Philo,

Can you give us an example where this has happened?

Your words "one who swears humble service under God to the protect the people from despotism and oppressive laws."

I think I remember a time when South Africa was ruled by a despotic regime promoting a little thing called apartheid. I don't think I remember the Queenprotecting people against that... in fact her Govt under Maggie Thatcher actually tried to undermine the other Commonwealth nations attempts to sanction apartheid out of existance.

The world, including Australia helped stop apartheid not the Queen.

Are you calling Gough a despot? Because that is the only time from my memory I have seen such a thing.

Under the Queen many govts have undermined her citizens rights and she has said didley squat about it.

If you are going to argue your biases at least try to make sense.

I eagerly await you list of times when the Queen has intervened to close down a despotic regime... It's hard to type a blank post...lol

Supporters of the status quo keep arguing against a republican movement of their own invention rather than the real thing, which is quite pathetic. To put things back on track, here are the main issues (from wikipedia):

The main argument made by supporters of an Australian republic is that it is inappropriate for someone in a distant country to be their head of state. The argue that a "foreigner" whose main job is as the head of state of the United Kingdom, and spends his or her life there, cannot represent Australia, not to itself, nor to the rest of the world.

Republicans argue that Australia had changed culturally and demographically, from being "British to our bootstraps", as prime minister Sir Robert Menzies once put it, to being increasingly multi-cultural. Aborigines and Australians of Irish origin, they argued, saw it as a symbol of British imperialism.

It is argued that several characteristics of the monarchy are in conflict with modern Australian values. The hereditary nature of the monarchy is said to conflict with Australian egalitarianism and dislike of inherited privilege. (based on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republicanism)

The first argument is the critical one and very hard for supporters of the status quo to counter, so they avoid it and avoid it. Republicans disagree as to the type of constitutional reform required, which is the main reason for lack of success sofar. There is little interest in actually keeping the monarchy because the Queen has no influence the government at all.

Read my article on an Australian republic here:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=1125

Spot on post David L. In a nutshell; a monarchy is an anachronism with no political value at all. The hereditary nature flies in the face of true democracy. We can still retain the very best of the Westminster - we just don't need a foreign (english) figurehead. We can appoint our own truly representative of Australia, someone independent of government, such as our Governor General is supposed to be. By not by Prime Ministerial appointment - vote by senate perhaps.

And then we can get a flag that really represents Australia! I have always liked and admired Canada's flag. Would like to see something as simple and succinct for us. I used to believe a combo of Southern Cross & Aboriginal Flag, but now I think a new start for us all. Something we all agree on.

Opinionated2, the point (in my view) is not that the Queen physically sought to stop apartheid in South Africa, or for that matter the 1987 coup in Fiji - but that in order to achieve their aims, the South African and Fijian governments had to abolish the monarchy.

From that perspective, the Crown acts as a S&P-style constitutional "credit rating" indicating that the Cconstitution of a country is in reasonable order.

Response to Alexander Drake:

You've just provided one of the reason why republicanism is important.

The Queen giving a constitutional "credit rating" to Australia? Apart from the fact you are wrong about the Queen's influence, nothing could be more offensive to our soverignty.

Australia is not ripe for revolution, apartheid or anything of the sort. With all due respect, this shows a lack of confidence in Australia, its values and its independence.

Response to Scout:
Thanks. Have a read of my article here http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3703 , as a way of retaining the best of the Westminster tradition, yet enabling us to have an apolitical, non-executive, yet elected Head of State. Interested in your thoughts.

Philo - the Governor General is not Australia's Head of State. That role is given by our Constitution to the Monarch of Great Britain. The G-G is only the Queen's representative here. This post of G-G is a political appointment made by the PM and rubber stamped by the Queen, to fulfil the PM of the day's agenda, such as to keep a low profile and keep the republic issue quiet as the current occupant does. The G-G has no role at all when the Queen is in Australia and he keeps completely out of the way.

Our true head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, by all appearances an impressive woman, does not live in Australia. Her main job is as monarch of Great Britain. Now that she is ageing she will probably play even less of a role in Australia but may remain on the throne well into a long dotage if she is as long-lived as her mother was. American Presidents visit Australia as often and have far more influence in Australia than does the Queen. At least they are elected and can serve only for a maximum of 8 years.

But all this is fine by you I suppose. It ain't broke, ain't it?