There will be many issues up for discussion prior
to the upcoming election. Women's magazines have
been giving us "Souvenir Editions" full of pictures
of HRH Prince George of Cambridge born on 22 July, 2013.
I thought it may be an appropriate time to see how posters
felt about Australia kick-starting the Republican debate.

Wayne Swann the former treasurer wanted this debate, "sooner
rather than later." While Malcolm Turnbull, former leader of
the Republican movement was taking a more considered and
cautious approach.

Should the nation consider such a move during Queen Elizabeth's
reign? And should this be brought up during this election?

Mr Turnbull has made the valid point that:

"There have always been many more Elizabethans than Monarchists
in Australia. It is impossible not to admire and respect
Queen Elizabeth. Her lifetime of service has spanned the
lifetimes of most Australians. She is a human link from one
generation to another, a companion from one era to the next."

What do posters think? If you're pro a Republic - Why?
If you're anti - Why?

Yes Lexi I think we do, and that in time we will become our own country.
This subject brings great laughter,some on both sides want it.
And in truth polly,s stopped it last time by wanting their choice, not ours .
Old lady,s said, wait for it, why don,nt the wait till us oldy,s die then do it!
Blimps tell us they fought for our King/Queen and thats the end of that!
Republic new flag new anthem and a fresh start.
Sounds good to me.

Labor supporters are desperate to introduce items where they think they can gain some traction. We had a referendum only a few years back and the decision was made then.

Labor cannot argue its record as it has been the worst ever. It cannot argue fiscal compedence, with a $30 billion deficit this year after catergoracly promising a surplus. Then there is the $300 billion we now owe. Then there is all the abandon schemes they were not compedent enough to implement. The illegal boat arrivals should be enough alone to put the current mob out. Now we know why they were pushing for Turnbull to become leader of the Libs. What happened to 'the greatest moral challenge of our time'.

Why not just debate the 50 plus stuff ups Labor has made, or the $6 billion Rudd has spent since dethrowning Gillard.

lexi,
Here is a new item to debate.

How did the current government go from a $18 billion deficit just back in May to a $30 billion deficit now. How did they get rid of $12 billion in less than 3 months?

Hi Lexi,

Interesting that so many on the republican
side of the debate are not able to
articulate just what it is that needs
fixing by becoming a republic?

I would love to hear from you
what it is you think is broken
and how this may be fixed by
Australia becoming a republic.

I know ideology is an impediment
to rational thinking but
would love YOU to have a stab at it.

Regards

Spexi.

Dear Banjo,

This thread is on the Republican debate.
You're welcome to start your own thread on
The ALP, their faults, and
the budget et cetera. I would appreciate
hearing your views though on why we should
or should not kick-start the Republican debate.
What happened in the past has its own history -
and reasons for why the Referendum failed.
However, lets talk about now - and tell us
what you think about the Republic, and why.

Dear spindoc,

I'm merely
bringing up the subject for discussion and hoping
to have pros and cons put forward by posters.
I thought it would make for an interesting discussion
on this forum.

My personal opinion really doesn't matter,
but for what it's worth - I am for a Republic - because
I feel that we're now mature enough to stand on our own
two feet as a nation.

I would like to see our Head of
State - a person who's given the job based on merit,
not birthright. I would like to see our Head of State
promoting our interests overseas - not those of
England (which is what the Queen does when she travels).
And I would like to have our own flag not those of
another country, et cetera. This is in no way meant as
a criticism of England. It's merely taking a pride in
who we are in this 21st Century.

That is my opinion.
I would love to hear yours.

Not a keen replican but why.
- I like that there is a legal point of last resort that is largely out of the hands of local politics.
- The ongoing existance of the monarchy would seem to depend on those powers they do hold being used rarely and with great caution.
- I've not seen anything to suggest that a local head of state would not degenerate into either yet another party political reward for services rendered to the party or a popularity contest. Perhaps we could have a reality TV series to elect a head of State voting celebrities on or off the show.

Overall what we've got is not perfect but the proposed changes I've seen don't seem to offer any real adavantage and may weaken a protection we have at the moment.

R0bert

Does Australia need to kick-start the Republican Debate?

No Lexi.

We need something much more important than that. A sustainability debate.

Unfortunately, the two are completely unrelated. Which means that a republican debate, or the conversion to a republic, would be pretty damn meaningless in the greater scheme of things!

Especially given that the number 1 republican – one Malcolm Bligh Turnbull, has come out strongly in favour of continued large-scale expansionism and hence antisustainsbility!

Lexi,
You asked a question and I answered it. We had a referendum a few years back and decided then. There are far more important things to debate at this time. Like how do we pay back the debt this current government has racked up? How could a projected deficit go from $18 billion to $30 billion in less than 3 months? These are just two examples of matters far more important than the question of a republic. Then there is the stupidity of the present PM welcoming the illegal boat people, and Labor has the hide to seek another term!

As I said before, you raise the question simply to divert debate away from the incompedence of the present government.

I fully intend to post a thread on the 50 plus stuff ups (and More) of the present government.

I have no problems with threads like this one at a time when I am heartily sick of the Labor versus Liberal crapola usually dished up lately!

I am in favour of a Republic.
Surely we don't continue to need a representative of a foreign 'royal' family, who do diddly squat for Australia, having possibly the last say on some of our political issues ?

As for the British royal family, I have no love for them.
They are a rich bunch of figureheads who are no longer relevant to us 'colonies', thank goodness.
Australia needs to grow up and part ways with all that historical rubbish.

Lexi please forgive me.
I warned the subject brings humor with it.
We see the evidence and it always leaves me rolling on the floor laughing!
People from both sides of politics both want a Republic, and do now want one.
Some will claim it is not patriotic to be a Republican.
Watch for those who claim we would fall apart, become a Banana Republic, they will hold their breath and stamp their feet if you ask why America is not so?
Hiding the fact our flag has changed, ignoring that the boxing Kangaroo.
Is flying along side the southern cross in many homes.
A future Australia WILL become a Republic, it will Review our anthem, and in doing so know, very few of us could tell what its words are past the sons bit.
We are a cosmopolitan country.
Even saying that will see me insulted but we are a country of many races, many are not linked to England.
Why even Scotland is talking of self government.
The first flush of rage, directed by Banjo, at Labor, is to stop debate.
It ignores Turnbull and his roll in wanting change.
The day after we change, become proud of being ourselves we will not become anti Brit, their are forever our cousin never again our rulers.
We will not see a change in us, we are forever us, but fears and bitter knee bending to a little Island so far away will in time end.

I am for a Republic
Lexi,
I would guess most Australians would but the dilemma is who would be the Republicans ? It's obvious that the ALP crowd is foremost in promoting a Republic, so why change when the same incompetents would be in control again ? I think we could achieve being a Republic but we'd need to establish a Republican party first otherwise it will simply continue the pointless battle of liberals vs Labor.

Hi Lexi,

I’ve already given my opinion at the last referendum. I also think that Australia faces some very serious problems, we are into an election and the last thing we need right now are distractions away from the disasters inflicted on all Australian’s by six years of failed governance.

Some other time perhaps?

Does Australia need to kick-start Republican Debate?

Of course it does. it's the best red herring to divert attention of the bogans away from the real issues.
Go for it. It will take your minds off AGW,Peak oil and overpopulation.
Throw in a debate about drugs in sport and why we lost the ashes, at the same time.

belly; become a banana republic? We are one already only needing the republic bit

belly; become a banana republic? We are one already only needing the republic bitRobert LePage,
yes & the ALP Government's even threw in the bend !

spindoc and Robert LP have it in one. There are so many more troublesome things that have to be dealt with. The republican debate is just a distraction from issues that really matter. Leave it for another time when the country has sorted the more vital issues out.

Yes Questa. More vital issues like the merits of Gillard’s ‘sustainable Australia’ versus Rudd’s ‘big Australia’.

Thanks everyone for your contributions.
They are appreciated - and this was exactly
the type of discussion that I was hoping for.
All of you raising valid points and giving us
food for thought.

I came across an interesting site on the web:

http://www.ouridentity.org.au/what-is-a-republic

Quoting bits and pieces from the site:

"In the 1990s most Australians wanted to make the move
to a Republic but were divided on how to select the
Head of State and a Referendum in 1999 only gave
Australians one choice - which was narrowly defeated."

The site suggests that, "To resolve this we propose
that all Australians must be given the right to choose
from a range of selection methods generated through
community discussion..."

Some people may be concerned about losing links with
Britain. As the site stresses, "The strong cultural
links to Britain would remain, but with both countries
as friends and equals."

"We have our own national identity, values, and character.
Australia is our home and it is our responsibility to take
the future in our hands - as Australians. Times have
changed and so have we. Our place in the world is here, and
we are proud of who we have become - Australian."

"A Republic is for all of us, all Australians. It's about
Australia belonging to all of us. It's just common sense -
and its also our great patriotic mission. Shouldn't
whoever represents Australia be chosen by Australians?
Be accountable to us, subject to our laws and be one of us?
Shouldn't the matter of our nationhood be our decision, our
choice?"

It's all something to seriously think about. I completely
understand those that have the attitude that, "If it
ain't broke why fix it." Change is always hard to accept,
at first. However every human advance is based on
experiment, innovation and adventure.

Lexi:
I would far sooner see the constitution changed to included voter initiated binding referendums, than a single referendum for or against a republic.
We might then see a real democracy at work.

Time and time and time again its been rejected... We elected a head of state when we designed the Constitution, that figure head the Queen is mute and the powers to grant Royal Assent rests with the Governor General NOT the Queen, see paragraph 58 of the Constitution.

