I think the Republican Movement still has some big hurdles. They argue Australia should have an Australian Head of State. However, the representative of Australia's Head of State, the Governor-General, is Australian and the Head of Government (John Howard) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are also both Australian and also have the capacity to represent this country on various occasions.

How would the Head of State under an Australian republican be selected? By popular vote? Then you introduce competition between the government of the day and the Head of State. You'd need to make a few constitutional changes as well. By the Prime Minister? Then there's no point dispensing with a constitutional monarchy - the PM already appoints the Governor-General.

Personally I think republics can work. Germany and Austria have been working quite well as republics. But unless the current system in Australia lurches into severe crisis there is little incentive to change.

I completely agree that Australia's head of state should be an Australian.

I believe I understand why the republic didn't get up last time around too, although many won't like to hear this truth.

I doubt the people in Pakistan for example would tolerate a community of Anglo's living there (none would of course) debating changing the flag, questioning the values of the society.

We all know that they would be killed, no less. We know that.

The people telling us we should have a republic are the same people who want us to change our flag, who question what Australian values are - bizarre given everyone wants to come here.

These people are made up of nihilistic leftist elitists and extremely ethnocentric 'new Australians', although basically such racist sentiment would be in most non-Anglo's, and indeed I've found that in my experience.

One only needs to imagine the reverse to see how racist such a notion is, and indeed we've seen that non-western cultures resort to violence almost immediately upon conflict.

I believe many resent seeing people who have been in the country five minutes wanting to rearrange the furniture so to speak - yet when questioned about their 'homeland' are fiercely against multiculturalism there.

I've found Italians and Greeks in particular opposed to multiculturalism in their 'real countries', and still quite xenophobic generally.

This notion that it's 'tradition' that the Greek father will only allow his daughter to marry a Greek is hogwash - it's racism through and through.

Such a practice is mild compared to those from cultures that have arranged marriages often to one from their own tribe back home - truly the very meaning of 'xenophobia'.

Unfortunately, many 'new Australians' see this place as nothing more than a bank, or mabye Centrelink, they have no attachment. This is why despite being only 40% Anglo, our volunteer services, police, fire brigade, ambulance, and so on - are almost exclusively Anglo.

This says a lot more than people realise.

Such ethnocentric migrants can't be entirely blamed though, as the leftist vermin who run our educational institutions have encouraged this xenophobia in the guise of 'diversity'!

All western countries are totally diverse, with hundreds of sub-cultures. We aren't simply a folk dance and a special dish, we have an unlimited amount of what I term 'superficial' culture.

It's when one gets down to the substance that one sees only the west has culture. Our values, ethics, are the only that are good. The ethics of Saudi Arabia, for example, or any Muslim state, are sickening.

To hear non-westerners ask what Australian values are is the height of ignorance. One with such mindset ought to study the European enlightenment philosophers, to see where our values developed, and why everyone wants to live here.

To not 'feel' part of a country that welcomed you is outrageous. All western nations have gone out of their way to accomodate those from third world cultures, although frankly we can never accomodate their values.

I think it's telling that it's only in the places where the Union Jack went, i.e, Canada, USA, NZ, Australia, among countless others who have been influenced by our democratic, open-minded ideals, where this debate can be had without bloodshed.

Frankly I think that says it all really.

Anglo tolerance is way over the top, and it is being taken advantage of by those from racist cultures.

This is why it failed last-time and will fail again. That people can't see what is happening is even worse. We all acknowledge that the non-western world is largely barbaric, unjust, and lives under caste systems, has vile corruption, and so on.

Islamic nations are so vile in some, like Iran, the age of consent for females is nine years, because the Prophet had a wife of such age.

Forget about a republic, we need to go around the world occupying the backward non-western third world.

but i think benjamin against it. this is serious.

Before I start, let me state that I dont think we need to go to the time and expense to change a system that is currently working for us. But, if we must have debate on the topic...

Rather than replacing the monarchy with a president, why not dispense with this branch of government altogether. The function is purely ceremonial, and its an additional expense that the country could do without. The Prime Minister is the official representative of this country - we dont need anther head of state as well. The only active function that I am aware of is the ability to dismiss the government of the day in the case of a hung parliament (yes Gough, it was a legal move). To avoid this, an automatic facility could be introduced that dissolved parliament should x-number of bills be held up, or for x-number of days. This would also give some incentive for all parties to work things out, given that the clock would be ticking and they would not be waiting on someone's discretion.

If we are going to remove the monarchy because they are defunct, lets not replace them with someone else who is also defunct.

Australia's head of state is Australian - and republicans know it. There is a dual role...to act as head of state and as the Queen's representative in her role as head of the Commonwealth.
What republicans want is power - some see themselves as President and others just think they should be able to choose (from among their own) who will be the head of state.
The move would cost billions of dollars and we would be seen abroad as unstable. Believe me Asia and the rest of the world does not laugh at our membership of the Cth or our form of government and suggestions to the contrary are mischief making.