NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not Australian but since I intend to move there in the future, I'm interested on the opinions some of you Aussies may have about the Monarchy and whether Australia will or will not become a Republic somewhen in the future.

So, what d'you guys think?

Hey kids, welcome to the doom tree!

They voted against it last time, so feh.

oddly I've been looking at Brazil with hungry eyes lately (an NSG world merry-go-round!)

erm they had a referendum and they decided to keep her Majesty as head of state odds are they will just wait until Elizabeth kicks the bucket IMHO

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/rudd-raises-republic-as-he-sets-off-to-see-queen/2008/04/07/1207420301733.html
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23503625-952,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23496658-5001021,00.html

That just about gives you the information as it stands. There is wide-spread support for a Republic, barring two things:
1) people like ol' Lizzie, so she'd probably have to be gone; and
2) there needs to be a working alternative system from a constitutional and political perspective.

And how do you guys feel having a foreign head of state? Is it important at all?

Isn't Australia in some ways far more independent from the UK than Canada?

Isn't Australia in some ways far more independent from the UK than Canada?

How can you be more "independent" than Canada? All we have linking us to the UK is some traditional stuff, such as a governor, which in fact have no effect whatsoever on our lives, and even less on our politics.

The only thing left of the UK in Canada is tradition, and that's bound to get scrapped soon enough.

How can you be more "independent" than Canada? All we have linking us to the UK is some traditional stuff, such as a governor, which in fact have no effect whatsoever on our lives, and even less on our politics.

The only thing left of the UK in Canada is tradition, and that's bound to get scrapped soon enough.
Funnily enough, whilst you may say that, the Queen does retain all executive power but chooses not to excercise it. She alone has the power to appoint her representative and that is Governor General, Canada's second in command. I do realise majority of these practices are merely symbolical but at the same time I don't think Australia has got to bother with these formalities half as much as Canada does.

Funnily enough, whilst you may say that, the Queen does retain all executive power but chooses not to excercise it. She alone has the power to appoint her representative and that is Governor General, Canada's second in command. I do realise majority of these practices are merely symbolical but at the same time I don't think Australia has got to bother with these formalities half as much as Canada does.

That's just what they are, formalities, you could even say mere ceremonies. I don't know about Australia, but really there is no "independence" matter here, it's only about who's got more traditions.

And how do you guys feel having a foreign head of state? Is it important at all?
Not really. The PM in effect chooses the Governor-General (the representative of the Queen in Australia when she's not here), and London just sends through an "ok". Britain, or the Queen, have no influence over politics here.

Well, if i was Austrailian I wouldnt...

They get a share in the Brits world power...Without having to deal with British Crap and Authority...

Its a Win-Win...

And how do you guys feel having a foreign head of state? Is it important at all?

Well, If i lived in a Country Like Austrailia or Canada, which didnt have much in the "world Power" scale, then the current Head of State system they have is brilliant..

Everyone gets to do what they want, but when one or the other succeeds, everyone gets credit...its quite brilliant actually...

No one cares aboot Australia or their damn sheep!



http://livinonaprayer.superforos.com/images/smiles/nana.gif

Everyone gets to do what they want, but when one or the other succeeds, everyone gets credit...its quite brilliant actually...
That's not how it works. The head of state is not like the President in the US. She doesn't actually do anything, she makes no policy. I don't even think she has any veto power.

As such any connection between these purely ceremonial (with one exception regarding constitutional powers with regards to elections and the forming of parliaments) figures is of no importance whatsoever to the conduct or credit anyone receives for a policy.

That's not how it works. The head of state is not like the President in the US. She doesn't actually do anything, she makes no policy. I don't even think she has any veto power.

As such any connection between these purely ceremonial (with one exception regarding constitutional powers with regards to elections and the forming of parliaments) figures is of no importance whatsoever to the conduct or credit anyone receives for a policy.

Exactly, im not talking about Policy, im talking about Victories on a WORLD Scale...

