No republic

There is a minority group in Australia, of an ever-decreasing size and substance, that would like Australia to become a republic. To that end these people, some of who are extremists, want it to happen at ANY cost, no matter what. This is a dangerous and catastrophic scenario and the people who are wanting this drastic course of action are the same that, both, have no idea of what their ideas would do to this country and also no real idea of what they want to throw away.

What do we look like getting if we ever voted 'Yes'?

To change Australia from a Constitutional Monarchy to a republic we would be required to:

• Surrender our identity as a nation.
• Risk the chance of losing the national flag.
• Risk losing the respect of the international community.
• Risk the probability of a popularly elected president becoming a political player, able to obstruct the parliament.
• Suffer the burden of the $100m+ total cost of conducting another Constitutional Convention, Referendum and then the required changes to every law in current force to allow those laws to recognise a president as head of state instead of recognising the Queen of Australia as the reigning monarch.
• Watch the Constitution Act, 1900 be butchered beyond its original intention and purpose as no less than 77 alterations are made to allow the Constitution to recognise a president as the head of state instead of recognising the Queen of Australia as the reigning monarch.
• Risk the creation of more power for the president than would otherwise be required for the president to carry out the normal duties of his office.

So what is the current situation?

Australia is currently the 16th wealthiest nation in the world - a bloody good achievment for a nation of only 20 million people. We could not have got there without British influence. While some rednecks refer to it as an invasion, when Captain Arthur Phillip arrived in Port Jackson on the 26th January 1788, he raised the Union Flag and claimed the Great Southern Land in the name of King George III, he set in place the task of creating a modern and progressive nation with industrial power and inventive prowess, whilst not knowing it at the time.

The creation of the modern Australian society was under initial British military rule which led to partial self-government in 1824 with the creation of the Legislative Council which was a body of members appointed by the Governor of the time to provide advice on future law, though the Governor still had the right to make any law he saw fit and administer it his own way. Then came full self-government in 1855 for most of the colonies which included a bi-cameral parliament for each colony that achieved the right to self-government and retaining Queen Victoria as the Sovereign.

In the 1890's, Sir Henry Parkes, who had served as Premier of New South Wales several times, set about to encourage all the colonies to unite into a federated nation. After some initial rejection of the idea, agreement was finally achieved and the new constitution, which has only been successfully altered on eight occasions, was put into law on the 9th July 1900 - with Federation being officially invoked on the 1st January 1901 by Lord Hopetoun, the first Governor General and Sir Edmund Barton, the first Prime Minister. It was this event that effectively made Australia an independent, self-governing nation.

In 1931 the Commonwealth Government decided that it was time that Australia had its independence as a nation put into law and the British Parliament soon passed the Statute of Westminster, which served to declare the independence of the remaining British dominions, of which Australia is still one of. In 1986 the Australian legislature and judiciary were formally declared independent of those of Great Britain with the passing of the Australia Act. Therefore it can be said that not only is Australia an independent nation which cuts its own path in the world, there are now laws in place, granted Royal Assent in both Australia and Great Britain, which define the fact to meticulous detail.

Since the election of a conservative government in 1996, Australia regained stability in government, leadership ability, not only in domestic circles but on an international scale. The size of the economy has increased dramatically and we now have a government who is prepared to act in the national interest and re-equip the Armed Forces with more soldiers and equipment in order to regain some of the strength lost during the prior Labor years.

Australia currently has a fairly low un-employment rate with on-going job opportunities for those that remain un-employed, a continuing trade surplus with our largest trading partner, Japan, almost unfettered access to the massive US consumer market in the form of a free trade agreement and a level of free speech and freedom that has become a source of jealousy for other nations and their citizens.

Will a republican president make any of this any better for us? Nope. Could things be worse with a republic? Yes. Having a political head of state interfering with the process of responsible government, like as happens in the US, would create bedlam here. There'd also be a great deal of confusion among many people over who is exactly in-charge of what.

Will a republic improve the things that matter to YOU? A pay rise, better health care, tax breaks, better enforcement of the law, better public transport, better schools, better hospitals, better roads? These things matter to ordinary people like you, but a $100m president won't be able to provide it and will probably campaign against many improvements if they choose to be a political player.

The current salary of the Governor General is $365,000.00. The title of 'president' is considered an executive and therefore any president is likely to be paid far more and perhaps even demand the tax-free status that has previously applied to Governors General. This would further add to the cost of not actually improving anything.

So what would having a republic actually do for us?

This is the answer we all wait for, though not even the republicans can answer that question. There is constant chants about relevancy but you don't spend alot of money on something that is perceived by a few to be irrelevant. Something becomes irrelevant when it is no longer fit for a purpose AND can be replaced by something that is. With the Governor General fulfilling his constitutional duties by performing the Queen's duties here, we are not only saving money and headaches by retaining our current system of government but we are also saying "no change for the sake of it". So what does the Queen do at the moment that republicans want to see done by someone else? The answer is nothing. Currently, the only thing that makes the Queen of Australia irrelevant is the attitudes of some people who cannot answer the above question with an accurate and substantial argument demonstrating a genuine reason for constitutional reform.

Republicans' justification for waste of money on change

Currently there is the above-mentioned fallacy about relevance but there is also alot of petty bullshit about the Queen's involvement in Australia these days. So what republicans are saying is that they don't want the Queen here because Her Majesty is not constantly interfering in the running of the Government. It's a bit like going for a swim to avoid the chance of drowning. Labor's republican policy is based on their quest for payback for 1975 but there is no reason for it, given that Sir John Kerr didn't even consult the Queen before sacking the Labor Government led by Gough Whitlam. This alone provides substantial proof that the Queen has very little participation in Australia. The Governor General is the head of state. The Queen is the monarch.