Americans living in Australia keep demanding Australia adopt their United States form of republic with a President they worship and bend their heads to, and thankfully Australia keeps rejecting that model. Anybody holding power should be open to debate and ridicule where-ever the citizenry thinks fit. But your Head of State should not be subject to public scorn, thus the Head of State should have no powers.

The only two amendments our Constitution needs is to replace paragraph 59 with a sunset clause for the Governor General instead of the Queen, and rewrite the Oath/Affirmation in the schedule.

Belly,
No, not rage. Just recognition of the ulterior motive for the posting of the thread and your motive in support.

The simple fact is that Labor have no record or achievements for the past 6 years, except a gigantic debt that future generations will have to pay off. So you seek to divert attention.

Here we are, up to our eyeballs in debt and the PM just spend another $600 million and exaggerates what it will do.

Lexi and yourself are adding to the mess by wanting to debate a proposal that will cost billions and not produce any income.

This was resolved by a very expensive referendum in 1999.

It should not occupy the time of Parliament until there is a groundswell of public support for it.

At present there is a federal election pending. There are very serious issues confronting Australia.

It is in rather poor taste for senior federal politicians to be spruiking for a republic at this time. It is obvious that some resent the attention being given to a wee baby - which is about the only good news that has graced the headlines of papers for ages.

A treasure is buried here in this thread.
Those looking for it need only see the Conservative side of politics using fear and loathing.
They do not wish to confront the threads truths, so hurl those bricks from the glass castle of their inability to be proud our own country.
Insults and all grief,s sake! Banjo schooled me! in another thread *to ignore attempts to divert that thread!
Fear is driving some Labor is in with a chance and any chance to blacken us, yes the ALP is going to be taken.

Lexi,

I’m so disappointed in you. I posted my response in the same format as you use; I inculcated the tone and content that is used by Belly (as a mark of respect), and you totally missed it!

What more do you want from me?

Let me again try to channel Belly.

It’s not about the debt or deficit, we in the ALP loved Gillard but came to hate the ALP for not getting rid of her when the polls dropped, but we did love her when she knifed Rudd. So we supported the one person we hated more than Abbott, which is Kevin Rudd. Now we are faced with trying to explain this to the electorates. But this is quite simple, if you love the Trade Unions as much as we do, the hypocrisy is accommodated by the fact that we never really liked Kevin in the first place, but hey, he did get rid of Howard. How were we to know that Rudd was such a disaster that we would have to get rid of him after the election and put in place a PM that was worse, OK we didn’t know this at the time because we live in a thought bubble. Our loyalty to those who show no loyalty to us is understandable because we are used to ripping each other off. Craig is a great guy, so are Williamson and Bruce Wilson. Our Loyal union base in the HSU and AWU never did give a damn about where their union fees went so, in accordance with union rules, we expropriated their fees in accordance with the union rules which don’t exist. Anyway all this is Abbotts fault because he was always opposed to fraud, embezzlement and corruption. He just doesn’t understand how real people think. Just because most of the previous ALP ministers have resigned rather than face the electorate in September or work with Kim Young Kevin is no basis for Abbott to claim he could do better, even though we know that most attendees to “kindergarten” would do much better running the country

I am so pleased that we're getting a variety of
opinions on this issue.

Just to clarify a few things - For
me the only motive that I had for presenting this
topic for discussion was that I was getting
somewhat tired of all the hoopla of politics.
I thought what with
the fabulous Royal Birth and an election coming up,
this subject would make for a good discussion.

Dear Banjo,

I appreciate your passion on the subject of politics.
But, I'm so passed discussing it.

BTW -
You were the one who brought politics
into this discussion, not me.
And I did ask you to start your own
discussion on that topic.
Which you said you would do.
I do not want to have this discussion diverted
therefore I again ask that you
please do stick to the topic.

As for the Royal baby news? - I am sure that
all of us wish the young Royal couple all the Joy
in the world.

Now back to the topic -

Should the nation consider
such a move during Queen Elizabeth's reign. Or as Mr
Turnbull suggests - wait until her death?

Your views please.

Dear Belly,

My mum hopes to live long enough to get a letter of
Congratulations from the Queen, when my mum reaches
her 100th Birthday. I told mum that that's not for
many years yet - and the Queen may die before she
does. But I couldn't convince mum this wasn't going
to happen. So there you are. Feelings do run deep.

I have to admit as well that RObert's point made
earlier in the discussion - of having the protections
that we currently do have makes me somewhat hesitant
in trying to decide whether it would be a bad thing
to get rid of them. And how it would all work.
I was hoping for some answers in this discussion.

I guess I'll have to wait and see.
My views are not set in concrete by any means.

Dear spindoc,

Sorry, I don't get the point that you're
trying to make.
I thought you merely suggested that we
should wait six years or so before
kick-starting this debate again. Which is
fair enough. What exactly did I miss?

only see the Conservative side of politics using fear and loathing.
Belly,
Of course because what Labor are doing is scary for anyone with an ounce of concern for Australia's future.

Lexi,

You're cute, devious but cute. Ideologically dependent but cute, naïve but cute, unicorn hugging but cute, myopic but cute, pretentious but cute, transparent but cute and above all cute but Cute.

There is a third option that will please both sides.

Why not keep the current system but appoint our own home-grown Monarch?

He/she would have no political power or purpose beyond being just a "figurehead" while the entire family would be maintained in a state of taxpayer funded luxury and create endless content for local magazines and tourism opportunities.

Since there is no specific talent or skill required for the role, the ruler could be just picked randomly from a national lottery.

wobbles,

You present a compelling case for better citizenship and civics education is Australia. Either that or voluntary voting.

General comment
There is worth in considering what prevents Australians from pursuing a republic.

But wait a bit, maybe those reasons are very obvious and compelling. One being that any nation that doesn't even respect its own culture and traditions and is constantly subjected to the diversification-and-multiculturalism-it-has-to-have doesn't have the bottle to stand up for itself and claim its own place in the world and in history.

The first question is whether the leaders we have and especially the senior political figures from all parties actually respect and would defend the Australian culture, way of life and things we hold dear to our hearts. The only PM that did that in recent times was PM John Howard and he was castigated for it by the very 'Progressives' who want Australians to trust them to cobble together a Republic Australia. Fat chance of that, given their stuff-ups in the social reengineering they have fiddled through so far, with agreements made behind closed doors.

Lexi,
The reasons you give for starting this thread are rubbish. The truth is that you wish to divert attention because the Labor party has nothing to argue with. You can make snide references to the latest royal baby or even suggest we do more to save the koala or whales. It makes no difference, your motive is to divert attention away from the political issues. You chose the republic because you hoped to get some traction on that issue.

For years you have been talking up Gillard and saying what marvellous achievements have been made and what a good job she has done. I even recall you advocating that we fly the illegals here from Indonesia to save lives.

Now suddenly, when an election has been called, you say you are sick of politics. That does not wash. I think Rudd has fallen out of favour with you, Susie and Poirot, because he changed policy about the illegal entrants. However, as you still dislike Abbott, you figure the best way to help Labor is to encourage discussion aside from the more important issues to unimportant matters like 'should we kick start debate on the republic'.

The fact is your favourite subject has been Labors 'humane' acceptance of the illegal boat people, or 'asylum seekers' as you prefer to call them. Now you can't continue that as it is now against Labor current policy. Yep you had better stick to the republic matter.

By the way, I read that there will soon be 50000 illegal entrants here, 51600 if you count the ones that drowned because of Labor's humanity. Yeah, discuss the royal baby and a republic.

Lexi while our differences have been clear in recent months I hold great respect for you.
Banjo too has my respect but the differences are in plain sight.
You have got his blood pressure up, not sure why but a side issue to that is uncontrolled anger.
I think he is becoming strident in this thread.
I recommend Banjo some self observation.
How can you even think you can read Lexi,s mind.
What gives you insight to her very thoughts and reasons for posting a thread.
Let us be honest, no truly deeply honest!
I understand I am currently on the nose here in OLO.
Know why?
See my words offend .
Banjo can you follow this? offend but are my thoughts?
Do we need to change what we think, to avoid flashes of anger like yours here?
Are we to craft our comments to get approval?
No truth is worth defending.
Another,s thoughts right or wrong are worth reading.
In one angry kick in the pants post you mate got it wrong.
Your unfounded claim *said my way or the highway* not just to Lexi but the millions of Australian who want a Republic.
Are we ever going to evolve past being a grafetee wall or will the day come we can be seen to hold any view we want without personal insults and denial of the right to be different?

Dear Banjo,

I'm sorry that you don't believe me.
However I spoke from the heart and with
sincerity. Politics is the last thing on
my mind at present. My mum's having problems
in her nursing home. She suffers from dementia.
And it is a very difficult time
at the moment. I wanted to divert my attention
to a subject that I thought would be interesting
for us all - and give me something else to think
about.

Dear Belly,

I've always respected your integrity and always will.
I consider you a gentleman and I enjoy my time with
you in cyberspace.

Dear spindoc,

Thank You.
Kind words mean a lot.
And they don't cost anything.

Dear OTB,

Thank You for sharing your views.
And I fully understand them.
My entire family is of your opinion, especially my
husband.

Even Queen Elizabeth expressed her view that Australia would come to a Republic in time. It is inevitable. I don't think it matters if it comes during her reign or that of Charles/William and I don't really think the Queen (based on her speech after the first rigged referendum) would mind one way or the other. In fact perhaps the Royals would even prefer it.

While it is not a high priority for me, my reasons for supporting a Republic is that the current model is archaic and serves no purpose. The Royal family and certainly the UK has no interest in supporting and aiding Australia, it has too many problems at home to deal with and rightly should put those interests first.

Spindoc et al:
It is obvious that you are trolling this thread into a pro Lib anti Lab harangue.
Please desist.
We are not all so stupid as to be taken in by it.

