NationStates Jolt Archive

What say you?

No, then we won't be guaranteed to get medals for beating African countries at sports. (Commonwealth Games reference)

Do our connections with England even mean anything? From what I've seen, all it entails is that we have the queen on our coins and the representative of the Governor General who does pretty much absolutely nothing. So, don't care, I guess.

Don't know, don't care.

I voted maybe because I don't really care and I like voting on polls.

I voted maybe because I don't really care and I like voting on polls.

lol

what do you mean by that?

I do believe Australia had a vote on this and would you believe it the Queen is still head of state, so keeping the Queen sounds like a good idea to me

oh the wonders of voting:cool:

Absolutely. I, like many Australians, feel absolutely no connection to Britain or the monarchy.

Unfortunately the British ex-pat population is large enough over here to ensure that it won't happen for some time. :/

Well I like our current system with the PM having to explain himself nearly every day in Parliament, and if we went to a Republic the Governor-General would have to be replaced with a President, which I find to be too powerful and undemocratic, as seen in the US.

Unfortunately the British ex-pat population is large enough over here to ensure that it won't happen for some time. :/ They're not expats, they're convicts.

And if you ever rid yourself of our queer dean, the force of whatever is to replace Trident will come down on you like a ton of bricks. Australia will go from being 95% uninhabitable to being 97% uninhabitable.

No, then we won't be guaranteed to get medals for beating African countries at sports. (Commonwealth Games reference)

You can still be in the Commonwealth if you are a republic, just ask India and South Africa.

Do our connections with England even mean anything? From what I've seen, all it entails is that we have the queen on our coins and the representative of the Governor General who does pretty much absolutely nothing. So, don't care, I guess.

The country is called Britain! :rolleyes:

Sure why not

The country is called Britain! :rolleyes:

unfortunatly...

As for the Aussies, if you want a Republic go for it...

The connection with Britain is pretty much only still there for two reasons:

a: Tradition. They've been connected to the crown so long, it probably feels comfortable.

b: Becoming independent would mean changing all the money, writing a new constitution, putting together a whole independent system, and all of that would cost a lot of money. So they probably won't go to all the effort of fixing it until it's broken.

I honestly don't care one way or another. It's not like Britain is ordering Australia around. And if Britain overstepped it's bounds, suddenly the Aussies would have a good reason to declare independence.

Lastly, I actually hope they don't, at least right now. I've heard from an Australian friend that the Australian govt has been getting rediculously conservative lately, and I don't think that attitude should be codified into the laws of the country.

I think the monarchy is a thing of the past. Why should Australia (or any other nation in the Commonwealth) cling to something that serves absolutely no purpose? The Queen is just symbolic, she sits on a throne on a continent far away, yet she is the head of state of Australia. Asides from looking pretty on Australian money, what has the queen done for Australia lately? Nothing.

Republic of Australia, FTW!

Well I like our current system with the PM having to explain himself nearly every day in Parliament, and if we went to a Republic the Governor-General would have to be replaced with a President, which I find to be too powerful and undemocratic, as seen in the US.
And that's why the bloody referendum failed last time. People have no idea what they're talking about!

It would not be a President like in the US, it would be like a President in Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Germany).

Look, my personal view is that it probably doesn't matter. But because the people opposing the Republic are conservative dickwads with the most ridiculously false arguments, closely associated with the whole White Australia movement and those still committed to it (like the people who worked out the "Pacific Solution"), I'm gonna say that I support a Republic above whatever that kind is putting forward.

Republic? Boring! :rolleyes:


Theme Park! :D

I do believe Australia had a vote on this and would you believe it the Queen is still head of state, so keeping the Queen sounds like a good idea to me

oh the wonders of voting:cool:

yur we did

yur we did
Yeah, wasn't that a disaster. Genuine support for a Republic, until the opponents started lying and try to get people to believe that we would be giving up checks and balances in government.

I wasn't here at the time, so I missed the response from the Republicans, but they must have fucked that one up good, because apparently people still believe the lies.

