Belly,

How did I change the question; now as you say that I have you may, in your moronic way, be able to give an answer.

Found any benefits yet?

No republic for me.

CM, Hear, hear! Amongst other reasons, it has been said that the 'people', will decide our fate.
Unfortunately, if we have learned anything from the past, and present, the people are utter morons. They are swayed by the most erroneous of reasons.
Too many decisions of past have been absolutely egregious and caused great social discontent and disconnect.
The further back we go, in time, the more the population was in agreement, as we all had similar social values.
Since the 'white Australia' policy was removed, we have seen a large and varied array of different races and creeds migrate to Australia.
Because of this we are now facing a more splintered and partisan population, each group vying for the parties that will best cater to their needs and demands.
This has seriously affected a large proportion of the population badly, and weakened the majors.
With all this torture and turmoil, it is obvious to any thinking person that a Republic will NOT be of any benefit over what we have now.
The only people who will benefit will be the ministers and the elite.
And as the saying goes, 'If it's good for them, it must be bad for us'.
Let me put this as succinctly as possible.
We, the people, will be 'WORSE OFF' as a republic!
End of!

One benefit from John Kerr 1975 was that he was being an aussie. He was criticised for being a tool of the Australian Libs (rather than tool of British monarchy) . To make that point , Whitlam said " well may we say God save the Queen" and his budget bills were nothing to do with the monarchy thing. And if the GGen suddenly became the head by himself no-one would see any change in the situation of political issues.
...
except Belly on his knees choking on cucumber with his big chin.

Altrav,

"Since the 'white Australia' policy was removed, we have seen a large and varied array of different races and creeds migrate to Australia"

We already had Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists pre 1900, so who else arrived?

Is Mise, EVERYONE ELSE!
The point I am making is that because we had fewer people back then, including the migrants, so it was not possible to garner enough support from any one group or nationality.
Unlike today.
A very important and relevant fact also is, that the early migrants assimilated well.
My parents as wogs were post war migrants.
Since the white Australia policy was removed we have seen a large increase in migration of many more races and creeds.
Approx 200,000 per year apparently.
A republic is going to facilitate these other races and creeds, because they will be a higher proportion of the population, and therefore be in a position to effect change that will suite them.
That includes cultural change.
Now I know from history and my life growing up in Australia, that we have many different schools of many different faiths.
I do not recall any one of them going around and actually 'forcing' organizations and businesses to pay a fee for, I'm not sure what but it had something to do with HALAL food.
The only time I have seen anything close to this, it was called 'protection'.
The process was in fact extortion.
So there are several points to be made here.
One is that had we kept a European migration, we would not be in danger now.
Two, tor the same reason we would not see a slow overthrow of our western/christian culture to another of many.
If you want a glimpse into the future, just look up the Mayor of Sydney.
Every year we are seeing more and more infiltration.
Who is the moron who decided that just because some Muslim muckwits want to 'shirt front' the Aussie culture and demanded they take down any signs of Christianity in schools.
I find it an affront and the height of arrogance to migrate to a country that you are well aware of it's practices, and demand they change their ways to accommodate some cretins.
The blame sits squarely at the feet of who agreed to this crap in the first place.