Who might we have had instead, luminaries like John Kerr?

Or should it be another opportunity for politically correctness? In that case the geniuses of the Gillard/Greens government might have appointed a lesbian Muslim boat arrival. Hey, its called recognising the diversity-we-have-to-have-and-other-countries-don't. Tony Jones could talk it up on Q&A.

No! That part of the system is not broken and there is no need to fix it. Not while there is a succession of career politicians, usually with bandwagons to ride. Would you trust them to pick the CEO of the super fund where you invested your life savings?

The first priority should be to restore ministerial accountability. Following that there is a long list of others.

No more wasting the Parliament's time, as the Labor/Greens government has wasted time on gay politics instead of resolving priorities like people smugglers, resulting in many deaths and the perception (and reality!) that Australia have very porous borders.

It seems that Wayne Swann and Malcolm Turnbull
in early June of this year launched a book
of essays with the title:

"Project Republic: Plans and arguments for a
New Australia."

I don't know enough about it so I shall have to
try to get a hold of it - and keep you posted.
Sounds interesting.

cont'd ...

Well I have managed to get hold of the book
from my regional library. It does look
interesting and has some great contributors
like, Thomas Keneally, Julian Morrow, John
Warhurst, John Hirst, and Larissa Behrendt,
to name a few. It will be good to read what they
have to say on the subject and the reasons they
give. I hope that it will prove instructive.

Robert LePage,

<< Spindoc et al:
It is obvious that you are trolling this thread into a pro Lib anti Lab harangue.
Please desist.
We are not all so stupid as to be taken in by it.>>

Trolling? Sorry, didn’t mean to subvert a socialist mantra.

Pro Lib anti Lab. No, I’m anti anything that doesn’t work, that damages my nation and impoverishes our children and grandchildren.

Please desist? Your patronizing arrogance, hypocrisy and lack of embarrassment genes know no bounds.

“We are not all so stupid”…………, correct but you are.

Not every thing revolves around politics or our side of it.
Turnbull unless my memory betrays me was the driving force last time, behind the wish for a Republic.
We will become a Republic.
Our country, nothing to do with Muslims, is not just from English back grounds.
And in doing so we will not forget our links to that, or any country.
I see some strange thoughts here, but history is full of great Australians calling for a Republic.

Lexi,

You posted this thread and you say you are interested in views.

But already it has become yet another thread of the same where you continue to post more and more links and disregard any posts that disagree with your opinion.

It is polite to address alternative views rather than just steamrolling on.

For instance, among other things I am wondering what actual benefit would have accrued over the past say two terms of government if your republic had been introduced immediately before. Perhaps the president or whatever title was used would have been as flawed as other appointments influenced by union heavies, and there would have been knifings of the president as well.

It is impossible that there wouldn't be the usual political argy bargy for the top job. You would be demanding that the person in the post be a woman and reflect 'diversity' too wouldn't you? Be honest or be disbelieved.

'Best merit' is rather complicated when that stuff is involved as most would agree. Heaps of oars in the water, games aplenty and the odd bit of white-anting and knifing to amuse the journalists.

Dear OTB,

I am responding and reading all of the posts.
And I have tried to keep people on the subject
at hand.

I have also listed the core reasons as to why
I personally felt that Australia should be a Republic.
Although as I did point out my views are not set in
concrete and I did acknowledge the valid points raised
by RObert about our losing the current protections
that we have in our Constitution. So I did admit
that I do have mixed feelings - hence my getting the
book of essays out from my regional library called,
"Project Republic: Plan and arguments for a new Australia,"
by various emminent writers in the hope of giving me
some more thoughts on the subject.

As for what our nation would have been like as a Republic
during these past years? I think that predicting any
thing is a risky business at the best of times.
But you seem to have the answers to that question so
I shall take it (as Tony Jones would say) - as a comment.

Cheers.

cont'd ...

Ooops, I forgot to reply to your assumption that
I would be wanting a woman in the "top job," and
clamouring for "diversity." We actually have a
woman in the top job. And another as her Representaive
in Australia. However, No. I believe that the
qualifications for any
top position should be based on merit, not on gender
or for that matter birthright. That's one of the reasons
that I believe we should be a Republic. The British monarchy
is inequitable and undemocratic. It goes against core
Australian values of fairness, equality, and egalitarianism -
for Australian citizens to be subjects of a foreign
unelected figurehead monarch.

Under our Constitution the British monarch is the font of all
legal power in Australia and our formal head of state.
Now hundred of years after Federation - I am discussing the
possibility for Australia to finally join the world of
nations as a full equal - unshackled to any other nation.

We can still love the Queen and be excited about the royal
baby - yet still decide to make it on our own.

And as Pelican stated earlier - the Queen has left this choice
up to us. And I also am sure that she would not disapprove.
We need a head of state who will promote Australian interests
overseas - not British, which is what the Queen does.

Eventually it will be up to the people of Australia to
decide. In the meantime, we can discuss the issues.

Lexi, "Eventually it will be up to the people of Australia to
decide"

The people of Australia did decide very recently in 1999 in an expensive referendum.

Arguably since then the experience of government and political parties would not have changed their view. In fact, the opposite would apply.

Notwithstanding that, the fact remains that the people have decided but you and some others cannot accept the democratic decision of the people.

OTB, Lexi
The people decided agains the model of the Republic as offerred by the Howard Government. Polling showed that the Republic was way ahead in support, only that the narrow choice offered in the referendum meant an inevitable outcome.

Still it was the outcome it was. A new referendum offerring a better range of options will no doubt come in time.

Once more Pelican posts the simple truth.
And OTB posts his/her version of it, including within that post a slanted view of others.
It is not unpatriotic to hold any sides views on this subject.
A Republic would not change the map or our culture , and in truth we are bound to be one in time.

Dear OTB, Pelly, Belly,

As I did state in my earlier post in the 1990s
most Australians wanted to make the move to a
Republic but were divided on how to select the
Head of State and the Referendum in 1999 by the
Howard government only gave Australians one choice
and was narrowly defeated.

We should have another plebiscite (after discussions
with the community), allowing them greater options
and choices to decide if and what they want.

If it is such a good idea that people support why didn't Labor propose a change during its two terms of office? What about Rudd?

Julia Whatshername with her Greens sidekicks and the woeful independents passed the carbon tax. What prevented the Gillard/Greens/Independents alliance from putting their money where their mouths are if you say they support a republic?

What about Rudd, he exercised choice in when to call the election and he could have at the very least offered the choices you say that 'Progressives' want. He had time enough to argue the case. He could propose it as a major plant in his platform, or he could have put up a referendum at the same time.

Rudd could also have had gay marriage up for a yes/no vote as well, since you similarly believe that it has broad support. The Labor/Greens"Independent alliance could have put that through too, but didn't. Why not?

Maybe another of your gay marriage threads for 'discussion' next. Identify it properly as your proposed choice though and put your arguments up front. Be aware though that the public memory is not as short term as you wish and the unintended negative consequences of Labor and 'Progressives' dabbling in social policies are evident in daily news. -Which is also why you sledge your hated 'MSMs' for reporting the many daily examples of policy gone wrong.

Dear OTB,

Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda...

I am not privy to what the PM does or doesn't do -
and why. You can always contact him by email
and ask him. I'm sure his office (at least)
will reply appropriately to you.

In the meantime - let us try to keep this discussion
on track - and leave personal insults and politics out of it.
There's a good chap.

You might not like it but there has to be some accountability for the unintended negative consequences of the idealism of the Rudd government and the Gillard/Greens/Independents alliance.

Next, it is a fact that in six years of Labor administration, 'republic' was never mentioned. They did not choose it as a policy to run in the election and nor did they put it up for a referendum although other referendums were proposed, but strangely Rudd dismissed the proposal despite Gillard's assurance they were 'necessary'.

You and the 'Progressives' who have suddenly found the need to push for a republic really have some explaining to do as to why it is now 'on', whereas it wasn't before.

But before you do that you need to explain why anyone would want to listen anyhow where the self-styled 'Progressives' have been responsible for so many policy stuff-ups over the past six years.

OTB is not looking for open minded debate, not here or in any thread.
Only support for his/her thoughts.
I find that uninteresting.
Lexi it was the greed of politicians, reserving the right to say who would be our first President, that killed the first vote.
Linking the debate to the ALP is showing us that some have no true idea about the subject.

Dear OTB and Belly,

Australians' interests are far more complex than
those who insist on seeing all discussions through
a fixed ideological viewfinder.

We have voters of all persuasions, city and country
folk, very young and very old, straight, gay and
everything else. We should not decide that all
concerns, issues, policies and pre-occupations
of this country has to be divided into a Left/Right
dogfight.

I know as many Liberal voters who are pro a Republic
and could not do without the ABC, and have a problem
with mandatory detention as I know Labor voters who
are against a Republic, who resent cash subsidies for the
car industry and were supportive of the NT intervention.

The following link may be of some interest. It lists
the pro and con arguments of this debate and indicates
that most people seem to be divided on this issue.

BTW - Malcolm Turnbull joined Wayne Swan in launching
the book of essays (way back in June of this year) -
"Project Republic: Plan and Arguments for a new Australia."
Indicating as I stated earlier - that Australians' interests
are far more complex than assigning them into political
categories.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-australia-become-a-republic

Dear Belly,

We shall wonder
what all the fuss was about in years to come.

Your are back on that IA site again.

It's been a long time between drinks for the republic mob, whatever Turnbull and others mean by 'republic' of course.

Isn't the Turnbull broadband doing so well that he needs exposure elsewhere?

There are other priorities and money is supposed to be tight. The people have already spoken:

- NO, the republic mob; and

- Dammit, STOP the boats, MANAGE the economy and STOP ramping up our taxes to waste on more 'initiatives'.