I'd love to be President of Germany. Doesn't sound like he has much to do. :p

Yeah, wasn't that a disaster. Genuine support for a Republic, until the opponents started lying and try to get people to believe that we would be giving up checks and balances in government.

I wasn't here at the time, so I missed the response from the Republicans, but they must have fucked that one up good, because apparently people still believe the lies.

and look what happen to WA now with the Day light savings we vote no on it some years back, Voting sucks if they are lying to you or stud you in the back

I'd love to be President of Germany. Doesn't sound like he has much to do. :p
And he lives in a palace!

The office is taken quite seriously though. He's the guardian of the constitution, and so the few decisions that he does make are pretty important. Like when Schröder approached him and asked him to dissolve parliament early so there could be an early election. The actual legal justification for it was flimsy, but the political purpose was obvious. So do you agree and do it, or do you stick to the principles?

But generally the President is also the most popular "politician" in the country. Especially the current one, Köhler. He's awesome.

Republic? Boring! :rolleyes:


Theme Park! :D
yay theme park!!, that would be a much better allocation of funds then changing the pictures on all the money!

but seriously
our diplomatic relations with America are far too strong, our being part of the commonwealth helps us keep a closer relation with British culture, and hence we don't become totally Americanized. at least thats what alot of Australians fear any way.

at least thats what alot of Australians fear any way.
I've got a solution:

Quit! Voting! For! John! Howard!

Seriously, whether the head of state is called a Queen or a President, it's the PM who makes policies. As long as people keep voting for the bastard, nothing's gonna get better.

I've got a solution:

Quit! Voting! For! John! Howard!

Seriously, whether the head of state is called a Queen or a President, it's the PM who makes policies. As long as people keep voting for the bastard, nothing's gonna get better.

Hear Hear!!!

Absolutely. I, like many Australians, feel absolutely no connection to Britain or the monarchy.

Unfortunately the pom population is large enough over here to ensure that it won't happen for some time. :/

Fixed. :D

No, then we won't be guaranteed to get medals for beating African countries at sports. (Commonwealth Games reference)
We can still be a part of the commonwealth after becoming a republic.

I do believe Australia had a vote on this and would you believe it the Queen is still head of state, so keeping the Queen sounds like a good idea to me

oh the wonders of voting:cool:

There was a referendum, but it was rigged, so to speak. The votes weren't fixed, however, what the monarchist government organising the referendum did was make it a choice between staying as a constitutional monarchy, or picking one specific (poorly arranged) model for an Australian republic. So, in effect you had republicans voting 'no' because they did not like the proposed model of republic in the referendum.

What should have been done was a plain choice between whether or not to become a republic or not, followed by a proceeding referendum on the specific model that would be chosen after the landslide victory of the prior referendum.

Well I like our current system with the PM having to explain himself nearly every day in Parliament, and if we went to a Republic the Governor-General would have to be replaced with a President, which I find to be too powerful and undemocratic, as seen in the US.
Or we could have a system which is functionally identical to the current one, with a few letterheads and coins shuffled. Becoming a republic has no bearing on the power of the head of state, that is all specified in the specific model implemented.

Also note that Johnny doesn't have to do as much explaining as you think. You know our boys in Iraq? He did that without even consulting parliment. Funny thing is that in US, the president needs congress approval to go to war. Not here.

You can still be in the Commonwealth if you are a republic, just ask India and South Africa.

*rubs hands together*

Lets go republic!

I think the monarchy is a thing of the past. Why should Australia (or any other nation in the Commonwealth) cling to something that serves absolutely no purpose? The Queen is just symbolic, she sits on a throne on a continent far away, yet she is the head of state of Australia. Asides from looking pretty on Australian money, what has the queen done for Australia lately? Nothing.

Republic of Australia, FTW!
I have a feeling that the already prevalent republican sentiment in Australia will be boosted when the well-respected Queen dies and gives way to the much less-appreciated soon-to-be-King Charles.

Realistically a federal commonwealth could provide an ideal counterweight to US cultural and political imperialism. It is therefore a good idea simply because if we do not hang together we will assuredly hang seperately &c.. (And therefore it will be ignored.)

