Peter Van Liet makes good sense and echoes the thoughts of the large majority of Australian citizens. The Republic is inevitable and coming closer every day. Almost humerous to read the bleating of David Flint. It will be interesting to see how he copes with the Taxation Investigators who can see through a rort when they find one. Question. Will the Governor General also be looked at as the Patron-in-Chief?

David Gothard

Let's be clear. We would have a republic right now, if Howard hadn't cynically scuppered the convention and referendum a few years ago.

He is the barrier to a republic. Get rid of Howard and it will happen pretty quickly.

To have the Union Jack being paraded around the MCG every time an Australian wins a medal is a joke. The Brits laugh every time they see it - e.g. the Barmy Army at cricket matches sing words to the effect "you haven't even got your own flag".

The Monarchy works very well for Australia, and some gratitude to the Queen for facilitating its working would be appropriate.

The article is gross and based on ignorance of how to refer to our head of state.

There are many situations requiring criticism and attention, and the constitutional monarchy is not one of them. It works smoothly and well, and is a living part of our cultural history.

There are many things of which we should rid ourselves because they do not work and do undoubted harm to the community.

A small start to a list of such items: Multiculturalism, violation of motorists rights, governments who run down infrastructure by neglect, undemocratic demands for rights of minorities and particularly the attitude of attacking functional institutions and processes simply because they were set up by our more capable forebears.

Until we become a Republic we will always be at the behest of any power that wishes to co-ope our country into their wars, for their selfish reasons and our politicians egotistical vested interests. Our own President, if elected with the right process, would voice the will of the people and let the politicians dare take the people on at their own risk. Currently, the John Howard’s of this nation can run their own race with impunity as have countless others before him. I said to my wife when he took us to war with the willing that this was so little Johnny could spend a week on George W's Texas ranch! Sure enough, less than one year later, there was smiling Johnny with his chest puffed up in the photo opportunity at George's ranch for one week. A high price to pay just to stroke Johnny's ego. I rest my case.

A republic yes, but only if its done the right way. We need a system that doesn't continue with the current situation that disenfranchises the people. The people to choose a president, the form and make up of parliament and then ban parties and restrict election advertising to $5000, no donations, no affiliations. All those running for office to submit their policies in stat-dec, form and be accountable for all their actions in office. Elect them for certain portfolio, with automatic sacking if they fail to achieve their policy aims within a year. That'll keep them honest.

That way we would get rid of the trash we now have running the country in both federal and state politics. Their only elected according to their stupidity and ability to toe the party line, most have never done a usefull days work in their lives.

Leo,

Just how does the monarchy work very well for Australia. I don't think it works at all!! Betty is not an Australian citizen. She does not live here. She has never lived here. She will never live here. She may not vote in any of our polls. She pays no taxes here. She has to do what our PM tells her re. Australia. I beleive she has the right to be advised and informeed by the PM of Great Britain (every week? Month?) Our PM doesn't have to meet with her at all.....at least not on a regular basis that I'm aware of. She blows in every now and then. She cannot marry a Catholic (presumably, she may marry anybody else) so, therefor, the monarchy side-show is based on discrimination. What does she do for us but keep us safe from the dreaded Pope and his armies?

Very good article Peter.

Another contrast of integrity between the republicans and monarchists. The republicans said they'd not protest and the monarchists handing out 'God Save the Queen'. If they did coax part of the crowd to keep singing, how does that serve the unifying role the Queen is supposed to have. Knavish tricks indeed.

Can someone please explain to me why we apparently have only two options - monarchy or republic?

Response to Ev:

A constitutional monarchy is where there is a soverign who rules according to law.

A republic is a state which the soverign held authority granted by the people and ruled according to law.

It's the people who are asking to be sovereign, and sofar no other claimants to Australian soverignty.

I am an admirer of a woman who has obeyed the call of duty most of her long life.
There has been a long parade of Presidents who have come and gone during her reign. They are a bunch of no bodies now.[no pun intended]
She has gained the respect of millions, hurt no one in her path and should be an inspiration of how to walk such a difficult path without a wobble.
There is no one who can take her place so it is inevitable that we will become a republic.
Then we will have a parade of short lived Presidents who will become no bodies-but expensive no bodies.
There is a huge difference.