The economy and taxes are low priorities for Labor voters and no priority for the Greens, who imagine a large, inexhaustible bucket of money somewhere to spend, spend, spend. As for borders, well just open the gates say the Greens.

Yes true Lexi
Good to see the advertisements are paying, in part for the site.
But today maybe OTB is running them.
Its my lucky day!
Seems I am the millionth visitor to this site.
From Brisbane!
Fact is it reports my every visit as so, NSW would be a bigger place if Brisbane was included.

Dear OTB,

You say that I am back on the IA site again?

Where?

The link I gave has nothing to do with IA.
It's a general debating site -
and I gave it because it
did list the pros and cons of the issue which
I thought would provide an appropriate balance.
Giving both sides of the argument.

You seem to still be keen in bringing politics
into this discussion. I would suggest that
you watch the debate tomorrow evening between
the PM and Mr Abbott. It just may clarify
quite a few things for you.

As for the Republic. This is an issue that has
been around for many years, and it is an issue
that will continue to perplex us in years to
come. Eventually it will be resolved by the people.
But it does make for interesting discussions
in the meantime.

Dear Belly,

Tomorrow night's debate should provide us all
with some enlightenment.
Interesting times ahead.

Lexi my sweet, they stick people in the funny farm for self inflicted injury. Do you think they have one big enough for the whole country?

They would need to stick us all in one if we were fool enough to spend billions on something as useless as changing our letterhead to read republic, for absolutely no gain.

God I can imagine it now, just like the US. Some idiot like Obama, cheating & lying to pay off his mates, & no way of getting rid of him in a hurry other than a gun. Much prefer our way. Worked well with that fool Whitlam, We just have to make sure we never have a silly peroxide blond in a pastel suit as GG again. If we'd had one worth their salt they would have chucked Julia out on her ear, when her previous nefarious activities became obvious.

Dear Hasbeen,

Precise predictions about the long term future
will ever elude us - change always depends on the
unique events that have gone before, and always has
unique effects on the events that are still to come.
In any case, accurate prediction of the course of
history involves an insuperable logical flaw.
If we knew what was to happen, we would be able to
prevent it from happening - in which case the
prediction would be false.

The future may not be for us to know, but it is
surely ours to make. Of course it involves taking
some considerable risks - but as I stated earlier
almost every human advance is based on experiment,
innovation and adventure.

cont'd ...

http://www.abc.net.au/btn/story/s3775972.htm

Lexi,

Here is something that might educate you on worthwhile priorities,

"Traumatised relatives have raised shocking claims that their loved ones were left to die unnecessarily or in great pain because of a critical lack of staff and training in nursing homes.

The ABC's Lateline program has spoken to many people about their loved ones' experiences in nursing homes across Australia.

Their complaints include relatives being left in faeces and urine, rough treatment, poor nutrition, inadequate pain relief, verbal abuse, and untreated broken bones and infections.

And one woman has told the ABC that her grandmother, who survived Nazi concentration camps, believes her experiences in aged care are worse than her wartime ordeal."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-16/shocking-claims-elderly-being-mistreated-in-nursing-homes/4821492

Another,

"AMBULANCE ramping is costing the service "tens of millions of dollars", but fixing the crisis could boost coverage in regional Victoria and make the service financially sustainable, Ambulance Victoria says.

The blunt assessment by AV's board of directors comes as patients wait on stretchers for at least an hour before admission to Melbourne hospitals, with almost 7000 patients a year waiting more than 97 minutes."

Another,

"THE risk that bikie gang violence may claim innocent lives is growing, the nation's crime watchdog warns.

And outlaw motorcycle gangs are major players in peptide distribution, the Australian Crime Commission says.

The ACC, which releases its latest assessment of organised crime at a conference in Brisbane today, says bikie violence could have devastating consequences."

http://m.couriermail.com.au/news/crime-watchdog-warns-bikie-gang-violence-could-be-risk-to-the-public/story-fnii5sdj-1226687804903

Dear OTB,

I'm not sure of the point that you're trying to make
with your last post, however -

You need not concern yourself about either my education,
or my priorities. This discussion is not about either.
Worry about your own education and priorities, and those of
your family instead - where you hopefully know where
the deficiences lie.

I have seen the program on nursing homes in NSW to which
you refer and -

I have had dealings with nursing homes for the
past 15 years. Firstly, with my mother-in-law who
was diagnosed with alzheimers and has been in a
nursing home for close to thirteen years. She passed
away last October. And my mother who has been in
an aged-care facility for the past nine years. Mum
suffers from dementia.

As for criminals, violence, bikie gangs, these topics
have been thoroughly researched, discussed, and
covered, not only in various articles and threads on this
forum but in the media and other sources as well.
Most people are quite well aware of the problems involved.

Now back to the topic - the following link is an article
by Michelle Grattan for The Conversation and is worth a
read:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/03/turnbull-swan-republic-australia

1999 Referendum:
Question 1:
<Republic question:
A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Do you approve this proposed alteration?>

The answer was a near resounding NO, with the ACT being solely in favour (surprise, surprise), and with small negatives only in Victoria and the NT.

Why? Could it be that, like myself, the majority did not want a 'President' - withdrawing from the connotations of a Head of State and Head of the Armed Services ala USA, or as in so many instances of 'Republics' whose elected Prime Minister and elected President fail to agree on key issues, occasionally resulting in the 'President' suspending the Constitution or dissolving Parliament.
What powers would the President hold? In my view, the President should hold no greater powers than the GG, and preferably even less power - with only the highest court in the land having the power to dissolve Parliament. (And why should we not retain the title GG?)
How to elect the Pres/GG? Some wanted a country-wide election from a select 'list' of contenders - who were themselves selected by a majority of both houses of Federal Parliament. Others wanted a separate appointed or elected 'body' to select the candidates.
I would be happy with our Fed Parliament appointing the GG, as now.

Question 2:
Preamble question.
The proposed Preamble commenced "With hope in God, ..." - this alone being sufficient to turn many people off, and, with the Preamble being largely self-serving platitudes, a fairly resounding NO result in all States and Territories - and rightly so, IMHO.
TBC>

Why change the flag? We cannot change our history, our heritage - and the Union Jack in the corner of our flag reflects this history, this reality.
Some of course have reservations about this history, and about 'sovereignty' generally, and would like to turn back the clock. Notgunnahappen.

As we embrace our 'Asian' Heritage (of the future)(and from whence our original inhabitants derived) all will become moot anyway - if some idiots have their way - so why worry.

We could be a lot worse off than staying as we are: immigrants from all over (including our originals), and proud of our predominantly 'industrial' European roots and heritage, upon which this great Nation of ours has been built.

We will grow up when we have learned how to stand up on our own two feet for what we truly believe in, for who we really are now, and stop living in a past 'dreaming' illusion, stop pandering to peripheral vested interests, stop selling-off 'the farm' and stop damaging our heritage and our ethos by ill-considered immigration strategies.
If we do not hold onto our true heritage and protect it, it may soon be lost - and our 'name' will have nothing to do with it.
Be careful what you wish for - good friends are hard to come by.

Lexi, "I'm not sure of the point that you're trying to make
with your last post"

You cannot comprehend that other pressing priorities and the cost to taxpayers are relevant?!

If you have any sensitivity for the aged and the many other critical issues for which there doesn't ever seem to be money in the kitty for, why then would you be proposing a change that by any comparison with the very real problems confronting society and government is frivolous?

Dear Saltpetre,

Thank You for your contribution to this discussion.
I shall respond in greater detail - as I am in
a bit of a rush at present - but you've given me
much to think about.

Dear OTB,

It seems that I consistently have to explain
things to you.

All I am doing is presenting a topic for discussion
on this forum.

This doesn't mean that this topic
is my one and only concern, nor does it mean
that I am not concerned about any other issues, nor
does it mean that this particular issue is
the most important issue of the day to me.
It is merely a topic that I thought would make for
an interesting discussion, and for us to get away
from politics for a while.

You seem to have a lot of issues that you'd like
to see discussed. Why then don't you start threads
on issues that are important to you instead of
questioning me about what is important to me.
You would achieve much more if you were to take the
matter into your own hadns. Lots of things are relevant
to me. However, this is the topic that I have chosen
for discussion. This does not mean that other things
are not relevant.
It's not me who seems to have a comprehension problem.

Lexi,

What I wrote was very relevant. You asked if there should be a republican debate. You asked this at a time when the feds have said they cannot fund the basic services government was set up to provide. Also, an election is imminent.

So again I ask you why anyone would waste time and resources on the republic debate when there are so many other crucial matters on the back burner? So no, it is not a debate worth having in 2013 and so soon after the expensive referendum that ruled it out.

Besides the system is not broken so why fix it? Especially where it is the accident-prone 'Progressives' who have stuffed up so much social policy, for instance on family law and de facto marriage, who are chafing at the bit to re-engineer our democratic structure.

Wasn't that egocentric bore Philip Adams once crowned Republican of the Year (2005?).

There are so many other priorities and no money to pay for them.

Dear OTB,

I am currently reading the book I menioned
in my earlier posts launched by Malcolm Turnbull
and Wayne Swan entitled, "Project Republic: Pland
and arguments for a new Australia," edited by
T. Jones and Mark McKenna. And if you can get a
hold of it - it really is an eye-opener.

Anyway, to answer some of your questions Wany Swan
makes the following arguments:

"Why Now? Is this really the right moment?
The Australian republic, it seems, always raises the
crucial question of timing, When? To monarchists
the answer is always "never." To the cautious the
answer is usually "not now," or at least, "not until
Queen Elizabeth's reign is over."