Saying that it looks like the UK is on the point of fracture these days anway, so it's a moot point.

Yeah, wasn't that a disaster. Genuine support for a Republic, until the opponents started lying and try to get people to believe that we would be giving up checks and balances in government. Not only that, but also making the referendum a choice between one model of republicanism and no republicanism. They effectively divided the republicans between those who liked the proposed model, and those who did not. Furthermore, the model they put forward did indeed have a few problems regarding checks and balances. It was outrageous. If it was a fair world, there would have been a referendum on yes/no to the concept of becoming a republic, then another on the specific model desired.

I wasn't here at the time, so I missed the response from the Republicans, but they must have fucked that one up good, because apparently people still believe the lies. There really wasn't one, apart from disgruntled silence on the travesty that was the implementation of the referendum. All they could do was try and convince the republicans tht the proposed model was still worth it.

yay theme park!!, that would be a much better allocation of funds then changing the pictures on all the money!

but seriously
our diplomatic relations with America are far too strong, our being part of the commonwealth helps us keep a closer relation with British culture, and hence we don't become totally Americanized. at least thats what alot of Australians fear any way.
Ignoring the fact that even after becoming a republic we can still keep membership to the commonwealth, 'Americanisation' is a cultural force, 'The commonwealth' is a political institution. In our post-globalisation world, cultural phenomena largely ignores political barriers.

Well I like our current system with the PM having to explain himself nearly every day in Parliament, and if we went to a Republic the Governor-General would have to be replaced with a President, which I find to be too powerful and undemocratic, as seen in the US.

And a foreign monarch as head of state is more democratic how?

Presidents are elected, and need not be head of government in addition to head of state, a model used by many European nations.

Fixed. :D

lol. :P

There was a referendum, but it was rigged, so to speak. The votes weren't fixed, however, what the monarchist government organising the referendum did was make it a choice between staying as a constitutional monarchy, or picking one specific (poorly arranged) model for an Australian republic. So, in effect you had republicans voting 'no' because they did not like the proposed model of republic in the referendum.

What should have been done was a plain choice between whether or not to become a republic or not, followed by a proceeding referendum on the specific model that would be chosen after the landslide victory of the prior referendum.

Exactly. That was really disappointing.

Not that I was old enough at the time to vote in it anyway, heh.

I have a feeling that the already prevalent republican sentiment in Australia will be boosted when the well-respected Queen dies and gives way to the much less-appreciated soon-to-be-King Charles.

You may be right. ;)

They should make their toilets flush correctly before everything else. :rolleyes:

Only if Queen's Birthday gets replaced by Republic Day. I'm not giving up a holiday.

Uh... no opinion?

Exactly. That was really disappointing.

Not that I was old enough at the time to vote in it anyway, heh.

Yes, niether. But I was old enough to care.

Only if Queen's Birthday gets replaced by Republic Day. I'm not giving up a holiday.
Why can't we have both? "This holiday was for a queen who died before Australia became a republic"

Yes, niether. But I was old enough to care.

Ditto.

Why can't we have both? "This holiday was for a queen who died before Australia became a republic"

I like it!

If Australia breaks off from England ("britain," whatever), they ought to put Mad Dog Morgan on their 1$ note.. that movie was cool.

I'd love to see Australia become a republic, but nothing will happen about it while the conservatives are in power, and the Labour party seems to have lost all interest in it.

If Australia breaks off from England ("britain," whatever), they ought to put Mad Dog Morgan on their 1$ note.. that movie was cool.

We have a $1 note? ... So what are these golden coins in my wallet for then?

We have a $1 note? ... So what are these golden coins in my wallet for then?

Well, whatever the most commonly-used paper note is, then. :)

Well, whatever the most commonly-used paper note is, then. :)

we don't use paper note too as you can't wash them

Monarchy is a bad system, so yes.

we don't use paper note too as you can't wash them

Cotton/whatever else, then.. I'm aware that they're not actually woodpulp paper, at least here. Ours wash up nice with an acetone-based wash if you like taking low-valued currency and printing a higher number on 'em with your laser printer.. fools the gas station clerk, at least. :p

Cotton/whatever else, then.. I'm aware that they're not actually woodpulp paper, at least here. Ours wash up nice with an acetone-based wash if you like taking low-valued currency and printing a higher number on 'em with your laser printer.. fools the gas station clerk, at least. :p

we use Polymer banknotes

What say you?

