I read an article in The Herald Sun recently on
the topic of having a debate in 2018 of Australia
becoming a Republic. I tried to access the article
again but couldn't - as it's a "subscriber only"
story.

However, from memory, it appears that our Prime Minister
wants to raise this issue now that the same-sex marriage
survey has passed in having another plebiscite on the
Republic. He says that it will cost much less than the
postal survey on same-sex marriage - and that he feels it's
time for us to have this debate.

What do posters on this forum think?
And do you think that it would succeed?
Your thoughts please?

Really good question bro.
Debates are always good, whether its about being a secular republic or, who knows, maybe the christian community have some ideas about living in a christian theocracy one day. Bottom line, debates are fun.

Malcolm probably sees himself as Australia's first President and spending public money to boost his ego as a justifiable expense, likewise, Bill has aspirations along the same lines.

We need a republic like an open road speed limit of 60 k/h.

The present system works well and at a considerably less cost than a Republic.

Given soaring power prices, unaffordable housing, Sudanese gangs, lowering education standards and the handing of assets to Communist China – to name a few – Malcolm Turnbull has demonstrated complete stupidity by raising republicanism again.

Apart from the billions of dollars a republic would cost us, there would not be a single benefit to the day to day living of Australian

Foxy, "However, from memory, it appears that our Prime Minister wants to raise this issue now that the same-sex marriage survey has passed in having another plebiscite on the Republic"

Your memory fails you unfortunately. It was actually Bill 'Whatever She Says' Shorten who was talking up the republic and what he was going to do.

Predictably, the 'meeja' bounced that off Turnbull to MAKE the news as the Oz meeja is inclined to do. Turnbull said it would have to wait until after the present QEII passes on. And she is very much alive of course.

".Speaking in Sydney on New Year's Day, Mr Turnbull reiterated his view that the issue would best be revived when the reign of the Queen, who is 91, ends.

Asked how he would handle the republic matter if the Queen died during his prime ministership, Mr Turnbull said "the first thing you would need to do is have an honest, open discussion about how a president would be elected".

"Whether the president would be chosen by Parliament ... in a bipartisan, two-thirds majority as proposed in '99 or directly elected. That is the rock on which the referendum floundered in '99.

"You've got to have that discussion and it may be that a plebiscite, maybe even a postal survey, given the success of the marriage postal survey, could be one way to deal with that."

He said moving from a monarchy to a republic would require an amendment to the constitution whereby a president would replace the Queen as head of state, which must be put to the Australian people at a referendum.

"This is not a change that Parliament can make. This is a question for the Australian people and Australians have shown themselves to be very conservative when it comes to constitutional change," he said.

"But there is no point pretending that there is an appetite for change when there isn't one at the moment."

http://www.nambuccaguardian.com.au/story/5147896/given-the-success-of-the-marriage-postal-survey-turnbull-flags-an-australian-republic-vote/

My question is. Why would a postal vote for this issue cost far less than the one for SSM?