Philo
It is true that Queen Elizabeth is still the Queen of Australia. I'm saying that Australia has now grown up to be a matured and great country. Thus it is time for independance. The Head of State maybe the local's Representative.But is He an Australian? Australia needs an Australian to be the Head of State. Based on your comments you seemed to be going "out of track". We all know that the Head of State is the Queen's Representative. Why do we need a monarch system here when we are capable of standing on our own feet? This basically brings a question to our minds as it is mentioned before, " is the constitution out of date?". The constitution outlines the structures, principles and procedures of the government. Such structures in the government system simply creates a doubtful thought on the constitution which suppose to reflect the values of the current generation.

jaadoo,
The Governor is the peoples representative, with power as vested by the Crown. The Crown represents the people's System of Government fought for by the people against despotic kings and Parliaments; That is now the Westminster formulated distribution of powers. They have no power to form laws, or enforce taxes on people; unlike Presidents.

jaadoo,
I agree that Australia is becoming more mature, but I don't share your view that maturity as a country involves becoming more separated from other countries.

When an individual grows up, they often pass through a rebellious period that may involve rejection of their family. This is the age when young people are most likely to be obsessed with "independence". Maturity comes when they move out of that period and into a wiser acceptance of their connections with other people.

With a young country, I would say the same pattern holds. Yes, Australia is reaching maturity, but the sign of that is NOT demanding greater signs of independence, but rather recognising the value of being connected with others and realising that connectedness does not compromise independence.

As a country, Australia is obviously independent and has been for far longer than I have been alive. We are also, however, part of a family of nations, and I see no reason at all for rejecting the symbols of that family. I favour greater connection rather than greater separation.

I look forward to the time when Australia has the maturity to say "yes, she is our Queen, just as she is the Queen of New Zealand, Canada and indeed the United Kingdom. Let's work more closely with these other members of our family of nations, rather than seeking to emphasise our small differences."

Ian
I'm not saying that just because Australia is independant It has to be seperated. I'm not asking Australia to be seperated. Having our own identity does not mean being seperated from other countries and nations. for example Australia and China so as other nations do share a very close and healthy relationship. Having our own identity does not mean we have to be seperated. As to maturity, we don't compare a human's life to a country. Australia has the capabality of having it's own identity. Why just waste that capabality? It is true that there are many pros and cons regarding the Republic system but even the monarch system has it's pros and cons. We still take the risk and go for the best.

jaadoo,
Our relationship with China is of a different nature from our relationship with the United Kingdom. Like Canada, like New Zealand and like the UK itself, we are a British nation, not a Chinese one. Our history, our institutions, our values and our culture all make that quite clear enough.

I know it is not common to compare the development of a country to that of a person, but when the analogy fits, why not use it? There is no doubt that Australia has its own identity: no one is ever going to confuse Australia with the UK just because we have the same Queen. My point is that our obviously unique identity makes more sense within the British family of nations than outside it.

This is not wasting our individuality, it is making the most of it. Working more closely together with our obvious allies brings greater strength, just like it brought greater strength for the Australian colonies to work together and form our Federation a century ago.

Thinking small means stressing our uniqueness at the expense of our similarities. Thinking big means putting small differences aside for the sake of far more important similarities. That is what the states did in the 1890s to form our Federation. The next step is to work more closely with those with whom we have most in common: Canada, New Zealand and the UK. That is how we can find our place in the world.

Philo has said:

"The Governor is the peoples representative," -- there is nothing to support this statement. Section 2 of the constitution says something entirely different: "A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth."

"... with power as vested by the Crown." -- section 61 of the constitution says something entirely different: "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen."

"The Crown represents the people's System of Government fought for by the people against despotic kings and Parliaments;" -- Huh? There is nothing to support this statement which is self-contradicting.

"They have no power to form laws, or enforce taxes on people; unlike Presidents." -- Incorrect. Even in the United States, the President does not form laws or institute taxes. That is done by Congress. An non-executive Australian President would certainly not have these powers.

Philo's post is an example of how support for constitutional monarchy is generated by continuous misinformation.