Republic of Australia?
By the end of this week, Australia could well have experienced the rather bizarre triple whammy of having a Welsh-born acting prime minister, a New Zealand-born national rugby coach and, of course, an English-born head of state.
As Kevin Rudd flies off to the United Nations climate change conference in Bali (accompanied by his climate change tsar, Penny Wong, the country鈥檚 first Asian-born and also first openly gay minister), he leaves behind in charge his 46 year-old deputy, . She was born in Barry, South Wales, a seaside town a short drive from Cardiff.
Quite why her parents decided to swap the murky waters of the Bristol Channel for the roaring foam of the Great Southern Ocean is a matter for them. But in 1966 they decided to relocate to Adelaide as 鈥渢en pound Poms鈥. Julia was a girl of gilt-edged ambition, chirpily forecasting that one day she would become Australia鈥檚 prime minister. Now that prediction has almost become a prophecy.
She becomes the acting prime minister just days before the Australian Rugby Union seems set to appoint a Kiwi as the coach of the Wallabies: , who last week lost out on coaching his first choice, the All Blacks.
In both countries, his possible appointment is being viewed warily as a serious case of trans-Tasman treachery. How could a Kiwi coach the Wallabies? How could the ARU even countenance such an indignity? The controversy brings to mind that wonderful, if not entirely applicable, quote from former New Zealand Prime Minister Sir Robert Muldoon: 鈥淣ew Zealanders who leave for Australia raise the IQ of both countries.鈥
So what of the antipodean future of the third person in that foreign-born triumvirate, the British monarch and Australian head of state, Queen Elizabeth II? Should Buckingham Palace be concerned that the Lodge is now occupied by a committed Republican?
During the campaign, Kevin Rudd sought to play down his Republican credentials, telling The Australian on the eve of the election that the constitutional question was 鈥渘ot a priority鈥. Back in July, on a visit to Melbourne, he said that Australians should again be consulted about the future of the monarchy, but that it was not a 鈥渇irst order concern鈥 of an incoming Labor government and he offered no timeline.
Certainly, he鈥檚 in no rush to call another referendum. When Australians were , the monarchy survived by a vote of 55% to 45%. But the Republican movement has long claimed that the then prime minister, and arch monarchist, John Howard, split the pro-Republic vote by offering in the referendum a president appointed by parliament rather than a head of state directly elected by the people.
For this act of subterfuge, Malcolm Turnbull, the then figurehead of the Republican movement and a future Howard minister, famously called him 鈥渢he prime minister who broke the nation鈥檚 heart鈥. After that, as one observer recently put it, the Republican movement was placed on life support.
If the movement has flat-lined then Prime Minister Rudd has already hinted at a possible revival. He did so at his swearing-in last week, a rather dismal ritual which one Australian journalist called 鈥渁 vice-regal ceremony which would hardly have been out of place in the British Raj鈥.
Whereas John Howard pledged in 1996 to 鈥渂e faithful and bear true allegiance to her majesty, Queen Elizabeth II鈥, Mr Rudd opted for a monarch-free alternative. Standing before the governor-general, the Queen鈥檚 representative in Australia, he promised to 鈥渨ell and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia, her land and her people, so help me God鈥.
Still, he hardly advertised this symbolic shift. Quite the opposite. The only newspaper to pick up on it was the Canberra Times (and seemingly the only journalist to remark upon the Times doing so was Alan Ramsey, a columnist with the Sydney Morning Herald).
Had Malcolm Turnbull been elected as Liberal leader, the Republican movement might have enjoyed some bipartisan consensus. But the man who beat him, Brendan Nelson, is a constitutional monarchist.
So a new referendum on an Australian Republic could be hazardous, especially for a government in its first term. As Labor strategists well know, of the 44 referenda held here, only eight have ever been passed.
So another calculation for the statistically-minded prime minister: he has to decide whether standing up for his Republican principles is worth the political risk.
I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
In the immortal words of Mr Oscar Wilde, "There is only one thing in the world worse than a tripe whammy, and that is a rather bizarre tripe whammy".
Australia would be mad to get rid of the Queen, what is so good about a politician as head of state. At worst they have given us bloodshed, at best they have been concerned with nothing more than getting elected.
Give me the stability the constitutional monarchy offers any day.