Erm they elect thier leaders and govern through populace representation legislation yes? So technically they are already.... Right?

Well, whatever the most commonly-used paper note is, then. :)

That would be the 5.

That would be the 5.

which still don't have her head on it the way i see it :P.

we use Polymer banknotes

Hm.. plastic would be more difficult to dupe at home. In any case, dead horse or no, I still vote for the inclusion of Mad Dog Morgan someplace, even if it has to be plastic. That'd be badass.

They're not expats, they're convicts.

And if you ever rid yourself of our queer dean, the force of whatever is to replace Trident will come down on you like a ton of bricks. Australia will go from being 95% uninhabitable to being 97% uninhabitable.

WTF?

They're not expats, they're convicts.

I hope you're not referring to ALL Australians. My family were never anywhere NEAR England. Well, Germany is KINDA near England...

And if you ever rid yourself of our queer dean, the force of whatever is to replace Trident will come down on you like a ton of bricks. Australia will go from being 95% uninhabitable to being 97% uninhabitable.

What, you're going to fight us? Hah! I'd like to see that. Nobody would ally with you.

And it's not like we'd be the first to ditch the monarchy.

What say you?

I think whatever Australians want.

Most Australians are very proud of their country's English roots, does it hurt to be a little patriotic?

Most Australians are very proud of their country's English roots, does it hurt to be a little patriotic?

It can. Extremely.
But as I said, that's for Australians to decide.

Most Australians are very proud of their country's English roots, does it hurt to be a little patriotic?

No.. they're not. Not here, anyway.

Australia should not become a republic yet.

I've lived in Oz for over 20 years. Australians are great people, they have a wonderful country, and I'll probably live here to my dying day. But they have one major character flaw.

These people have all the political survival instincts of a lemming.

Most Aussies wouldn't know a right if it hit them in the face, or checks on political power if their lives depended on it. They have the worst constitution ever devised, and they don't even follow that.

What Oz needs is a Governor General who will promptly turn around and enforce all of the prerogatives of his office. Like placing his choices in the cabinet, and ignoring the PM - after all, the position of Prime Minister DOESN'T EXIST. Oh, and calling new elections anytime he feels like it, and ruling by decree for up to six months.

Let this go on for awhile, THEN let the people decide on a new constitution. It's the only way to get the populace involved.

Australia should not become a republic yet.

I've lived in Oz for over 20 years. Australians are great people, they have a wonderful country, and I'll probably live here to my dying day. But they have one major character flaw.

These people have all the political survival instincts of a lemming.

Most Aussies wouldn't know a right if it hit them in the face, or checks on political power if their lives depended on it. They have the worst constitution ever devised, and they don't even follow that.

What Oz needs is a Governor General who will promptly turn around and enforce all of the prerogatives of his office. Like placing his choices in the cabinet, and ignoring the PM - after all, the position of Prime Minister DOESN'T EXIST. Oh, and calling new elections anytime he feels like it, and ruling by decree for up to six months.

Let this go on for awhile, THEN let the people decide on a new constitution. It's the only way to get the populace involved.

If the GG (Crown) actually used his power in Australia it would only increase resentment of the system for those that don't understand it.

"Monarchy is a bad system"

Absolute Monarchy is a bad system. A Constitutional Monarchy doesn't seem so bad to me. And anyway, going by strict definitions of terms, a President is a monarch too. Being that the word monarch just means one person who has the final say. Doesn't specify any hereditary system, or any specific title. So President Bush is a monarch too. But a constitutional one in a slightly different form to the British model. :p

Australia should not become a republic yet.

I've lived in Oz for over 20 years. Australians are great people, they have a wonderful country, and I'll probably live here to my dying day. But they have one major character flaw.

These people have all the political survival instincts of a lemming.

