There is nothing odd or anachronistic about Australia sharing a monarchy with New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom: we are members of the same family, built on the same basic values, culture and institutions. The republican desire to cut these family ties has nothing to do with “growing up” and everything to do with chucking a collective adolescent fit, slamming the door and shouting “I’m a big boy now and I don’t love you anymore”.

If the leaders of federation had been as parochial as today’s republicans, the idea would never have got off the ground. If Queenslanders, Tasmanians, Victorians and so on had all insisted on a head of state that was “one of us”, we would now have half a dozen heads of state of half a dozen separate countries, instead of one Australia.

Maturity in the 1890s meant setting aside small differences and recognising how much more sense it makes to work together. Maturity in the 2000s would mean much the same thing: in an increasingly globalised world, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK (CANZUK) should be working together, not finding ways to push each other apart.

Ian Alexander
Federal Commonwealth Society

Ian,
A good argument. I totally agree!

Ian,
Who's talking about parochialism? Who's talking about Australia withdrawing from the Commonwealth, or any other of its international responsibilities? I can't recognize this in the pro-republic comments in this thread, try as I may. So it would seem to be a straw man argument that you've constructed, as I see it.
I'll repeat myself, at the risk of becoming a bore to some readers, that neither an independent republican Australia nor a constitutional monarchical Australia has any need whatsoever to withdraw from the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference nor from and the political initiatives or the general good work that this organization does.
No, the point is that we take our position in this forum, and all the others we're committed to internationally (especially those which promote cooperation with our immediate neighbours) as equal political partners on the same level with all other participating partners. This has everything to do with mutual respect and nothing to do with self-aggrandizement (neither on the UK's nor on Australia's behalf).
Furthermore, we might perhaps enjoy the bonus of being able to shake off the label of being one of the last colonial outposts in a region, most of whose countries have indeed long established their independent credentials and whose governments may well wonder why we choose to procrastinate on the issue of our own independence.
We can voluntarily make the best of our British traditions (political, social and judicial) while at the same time acknowledging the reality of the much changed composition of our present population and taking advantage of such opportunities to further the particularly Australian flavour of our society.
This is not the turning of an adolescent fit (a poor analogy in anyone's book), but the necessary political acknowledgement that we are, as a nation, at quite another point of development compared to (for instance) the Australia of the immediate post-war years.

Bail Up,

I was not talking about Australia withdrawing from anything. I think any reasonable person can already see that Australia is an independent country and an equal partner in the Commonwealth, so why should we change our constitution in order to prove a point that is not in doubt? Call it parochialism, call it cultural cringe, it amounts to the same thing: a desire for approval from others rather than a simple recognition of what we are.

Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK have the same Queen for the same reason that Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Italy have the same Pope: shared history, shared culture, shared values.

You say that “We can voluntarily make the best of our British traditions (political, social and judicial) while at the same time acknowledging the reality of the much changed composition of our present population and taking advantage of such opportunities to further the particularly Australian flavour of our society.” I agree completely, but I see no reason to get rid of the monarchy in order to do it.

Federation meant looking outwards and thinking big: people from New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and so on joining together to build a broader vision. To me, republicanism means looking inwards and thinking small: to say that someone who was not born on our island cannot be “one of us” is a step in the wrong direction. I would like to see the CANZUK countries work closer together, just as Queenslanders and Tasmanians agreed to work closer together a century ago. It has served us well so far: why stop now?

Ian Alexander
Federal Commonwealth Society

My reading of history is that federation was a time of an inward looking myopia where issues of racial purity and the national type were prominent in public debates. There was nothing outward looking besides the gazing toward the "mother country" for validation and approval. Remember Menzies? He carried on like a real donkey during WW2 and spent 4 months in England trying to appease them. How pathetic was that!

The" if it ain't broke" arguments fail to recognize those instances in our history that were guided by our conformity to British imperatives - imperatives that in many cases they themselves did not want us to follow.

I don't need a Queen, Prince or Princesses to tell me who the hell I am. And I just wish the forelock tugging monarchists would get over their own insecurities about who the hell they are. Its time to wean ourselves off the Queens fun bags once and for all

Rainier,

Racial purity is always an idiotic concept, no question. The architects of Federation may not have been looking outwards in exactly the way we would choose, but they were certainly looking outwards. If people from New South Wales, for example, had not been looking beyond their existing borders and imagining a “national type”, they may have insisted on a leader who was “one of us”, rather than agreeing to form a federation with people from all over the continent.

Like you, I don't need a Queen (or a President, for that matter) to tell me who I am. I just don’t see any need to restrict the concept of “one of us” to our little population of 20 million.

Ian Alexander
Federal Commonwealth Society