It will be interesting to watch, if Rudd really calls a referendum. Keating failed on this years ago and the population is still very much divided on the issue, although the republican movement seems to be slightly stronger. If they really want a republic, it will be wise to wait until the "Elizabethan Era" ends one day. Right now I don't see a big chance for a really convincing republican majoritiy.
Rudd will almost certainly hold a second referendum, although probably not until his second term (or perhaps at the time of the next election).
Bear in mind though, parliamentary terms in Australia last a maximum of 3 years and usually last about 2.5 years, so talk of 'not in the first term' doesn't have the same implications as it might in the UK.
Public opinion has been firmly behind an Australian republic for a long time - and when they make the change it will have serious consequences for the monarchy back here.
It'd be about time.
However, alot of people simply don't see it as important really, it's more symbolic.
I wonder if a Prime Minister who calls for a referendum on leaving the Commonwealth could be tried for treason?
Under the Commonwealth Act, seditious behaviour that intended to: (i) bring the government into hatred or contempt; (ii) excite disaffection against the government, constitution, UK parliament and Kings Dominions; and (iii) bring about change to those institutions unlawfully, was criminalised.
With reference to Julia Gillard & her family emigrating from UK to Australia in 1966 under the Assisted Passage Scheme, such people were more commonly known as "ten quid tourists" rather than "ten pound Poms". I should know as I was one, living 'down under' between 1970 - 75.
Paul, I'm a little confused as to why you'd think Australians would be "mad" to get rid of the Queen as our head of state?
She has virtually no impact on the administration of the state. She merely signs any laws put towards her by those warring, deceitful politicians.
I don't think I know any monarchists that are under 55.
One point that this blog fails to make is that in the 1999 'republic' referendum, Howard deliberately confused the issue of whether or not Australia should remain a constitutional monarchy by offering the voting public a particular alternative form of government.
So it should be noted that while the referendum's result was a 'no', it was really a 'no' result to a particular republican model.
The referendum was further complicated by the inclusion of a second question about whether to add to the preamble of the constitution. This, and the associated PR campaigns simply confused people further.
All up, Howard manipulated the situation brilliantly to his own ends. But he didn't really give Australia the question it wanted to answer.
With regards to Graham's comments about the effects of Australia becoming a republic on the monarchy's future in the UK:
The way I have understood it after talking to a few aussies is that a lot of the motivation for an Australian Republic is not so much the rather dry debate of Constituional Monarchy vs Republic, but rather "why should we Australians have a foreign head of state?"
If Australia does become a republic that in many ways would surely be the last step to true nationhood. The situation in the UK is very different, as despite its ancestory, the Royal Family, and in particular the Queen, are very much viewed as British and hence the property of and servants to the British people.
In my own opinion, the events of the last week involving the government have only highlighted once again why we Brits in general want to keep our constitutional monarch. Exchanging her with a politician would bring no benefit to the UK and would be unlikely to re-affirm our national identity as perhaps it would in Australia's case.
So I don't think, if at the time Australia becomes a republic, that there will be a massive change of sentiment in the UK...although I fully expect the question to be asked in certain quarters of the press with a small, but what is perceived to be a "high-brow" quasi-intelectual readership.
One word: narcissism.
Australia as a republic? As an American, I think that I am safe in saying that Australia without English monarchs as heads of state could turn Australia into a truly frightful place, with terrible and unimaginable consequences in store for that country and for the world.
Imagine the collapse of Australia's entire tourist economy if Australia became a republic. Why would anyone ever want to go to such a place without a chance that the English monarch might be taking lunch at Government House in Canberra? Think of the millions of tourists to Australia who would stop going to Australia, because all the wonderful pageantry, fantasy, and beauty of the Queen or King of Australia would be gone forever.
Every argument that monarchists try to put forward is specious and cannot stand to any reasonable test of logic. Their best argument ultimately is the "you might not like us now but what comes after us might be worse." ("Apr猫s moi, le d茅luge.") This, unfortunately, is an argument that is not reserved for people who like to wear jewelled crowns. Indeed, yes, democratically elected politicians might say that as well. So also does every dictator who is about to be overthrown, by the way. It's the same kind of situation as when you are dating a bad person, and as you are about to break up, the moron says, "You'll never find anyone better than me!" Yes you will, you do have to dump the idiot, and you always will be better off for doing so. Some decisions in life are really easy, once you stand up for yourself.
