Tony Abbot makes the claim in a Sydney Morning Herald op-ed that the republic movement is characterised by; "the studied indifference to our British heritage" . South Sea Republic is the most prominent of Australian Republican websites, so it is probably a good judge to determine if that statement is true.

By Tony Abbott's description of Australia's British Heritage that would include not only the Queen, but the Westminster system which was a direct import from Britain. South Sea Republic has a tonne of articles on the Westminster system;

• Joh Bjelke-Peterson and Unicameral Parliament
• The Anti-Federalist
• The Natural Party of Government
• Increasing the Churn Rate
• Focus On Queensland
• Unchecked Executive Power
• Quick, Before We End Up Like London
• Separation of Powers and Parliamentary Systems
• Focus On Victoria
• Offsetting The Power of Incumbency
• Defending Federalism

Plus many, many, many more articles. I think the myth of studied indifference is busted.

But what of this vaunted British heritage? It has become almost pandemic with conservatives that they mention everything as the west, the anglo-saxon tradition, the British tradition; but never Australian. What of all the great Australian political innovations that have been exported to the world? Britain has been behind us in these areas almost constantly.

For instance, a formal constitution in a single document; Australia has one, Britain doesn't. How about an elected upper house? Australia was one of the first liberal democracies to implement an elected Senate. Britain still has the House of Lords which is dominated by peerage and appointment.

What about electoral innovations? Well, the secret ballot was an Australian technology that has become a universal component of democracy since. What about the Hare-Clark system, preferential voting and proportional representation? These are all innovations that have been widely implemented in Australian electoral systems. Britain still uses the first past the post system.

What about federalism? Here again, Australia is ahead of Britain. Until recently Britain had Parliament in London and then the councils. No provinces or states, just one big-honking centralised government.

Why are we even talking of a British heritage to our political system? It is obvious we have out innovated Britain in political technology and achievement.

The claim of a British heritage is a furphy. We should be claiming the Australian tradition that has improved democracy around the world.

Tony Abbot writes , "Rudd's real test won't be how he handles consorting allegations. It will be explaining how it's possible to tear up workplace agreements and halve greenhouse gas emissions without sabotaging the economy." I am with Al Gore on this one, solving global warming is an opportunity to grow an economy.

The standard attack against global warming and the uncertainties of a complex interdependent system is to argue that it will cripple the economy to enact any policy to curb carbon emissions. It is a false choice.

I watched An Inconvenient Truth on the weekend. It didn't really tell me anything new, and the bits inbetween the powerpoint presentation were emotive and designed to tug at my heart strings, but it was presented well and in an empirical fashion with plenty of graphs and photographs.

The important part was in the conclusion. Gore attacked the problem in the standard American manner; it isn't a loss, it isn't a whipping from the environment so that we have to go back to our mud huts and fish by hand - to Gore it was an opportunity. It was a chance for America to take the lead in new technologies, new investment, new solutions, new industries and new ways of living.

It isn't, as Abbot suggests, going to kill the economy because we will find new technologies and new ways of supplying energy and being aware of our carbon production. I was at Home Depot a few weeks ago paying a premium for CLF lights bulbs which are %300 more expensive than the old inefficient light bulbs. Some company has worked out how to sell me a light bulb for four times the price I would normally pay? That is an economic opportunity if I ever saw it.

Same with all the other technologies that companies come up with. I will probably pay a premium for them. A few weeks ago my wife looked into buying green power - which we will probably pay more for than we would coal generated power.

I own iPods when I could buy a cheap run of the mill mp3 player which is indicative of consumer behaviour. It will be the same with the new technologies that come out to wean us off carbon based fuels. This will probably be the next spurt of economic growth as companies create disruptive technologies, that can be sold at a premium, and change whole markets.

It is an opportunity to grow jobs, technologies and the economy - it should be stated as such. Abbot is on the wrong tack here.