I recall back in the 80s there was a piece of legislation enacted that effectively ended even the pretence of QEII's role in our Parliament - except as a curious relic of some long lost empire.

Can't we just leave it there?

I used to think a Republic was important but really, what would it do to bring about any substantial economic or social benefit?

Aren't we better off allocating our time and energies to things that will actually result in some measurable public benefit first (like lower unemployment, better health outcomes, lower infant mortality in indigenous communities, a more secure retirement framework for all, better education etc., etc., ...).

I hate to even contemplate agreeing with anything John Howard ever uttered but his point about the Republic being a low priority was possibly his most helpful contribution to public discourse.

Let's move on people.

Reading the tealeaves, and the body language, I can't help but think that the chances of Rudd and Turnbull cooperating over the republic issue are close to zero.

The problem is that both these guys are game-players. Kev learned his craft in the backrooms of political wonkery, Mal was blooded in boardrooms. Neither will be able to let the debate flow naturally, as each has an inclination to score personal points at every possible opportunity.

If - and it is a big if, unfortunately - they can ever see their way to laying aside their contempt for the other, we may see some progress. But while it remains a political football, a republic is as far away as ever.

Turnbull’s comment on no republic before the demise of Elizabeth 11is probably correct. People who support the status quo while she reigns might very well change their minds when she hands over to who-knows-who from among the rest of the royals. They are not a very attractive or charming lot.

On the other hand, there is no necessity for Australia to become a republic in the minds of anyone but those who don’t understand – or don’t want to understand – the purely ceremonial role of the monarch in Australia, and its historical importance to us.

Turnbull certainly gave Rudd one in the eye when he questioned the latter’s mention of a republic – of all things – when there are so many more important things in need of attention in Australia.

As for the author’s: “But surely we have to back the capacity of the Australian people to decide our constitutional arrangements on our terms rather than on the turn of events on the other side of the globe”, well, the Australian people have already made such a decision and soundly drubbed the monarchist push in a referendum.

That the author mentions Turnbull’s hypocrisy in his present statements ignores the fact that Turnbull is now a politician and a politician is an entirely different animal from a private citizen who can say or do whatever he likes when it comes to a favourite hobbyhorse. Reality stopped the fairy tale of a republic once; it may well do so again.

I wonder what the author means by a “…now foreign monarchy”. It’s the same monarchy that it has always been. The Queen is still Queen of Australia. It is still part of our history. Perhaps he is thinking about the many non-Anglo migrants who don’t particularly like the current arrangements of the country who took them in?

Continued...

...continued

Republicans are undoubtedly seeking a “…responsible and bipartisan leadership …” (on a republic). But, who, apart from republicans, regard it as an “…important national issue.”

Just how many republicans are there? All we know is that a majority of people in the majority of states voted against a republic in the only referendum ever held on the issue. The idea of a republic came from the top down, after pressure lobbying from people most of us have never heard of.

The author now wants another huddle of committees made up of an elite to tell the rest of us what we think. But, I don’t think he has much chance of getting anything up “at the 2010 election” given that Rudd will be hanging on by his fingernails by then, with his emissions taxes, disregard for pensioners and the general ineptitude he has shown for governance, even when he is in the country.

Another thing republicans need to understand: Just because “…64.4 per cent of Australians also believing the Queen and the Royal Family are “not very important” to Australia”, it doesn’t not mean that they are prepared for the disruption and huge cost of change. I’ll bet they were not asked about that!

The monarch and royal family are, of course, not important to Australian’s everyday lives – although the Women’s Weekly and other magazines wouldn’t agree. But that’s the point. They are ‘neutral’ in effect, and they are part of a political system which has seen stability that Australians might not want to lose, if asked.

The author is Director of the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia (FECCA). He is on the National Committee of the Australian Republican Movement.

His interest in ‘ethnic’ Australia and direct involvement in the republican movement make his article a piece of advertising.

His ‘product’ is too costly; too dangerous, and totally unnecessary

The PM makes a lot of statements about Australia needing to lead the world in various things, a new Asian alliance, new Nuclear Non Proliferation organisation, setting the high bar for climate fiddling (whatever it is this week) world record in reviews and committees. My personal conspiracy theory (today) is that all the trips to New York may be masking his cunning plan to form a new United Nations type organsation, (with Australia in charge). I don't think it will end with just a chair on some council there - the man has bigger ambitions than that.

So, in light of that sort of "leadership" behaviour, I agree with Pericles, that he would never share the Republican issue stage with the opposition leader and would possibly end up spoiling if he thought he might lose ascendency. There are several instruments up for the spoil, the bait and switch so to speak, one of them is the flag debate, another is the national anthem and I'm sure there are others. The move to a republic may be stalled for some time.

'Republicans are looking for responsible, bipartisan leadership from Rudd and Turnbull on the important national issue of a republic.'

Important debate? Ah, my foot!

When Queen Elizabeth's reign ends, we'll become a republic. Isn't that pretty much a given?

At any rate, the real full-on debate won't happen until then, or until she is looking as though she is on her last legs.

What will really change when we become a republic? Stuff-all.

The ESSENTIAL changes of steering our nation onto a sustainable basis and weaning ourselves of never-ending expansionism are NOT going to happen when we become a republic. In fact, they are not even part of the debate.

Other essential elements such as a much better distribution of wealth, much improved basic services, much reduced greenhouse gas emissions, etc, etc, are also outside of the republic debating arena.

So why do people think that the republic debate is important? Stuffed if I know.