During the federation conferences of the 1890's it was not taken as a given that Australia would remain a monarchy after federation. There was then, as now, a vocal dedicated republican movement but in the end the fact that most of the founding fathers were anglophiles, saw themselves as British and decided that the benifits of the monarchy outweighed those of republicanism won the day.
Today, Australia is a totally different country. We no longer look to "tired old" Europe for direction; we believe we can do almost anything as well as anybody.
The republic will come; Britain will become what it's always been; a foriegn country and hopefully the "unnaturalized" poms living among us will lose the vote.
I agree with Marion. If a single question i.e. "Are you in favour of Australia becoming a republic within the British Commonwealth?" had been asked, I think the overwhelming response would have been YES. I am regarded here (OZ) as an Anglophile and am proud to admit it. It is important that Australia remain a member of the British Commonwealth.
Love your blogs Nick.
While it may not be on the current agenda I think it is inevitable that we (Australia) become a republic if for no other reason than we would eliminate the situation where our future head of state is barracking for the other team in international sporting competitions.
A popularly elected Govenor-General (ie, a President) would be a disaster. The last thing we need is an ambitious, ego-fuelled person with an agenda to push (ie, the sort of person who would win the popular vote for president) in Gov't House.
Our system works when the GG/Pres *presides* over the government. (as opposed to trying to direct it) By and large, the appointed persons have done this. Does anyone really think we need someone dissolving the elected government based on their own agenda?
I am a young (24) monarchist, but would be quite happy with the republican model put forward at the last referendum. A popularly elected president who has the powers of a GG would be an unmitigated disaster.
Don't also forget that in Kev's new government, there is the English born....Minister of Immigration!
Most Aussies (excluding the Anglophille's of course) , acknowledge that its a joke the country hasn't got its own flag and head of state. 200 years of race based Anglo-centric immigration policies have sure left their mark, a distinctly british one. We can only hope for future skills not anglo based immigration policies, now that Howard has gone
This new Australian government will hold two referenda within the next 3-6 years.
The first will ask simply: do you want Australia to become a republic (Yes or No)? This will be won by a vast majority of citizens and states.
The second will offer a choice of method in electing the Australian president: either by the direct popular vote of all electors or by a vote of the members of the combined houses of (federal) parliament (A or B). This will be won by the popular vote.
The popular option was the reason so many voted against Howard's cynical referendum in 1999.
FWIW these two referenda are not before time, as they signal the final acts of Australia coming of age as an independent country.
Nick, tonight I can sleep happy in the knowledge that we Australians have a woman (acting) Prime Minister for the first time, a climate change Minister of Chinese antecedents whose lesbianism is a source of pride, a very tall bald Environment Minister who used to be a rock star, and John Howard reduced to providing photo ops on a golf course (although I've never seen him actually hit the ball). Who gives a rat's about the Queen?
Australians don't feel they have an identity of their own. Whenever we send peace keeping troops, donate moneys, or involve ourselves in the world theatre at large, we generally get lumped in with the British. This particularly humiliates us when it comes to America's identity of us. We fly a flag with the Union Jack in the corner, we have the British Queen as head of State and we have a population of Brits and ex Brits that far outnumber generational Aussies. We want self determination, without 'mum' looking over our shoulder.
The Republican movement is seen as a way to bring all Aussie together, to encourage a working coalition that will finally allow us to be recognised on the world stage as to who we really are. An independent and finally mature Australia.
As a British person who lives in Bristol, I am suprised that Nick describes the picturesque and lush waters of the Bristol Channel as "murky". Surely the Severn Beach is a dream resort worthy of comparison to any Australian beach. :-)
I have to say that if I was an Australian (or Kiwi or Canadaian), I would not want my head of state to be based thousands of miles away in London.
Whatever laws are passed, whatever constitutuional changes are made and however ceremonial it may be, so long as The Queen is Australia's head of state they ultimatley remain subservient to a foreign ruler.
I am a pro-monarchist. I support The Queen. But seeing this from Australia's point of view I can see why there is a desire to become a republic and disolve that last colonial link.
As for what model could replace the existing one, what is wrong with just keeping the current system as it is? The Queen is a largely ceremonial figurehead anyway so why can't the Prime Minister just fufill the additional roles The Queen would leave behind?
What a strange lot we are. Strange in that we tolerate even revere a foreign flag embedded and taking prime position within ours. When will we ever grow up. The outgoing PM never had any vision for this country and seemed to think money was all that mattered. The new PM is different so we will see.
