NationStates Jolt Archive

Some former pro-republic guy in Australia says the eventual death or abdication will probably make Australia become a Republic. I'm guessing other places like Canada, Caribbean islands, and other states will do the same. It would be interesting to see what happens.

On a related note, why do people keep thikning about abdication? Is that the modern thing for old people in power for life...they abdicate. I say fcuk that shit I'm staying. Seriously what's the deal with abdication these days. It used to eb you stayed for life. And we have more medical advancements now...it makes no sense...

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080128/wl_uk_afp/australiabritainroyalsrepublic;_ylt=AoWxR0SmNHuc4qzrR.YbnDxvaA8F)

SYDNEY (AFP) - Australia will likely only break its ties with the British monarchy and become a republic when Queen Elizabeth II dies, the former leader of the campaign for a republic said Monday.

Malcolm Turnbull, now a conservative politician, said he did not believe the time was ripe for Australia to shake off a tradition spanning more than two centuries.

"I know this is not very consoling to many republicans, and this doesn't give me any joy to say it," the former chairman of the Australian Republican Movement told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

"But my own judgement is that the next time when you would have your best prospects would be at the end of the Queen's reign -- so when she dies, or abdicates."

Turnbull was head of the Australian Republican Movement for seven years until 2000 and led its campaign to remove the Queen as head of state, which was defeated in a 1999 national referendum.

Queen Elizabeth II is formally Queen of Australia despite the country's independence from Britain.

The success of any push towards becoming a Republic here depends on who takes over. People hate Prince Charles, so a majority could easily be found if he took over. If one of his brats became king, that would make it harder.

Either way, Turnbull is selling out in order to appeal more to the conservative base of the Liberal Party - no doubt in an attempt to challenge for the leadership position before the next election.

TRAITORS TO OUR BELOVED COMMONWEALTH!!!! HANG THEM!!! :p

What's with that "Canada will become a Republic" we haven't discussed anything like that in Parliament...anyways I like the sound of "Parliament" over "Senate", I dunno why I just like it...

TRAITORS TO OUR BELOVED COMMONWEALTH!!!! HANG THEM!!! :p

What's with that "Canada will become a Republic" we haven't discussed anything like that in Parliament...anyways I like the sound of "Parliament" over "Senate", I dunno why I just like it...

You could keep calling it Parliament afterwards. Just replace the Queen with an executive position of some sort(preferably not one with the power of our American President...)

Not the Caribbean states...they're far to dependent on their ties to Britain.

You could keep calling it Parliament afterwards. Just replace the Queen with an executive position of some sort(preferably not one with the power of our American President...)

But then that would be pointless, since nothing would really change and you would go through all that hassle for nothing. Unless of course you want that executive to be elected through an election of some sort, but that would make it even more pointless, you may as well just have a presidency instead in that case.

But then that would be pointless, since nothing would really change and you would go through all that hassle for nothing. Unless of course you want that executive to be elected through an election of some sort, but that would make it even more pointless, you may as well just have a presidency instead in that case.

...well, I figured the idea was to create a new position and then allocate, you know, actual power to it.

Canada won't change. Australia might - there's been pressure in that direction for some time - but not Canada.

Canada only bothered writing its own constitution in 1982 and getting its own flag in 1965. It's pretty young and loyal to the motherland. Plus, we like how much the ties to the British crown annoy the French Canadians. If only they'd remember what their provincial motto means.

Canada won't change. Australia might - there's been pressure in that direction for some time - but not Canada.

Canada only bothered writing its own constitution in 1982 and getting its own flag in 1965. It's pretty young and loyal to the motherland. Plus, we like how much the ties to the British crown annoy the French Canadians. If only they'd remember what their provincial motto means.

You never know. She's been there so long and reigned before the whole thing broke up, so I think they'd all drop that monarchical rubbish like a rock as soon as she's gone. Canada didn't seem all Queen-happy like you suggest when I went there. It seemed just like the US with a more happy accent like Scottish is to English.

And why change the name Parliament. It has nothing to do with a monarchy.

...well, I figured the idea was to create a new position and then allocate, you know, actual power to it.
Nah, most ex-commonwealth realms have opted for ceremonial Presidents, while retaining the Westminster parliamentary system.

Canada only bothered writing its own constitution in 1982
Did Canada ever get around to ratifying it?

The success of any push towards becoming a Republic here depends on who takes over. People hate Prince Charles, so a majority could easily be found if he took over. If one of his brats became king, that would make it harder.

Either way, Turnbull is selling out in order to appeal more to the conservative base of the Liberal Party - no doubt in an attempt to challenge for the leadership position before the next election.
If the election proved anything (doesn't mean I agree), if that's centrist politics are the new go, especially if you read Rudd's winning address. The far-right of the Liberal party got them into too much trouble (Lindsey anyone?) etc..

Either, the way I see it is simple, we would have been a Republic years ago if the damn referendum hadn't been the equivalent of "you need a pol sci degree to understand this!!!1111 *insert political jargon* (btw this is all too complicated for us normal folk, but vote for status-quo or the world will end!!!111)".

Yes it has been a few months since this issue was in the papers, it seems like whenever it falls off the media radar it must be thrust back in with the same old story.

Australia may become a Republic and it seems like most strong supporters have resigned to the fact that they will win their push once the current monarch falls, of course it may only happen once they decide on a system. From a simplistic version where the head of state will have the same power as the current role which will only mean more money to be billed to the Australian taxpayer or a much more powerful head of state which could very well see Australian politics fall into the same turmoil as countless of other republics across the world have.

