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.

An interesting enough article, with interesting enough ideas. I'm not sure that I agree with much of it though.

Sure, the economic climate may well have an impact on voters; sure, the radicals at both ends of the debate add colour and light to the arguments (we really need an Australian equivalent of the Monster Raving Loony Party, just to enliven our campaigns. Now THERE is some electoral reform I could go for).

Really, though, the reasons why the republican movement have stalled are surely more complex than this article suggests. Isn't the basic paradox the fact that a "minimalist" republic will be forever open to charges that it is a huge waste of money for a purpose that goes nowhere beyond symbolism; while a more substantial constitutional reform risks having its momentum grind down in the debate on the details?

There may be, for instance, popular support for the concept of electing a President. But how would such a process mesh with a parliamentary system based on responsible government? The devil's in the detail, and opponents of the bill can pick at the eyes of any reform proposal by isolating its most concerning details.

The elephant in the room is s.128. The sheer difficulty of getting the necessary double-majority on *any* controversial topic is overwhelming. Majority popular support for a SPECIFIC proposal is still not going to be enough. The support would have to be overwhelming, because in constitutional change contests, a mediocre defence is still odds-on to defeat an excellent offence.

Possibly the colonial-style quarry economy, in which our self-supportive manufacturing structure has now pretty well disappeared, allowing only a temporary infrastructure to support our outback pitstock boom in iron-ore and metals precious to manufacturing in China and India, and still in Japan. One wonders about such a big step back, if we do not somehow equal more in a modern sense, the types of innovative manufacturing we became so famous for in the past?

It is so interesting that we were not only manufacturing our own steam locomotives and rolling stock in Australia, but did actually put together from our own and overseas smaller patents, the reaper-thresher that the huge combine harvesters that we pay fortunes for now from America, were derived from.

We also invented the non-cutter blade systematic stripper harvester with a peg-drum thresher, and which made good sales in South America, particularly in the Argentine.

The stump-jump disc plough was also our invention, and later famous world-wide.

Moreover we were also making our own heavy truck for some time, per favour of course from IHC - International Harvester Company of the US of A. Probably when we began to innovately go downhill.

Nearly forgot about our last park or garden contribution, the Victa Mower, mother of all such lawn trimmers worldwide.

Now all we have to replace such innovative capacity is a world record overseas debt so big, the Howard government is dead-scared to mention it through the media.

What's the bet one doesn't get credit for the above, but only the usual Old Pap stuff caused by out of date looney left wing leanings.

I agree with communicat.

The argument for a Republic with a President based on nationalism and restriction against those not born here contradicts itself. The official head of the Australian Commonwealth upholds democracy above political corruption, without divisive special interest and without prejudice.

She or he is the Australian official head of State, the Defender of the Military, "the faith", and is our ultimate diplomat.

The Governor General does not have to be born here but these days, usually is. He holds the Crown, and the Crown is the balance itself.

I am don't believe that I am radical on this issue at all: neither a traditional Royalist nor an extreme leftist. I am, however, consistently an advocate for an Australian Bill or Charter of Rights. All OECD democracies have a written Bill or Charter of Rights: even the UK and NZ. Democratic Kingdoms like the Netherlands and Sweden have their rights enshrined. Australia is the last without one. So we have no rights etched in stone.

On my views on Prince William and Charles III why not look at my thread?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=771

Quoting Parkes is just abject nationalism without consideration for the tyranny, which the man caused.

Trusting former communist, Republican and born-again tycoon: Malcolm Turnbull, wife of Lucy Turbull: the infamous former Mayor of Sydney just discredits the writer.

Saying that we are incomplete without a Republican President for Australia, in the system that we have now is under-graduate.

We don't need more power for the Australian elite tycoons; we need our rights as the people. Unless this happens, well, we are better off trusting the Palace. Who in Australia would you trust as President? John Howard?

Andrew

As one of the 'leftist vermin', I think the outstanding positive of not being a republic is that Australia is a member of the Commonwealth countries.

This allows young Australians to reside in other Commonwealth countries such as England and Canada.

This opportunity has become a passage of right for young Australians. It would be a shame if Australians were no longer offered this opportunity.

We are a remote country. It broadens opportunities as well as the mind. And I quite like British people to boot.

I hope we do not become a republic for these reasons alone.

If Australians were offered a republic, what sort would it be? One where the head of state has considerable political power such as France or the US? Or one where the head of state takes a backseat to the head of government such as Germany or Israel?

If republicans offer the latter model then there is little point in changing the status quo. If it is the former model then you will have to have more far-reaching change. Is that possible?

I hate the idea of people being born to rule - even only in a limited sense. But I can't get excited about a head of state being appointed by a group of politicians - especially when already the Prime Minister appoints the person who represents our head of state.

i suppose actual democracy is out of the question?

What the Fact is actual democracy? I know of some 15 odd forms of democracy but, actual democracy escapes me.

Andrew, as one proud to call you mate, as well as one who relishes being one of the so-called left-wing vermin, feel also proud to be aligned with Canada and New Zealand even more so now as one along with them who did not support the idiotic illegal attack on Iraq.

Also not strange to say, as one having honours in the social sciences, and who supports the philosophies of the 17th century English philosopher John Locke whose doctrine pretty well puts Royalty and next-to-God Bush style presidencies down into the dustbin, does indeed support an Australian republic with no US-style strings attached.

