I believe you're asking the wrong question. Rather:

Can the monarchist movement justify the continued expenditure on royal visits, the continued presence of a foreign country's flag in the corner of our flag, the continued fiction that an overseas resident is our head of state.

AMSADL's post just further demonstrates Nick's point.

The system we have at the moment, although not perfect, works. It defines the 4 levels of government, the Monarch/Governor General, the Executive, the Parliament, and the Judiciary.

The Australia Act (1986) clearly states that the Monarch can only exercise there powers whilst physically in Australia - as is the case now. Otherwise those powers are vested in the Governor General.

The Union Jack in the cornor of the flag is a mere token, just as a bannana in the cornor would be a token. It doesn't change how we live or what it is to be an Australian. Neither does the relative pittance it costs the tax payers for the odd royal visit every decade or so. I'd be more concerned about the cost of "Fact Finding Missions" that politicians indulge themselves in, or the cost of maintaining Jet Fighters over Canberra when George W. comes visiting.

Dispite my agreement with Nick's statement that the drafters of our Constitution were great men, they were of their day. Much of our Constitution contains the phrase "until the Parliament otherwise provides...." Over the last 105 years the Parliament has determined these provisions, so the Constitution needs updating and revision.

"Written rules are almost meaningless without a culture dedicated to their observance and compliance with them.”

Exactly. Republicans may have had something to offer Australians, when we were a virtually homogenous culture – i.e. Anglo/Saxon and like-minded West Europeans with just a small minority of others who quietly fitted in and didn’t create the divisions we have today. There was talk of republicanism as soon as the first ‘currency lads’ could articulate it.

But, unlike America, we missed the boat. That country’s immigrants arrived in a well-established republic, where being American meant something. Our ‘late onset’, enforced multiculturalism has created tribes of people who have nothing in common with the host population or each other. The apologists for Third World immigration claim that newcomers will eventually meld with the host population; that they want the same things as we do: jobs, housing, freedom etc. Everyone wants these things, but they have nothing to do with culture. These people don’t share the same memories and culture. Our culture is ingrained. So is their culture, and never the twain shall meet. The fact that multicultural dogma insists that people retain their different cultures helps ensure that the divide will always be there.

Immigration from non-traditional countries appears set to continue, and we have increasing numbers of people who want something from Australia, but it is not what we want.

Our freedom and way of life is based on the best system in the world. We can resist the unnecessary changes constantly harped on by ‘progressives’ (who will never give up) or we can give in. Giving in would be easier, but we would then merely be living out the rest of our lives accepting that our culture would diminish to the point of being irrelevant. Barbarians would fill the gap

Nick,

This is a very selective reading of Senator Allison's article and the republican movement in general. She gives three reasons for why the 1999 republic failed: "insidious tactics employed by the Prime Minister, the campaign of disinformation waged by monarchists, and the stubborn disagreement that existed among republicans"

You forgot to read the last bit. If you had done so, then you would have been forced to write something completely different. Clearly, republicans do want a better system of government. You pretend that they don't, which is very convenient, saving you from addressing any of the specific points the Senator raised.

What is most telling is your "democracy demands" counter-argument. Is this some sort of criticism against using personification in an essay? Do you not understand this sort of language device, as it seems to be your main criticism. – democracy is our servant!

Wait, that’s personification too.

So democracy is our servant, but it cannot demand that we elect our head of state, because then it would not be our servant but our master, and democracy would rule over us, which is no good, so we should not mess with "the mechanisms that make society work" ... also proving that 0 = 1 and walking on two legs was a big, big mistake.

Senator Allison goes on to ask some rhetorical questions about male primogeniture and why, as a democrat, she is not cool with it, but clearly offended by all these literary flourishes, these points are not canvassed at all. Coincidence or silk stocking?

Then at last we have the dog whistle. I didn’t hear it, but that’s cause I’m not a dog. (thanks Leigh for barking)

In 1999 I was a republican at heart, and tend to remain so however have plenty of reservations. Lyn Allison's reasons for the failure at that time are back the front and hugely different in importance. She firstly blames John Howard. That's crap. If the reasoning put forward by the leaders of the Republicam movement were adequately pursuasive we would have overrode his objections easily. Same with the "campaign of dis-information waged by the monarchists". We would have seen through that if effective arguements had been out forward by the Republicans. The killer was the inability of the Republican movement to come up with a cohesive scenario on how the country should be managed, what were the benefits for us all and how the quality of life in Australia would safeguarded after tossing out a system that has worked as good as any country in the world enjoys.
As far as I can see, 7 years down the track, there is still no progress on that horizon. Until I can be pursuaded that there is a guaranteed option on the table that incorporates vision, is risk free and benefits the overwhelming majority then I'm with Nick.

Excellent article Nick, I can only agree with everything you say. If any posters think that words have any meaning ourtside the culture, I can only suggest they read the Soviet Constitution of 1936, which is available here:

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons01.html

The only way that John Howard ensured the failure of the republican referendum was to insist that the Convention agree on a model. This is where we differ from the Americans, who got rid of the crown in 1776, and then had to go through two constitutions and a civil war before they got their system right. Certainly their current constitution is one of the great cultural achievements of western man, because it was the first of its type, and many others, including us, have modelled significant parts of their system on it. Rather then just bagging the Queen, which I am sure is counter-productive, republicans should be proposing exactly what system they would replace her with.

Our Constitution, which is the fourth oldest in the world, is, I believe, the only one where the text can only be changed by the people. The history of referendums shows that the people have rightly been very wary of proposals to change it. Long may that continue.