Of course the current governments policy is to 1) take it slowly as PM K. Micheal Rudd wants to view the popular move before making any decision and no their is not a strong feeling for it regardless of what we read in the paper or whatever member of the Australian republican movement says especially as the referendum 8.5 years ago shot down this idea.

the second part of their policy is to hold a referendum on whether Australia should convert to a republic without any model given, and then have a vote on a selection of models (which shouldn't be allowed to work on the current constitution, but spin can easily dismiss that). Watch out Australians we may have a new parliamentary model on which we don't really want.

But...but, how could they NOT like Charles? He's such a lovable idiot.

If the election proved anything (doesn't mean I agree), if that's centrist politics are the new go, especially if you read Rudd's winning address. The far-right of the Liberal party got them into too much trouble (Lindsey anyone?) etc..

Either, the way I see it is simple, we would have been a Republic years ago if the damn referendum hadn't been the equivalent of "you need a pol sci degree to understand this!!!1111 *insert political jargon* (btw this is all too complicated for us normal folk, but vote for status-quo or the world will end!!!111)".

That is wrong and you know it any one with two brain cells would understand the question, the question was whether Australia should install a President in place of the Queen/Governor-General which would be appointed by approval of 2/3 of the Federal Parliament. very easy to understand and it lost because people didn't want this nothing to do with being too hard to understand the question.


Neu Leonstein: This has nothing to do with Turnball trying to get approval from some more 'conservative' members of the parliamentary liberal party he is nearly repeating what every other high profile republican supporter is saying "Once the Queen dies we will win"

From an American perspective, I would ask:

How many Australians feel like they are still in any real way, beholden to the Crown, or Britain at all?
Why NOT become an independant republic?

It certainly seems to me like that is already the case, in everything except name, anyway.

Its not like they would send troops and try and stop you or anything.

i know recently within Britain after the farce with gordon brown and the election that never was, their was talk of removing the monarchy altogether, however i believe if this happened the country would be split in two and the country may decend into civil war again... at least i know what side i'd be on, the monarchy's

From an American perspective, I would ask:

How many Australians feel like they are still in any real way, beholden to the Crown, or Britain at all?
Why NOT become an independant republic?

It certainly seems to me like that is already the case, in everything except name, anyway.

Its not like they would send troops and try and stop you or anything.

Thats true they would not send troops as all we would be doing is removing the Queen of Australia from a system but if something anit broken then why fix it?

Maybe Australia should turn into a republic just so it can fall into disrepair like many other republics around the world and by getting rid of this part of our checks and balances within our system will allow Australian politicians to move towards all the corruption and seroius problems with Presidents like the USA has Lets Do It?

i know recently within Britain after the farce with gordon brown and the election that never was, their was talk of removing the monarchy altogether, however i believe if this happened the country would be split in two and the country may decend into civil war again... at least i know what side i'd be on, the monarchy's

Civil War? I really don't think people care that much. Even if they were stripped of their titles and so on, they'd still be vastly famous and probably on the civil list.

i know recently within Britain after the farce with gordon brown and the election that never was, their was talk of removing the monarchy altogether, however i believe if this happened the country would be split in two and the country may decend into civil war again... at least i know what side i'd be on, the monarchy's
You have a vivid imagination.

Maybe Australia should turn into a republic just so it can fall into disrepair like many other republics around the world and by getting rid of this part of our checks and balances within our system will allow Australian politicians to move towards all the corruption and seroius problems with Presidents like the USA has Lets Do It?
Wouldn't replacing the appointed Governor-General with an elected President reduce the scope for patronage and corruption by the Prime Minister? In any case, there's no 'checks and balances' that the Governor-General can do that an elected ceremonial President can't do, if there are any left anyway.

Some former pro-republic guy in Australia says the eventual death or abdication will probably make Australia become a Republic. I'm guessing other places like Canada, Caribbean islands, and other states will do the same. It would be interesting to see what happens.

On a related note, why do people keep thikning about abdication? Is that the modern thing for old people in power for life...they abdicate. I say fcuk that shit I'm staying. Seriously what's the deal with abdication these days. It used to eb you stayed for life. And we have more medical advancements now...it makes no sense...

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080128/wl_uk_afp/australiabritainroyalsrepublic;_ylt=AoWxR0SmNHuc4qzrR.YbnDxvaA8F)Actually, concerning abdication: As far as I know, she would remain Queen of Australia if she only abdicated from the throne in Great Britain.

too much hassle with no results I say

not that I would have any real problem with a republic its just that its not worth it unless where burning down the whole system ;)

The Queen's dead you say!!!?!?!!111

The Queen's dead you say!!!?!?!!111
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/The-Queen-is-Dead-cover.png
I didn't think I'd be the first to post this.:p

I want to become an American....why?

I want to become an American....why?
?

I didn't think I'd be the first to post this.:p
And what an album!

From an American perspective, I would ask:

How many Australians feel like they are still in any real way, beholden to the Crown, or Britain at all?
Why NOT become an independant republic?

It certainly seems to me like that is already the case, in everything except name, anyway.

Its not like they would send troops and try and stop you or anything.
Because then they couldn't merrily pwn everyone at the Commonwealth Games, obviously.

..The Queen is dead. Long live the other people waiting in line to be KING!!!!Theres alotta people who want her job(her son,2 grandsons,that horse faced lady)..it's as crowded as the democratic party.

the status quo is to much of an anchor around the neck of change,for anything to change,unless theres civil disobediance.

i believe if this happened the country would be split in two and the country may decend into civil war again...
The monarchists throwing crumpets at the republicans, who respond by blasting out thrash music at them?