Most Aussies wouldn't know a right if it hit them in the face, or checks on political power if their lives depended on it. They have the worst constitution ever devised, and they don't even follow that.

What Oz needs is a Governor General who will promptly turn around and enforce all of the prerogatives of his office. Like placing his choices in the cabinet, and ignoring the PM - after all, the position of Prime Minister DOESN'T EXIST. Oh, and calling new elections anytime he feels like it, and ruling by decree for up to six months.

Let this go on for awhile, THEN let the people decide on a new constitution. It's the only way to get the populace involved.
Sounds like the UK too. In fact, quite a lot (if not most) think rights are actually a bad thing.

EDIT: And I would rater see a British republic, so obviously...

Heh, this thread made me realize I know very little of the Australian political system. I always believed the current commenwealth to be nothing more than some closer trade relations and sport.

this Governor General, is he an Australian or Brittish?

And how right is the present government?

this Governor General, is he an Australian or Brittish?
He's an Australian, appointed by the Queen, but more or less chosen by the political establishment (unofficially, by suggestion, if I recall correctly).

He doesn't do much, even though he is the top dog. According to the constitution, he's running the country, and he appoints a cabinet of advisors (or "ministers") to help him out.

Traditionally one of those ministers was the leader of the pack, the Prime Minister. And somehow we got to a state where this PM is head of government, despite not being referred to in the constitution. At all. Not a single time.

Furthermore, there is meant to be a division of power between the government which runs the country, and parliament, which makes laws. Unfortunately that division isn't actually there either, because somehow this PM character also always happens to come from the party represented the strongest in parliament. So rather than the two controlling each other, we have both ruling as an uncontested dictatorship which runs until an election.

The only thing to control it is the upper house of parliament, the senate, which is not chosen by simple popular vote but by the States (QLD, NSW, Vic etc). Every State gets a certain number of seats, so that the more populous states don't run the country. Australia is a federation of formerly independent states afterall, much like the US or Germany.

Unfortunately they again somehow managed to screw that up by putting the elections for both houses on the same date. So uniformed people will simply not know that the Senate is meant to act as a counterweight, and simply tick their favourite party twice. Which in the last election resulted in Johnny winning both houses and now really being able to do whatever he wants. Uncontested by anyone or anything.

The only person who could potentially do something to him is, ironically, the Governor-General. Who is so quiet and lazy that I don't even know his name.

And how right is the present government?
Let's put it like this: If you mix George Bush with Vlaams Belang and you'll come pretty close.

Which means that Howard is
in favour of bombing places,
against getting prisoners out of Guantanamo,
against gay marriage,
against abortion (though he calls that his personal stance and so far only his good mate, former priest and now Health Minister Tony Abbott has actually used politics to try and get involved in abortion, and was promptly defeated),
against brown people (including the "Pacific Solution" of intercepting boats with poor immigrants and sending them off to empty islands to live in internment camps),
against Kyoto and any environmental protection that could damage Australian industry,
against stopping to cut down millennia-old trees to make them into wood chips (!!!),
against a free and critical media (see the "sedition laws"), and
against State rights.

I'd love to see Australia become a republic, but nothing will happen about it while the conservatives are in power, and the Labour party seems to have lost all interest in it.
The only guy I still have a bit of hope for is Malcolm Turnbull. Who you can count on to be shut up by his dear party colleagues.

against State rights.[/list]

Which is convenient, if they are all run by Labor.

I hope you're not referring to ALL Australians. My family were never anywhere NEAR England. Well, Germany is KINDA near England...Germany? That makes you English in a round-about way. The saxons migrated to Britain, and kicked the butts of the romanised poofs. So that makes us all one big happy family. Added to that the queen is german in a much more chronological proximity. The Windors are originally of the house of Wettin. I think they changed their name around about the end of WWI, what with the war with the Kaiser and all.

Anyway, if the Australians want to pay for a full time head of state instead of the ocassional free use of Lizzy, then well... meh...

alaname alagame alasame.
i don't live their, but i seriously doubt it would make diddly.

what you should do is become eco-socialist anarcho-pacifist and make the tribal elders of your indiginous tribal people your official government.

that and build more railways and fewer automobiles.

just like everyone everyplace else ought to.

