Without Paul Keating’s determination to progress the republican cause, it would never have developed any momentum in Australia in the 1990s. Without John Howard’s determination to wreck it, Australia might well have been a successful republic for a decade by now.
As the man who led the “yes” campaign, Malcolm Turnbull knows this better than anyone, which is why his comments yesterday about a republic being a “decision for the Australian people” are disingenuous.
Groups like the Australian Republican Movement can agitate, lobby and debate, but only a prime minister can put the issue front and centre in the national conversation.
As both Turnbull and Bill Shorten have said, there are more urgent issues than a republic in Australia — but there will always be more urgent issues than constitutional change of any kind. And although such big-picture reform as a republic or same-sex marriage don’t qualify as “urgent”, they are important to Australians in terms of our national identity.
Turnbull of course faces reactionary opposition from within his own party and from the Nationals on such issues. But if he is successful at this year’s election, he should use his authority as Prime Minister in his own right to face down the advocates of 19th-century thinking within his own ranks.
I have arrived at the point of who cares. The Royals are not the problem. The issue is a distraction.
Marriage equality & republicanism are ‘big picture issues’?
On which planet?
“Disingenuous”? Mal?
Wile we’re about it how about changing the flag to reflect our political situation – a few red herrings on a checkered background, flown upside down?
When I read that Loony Lambies spiel was the citizenship pledge I thought it sounded OK, I must have said it myself I guess. But I was shocked when I read the guff that politicians have to repeat, is it compulsory to cringe before the Queen and her heirs? It sounds like some kind of joke.
Can one be a conscientious objector to this nonsense?
The republic ‘debate’ is that fine old chestnut the MSM rolls out when news seems thin on the ground or doesn’t qualify as clickbait.
This ‘debate’ is a mainstay of lazy editors who no longer have the time (due to financial constraints by bean counters) to allow journos to research investigative stories. It’s a mere distraction to focus the Oz public on an issue other than important ones (tax reform, loss of manufacturing, renewable energy etc).