That is wrong and you know it any one with two brain cells would understand the question, the question was whether Australia should install a President in place of the Queen/Governor-General which would be appointed by approval of 2/3 of the Federal Parliament. very easy to understand and it lost because people didn't want this nothing to do with being too hard to understand the question.

Do you really think that people wouldn't have been more likely to choose yes if it simply said:
Should the Monarchy be abolished?

The common man has no idea what anything that isn't in simple language means.

Thats true they would not send troops as all we would be doing is removing the Queen of Australia from a system but if something anit broken then why fix it?

Maybe Australia should turn into a republic just so it can fall into disrepair like many other republics around the world and by getting rid of this part of our checks and balances within our system will allow Australian politicians to move towards all the corruption and seroius problems with Presidents like the USA has Lets Do It?

It is broke. It's a silly and retarded system that makes no sense. I don't see how Australia would fall into disrepair. The monarchy has nothing to do with that.

Actually, concerning abdication: As far as I know, she would remain Queen of Australia if she only abdicated from the throne in Great Britain.

I mean. Why do they keep mentioning that people in a position such as that might abdicate when there's no reason to? It's like it's the modern thing to abdicate instead of dying in your position.

Her Majesty won't abdicate. To do so would go against the oath that she took at her coronation, and she takes such matters seriously.

Her Majesty won't abdicate. To do so would go against the oath that she took at her coronation, and she takes such matters seriously.

Good.

Her Majesty won't abdicate. To do so would go against the oath that she took at her coronation, and she takes such matters seriously.
I'm not sure why she bothers. At most she's a public figurehead who's basically just Britain's diplomat to the world.

Neu Leonstein: This has nothing to do with Turnball trying to get approval from some more 'conservative' members of the parliamentary liberal party he is nearly repeating what every other high profile republican supporter is saying "Once the Queen dies we will win"
I'm just saying, he lost the vote for leadership even though he was by far the most high-profile and probably the most popular Liberal politician up for the job. I personally think it's because he represents the liberal rather than the conservative wing of the party, and as such the bigwigs who saw conservatism rule with Howard had reservations about moving the focus of the party.

Of course, that was only part of it, Brendan Nelson's also had his union-related past so they could hope to build bridges and snare a few ALP voters that way. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that Turnbull will try a challenge in the lead-up to the next election, and the more points he can score with the party's various wings, the better his chance at making it.

Which I wouldn't complain about, because he's by far the best package of ideas that I've seen from the Liberals since I came to this country.

Maybe Australia should turn into a republic just so it can fall into disrepair like many other republics around the world and by getting rid of this part of our checks and balances within our system will allow Australian politicians to move towards all the corruption and seroius problems with Presidents like the USA has Lets Do It?
Australia has some of the weakest checks and balances around. I mean, the legislature and executive are basically one and the same person! There's no Bill of Rights, indeed the PM isn't really mentioned in (and thus not limited by) the constitution.

Anyways, the German system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Germany#Selection) for figuring out a President seems to work. It produces generally well-respected and well-liked leaders, but they rarely get involved in real politics.

Wouldn't replacing the appointed Governor-General with an elected President reduce the scope for patronage and corruption by the Prime Minister? In any case, there's no 'checks and balances' that the Governor-General can do that an elected ceremonial President can't do, if there are any left anyway.

Perhaps but that all depends on how much power is given to the President and how he is selected but in the past 107 years there has been very little corruption by members of Parlisment certainly none from PM there has been some small questionable acts within the federal areana in recent history by ministers and back benchers but these have been swiftly dealt with.

The second part of your statement is correct so why change it

Do you really think that people wouldn't have been more likely to choose yes if it simply said:
Should the Monarchy be abolished?

The common man has no idea what anything that isn't in simple language means.

Maybe? but the question is simple enough where the common man can easily understand

It is broke. It's a silly and retarded system that makes no sense. I don't see how Australia would fall into disrepair. The monarchy has nothing to do with that.

How is it broke? I am refering to the government and parliament where the monarchy does have some involvement in evudenced by countless other republics around the world. Has the UK had any trouble in its government for the past couple hundered years

Actually, concerning abdication: As far as I know, she would remain Queen of Australia if she only abdicated from the throne in Great Britain.

This is one of the best points on here. Indeed it is usually an argument given by republicans that should the UK become a republic than we won't have a monarch and our system would collapse, this is aboslute BS as since the 1980's Elizabeth II has had the title Queen of Australia and should the UK abolish the Monarchy then she will still be the Queen of Australia and we will still have a Monarch maybe she could move here become a citizen and that would be another point against the republicans

Did Canada ever get around to ratifying it?
Yep.

Quebec didn't, but it wasn't required to. The amendment formula didn't require unanimous consent.

I'm just saying, he lost the vote for leadership even though he was by far the most high-profile and probably the most popular Liberal politician up for the job. I personally think it's because he represents the liberal rather than the conservative wing of the party, and as such the bigwigs who saw conservatism rule with Howard had reservations about moving the focus of the party.

Of course, that was only part of it, Brendan Nelson's also had his union-related past so they could hope to build bridges and snare a few ALP voters that way. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that Turnbull will try a challenge in the lead-up to the next election, and the more points he can score with the party's various wings, the better his chance at making it.

Which I wouldn't complain about, because he's by far the best package of ideas that I've seen from the Liberals since I came to this country.

Oh I completely agree with you Turnball will want to challenge the leadership before the next election, whether he is given the opportunity to or not is a different manner of course he may just wait till after the election as the ALP will not lose the next election anyway.

