG.

So, I suggest that only the above two steps take place - not the whole effort of tearing down Australia's systems of government and starting anew which are proposed by the author - that simply can't happen, now or ever.

Everard is correct in wanting a republic . However , to link the campaign for a republic with abolition of the States will give monarchists a further argument for opposing it .

If Australia , federally , becomes a republic , the States will continue to have the British head of state as their " State " head of state . Over time , all States will legislate to end that anachronism .Some States will take longer than others . Generally , States do not need a referendum to amend their constitutions .

Probably , behind the scenes , if Australia federally becomes a republic , the Buckingham Palace administration and the British government will urge the State Premiers to legislate to end the State connection with Britain .

The author writes: "...we will cease to think parochially and nostalgically."

To establish a completely independent Australia is thinking parochially. Let us get past the idea of sovereign nation states. The European countries have created the European Union which is erasing some of the differences between the various European states. It lessens the chance of future wars.

Let's work for a union of democracies - unite with NZ, the US and any other democracy outside of the European Union. Eventually we could unite with the European Union and any country that is democratic.

A world government with the present authoritarian nature of many countries frightens me. A world government on a democratic basis is something I would welcome. Let's think beyond the chauvinistic idea of creating a new independent national entity.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

What exactly is it about Australia's social and political system, apart from the "inevitability of change" which needs changing?

There seems to be an idea that to tear something down will fix it all.
As far as a republic is concerned, beware what you wish for !
I am very much against an elected head of state.
Remember if you elect a head of state you get a politician !

If you want an example of the importance of this, remember Gough Whitlam.
He was dismissed because his government was illegally borrowing money.
Looking at how governments protect their political members, eg Craig Thompson
would you trust a president of the same party as the government ?

That is a fundamental point in a republic.
If you doubt this look at the mess the US is in with its Congress.
An independent head could do as Kerr did and send them back to the people.

Instead they are stuck with it for up to four years.

Dear Bazz,

The United States is not stuck with the Congress for four years. The US Congress consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Every representative has a term of two years, and the entire House is up for election every two years. Every senator has a term of six years, and one third of the Senate is up for election every two years. The presidency is up for election every four years, and a president can only have two terms.

If the people are unhappy with the Congress they elected in 2010 they may change it this year.

The why davidf is it that the US government has such difficulty with
legislation such as their medical system and being totally unable to
do something, anything, about their debt ?

They have just pushed it all out to 1st January next and hope for the best !
Remember the US government was on verge of default and closing down.
Note; closing down the US government !

Dear Bazz,

The United States was set up according to the Separation of Powers envisioned by Montestesquieu. He advocated legislative, executive and judicial branches independent of each other. This is unlike the Westminster system where the executive is part of the legislature. In the US system the three branches act as checks on each other. Unlike the Westminster system the legislature and executive may be controlled by different parties. If they cannot agree it may block action. That is what happened with the US health system. Sometimes the system doesn't work as it should. Since WW2 all US wars have been illegal since before there is a war Congress should declare it unless the US is attacked. Congress could stop those illagal wars by denying funding, but they haven't done so.

Britain, judging from the Opening Ceremony and other events, has decided to pursue a sort of socialist utopia wherein all are subject to the whims of an ever increasing authoritarian bureaucracy, all mention of Britain's golden era are censored and the British 'DNA' is rewritten.

It's time for Australia to leave the commonwealth lest our hearts and minds be infected with socialist lies.

Upon the severance, Australia should aim to have libertarianism as its guiding principle rather than its antithesis, progressivism - which is the most insidious and destructive political philosophy ever imagined.

Here you go, progressive pat. I see you have a problem with social democracy.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-industrial-revolution-was-powered-by-child-slaves-2041227.html

A Golden Era, indeed.....

Those good old libertarians are thin on the ground these days - I wonder why?

I see your point Pat, but glance at the other side of the large pond, & you'll see another equally socialist "BIG" government, growing bigger just as quickly.

It is the hand out culture, not the form of government that is destroying democracy. Becoming a republic won't slow the rot of a self reliant society, any more than remaining a monarchy in name, if not in fact.

Can you imagine Oz without defence pacts. Yes truth be known we live in a fools paradise depending on others for our defense, but think about it.

Not only could we not afford a disability insurance scheme, [what a Misnomer that is], but we would have to cut most welfare & a large chunk of our health care benevolence, if we were to even try to defend ourselves by our own efforts. Not only would we require to quadruple the equipment budget, but we would have to pay our defence folk enough to not only attract, but to hold a trained force, & we would need about 6 times as many.

Yes insecure kids want to kick out at parental authority, where the more confident realise how good they have it in the bosom of the family.

We don't have anyone with any authority over us, so how immature are those who want to kick out at our friends. Time for these immature people to grow up a bit, & it's time for us to sit on the fools who can only see some short term personal gain in so called independence.