I hope I live long enough to see the foreign flag struck from ours.
Ern
Let us Aussies have our own royal family if we are to remain a monarchy let the house of Windsor stay in the UK and let us have our own if not that then bring on the Republic with the people choosing our head of state . Australia is ready to move on
its been mentioned before that the numbers of ex pat brits emmigrating to aus are a factor in driving up support for retaining the monarchy...as long as this continues i think the debate is likely to remain polarised. In any case I think aus should look to canada (which used a union ensign up till the 60s) as an example...change the flag and a lot of the associated debate about ditching the monarchy (which lets face it is not going to have an impact on day to day life) will probably fade away. All about perception I think, which at the moment does still seem to be slanted toward colony rather than state!
I think Rudd would be right to have another referendum. It took two votes for Australia to become a federated nation, it stands to reason it will take two votes to become a republic.
All these reserve powers the GG has, this reliance on convention - aside from the legitimate desire to have an Australian head of state, considering the increasing sophistocation of politics just how much faith can we have in a system that vests enormous power in an unelected official?
It's time for the next step, we deserve our own head of state and Australians have the talent and ability to create a new system that is BETTER and more PREDICTABLE than the one we have now.
The time that Australians seek to be come a republic will take off when the present Queen dies. Australians have a great regard for her and the role she has played. I do not believe they have the same regard for her son Charles, and particularly his new wife Camilla. Australians should elect their President along similar lines as occurs in the USA, as we have taken on most of the other ideals of that nation. Another nation we could look at is Canada as it is a republic and still part of the British Commonwealth as are other commonwealth nations.
As a proud Australian currently living in France, I cannot see what all the debate is about.
I do know that many of my relatives fought very hard in the 1st and 2nd world wars under the Australian flag, and many died under that flag which held then as it does now, the Union Jack, I do know that the Brits often used us (and the Canadians and the New Zealanders, and the South Africans among others) as canon fodder but we didn't kick up too much of a fuss, we just went about our job with responsibility and pride of being Australians.
Prince Charles was once asked about what he thought of Australia becoming independant and his answer was that he thought we already were.
He was right. We are. We have been since Federation. But us real Australians are still proud of our British-based heredity. The Brits like us too, some so much that they emigrate here, some to become politicians.
I'm proud to be Australian. I am VERY proud of our flag with the southern cross, the Federation Star, and, the Union Jack taking up its small space in the corner.
We are independant now, we are unique, most of us, Australian born and New Australians are proud to be Aussies and we all wave the flag wherever and whenever we can, the flag as it is now, so what's the bloody problem ? We have our own national anthem "Advance Australia Fair" so it's about time that everyone stops their whinging, whining, and time-wasting debates, listen to the words of our anthem (if you can remember them) and just get on with the job.
I'm not an Australian so please take my comment with a grain of salt.
But having visit there a couple of times, i think it a great place, you got such nice people, unique culture and proud national people.
As a worldly and modern Japanese from a country that also has a constitutional monarchy, I think you only have to look at our pathetic politics to see why its good to separate politically influence head of state.
I'm so ashamed of the almost daily changing of our P.M. and the scandals we have, that it seems there are very little benefit of changing to a Republic, and that is what i can see for australia.
Its just appearance sake, its not hurting you, as someone said, if it is not broken, don't fix it.
If a simply changing of appearance of vanity is so much to some people ,this only reflect the shallow nature of their vanity.
head of states represent the face, the attitude and the respect of that nation.
Australia has a good one, in Queen Elizabeth II.
If you want to have your nation represented by a G Bush of America or a Mugabe of Zimbabwe your welcome to have your country look silly on the global scale.
Prime Ministers image of the functions of a nation are already bad enough, please reconsider doing it to your head of state.
onizuka-gto
I respect your comments and agree about the importance of political influence by a Head of State
However, your constitutional monarchy is your own - Japanese.
Our Head of State (the Queen) is not Australian She lives 20.000km away in another country, a country with which many modern Australians have few links.
A particular difficulty is when Australia has been to war and our Head of State has been living in a remote country which has not been involved in that war - this happened with Vietnam
So it is more than just for appearance sake. I look forward to the referendum
Ian Edward Holmes - the last time I checked Canada was not a republic, mate ;-)
I think an Australian republic will come, despite my immense misgivings about having a directly elected president.