I think you will find that Nelson like Turnball are both small 'l' liberals and the fact that are few extra liberal parliamentarians (Turnball only lost by three votes) wasn't really to try and keep some large 'L' liberalism from the past 11 years as the Liberal party is now moving their focus away from that under the leadership of Nelson

Australia has some of the weakest checks and balances around. I mean, the legislature and executive are basically one and the same person! There's no Bill of Rights, indeed the PM isn't really mentioned in (and thus not limited by) the constitution.

Neither is the Cabinet mentioned but Australia like the UK and many other countries based on the Westminster style of government is ruled by both convention and the constitution (UK doesnt have one) but as the PM is a member of Parliament he is held by the constitution and any decisions made by him must be passed through both houses of Parliament and signed by the Governor-General which is in the Constitution. While the executive is drawn by the legislature there are checks and balances within in it as the majority must vote on the policies by both houses of Parliament. The Governor-General also provides further checks and balances as an independent 'umpire' to ensure that the executive and the PM do not abuse their positions of power rather than by a President that is voted in by the ruling party. Should the G-G abuse his position than the PM can dismiss him through the Queen yet another check and balance something other countries don't have.

Not to start a debate on this issue but how is not having a Bill of rights make the checks and balances of the government weak? Indeed why do we even need one when laws can be made to this effect without making something enshrined within a Bill of Rights where they cannot be overturned later when they become an impediment to the population and does not have the same use as it originally wants think the 2nd Amendment or even in Canada where their Bill of Rights allows freedom to practice their religion, but when someones religion allowed them to kill an adulterous wife the police and courts were at a legal junction as the Bill of Rights says that he can follow their religion hmmm? Wish I could find the link to but it happend but I read it in the papers over a year ago

Maybe? but the question is simple enough where the common man can easily understand



How is it broke? I am refering to the government and parliament where the monarchy does have some involvement in evudenced by countless other republics around the world. Has the UK had any trouble in its government for the past couple hundered years
No it's not. People cannot understand anything beyond like ten words. They probably saw that second part and went W-T-F mate? and voted no.

Monarchies are a joke. All they do is waste money and air.

No it's not. People cannot understand anything beyond like ten words. They probably saw that second part and went W-T-F mate? and voted no.

Monarchies are a joke. All they do is waste money and air.

Look if you are two much of an idiot to understand that a President will replace the Governor-General in which the President will be elected by the Parliament which requires 2/3 of the Parliament to vote for him then that is your problem!

As opposed to a President which will have the supposedly same powers as the Governor-General except it will cost more money to the taxpayer than retaining the monarchy!

Neither is the Cabinet mentioned but Australia like the UK and many other countries based on the Westminster style of government is ruled by both convention and the constitution...
I just don't think convention is actually a valid check to government power. Anti-establishment, anti-conventional ideas and populism go hand in hand, and the voters are an apathetic bunch.

While the executive is drawn by the legislature there are checks and balances within in it as the majority must vote on the policies by both houses of Parliament.
The lower house is beholden to the cabinet by default, and the upper house can also be.

The Governor-General also provides further checks and balances as an independent 'umpire' to ensure that the executive and the PM do not abuse their positions of power rather than by a President that is voted in by the ruling party.
I think I already pointed out my preferred process for choosing a President. It doesn't involve popular vote. And just as a general note, any comparisons to the US system are misplaced anyways, because the office of PotUS goes rather beyond a few reserve powers.

Not to start a debate on this issue but how is not having a Bill of rights make the checks and balances of the government weak?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_immigration_detention_facilities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haneef

In the sense that checks and balances exist to keep a government from going nuts on its citizens, a Bill of Rights is obviously an important tool. The sad truth is that governments these days seem happy to ignore such bills anyways, making up exceptions at will, but that doesn't make their existence any less worthwhile.

Indeed why do we even need one when laws can be made to this effect without making something enshrined within a Bill of Rights where they cannot be overturned later when they become an impediment to the population and does not have the same use as it originally wants think the 2nd Amendment or even in Canada where their Bill of Rights allows freedom to practice their religion, but when someones religion allowed them to kill an adulterous wife the police and courts were at a legal junction as the Bill of Rights says that he can follow their religion hmmm? Wish I could find the link to but it happend but I read it in the papers over a year ago
A Bill of Rights has in it a set of rights that are considered inviolable. They don't become unnecessary and they don't become an impediment. They're just there, they're assumed to exist a priori, before government, before the nation and before society. They're not up for modification by anyone or anything. That's not a question of practicality, but an acknowledgement that people are more than just playthings for governments to have fun with.

Secondly, where someone claims that they have a right to infringe on someone else, you get courts involved which look at the details and the bill and come to a conclusion. Self-evidently practicing your religion doesn't realistically involve killing other people, and Canadian courts would have found accordingly. So yes, a Bill of Rights can in some cases be brought up by defense lawyers. But so do lots of other things, including the presumption of innocence.

And thirdly, the right to freely practice one's religion is one of the few rights that are actually inshrined within the Australian constitution itself.

Because then they couldn't merrily pwn everyone at the Commonwealth Games, obviously.

Well no. If Australia became a republic, there is no reason they'd have to leave the Commonwealth. There are quite a number of countries in the commonwealth who don't have the queen as their head of state, and given the beneificial trade and diplomatic relations membership offers, there's no reason why they'd want to leave.

Perhaps but that all depends on how much power is given to the President and how he is selected but in the past 107 years there has been very little corruption by members of Parlisment certainly none from PM there has been some small questionable acts within the federal areana in recent history by ministers and back benchers but these have been swiftly dealt with.
Wonderful. Why couldn't this continue in a republic?

The second part of your statement is correct so why change it
What? You can't claim that the Monarchy helps reduce corruption on one hand and then on the other argue that the Monarchy and a republic would make any difference on the other.

