Certainly not, Nathan!

A republic would heighten the prevalence of nationalism, which is a disease.

Nationalism a disease?
You want open borders why don't you toddle off to Germany?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/10/13/german-protesters-set-up-mock-gallows-to-hang-angela-merkel-for-her-pro-refugee-stance/

I'm sorry Yuyutsu, no offense but I really don't understand comments like that.
Please explain - Tell me why you feel this way?
What is so bad about trying to be proud of our country and wanting to make it a better place?

Isn't that ultimately the reason we're all here on this forum?

Dear Critic,

When we analyse our motives, persistently digging and seeking the root-cause for our thoughts and actions, we arrive at one of just two causes: Fear or Love.

Loving others is commendable and those we love we may invite to join us and our activities, but we never force them into it.

A nation is not inviting, but imposing itself. In the case of Australia, over all those who live in this continent and surrounding-islands, in other cases perhaps over all those of a certain race or lineage, etc. Forcing yourself, your values and your activities on others is something to be ashamed of, not proud of, and in the last count, it's fear-based.

My response was about people's attitudes, rather than borders, but since you asked, I agree that borders could be a necessary evil, yet they are fear-driven, not love-driven. A saint when threatened, turns his other cheek, but as we aren't saints we do what's necessary to defend ourselves. While this is acceptable, it shouldn't become a source of pride: there is nothing to be proud about the fact that we are not saints (and besides, pride is a spiritual impediment).

So much for pride, now you also ask what's so bad about trying to make our country a better place:

Here again, it's a question of motive: is it fear-driven or love-driven (or if a combination, how much of each?). Whatever is love-driven cannot be bad, however one doesn't need to be a nationalist in order to be driven by their love and try to make a country (or the whole-world) a better-place.

Finally you raise the question of why we're here on this forum.
I believe that the reasons vary.
As for me, being proud (of anything) doesn't come into my motives.
I do want to make my environment a better-place, but there are no borders in my motivation: I tend to care more for my local environment and those I personally know, then it gradually diminishes the further I go. In-any-case, the territorial-fact of being in Australia or otherwise doesn't come into it.

A republic yes. We now have a level headed PM, the era of ratbagism is on the back bench. Australia is at its best for 2 years. There is a host of changes Australia needs to go through to set us up for the next 100 years.

Same sex marriage, Republic debate, alt energy, are at the top of the list. Dear old England is not for Australia, it has long passed over. We need to become a separate identity.

With Turnbull and Bill Australia can surge ahead. We need employment and now. Solar and wind along with wave energy are poised to take control and create thousands of employment positions. The political landscape has changed along with the willpower to get Australia moving.

Yuyutsu,

"Certainly not, Nathan!

A republic would heighten the prevalence of nationalism, which is a disease."

Frankly, that's a bit silly.

Are you suggesting that Australia doesn't already see itself as an independent, self-governing nation?

So (in a minimalist model) instead of the Queen appointing the GG on the advice of the PM, that role would be given over to parliament.

The Queen's role is merely a formality, it has no bearing on the machinations of govt within our country.

It's an anachronism.

@ doog,
"Same sex marriage, Republic debate, alt energy, are at the top of the list".

Hey doog, what value of export product and foreign exchange revenue will come from that list?