It is fortunate that people are too busy improving their lives to be dragged into nonsense like a republic. Let us be thankful for good economic times.

We are extremely fortunate, to have serendipitously acceded to a most workable constitutional monarchy.

It should be preserved primarily because it is so workable, inexpensive and trouble free, and secondarily because it is a positive part of our history and tradition.

Of all the ways our political system might be improved, this is not one of them.

Let us look first at how to prevent the country being held to ransom, by some minor party holding the balance of power in our legislatures.

If we ever succeed there, then work on something else which really matters, like reducing the number of politicians, and bureaucrats feeding off the public purse.

Leave the workable, comfortable parts of our system as they are. Who wants another politician? That is what we are really discussing.

Not a single person can argue against my points? Have any of you even thought along those lines? Probably not.

One of the benefits of growing up in the most multicultural part of Australia, Sydney's western suburbs - where third world cultures full of bigots and violent racists (as we see on the nightly news with endless fighting in their third world dump of a homeland).

Most people don't even care because their experience of multiculti is a restaurant on a Friday night, what an outrage.

Hopefully these Paki doctors have scared a few of you into line. I could never be surprised by that, as non-western cultures ethic systems are rubbish.

Racism against 'the other' is a way of life for all non-western countries.

In fact, and it's the reason our nations are full of people with goodwill, our people are too tolerant for their own good.

We've let in animals, although the habitat was put in the western suburbs.

I hope and pray that the next bus or plane that gets bombed is the bus to Woomera with all those leftist loonies on it.

Benjamin, if ever there was one who should do a uni' course in Western history, you are the one.

Oh, goodness me, I forgot, if Howard wins he's going to re-arrange the historical agenda.

Have fun, mate, for I'm going on 87, had a fortunate life and all, but now with the Corporate Culture ruling the roost coupled with a non-reliance on history, reckon it's a good time to light out.

Finally, by your attitude you probably wouldn't know, but it was Churchill who declared that if he had a high-ranking officer under him who did not know history, he would demote him straightaway.

Bushbred,

Argue against my points you coward. You can't knock them down because they are totally correct.

Know any SES workers that aren't Anglo, or western European? Know any ambulance workers, fire brigade, or police?

Anglo's shouldn't be the glue that holds this place together, although it's obvious that non-western cultures are so inherently bigoted and intolerant that they can't even live together let alone set up communities without corruption, and such.

The herd mentality of the non-west is the reason we can see thirty Asian youth at Epping bash and stab a lone Anglo. It's the same with the Lebanese Muslims.

Only those who have Christian influence have values that we can work with.

Grow up mate, I'm against bigotry. It's astonishing you can't even see that. Given the way you're generation was brought up I suppose it's no wonder, although being before the age of political correctness, when we called savages 'savages' and the nonsense of cultural relativism didn't exist, you should be more aware.

There is a reason the Japanese tortured POWS and the Anglo's didn't you know. Our culture is civilised, we aren't cruel animals, we have mercy, feelings, emotions.

You can see this in our faces compared to non-westerners. Although, if influenced by the west, they begin to show that also, and others still, like the Dalai Lama for example, shows it too.

Islamic clerics don't though, I haven't yet seen one that doesn't look like an extremist bigot, with steam coming off him filled with his filthy emotions.

No Father Riley's type work being done in that community. In Islam, charity means terrorist front.

Benjamin, I note that your embrace of "Western Christian values" doesn't include the value of politeness.

Benjamin, I am not knocking you so much for your arguments, but the way you seem to call anyone who has studied in the Humanities, either a fruitcake or a left-wing loonie.

Personally, at my age, with original poor education, who has gained Honours in the subjects you are slating, it makes one regard persons like yourself as needing education far more than those whom you are running down.

Finally, anyone who says the true elements of history can be learnt through modern slipshod methods, which only feed the brain just behind the eyes, Benjamin, is far more likely to finish up as a so-said looney or fruitcake than those who specialise in philosophy or history in our universities.

I remain unconvinced.

This article doesn’t really attempt to show the benefits of an Australian republic. That probably wasn’t its purpose. But the Constitution isn’t going to change before ordinary voters start to see something beneficial in voting for its change.

I’ve lived in three republics overseas, each for more than a year at a time, and visited some others. While these countries weren’t falling apart and the people and their governments weren’t all bad (as opposed to the rantings of some above), I can also see why so many people are aiming to come here. And it is partly for our current political system and its stability.

The author may be right. Change may just naturally come about with time. But I doubt I will live to see it.

Benjamin,

You forgot to mention the British torture of Irish prisoners or of their massacre of defenceless unarmed civilians in India.

Or of the manufacture of evidence against innocent Irish men and women and their subsequent imprisonment.

Or of the Lord Chief Justice of Britain who lamented that had they still had the Death penalty then this tiresome business of having to eventually release those falsely accussed would never have come up.

Ah! Yes, the benefits of a Western slant on things.

The monarchy connects us with New Zealand, with Canada, with Britain, with centuries of cultural heritage, whereas a president would not conect us with anything.

Andrew Leigh quotes Manning Clarke about dividing Australians into enlargers and straighteners: it is the republicans who are the straighteners here.