With the recent clean sweep of Labor to office in every state and territory within the Commonwealth of Australia, it was inevitable that, like Patterson's Curse and the cane toad, the spectre of the Republic would rear its ugly head again. And sure enough, it has.

Oh please. Just don't go there.

Why not? It's inevitable, isn't it? Well, no, not really. And why should it be? There is no short answer to this, so bear with me. But first, let's deal shortly with some of the more asinine complaints peddled around the traps, before looking at the more problematic question of whether an antiquated Constitution really suits 21st century Australia. Let's line up the wood ducks first.

The Statute of Westminster was passed in 1931. So, at the time of writing, Australia has been fully independent for 76 years. We know republicans are a bit slow on the uptake, but really!

We already have. De facto, the Head of State is the Governor-General. And has been Australian ever since Sir Isaac Isaacs' name came up many years ago. (Who was Jewish. Just to make the point.) And Her Majesty? Interesting question. Is she really a Pom? Is she not also Canadian? A Kiwi? Does she not belong rather to us all? Anyway, what's so great about nationalism? If we were really still a colony, there might be some point to this. But we aren't, and there isn't.

Well, yeah! Of course it would! As soon as you have any sort of crisis, the President can sack the Prime Minister, who in turn can sack the President. Each of them can then appoint a new PM/President and we can have two competing administrations. Wouldn't that be fun? Two sets of tax departments, too, I shouldn't wonder.

As it is we don't do that because the Governor-General gets told when they take over that no, be nice, we don't do this. And PMs don't sack GGs under those circumstances because the Other Head Of State is a very long way away and anyway She'd have to ratify all this and the next thing you know we're all having cups of tea with Her and all agreeing to Play Nice. Stick to a good thing when you're lucky enough to inherit one.

No it isn't. Especially not for us, since we don't even have to pay for Her Majesty's upkeep. Government House, considering what it is - Residence, Convention Centre and Multifunction Polis all rolled into one - is a very light imposition. There is a direct relationship between the palatial costs and the megalomania of the head of state. Most Presidents are far more wasteful of their country's resources than our very modest vice-regal establishment. Does the name Saddam ring any bells here?

Can you? I can't. And when I look at the insane behaviour of so much of Mother Europe (our supposed cultural superiors), I feel very glad indeed to be an Aussie. Ask most of our migrants. They feel the same way. Interestingly, most of our more notorious republicans are the ones with the cringe. OK, you like Europe so much? Go and live there. Or stay here and like it. This is a great country. Just appreciate it for what it is.

Fine. Be one by all means. Monarchy is the closest you're going to get to Nirvana on this planet, then.

Well, they have learned to live with us and our cultural hegemony. They don't like it when we thrash their cricket team, but they do bear their continual defeats with good-humoured fortitude. (And well done in '05. Well played, sirs!) It's nice for them to know that we share not only a sovereign, but a legal system and metaphysical infrastructure with them. And in truth, they do want us. Where do you think their best and brightest Gen Y kids come from? Yep. Our biggest challenge this century may be to persuade the exiles to come home again.

Complete and utter drivel, though that hasn't stopped the same dreary nonsense being rolled out from time to time. For the non-military-historians among us, WW1 was fought by blithering idiots intent on winning the American Civil War General Grant's way, by massive casualties and attrition. Haig, Foch, Ludendorff: you name them, they were cretins. Winston Churchill (then First Sea Lord) tried to win WW1 General Sherman's way, by manoeuvre, turning the enemy flank and not getting all your men killed. The government inexcusably sat on the plan for 3 months while the Turks re-armed and General Hamilton (another blithering idiot) landed us at the wrong beach. Whoops.

However, the British were only too happy to turn our troops over to competent Aussie commanders (Monash and Chauvel) as soon as they presented themselves. So we helped finish the war at Hamel and Beersheba, under our own exceptionally capable and inspired leaders. If this lie had even a skerrick of truth buried in it, do you really think we would have been allowed to do that?

And don't even start me on WW2.....