=^^=
.../\...

against brown people (including the "Pacific Solution" of intercepting boats with poor immigrants and sending them off to empty islands to live in internment camps)

What's wrong with stopping illegal immigrants? Also many of the boats we stop up there are fishing boats... if the Indonesians wanted to fish... they should have thought twice about overfishing their waters... I don't want them wrecking ours too!

What's wrong with stopping illegal immigrants?
What's wrong with letting them live in humane conditions while they're being processed? Hell, what's wrong with letting them stay?

Fact of the matter is that if the UN looks at these camps and says they're not on, then they're very definitely not on.

As for fishing boats, that's a different matter entirely. I don't mind the boats being confiscated, or the fishermen paying whatever fines there are (or even prison terms if their crime has been that serious). But the people who get sent to Christmas Island or Nauru until psychiatrists have to be flown in to try and save them from going insane aren't Indonesian fishers, they're Afghan refugees...the same people we're meant to be helping over in Afghanistan. For example.

What's wrong with letting them live in humane conditions while they're being processed? Hell, what's wrong with letting them stay?

Fact of the matter is that if the UN looks at these camps and says they're not on, then they're very definitely not on.

As for fishing boats, that's a different matter entirely. I don't mind the boats being confiscated, or the fishermen paying whatever fines there are (or even prison terms if their crime has been that serious). But the people who get sent to Christmas Island or Nauru until psychiatrists have to be flown in to try and save them from going insane aren't Indonesian fishers, they're Afghan refugees...the same people we're meant to be helping over in Afghanistan. For example.

Aye that's true.... I still reckon we should send them back where they came from unless they're in danger/refugees/etc, but I do agree that some nicer facilities and quicker processing is needed.

Also I think in the matter of fishing we need to stop letting people who can't pay the fines off, as they will just continue to come back as long as we don't offer a sufficient deterrent

I have a feeling that the already prevalent republican sentiment in Australia will be boosted when the well-respected Queen dies and gives way to the much less-appreciated soon-to-be-King Charles.

He's going to change his name, actually. Seems to think that "King Charles" is bad luck for some reason.

What Nationality does the Queen really hold as she holds no passport

What Nationality does the Queen really hold as she holds no passport
Those of all the Commonwealth Realms, I assume.

Don't see why you bloaks want some mangy old sod on all your money, especially when she has nothing to do with your country. That'd just bugger me to hell.

Can any of you guess my opinion?
No.

Australia should become a colony of the UK again. It worked well in the past, even if we did use Australia as a giant prison camp, and you rest assured that that couldn't happen again because of all the international treaties and things...

Ilaer

Can any of you guess my opinion?
No.

Australia should become a colony of the UK again. It worked well in the past, even if we did use Australia as a giant prison camp, and you rest assured that that couldn't happen again because of all the international treaties and things...

Ilaer

could end up us bring in war about it

This just in, Australia starts war with the U.K. The Aussies destroyed the Royal forces and started to conquer neighboring countries. Russia responds with, "What the hell, fire the Nuclear Weapons!" The Nukes hit Africa and Poland..... North Korea fired their nukes at the U.S. who deflected them using their elite hax. The U.S. blew the world up. The end.

The country is called Britain! :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Actually England is the country. Great Britain a.k.a Britain is England. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. :rolleyes:

Most Australians are very proud of their country's English roots, does it hurt to be a little patriotic?
Bwahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa haha
heh heh heee


heh heh


ahhhhhhhh

Just wait till news of this reaches Her Majesty's ears! She'll be overtaken with joy. No need to rule over convicts any more. :D

Anyway, if the Aussies want to keep her as their Queen, so be it. If not, then they should change the system.

If the GG (Crown) actually used his power in Australia it would only increase resentment of the system for those that don't understand it.
This would be a good thing, seeing as those who do understand the system typically resent it.

Australia should not become a republic yet.

I've lived in Oz for over 20 years. Australians are great people, they have a wonderful country, and I'll probably live here to my dying day. But they have one major character flaw.