"Others argue that we should raise the issue again only
after the global recession has been conquered once and
for all, and all people can concentrate on the future free
of practical worries. The time may not indeed be right
for an immediate referendum, but I believe that it is
always the right time to argue for the merits of a republic
and prepare the ground for future constitutional change.
The road to an Australian republic is a long one, without
a timetable, and so the journey must continue..."

Wayne Swan points out that the republican debate is about
democratic principle. He asks, "how can it be that in a
modern democracy one of our own ctiizens can never aspire to
be our head of state? How can inherited privilege be the
sole qualification? ... How can we be a trul egalitarian nation
when the humblest and best Australian cannot aim for the
highest office in the land?"

Swan states that, "To me these questions are ultimately
without answer. Just as the argument that "if it isn't
broken, don't fix it" is without merit."

Swan says that, "It's the universal argument of conservatism
that over the centuries has protected aristocracies, prevented
parliamentary reform, and denied the vote to the common
man and woman. It should not now be used to deny Australia
a true constitutional independence."

cont'd ...

Before you go on, I am reminded that Wayne Swan did not think that Yallambee Lodge, a vacant aged care home in Deagon in Queensland was suitable for asylum seekers.

Lexi do not despair the debate will be good but we are far from finished.
Glad the thread has taken off.
Not a bit surprised at some posts being pure twaddle.
The flag flying over us is not the only one we had.
And fear of change is proved to be by experts a conservatives problem.
Let us not forget as many Liberals as Labor both want and does not want a change.
The old lady currently head of *the firm* her name for her family will hand in her shares in Rio Tinto and move to that mansion in the sky.
Who however will suck Charles brides toes?

cont'd ...

Swan tell us that, "There have been times indeed when
the monarchy has been broken. The sacking of the
Whitlam government, including the unwillingness of the
Crown to take the advice of an elected Prime Minister with
a majority in the House of Representatives, is an obvious
example from our nation's past. An Australian President with
clearly defined powers would help prevent such an
injustice from occuring again."

People could argue that the almost universal respect in which
Queen Elizabeth II is held makes her the right person for
the job, notwithstanding the unfortunate constitutional crisis
of November 1975. But constitutional arrangements are not
about personalities.

As Wayne Swan asks, "What if history had been different, and
a less able and less reliable head of state had ascended the
throne in 1952? After all, we are just two English monarchs
from the short and disastrous reign of Edward VIII. This
reminds us that a good result is not always guaranteed."

Wayne Swan reminds us that,"There's one other major
reason why now is the right time to discuss the republic
question: the Asian Century."

"With the economic and political balance now shifting to our
part of the world, the idea of an Australian head
of state who resides in London
seems anachronistic in the extreme.
Bringing our Constitution home would be the right way to focus
our minds on the fact that we are now an independent nation
that can succeed fully only by taking advantage of the
development of the Asia-Pacific region. The symbolic
statement made by an Australian republic would ram that
crucial point home."

As a prosperous, successful and proud nation many people
feel that
we are selling ourselves short when we don't also have the
confidence to chart our own way in the world led by an
Australian head of state.

As to the eternal
question - when? I guess -
this depends on how persuasively the
republicans can put forward their case.
I'm finding the volume of essays on the topic quite
compelling.

Lexi sweetie, I'm amazed at you quoting Swanny.

Why on earth would you chose a fool, with a proven record of total failure, & an IQ somewhere near the bottom of the pile to quote.

If you were quoting him as someone who's ideas we should avoid at all cost, I could understand, but to expect any one to give any credibility to any thought of his, is really going too far.

The only person likely to suggest we fix that which is not broken is sure to be someone who sees a quid in it for themselves. Only a shyster would make such a suggestion.

Both Swan & Turnbull have ideas of grandeur way beyond their ability. Both see themselves as the first Oz president. This alone is reason enough to avoid republicanism for a few decades at least. Having a such a fool or such a stuffed shirt as a president I wouldn't even wish on New Zealand.

Hasbeen a post such as that says far more about you than Swan.
I rather think the ALP is better for his fall.
But after reading your rant have focused on what seems to be a very unhappy man who lost control some time ago, and it is not our ex Treasurer.

Dear Saltpetre,

It is difficult to know what the monarchy represents
in modern Australia. As Malcolm Turnbull points out,
"In 1901 "the Queen" in the Constitution meant the
Imperial government in London; indeed section 59 of
our Constitution allows any law passed by our parliament
and signed into law by the Governor-General to be
annulled by the Queen within twelve months of enactiment -
this was included to enable the Imperial government to
cancel any Australian law that offended British
sensibilities and which the Governor-General (appointed
by London) had nonetheless signed into law."

All this made sense in 1901. We were not an independent
nation, but rather a largely self-governing but
subordinate dominion within the Empire.

In the words of Sir Robert Menzies, the Crown represented
the fact that "wherever we are in the world, we are one people."
British people. After all, Sir Robert Menzies believed that
"the boundaries of Britain do not lie on the Kentish
Coast, but at Invercargill and Cape York."

But as Turnbull tells us, "We are no longer subordinate to
Britain, and no longer see ourselves as part of a greater
British community, what does the Crown mean to us today?"

Today, Australians travel on Australian passports, they
need visas and have to queue up along with all the other
foreigners to get into the UK.

We know what the Queen means in Britain - As Turnbull says,
"the Queen's jubilee was an eruption of splendidly jingoistic
British pride parting, if only for a few weeks, the heavy
clouds of economic gloom hanging over the United Kingdom."

But Turnbull is right when he says that, "we don't look at
the Queen and think of Australia. And when we contemplate a
future King William and Queen Kate we don't think of our
country - the only Aussie princess lives in Copenhagen,
after all."

Turnbull raises the interesting point that, "Queens and
Kings will all eventually come and go, but the
Australian Constitution seems more durable, almost
immoveable in the face of change..."

cont'd ...

Belly, you are an astute man!
Hasbeen continues with his negative diatribe as usual.
If he is against a Republican Australia, then all the more reason for me to push for it even harder.

I'm not a fan of Wayne Swan, but that doesn't mean I would dismiss every word from his mouth. He was bright enough to become treasurer of Australia.

I can't see how holding onto our historical link with The Old Country will serve Australia's best interests anymore.
We live in the Southern Hemisphere and we need to embrace the countries near us if we are to thrive economically.

All those sentimental fools who want to cling to their past could always move to the Mother Country and see what they are truly missing.

cont'd ...

"Australians have approved only eight of forty-six
constitutional reform proposals and the last
successful proposal that was at all controversial
was in 1946."

Turnbull explains that, "this intimidatingly high bar
is not simply a function of the constitutional
requirement that there be a national majority and a
majority in four out of the six states, but it is also
a consequence of compulsory voting."

"Those voters who, for whatever reason, are not interested
in the issue and are uncertain about its consequences
will, when dragged by force of law to the polling booth,
overwhelmingly vote "no."

"That no doubt is why in 1999 the best predictor of a "yes"
voter was their level of education - the better educated
the more likely to vote "yes." And this was not a party
bias: some of the highest "no" votes were in safe Labor
seats and some of the highest "yes" votes were in
blue-ribbon Liberal seats."

"If you don't know, vote "no" was a slogan used by the "no"
case in the 1999 referendum and in some respects it is
commonsense advice. If you are reasonably comfortable with
any status quo, and if you do not understand the implications
of a proposed change or have some reservations or concerns about
it, then the natural reaction is to opt for no change."

So, Turnbull makes the case that in order to succeed in
changing our Constitution to become a republic "we must
establish a widely held sense of a need for change;
that something has to be done, that there is a problem
to be solved."

Personally, I have a feeling that this will not happen
until the post-Elizabethan era. The British monarchy
is less visible in our country, the Crown less significant.
The country is evolving into a more republican one as every
year rolls by. Only the words of the Constitution remain -
as much a reminder of our inability to agree on change
as they are of a colonial status now long past.

Dear Belly,

It will be a long road - but it will happen.

Suseonline, "All those sentimental fools who want to cling to their past could always move to the Mother Country and see what they are truly missing"

Splitting. Labelling. They are for you or agin you, right?

I don't know that I have ever met anyone who was adamant that the monarchy is the only choice, but there are millions who doubt the spruikers who demand a republic, NOW!

You really need to take into account the priorities that exist and the cost of the change you seem to think is so easy and cheap. For starters, what in the budget do you want to forgo to provide those hundreds of millions it would cost every years for a number of years to implement?

The Swanns of the world are shameless in vying with a wee baby to share the limelight and cameras. Swann has a book to sell of course.

Then there are the sick muppets who irrationally hate Australia's inheritance from the UK. They hate our relationship with the US even more, but a new family with a new baby and happy normal married parents are too choice a target for them to turn up.

Dear Suse,

I agree, Belly is an astute man and you're
a very perceptive lady - whose posts I
thoroughly enjoy and look forward to reading.

I'm still in the middle of reading the book,
"Project Republic: Plans and Arguments for a new
Australia," edited by Benjamin T. Jones and Mark
McKenna with a forward by Malcolm Turnbull and
Wayne Swan.

The collection of essays is a collection of plans and
arguments from a cross-section of Australian writers.
The contributors to this work subscribe to a plethora
of varying political ideas and range in age from
mid-twenties to late seventies. They include journalists,
politicians, comedians, historians, authors, lawyers and
poets, presenting arguments from the perspectives of men,
women, Indigenous Australians, non-European migrants,
young Australians, political conservatives, and others.

I believe that only through sustained community engagement
can this great project be realised.

That is why having an open forum - whose object is not to
champion a particular type of republic or a way to achieve
it is important.

As Benjamin T. Jones and Mark Mckenna tell us, "It is time
for the republic to become synonymous with a serious
nation-wide discussion concerning the renovation of
Australia's political institutions. Even more important ...
is the democratic spirit of civil engagement that will
take us there. Our future republic is not parliament's
responsibility alone...Australia needs more of tis citizens
to become actively involved in the debate."

cont'd ...