Actually, this one's strictly for the over-50s among us. For those who weren't there at the time, in 1975 the Whitlam government was dismissed by the Governor-General. At the time, many Labor people resolved never to trust the Crown again. Yet the real lesson of this was not lost on the Australian people, and it was this. If you are an antsy Upper House, DON'T nail the country to the floorboards and hold the joint to ransom at pistol-point. The G-G really has no option but to dissolve parliament and call fresh elections, but it's very painful and everybody gets over-excited. For those who don't remember, this was arguably Bob Hawke's finest hour. Some Labor people were feeling rather revolutionary at the time; but (as ACTU head) he publicly told everyone to cool it. And everyone did. So we passed the crisis and everyone resolved the following. Let's NEVER do this again.

Now this one is really fascinating. It does, actually, more than you might imagine. But for this, you may need an Australian history lesson

Yeah, sure. And beer will be ten cents a pint. To quote Bob Hawke again: "An Australian republic will not put a single dinner on a single Australian table. Consequently I'm not interested in it." Thank you, Prime Minister.

Yes, I'm sure you do, mate. And that's a good reason for us never to let you be one.

So much for the wood-ducks. Now I have a question of my own. What sort of republic are we looking at here? When The Referendum happened, many people criticized John Howard in the strongest terms for the question which was finally put to the populace. Yet he had a point. It was a bit rich for Kim Beazley to suggest that first we have a referendum on a republic, then another one to decide what sort of republic. Howard felt that this was ridiculous, and he was right. Come up with a model first and put that one, he said. The only models put forward were: (a) A Directly-Elected President, or (b) A Parliamentary Sock-Puppet.

Where in the world does (a) work? The USA? Let's go back there later. The real model we are looking at here is France, a country which (depending on your viewpoint) is either in serious trouble or terminal decline. So, most unusually, it looked like the politicians who wanted (b) may well have called that one correctly.

Let's go further. There are a number of successful republics in the world. There is the USA, for starters. How many Australian republicans would go for that model? Personally, I think we could do worse. But first show us your Founding Fathers (or Founding Mothers). There most certainly is not Russia, now reverting to the control of the reborn KGB. How many successful multicultural republics are there? Just one: the USA. Which inexorably suggests that if you want a multicultural republic, you have to go the whole USA hog.

Other successful republics include Iceland, Eire and Botswana. All of whom are predominantly monocultural. And Botswana only because of the genius of its founding father Sir Seretse Khama. When our republicans can produce someone of his stature, give us a call. Now if you want, like Henry Lawson and the old Bulletin crowd, a monocultural Australian republic, I would suggest that the horse has bolted on that one. Australia was built on immigration. It has worked well for us so far, and provided we don't mess things up, will continue to do so.

Let's get back to sock-puppet versus direct election now. Why don't politicians want a directly elected president? Well, we have these things called reserve powers. And they really are the elephant in the living-room. Could we abolish them? No, not really. Not without a major engine rebuild for all our institutions, and I wouldn't trust you guys to do that. And I certainly don't want a directly-elected dictator. The person I want in charge of our reserve powers is someone who knows full well that they have no democratic mandate whatever, whether from parliament or the electorate. Someone who shuns power and hands it back to the electorate in a crisis as fast as possible. Someone, in fact, exactly like a Governor-General.

Ditto for the states. Please let's not trash the states. Competing jurisdictions are the key to prosperity. If one state or territory screws up, the others can look at it and say No I don't think we want that, thanks. And since the previous administration seems to have devoted itself to the doctrine of Canberra Knows Best, there is a perfect opportunity for the PM-elect and his government to fix up our currently strained federal system. It sounds like he is intending to do that too, and let's hope he does.

So now we come to the final piece of the puzzle. What, I have been asked, is the difference between a Parliamentary sock-puppet and a Governor-General?

Is it just the feathers on the hat, or is there more?

Actually, there is one crucial difference. A superannuated politician (or worse, an Eminent Person) who gets the job as sock-puppet is going to find, in a crisis, that the temptation to turn feral and bite the hand that fed them is really going to be too much for them. Somebody shows you a briefcase full of money and it's suddenly on for young and old. Would a Governor-General do that?