Look if you are two much of an idiot to understand that a President will replace the Governor-General in which the President will be elected by the Parliament which requires 2/3 of the Parliament to vote for him then that is your problem!

As opposed to a President which will have the supposedly same powers as the Governor-General except it will cost more money to the taxpayer than retaining the monarchy!

I'm not saying I wouldn't understand it, but the average voter wouldn't have a clue. In New Jersey, we just had a referendum to amend the Constitution. It said:
No idiot or insane person shall have the right to vote.
The proposed change was that it would be that incompetence can be ruled by a court.
It passed 60-40, but what about those 40%? We can't have that many people with a sense of humor who think it's awesome to have your constitution mention idiot.

Queen to Australia:

GTFO of my commonwealth!

I just don't think convention is actually a valid check to government power. Anti-establishment, anti-conventional ideas and populism go hand in hand, and the voters are an apathetic bunch.

Ok if that is your opinion.

The lower house is beholden to the cabinet by default, and the upper house can also be.

What? can you explain this statement how is the House of Reps beholden to the Cabinet

I think I already pointed out my preferred process for choosing a President. It doesn't involve popular vote. And just as a general note, any comparisons to the US system are misplaced anyways, because the office of PotUS goes rather beyond a few reserve powers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_sedition_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_immigration_detention_facilities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haneef

In the sense that checks and balances exist to keep a government from going nuts on its citizens, a Bill of Rights is obviously an important tool. The sad truth is that governments these days seem happy to ignore such bills anyways, making up exceptions at will, but that doesn't make their existence any less worthwhile.

Indeed these laws can be brought in and removed when it is seen fit, a benefit over having a Bill of Right. Lets go over these three points shall we

1) The sediation laws yes these laws were brought in to combat Islamic fanatics who had planned to bring about mayhem within Australia as well as intending to spread hatred of all Australians amongst other individuals with intent to incite violence. These laws were not brought in to stifle peoples right to disagree with the government nor to hold protests or other peaceful measures as you will claim. They are however brought in to attempt to stop any violent acts towards innocents becuase they disagree with the government or simply hate Australia for one reason and another and attack it. Heaven forbid that a government attempts to protect its citizens. It may interest you to know that these laws have a 5 year sunset clause amongst them

2) These laws were brought in and was backed by the vast majority of the population doesn't that have some substance, perhaps we should place in this bill of rights that people should have the right to defend their homes from invasion. Shouldn't the government be allowed to lock people up if they break the law or do you consider that a violation of peoples rights?

3) Ah Haneef yes indeed now had he been more heavily involved in terrorist activities than the bill of rights would have been an impendiment, of course had we had a bill of rights then that group of young islamic men in Sydney and Melbourne who had planned to blow up the electrical grid then they wouldn't have been allowed to be kept under survallaince and arrested before they commited this crime.

A Bill of Rights has in it a set of rights that are considered inviolable. They don't become unnecessary and they don't become an impediment. They're just there, they're assumed to exist a priori, before government, before the nation and before society. They're not up for modification by anyone or anything. That's not a question of practicality, but an acknowledgement that people are more than just playthings for governments to have fun with.

That's excatly right so why should we install a bill of rights when they may not be needed or wanted in the furure by the vast majority of the population, or if

Secondly, where someone claims that they have a right to infringe on someone else, you get courts involved which look at the details and the bill and come to a conclusion. Self-evidently practicing your religion doesn't realistically involve killing other people, and Canadian courts would have found accordingly. So yes, a Bill of Rights can in some cases be brought up by defense lawyers. But so do lots of other things, including the presumption of innocence.

And thirdly, the right to freely practice one's religion is one of the few rights that are actually inshrined within the Australian constitution itself.

Ok so why do we need a bill of rights when it is inshrined within the Constitution and parliament can make laws. what if we have to infringe on somebody's right to prevent those people breaking the law? If presumption of innocence is already in law why do we need it to be in a bill of rights. And don't say it is because governments can change this law if something major like this was to be changed there would be public outcry and they would suffer for it at the next election.

I'm not saying I wouldn't understand it, but the average voter wouldn't have a clue. In New Jersey, we just had a referendum to amend the Constitution. It said:
No idiot or insane person shall have the right to vote.
The proposed change was that it would be that incompetence can be ruled by a court.
It passed 60-40, but what about those 40%? We can't have that many people with a sense of humor who think it's awesome to have your constitution mention idiot.

Ah well you are attempting to compare Americans to Australians, well say no more you just shot your agument in the foot

But yes I remember reading about this proposed change nice to see it went through, but do you think people didn't vote for this because they didn't understand it

What? can you explain this statement how is the House of Reps beholden to the Cabinet
Because the party with the majority of MPs gets to pick the PM. If the ALP wins the election and has the most seats in the parliament, then the PM is also an ALP man. And since party discipline in the Lower House is extremely strong, the cabinet's policies will always be accepted there. Only the Senate can realistically be expected to block things, and even that is not necessarily a given if the ruling party also gets a majority there.

Indeed these laws can be brought in and removed when it is seen fit, a benefit over having a Bill of Right. Lets go over these three points shall we...
You don't understand what I'm saying. A Bill of Rights enshrines rights that are independent of majority verdict. They are meant to protect all minorities regardless of what the voter or the PM thinks of them. The whole idea is that there is no one who can see fit to suspend them.

None of your points hold any water. I don't want a police state because then there is a smaller chance of a terrorist attack or illegal immigration. Part of living in a free society, in which I am protected from the government violating my rights, is accepting the risk that your safety is not always guaranteed. Realistically, I am much more likely to be killed in a car crash than a terrorist attack, so I am certainly ready to take on this risk.