Oh Mick spare me please! Tell me what makes the Queen so noble besides her birthright? She has done Zero for Australia, let alone the world. The entire royal family peddle around doing nothing for the cost of billions and the lessening of possible democracy. Now I am by no means defending the legacy of other political leaders past and present, but great the Queen is not.

I prefer to judge those according to the difference their existence has made. I am sick and tired of people regarding the lives of the famous as significant and worth honouring simply b/c they are famous. It is the same point with Packer. As Richard Walsh said regarding his 'legacy': "it is truly appalling that our residual sense of sadness can be channelled by the Packer interests and its claquers to raise him to the kind of herioc stature that his life doesn't justify. In some ways he unfortunately represents all that is wrong with contemporary Australia". A tad off topic I know, but you see the point.

jkenno, tell me what the long line of recent presidents/prime ministers have done for the world. A fine display of yesterdays roosters, today's feather dusters.
We no longer call the UK 'home' but for many of us, the relationship,as with the USA, is still valid.
We have moved on, grown up,made a new life but some bonds still linger.Bonds not ties. There is a difference.
There are fond memories of a past with a lady we all respect who was, is still our Queen. She has done us no harm.

Mickijo, Monday 27th March has a point.We certainly do have a lot of feather dusters who do little for our Nation,sorry Colony. True the Queen does us no harm but does she do any good for us?. Apart from having final approval for each and every decision taken by our elected Government, she remains the symbol of our colonial status which the majority of Commonwealth Nations now have rejected.Australia surely has grown up and should now have the status of a Free and Independent Republic with our own chosen Head of State from one of our own citizens. Colonial control is an archiac throwback to the past and we should now plan to stand on our own feet.

The mother of Prince Charles is the FIRST Queen Elizabeth of Australia.
The previous Queen Elizabeth of England died years before Australia was 'discovered' by Cook etc.

Does Peter van Vliet actually lack national self-confidence just because Prime Minister Howard is not president? Really? Is that what all of this is about? Do you think he lies awake at night dreaming of saluting his own President; that his own national self-esteem actually depends on it? Does he really believe the rest of the world even cares?

And they say monarchists speak from the heart, whereas republicans speak from the head. Is that why Peter here would foresake most of glorious Australia in a false bid to conciliate his own nationalist feelings? Is he willing to say goodbye to the fiercely proud Royal Australian Navy and all of "Her Majesty's Australian Ships"? Is he willing to let go of the Royal Australian Air Force and every one of the Queen's Australian Regiments? How about the Royal Australian Mint? The Royal Australian Chemical Institute? The Royal Australian Institute of Architects?...et cetera. How much more of Australia's royal and national pride would Peter wreck? Believe me, we're just getting started here folks.

All for what? All for a political president? King Edward's thousand year throne for a republican child? Peter, say it isn't so. You and your republican mates have got to be joking.

And another thing: Australia did not lead the Commonwealth pack to independence from Great Britain, Canada did. From the Durham Report to the Statute of Westminster, the Commonwealth followed Canada's lead. In 1867 we became the first self-governing confederation and dominion of the British Empire, so I'm not sure what Peter means when he says Australia led the pack on that one.

By the way, even though Canada did better at the Turin Winter Olympics than any other Commonwealth country combined, none of us actually thought our national pride suffered because we were presidentless. Why don't republicans just grow up and get a little pride in their national heritage. Because what a proud heritage it is!

Colony? Pardon me David, your inferiority complex is showing. We are a nation that has grown from being a convict settlement to one of the best in a small amount of time.
In fact I have a strange feeling that all republicans have the same inferiority complex,they all want to play with a President , makes them feel less of a mummy's boy.
There is no doubt that we will also become a republic, the UK in a few years will become a muslim enclave and we will have cut our bonds by then.
I hope we will be a strong republic as we have been a strong monarchial nation. But all the shallow claims that the pro republicans have waved in front of us will not hasten the decision. Australians are too sensible to be rushed into stupidity.

