Dignified respect - but time to move on

There has been no sense that many ardent republicans have merely been going through the motions. The Prime Minister said: "Over the coming weeks, Australia will continue to commemorate our late Queen."

Mr Albanese added: "I encourage all Australians, wherever you may be, to take time to pause and reflect on Her Majesty's extraordinary life of service."

The former prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said the Queen was an enduring example. "It is an example to leaders everywhere," he said, "to put their country, their job, the people they serve, first. She did that. That example is something we should all note."

All of that is true - but we are also now in a new era. It is time to look forward.

There will be no referendum on a republic in the remaining two-and-a-half years of the Albanese administration. He has said that.

But there should be what the Australian Republic Movement calls a "conversation".

There is much to converse about. The pro-republic side foundered in 1999 over the question of how a new head of state, to replace the governor-general, should be chosen. Should it be by direct election by the people or should politicians select him or her (as is currently done with the governor-general)?

The organisation has proposed a system where, as it puts it, "Australia's parliaments nominate candidates for head of state, who would be put to a national ballot of all Australian voters.

"The head of state would be elected for a five-year term and be responsible for appointing as prime minister the person who has majority support in the House of Representatives, or calling an election if no-one can obtain that support."

READ MORE:

This is a good starting point for debate. It is not an answer. It is the question we all need to think about.

We learnt in 1999 that constitutional change is complicated. It is not just a simple question of "Do you think Australia's head of state should be an Australian who lives in Australia?". It is about making changes to a system that many Australians may think has served Australia well.

The Westminster system of government provides checks and balances which are designed to make sure that power is spread and is not irreversibly concentrated in a few hands. The mantra "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", will have weight in our conversation.

That conversation should continue in parallel with the other conversation about giving a constitutional voice to Aboriginal people.

The two matters are intertwined. They are both about Australia becoming a modern, confident country that is at ease with itself.

Being confident and at ease with itself, means being at ease with its own past. It means not looking across the water for approval, even informal approval.

Of course, feelings and emotions will change in the coming years.

King Charles is an unknown quantity. He has already said that he realises that being king and being a king-in-waiting are very different roles. He is unlikely to indicate his opinions on matters of controversy. Like his mother, he will keep silent on divisive issues.

There may be a royal tour to Australia, either by the king and the Queen Consort or by the heir to the throne and Catherine, Princess of Wales.

All of this may change the conversation.

We have shown in the weeks since the death of our head of state how dignified and thoughtful we can be. Now, we need to converse about our future.