Contrary to what dedicated republicans say, John Howard actually had the nation's best interests at heart when he AND the Constitutional Conference (where republicans and monarchists alike were represented) advanced the bipartisan appointment model.
We must not, for stability reasons, have a politician as president, but that's precisely what we'll get under direct election. Think back to 1975 - do you think a Labor president would have dismissed the Labor Prime Minister and the Labor Government? No. The Senate would have continued to block supply and the country would have gone down the drain. An apolitical head of state with a panoply of reserve powers is the ultimate check and balance.
NO TO DIRECT ELECTION!
Howard may have split the pro-republican masses by adding a clause that the parliament would elect the president - which at first I had initially thought was horrendous, but upon reflection, the election of GW Bush in the USA has proven to me that the masses are swayed by emotion, not self-education on the issues and that they cannot be trusted with enough foresight and thnking ahead to make sensible decisions.
At least in the parliament the majority of the members have a fairly decent education and the smarts one way or another to make common sense decisions.
An individual who stumps on behalf of those 'groups' who support him financially has too much to owe to those who have supported that journey and thus has no independance of thought as he spends the rest of his or her time in office paying everybody back for the privilege.
Howard may have split the pro-republican masses by adding a clause that the parliament would elect the president - which at first I had initially thought was horrendous, but upon reflection, the election of GW Bush in the USA has proven to me that the masses are swayed by emotion, not self-education on the issues and that they cannot be trusted with enough foresight and thnking ahead to make sensible decisions.
At least in the parliament the majority of the members have a fairly decent education and the smarts one way or another to make common sense decisions.
An individual who stumps on behalf of those 'groups' who support him financially has too much to owe to those who have supported that journey and thus has no independance of thought as he spends the rest of his or her time in office paying everybody back for the privilege.
As an Australian I feel that we need to become a Republic. I hate the fact that the union jack is on our flag, it's like a big stamp saying "you belong to us". I know that without England this country would not be what it is, however I do think that it's time Australia stands up on it's own two feet. We've been guided long enough, we've had our baptism of fire, we should be a country that is separate from England.
And the other question Australians who are anti republic should ask themselves is, does the Queen really have our best interest at heart? Her stability relies on England, not on Australia.
Not so long ago Britain and Australia were (almost) a world apart, but as is demonstrated by this debate, with the advent of technology, this is no longer so. Moreover with the increasing numbers travelling between the two countries the ties are tightening not beoming weaker.
Both countries would have much to lose by Australia becoming a republic, and once the gene is out of the bottle there will be no putting it back. How could those ties be strengthed in such a scenario? I doubt it. There is too much shared history, blood ties, and common interests at stake here to be thrown over.
If and when the republic comes about, can we please call the head of state something other than "President"?After living in the US for the last 5 years, the word alone is enough to make me shudder.
Why don't we just let the whinging Aussies just do their own thing - if they don't want the Queen as head of state stick Ponting in her place.
Richard Jary, Hendrik Verwoerd called a referendum on making South Africa a republic in 1960, and nobody called for him to be charged with treason. But then again, he did far worse things than taking South Africa out of the Commonwealth.
Geoffo, Ian Edward Holmes: Newsflash! the Commonwealth hasn't been called the British Commonwealth for sixty years.
Robert Otis: the Queen is the British monarch, not English. The last time there was an English monarch, the US didn't exist.
Roisin, I think you'll find that Australia IS separate from England, even more so than Scotland and Wales.
The only thing I would welcome more than Australia becoming a republic is New Zealand following suit, although that could take a while yet.
It is close to psephologically impossible for Australia to become a republic via a referendum.
I know that for the duration of my lifetime (and I am in my early 30s) there will be sufficient organised political opposition to any republican model put to a referendum. And referendum history shows us that when there is organised opposition in Australia, it fails.
Ergo, there will not be a republic.
Psephologist Malcolm Mackerras has made the point that the monarchy is the "Condorcet winner" of Australian politics - that whenever it is put up a single alternative, it will probably always beat that alternative.
Moreover the emotional motivators for voting for a republic have declined since the referendum. The ghosts of sectarianism are now well and truly gone, the wave of post-WW2 non-anglophone migration is being replaced by their Australian-born children used to the idea of the status quo, and the Boomers maintaining the rage after 1975 are nearing retirement.
In short - there may no longer be enthusiasm for collecting royal memorabilia and flummery, but the gut-feeling drivers fuelling enthusiasm for a change is disappearing even faster.