Dear Suse,

A question has just occurred to me.

If there was any conflict with our Asian neighbours
- who would come to Australia's
defence?

Past history has shown that Australia was never
able to rely on the UK in the event of any major
conflict or disaster. England always took from
Australia and expected more and never contributed
when it really mattered. If I am wrong please
correct me.

You are dead right there Lexi!
If we did have conflict with anyone, I have no doubt that America would come to our aid.

However, I strongly believe that our Asian Neighbours have much more to lose than us, should they consider any form of conflict.
Far better to trade with your neighbours than fight with them!

Onthebeach, I can't imagine how becoming a Republic would cost so much money for Australia? Whatever the cost, I believe it would be worth it in the long run anyway.

I think that if I had said I was a rampant Monarchist, you would have advocated an immediate Republic ...

Lexi ans Suseonline the thread has been kicked around and that is the normal for some.
About 12 months ago head shrinks, sorry about that not game to try to spell the right name.
Told us research had proved we are born to be conservative or not.
And too that conservatives tend to fear change and look for the down side in any thing.
OUTSTANDING!~
Given the time and reason to think about it we could have worked that out by just reading here.
Roll on Republic, new Anthem, one we know the words off, and a peoples picked President.

Dear Belly,

As John Warhurst points out, "Moving to a republic
would be part of a natural evolutionary track that
Australia has been on for more than a hundred years
as we consolidate our independent national identity."

Over the past forty years we've all watched some of these
changes happen. "Advance Australia Fair," replacing
"God Save the Queen," as the national anthem; the High
Court of Australia becoming the final court of appeal
rather then the British/Imperial Privy Council; regular
selection of Australians as Governor-General rather than
British aristocrats. Other changes like Australianising
the royal titles, occurred still earlier.

Warhurst reminds us that often these changes did not come
easily and were opposed at the time by the predecessors
of today's monarchists.

However, Warhurst also makes the valid point that, "these things
happened not at all because the system was "broke," but
because it was ill-fitting, outdated, old-fashioned and,
therefore, no longer logical. It made sense for Australians to
look to the future not the past."

"This is the trajectory along which Australia is moving, and a
republican Australia sits comfortably on this trajectory.
...This is a logical step that is very much in line with our
development as an independent nation."

Dear Suse,

It definitely is better to be friends with your neighbours
than to fight them. Especially in the region in which we
live.

After seeing the corruption in Labor and unions, and after experiencing the stuff-ups of the social re-jigging by the 'Progressives' elite who influence Labor, the public could be excused for shying away from letting Julia Whatshername and her treacherous Greens sidekicks, or now Kev13 who made so many Ruddy messes, interfere with the Constitution, flag, anthem and government structure.

As Malcolm Turnbull observed, Australia has done very well with its system of government, which puts Australia in the top few successful democratic nations in the world. Australia is fortunate to have a non-political Queen with sixty years of proving her stability and the jolly good sense to stay out of political squabbles and taking sides.

In a nightmare one can imagine the dreadful fusses, constant political intrigue and knifings with a political president.

A president doesn't even fit into the structure of government that has worked so well for so long and will continue to do so if left undisturbed.

Here is a challenge, what about fixing all of that corruption in Labor and the unions as a priority? All of those small income earners who were leaned on to join a union, only to find out later that the CEO and others have been using the money for their own high life.

What about the union heavies who can knock a PM off his seat and then reinstate him, all the while pretending that the criticims of his performance should now be forgotten? Suck it up voters.

The founding fathers got it right. Let the ones who want to fiddle with our constitution, system of government and even the flag prove themselves capable of behaving ethically first.

Incredible, not a statesman in sight and none for years -the party pre-selection processes ensure that career hacks are selected and promoted- and the very flawed self-titled 'Progressives' want a free go at ruining the bit that works and has done so for donkey's years.

There are quite a few myths in the republic-monarchy
debate:

First among the myths is the argument that monarchy
by definition or by weight of evidence is a superior
form of government to a republic.

There are numerous examples of
successful republics around the world, including the
United States of America, France, Italy, India, Ireland,
and a majority of the members of the British Commonwealth.
This type of argument is irrelevant to Australia's future.

Australia has dispensed with a lot of Imperial trappings
not because they were broken per se but because they
increasingly ran counter to the modern Australian identity
and therefore were no longer appropriate.

For example, we largely had British governors-General until
the 1960s. Would we ever want a British Governor-General
rather than one of our own again? Australians made their
feelings clear when Prince Charles's name was floated as a
potential Governor-General by Prime Minister Fraser more
than thirty years ago.

The argument that the monarchy should be retained because
it has worked for Australia and produced our stability
and prosperity is wrong and equally silly. As John Warhurst
tells us, "There is no causal relationship between the
monarchy and stability. Australia's records in all matters
is our own responsibility and to our credit or debit.
Monarchies can't produce stability, societies can."

"Look at strife-torn Northern Ireland for an example of an
unstable society despite also sharing the British monarch."

"The monarchy is not the same thing as the parliamentary
system and nobody is arguing that we dispense with that.
The Westminster system stays and a successful parliamentary
system of government is not necessarily tied to the
monarchy, as the Republic of Ireland has shown. There is
little public support for an American-style executive
President."

Constitutional reform as Warhurst states is difficult.
We've all heard arguments that might
stop the passage of a referendum in its tracks, like fear
of the unknown or reference to other supposedly higher
priorities (often misleading).

Warhurst says that good government, good policy-making,
an equitable distribution of wealth and provision of
government services are not alternatives but complements
to constitutional reform.

Lexi,

Of course John Warhurst is a supporter. He is a prominent member of ARM. That needs to be mentioned. Might as well be quoting the Pope on religion.

Rather than quoting large slabs of general bumpf penned by someone else, a ARM partisan, what about addressing the issues raised by other posters?

You have yet to make a case for the public or Parliament to waste time on it when there are so many other pressing priorities that cannot be put on the back burner.

This what you did in your 'discussion' threads on gay marriage. You say you are interested in ideas discussion, but you go on to ignore any other opinions and post links and slabs of quotes from activist and advocacy sources that agree with you.

Some discussion. NOT!

Banjo was right.

OTB are you OK?
Is your hatred of Labor and all things union hurting you.
Self harm is the worst kind.
Now I am guessing you post here to show off your intellect.
And rampage against any thread on any subject, no matter how hard to divert, against all the above.
Are you sure you are OK
See free speech is current in this country.
And Republicans come from both sides of politics.
Self praise is no recommendation.
And you present in this thread as an angry ant with little understanding.

Dear Belly,

Our future republic is not parliament's
responsibility alone.

Australia needs more of its
citizens to become actively involved in the debate.
And by that I don't mean rantings and insults,
but arguments that are compelling and worth taking
up. I was hoping for a range of ideas
that spoke to all of us on this thread.

Never mind. I did try.
But I am not interested in engaging with posters
who simply use threads to vent their spleens.
I find them silly, and even nasty. And I have learned
not to engage with them. I no longer bother to read
what they post.

See you on another thread and thank you for your
contributions to this one.

Lexi,

Your other alternative is to address the points that posters including myself raised. Never know, there might be a different way of looking at things and something to learn.

There are many millions of voters as exasperated as I am with a Parliament that is having its precious sitting days wasted by fools like the Greens who are after headlines and have yet to contribute anything constructive to Australia.

It is Monday, so maybe there are not so many ambulances ramped outside hospital emergency departments. However every day of the week there are wee children who do not receive adequate care, the homeless wait for Spring and young men are contemplating suicide.

There are many very serious issues for Parliament to work on. There is no money to spare. Unless you want more public servants sacked, nurses put out of work and the elderly to take that potion the Greens keep recommending for them.

For more than 2500 years, a sovereign country in which a substantial body of citizens exercised  effective control of the government was called a republic.  History records many:  Rome,  Venice,  and Novgorod among others. In the traditional meaning of the word,  Australia is already a de facto republic, called the Commonwealth of Australia.

Defining a head-of-state or choosing a new title for Australia would be ineffectual window-dressing. In the 21st century, the real problems of governance stem from our archaic constitution, written the day before the dawn of a new age.

The Constitution was created as an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, signed into law by the Queen of England in 1900. Since then, Australia’s squabbling colonies have become squabbling states. But, it has also come to be recognized as an independent sovereign nation, initially at the Versailles Conference after the first world war, then by the League of Nations in 1920 and subsequently by the Statute of Westminster, which was promulgated in 1927, ratified in 1931 and finally adopted by the Australia in 1942, to give it undisputed control over its armed forces. Since 1945 our independence has been confirmed by the United Nations. The process was virtually sealed by the Australia Act in 1986.

The idea that Australian independence is compromised by having a ‘foreign head of state’ is nonsense. The ANZUS treaty is a greater threat to our independence than the remaining flimsy link to the Queen. Compared with following the Americans into disastrous wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, the idea of having the Queen as our head-of-state is utterly trivial.

Without doubt, the Australian constitution is in dire need of real reforms that could help transform our over-governed federation into an efficient, representative democracy.  

time we grow up and think and act like australians

irks me every time i read of our leaders following the americans or the brits like an obedient dog

see how tony blair and his american master Bush screwed up the Iraqi war

from day 1, i was convinced there were no WMD
i am not saying saddam hussien was a saint
that is not for us to judge
we have our own problems
let us learn to mind our own business

the americans had their own agenda...regime change
what has that to do with us?
do they supply us with cheaper oil
if yes, why am i paying $1.60 for my petrol and diesel?

yes...let us have another debate
this time, let us cut the apron strings
our future is more closely linked to asia then to UK and USA

Many argue that there is little value and
some danger in seeking endorsement of a "republic"
in abstract, since an affirmative result would
supposedly simply destabilise the present system
while saying nothing constructive regarding an
alternative. This argument carries some weight.