As in, say, A British win in WWII=Austrailian, and Canadian win...

but, she still doesnt have the right to actually do anything...

but, she still doesnt have the right to actually do anything...
You'd be surprised. She still owns all of the land in the commonwealth, you know.

You'd be surprised. She still owns all of the land in the commonwealth, you know.

Ceremonially, doesnt mean she can actually do anything with it...

Ceremonially, doesnt mean she can actually do anything with it...
No, not ceremonial, she actually owns it and can confiscate it if she wishes. Luckily, she has some level of common sense and knows that the republican movement both in the motherland and commonwealth would become very strong were she to do this.

As in, say, A British win in WWII=Austrailian, and Canadian win...
Except of course that Australian and Canadian forces did a lot of fighting themselves (down here against the Japanese the British didn't help very much at all, for example) - and the negligible fact that this was 63 years ago.

You'd be better off looking at Australia and Canada with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan to see how the system works.

No, not ceremonial, she actually owns it and can confiscate it if she wishes. Luckily, she has some level of common sense and knows that the republican movement both in the motherland and commonwealth would become very strong were she to do this.

Really? Crazy...

Then if i was in Australia, id consider getting rid of that little stipulation...

But, keeping the Head of State, for the aforementioned World Power...

Australia is A Constututional Monarchy Their Head of State is the Queen of England Just Like nay Other Former British Colony (Correct me if im Wrong)

You'd be better off looking at Australia and Canada with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan to see how the system works.

Well, i was just using that as an example, theyre both in Iraq and Afghanistan too though...

Im just saying that if, say there was a world Risk Game...theyd be better off if the British pieces were in their corner, and arguing for their advantage, than indifference, or opposition...

Cause, on their own, no one would listen to them...thats just reality...

Really? Crazy...

Then if i was in Australia, id consider getting rid of that little stipulation...
Seeing as it'll never affect them, and they get to be in the commonwealth, why bother?

Seeing as it'll never affect them, and they get to be in the commonwealth, why bother?

Well, that was my point...We're going in circles, lol...

I think it would be cool to have a monarch. And I would like to see The US symbolically have the British crown as head of state (no powers at all of course).

I think it would be cool to have a monarch. And I would like to see The US symbolically have the British crown as head of state (no powers at all of course).

Actually i dont see why not....


The Anglo Empire needs more Unity anyway, lol...

Australia is A Constututional Monarchy Their Head of State is the Queen of England Just Like nay Other Former British Colony (Correct me if im Wrong)

India, Bangladesh and Pakistan are Republics. Some other ones probably are too.

I think it would be cool to have a monarch. And I would like to see The US symbolically have the British crown as head of state (no powers at all of course).
Eugh, no, then people could blame us for your actions.

No, not ceremonial, she actually owns it and can confiscate it if she wishes. Luckily, she has some level of common sense and knows that the republican movement both in the motherland and commonwealth would become very strong were she to do this.

Source?

Eugh, no, then people could blame us for your actions.

We already do, lol...

Source?
Hmmm...

Vague notions towards it on the royal site, also Wiki, but I can't find anything concrete...

We already do, lol...
Yes, I know, and it disgusts me.

Hmmm...

Vague notions towards it on the royal site, also Wiki, but I can't find anything concrete...

DUH! they dont put Text in Concrete on the Intarnets...

Silly Yootopia, Concrete is for Driveways...lol..

Source?

Didn't you ever see Johnny English? :p

I'm not Australian but since I intend to move there in the future, I'm interested on the opinions some of you Aussies may have about the Monarchy and whether Australia will or will not become a Republic somewhen in the future.

So, what d'you guys think?

Australia will always have a monarchy!

*Sets self up as the new monarch of Australia*

No one cares aboot Australia or they're damn sheep!
Well people seem to be caring about them enough to post in this thread, meaning we're not sheep!

Yes, I know, and it disgusts me.

Yeah, its kinda why we do it, Its better than Disgusting ourselves, lol...

