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.