There are many factors contributing to Australia’s childish obsession with ‘celebrities’.

One factor is the profound laziness of the media, which will look for the easiest way to ‘cover’ a story. Another is the prevailing anti-intellectual mood of the country.

I would rather focus though on what the republican movement can do about it.

The Keating-inspired proposals, and the ARM which it spawned, saw a republic in simplistic terms. For 20 years the campaign has focused on the identity of the head of state as the only issue. There has been no attention given to the role and powers of the position.

The ARM has therefore set itself up to be defeated by celebrity appeal. If the personal identity and perceived qualities of the head of state are the only issue, today’s marketing machines can easily respond with the shallow circus we’ve just seen with the royal tour. Those who see a republic as a matter of identity and independence are taking a superficial approach which cannot compete with the ultimate superficiality of royalty.

By contrast, the Advancing Democracy model for a republic focuses on the role and powers of a head of state. One third of the sections in our Constitution confer power on the monarchy. If you cannot say what should be done with each one of those powers, then you do not have a proposal to put before the people. The ARM currently has no proposal which meets this criteria. The Advancing Democracy model does.

Republicans need to think more deeply about the role of a head of state. If you simply allocate the current role of the Governor-General to a new president, then you are perpetuating monarchy, because that role reflects the ancient role of the monarchy. The Advancing Democracy model recognises that all royal powers are limitations on democracy. It’s amazing that less than 40 years after the Whitlam dismissal so few people recognise that monarchy is in fact the most de-stabilising force in our Constitution.

Anyone interested in approaching the issue as one of substance should see www.advancingdemocracy.info.

Possibly . The amount of attention given to the latest promotional visit by the Windsor family by commercial media is excessive to the point where it represents a failure to perform the media's proper function to inform the public .
They gleefully trumpet that the visit shows that republicanism is dead . It certainly remains alive . What the media celebrates is the temporary continuance of an Australian subservience to an obsolete relic of colonialism .

During the 1999 referendum , right wing commentators objected to a parliamentary appointed head of state because they said it was undemocratic , as the head of state must be elected . No commentator noted that neither the British monarch , nor her Governor General is elected , or even chosen by Parliament .

Apart from anything else , the public exhibiting of " Prince George " is child abuse and there is no hope that this child , though he will enjoy the financial benefits of his privileged birth , will ever have a decent childhood or adolescence .

‘morning Raffaele,

Let me see if I’ve got this right. So Australian’s have been duped into thinking that the Royal Couple connected with them, not because they were Royals but because they were celebrities?

Naturally this narrative leads us to the conclusion that Australians should now vote for a Republic so that we can grant authority to someone else to appoint another “celebrity” to a presidency on our behalf?

Have I got this right?

I would guess that at least 95% of the people gushing over the visit are womens day or TY maginze readers. Famous for being famous is what these Sheep want and are fed by the media.

Is the cult of celebrity holding back an Australian republic?
Probably, along with the parliament's desire to pick one with a two thirds majority; the very question that took this issue off the table last time!
There will be an Australian republic one day, and that day will come so much closer, when Parliament pulls its head in and starts the process with a plebiscite, that asks just one question!
Should our head of state be an Australian? Just that, nothing more!
Once we've dealt with that issue, the next question at a referendum, should be, does the parliament get to make that choice, or should we the people elect our head of state? Either either, nothing more!
Now, one can see through the quite apparent obfuscation on both sides of the Isle, who as per usual, seek to corrupt the electoral process, by massaging it or manipulating it, via the preference process, and or, secret back door preference deals?
Deals done in the dead of night, that could see an electorate represented by a candidate, with as little as 15% of the primary vote, or put another way, 85% of the electorate didn't want!?
I don't know why we are still connected to the throne, given any conflict of commercial or trade interest, the throne will act exclusively for England and against us!
England chose the ECU over the Commonwealth, and almost killed many rural communities, almost completely dependent on local dairy co-ops, and trade with England, for their very survival.
We who sacrificed so much for England through two world wars, and not just on the battlefield, now are treated as aliens, with less rights than former wartime enemies, inside England!
I just don't see what all the royal fuss was about, which after costing us millions, simply allowed a presentable young couple, far less extraordinary than many, to tour here, at our expensive.
Sure they were very nice and charming, but hey, so is Kyle Manouge!
Rhrosty.

The author has described the issue very clearly. The question of what our constitutional arrangements should be to carry us forward from this point has been overwhelmed by this cult of celebrity.

