John Ley in 1921 makes a curious statement in a parliamentary debate about foreign policy. It is essentially dated but it equates a pre-modern form of the great and powerful friends doctrine of foreign policy as being constitutionally restricted.

From Mark McKenna's Australian Republicanism: A reader , Ley is quoted;

The next thing I want to point out is that in addition to breaking the constitutional tie, the platform of the Labor Party goes further. It says, "All bills passed by Parliament to receive assent on advice of Australian ministers only."

That means that an Australian parliament should govern our foreign policy, quite apart from England, and it is a constitutional departure of very considerable importance.

If that is carried out, it stands for the separation of Australia from the Empire.

Obviously Australia and Australian politicians out-grew that notion that Australian parliament should not be responsible for making foreign policy but is points to a mentality of the time.

When modern Republicans point to the positives, the negatives, the faults and the flagrant problems with the Australian Constitution, it is important to point out the prevailing mentality that it was created and ratified under, and how different the modern Australian identity is in comparison to that.

That Australian foreign policy would be considered to be vested in the constitution monarchy as dependent on Britain is farcical in 2006. However it was taken seriously by Thomas Ley that foreign policy was a constitutional issue that lay in the domain of Britain - not Australia.

Legislative independence came slowly to Australia, and it was the mind-set of the likes of Ley that prolonged it. Independence is hard to define, but a strict definition of political independence is being able to make laws that are repugnant to other constitutions and legislative bodies.

In Australia's case this means being able to make laws that are repugnant to British Parliament. Despite the constitutional monarchical system, the monarch is a constitutional one, and must take advice of the Prime Minister through the Governor-General.

As George V was when Joe Scullin recommended that Isaac Isaacs become Governor-General, the first Australian born to hold that post. The King and British Parliament were not happy about Scullin's recommendation and sought to dissuade him. Scullin's stance was simple, he would call an election on the issue if the King did not approve Isaacs.

The Governor-General (not in council) retains implied reserve powers and this is where the hole in our constitutional system is. Through this a despotic King can wield influence if they desire. An explicit reading of the constitutional gives the Governor-General the ability to run the Armed Forces, to appoint and remove cabinet members, dissolve parliament and arbitrarily hold parliamentary sessions.

Consequently it is difficult to determine when Australia did become independent from Britain constitutionally and legislatively. At Versailles when Billy Hughes got a seat at the table? Or the Statute of Westminster which was not ratified by Curtin until 1942 despite being enacted in London in 1931?

Or maybe the Australia Act of 1986 which severed all ties between the Australian legislative and judicature with Britain (ie Privy Council).

It has been a slow process and not because the constitutional and legislative tools aren't there but also because of the Australian mentality such as Ley's persisting. Britain has not been tyrannous toward us, so it has been easy to tolerate the less than optimal arrangements.

Australia has also prospered as a nation and rarely been torn by internal strife and dissent which makes a people look inward at drastic improvements; politically and economically.

By the same token Australia has been extremely innovative democratically outside of the constitutional system in areas of electoral technology such as the secret ballot, female suffrage and proportional/preference voting.

Australians are a republican and democratic people. They will continue the on-going process of political improvement - of which the constitution is one aspect requiring modernisation.

More Reading on Mark mckenna

• Mark McKenna
• John Ley
• Foreign Policy
• John Boston's Pig
• Australian Republicanism: A Reader
• Universalism in Australian Republicanism
• When even a Commonwealth is too Republican
• The Inevitable Republic Strikes Again
• Of Constitutional Doctrine Past
• William Lane's One Man One Vote
• Is There Room For The Political in Australian Republicanism?
• Civic Ideal vs Mystique