Well people seem to be caring about them enough to post in this thread, meaning we're not sheep!

http://img400.imageshack.us/img400/8008/oops7yt.gif

I meant "their sheep", not "they're sheep"

I certainly hope that people don't become stupid and vote to remove a head of state, she provides important checks and balances within our system, removing her would mean that the government would now be open to much more corruption as regardless on how the President is selected it will more than likely be a member of the ruling party, thus the President (or whatever name is given) will not want to see its party dismissed and will not act. By removing checks and balances within our system does open our system up to more corruption. Just need to look at the many republics around the world to see why it is a bad idea.

Many of the arguments given by republicans are either irrelevant, petty or completely false, of course in regards to those false arguments as the Australian people are by and large ignorant of their political system and how things operate and various laws they may believe these outright lies.


You'd be surprised. She still owns all of the land in the commonwealth, you know.

The federal government has control of all Commonwealth land and will use it as they see fit.

I certainly hope that people dont become stupid and vote to remove a head of state, she provides important checks and balances within our system, removing her would mean that the government would now be open to much more corruption as regardless on how the President is selected it will more than likely be a member of the ruling party, thus the President (or whatever name is given) will not want to see its party disimissed and will not act. By removing checks and balances within our system does open our system up to more corruption. Just need to look at the many republics around the world to see why it is a bad idea.

Many of the arguments given by republicans are either irrelevant, petty or completelly false, of course in regards to those false arguments as the Australian people are by and large ignorant of their political system and how things operate and various laws they may believe these outright lies.




The federal government has control of all Commonwealth land and will use it as they see fit.


I agree with you actually...Our President has far more power than George III did...

It was actually the basis for the Confederated Kingdoms of Skalvia...

EDIT: The actual reason was id heard a story about the US offering to Crown Washington, and i thought..."What would happen if he accepted it?"

I'm not Australian but since I intend to move there in the future, I'm interested on the opinions some of you Aussies may have about the Monarchy and whether Australia will or will not become a Republic somewhen in the future.

So, what d'you guys think?

no worries

Wasn't the reason why most people voted No on the referendum because they didn't agree with the type of government proposed, rather than disagreeing with becoming a republic?

And I think part of the reason most people remain ignorant towards the political system is because it's quite complicated.

To be honest I'd like to stay a commonwealth country. Well, I'm really neither here nor there. There's no pressing need for us to seperate from the UK, and their political system isn't really corrupt. Why not stay?

Wasn't the reason why most people voted No on the referendum because they didn't agree with the type of government proposed, rather than disagreeing with becoming a republic?

That's the reason the republicans give, to try and make them remain relevant, which is why during the 2020summit they proposed a way for Australia to become a republic by stealth, so they can get the republic without the true will of the people. After the five years of just having the Governor General we will have to vote on the best system we won't get a choice on if we want to welcome the Queen of Australia back we will be forced to choose one republican model, the one with the most votes win, and may not be the one most supported by the people. As I said enforce their ideals on us by stealth by bypassing what the people want.

And I think part of the reason most people remain ignorant towards the political system is because it's quite complicated.

Well it is not taught at schools anymore like it used to, I think that is the reason why people have no idea about it. Once you it is explained to you most people would understand it.

To be honest I'd like to stay a commonwealth country. Well, I'm really neither here nor there. There's no pressing need for us to seperate from the UK, and their political system isn't really corrupt. Why not stay?

Exactly there is no problem with the current system is has worked well for over 100 years, what are people bitching about.

I agree with you actually...Our President has far more power than George III did...

Which shows all of the corruption which I was talking about that has been in American politics for many many years. Like Jefferson, Nixon countless senators and congressmen.

They voted against it last time, so feh.

I think a lot of people - to my understanding - didn't feel like they'd get to pick who the president was. I was quite young at the time, though.

Not really. The PM in effect chooses the Governor-General (the representative of the Queen in Australia when she's not here), and London just sends through an "ok". Britain, or the Queen, have no influence over politics here.

*nods*

No one cares aboot Australia or their damn sheep!

http://livinonaprayer.superforos.com/images/smiles/nana.gif

Ugh.