So regardless of what you think of my examples, fact of the matter is that none of them was prevented. They are examples of a government infringing upon the right to free speech and the right not to be imprisoned without trial - which are things checks and balances are meant to prevent.

That's excatly right so why should we install a bill of rights when they may not be needed or wanted in the furure by the vast majority of the population, or if
Because the majority of white Australians also thought eradicating Aboriginal culture was a good idea, and the majority of Germans also didn't feel particularly bothered by the destruction of Judaism during WWII.

Fact is that the majority virtually never needs to have its rights protected from government. It's the minority, the group that's not going to change an election outcome and that doesn't get the same airtime, that needs protecting. And as such it's quite clear that we can't create such protections by listening to the majority, or indeed the PM.

Ok so why do we need a bill of rights when it is inshrined within the Constitution and parliament can make laws.
Because the constitution only covers three or four basic rights, and they're fairly randomly picked and certainly incomplete.

what if we have to infringe on somebody's right to prevent those people breaking the law?
"Breaking the law" is a somewhat meaningless thing to say. Laws can be anything, and they don't have to be just or worth following - again I could bring up Nazi Germany or the Stolen Generation.

The question is whether somebody is about to violate the basic rights of another. And in that case you can make the argument that this person apparently doesn't think very highly of the idea of basic rights, and as such taking preventive measures may be justified. But that's for a court to decide, among other things by consulting a Bill of Rights that is not up for the government of the day to play around with.

If presumption of innocence is already in law why do we need it to be in a bill of rights.
Actually, it's not really in there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_law#Protection_of_rights). Again, it's just convention and as such there are no barriers other than the High Court (which is about the only institution of government I trust).

And as with the Haneef case, in which the visa was revoked without evidence , trial or any sort of oversight, governments will be happy to do as they please without constraints.

And don't say it is because governments can change this law if something major like this was to be changed there would be public outcry and they would suffer for it at the next election.
There was no public outcry over the Tampa incident. Quite the opposite, it won the government an election.

It's about time the commonwealth stopped worshiping the monarchy of Great Britain.

Why keep such a huge waste of time and money in the system anyway?

Because the party with the majority of MPs gets to pick the PM. If the ALP wins the election and has the most seats in the parliament, then the PM is also an ALP man. And since party discipline in the Lower House is extremely strong, the cabinet's policies will always be accepted there. Only the Senate can realistically be expected to block things, and even that is not necessarily a given if the ruling party also gets a majority there.

Well done, of course you relise that this only happens when the ALP is in charge as party rules state that all parliamentry members of the ALP must vote in a way in which the party tells them too (MY Grandfather was not re-elected to run for his seat at the next election becuase he voted opposite to the party line during a concusios vote, but that is a story for another time). When a coalition government is in charge coalition MP's are not held to this and indeed there have been many cases in the last government when this happened. The Senate has only recently had a majority alinged to the government party in the 2004 election last years election gave two independents the power of the senate assuming that all green senators will vote with the government as they more than likely will

You don't understand what I'm saying. A Bill of Rights enshrines rights that are independent of majority verdict. They are meant to protect all minorities regardless of what the voter or the PM thinks of them. The whole idea is that there is no one who can see fit to suspend them.

None of your points hold any water. I don't want a police state because then there is a smaller chance of a terrorist attack or illegal immigration. Part of living in a free society, in which I am protected from the government violating my rights, is accepting the risk that your safety is not always guaranteed. Realistically, I am much more likely to be killed in a car crash than a terrorist attack, so I am certainly ready to take on this risk.

So regardless of what you think of my examples, fact of the matter is that none of them was prevented. They are examples of a government infringing upon the right to free speech and the right not to be imprisoned without trial - which are things checks and balances are meant to prevent.

Well that is your opion but as unlike the claims of the ALP and the democrats and greens who stated that people will be living in fear and that I will be arrested at 4:30 in the morning that is yet to happen under these laws unlike those who had consipred to attack Australians such as Jihad Jack who have been arrested. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason we have a smaller chance of being involved in a terroist attack than a car accident is because we have these measures?

Because the majority of white Australians also thought eradicating Aboriginal culture was a good idea, and the majority of Germans also didn't feel particularly bothered by the destruction of Judaism during WWII.

Fact is that the majority virtually never needs to have its rights protected from government. It's the minority, the group that's not going to change an election outcome and that doesn't get the same airtime, that needs protecting. And as such it's quite clear that we can't create such protections by listening to the majority, or indeed the PM.

Well as Abo's weren't considered to be a part of the human race then a bill of rights wouldn't have protected them anyway. I usually find that minority's do get a lot of airtime hence the pharse the silent majority, someone must do the talking, the media usually ensure that the minority say something even if it just the reporters minority view


"Breaking the law" is a somewhat meaningless thing to say. Laws can be anything, and they don't have to be just or worth following - again I could bring up Nazi Germany or the Stolen Generation.

The question is whether somebody is about to violate the basic rights of another. And in that case you can make the argument that this person apparently doesn't think very highly of the idea of basic rights, and as such taking preventive measures may be justified. But that's for a court to decide, among other things by consulting a Bill of Rights that is not up for the government of the day to play around with.

You could bring it up. Should the Government wait around for a court proceeding which can take months before they can do anything, in that time people may have escaped or acted out on their intentions. In any case the government does require warrants to be able to do this issued by a court.


"Actually, it's not really in there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_law#Protection_of_rights). Again, it's just convention and as such there are no barriers other than the High Court (which is about the only institution of government I trust).

