But popular opinion on the Republic does NOT change quickly. The Republic has hovered mostly below 50 percent for 40 years. The Republican cause has been unable to achieve or maintain a majority, and certainly not one with a sufficient margin to win a referendum.

Notwithstanding the hectoring of our opinion-makers, the Australian public, during visits by senior members of the royal family, unfailingly demonstrates a deeply and widely held affection for the Monarchy. From the composition of the crowds, it is clear that this affection is shared also by communities more recently arrived, and not restricted to Anglo-Australians (who provide, in fact, most of the most vocal Republicans).

Furthermore, the bruising that the Government suffered when its proposal for a constitutionally-entrenched and empowered National Aboriginal Advisory Assembly was defeated nationally 60:40, failing to achieve a majority in any State and Territory except the ACT, means that there will be no appetite for Constitutional reform in Australia for another 20 years or more. Our present Prime Minister who, notwithstanding his many inadequacies, probably has a better understanding of Australian politics than you do, recently and very quietly abolished the position of Assistant Minister for the Republic, which he had established after the last election.

Two further issues, JohnR. You should not under-estimate Australians' mistrust of and, even, contempt, for politicians, which continues to feed our appreciation of the Monarchy and limit the wider development of Republican commitments. And, importantly, the technical requirements for changing the Constitution - a majority of votes in a majority of States - are inherently difficult to meet. Even if the Republican cause enjoyed a commanding national majority, the conservative-trending States of Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania (whose population of 550,000 is smaller than many cities), can, for the foreseeable future, be relied on to block it.

I agree that, to many people, the Constitutional arrangement of HM's "Other Realms" seem incongruous. But you might reflect on the fact that successive Governments of Barbados repeatedly chose not to hold plebiscites/referenda on becoming a Republic precisely because they feared they would not gain majority support. Following the 2020 elections the Government of Barbados enjoyed more than a two thirds majority, which gave it the power to change the constitution without a popular vote.

And while our constitutional arrangements might seem odd to outsiders, I find the notion of spending any political capital in attempting to complete the essentially nineteenth century project of nation-state formation even more absurd. Why should Australia or Tuvalu or any of HM's other Realms model our constitutions on nineteenth century European models that caused such suffering throughout the twentieth century and which are already, if not obsolete, certainly inadequate for the challenges of the 21st century?