Australia is A Constututional Monarchy Their Head of State is the Queen of England Just Like nay Other Former British Colony (Correct me if im Wrong)

Thankyou Wikiretardia.

I think it would be cool to have a monarch. And I would like to see The US symbolically have the British crown as head of state (no powers at all of course).

It's not like we really have a "monarch" as such. The only thing anyone knows about the queen is that she's on our coins.

Not really. The PM in effect chooses the Governor-General (the representative of the Queen in Australia when she's not here), and London just sends through an "ok". Britain, or the Queen, have no influence over politics here.

they learn that in world war two when we told them to stick it we bring our troops home to fight Japan

Okay, here is the straight info.

As things currently stand, the Monarch, Elizabeth II, has no direct power over Australia.

However, through her representative, the Governor General, she has more power than any other person or group, including Parliament.

According to the Australian Constitution, the Governor General may, at his discretion:

Appoint or dismiss all ministers. From among any or all persons.

Call for new elections.

Open or dismiss Parliament.

Rule by decree for up to six months without there being a Parliament.

Command the Armed Forces as representative of the Commander in Chief, to wit, the Monarch.

Veto any bill presented to him by the Parliament, with no avenue of appeal.

It gets worse. There's a little clause in the Australian Constitution (I like to call it the "Suicide for Democracy" clause) which grants the Parliament the right to Enfranchise or Disenfranchise anyone, according to any criteria. It was originally designed to ensure (back in the "good old racist days" of 1901) that Aborigines never got the vote, but it doesn't say that. It just gives the Parliament the power to restrict the franchise however they see fit.

The problem, of course, is that the Governor General may rule by decree.

So, the situation exists here, for the GG to close parliament, rule by decree for six months, declare himself the only valid voter, and make himself dictator. Totally Legally.

I really don't care much about the Monarchy, and as a US citizen I can't vote here anyway. But the sooner Australia gets rid of the WORST CONSTITUTION EVER WRITTEN the better.

Australia is A Constututional Monarchy Their Head of State is the Queen of England Just Like nay Other Former British Colony (Correct me if im Wrong)

Um...the United States? India? Parts of Africa? Iraq? Israel?

Actually i dont see why not....


The Anglo Empire needs more Unity anyway, lol...

I think we Brits and Yanks got to stick together.

WORST CONSTITUTION EVER WRITTEN the better.

Really? Worst...EVER...idk, there have been some pretty shitty ones over the years...

*snip*

What complete and utter crap, crawl back under the rock from whence you came. There is so much inaccuracy in your statement I don't know where to begin.


First of all in order for the GG to dismiss Parliament he needs the approval of the Queen, so the Queen does have some power but since this is Australia we don't have people in power trying to get more power dishonestly and this is because we have a wide range of checks and balances within our system. Were the GG to do all the things you stated the Queen will be able to dismiss the GG anyway. If we get rid of the Queen then the GG would be able to do this a whole lot easier. Unless that is what you were trying to prove.

What complete and utter crap, crawl back under the rock from whence you came. There is so much inaccuracy in your statement I don't know where to begin.


First of all in order for the GG to dismiss Parliament he needs the approval of the Queen, so the Queen does have some power but since this is Australia we don't have people in power trying to get more power dishonestly and this is because we have a wide range of checks and balances within our system. Were the GG to do all the things you stated the Queen will be able to dismiss the GG anyway. If we get rid of the Queen then the GG would be able to do this a whole lot easier. Unless that is what you were trying to prove.

Do you have a copy of the Australian constitution?

I suggest you read it. Dododecapod is basically correct. Convention (an important constitutional principle, it must be admitted) is the only thing that prevents a GG (or the monarch of England) from doing the things that Dododecapod outlines.

Kerr used the "reserve" powers of the GG in the 1975 constitutional crisis.

"mere" and ceremonies rarely go together IMO. I find that many ceremonies have great meaning.

