The biggest hurdle for republicans is the reality that Australia is already an independent nation. Only sentiment and inertia links us to the British crown.
Most Australians have known no British sovereign other than the queen. Without her, questions about a republic will again come to the fore.
A new book argues no-one writing an Australian constitution today would argue for creating a head of state on the other side of the world who is hand-picked by the head of government.
As the republic debate ramps up once more, what are the pros and cons of different models for an Australian head of state?
Republic backers need to make a huge dent in public opinion to get the progress they want. People should remember even Fergie’s ‘toe sucking’ incident didn’t bring down the monarchy in the 1990s.
A new poll shows nearly two-thirds of Australians want an Australian head of state. A new republic model, however, would require compromise to succeed.
When considering this question, we need to distinguish between the pomposities of monarchies and the purpose they serve as checks on untrammelled authoritarianism.
This model for an Australian republic aims to ensure the process of a choosing a head of state is democratic, but also that the dignity of the office is maintained.
Reconciliation between the Settler and First Nations populations is a self-evident prerequisite for Australia cutting the ties of colonial dependency with Britain to stand on our own.
Many of the questions that would arise if Australia wants to become a republic have been successfully tackled elsewhere.
The arguments about a potential Australian republic in cabinet submissions suggest a failure of imagination and, more seriously, of trust.
Labor’s project of economic transformation hit some harder realities as Paul Keating assumed the top job. And a new push on remaking Australia stirred a brooding reaction of its own.
By the end of 1992, Paul Keating had done more than anyone to place on the political agenda issues of national identity that had been either dead or dormant for years.
For Australians to vote in favour of a republic, it may require something more than just crossing out ‘governor-general’ in the Constitution and writing in ‘president’.
In his much-anticipated weekend speech to the Australian Republican Movement’s anniversary dinner, Malcolm Turnbull juggled the past, the present and the future.
Australians should want the reality of a republic. The rest is but window-dressing.
On the eve of Australia Day, the Australian Republican Movement has released a statement of support for an Australian head of state signed by all but one of the nation’s premiers and chief ministers.
The prime minister and opposition leader are both outspoken republicans. And yet, following Prince Charles’ latest visit, an Australian republic looks far from guaranteed. Why is that?
Is the Dismissal a moment that will become even more significant if the push for Australia to become a republic gains momentum?
In comments reported in a new book to mark the 40th anniversary of the dismissal of Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott offer sharply differing views.