Just one more overdone fireworks spectacular and the British monarchy might reject us. That should focus our minds.

Scout,

When I say that I do not see Britain as foreign, I am thinking in terms of culture rather than administration. Clearly the UK is another country and, as you point out, we need a passport to go there. I do not, however, see us as being culturally foreign to each other.

In the 1890s, there were seven distinct British colonies in our part of the world. They were separate, but that did not make them foreign to each other. Six of them – New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia – voted to join together; the seventh – New Zealand – decided not to join up and is now a separate country, although not, for me, a foreign one. What we have in common far outweighs our differences.

These things were never set in stone: different decisions could easily have been made. Western Australia, for example, actually voted to leave the federation, but never did. New Zealand could have decided to join – and in fact still could. I would like to see the process of federation continue.

Instead of being simply a New South Welshman, federation means that I am also part of a political unit called Australia. Culturally (but not politically), I am also part of a far larger entity, which we could call the British world: a group of increasingly diverse societies that share a high degree of affinity in terms of culture, institutions and values.

I see the core of this entity as including Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Canada (CANZUK, for short), and I would be keen to see closer political ties to reflect our close cultural connections. I do not see the monarchy as being essential to this project, but it seems to me that becoming a republic would send a negative signal, that we are not interested in sharing sovereignty, even with those countries that we have most in common with.

So why would we need to elect a new rubber stamp every few years?

PK, you may have misconstrued what I said. The point of similarity with religion and monarchy was to simply highlight the fact that we could, just as easily, get by with an imaginary head of state. A virtual monarch would have none of the risks associated with an elected head of state, none of the maintenance costs and overheads, and no need for popularity polls. A virtual monarch would provide exactly the same rubber stamp approval of the will of parliament and avoid all the tedium and expense of actually electing a new rubber stamp every few years.

A VM would only fall down in the PR department. But I think, on balance, that Betty does a better job in the meet and greet department.

Perseus asks, "why do we need to elect our Head of State every few years?"

Good question.

The short answer is that we don't have to. The 1999 bi-partisan model did not. But this is what many voters want in a republic, and I agree because:

#1 Popular sovereignty. Many people want to see democracy in action. Lines of authority should logically stem from the people to elected officeholders, then to appointed officeholders. Our current system is in-practice 100% democratic, but not seen to be 100% democratic.

#2 Integrity. As Prof John Power explained, “For much of its history, Australia was well served by the monarchical approach. The ‘Crown’ acted as a potent symbol of the public interest and those in authority saw it as their duty to protect that public interest... As the monarchy began its irreversible decline, mechanisms of integrity [eg ICAC, AAT, ombudsmen] began to proliferate, seemingly in compensation.” The republican objective should be restoring this potent symbol of public interest. The rubber-stamping, as you put it, of legal government decision making is part of maintaining the integrity of the state.

In the US there’s debate about the constitutional authority of the President to authorise domestic wire-tapping. An Australian republican proposal should avoid this, as the person actually exercising authority may advise, counsel and warn (rephrasing Bagehot.) Prof Power’s objective is the restore the authority of the governors while maintaining the convention of almost always accepting ministerial advice.

#3 Public Relations. Perseus, you’ve answered your own question. The Head of State should be the PR office for the nation. Plucking a figure out of the air, 80% of our international image is unrelated to politics. Messrs Howard and Downer have the job to explain our role in Iraq, free trade, the UN ect... But in terms of promoting Australia (eg Austrade, World Cup) or commiserating with the world (eg notable funeral, earthquake) an apolitical representative of Australia is the best person for the job (and more available), just as the Queen represents the UK apolitically.

#4 If the people elect the HOS, they'll know who s/he is

Hello Ian

You stated:

"I see the core of this entity as including Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Canada (CANZUK, for short), and I would be keen to see closer political ties to reflect our close cultural connections. I do not see the monarchy as being essential to this project, but it seems to me that becoming a republic would send a negative signal, that we are not interested in sharing sovereignty, even with those countries that we have most in common with. "

I understand that 37 countries in the British Commonwealth have indeed removed the monarchy. Australia could leade the way. Rather than a negative it could be a positive step in strengthening ties between commonwealth countries and part of the process of leaving behind an anachronistic system.

To David L

Once again your points have resonated agreement within me - so the GG could be elected by senate and HOS by people.

HOS to fulfill all the usual PR jobs as well as promoting Australia abroad and other relevant functions, while remaining politically neutral.

Cheers

Scout,
How does an elected HOS remaim politically neutral fully protect our agreement in the Constitutional with government with impartial protocols to represent all people? The very fact of an election means they must identify with political advantage over another candidate; which is what politics is about.

Quote, "HOS to fulfill all the usual PR jobs as well as promoting Australia abroad and other relevant functions, while remaining politically neutral."