Some people don't seem to understand that for all the talk Australia remains in a constitutionally untenable position, I as an Australia certainly do not consider it a 'trivial' matter to have an Australian born citizen as our head of state rather than a foreigner.

Those who advocate the status-quo attach a meaning to the British Monarchy that even Britons wouldn't accept nor like. If the Monarchy is good for 'symbolic' purposes as they claim, then Australians must hold must special reverence for the monarchy, I'd like to them to find a good number of Australians who actually have something decent to say about the Monarchy, my guess is they couldn't.

Some people don't seem to understand that for all the talk Australia remains in a constitutionally untenable position, I as an Australia certainly do not consider it a 'trivial' matter to have an Australian born citizen as our head of state rather than a foreigner...

Agreed.

The powers of the Queen, through the GG, are the canker in the Australian Constitution, in the same way (although less seriously in Australia's case) that slavery was the canker in the US constitution. By that, I mean that the existence of a monarch contradicts the democratic intentions of the constitution. As the 1975 crisis revealed, it remains the source of possible future political conflict.

Agreed.

The powers of the Queen, through the GG, are the canker in the Australian Constitution, in the same way (although less seriously in Australia's case) that slavery was the canker in the US constitution. By that, I mean that the existence of a monarch contradicts the democratic intentions of the constitution. As the 1975 crisis revealed, it remains the source of possible future political conflict.

I suggest you revise your history, the Queen had very little to do with the 1975 dismissal, it was due to a number of things one of which was resolved the next year. Who is to say that this might not happen again without the Monarch? And if there is no possibility then it proves my point that the new system will be open to much more corruption.

How does it contradict the democratic intentions of the constitution?

Do you have a copy of the Australian constitution?

I suggest you read it. Dododecapod is basically correct. Convention (an important constitutional principle, it must be admitted) is the only thing that prevents a GG (or the monarch of England) from doing the things that Dododecapod outlines.

Kerr used the "reserve" powers of the GG in the 1975 constitutional crisis.

Yes convention does prevent it and is something that is a part of our system it is why we have a Prime Minister and a cabinet something the constitution does not mention and does not need to mention, and as I said were the GG to do what Dodo intended then the monarch will be able to step in and dismiss the GG. Unlike with a republic where this could happen and there would be noone to stop them.

i don't know about australia, but here in the UK there's a clear republican voice.... what would happen to Oz or Canada should we get rid of the monarchy? i guess you guys would have to quickly change, or would the replacement UK head of state take over the role for you :confused:

that latter one seems like a pretty shitty deal to me

i don't know about australia, but here in the UK there's a clear republican voice.... what would happen to Oz or Canada should we get rid of the monarchy? i guess you guys would have to quickly change, or would the replacement UK head of state take over the role for you :confused:

that latter one seems like a pretty shitty deal to me

Well actually The Australia Act which was passed in 1983 or 1986 (i can't remember) made Elizabeth II the Queen of Australia (amongst other things mainly tidy up) thus even if she was kicked out by the Poms she would remain the Queen of Australia. She could move down here if she wanted and then after a few years become a citizen and that would blow another argument out of the water.

i don't know about australia, but here in the UK there's a clear republican voice.... what would happen to Oz or Canada should we get rid of the monarchy? i guess you guys would have to quickly change, or would the replacement UK head of state take over the role for you :confused:

that latter one seems like a pretty shitty deal to me

In the Oz constitution the Queen is the Queen of Australia and would remain so if she were deposed as the Queen of Great Britain.

I suppose she could always move to Oz if she were given the flick by the Brits.

I suggest you revise your history, the Queen had very little to do with the 1975 dismissal...

I didn't say she did. There were many issues that brought about the 1975 constitutional crisis. What I meant was that the GG used the very powers you denied existed to resolve the situation, ie sack the democratically elected government. A future GG may have more sinister motives.

How does it contradict the democratic intentions of the constitution?

The Queen isn't democratically elected, nor is she subject to the laws of the country.

