Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 2:39pm:


Perhaps then we should allow foreigners to run for Parliament.

The primary argument in favour of remaining a monarchy, is that is what we have always known.

If that were the sole criteria for deciding what  we, as a people, should do, then we never would accept any change, or make any progress.

The fact of the ideological argument that many people find it obscene, that by a mere accident of birth, someone should be deemed to be supreme ruler, shows a maturity and growing confidence in the ability to make our own future.

It is not unlike the indigenous apology, a sign of recognition of our past, but not at the expense of neglecting our future.
Our future is as a republic, sooner rather than later, I expect to see it in my lifetime, and I will celebrate the day as a real sign of my country, and it's people, coming of age.

No mozzaok, the primary argument for keeping what we have is that it appears to be as good as or better than all the alternatives put forward, including those tried by other countries. Or rather, it is the absence of a sound argument in favour of change. A constitution is not something you should change just for the sake of change.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 7:07pm:



Hear, Hear!

Neferti wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 8:40pm:


You're being a bit fickle, don't you think?

mozzaok - I also feel aussie may become a republic within my time.
The question has been repeatedly raised, one time it'll get voted through.
I don't see why that might signify a "progression" of our nation.

Wishing to remain with the system we have may be seen as a stick-in-the-mud. 
Most of those antirepublic purely ask for advantages of one, and are not offered any.
If a huge change if offered, it HAS to possess advantages, the larger the change, the more decisive and concrete the advantages required.

Most monarchies of the world are very good for their countries.
Many are in Europe and the pacific nations, they aer well loved by their citizens.

Many countries of the world would LOVE the westminster system.

I cannot think of a system that has any decisive, concrete advantages over the westminster system.
"Show me the money" , as the movie goes ..........

Timing is important.
The point about our constitution serving us well, is valid, only when comparing us to other models which you consider inferior, and assume that a move to becoming a republic would see us mirroring mistakes they may have made.

The fact of the matter is that we will need a new constitution, and how good it is will be up to those we choose to shape it.

So let us all start to demand higher standards from our pollies, and by the time the inevitable occurs, we may see them produce a constitution which improves on what we now consider adequate.

Many have bemoaned that we have no 'Bill of Rights' enshrined in our laws, and we are seeing the US people reacting to the diminution of their rights under their new 'Patriot Act', good men will learn from these mistakes.

I think we deserve better, and I believe we are smart enough, and mature enough, to deliver it.
At some point we must make that leap of faith, all we can do is try to ensure the best people possible are voted in to manage the transition, so it becomes a positive step forward for us all.