I would rather her as my "Master" and the Commonwealth umbrella, than the unknown, "Master".

Australia had the most envied constitution in the world that evoluted because of the injustices of the convict era.

Slowly this is being dismantled by our governments and judiciary system alliance, manipulation of interpretatation, other legislation deleted under the guise of outdated terms of reference.

The Westminster system was created so there would be an even distribution of power thus citizens would achieve the best debate and solutions for their communities.

We see in our governments position the uneveness of this distribution but ideas come from the lower house and this is currently where Australians are fairly represented by the even the even distribution within this house.

The last thing the average person needs is another lawyer looking after them, we so blindly nominate and employ.

'evoluted'??

Revolving, changing, turning, mutating, adapting, evolving .......

Use your imagination.

If it is life changing and has the ability to change life, "Evolutionary".

Lyn,
Instead of telling us that we do not need a Constitutional Monarchy; how about you put your mind to tell us just what your model would be for a Republic. It is a lazy mind that can criticise but be constructive and show some creative energy.

I note you admit that Australia has not lost out or remained backward because of our working Monarchical Constitution by the comment: "Few envisaged that Australia would evolve into the vibrant and independent nation it is today." All this under our present Constitution - Why change?

What extra do you want for Australia? How about you tackle the real issues of health and poverty etc that are deteriorating because politicians minds are focused elsewhere.

Philo, it is a pretty poor debating tactic to enter a debate on a subject and tell your opponent that they should not have even raised the subject of the debate, they should be talking about something else deemed to be more important. It is compounded when you trot out that old 'aint broke, don't fix' argument in the republic debate - only committed Monarchists by that junk. Using that argument, you would never make any constitutional or even legislative change in Australia. We would not even be a Commonwealth today, and plenty argued against it one similar grounds over 100 years ago. While Australia has prospered as a Monarchy doesn't mean we can't do better as a republic.

So, who is it that has a 'lazy mind'?

Plerdsus-If a politician believes that moving to a republic with an Australian head-of state is in the best interest of the people and the sovereign, then s/he has fulfilled their sworn duty

Narcisist- believes that an unqualified hereditary title has some magical power that will curb unscrupulous big business without the advantage of democratic legitimacy.

Opinionated2 and Philo-uses a recipe for dull vision designed to put the republic to the back-burner because there will always be ongoing issues concerning health, education and defence etc. Progress halted is rights denied. It is a monarchist expectation that Australians don’t have the intelligence to think on more than one issue, and that no Australian child will have the intelligence or commitment to be head-of-state of their own country.

Monarchists try to credit Australia’s prosperity to a foreign monarch on top of our constitutional arrangement. But our prosperity has more to do with the resources of an entire continent being shared between 20 million people and our willingness to accept compromise. Our forefathers’ (and foremothers’ in SA) had the wit to accept an entire list of compromises to bring about federation. It is that same wit and acceptance of compromise that makes the constitution workable today, despite its many age cracks.