THE record-breaking reign of Queen Elizabeth and her apparent determination to see it through to the end, presents a dreary future thereafter for the monarchy.

What if the Queen lives to the same age as her mother – 101?

By then, Prince Charles, at 66 already the oldest heir to the throne in history, would be in his late 70s.

Say he lived, like his parents, into his nineties. It would mean Prince William would be in his late 50s when he took the throne. And if he lived into his nineties, Prince George would be in his late 50s or early 60s before he took the throne.

In short, the monarchy would go from a glamorous young Queen knighting a dashing Edmund Hillary shortly after Coronation Day, to a litany of dour old men.

Surely that prospect, plus the rise of Malcolm Turnbull and the demise of the knighthood-bestowing Tony Abbott, must make Australians think more seriously about having one of our own as head of state.

Peter FitzSimons, the new chair of the Australian Republican Movement, certainly thinks so.

Last month, before the Turnbull ascension, he called for re-ignition of the issue. Well, he has got a few more matches to work with now.

But it is easy to stumble on the way. In 1998, opinion polls had more than 60 per cent favouring a republic, but still the referendum went down in 1999. Trickery and scare campaigns are so easy.

FitzSimons proposes a step-by-step process. Good idea. It avoids scaring the horses. But FitzSimons’s steps may be in the wrong order. He proposes a non-binding plebiscite asking do you want a republic yes or no and if yes a further vote on the model.

The trouble with this is that the first plebiscite would prove nothing. We already know that a majority support a republic. Even after 15-years of unrelenting monarchist glamour in the media – especially the supermarket mags – republican sentiment remains strong.

In April an ANU poll found that 29 per cent of Australians "strongly favour" a republic and 25 per cent "favour" one, with just 46 per cent in favour of retaining the Queen.

The poll question read: "Do you think that Australia should become a republic with an Australian head of state, or should the Queen be retained as head of state?"

But even if the plebiscite favoured a republic, the critical referendum could still go down over arguments about the model – direct or indirect election.

It would be better to put the voting the other way around. First sort out the preferred model and then pitch that against the status quo.

This is the way the New Zealand Government is approaching its flag debate.
They are first sorting out which of many possible flags is to be given a run and then running that against the existing flag.

With that approach, dogs in the manger like Phil Cleary and Ted Mack would have nowhere to go. In 1999 they said they would rather stay with the monarchy than compromise with an indirectly elected president.

Their tactic resulted in them being used and duped by the monarchists and the unholy alliance saw the defeat of the referendum.

Using the New Zealand approach, on the other hand, we could have several models in the initial preferential vote: election by two-thirds of a joint sitting; direct election; or any other reasonable proposal. The winner of that vote would be pitted against the status quo in a constitutional referendum.

In the meantime, Malcolm Turnbull could do something very clever. He is quite good at that.

He could announce that instead of he, as prime minister, choosing the Governor-General without any reference to anyone else, he would relinquish that power.

As a step towards greater consultation and democracy he could just announce that he will agree to submit his candidate for Governor-General to a joint sitting of the Parliament for approval and will not propose the candidate’s name to the Queen without a two-thirds majority of the joint sitting approving.

Presumably he would consult the opposition to make sure his candidate would not get steam-rolled.

In short, he would replace a captain’s pick with a people’s representatives’ pick.
It would be a good first step because the next step – the removal of the monarch from our constitutional arrangements would be straightforward. There would not even be a need to change the name “governor-general”.

That first step could be put into legislation if need be. There is a precedent for legislation providing for a joint sitting. Replacement Territory senators were chosen this way in the days before the territory parliaments did the job.

In any event, it is a better first step than having a plebiscite to tell us what we already know.

Further, if done by legislation first, any unforeseen consequences could become seen and remedied before put into cement in a constitutional change.