Not in Australia. And if the name Ratu Mara suddenly crossed your mind, score 15 bonus points for yourself, because he is a classic example of why G-Gs shouldn't, as a rule, be ex-politicians. And even there, the vestigial authority of the Queen had the effect that No. 1 Generalissimo Steve Rambuka actually knelt before her and abjured his wickedness. Because she let it be known that she would not receive him until he dismantled his racist Constitution. OK, it's up again, in a way, but only because Fiji has pretty much left the family nowadays. Her Majesty will put up with a lot of political foolery, but not racism. Is the People's Republic of Fiji the sort of country we would like to become? Please let's not do this.

A Governor-General knows that their robes are, in the final analysis, borrowed. And they must answer for any crimes they commit not merely to their subjects (and frankly, when has that ever stopped heads of state from acting the goat?), but to an extremely chilly reception next time they happen to come across their sovereign and Her notoriously sceptical, not to say sarcastic, Consort.

So how did our other (non-Botswana) Commonwealth cousins go with their republics? Apart from Fiji, which is probably OK if you like having your country taken over by deranged lunatics. Uganda? OK, it's improved from the good old days of Idi Amin, but not very much. Nigeria? The admirable Mma Precious Ramotswe thought that hell must be a very bad place, something like Nigeria. (Which isn't to say that Nigerians are evil. My current GP is one, and very glad to be here and not there.) Ghana? Exceedingly dodgy, but arguably saved from something worse by Flight-Lieutenant Jerry Rawlins, who brought an entirely new spin to the idea of the military coups. Kenya? The most successful of the rest, but every time they look like making a really big go of it their institutions keep springing a leak. Zimbabwe? Yeah, right. Well, that's an argument for a republic, isn't it?

Let's head east. Pakistan keeps trying not to be a failed state, but it keeps failing. Pity. India? Certainly the economic giant of the future. And when they rebuilt their country from scratch they were very careful to keep it all extremely British because they weren't stupid. But India basically works because Indians are very good at making money. Institutionally, they did the very best they could and didn't wholly fail. Their polity is just about the best you can do if you ditch the monarchy but have someone like Nehru. Anybody here fancy themselves as a Nehru? And even he lost Pakistan and Bangla Desh. We might lose Western Australia. Sri Lanka? Mostly fine, but pity about the Tamils, isn't it? Maybe if Murali gets himself made President this might help. Singapore? Another monoculture, and very Chinese indeed. It seems to work for them, and it's really successful if you don't think human rights are important. Papua-Niugini? A basket-case only saved from oblivion by our taxes. And that's only on alternate Thursdays.

Are we seeing a pattern here? Institutionalized racism, economic decline, military coups, trashed human rights. Gee, what a prospect. The only multicultural republic with apparently any future is South Africa. And it really is too early to tell in their case. The Voortrekkers' rebel yell Opsaal! Die Blodbad Kom! really hasn't happened and probably won't. 2 reasons: strong Christianity and the demigod status of Robben Island's most famous prisoner. But if you think the future looks good, just hang about and see what happens when he finally ascends to heaven and it could get REALLY messy. It's already looking troublesome.

Now let's look at some constitutional monarchies. UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand. Anguilla, who had to rebel against the intolerable tyranny of St Kitts to get back under the British Crown. Gibraltar, who will be prised away from Britain over their dead bodies. Outside the Commonwealth: Japan, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland and various European municipal principalities. All doing very nicely thank you. Thailand? Currently in trouble, but saved repeatedly from disaster by King Bhumipol. And we all hope that democracy will soon be restored, as it has always been before when military scumbags have been reminded of their lack of importance in the scheme of things. And how about this one: Spain. Almost overnight, Spain goes from being a brutal, backward-looking, gloomy theocracy to a prosperous, tolerant success story. How? By restoring the monarchy. Guys, this really works. Don't mess with it.

All of which leads to one inescapable conclusion. Without the Crown, it all falls over. An Australian republic will create a dog-eat-dog plutocracy unless we learn to create workable social institutions from scratch. I would suggest that on the evidence available, we aren't very good at doing this so far. In conclusion, I would also suggest that any cause embraced by the Honourable Member for Wentworth should be shunned on principle.

David Greagg