Scout,

I totally agree that we should not be thinking or talking in terms of race. When I talk of Australia’s Britishness, I am talking about culture, not “race”. I have friends from a range of backgrounds – Chinese, Slovenian, Latvian, Thai – whose values fit just as well as mine within our culture. I used to see this as evidence that our culture was no longer British, but I changed my mind when I saw the way Brazilians all learn to be Latin, regardless of their Portuguese, African, German or Japanese background.

Brazil is Latin because that is the culture that was established during the colonial period, and now everyone more or less fits into that mould, regardless of where their grandparents were born or what they look like. It is in that sense that I see Australia as British: our culture is no longer connected with any particular ethnic group.

I do not, however, see cultural differences as being quite as abstract as you suggest. You put the debate in the negative terms of “clinging to our perceived differences”: I am not suggesting that we should push other cultures away, but that we should first recognise and build on the similarities we have with other British countries – similarities that go way beyond the “common humanity” that we share with all people.

In fact, I don’t see how we can truly take our place in the world until we can recognise who and what we really are. I don’t see how we can resolve our relationship with our Aboriginal population and with our geographical neighbours unless we can acknowledge our British cultural heritage.

What does this have to do with the monarchy? Not very much, perhaps, but I get the feeling that some people want to elect an Australian head of state simply as a way of denying the fact that ours is a British culture shaped by contact with this land, with the Aboriginal peoples and with the cultures of our neighbours and other migrants. And that strikes me as dangerous.

Ian

Why should a head of state remain British and a monarch?

I'm simply turning your question back on itself.

I think perhaps you see the desire for an Australian HOS more as an act of rebellion. I'd like to credit the Australian public with more intelligence than that.

In fact, I'd go so far to wager that the first publically elected HOS in Australia would be caucasian and male.

Thus far, we appear to be in agreement with retaining the Westminster system - keeping it simple and to remain with and strengthen ties within the commonwealth.

I admit that I put a much more abstract slant on cultural characteristics to emphasize my point. Some 2nd gen. Aussies I know (from both Asian and European backgrounds) have been even more Aussie than Hoges. Being Australian is, and will continue to be, a blend of all cultures with the foundation being provided by Britain. Just as you found the LAtin equivalent in Brazil. Britishness will always be a part of who we are but not all of who we are.

I used to work in public housing, one woman I remember in particular was from Somalia - her story of how she migrated to Australia is fantastic and too long and not relevant here. I simply want to state that I assisted her application for housing for herself, husband and six children. When the application was approved she told me that the very first thing she would ensure was that any of her relatives or friends who wanted to visit would have to phone her first. In Africa, people tended to just turn up on the doorstep without an invite and she liked the Australian way where we make more formal arrangements. I know this is purely anecdotal and just a little story, but it goes to show how swiftly customs are adopted by immigrants from a very different background.

Also, people like her are as deserving of representation in Australia as anyone else - our Flag doesn't represent her with its Union Jack, nor does a British Monarch.

Cheers

Response to Scout:

You said "I'd go so far to wager that the first publically elected HOS in Australia would be caucasian and male."

I am not so sure. Three of the six state governors are female and I have been promoting the idea that former governors can be nominated by state governments in the election of Head of State.

This would mean that female candidates may be appear in equal numbers on the ballot for HOS. The current HOS (QE2) being female may make it easier for the electorate to imagine a female continuing in the role.

Though I'm not currently ready to take you up on your bet, if these sorts of proposals get the green light, then I would do so.

Heads of State ought to have served an extended period in public office in a nonpolitical and impartial office of high esteem before becoming a Head of State. Example: Peter Cosgrove. The person must have the respect of the people, as that person is the peoples quardian of our contract with elected political powers who formulate laws to govern us. Popularly elected representatives [eg Bush] is not apolitical. He is more divisive than any GG we have ever had. Kerr was vindicated in his decision to sack Whitlam as supported by the Electors.

Response to Philo:

Thats another reason why I am promoting the idea of former state governers being nominated by their state govts in an election for Head of State -- because of their experience. But I also think there should be a general nomination (pardon the pun) so that any Australian (eg Peter Cosgrove) can become Head of State.

Scout,

I didn’t say that all Australian opposition to the monarchy is adolescent rebelliousness, but do I think that it is a factor in many people’s thinking.

You ask “Why should a head of state remain British and a monarch?”

Why British? Given that I see our culture as British, it makes perfect sense for our head of state to be British. Given that I do not see my identity as being limited to Australia’s borders, it makes little difference to me whether that person be from Australia, New Zealand, Canada or the UK. As I have said, I would like to see us drawing closer to these countries, and the fact that we have a common head of state seems to simplify matters. If the Australian states had not had a common head of state in the 1890s, Federation would have been that much more complicated.

Why a monarch? As I said, I don’t wave flags for the concept of monarchy per se, but since the monarchy is one of the institutions that links the four countries that I would like to see moving closer together, I have no problem in living with it. It doesn’t offend me. The Queen doesn’t represent us? Neither does the Chief Justice of the High Court, and I don’t see anyone wanting to elect judges. The important thing to me is that our government does represent us. The monarchy is a symbol, and I have no problem with it.

If the CANZUK countries were to federate, for example, any elected president would necessarily be from one or other of the four countries: they would represent one and not the others. I think the monarchy would be a useful way of not letting little nationalisms get in the way of broader unity. It doesn’t represent us, nor does it represent New Zealand, nor Canada, nor the UK. It simply is.