As a Canadian journalist argued,

"The devil is in the details - and to demand that
the electorate reject an actual, specific monarchy
in favour of a vague, unspecific republic is as
absurd as asking them to vote for a monarchy and
reassuring them you'll let 'em know afterwards
whether they'll be getting Elizabeth II,
Emperor Bokassa or Mad King Ludwig of Bavaria."

It is time to adopt a Constitution that reflects the
spirit of our nation. Our country is young and still
evolving. Many are proud of our largely peaceful
evolution from British colonies to British dominion to
independent state, but the ghosts of the past -
including the systematic dispossession of Australia's
original inhabitants - haunt us.

We need to adopt a Constitution that reinforces the idea that
we are all Australian and we are all equal.

Australia is destined to grow and propser as a free and
independent republic; the champion of democracy and the
home of freedom.

Australians today are in the unique poistion where they can
actually be present at the moment when our nation declares
full independence.

We're free to alter our Constitution and make it a truly
Australian document that speaks to present and future
generations. In this sense, the prospect of a republic
asks Australians to do what they have never really done
before, to express their identity through their
political institutions.

It is time for the republic to become synonymous with a
serious nation-wide discussion concerning the
renovation of Australia's political institutions.

Lexi,

This is the bit that worries me:

>It is time for the republic to become synonymous with a
serious nation-wide discussion concerning the
renovation of Australia's political institutions.<

What's to 'renovate' in our political institutions?

How will becoming a Republic facilitate such 'renovation'; couldn't any truly necessary 'renovation' be undertaken without tying it up with the republican debate/issue/question?

Ok, so, any 'renovation' of our political institutions may involve Constitutional Amendment, but why piggyback this on a referendum to add a Preamble to recognise 'original' landholders and an Amendment to endow us with a Republic and a new, you-beaut, Head of State?
As the lead-in of your last post indicates, too much complex or ill-defined content in a Constitutional Amendment proposal will almost certainly guarantee its defeat. People will always be wary of 'unintended consequences'.

Sure, we need to become a Republic, in due course (possibly when our Queen's reign ends), but, we're doing ok, we have a sound political system - and any 'dabbling' with it should have nothing to do with our becoming a Republic - and any future Head of State (IF we truly need one at all, since we do have a PM, don't we) should only be a figurehead and nothing more.

The main argument for a Republic should be to simplify our governance, and nothing more.

As for turfing our National Flag and Anthem, this can only come from looney rat-bags who have no respect for Australia or its history and heritage. I don't heed ratbags.

Well said Saltpetre, it's the constitution thing that worries me. Not only unintended consequences, but hidden traps with quiet intended consequences.

Here we have third try, platypus1900 & even Lexi sounding like constitutional lawyers touting for a few billion dollars worth of business, when we have enough real problems requiring attention. I reckon it will cost about a billion in legal fees for every word changed.

I find it really interesting it is often those who want to keep dreadful old buildings because of their "Heritage value", that are at the forefront of wanting to dice our flag, getting rid of our real heritage, & become a republic.

I have mentioned before being impressed with the maturity of Solomon Islanders. I sailed into Gizo Is, the capital of one of their districts. The main warehouse on the wharf had painted in very faded letters, BRITISH SOLOMOM ISLANDS PROTECTORATE.

This was some years after their independence. I was impressed they has spent their money on something more important than covering up their heritage. I wondered if many Australians would show such maturity, & from this thread, I can see many have a way to go to reach that level of maturity.

Lexi if nothing else your thread has reminded me some just do not get it.
Whatever the fate of the ALP in this election we are the bettor for being a party of reform not one of Negativity.
In the strangest of ways we are seeing the result of extremist, yes that is its right name Negativity.
My only question is it representative of our country.
Once no one doubted we had that Aussie mate ship thing going for us.
We are in danger of seeing it die.
Your thread did no more than ask is it time we talked about this.
Some of the contributors have gone right off!
Be thankful it may not be representative of the whole.
And lets us tell it as it is without too falling in to the traps.
It is said that about half of us or our parents came from over seas.
The Australia of say 30 years hence may not want its links to Britain to be so strong.
It will in my opinion be proud enough of this country to openly keep our history but see a new anthem /flag/ and yes a President.
Or we can curl up in to a ball screaming about Labor plots, how funny is that?

Belly, "some just do not get it"

LOL, I bet you didn't get an invite to Julia Whatshernams's housewarming of her $1.8million bungalow either.

You really need to eschew rooting for your 'team' who,

a) wouldn't know you are alive and wouldn't care either,

b) bear very little resemblance to what Labor once was (think aims, values and ethics), and

b) aren't a team anyhow.

There is no money. The feds have ramped up taxes, brought in user pays (where you pay twice for what you get) and they have cut services and benefits.

For instance, there is not enough to pay for Medicare. Many on fixed incomes and low wages are not seeking medical attention where they need it because they can't afford to do so.

The public are slowly becoming aware (or at least I hope so) that the politicians from both sides are over-optimistic about the estimated rising government tax receipts, and they are under-estimating the increases in outgoings. The Greens couldn't care less about the federal budget because as a protest party they depend on the serially upset.

Specifically, what will you cut out to pay for what you want?

Second, how will you reimburse business for the costs of your change? Think about the direct and indirect ways the changes you want affect business and all layers of government.

Third, who can rely of the very people who have stuffed everything else up to dabble with the Constitution, Flag and so on?

Our Constitution was eneacted by the British Parliament.

We have a system that was designed for the needs of
1901 rather than those of 2013. For example - Australia's
federal system was drafted in the age of the horse and
buggy, and it shows.

The result today is a Constitution and federal system that
distorts government priorities and policy outcomes to the
great cost of the community.

We have a system that can produce major failures of
public policy with major financial impacts.

One recent study by the Business Council of Australia has
found that problems with our federal system result in
every Australian family paying an unnecessary $1100
in tax every year. Overall, we are taxed an estimated
$9 billion to prop up the Australian federal system. This
wasted money is how much the community pays for the
duplication of services, buck-passing and inefficiency
that bedevils the relationship between our federal and
state governments.

Even this understates the true cost, since it does not
include the money spent by businesses to comply with
unnecessary red tape and extra regulation from multiple
layers of government.

Taking some of these other costs into account, it's been
estimated that the duplication and extra co-ordination
costs in Australia's federation are an astonishing $20
billion a year, 9 per cent of all general government
expenses or 3 per cent of our Gross Domestic Product.

This is an enormous drag upon the economy and the public
purse. It also represents a massive lost opportunity.
A federal system will never operate at peak efficiency
but even if some of this money could be clawed back,
it would represent an enormous funding pool that
could be directed to things like education, and a stronger
national disability insurance scheme.

Our dysfunctional federal system necessarily impacts on
the quality of government services and our capacity to
meet the needs and welfare of the most vunerable in our
community.

The bottom line is: if you care about Australia's schools,
hospitals, aged care, you also need to care about the
poor state of our federal system of government.

Lexi,

Maybe you need to attribute to George Williams from the IA site. He is a republic supporter of course, which you could mention with your attribution.

Lexi, "We have a system that can produce major failures of public policy with major financial impacts."

It was 'the system' that led to the drownings at sea?
It was 'the system' that led to the insulation debacle?
It was 'the system' that led to the stuffing up of family law?
It was 'the system' that led to corruption in unions and Labor?

- Just a few thinkers and there are plenty of other examples.

At least the Left's most outspoken guru Professor Robert Manne conceded that it was the lack of 'foresight' by the Left had resulted in the tragedy of mass drownings. He said that the Howard government’s Pacific solution had been successful in deterring people smugglers.

It is the same mob of trendy academics and self-titled 'Progressives' who advised Rudd and Julia Whatshername who now want free rein to stuff up the Constitution, Flag and democratic structure. They are criticising the parts that are robust, enduring and have shored up political stability.

Let the trendy Left 'Progressives' loose again? Fat chance, say Australians.

Voters can concentrate on putting the rubbish out in Canberra on 7 September 2013. It has been such a long wait.

What is being discussed here is the Republican Debate.
Not diatribes against specific political parties.

The path to the Australian has been a long and
difficult one and the future path will be no easier
even if we are all closely involved at every step.
However perhaps if the path was to be one which
empowers the electorate at every step - such as voting
for a specific constitutional alteration in a legally
binding referendum, would enable political parties or
groups which are divided on the republic - such as the
Liberal and National parties and their Coalition - to
resolve the issue amicably.

However, whether this transpires or not, the possibility
of defeat has never prevented humankind from
attempting onerous tasks.

Nor should it now.

Lexi,

You are right, there are many deficiencies and inefficiencies in our Federation system, however $20 Billion (3% of GDP) is not really such an 'astonishing' sum - given that Kevin & Co could probably get rid of that in one day (if he hasn't already) (counting chickens before they hatch, etc) (NBN fibre to the home anyone, at a massive cost coming to a home near you, possibly by 2020 if you're lucky, with all the bells and whistles, but at a cost no ordinary household can really afford or justify).

'Streamlining' to make Oz' governance operate more like a lean and highly efficient multinational sounds like a great idea, but how to achieve this, and what form might this take?
1. Getting rid of State governments (so there are only two layers, National and Local government) would be extremely difficult, and, given the performance of our Federal government over the last 6 years, who would be willing to trust any Federal/National government to wield such power?
2. Could 'efficiency' be as simple as a PACT between the Federal government and all the States and Territories - embodied in the Constitution if necessary - to conform fastidiously with an agreed National Plan and Vision? Thereby cutting red and green tape through an agreed power-sharing arrangement, such as one could expect to find in the operation of the divisions in an efficient multinational?
A form of limited autonomy?
TBC>

Cont'd>
We have seen major problems with money being allocated for one thing (healthcare, hospitals, education) and then being diverted by the States to 'other' projects, almost at whim.