These people have all the political survival instincts of a lemming.

Most Aussies wouldn't know a right if it hit them in the face, or checks on political power if their lives depended on it. They have the worst constitution ever devised, and they don't even follow that.

What Oz needs is a Governor General who will promptly turn around and enforce all of the prerogatives of his office. Like placing his choices in the cabinet, and ignoring the PM - after all, the position of Prime Minister DOESN'T EXIST. Oh, and calling new elections anytime he feels like it, and ruling by decree for up to six months.

Let this go on for awhile, THEN let the people decide on a new constitution. It's the only way to get the populace involved.
You see, I would think that the above problems are very good reason to rework the system entirely. The constitution is broken. We need a new one. Now.

Plus, I expect the move to republicanism would stir up at least a little interest in politics. At least as so far in as what the new constitution would look like. Also, I am sure you are aware of 'the adversity theory'. It basically outlines the concept that progress only ever comes from some kind of posed adversity. As such, the Aussies are never going to learn how to run their own country until they are challenged to do so.

He's an Australian, appointed by the Queen, but more or less chosen by the political establishment (unofficially, by suggestion, if I recall correctly).

He doesn't do much, even though he is the top dog. According to the constitution, he's running the country, and he appoints a cabinet of advisors (or "ministers") to help him out.

Traditionally one of those ministers was the leader of the pack, the Prime Minister. And somehow we got to a state where this PM is head of government, despite not being referred to in the constitution. At all. Not a single time.

Furthermore, there is meant to be a division of power between the government which runs the country, and parliament, which makes laws. Unfortunately that division isn't actually there either, because somehow this PM character also always happens to come from the party represented the strongest in parliament. So rather than the two controlling each other, we have both ruling as an uncontested dictatorship which runs until an election.

The only thing to control it is the upper house of parliament, the senate, which is not chosen by simple popular vote but by the States (QLD, NSW, Vic etc). Every State gets a certain number of seats, so that the more populous states don't run the country. Australia is a federation of formerly independent states afterall, much like the US or Germany.

Unfortunately they again somehow managed to screw that up by putting the elections for both houses on the same date. So uniformed people will simply not know that the Senate is meant to act as a counterweight, and simply tick their favourite party twice. Which in the last election resulted in Johnny winning both houses and now really being able to do whatever he wants. Uncontested by anyone or anything.

The only person who could potentially do something to him is, ironically, the Governor-General. Who is so quiet and lazy that I don't even know his name.

*Weeps*

Heh, this thread made me realize I know very little of the Australian political system. I always believed the current commenwealth to be nothing more than some closer trade relations and sport. Largely true, yes. Ex-empire nations.

this Governor General, is he an Australian or Brittish? Some say that he was never even born, but simply winked into existence due to a technical requirement in the Australian Constitution. Nevertheless, on a quiet night in the outback, if you listen very carefully, you can hear his eerie wail over the wind as he declares his defunct rule over these vast lands.

And how right is the present government?About as right as the right-est democrats in USA. Though increasingly over the past few years it is looking more like the Republican left.

Which is convenient, if they are all run by Labor. Yeah, what a fucking accident.

What's wrong with stopping illegal immigrants? Apart from being the second most sparesly populated continent in the world with a flourishing economy and a 30 year-low unemployment rate (i.e. we desperately need more workers before wages rise too high and inflation goes nuts)? Well, it would be the way we send them to deserted pacific islands to process them, so as to dodge a series of humanitarian laws requiring us to accept them into our country if they are indeed refugees; so we can instead send them elsewhere.

Also many of the boats we stop up there are fishing boats... if the Indonesians wanted to fish... they should have thought twice about overfishing their waters... I don't want them wrecking ours too! A different matter entirely. However, may I point out that tribal indonesian fisherman have been fishing in 'Australian waters' for over 50, 000 years.

What's wrong with letting them live in humane conditions while they're being processed? Hell, what's wrong with letting them stay? Haven't you heard? Brown people "Steal Aussie Jobs!" (unusually, for some reason, they don't create jobs like normal immigrants. Weird).