However, we can do nothing about eliminating this phenomenon. We just have to live with it. What we have to do is deal with the simplistic representation of the matter as Republic v Monarchy.

The issue is to work out constitutional arrangements over which we - the Australian People - have control. At the moment we are beholden to whatever the UK wants to do with the Monarch. I think there are reasonably simple arrangements we could establish that would avoid most of the problems identified by people who have thought about this issue.

However first we have to realise what we seek to do. That is take control of our constitutional arrangements.

Most people did not gush over this recent Royal visit, only the media, compared to the 1954 visit very few people attended any function they were at. Perhaps where celebrities are involved the newspapers could have a section devoted to those who wish to read about them, the rest of us could then throw the gushing media reports straight in the rubbish bin, the expenses related to this tour, paid by the Australian taxpayer would have been far better spent on more worthwhile causes, most people were glad when these very rich people left the country, the media then returned sort of to more worthwhile reporting, one cannot understand the poorer sections of the community wanting to line up and greet these people, a new dress each day, how extravagant, when people are starving in the world. Royalty has no place in society now, the sooner a Republic for Australia happens the better

How shallow to attribute the preference for monarchy to some silly celebrity-worship when there are real, grown-up reasons to keep the monarchy intact:

Ideally there should be no head of state, as it presents a risk of tyranny and spreads the bad spirit of nationalism. If however, it's unavoidable and we must have one, then s/he better live in far-off England where s/he can do no harm. Perhaps come to visit now and then, taking photos and kissing babies, that's not going to turn them into dictators in the way an Australian head-of-state could.

I rather hope the cult of celebrity is the main reason for public support for the monarchy. If so, the cold, hard, reality of the prospect of "King Charles" will send people back to the Republican movement in droves!

We already have virtual dictators in power in Australia?
The GST, i.e., was rammed through against the wishes of around 87% of us, with PM Howard, claiming, the people could take him to task over the decision at the next election?
An outcome that was thwarted, by 9/11 and the Tampa incident, and by an opposition that simply folded the tent and went away, when the fight for fairness, had hardly been engaged.
The principle problem was a very clever PM, making it a states' tax, and then leaving them to fight over it, like a bunch of hungry vultures.
And when Howard controlled both houses, we saw work choices rammed down our collective necks, as more unpalatable unwanted legislation yet again. What could we do or say? Click our heels and say, seig hiel, perhaps?
And we remain almost alone, as the one democracy that doesn't have a bill of irrevocable rights, as is the case in many dictatorships.
Nothing would be hurt, if we had a president with the power of veto over any legislation, and just add to the need for politicians to respect the will of the people, and the rights they have trampled over, or just wound back on this or that risible premise?
If we did have an Australian head of state, we would at least have a head, that represented our interests, whenever they were in conflict with those of England! In that possibility, no juxtaposition is possible!
And a bill of irrevocable rights would also limit the personal powers of a President, who would still need to stand in judgement, before those who elected him, and then only for a maximum of two terms!
We are not a Stalinist Russia, with a Stalin worshiping megalomaniac, seeking to entrench himself in power, or confer on himself, the powers of a virtual Czar!?
Rhrosty.

Yes! Yuyutsu the Royal family are dictators, we are aliens when entering England, if she thought anything of you & I she would correct this anomaly now, we are not part of England, this charade put on by the Royals on this visit did not come across as sincere by them, lets smile, shake a few hands, talk prepared crap by the hangers on, mustn't ask questions, at least if it was an Australian President I am sure he would answer questions put to him, the French, Austrians, Russia had the right idea and got rid of these extravagant useless people.

I wouldn't put too much on the Royals recent visit.
It would be a very mean-spirited person who would
try to demean this young family's visit to our
country. It was great entertainment, good for tourism,
great for magazine sales, and gave the media something
else to dwell on apart from political stuff-ups.

The day of the Republic will eventually come. Of that
I have no doubt. It's just that at present there are
more important priorities to deal with - like
issues of pension cuts, cuts to health, education, science,
et cetera.

Most Australians believe that things will come good in
the end. Looking back over the nation's placid history,
it seems an honest philosophy. In Australia, our sense of
identity is still evolving and the challenge is to blend
our different beliefs and the cultural differences they
create into a liberal democracy that we can all share.
Somehow the whole must be preserved while the ingredients and
mix are changed. It won't happen without problems and
some of the problems will remain for decades. But we can
cope with that much. The trick will be to keep it within
bounds and if that is done it will be an achievement to dwarf
even rugby triumphs.

