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.

"Australia is also now in a position where our Prime Minister and Opposition Leader, almost all of our Premiers and Chief Ministers and even our Chief Justice are republicans."

I am shocked, shocked, to hear this. Earlier this year, when the new parliament was opened, each of these politicians swore on oath or affirmed that they would be faithful, and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty.

Are you now saying that they were lying in their teeth? If, so, how can I believe anything they say?

it is important, ludwig. the transition to a republic is an opportunity to inject some fundamental democracy into oz. but it needs preparatory discussion.

the alternative is to leave the transition in the hands of the same people who have looted the planet and led the people to the brink of ecological disaster. the people who created our problems are not going to solve them. they can not, for their personal status and wealth is tied up in the way things are.

oz needs a new source of leadership and a new energy that springs from a new class: the citizens, masters of a new democracy.

The problem with the active pro-republicans is one of a complete lack of general acceptance by the ordinary man or woman in the street who is much to busy earning a decent living in a proper job. There is always the lurking suspicion that the vocal ones expousing the cause are doing so for nefarious reasons. The author is very obviously grinding his axe, as did Malcolm Turnbull pre politics, as did William Hayden pre governor general. Let the status quo prevail, it has served this country well for over two hundred years with stable democratic government. We just don't need these tropical fruit republics or even their idea's thrust upon us from dubious sources?

I agree that pro-republic Australians are being too premature in this. I do not think our government representatives will do the right thing. The environment is far too politically correct for my tastes, and far too committee oriented also. You are never going to get an inspiring document from a committee of bureacrats that is suitable for the Australian republic.

I agree with most of the contributions here. The republic is not a necessity, but more of an acessory. The important thing is that the Australian public will choose to become a Republic when THEY are mature enough or feel it's the right time.

The ordinary people in society are rightfully suspicious of the motives of many Republicans and the way they skim the cream off the top of society for themselves. I was a little irritated with Red Kerry's (highly indulgent) interview with Quentin Bryce the other night where she didn't seem to think the Queen's representative was primarily a rubber stamp. This is exactly the sort of elitism much of the Oz public don't like nor trust. And as long as the public draw breath and feel the elites are running the show from behind the scenes, they'll never support a Republic at a Referendum.

As other contributors have said, it's not like the Republic is that important to the everyday lives of Australians. The public is almost certainly going to take its time on this one.

because, ludwig, the republic is likely to appear soon, and it's character is vital to the well-being of ozzians.

i voted against the republic referendum, because it's better to have one person who can say 'no' to politicians, than none. it would be better, infinitely, to have democracy. unfortunately, "you get the government you deserve" is quite appropriate here, and ozzians are not now citizen quality people.

but their children may be, and it's important that they can attain democracy without the need for violent struggle. these matters are not important to sheep, but they are of concern to people. so, yes, discussion of a republic model is important. unless you're a sheep.

"it is important, ludwig. the transition to a republic is an opportunity to inject some fundamental democracy into oz. but it needs preparatory discussion."

Yes DEMOS, it is indeed a huge opportunity to improve the democratic 'quality' of our governance.

But do you think it will happen?

I can almost guarantee that it will be a major opportunity squandered.

"the alternative is to leave the transition in the hands of the same people who have looted the planet and led the people to the brink of ecological disaster."

The transition WILL be in those peoples' hands...and they'll make sure that the transition is one in which the core concerns that I mentioned in my last post don't get addressed, let alone become the centre of our efforts.