|
That's
an exaggeration. It is to the interests of supporters
of the monarchy to emphasise and exaggerate legal
difficulties - particularly constitutional difficulties
- with a view to making them to appear to be so
complex and complicated as to amount to a serious
obstacle in the way of a transformation to a republic.
But I don't think those difficulties exist in
the way that the monarchists suggest that they
do.
I don't think that the change from a monarchy
to a minimalist version of a republic would mean
much in terms of fundamental change to our constitutional
structure. But I do think it would mean a great
deal symbolically.
Why? Because I think it is important, both from
the point of view of Australians, and from the
point of view of people outside Australia, that
Australia should have as its Head of State somebody
who resides in Australia and primarily identifies
with Australian aspirations.
There is something odd about having as your Head
of State, the Head of State of another country,
a person who doesn't reside here, and primarily
identifies with the goals and aspirations of that
other country.
|