Excellent article,i couldn't agree more.

This article is nothing short of amusing. The socialist anti male, pro homosexual media has dominated this country for years. The tax funded ABC/SBS is a recruiting ground for the ALP and a propaganda machine for the loony left. Comparing the totally incompetent Gough with a maverick in Jo Bjelke-Petersen who did more for Queensland than most is laughable. Gough's only legacies were a bankrupt nation and the seeds for the destruction of the aborigines. Gough has left more rotten fruit in a short period of time than most competent Prime Ministers could do in 3 lifetimes.

"By our volunteering to have the head of state of another country to be our own, we are an example to a world of intrigue that genuine fraternities are possible." This sounds like you believe the world cares about Australia and what we do, it sounds very egotistical to be honest. Gosh we're setting a lot of examples to the world for them to sit up and take notice, next we'll be telling everyone they must stop developing as we believe that assists AGW!

Most Australians want to be republicans because they are not of Anglo-Saxon pedigree and just don't see the world like the monarchists do (who on the whole appear to be of that pedigree). They find it very confusing that our head of state is not Australian, as do many countries - the Americans on the whole, for instance, don't see us as an independent country as our head of state is British.

Do we want to spend our lives trying to constantly correct the confusion of the rest of the world about why we have a head of state from another country as our own? It's all about perceptions, which is why each government appoints a GG they think will assist their own goals - rather than the country's goals.

"We need a Governor-General with a high profile" Why? It's a figurehead position, to seperate state and government, you say "someone at the top who we can respect and who is above our self-serving parliamentarians." Oi! careful, those are the elected representatives, such as they are - the GG is not elected and is a political appointment. Quentin Bryce will most likely do as she's told, as the hand that gives can take away, and not derail the republican movement at all.

"Most Australians want to be republicans because they are not of Anglo-Saxon pedigree and just don't see the world like the monarchists do..." claims 'rpg', but gives no evidence of this.

Concrete evidence tells us that the last go at having a republic was soundly thrashed by referendum; statistics deny that most Australians are not Anglo-Saxon.

"Do we want to spend our lives trying to constantly correct the confusion of the rest of the world about why we have a head of state from another country as our own?" 'rpg' asks.

How much time has anyone spent 'correcting' the rest of the world? And, the Queen is the Queen of Australia - a different and separate position from her role as Queen of Great Britain.

Much better arguments are needed to refute Brian Holden's excellent refuting of the need for a republic.

"statistics deny that most Australians are not Anglo-Saxon." claims 'Mr Right', but gives no evidence of this.

So easy to pick apart someone else's comments - I was responding to the opinion piece, which as a republican, I feel is weak.

You might not travel much or talk to folks from other countries, so may not ever have been asked about why our Queen is the head of state of another country, your ignorance is not my fault or problem.

With a moniker of Mr Right, I would have expected you to be on top of all the possible areas of error you could be picked apart on, such is life.

who is master of the australian state?

the governor general. he hires, and fires the ministers who run the nation. his signature legitimizes their activity.

unfortunately, the struggle between monarch and upper classes in britain confused the issue: the upper classes were able to put bigger and better armies in the field, and the king lost his head. the upper classes gained power, but lost legitimacy. as they were visibly not doing the will of god in killing the king, and were clear and vocal about not empowering the people, they were in a legal and moral limbo. the result was a military dictatorship, for if military force is the arbiter of governance, a general is best placed to use it.

britain ran back to monarchy not because the 'gentlemen' wanted a king, but because they saw that a king's mandate from god was a powerful protection from timocracy and democracy. so they struck a deal with a hobbled king: he did as he was told, they pretended he was master. the system has evolved somewhat, but is widely used in the commonwealth today. it has nothing to do with democracy, and very little to do with monarchy.

australia lives in his tradition: a false monarchy fronted by a neutered governor general acting as a fig-leaf for the actual oligarchy. a few hundred people rule this nation, that is oligarchy. they are dependent on controllers of wealth to fund their campaigns, so their activities favor the rich. since the rich remain rich longer than pollies remain in power, perhaps it's a plutocracy as well.

"but we vote! so it's a democracy!"

nope. what counts is what you are allowed to vote for. you're not allowed to vote for policies. in california, they set policies and plans with citizen initiatives, and fire governors they judge to be be duds. in switzerland, government expenditures over a small size are put to the people in referenda, and citizens can an do start referenda them selves. that's real democracy. when oz pollies use the word 'democracy, they are not using english, they're using 'newspeak'.