Walter Edwards is right about a Constitution. We don't have one. The US used to have a good one but it has now been trashed.

If we are to have a Constitution and be truly independent from the Monarchy and it must include monetary sovereignty, ie only our Govt can create the new money for growth + inflation.

Nobody here seems to be making the very basic case that before we change anything (whether it's our underpants or our queen) we have to be assured that what we get is an improvement worth the effort. There's no point in grizzling about hereditary monarchs, opinion polls, celebrity, or eeevil monarchists before you take a good look and see what an excellent system we have now compared to just about any other country in the world. Australia is one of the oldest, stable democracies in the world and we should value that highly.

Our constitution is difficult to change for good reason. Republicans have been sneakily trying to bypass the constitution for years by gradually removing the symbols of our institutions, hiding pictures of the queen (and perhaps replacing her with one of the local strongman), banning knights and dames, QCs, oaths of allegiance, references to the crown and replacing these traditional things with newly invented ones designed to belittle our heritage.

Why do they do this? Because they cannot convince their fellow citizens of the reasons for their change by fair means. They have lost the vote before and have retreated from any logical argument, replacing argument with mushy sentiment about the mythical sunlit uplands, peace and happiness and goodwill to all that will result from a republic whilst at the same time denigrating solid citizens who disagree as being un-Australian, boot-licking forelock-tuggers, bowing to a foreign aristocrat and unable to stand on their own two feet. They are as wrong as they are dangerous.

Beware what you wish for.

It really doesn't matter what works, as long as we don't become stupid enough to become a republic.

Just pause for a moment, & imagine having a clown like Obama, or a vindictive troll like Keating as president. God we could even end up with a Rudd, Gillard or Palmer. If that doesn't stop your silly republican ideas, you are an idiot.

The UK go to vast expense training their royals to be nice inoffensive dolts. We would have to be mad to reject taking advantage of such a great tradition.

‘morning Captain Col and Hasbeen,

You make excellent points that the republicans repeatedly fail to answer, what is broken and what can be done to fix it?

We have many States, all with different laws, rules, regulations and political systems. Republicans wish to unify, under a republic, that which is already dis-unified.

When the republicans can explain to Australians what it is they can fix, then perhaps they may get a hearing?

Dear Hassie,

Not sure is the "stiff-upper lip" approach of the
old traditional Royals still works
with most Aussies. Perhaps that's why
the normality of Wills and Kate went
over so well on their recent visit to Oz.
And look at the furore that the re-instatement of
the "Imperial titles" by the PM caused recently.
Sir Pository of Wisdom indeed!

Hasbeen, Our new president would just have to stand there and not open his mouth to questions, just like the Royals, so there would be no difference, so what are you worried about

Dear Ojnab,

<<Yes! Yuyutsu the Royal family are dictators>>

Have they ordered you to put on the left sock before the right one?

If not, then please name just ONE thing which they dictated you to do or not to do.

<<we are aliens when entering England>>

Not such a bad thing - I nearly went broke from just making one phone-call from Heathrow airport.

Seriously, the royals don't have a say in the matter, they are merely puppets, but they plug in a role, preventing others from taking it. I wouldn't mind having as head-of-state King Flooctsvanian the 154th of Pluto, then have his colours and family pictures displayed on every formal occasion - His Majesty also can do us no harm and nobody will deny us citizenship of Pluto if we feel like moving there!

Dear Rhrosty,

<<If we did have an Australian head of state, we would at least have a head,>>

That's a long time to wait - I do hope you have one already!

<<And a bill of irrevocable rights would also limit the personal powers of a President>>

I still believe that the best guarantee that a president (or however you wish to call him/her) does not abuse their power, is to elect either a non-existent one or one who lives light-years away. On a second thought, we may as well elect a fish, for it surely won't give us any orders.

Dear Foxy,

<<In Australia, our sense of identity is still evolving>>

Which is so much better than the pains caused by having a calcified one, but have you ever considered what need is there for such a sense in the first place?

I think it is time for a few brutal facts to be mentioned, so that well-meaning people do not waste their energies over this issue.

First, the referendum result in 1999.