Oh Hasbeen said;
Not only could we not afford a disability insurance scheme, [what a Misnomer that is],

insurance is a very good name for it.
It is to insure parents against the lifelong burden and financial
strain of supporting a handicapped child for the rest of the parents lives.
Every couple starting a family will know that if the worse happens then
they will be able to remove at least the financial burden.

The worse part is knowing that you cannot die but must outlive the child.

davidf, at least we have the option of going back to the people
to have an election immediately if the situation is unworkable.

Also question time would be interesting if they had it.

No our system is much superior despite its occasional problems.
Ultimately here the majority gets to run the government, even if it
needs the independants, it is in the end the majority.

Dear Bazz,

You do not have the option of going back to the people if they are dissatisfied. You do not even have the option of planning for an election at a specified time. You have the election if it is before a full term when the government feels it is to their advantage to call an election.

In fact if the government knows that most people are not happy with it, it will not call an election because it will lose it.

One big difference between the US and Australia is the congressmen usually are free not to vote with their party if they disagree with it. Australian parliamentarians must in general vote as the party room decides. Therefore contributions are made to the party in Australia where they are often made to the individual candidates in the US. In Australia politicians are for sale wholesale whereas it is retail in the US.

I think the preferential Australian ballot is better than the first past the post in the US. However, I think the US executive separate from the legislature is better than the Westminster system.

If Australia is going to swap the British for the Americans then it is clearly jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Australia needs to become independent ASAP before we get drawn further into the American swamp that allows torture, caging of prisoners, rendition, assassination squads, control of Government by Corporations, FEMA camps, imprisonment without trial, hanging chads, Police Militia, spying on citizens, massive income inequality, homelessness, gun massacres, people living below the poverty line, people with no access to health services, etc, etc.

America is no one's friend. Its only interest is self-interest!

"America is no one's friend. Its only interest is self-interest!"

Really; which country or countries do you think Australia should allign with, if not Britain and the US, and why?

Compton needs to learn some of the basics of our constitution before he goes on and wrecks it. For a start, Australia has no constitutional links with the UK (or Britain or England or whatever other incorrect terminology). I'll repeat that. None, zero, zip, nada, nothing whatsoever. All of them removed by various acts of the Australian parliament over many years cilminating in the Australia Act.

So please don't blab on about Australia clinging to the skirts of the mother country.

Yes we share a Queen .. the Queen of Australia is the same person as the Queen of the UK. BUT, the only office Australia deals with is in her role as Queen of Australia in which she is ONLY advised by her Australian ministers. So no links there either.

Compton needs to find a more realistic plan if he is to make changes. The constitution cannot be changed without a referendum and that referendum can't be held without the electorate being informed of the proposed change to the constitution and given the arguments for the yes and no cases. So Compton's fantasy question is simply not legal. It essentially asks the people to remove their right to decide and hand it to a bunch of people we don't trust as it is.

There's nothing stopping the PM from whipping up a new draft constitution any time she likes. She doesn't need the approval of the people to do so. But she knows not to. I wonder why?

I enjoyed reading the article - thanks, Mr Compton! That said, I have trouble agreeing with much of what you say.

You present a number of things as inevitable: the dissolution of the states, for example. I just don't see any indication that this is inevitable - perhaps someone could enlighten me? I can understand the arguments that it is PREFERABLE, but not those that it is inevitable. To tie it in with the republican debate doesn't work for me, because they're two separate issues. Both involve constitutional change, but neither is dependent on the other.

Other things presented as 'truths' get in the way of the thrust of the article: the only reason WA is part of Australia is because of poor communications during the 1930s, for example. Really? I'm not convinced. The propagandists promoting separatism would be using the same channels as those opposing it. Who's to tell which argument would have won out?

I'm open to the idea of a republic, but have yet to see an argument that presents it either as a necessity or as something unnecessary but beneficial. Preparing a constitution, voting and implementing change - particularly radical change like that proposed in this article - is a huge expense for the simple reason of 'cutting the apron-strings', to which we are nominally tied but from which we are practically separated as it is.

"At age 224, its time that we did, particularly as the majority of Australians are not of British descent, and our continued fascination with Britain makes them feel as though they are house guests, not family."

That is simply not true.

Australians of British/Anglo-Celtic descent still form the majority (~60 percent) of the population. While their proportion of the population is in decline due to the demographic shifts being brought about immigration, it is likely that British/Anglo-Celtic Australians will continue to form the dominate group in Australian society for some time to come.

In any case, I see nothing wrong with Australia maintaining symbols of its British heritage. After all, much of Australia's relative success as a free, prosperous society can be attributed to its British inheritance.

* dominant group

To deal with a specific shibboleth, much to my own surprise I have come to like the States. Competitive jurisdictions have a lot to be said for them; in a partial list they help to maintain tax competition, dampens and creates tests for the latest fadish education fashion, has provided comparison between State and Private power cost structures and prevents an Imperial Prime Ministership.
Divided jurisdisctions are the worst form of running a country except for the alternatives.