Dear Paul,

The Department of Social Services has an interesting
information sheet entitled "A Better Australia."
It's worth a read.

It reminds us that the customs and institutions which we
recognise as Australian today are largely British and
Irish in origin. They have their roots in a culture which was
until recently, relatively homogenous in composition.

Of course many of the institutions and customs evolved and
developed in response to the Australian environment. The
institutional structure transplanted to Australia was often
modified, sometimes dramatically to reflect our own
history and circumstances.

The Westminster system of parliamentary democracy was
transformed by a written constitution into a federal system of
government. Until the last generation these methods of doing
things derived from Britain served most Australians well. The
striking exception was the Aboriginal people.

However in the last four decades Australia has become a vastly
different place from the British Isles in which our institutions originated, just as Britain
is having to adapt to its changing
population, so our institutions are now
required to respond to the needs of a
culturally and linguistically diverse society.

It is in the interest of all Australians that the three tiers of
government - Commonwealth, State, and local to intervene where
necessary to manage our diversity in the interests of
cultural tolerance, social justice and economic efficiency and for
that we need to plan.

Overseas experience has shown the often tragic consequences that
occur when societies are unable or unwilling to integrate
newcomers, especially in situations in which some minority groups
find themselves restricted by barriers of prejudice or
culture from enjoying the same opportunities as the host
society.

That does not mean we should dismantle or repudiate our
institutions in order to start afresh. Instead we should make
our institutional heritage work better for us by enhancing their
capacity to respond flexibly to the needs of an
ethnically mixed population. We need a positive policy response.
Inaction can only exacerbate the problem. The new government
should now seek social cohesion - not social engineering.

I have just learned that our former Prime
Minister did not comply with tradition and
instead of fronting up to the Governor-General
with his resignation as others have done before
him. He broke this time-honoured tradition and
simply faxed his resignation as Prime Minister
to the Governor-General. This from a man who we
supposed was a pro-monarchist and pro-traditional
behaviour. Yet he chose a most undignified and
"sore-loser," way to leave his office by not
"manning up," and doing the right thing and following
protocol - which all others did before him.

It does not speak well of him at all.
And says a great deal about his character.
He can dish it out - but cannot take it.
Sad really.

Dear old 'Adler' Abbott, he won't be missed.

Hi Foxy, as a firm believer in egalitarianism I cannot in good conscience support the concept of a hereditary monarchy, no matter how sweet and lovable the monarch might be. I don't know her personally, but I am sure Elizabeth Windsor is a lovely old biddy, and makes for a good granny, but like all of us, she must have her faults, her ancestors certainly did.
The democracy we enjoy today is not due to the (British) monarchy, but in spite of it, who as arch conservatives, and persons of privilege, resisted change at every turn. The British monarchy unlike their French, German and Russian relatives, were able to read the writing on the wall in time, and keep their heads, literally, and their crowns, except for Charles I who lost both. Some would say good luck to them, I would rather say, good riddance to them.

Just as a side line, I would like your opinion. Our good neighbors across the Tasman are at the moment debating the virtues of adopting a new flag for themselves. Seems John Key's has set aside $26m for the exercise. I have "debated" this with my partner "T" over a glass or three and with some other Kiwi's as well. For some the existing flag is an insult, with the United Tribes having established a flag of Aotearoa in 1835. Today at Waitangi the Maori fly three flags, the modern New Zealand flag, the British Flag and the original flag of 1835. Since the Maori never ceded sovereignty of their land by treaty to the British crown, only governance, the boat people who arrived and set up shop were all illegals, and their flags are also illegal as is their government in Wellington! So its a no brainier and John Kay should save the 26 million bucks.

p/s It was "T"'s ancestor Hone Heke who chopped down the British flagpole twice at Kororareka the British capital (modern day Russell in the Bay of Islands) in 1845.

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/artwork/36354/hone-heke-chopping-down-a-british-flag-pole-1845

Dear Paul,

I understand your sentiments about the monarchy.
You're not alone. There are many people who
share your strong feelings.

As for a new flag for New Zealand?
The new flag should represent all the people
equally and if it takes a competition to come
up with a suitable design that's the price the
country has to pay for its identity.

Gawd Blessah, she does a wonderful job!