Well actually The Australia Act which was passed in 1983 or 1986 (i can't remember) made Elizabeth II the Queen of Australia (amongst other things mainly tidy up) thus even if she was kicked out by the Poms she would remain the Queen of Australia. She could move down here if she wanted and then after a few years become a citizen and that would blow another argument out of the water.

A GG might be doing precisely what the Queen wants.

Yes convention does prevent it and is something that is a part of our system it is why we have a Prime Minister and a cabinet something the constitution does not mention and does not need to mention, and as I said were the GG to do what Dodo intended then the monarch will be able to step in and dismiss the GG. Unlike with a republic where this could happen and there would be noone to stop them.

That is true only if you assume you're going to give someone that much power in a Republic. If you use a modicum of sense and DON'T give the Governor General's replacement such sweeping and unnecesarry powers, the problem disappears. Given that a new constitution would be required for Australia to become a Republic, you have a ready-made opportunity to revise the situation.

Also, might I point out that convention is really no defence at all? All that would be required is for one Governor General to decide he is not going to obey the convention and everything goes to pot. Leaving the future of your democracy to the vagaries of one person's conscience doesn't seem to me a sensible action.

Also, why would you assume that the Monarch would oppose such an action? If A) the Governor General first convinced the Monarch that what he was doing was in the best interest of Australia or B) he was doing so at the instigation of the Monarch, then there would be no appeal.

B) he was doing so at the instigation of the Monarch, then there would be no appeal.

always the appeal for US intervention.

Not really. The PM in effect chooses the Governor-General (the representative of the Queen in Australia when she's not here), and London just sends through an "ok". Britain, or the Queen, have no influence over politics here.

Really? Is this before or after that time when the G-G had the Prime Minister of Australia DISMISSED?

Well actually The Australia Act which was passed in 1983 or 1986 (i can't remember) made Elizabeth II the Queen of Australia (amongst other things mainly tidy up) thus even if she was kicked out by the Poms she would remain the Queen of Australia. She could move down here if she wanted and then after a few years become a citizen and that would blow another argument out of the water.

In the Oz constitution the Queen is the Queen of Australia and would remain so if she were deposed as the Queen of Great Britain.

I suppose she could always move to Oz if she were given the flick by the Brits.

hmm, interesting. i didn't know that :)

That's the reason the republicans give, to try and make them remain relevant, which is why during the 2020summit they proposed a way for Australia to become a republic by stealth, so they can get the republic without the true will of the people. After the five years of just having the Governor General we will have to vote on the best system we won't get a choice on if we want to welcome the Queen of Australia back we will be forced to choose one republican model, the one with the most votes win, and may not be the one most supported by the people. As I said enforce their ideals on us by stealth by bypassing what the people want.



Well it is not taught at schools anymore like it used to, I think that is the reason why people have no idea about it. Once you it is explained to you most people would understand it.

To address the second part first; no, it's not. I've been left to my own devices to try and figure it out, because we were simply never taught it. Even voting and the like was confusing at first. We were never told about the second preferences, things like that. Aside from that traditional trip I think every year six student goes on to Canberra and Parliament House, where everything goes over your head because you're 11 years old and have next to no interest in politics, we were never really taught about the Australian political system.

Mmm, which is a bit worrying, really. Though to be honest, I have faith in Rudd. He's much more likable than Howard ever was, though this may be in part to the nicer voice and tamed eyebrows. I honestly liked some of his proposals put forward during the election campaign. Best of all, he didn't put forward those bloody work choice laws.

Lastly, in referrence to what's being said about Kerr stepping in in 1975 and sacking Whitlam, that wasn't really the GG being corrupt or anything like that. Well, it depends on how you look at it. They said financial mismanagement, and I'd tend to agree, because some of the things being put forward by Whitlam, though brilliant in theory, would have cost a lot of money. I also know that there were more Liberal than Labor in the Senate, and that Kerr was quite conservative by that point, however.

Have you ever considered the possibility of having a monarchy completly separated from the UK's? I mean, an Australian royal family? I know this is a LO-OT of speculation but...


