Amanda Vanstone | Early calls for a republic after Queen Elizabeth II's death have not been helpful

The head of Australia Republican Movement, Adam Bandt, senator Mehreen Faruqi among others thought the passing of a woman who served dutifully for 70 years was an opportune time to make a political point. All they did was reveal their political ineptitude. Paul Keating's statement on the passing of Her Majesty stands in stark contrast.

Equally Anthony Albanese, a confirmed republican, demonstrated that you can be a republican and show respect for both the service of a great monarch and our current institutions. Thank heavens we are not rushing into another divisive republican debate. Republicans Australia-wide should be delighted.

Every time we have a referendum on a republic and lose we put back the cause by 20 or more years. We're not big on referendums, we more often than not vote no. We have had 44 referendums and we've voted yes eight times. Why rush into battle with a win rate of less than 20 per cent?

It does make you wonder about the political nous these people have. Perhaps they do know that to rush to a referendum would be crazy but just couldn't resist the media coverage that was offered by Her Majesty's passing. Who knows? What we do know is that to get a yes vote we need a unifying debate rather than a finger-pointing, I-know-better exercise.

Given our resistance to change the case for a republic needs to be clearly made. The possible changes need to be understood. Australians need to be a part of the debate, not lectured to by people who think they know more than everyone else. We will only become a republic when a majority of Australians in a majority of states want to do so.

That is certainly not brought about by the inept campaigning we saw last week. It would not have brought one constitutional monarchist on board. All we saw was loutish high school cheer squad tactics.

Many opponents of a republic at the last referendum simply saw no need to rush and possibly offend a monarch held in deep affection. Advocates of the status quo point to the stability we have enjoyed for so long. That's not to be sniffed at. In a rapidly changing and unpredictable world stability is a bedrock.

It's the desire for stability that leads me to oppose a direct-elect model. Our politics is already far more divisive than it need be. Adding another political contest to it would be very unwise. You can dress it up anyway you like, but when one candidate stands against another its political. It just can't be avoided.

Human nature being as it is, a person directly elected by Australians at large is at serious risk of having a very bad attack of self-importance. Add on the trappings of importance that go with the job and that risk is very high. One might be tempted to think one's own political views should carry some weight. After all the ministers who come to executive council have only been elected by either a majority of a lower house seat or, in the case of the Senate, a quota of votes in that state.

The prime minister is just another one of them. You on the other hand would have the majority of the people behind you. Don't think that wouldn't be tempting. You're elevated position might lead you to conclude that your opinion should be taken into account above that of the combined wisdom of our Parliament. That's what we do, we put views from all around Australia into the melting pot of our Parliament. It's a slippery slope to somehow come in above that.

Imagine when the government of the day wanted to do something with which you particularly disagreed or hadn't done something you thought they should. We have learnt recently that our current appointed Governor-General lobbied for a particular cause. Apparently he got a better hearing than most members of Parliament. That's not how it is meant to work. When an appointed governor-general will argue with the prime minister or his office over who gets to toss the coin at the cricket, imagine how much more entitled an elected head of state might feel.

READ MORE:

There were two occasions in my experience when a governor-general ventured outside what I thought was the normal non-political role. One related to a personal interest and reminded me how many people who would never put up with the rigours of politics would none the less like to dabble. An indulgence really. You just need to choose your words carefully to help someone in an exalted position realise that crossing the appropriate boundaries is not such a great idea after all.

The other was more a legal opinion being queried. Not someone indulging themselves, just slipping into old habits. No harm done. A directly elected head of state would be much less likely to back off. Let me rephrase that ... much more likely to interfere.

Our current system of appointment for governors-general has worked fairly well. Some appointments haven't been great. Some better than others. I would certainly support ending the appointment being in the hands of the prime minister of the day. Requiring an endorsement by Parliament should not be seen as "trusting the politicians" but rather as keeping a check on the prime minister. It would make the appointment non-partisan rather than political.

As a committed republican, I was a great admirer of the Queen. That era has passed. We can walk calmly and thoughtfully to a new era. Rushing about like young boys who aren't very good at football would be stupid.