“The people wanted the power to appoint the head of state”. (In 1999)

This was not the only reason a republic was rejected, and it is more than likely that most Australians would again reject a costly referendum with the view of an even more costly installation of a republic now, or in the foreseeable future.

There is absolutely no advantage for individual Australians in a republic.

“None of the choices will be the one the public wants”, the author correctly states. This means that, even if the public does want a republic, it will have to vote against any referendum the urgers put up until it looks as if they are going to get what they want.

What a bloody stupid waste of time and money!

No politician in Australia or any group pushing for such a radical change to our political system can be trusted at the moment.

“No” is the only answer to a republic

As a grown man (note grown, not mature) in my 40's, I asked my mother what she thought about the whole republican issue. She told me that in her view Australia would one day become a republic but now is not the time. She said that whether us trendy Republicans want to believe it or not, there are a lot of Australians who have a legitimate fondness of the Monarchy. You only have to see how many turn out when there is a Royal visit or how many buy trashy magazines promising a Royal expose. It may be silly, it may be irrational but, no, the ability to choose a head of State wasn't the overwhelming reason that people chose to say 'no'.

For the record, I am a Republican and I think that Parliamentary selection of our titular head of state, with power vested in the PM is the way to go ... however, I still listen to my mum and she says 'wait'.

Nigel, you are still young. Would you trust John Howard, Julia Gillard, Mark Latham even, or perhaps Kevin Rudd, to appoint a real Head of State. The people who voted against it last time wouldn't, neither will they vote for it again. The truth of the matter is that we do not trust politicians of any persuasion to do those things which we are quite capable of doing for ourselves, and appointing a Head of State is one of them. Just because the Queen's representative is appointed on the recommendation of the government of the day, gives no credence to similarly appointing a President, so the proposition will again fail.

David

The irony is that Australia's monarchists are the most keenly aware that a referendum on a republic will pass with ease. That's why we can look forward to two years of furious bluster about how pointless it is, and how it was rejected last time, etcetera, ad nauseum.

And the advantage of a republic, Mr Right, is pride.

In any case, young prince Harry doesn't have a drop of Windsor blood in him (being the child of Diana and Major James Hewitt), so in two generations the royal line will end anyway.

The Howard gone, no more tricks to divide the republicans. We are more than 75% of Australian population and we are ready to put the monarchy in to museum. Do you want republic? YES! That's it. The story will finish very soon and it will finish for EVER! The power to appoint the head of Australian state belongs to Australians AND ONLY TO AUSTRALIANS. Monarchist you have no future. Leave the queen alone and come with republicans!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

As an immigrant POM, I look forward to the day when I can be an Australian citizen in the true sense. That other immigrants who become Australian citizens, no longer have to be beholden to a foreign head of state, at their citizenship ceremonies!