Fact of the matter is that if the UN looks at these camps and says they're not on, then they're very definitely not on. Oh, it is most definitely on![/south park]

As for fishing boats, that's a different matter entirely. I don't mind the boats being confiscated, or the fishermen paying whatever fines there are (or even prison terms if their crime has been that serious). But the people who get sent to Christmas Island or Nauru until psychiatrists have to be flown in to try and save them from going insane aren't Indonesian fishers, they're Afghan refugees...the same people we're meant to be helping over in Afghanistan. For example. Those ungrateful bastards, going insane in our first word concentration camps while they try and sing us a sob story about their war torn third world shitholes. We endorse blowing the shit out of those countries for their benefit, and now they come here, of all places, claiming refugee status. Can't you see that they are really evil terrorists that want to destroy our economy and rape all of our women!

If they really wanted to come to Australia, they wouldn't 'jump the queue'. Instead they would front up the thousands of dollars required to immigrate legally, whilst patiently (assumedly ignoring whatever they seem to be running from) waiting months, or years, for a final approval (or rejection)from the government.

Don't you read the Telegraph, Neu? Wait you are a QLD boy! You should be ashamed! With a quality paper like the Courier Mail on hand, you simply have no excuse to be so uniformed.


*cries some more*

Aye that's true.... I still reckon we should send them back where they came from unless they're in danger/refugees/etc, but I do agree that some nicer facilities and quicker processing is needed. Right, because they sell everything they own to flee across the ME to perilous and corrupt SE Asia, risk everything and give all trust for their lives to what are essentially pirates to smuggle them across the shark infested, tropical cyclone prone high seas, packed in like sardines to the northern uninhabited deserts of WA, NT, or untamed jungles of Cape York Peninsula, QLD for fun? I assure you, anyone who is doing that, if not a refugee in your book, must be at the very least more desperate than either of us could ever hope (or desire) to comprehend.

Also I think in the matter of fishing we need to stop letting people who can't pay the fines off, as they will just continue to come back as long as we don't offer a sufficient deterrent I think it is important to differentiate between a tribal fisherman on a handmade boat fishing for his village/family (i.e. can't pay the fine, and frankly shouldn't have to), and the commercial fishing rigs plundering the reefs for hundreds of thousands of dollars a trip (i.e. can pay the fine).

You see, I would think that the above problems are very good reason to rework the system entirely. The constitution is broken. We need a new one. Now.

Plus, I expect the move to republicanism would stir up at least a little interest in politics. At least as so far in as what the new constitution would look like. Also, I am sure you are aware of 'the adversity theory'. It basically outlines the concept that progress only ever comes from some kind of posed adversity. As such, the Aussies are never going to learn how to run their own country until they are challenged to do so.

But that's my point, you see. Subject the populace the legal dictatorship that currently exists, really rub their noses in how crappy the current system is, then make them design a new system. Otherwise, we're just going to get a rehash of the same old shit.

(including the "Pacific Solution" of intercepting boats with poor immigrants and sending them off to empty islands to live in internment camps),


Nauruans would be very surprised to learn that their island is "empty".

On topic, that (and the rest of what you listed) is, of course, disgraceful.

Nope - Australia should not become a republic. Why? Because the moment that Australia becomes a republic, the pressure for republicanism will increase within New Zealand; and unlike most other nations in the world, we have no checks and balances aside from our link to the monarchy (we have no constitution, no upper house, no independent judiciary), so it would be very bad

Nauruans would be very surprised to learn that their island is "empty".
I'm sure it would feel that way if you're the only guy in a camp designed for 200 or so people.

The country is called Britain! :rolleyes:

Actually England is the country. Great Britain a.k.a Britain is England. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. :rolleyes:

Well, technically no. Britain/Great Britain is comprised of England, Scotland and Wales. Why? Because Great Britain is the largest of the islands that make up the British Isles.
You were referring to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Ilaer

In Soviet Russia, a republic becomes Australia!

In Soviet Russia, a republic becomes Australia!

I wondered how long it'd take for someone to do a Russian reversal...

Ilaer

In Soviet Russia, a republic becomes Australia!

LOL