Which means we will continue along with a media-political elite eternally dissatisfied with a monarchy they don't own, while the rest of us range between a shrug and "so what", to pride in the status-quo. A very Australian compromise!
It is close to psephologically impossible for Australia to become a republic via a referendum.
I know that for the duration of my lifetime (and I am in my early 30s) there will be sufficient organised political opposition to any republican model put to a referendum. And referendum history shows us that when there is organised opposition in Australia, it fails.
Ergo, there will not be a republic.
Psephologist Malcolm Mackerras has made the point that the monarchy is the "Condorcet winner" of Australian politics - that whenever it is put up a single alternative, it will probably always beat that alternative.
Moreover the emotional motivators for voting for a republic have declined since the referendum. The ghosts of sectarianism are now well and truly gone, the wave of post-WW2 non-anglophone migration is being replaced by their Australian-born children used to the idea of the status quo, and the Boomers maintaining the rage after 1975 are nearing retirement.
In short - there may no longer be enthusiasm for collecting royal memorabilia and flummery, but the gut-feeling drivers fuelling enthusiasm for a change is disappearing even faster.
Which means we will continue along with a media-political elite eternally dissatisfied with a monarchy they don't own, while the rest of us range between a shrug and "so what", to pride in the status-quo. A very Australian compromise!
ABD -
I disagree that any future referendum would automatically fail. I don't think you can predict the feeling amongst Australians that will be stirred when the Queen dies. When Charles and Camilla become King and Queen it will stir up a lot of emotions and people will be very keen to re-visit the issue.
Malcolm Mackerras is a noted monarchist, so what he says on the issue must be considered in light of that.
Australia 10 years from now will be different, and taking into account increasing nationalism and patriotism, it's only a matter of time until savvy republicans seduce such fervor with the argument that promises an Australian (as opposed to a foreigner) as head of state.
That's not the beginning and the end of the argument, but it'll win a hell of a lot of support.
Australia became a nation with two votes, it will become a republic with two votes. Mark my words...
As a Briton, I can very much understand the Australian view against having the British Monarch as head of state. It is a symbolic figurehead who lives thousands of miles away. However it is that symbolic nature that makes the monarch so unique. I believe remaining a Commonwealth Realm, Australia stands as somewhat special or different.
It is a system which has served many countries well over the years, and despite the arguement that it will finally install "nationhood", being a Realm is a vital link to the huge influence Britain and the Empire had on Australian history.
Nobody sees Australia as a British colony anymore, we all know its 100% sovereign and independant. It it with admiration that people see the Australian governmental system, something that has overseen great stability over all its history.
A republic will come, it is inevitable and is the decision for Australia. I believe any move should not come while Queen Elizabeth II is on the throne. Call it a day once the great monarch has ended a great period of history.
As briton that has lived in both the UK and Australia, i think getting rid of the monarchy down under would be terrible for australia. Monarchy brings stability to a nation, which is shown in how prosperous Australia is today.
I think it is really sad that many on this blog that some even want to get rid of the union flag off their national flag- throwing out all of their history and their very strong links to the UK. Many on here seem to think they have more links to the USA, but when you walk round Perth or Brisbane and you speak to people living there so many have parnets, or grandparents that come from the UK. This along with the fact that more and more british people are emigrating to Australia, means that a referendum would struggle to install a referendum.
ps- many say that the referendum on the republic should only be carried out when Queen Elizabeth dies- if she carries on like her mother did you would have the monarchy for at leats 20 more years! And by then there could be someone else sitting in Canberra which is against a republic.
Rudd, a born and bred Roman Catholic and later university Jesus freak and Anglican convert, is unlikely to risk any loss of support over the republican issue. However his pledge indicates that he would go there if the numbers stack up. This would be unlikely to happen until the Labor party had consolidated their position.
Republicanism in Australia and New Zealand is an historical inevitability. The war in Iraq is a case in point. To have a "Commander in Chief" of an illegal occupying force as your symbolic "Head of State" is nothing to be proud about.
I for one, am sick of seeing our troops continue to follow the Anglo-American Alliance from one war to the next.
Being a "British" antipodean may have gone over all right in 1939, but it is fair to say that today most Australasians do not see identify with the old country like that, despite decades of Anglo-centric immigration.
Clearly it will happen in Australia first, and "where she goes" New Zealand is sure to follow.