Quoting the result as 55-45 against is being far to generous to the republicans. Anyone versed in the Constitution knows that getting an overall majority on an issue is not relevant, as the trick is to get a majority in four sovereign states (with Tasmania having rightfully the same voting power as NSW). Since the NO vote was over 60% in 3 states, which is all that is required for defeat, that is the margin of defeat. There have been several referenda where an overall majority has been obtained, but the failure to carry four states caused it to be defeated.

Second, the attitude of the people towards politicians and the political class.

Anyone not aware of how most people feel toward the political class only need to follow the media, and join the discussion as to whether the new airport at Badgery's Creek should be called Penfolds Grange International, Eddie Obeid International or Craig Thompson International. I cannot recall a time when the whole political class, comprising all opinions, has been held in such contempt. Admittedly, the people have an unrealistic expectation of politicians, as they expect them at the very worst to be perfect, and really want something better. I am certain that an enormous number of people glory in the fact that the Prime Minister holds office during the pleasure of Her Majesty's representative, and would like the Governor-General to be renamed the Prime Ministerial Pisser-Offer in Chief.

The chastened times that we are just starting to go through will only strengthen these attitudes.

The only conclusion I can come to is:

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

...The “Republic”; just another dead-end subject to overheat the Progressive set. Add this one to “homosexual marriage” and “God is dead” …Yawn.

I usually get my news from ABC radio, and I assumed the overkill on Royal news during 'The Visit' was the ABC desperately trying to curry favour with the government to stave off budget cuts. Nothing against Kate and Wills, but surely only a handful of extremely slender young women could have been genuinely interested in what Kate was wearing.

I'm not in favour of a republic because we will either get exactly what we already have, but with a name change from Governor General to President, which seems pointless, or we will get an elected President to be chosen from a field of politicians, which would be worse.

No, the cult of celebrity is not holding back a republic.

What is holding back the republic, is the perception by Australians that a republic is an endorsement of multiculturalism. The more the multiculturalists moan about a republic, sneer at the monarchy, and demand that we change our flag to suite their internationalist agenda, the more Australians reject the republic, publically display their flag, and cheer on the Queen and her family.

The ever growing crowds at ANZAC dawn services is another indicator that Australians are uniting to reaffirm the values that they once may have taken for granted, like patriotism and pride in military traditions. ANZAC day means nothing to migrants, especially those who were once our enemies and who were on the receiving end of Aussie military inventories.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I was in that part of every mind reserved for
human fears. Everyone is prey to these fears,
to feeling threatened by things that are different,
lost in a future that has already arrived. If it all
comes down to a fear of change, then Australians have
earned their qualms. So many new faces, new cultures,
new challenges, the dizzy carousel of a multicultural
nation. Little wonder that some people yearn for a
pause, a chance for the nation to catch its breath,
to postpone the complications of social change.

Dear Foxy,

I was looking at this question from a broader perspective:

Identity is a problem.
It always ends with pain.

One can be identified with a sports-team,
or with a political party,
or with their gender and sexual orientation,
or with a nation.

The most bitter of identifications is with our human body:
it makes us perceive all the pains of this body as "our" own pain,
and as pains are natural for every living body, we suffer much pain as a result.

You are not a body - you are nothing less than God, but you currently seem to identify with your body and suffer along with it, unnecessarily.

We could do so much better, we could be so much happier without the limitations of identity, just being divinely who we are is sufficient, we don't even need a name!

We are taught at the age of zero to identify with our name - that's already a burden, difficult enough to get rid of, yet the last thing we need is to gain an extra, yet another identity and one of the biggest headaches we could acquire is a national identity.

In the context of this article, I think that having a head-of-state far away and mostly invisible, is a workable antidote against the development of a national identity: that is why I rather keep things the way they are (and not due to some celebrity/fashion as the author suggests).

To the extent that multiculturalism works to prevent a national identity, I welcome it - but we should remain vigilant not to turn multiculturalism itself into a new identity of its own.

Arjay says:

"Walter Edwards is right about a Constitution. We don't have one."

I assume you're being funny (if so, ha ha). If you're serious however, you dwell in a well of ignorance afflicting approximately half of all Australians.

Australia of course has a written constitution drafted by elected delegates from the colonies in the 1890s and ratified by referendums.

"The US used to have a good (constitution) ..." In fact, the framers of Australia's constitution thought it was so good they structured their document on the American model, and actually imported some of its text.

Dear Yuyutsu,

As always your wisdom far outweighs my rather
narrow views.

Thank You.