Putting off constitutional change is just a way of deflecting the issue, the current reality in Australia is that the push for a republic has all but died down. The perceptions that the media (especially the non Australian media) like to give is that Australia is right on the edge of declaring itself a republic.
That's not the case. Julia Gillard 2 weeks ago to the Canberra Press Club was asked about Australia becoming a republic. Her reply made a small article in print media no online. She said that unlike in the 1990s there is no major movement for a republic, no public push, currently there is no great call for constitutional change. By deferring questions on the republic by saying 'wait until the Queen passes' was better than saying 'well I'm a republican but it's not likely to happen'. Politicians choose what issues to push often based on what is of high importance to the public at large. This was well illustrated in the 1990s when Australia had a monarchist Prime Minister and yet public lobbying meant that a referendum on constitutional change was called. If there were major support and interest in a republic right now, then that's when the referendum or plebiscite would be called. The fact that Bob Brown's call was defeated last year in the Senate showed that there isn't a call and the elected government members didn't vote for it shows that the support is not there.
Kevin Rudd when he was campaigning for PM said he would have a referendum, as soon as he was elected that changed to 'not in his first term of office' it then progressed to 'not until the Queen passes' and that's the line his successor has gone with. Had their been support for constitutional change then it would not have been pushed into a nebulus future. (who knows when the Queen will die? The process takes time, will it even succeed?)
Last year being that it was 10 years since the referendum, various polling took place. The information from their polls showed that support for the republic dropped, support for the monarchy remained static, but what actually increased was those who didn't care, and saw no need for change. In 1999 the age group that was the main supporter of a republic was the 19 to 29 year group, in 2009 it was the 29 to 39 year group. So the same age group remains the strongest supporters of a republic and what's happened in 10 years is that they've aged a decade, but younger people have not joined the support for a republic. From my experience with that young adult age group constitutional change is not a priority with them. Environmental issues, climate change, financial issues--being able to own their own homes, globilisation are the issues that are important to them. Republic or the status quo has no impact on their lives or their futures, therefore it's not something that they are going to lobby for or push for.
It's this type of lack of interest that frustrates members of the republican movement (which at the moment has its lowest membership), the media deferring the decision on a republic until after the Queen dies is an attempt not to admit defeat. OK so you don't want a republic now, how about we put it to you, after the Queen dies?
It's easy to say Australians won't vote for a republic now as they have respect and admiration for the Queen, but then does that mean that during the 1990s Australians had no respect or admiration for the Queen and so lobbied for a referendum on the republic? No. it's all in the timing, and the momentum for the push for a republic has passed.