Letter: Australia alone must decide

Sir: In response to Brian Parkyn and James Allen (letters, 1 April), it can only be hoped that the views they wish to present as paradigms for the selection of the Australian head of state remain their views alone. While perhaps being the sentiments of those in Britain who desire a continuation of British colonial links with Australia, they are not indications of the desires of most Australians.

The concept of the British 'motherland' is insignificant and alienating for the many Australians whose heritage is not British. In this multi- and cross-cultural context, a British- based monarch for Australia is not only irrelevant, but, for certain cultures, also distasteful.

In the context of modern Western political life, the concept of the monarchy is even more anachronistic. Indeed, following the Australian constitutional amendment of 1986, the Queen of England and the British Parliament have no powers or influence in the affairs of the Australian parliament.

This, together with a situation in which the Queen of England and her heir apparent, the Prince of Wales, are not Australian citizens, or resident in Australia, provides positive support for removal of the British-based monarchy. As for an Australian-based monarch, can Mr Parkyn suggest any Australian person or family that should be appropriately posited into this unfairly privileged and outmoded position?

Whether Australia should become a republic or not (and it will, sooner rather than later) is a matter for the Australian people to decide in their own interest, and not according to the dictates of the British 'motherland'.

Can the British finally accept that Australia is not British territory, and that Australians would prefer to debate their political future according to their own desires?

Yours sincerely,

EDDY JOKOVICH

Director

Australian Regional Media

Sydney, Australia

1 April