I remember standing for the National Anthem.

I remember particularly one occasion, as I stood I put my hat on and was promptly jabbed in the back by an irate little lady who said: "Take yer 'at off!!"

So I did.

Her face was a study as the lights came up and she could see that I was in Army uniform.

Foxy,
I agree with you but our weak polys do not enforce our laws. Too many use their race, culture or religion to obtain weak sentences and our judiciary continually fall for it.

One does not have to look far to see examples of soft sentences.

The convicted criminal that would not stand for the judge the other day should automatically lose any right to parole. Add another 11 years to his sentence. Personally, I would bring back capital punishment for some crimes as they are not worth feeding.

Dear foxy,

I am certainly not comfortable with an oath of loyalty, especially in it current form.

Firstly I would hate to go down the path of the States where there often seems to be a sense of just blind allegiance, the kind of which allows for things to be done without proper scrutiny. There the patriotism is on crack and often frightening to behold. I think traditionally we have been a little more circumspect on these matters.

Certainly in times of war where the nation is facing an existential threat then bring people together with a shared purpose and vision can be useful.

But meaningless oaths can detract from the notion of loyalty or allegiance.

For instance the if you were ever elected to parliament then the Australian Oath of Allegiance would be;

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!

The affirmation is:
I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.

Now Elizabeth is substituted, but still pledging loyalty to a leader of a foreign country and her children?

How many parliamentarians really feel their principle loyalty lies to the Queen of England rather than this country? A meaningless oath for many.

Steele,

"Now Elizabeth is substituted, but still pledging loyalty to a leader of a foreign country and her children?"

"According to law". and the law is that she is Queen of Australia.

"... and her children".

It says heirs and successors, these need not necessarily be her children, but would be the person who becomes Monarck of Australia according to law

Dear Banjo,

I haven't really thought about the complexities of the
laws that we have to abide by in this country. I only
know that without the rule of law there'd be chaos.

Dear Steele,

I understand what you're saying. However that's what
we've got at present. Things may change in the future
but for now is anyone can't honestly make the citizenship
pledge, they can't honestly take our citizenship.
We currently have on our hands citizens who were born here
and who apparently are so alienated that they don't support
what their country stands for. Such alienation could
become a threat to the rights and liberties of others.
Therefore it is important to explain our values, explain
why they are important and engage leadership they respect
to assist us in this process. Ultimately, however, as I
stated earlier it is important that they know that there
is only one law and it is going to be enforced whether they
acknowledge its legitimacy or not.

This is a problem if we have a second generation - the children
of immigrants who have come to Australia - in a twilight zone
where the values of their parents "old country" have been
lost but the values of the new country not fully embraced.

To deal with this we must clearly state the values of Australia
and explain to them how we expect them to be respected.

I suspect there would be more respect for these values if we made
more of the demanding requirements of citizenship.

No one is going to respect a citizenship that is so
undemanding that it asks nothing. In fact, our citizenship is
quite a demanding obligation.

We are more likely to engender respect by emphasising the
expectations and the obligations that the great privilege of
citizenship brings. We have a robust tolerance of difference
in our society. But to maintain this tolerance we have to have
an agreed framework which will protect the rights and liberties
of all. And we are asking our citizens - all our citizens - to
subscribe to that framework.

Seems pointless. What's to stop people metaphorically crossing their fingers behind the back whilst they recite an oath?

What's important is that people actually believe the sentiments expressed in the Citizenship Oath. If they do, then it doesn't really matter whether or not they say it out loud. And if they don't, making them they say that they do won't achieve anything.

People won't share a belief in democracy or uphold and obey the law just because they've read off a bit of card that they will. They'll believe in democracy if they understand that democracy is what makes this country so free and prosperous compared to many others and that countries without democracy tend to be, to borrow a Trumpism, 'sh*tholes'. They'll uphold and obey the law if they fear the stick of punishment, but even more so if they value the carrot that is a society which operates under the rule of law. Educating people in these sorts of things requires a bit more effort than the recitation of oaths.