There is nothing like an open-ended constitution change that brings out all the rent seekers.

This is political gamesmanship no more. The proposed changes need to be part of the question.

Nations with monarchies are generally listed as the most equal and pleasant to live, such as Denmark, Norway, Holland. Whereas republics/ statist countries seem chaotic.
Its actually quite weird that Russia hasn't brought back the Romanovs and the French haven't got the Bourbans considering how many great things they built.

There is no sensible reason for a republic. I imagine any vote now would be much the same as the last one. Constant nagging is no reason to change our minds.

Shadow,
I agree the proposed changes need to be part of the question. But who are these rent seekers you refer to? I can't think of any issue with less opportunity for profit.

Aidan,

A modification to the Constitution of this magnitude would provide all sorts of interest groups an opportunity to permanently guarantee themselves a say in the future Aus. A prime example is the referendum to recognize aboriginals as the first people that has been derailed by interest groups trying to gain special representation and lots more.

Changing to a republic would entail enormous costs, and there would hordes of people wanting to get their snouts in the trough - rent seekers as AC rightly describes them.

I can see plenty of aspects of this nation which could be considered broken and require a good rethink, and under the right circumstances I might be open to discussing the idea of a republic, but the country has become too susceptible to liberal left progressive rubbish, and if Bill Shorten is selling it then I want nothing to do with it.

Sorry, as SM rightly describes them.

I absolutely do not agree with a republic. It would be like giving the guys at the top the keys to the safe and as for trying to get justice or bring them to account would be even harder than now. At least with a true monarch or ruler there would be only one person with access to the safe. This current system of so called democracy leaves half the people with no voice and all of us without access to justice because they have insulated themselves from us and therefore any risk of attack. They have privatised the hell out of everything divesting themselves of the running and responsibility of the public utilities like power and water and sold them off to their mates so now we have no say in them anymore and so we end up paying more and more. NO! I say, not a chance. Keep the monarchy and we can rest easy knowing 'mummy' is looking over us. Can you imagine letting all the snakes and sharks settle in to parliament house? They are already there but as a republic all their mates would move in as well. NO! NO WAY!

Give the current furore over people with dual citizenship (many of whom didn't know) with federal parliamentarians it seems amazing that the issue of Australia having a foreign monarch as head of state has escaped much examination. Why is it ok to have a foreign queen who is born into great privilege yet we cannot have dual citizens in parliament?

Australia is an immature nation of sooks who seem to think 'mummy' will be there forever. Well, she won't be and recent reports have her handing over to Charles in the near future. That'll be a shock to the royalist who seem to have forgotten they don't get a choice as to who sits on the throne and their celebrity favourite will have to wait in line for possibly another couple of decades.

Once those who think they get to choose a monarch finally find out they can't then watch the clamor to become a grown up nation and finally have a model where an Australian, not a foreign monarch who couldn't give a toss about us, can finally be chosen as head of state. And chosen by the people!

The question posed in the republic referendum was designed to be rejected by a populace which none the less favoured an Australian head of state. The trick was simple - Howard put up for referendum not A republic but a specific MODEL of a republic, specifying just how a head of state was to be chosen.

The choice needed to be in two parts - (1) should we have an Australian head of state with the function now exercised by the Governor-General? (2) How should the head of state be chosen?

This was the sequence that operated in deciding (1) to abandon the fawning "God Save the Queen" in favour of a national anthem of our own, and (2) deciding what song should be adopted as a national anthem. However the two decisions were not separated by a referendum. In adopting "Advance Australia Fair" we jumped from the fawning to the fatuous.

I know I am sound of mind but I also believe I am sound of reason. I find myself having to remind all the descendants of convicts that the UK settled this country and whether or not the 'republicans' or the abo's like it or not, the Queen 'owns' Australia. She will eventually sway to public opinion in the future, just as she has done before, with countries SHE once OWNED. This is the bit all you descendants of convicts, hate the most. I'll bet the majority of 'the great unwashed' did not know that whenever a new Australian Prime Minister is elected, he MUST go and ASK, yes ask, the Queen if he can run the country, 'on her behalf'. Don't worry, much to my disappointment one day we will sever ties with mother England and we will all be shafted even more than we have been so far. I don't know what the big deal is about the Queen being our head of state. As I see it she has the cred being a descendant of someone who fought for his patch, (England) and became the ruler of his domain under the laws of the day. Any countries he conquered or settled belonged to him. Even though she is not the right lineage, (because her uncle stepped off the throne to marry that American maggot) her father had to step up to the top job. Sadly he died not long after and that's how she ended up being Queen. I have no problem with her as our head of state because it is her birth-rite. Think of the con-men and scumbags we are going to get as a Republic. As for complaining about money going back to the UK, I have a sobering thought for you to consider. Back in the 'good ol days' King George the ?? wanted money to finance the war against Napoleon. Rothschild lent him a million pounds. We are still paying interest on that money today.