No future: the Republic is almost as dead as Sid Vicious

stephen says:

12:53pm | 09/06/09

Sticking with the current system, because adopting a Republic is a waste of money, is a sound argument. (And whilst we are on the subject of saving money - and maybe our credibility - perhaps that grand old commemorative war-holiday (Anzac Day) could be given the flick too.

Justin Smith says:

01:33pm | 09/06/09

If you did a little bit of research you would find that we didn’t celebrate the Birthday of Queen Elizabeth II and in fact we commemorated the birthday of Queen Victoria. I would have thought a well seasoned journalist would know the value in doing a little bit of research before writing about a topic.

In regards to the cost of becoming a republic it is a non-issue. The fact is we print banknotes on a daily basis with old banknotes being taken out of circulation, we mint new coins each day with old ones being taken out of circulation and in fact every year we have a commemorative coins minted and released for general circulation. For a year we had a $5 banknote that didn’t even have the Queen’s head. So the old argument that it would cost billions to change over to a republic is false. In regards to Navy ships, again changing their name isn’t that hard or expensive considering the fact the ships are painted on a regular basis in order to stop them rusting.

So where are the additional costs involved other than the cost of a referendum?

Morris White says:

11:54am | 11/06/09

Had Justic Smith himself done a little bit of research he would know that Queen Victoria was born on 24 May.  (This is the date on which The Queen’s official birthday is observed in Canada.)  After Queen Victoria’s demise, celebrations elsewhere co-incided with her successors’ actual birthdays until the accession of George VI whose birthday, 14 December, was inconveniently close to Christmas and would probably have met with bad weather.  George V was, conveniently, born on 3 June and this timing was retained for observing the King’s official birthday.  In Australia, the official observance of 21 April during the present reign would be inconveniently close to ANZAC Day.  (In Western Australia, a June observance clashes with Foundation Day and another date usually in September is proclaimed.)  Hopefully, when the current Prince of Wales eventually accedes, the King’s Birthday will be observed on 14 November throughout Australia: there is always a campaign to move a public holiday later in the year.

cornelius lenihan says:

10:13am | 15/06/09

The Republican debate is up and running again , it’s quite obvious that David Flint and his followers are leading the way in the hope that the issue will go away , but I’m afraid it will not regardless of the cost. Australia has come of age a long time ago and is now mature enough that she does’nt want anything to do with the English Monarchy , the monarchy is as outdated as Shakespeare himself and thats going back five hundred years or so ,.

Today we Australians are a modern people who are respected throughout the world , we dont want to be tied to such an out moded instution such as Englands Queen and her Cohorts, where in the world would one find an instution like “Queen Elizabeths”, where Catholics are barred from ever entering their religion so that no heir is allowed to marry a Catholic! That with its selfish money grabbing and what the heirs are getting from the treasury doesnt make since ,  so David Flint if you want to have the monarchy continue in Australia , I’m afraid you have strong opposition from the people , it is not like the Howard years in power we all knew we’d never achieve one then as he was like Menzie an out and out Monarch , so all you Royalist be pepared for the introduction of An Australian as “Head of State” elected shortly in due course. one of your pro Royalist said it would cost too much , well look at it like this, the cost of bringing Her Majesty over with all the trimmings would i’m sure far out weigh the cost of her not coming and if she did she would have to pay her own expenses, We have two leaders here now who are well known Republicans , MR Rudd and MR Turnbull either will bring this beautiful Country of ours back to todays image,Australia Republic.

Henry says:

12:15pm | 15/06/09

I hope we don’t become a republic.

Why?

Changing the constitution - an exercise of which will cost a substantial amount of money - just to satisfy a a couple of bogan’s petty ego’s is totally irrelevant and pointless.

And if we said NO in 1999, why would we say YES only ten years later?

Would republicans please give me three reasons why we should become a republic?

Jeremy says:

12:15pm | 15/06/09

The brilliant advantage of the Australian constitution is that there are two people (the Queen and the Governer General) who have the authority to dismiss the Government of the day.
Because they are not elected, they don’t have recognised electoral support. Their power is theoretically overwhelming but is limited to ensuring that the elected Government complies with the constitution. This is ensured by spoken and unspoken agreements, some made even before the Australia was settled.
History does not show evidence that it is possible to write this sort of understanding into a document.
It is not sensible to throw away the best constitution in the world, in the hope that you will produce a better one, when people have been trying and failing that task for thousands of years. No matter how great your inherited hatred of the british monarchy, it does not justify inflicting constitutional experiments on your children.

Andrew says:

02:31pm | 15/06/09

There is one basic and over riding fact that cannot be changed by any rhetoric, logic or emotion from the Monarchists in this debate - the head of state of Australian can never be an Australian. It is a title inherited by someone in England! There are not many advanced countries left in this world with a head of state that is not one of their own, be it a monarxhy or a republic.
The fact that that the Monarchists want to claim the GG is our effective head of state just makes the stink even worse.
This is my reason for wanting a republic. We have grown up as a nation, we are allowed to leave home. We should have pride in ourselves as a nation, as Australian’s not as disciples of the Queens of England.
Can we please grow up?

Jonathan says:

10:57am | 19/06/09

The last referendum was a complete farce.  Any question this important should be posed in simple terms, i.e. 1. Should Australia be a Republic? Y/N; 2. If Yes, should the President (a) be elected by the people, or (b) appointed by politicians? etc.  Not the rubbish proposed by Howard where multiple questions were asked in a single question which then required a single Y/N answer.
The monarchy is irrelevant in this country, and has been for some time. It has served Australia well as our ‘Mum’ for a couple of hundred years, but it is time we cut the apron strings and stood on our own two feet.
As for the dwindling number of people who support the monarchy, if they want that model so badly there’s a little country called England that should suit them quite well.