I observe that we are on the same side, Mickijo. Agree completely that we will shortly become a Free and Independent Republic with our own chosen Head of State. I doubt that there is any feeling of inferiority but yet one has to remember that we are NOT a nation but rather inferior serfs of the United Kingdom. We are subservient to a foreign Queen who comes to the position by accident of birth.Who is not an Australian citizen and cannot even vote at our elections. Becoming a Republic will build our status as it has for the majority of former Colonies. Only then can we stand proud as a Free Nation with the ability to democratically choose our own Head of State and be able to make decisions unfetterred by a foreign monarch

David, you are not colonial or inferior serfs to the UK. The bonds that unite the nations of the Crown Commonwealth are fraternal, not colonial. As a Canadian, I feel a special attachment and kinship to Oz, a bond you would churlishly weaken by punting the family patriarch. Besides, Australia has it all; a much better situation than the quango state image of England, which as a nation has no parliament, no anthem and no official recognition. Yet they pay for the Queen, whereas you don't. So get over your chincy, inferior thinking.

Not Colonial? You could have fooled me, MONARCHIST. The draft of our Constitution submitted to the (then) Queen recorded that we were "CITIZENS OF AUSTRALIA" but the British Government changed this and we became, and still are "SUBJECTS OF THE QUEEN." Even so, once as 'British subjects' we had the right to enter England with that status. Now this has been removed and we have to join the Aliens queue. Every decision of our democratically elected Australian Parliament is subject to veto by the heriditary foreign Queen as our Head of State. Hence we have to seek 'Mummy's' approval for everything we do. Nothing fraternal about that. Seems I have missed something when you suggest that England has "no Parliament, no Anthem and no official recognition." Perhaps they do subsidise the Queen and all her cohorts except when she makes a very infrequent visit to the Colony. Accompanied by the large team of hangers on. Costs us a fortune and for what? Stays a couple of days for a quick cuppa, (made with Malvern water because our water is not to her taste) gives a few desultory waves and appears extremely bored with the whole process. We can do better and the desire for political freedom grows daily. The Free and Independent Republic of Australia is on the horizon and very soon will dispose of the Colonial status and become free of the inferior 'Colonial Serf' position. The sooner we can grow up and stand on our own feet as Citizens of the Australian Republic, then we will be able to cast off the colonial status and select our own Head of State from one of our own citizens. Only then can your assertion of a fraternal relationship be realised.

David ,you paint a gloomy picture. Poor Australians .Slaves at Britain's outpost, no autonomy,no laws of their own, dependant on Britain for everything. Crikey! not even water to boil the billy with, we will have to wait for the next Barque from the Brits for a cargo of bottled water.
It is this attitude by the republicans that puts us right off, as if this nation is so insecure, so backward, so lacking in rigour that only a PRESIDENT can save us.
It is not us who are doing the cringing, we are fine and at the right time we will do what is needed.
And you poor old republicans can go on being miserable until then.

Aussie’s don’t know what it’s like to have a Head of State let alone have one of our own in the job.

There are three people sharing the duties of Australian Head of State:

1. The Queen. Though the titular HoS she does nothing as Australian head of state except to visit here occasionally. She never puts our views and interests forward when she is in another country no matter how fine a woman and Queen she is.

2. The Governor-General. As with his predecessors, he is the hireling of the Prime Minister. It’s especially obvious with John Howard as head of government that the G-G only gets the ceremonial tasks that the PM doesn’t want to perform himself. Sir William Deane did begin to push the envelope slightly and showed what we might be able to do with an independent Head of State but the rest seem content to be fete openers. Having said that, I acknowledge that Michael Jeffery is doing what he should be doing in Northern Queensland at the moment.

3. The Prime Minister. John Howard has assumed the de facto role of Head of State and uses the position to further his popularity and secure his political position. I suspect his main reason for opposing a republic is not that he sees benefits in keeping the Crown and Queen in our Constitution but more that he can manipulate the current system for his own ends. I don’t know that the next PM would be any different.

I want an Australian republic not just to get the Queen off our coins but to see an independent national, apolitical leader emerge and put the politicians back where they should be – in parliament, sorting out the budget and foreign policy etc.

That change won’t happen the day after our President is appointed/elected – it will take some time.

What about the cultural and institutional vandalism - everything from the Royal Australian Navy down. Do republicans care not one whit about their national heritage? Yeah , that's what I thought. Shhhh. Don't tell. Mums the word.

Response to Monarchist:

Lot's of heavy handed accusations there, and nothing to back it up.

The ships of the Australian Navy belong to Australians; built by Australian shipyards; paid for by Australian taxpayers; commissioned by Australian governments and manned by the Australian Defence Force. Yet HMAS means Her Majesty’s Australian Ship.

Shhh, lets not remind anyone of that, eh?

Republicans care for OUR national heritage and monachists care for ... something else.