To the veterans of the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy’s (ACM’s)army of around 60,000 foot soldiers who had secured the defeat of the republic referendum on 6 November 1999, the 25th anniversary in 2024 is especially memorable.

Given the oft-threatened second referendum has never been held, and the republican politicians have put it on ice, it is reasonable to conclude they have given up. Sadly, they have had neither the moral strength nor the honesty to admit this.

Many of those foot soldiers also took part  in the only real demonstration in the monarchy-republic debate, one which filled Macquarie Street, Sydney on 29 January, 1996.This was a protest against the inexcusable expulsion by Premier Carr of the governors from their purpose-built home, Sydney’s Government House. This campaign continued until their eventual return was achieved in 2011.

While republicans often declare themselves ‘passionate’ or ’lifelong’, it is curious that nothing which could be seriously called a demonstration has ever been successfully held to support the Keating-Turnbull  republic. Some passion.

It would seem that republicans have nothing like the strength of belief that monarchists such as Tony Abbot have when they say that this republic would have represented ‘a massive repudiation of our history’.Worse, the republicans have shown a sloppiness in their self-selected task of redesigning our constitution.

The first manifestation of their preferred republic presented to the 1998 Constitutional Convention had to be hurriedly withdrawn and shredded. This was when I and Labor stalwart and former judge and governor,  Dick McGarvie, pointed out it was wrong to claim it to be a republican facsimile of our present constitution.

Indeed, I found it bore a surprising resemblance to the French Fifth Republic, Mark I.

The reason the French had five republics is because the first four had failed.

Moreover, in broadly the same period that Australia evolved from our founding to an independent nation, France had not only five republics but also three monarchies, two empires, assorted revolutionary regimes and one fascist dictatorship.

The point is that the self-chosen task of making what the Australian Republic Movement leader, author Thomas Keneally, proudly proclaimed would be the ‘biggest structural change’ to the constitution since federation, should not be undertaken carelessly or condescendingly and certainly not as a result of prime ministerial petulance.

Yet Mr Keating at one time based his dismissal of the constitution drafted in Australia, at conventions elected by Australians and approved by Australians, on the fantasy that the British Foreign Office had imposed our constitution on Australia.

In addition, the republicans falsely claimed that their first model and then their second model, which was to become the referendum model, were republican facsimiles of our constitutional monarchy.

Instead, it would have been the only republic in history in which the prime minister could dismiss the president without notice, without grounds and without any  right of appeal.

Yet the republican politicians managing the progress of the Referendum Bill rejected inclusion in the question of any reference to the key provision that the prime minister could dismiss the president without the same safeguards, notice, grounds or right of approval. This would have turned the president into the puppet of the prime minister.

In any event, to mark the 25th anniversary, a panel made up from those intimately involved in the defeat, along with the 25th prime minister John Howard (who did not take part in the campaign) met recently in the Sydney session of ACM’s 25th Annual National Conference.

Although the end of what ACM condemned as the politicans’ republic has not been officially conceded, this republic today seems dead and buried.

The panel considered what had happened and what can happen. This was recorded by ADH TV. Those subscribing to the free ACM newsletter available at norepublic.com.au will be advised when and where this can be seen,

While this does not mean that some different campaign against the Crown will not emerge in the future, it is probable that Charles III will be succeeded throughout this century by William V and George VII as kings of Australia. For the better part of four decades, the politicians’ republic has pointlessly distracted the nation and its rulers from solving the problems of this country.

Australia is one of the world’s most richly endowed countries. Yet its per capita GDP is declining, and the nation is passing through serious crises in housing, educational standards and defence. It is the only federation where an inordinate proportion of taxes collected, 80 per cent, is under the control of the federal government.

When Paul Keating chose to elevate what was until then a dinner party topic in the nation’s elite salons to being a leading item on the political agenda, who would have expected that it would stay there for over three decades? Yet Keating and his experts never bothered with the question why Australia should remove the Crown.

They were never interested in constitutional change which would improve the governance of Australia.

Despite a well-funded campaign, supported by two-thirds of the politicians and almost all of the media, Australians voted No nationally, in every state and in 72 per cent of electorates.

Then, notwithstanding clear evidence that when Australians say No in a referendum they mean No, even when asked up to five times, the republican politicians pushed the same issue for another 25 years.

Despite their belief that the passing of our  beloved Queen Elizabeth would cause ‘the’ republic to fall into their laps, it never did. In fact the opposite happened. All these years of work for some republic has been maintained at considerable cost by the taxpayers.Worse, there has been no official investigation as to whether there are aspects of constitutional reform we need to consider.

Politicians clearly cannot handle too many constitutional issues at the same time. Asked what major constitutional reforms the politicians could or should have worked on rather than the two failed ones, Tony Abbott referred to our federation. It is a ‘dysfunctional dog’s breakfast,’ he said.

It would be difficult not to agree with that. The cost is enormous. Politicians must not be allowed to waste more time and money on what is working well and what the people show no inclination to change.