We have also seen Federal governments running off the rails pursuing 'heritage' and headline interests (either just after coming in to power, and claiming some fictitious 'mandate', or else to impress a gullible electorate around election time).

We have seen Local government (Councils) going off the rails pursuing a hitherto unrevealed 'green' or 'social interest' or anti-industrial agenda - even contrary to the foundational 'vision' of the major party to which the Council belongs. Or making a mess of their financial planning and running into massive debt, and having to seek leave to hike up rates.

Inefficiency and vested-interest is rife, but, short of a dictatorship, no easy answers.

We are fortunate in having only two major Parties. Imagine how we would fare if there were none, just a hotchpotch of diverse movements.

A Republic is one thing; 'repairing' our tacky Federation system will require more 'good faith' between the players, rather than turfing out the lot and starting over again.

Lexi,

What could be more relevant than to recognise that so many of the crew who are rooting for freedom to dabble with the Constitution, Flag and democratic structure are the same mob of trendy academics and self-titled 'Progressives' who also advised Rudd and Julia Whatshername? Shouldn't they be held accountable for their poor advice that has so often resulted in unintended negative consequences?

Or that they are criticising the parts that are robust, enduring and have shored up political stability?

Or that it isn't the federal structure that is wrong it is the Party politics, so often driven by blind ideology (eg the shelving of the Traverston Dam) and ridiculous media-led populism?

Or that the very centralist and arrogant Gillard/Greens government was outed for slyly trying to make local government directly responsible to the feds? That is the referendum that Rudd has forgotten (for the present). Because there was opposition because there had been no public consultation. No surprise there,the 'Progressives' always presume to know what is best for others and they prefer to make changes behind closed doors.

Big issues demand time and information and discussion,
things the mainstream media and most politicians
don't seem to value.

Framing a new national discussion on the republic
will take time.
But most of us know that it is of real interest to
Australians, and of real importance for Australia.

There are enough Australians who care, and when there
is bipartisan leadership and political will, then and
only then, we will be ready for an important
national discussion.

I wish to thank everyone who contributed to this discussion.
For me it has now run its course.

You patronise the public who as you would have it, don't know what is good for them and require re-education.

Fortunately the self-styled 'Progressives' always know what is best for the public and don't always seek public comment before conducting their social experiments. When they do propose 'discussion', it is just a sham, eh what?

The past six years is littered with the trail of 'Progressive' policies gone horribly wrong and abolishing Howard's successful policy to deter people smugglers was one.

Let the 'Progressives' loose with the Constitution, the Flag and structure of government? The answer already given in a recent expensive referendum, millions that could have been better spent on hospitals, is a flat NO!

Australians have a practical nature, getting on
with building a good life rather than being
constrained by the past or afraid of the future.
That aspect of our national character is perhaps
not surprising, since most of us, or our antecedents,
have come across vast oceans to make a new life here.
It also means we reject radical change or ruptures.

A key to putting the republic on the agenda is
therefore reassuring that the change required to become
a republic is evolutionary and not revolutionary.

With each generation, we have peacefully and
gradually adapted to change and often led the
way. Through conversation and consensus, we have
taken each step towards our nationhood. Never in anger,
but through discussion and debate.

We innovated and built national institutions that better
suited the new world, with votes for women, elected
upper houses, a federation that promised equity across
a vast continent, and a culture that spurned the class
system, elites and privileges of the old world.

Gone is the security guarantee that
Australians sought from Britain and gone are the old trade
preferences that used to underwrite our prosperity.
Today we seek our security from the United States and our
trade in Asia.

The discrete steps of ratifying the Statute of Westminster,
legislating for Australian citizenship, ending legal appeals
to the Privy Council and ending the power of Westminster to
legislate for Australia in 1986 were each achieved through
mature debate and not a radical break from the past.

Equally, the adoption of our own national anthem in 1984
was the result of polls, a plebiscite and a national
conversation about, on the one hand, retaining another
country's anthem or, on the other, investing in one of our
own. It was not a rejection of "God Save the Queen" so
much as an acknowledgement that the song just wouldn't do
when Australians stood at the podium at the Olympics in
the modern era.

The republic will, in order to succeed need
to be an evolutionary step that simply reflects modern
reality.
It will come, through evolutionary steps, from a
national conversation.

Dear Lexi,

Very well said. Thank you.
I agree with you.
Aus will move to a republic in good time, and the right way.
No radicalism, no recriminations, only good faith, and by the well considered will of the people.
In due course we will need the right sort of parliament, in bipartisan agreement, to put the right plan forward, for our collective consideration.
No haste, no bumbling or confusion; a clear plan and a clear path toward a clear consensus.

Thank you Lexi, for an interesting and illuminating discussion.

Dear Saltpetre,

Thank You for your kind words.
I always enjoy reading your posts.

Framing a new national discussion on this
issue will take time and when there is bipartisan
leadership and political will, we will be ready for
an important national discussion.

See you on another thread.

No model seriously proposed is superior to what is already in place.

Priorities and cost.

For the foreseeable future, any change will not reduce and could likely increase, disputation over the 'isms' in Australia.

Last time the Labor government proposed a head of State that it would be doing the nominating. A sinecure for knifed ex-PMs and an opportunity to make politically correct statements? Julia Whatshername or someone like her in the top job?

Differing motivations drive the debate. Some with nasty secondary agendas, which can be as simple as hatred of 'whites'. Whatever 'whites' are, but in the code of the usual suspects that would be people from the UK.

The election can't come quickly enough. The new government and Parliament must focus on the big issues confronting Australia. There has been an election campaign that has occupied nigh on a year of Parliament's time.

Today there are some Australians who still adhere
to the inflammatory opinions of right-wing
commentators like Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt and
Paul Sheehan. They strongly believe that
"Australian culture" will be lost if "Australians"
do not unite and re-claim the national space.

To them the phrase, "Love it or leave it," indicates
assimilating to "Australian culture." This is not
straighforward to interpret, let alone implement.
For instance, what is Australian culture? And why
talk only on the discrimination
of "white" Australians? We have many other minorities
in this country beginning with our Indigenous
Australians.

The question of whether Australia should become a
republic is more imperative today than it was thirteen
years ago. The popular use of the phrase,
"love it or leave it!" indicates the current
inequality between Australians.

As it stands, continuing
to accept a British monarch as our head of state and failing
to declare an inclusive republic contributes to the
legitimisation of these narrow-minded attitudes.

We need our own -
present-day identity to be recognised -
in order for the current and future
Australians to move towards a more inclusive and
egalitarian society.

Lexi,

I didn't get past the first sentence of your opening paragraph. It is a shameless plagiarism from an online book with at least one writer associated with your over-used leftie site, IA.

http://tinyurl.com/lhg828x

This remains a parallel discussion. At no stage have you made any effort at all to answer any of the opposing arguments put by other posters. That is also how you progressed your 'discussion' threads on gay marriage for example: no discussion, just a barrage of bumpf from activists who agree with you.

Dear OTB,

When you cut and paste from one source - it is described
as "plagiarism." When you cut and paste from several
it is regarded as "research." I did not go to any
Independent Australia site online.
As a matter of fact -
I have fully acknowledged my use of the book -
"Project Republic: Plans and Arguments for a New Australia."
And, I have recommended it as being a real eye-opener.
I have quoted
from it in great length - because
it does present a wide variety of opinions - which
other posters have appreciated.

I have tried to respond to as many postings on this
thread as I could. Including to many of your own.

Once I realised again -
that you were not really interested in
a discussion at all.
That you were interested in only your usual rants
and anti-Labor bleats. I stopped both reading and responding
to you.

Why on earth
would anyone in their right mind want to respond to
an illogical, abusive, and weak poster.
You've also got the annoying habit of imposing your
assumptions regarding other people's opinions on every
discussion that you try to get into.

It's gotten to the point that patient as I usually try to
be - I find that I an not interested in inter-acting
with you, and I would prefer not to do so in the future.
I am used to a higher bar in discussions - and I prefer
to keep them at a professional level.

Cheers.

cont'd ...

Anyway, for me this thread is now closed
and I shall not be coming back to it.

You can continue with your anti-Labor rants
by starting your own thread. I'm sure that
you'll get enough kindred spirits to join you.

Or Alternatively, you can stay on and talk to yourself.
Your choice.

Lexi,

Have you ever considered that maybe you have a blind spot? You just don't seem to tolerate any concessions to the wonderful democratic and legal inheritances from the Britain.

All most posters seem to be reflecting is concern that the baby isn't thrown out with the bath water as the Progressives' have been prone to do, and resulting in the most regrettable unforeseen consequences. As well, it is reasonable to question cost and priority when ambulances are ramped outside hospital emergency departments because there isn't the money and the old are being asked to sell their family home and move into some entrepreneur's redevelopment in a slum to pay for their aged care.

You have posted hundreds of comments bagging Australia and Australians as 'racists', xenophobes and worse(!). You seem to limit this to 'white' Australians and exclusively it appears, to anyone descended from British stock. It is a constant theme in your posts. But why is that so? You and your parents seem to be doing well out of Australia. For starters, you say you are employed as a librarian, which is a good deal when you consider that many younger than you have been given the chop under restructuring and for affirmative action priorities.

Surely it is worth preserving the abundant good that in Australian instututions, traditions and culture that have served so well (and provided a safe sanctuary from Russia and a future for your parents).

Then again, maybe Banjo was right,
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5953&page=6