And as with the Haneef case, in which the visa was revoked without evidence , trial or any sort of oversight, governments will be happy to do as they please without constraints.

Yes and it was revoked and he is now back in Australia therefore the system works as the High Court is there to preside over such things so why do we need a Bill of Rights?

"There was no public outcry over the Tampa incident. Quite the opposite, it won the government an election.

Thats because people believed it was their right to be able to proect their homes perhaps that should be placed on any Bill of Rights that Australia gets

Well done, of course you relise that this only happens when the ALP is in charge as party rules state that all parliamentry members of the ALP must vote in a way in which the party tells them too (MY Grandfather was not re-elected to run for his seat at the next election becuase he voted opposite to the party line during a concusios vote, but that is a story for another time). When a coalition government is in charge coalition MP's are not held to this and indeed there have been many cases in the last government when this happened.
And yet I haven't seen a change in government policy as a result. De facto these negotiations that followed behind closed doors produced nothing meaningful and the government went on as planned.

Well that is your opion but as unlike the claims of the ALP and the democrats and greens who stated that people will be living in fear and that I will be arrested at 4:30 in the morning that is yet to happen under these laws unlike those who had consipred to attack Australians such as Jihad Jack who have been arrested.
Again you're avoiding the point. Just because the police has seen fit to arrest Dr. Haneef instead of you or me doesn't mean that Australia has plenty enough checks and balances.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason we have a smaller chance of being involved in a terroist attack than a car accident is because we have these measures?
ROFLMAO.

Well as Abo's weren't considered to be a part of the human race then a bill of rights wouldn't have protected them anyway.
As I said before: what sort of loopholes governments might come up with to avoid a Bill of Rights applying in Case X doesn't tell us about whether or not it is worth having one. By the same token, just because murders keep occuring doesn't mean we shouldn't make laws against it.

I usually find that minority's do get a lot of airtime hence the pharse the silent majority, someone must do the talking, the media usually ensure that the minority say something even if it just the reporters minority view
You know quite well what I'm saying. Muslim communities have rightfully questioned the way they are being profiled and excluded from public life. Aboriginal people and immigrant advocates have similarly pleaded their causes for pretty much the entire Howard government. And you even saw it in the news occasionally.

Not that that changed anything, of course. The various mistreatments went on, and are still going on in some cases, even with an ALP government.

You could bring it up. Should the Government wait around for a court proceeding which can take months before they can do anything, in that time people may have escaped or acted out on their intentions. In any case the government does require warrants to be able to do this issued by a court.
Yeah, new special ones, IIRC. Secret ones that no one gets told about and which require minimal to no evidence. If a court is required by law to comply with the wishes of the police, then it's not really being an independent part of government, it's just an extension of the executive.

Still, the really baffling thing here is that apparently you think it okay to go around proper court proceedings because they take too long.

Yes and it was revoked and he is now back in Australia therefore the system works as the High Court is there to preside over such things so why do we need a Bill of Rights?
Because first of all the minister would never have had the power to do these things, as any law setting him up with them would have been unconstitutional and thus shot down. So there is a preventive aspect here.

Secondly the sheer lack of transparency involved in this should be enough to disturb any citizen in a democratic country. A Bill of Rights that properly enshrined the freedom of the press in these matters, that required the AFP to actually make it public what the hell sort of case they have and what sort of evidence there is and that didn't require him to sit in jail and then leave the country while the government can keep stalling at the court because the relevant laws are written full of loopholes and escape clauses would have stopped the whole thing in its tracks.

Fact of the matter is that they are still investigating Haneef, and are refusing to say why.

Thats because people believed it was their right to be able to proect their homes perhaps that should be placed on any Bill of Rights that Australia gets
What did the Tampa have to do with anyone's home?

I'm all for getting rid of Lizzie right now. She's a nice old girl, but her time has passed. I don't think it's appropriate for us to be a part of the monarchy any more.

You could keep calling it Parliament afterwards. Just replace the Queen with an executive position of some sort(preferably not one with the power of our American President...)

Just replace Queen Elizabeth II with me :rolleyes:

Malcolm Turnbull is just trying to keep his name in the spotlight for his own political gain though. Now that his party has been kicked out of office & he's not even the opposition leader, his relevance must be questioned.

Wow Blouman Empire you automatically loose all respect and credibility, using 'Abo' is just as racist as '******' or any other derogatory term, also your 'minority' statements are quite disgusting.

I guess your one of those right-wingers still mourning over the departure of your God Howard, how do you feel about the upcoming government apology to the Aboriginals:p


Thats because people believed it was their right to be able to proect their homes perhaps that should be placed on any Bill of Rights that Australia gets
Ahhhh, the azn hordes are invading!!!!!1111 all decent white folk must defend our property and liberty from the azn menace!!!1111 to stormfront brothers111

I'm not saying I wouldn't understand it, but the average voter wouldn't have a clue. In New Jersey, we just had a referendum to amend the Constitution. It said:
No idiot or insane person shall have the right to vote.
The proposed change was that it would be that incompetence can be ruled by a court.
It passed 60-40, but what about those 40%? We can't have that many people with a sense of humor who think it's awesome to have your constitution mention idiot.

Whenever you don't understand what effect a constitutional amendment or other voter-referendum is supposed to have, it always seems safe to just vote NO, and let things be as they were. Unless you've encountered a serious problem with the way things are, and know something about how the ballot proposal will fix it, voting YES may lead to unintended consequences. I never trust the people who put these proposals on the ballot, assuming they are probably out for something, and usually vote NO on all.
What nefarious purpose could be behind that New Jersey amendment? Maybe it's to make more money for lawyers appointed to argue both side of competency hearings, who knows? If you don't know what it is, NO is default.

Wow Blouman Empire you automatically loose all respect and credibility, using 'Abo' is just as racist as '******' or any other derogatory term, also your 'minority' statements are quite disgusting.

I guess your one of those right-wingers still mourning over the departure of your God Howard, how do you feel about the upcoming government apology to the Aboriginals:p


Ahhhh, the azn hordes are invading!!!!!1111 all decent white folk must defend our property and liberty from the azn menace!!!1111 to stormfront brothers111

Well actually when I say Abo it is not used as a derogatory nor racist term, if I were to use that I would call them 'coons' or some other term it is just some slang and an abbreviation.

But yes as I stated in another forum I do not agree that the government should apologise and take the blame as the Abo's want us too on behalf of themselves and on us Australians who did nothing of the sort.
I also happen to know a lot of labor voters who don't want K. Micheal Rudd to go through with this. (Shame there isn't a smile for this but shove that up your arse and sit on it)

As for your little wise crack are you suggesting that because somebody is white that they shouldn't5 have rights. get out of here you little racist (insert expletive) can you use those on the forums

Malcolm Turnbull is just trying to keep his name in the spotlight for his own political gain though. Now that his party has been kicked out of office & he's not even the opposition leader, his relevance must be questioned.

Maybe but he is the deputy of the Liberal Party and the opposition treasurer not to mention he is a former president of the Australian Republican movement and still a strong republican so maybe his relevance can be taken into account

But yes as I stated in another forum I do not agree that the government should apologise and take the blame as the Abo's want us too on behalf of themselves and on us Australians who did nothing of the sort.
Of course they didn't. But the Federal Government as an organisation did, and regardless of who happens to be the PM now as opposed to then, they assume the legal responsibilities of past administrations when they take over. So while Kevin Rudd may not have to personally apologise, and nor does the current Australian voter, if there is an apology to be made, the Australian government is who should make it.

As for your little wise crack are you suggesting that because somebody is white that they shouldn't5 have rights. get out of here you little racist (insert expletive) can you use those on the forums
We're liberal with swearing and bad language, not so liberal with getting into fights. The mods crack down on that sort of stuff quite hard these days. So civil is always better. And for any other info, of course check the One Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023).

It's a good place, and someone willing to get into a prolonged argument on something like the need for a Bill of Rights is definitely very welcome.

And don't mind Andaras aka Eureka Australis aka EA aka Andaras Prime aka AP. He's a fairly committed Stalinist and likes to get into people's faces. Don't let it bother you, he's worth it if for nothing else at least because his views introduce variety. ;)

Of course they didn't. But the Federal Government as an organisation did, and regardless of who happens to be the PM now as opposed to then, they assume the legal responsibilities of past administrations when they take over. So while Kevin Rudd may not have to personally apologise, and nor does the current Australian voter, if there is an apology to be made, the Australian government is who should make it.

Yes I understand that but they want the Australian public to feel gulity and to continue to feel guilty about after any apology is given that is where I have a major problem after all I didn't do it you didn't do it our ancestors didn't do it so why should we be made to feel guilty over it?

We're liberal with swearing and bad language, not so liberal with getting into fights. The mods crack down on that sort of stuff quite hard these days. So civil is always better. And for any other info, of course check the One Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023).

It's a good place, and someone willing to get into a prolonged argument on something like the need for a Bill of Rights is definitely very welcome.

And don't mind Andaras aka Eureka Australis aka EA aka Andaras Prime aka AP. He's a fairly committed Stalinist and likes to get into people's faces. Don't let it bother you, he's worth it if for nothing else at least because his views introduce variety. ;)

Thanks Neu Leonstein I will get back to you on your rebuttal soon, and I have come into arguments with Eureka Australis a couple of times before under that name at least now I know who all his puppets are and what to expect

Yes I understand that but they want the Australian public to feel gulity and to continue to feel guilty about after any apology is given that is where I have a major problem after all I didn't do it you didn't do it our ancestors didn't do it so why should we be made to feel guilty over it?
Well, first of all I'm German, so the question of guilt for the actions of past generations is familiar to me. I'm not a big fan of it, but that doesn't seek to diminish the fact that wrong was done and that people are suffering even today because of it. And ultimately it doesn't change that with the "guilt" also comes opportunity for restauration and a certain responsibility - a thought that is woven deep into the German constitution (here's the link to a Bill of Rights) and the public discourse at least on a higher level.

I don't think that "they" really want anyone to feel guilty. I don't even think they're after money. I think it's more a matter of principle than anything, a question of no longer feeling like you're being ignored. It's really just about an acknowledgement of a past wrong.

Exactly what this acknowledgement implicates for the average Australian is another question of course. I would suspect that it wouldn't change jack - indeed it's not like there really are many Australians around who don't know about the Stolen Generation and the various genocidal campaigns that went on as the country was colonised.

So this apology won't change the current problems in Aboriginal communities. It won't make other Australians feel guilty or otherwise care. It's really a gesture that only has meaning to a few campaigners and their supporters - and a certain group of arch-conservatives who feel so insecure about their patriotism that the acknowledgement of past wrongs is like an attack on their personal self-esteem. I have to say that I don't feel that strongly either way, but I sympathise more with the former group than the latter.

So to summarise my stance: I'm in favour of the apology. I would be in favour of restauration payments to people who were taken away from their families. I wouldn't be in favour for payments to their kids (nor am I in the case of Holocaust victims' kids). I found Howard's approach to Australian history pathetic.

restauration

"restitution"?

"restitution"?

restoration?

"restitution"?
restoration?
You're both right. :p