Anyway, I do know the presidential republican system is crap. The Head of State and the Head of Government in one person is too much, IMO... and it's very hard to find someone who's actually good at both (I.E. President Lula is a very good head of state, but not so great head of government).

I also read in the Brazilian Imperial House website an argument for the monarchy that I really liked:
"The monarch worries about the next generations; the president worries about the next elections."

Have you ever considered the possibility of having a monarchy completly separated from the UK's? I mean, an Australian royal family? I know this is a LO-OT of speculation but...

I quote myself: Australia will always have a monarchy!

*Sets self up as the new monarch of Australia*

:p

Well, i was just using that as an example, theyre both in Iraq and Afghanistan too though...
Canada is not in Iraq, and Australia is leaving this year.

Im just saying that if, say there was a world Risk Game...theyd be better off if the British pieces were in their corner, and arguing for their advantage, than indifference, or opposition...
It's an alliance of sorts, but a quite weak one because Commonwealth countries don't have to support Britain in war and vice versa.

Cause, on their own, no one would listen to them...thats just reality...
Used to be, anyways. Australia is getting quite a bit of clout in the region these days because of all the resources.

Really? Is this before or after that time when the G-G had the Prime Minister of Australia DISMISSED?
Even during. Whitlam's government wasn't sacked because Britain or the Queen wanted it to, it was sacked because Australia was on the best way to default, the reason being that the opposition blocked the budget in the senate. People were screwing about with established convention (and the Australian system is heavily based on that), Kerr tried various compromises that both sides rejected, and in the end there was only one thing left to do.

We can argue about whether or not he did the right thing, or whether he should have done it a different way, but ultimately you can't say that the fact that Kerr was a G-G rather than a President changed anything.

That is true only if you assume you're going to give someone that much power in a Republic. If you use a modicum of sense and DON'T give the Governor General's replacement such sweeping and unnecesarry powers, the problem disappears. Given that a new constitution would be required for Australia to become a Republic, you have a ready-made opportunity to revise the situation.

Well a new constitution is not going to be written up it is merely going to be changed. Now who would the powers go to then?

Also, might I point out that convention is really no defence at all? All that would be required is for one Governor General to decide he is not going to obey the convention and everything goes to pot. Leaving the future of your democracy to the vagaries of one person's conscience doesn't seem to me a sensible action.

Then he will be dismissed. And if the GG (or whatever we call the new position) is voted in and just goes ahead and does what he feels like, as some politicians do, yes they get voted out but as you said he will make himself the only voter so he will retain power.

Also, why would you assume that the Monarch would oppose such an action? If A) the Governor General first convinced the Monarch that what he was doing was in the best interest of Australia or B) he was doing so at the instigation of the Monarch, then there would be no appeal.

Well the Prime Minister can dismiss the GG as well, it all depends on who gets there first. Anyway by and large the nowadays the Queen lets Australia run its own affairs she would only interfere were something like this to happen, and I very much doubt that she wouldn't move in and rectify the situation.

What if we were to get rid of the Queen and the the GG went ahead and did this then there would be no appeal, especially if he dismissed the government first, or if the GG is elected by either the parliament (read ruling party) or by popular vote, and by and large would more than likely belong to the same party as the government then they could just step in and do this anyway.

The Queen provides an independent and free balance which in the case of any wrongdoing can step in and correct the situation.

I didn't say she did. There were many issues that brought about the 1975 constitutional crisis. What I meant was that the GG used the very powers you denied existed to resolve the situation, ie sack the democratically elected government. A future GG may have more sinister motives.

Yes because of problems within the parliament itself, a few weeks later the people were able to democratically elect a new government into power. So what are you saying they got dismissed and had the chance to be voted in again. If people wanted them in so badly why didn't they elect them in again?

The Queen isn't democratically elected, nor is she subject to the laws of the country.

No she provides a independent balance on power free from any party, thus prevents corruption were we to have a democratically elected head of state.

Really? Is this before or after that time when the G-G had the Prime Minister of Australia DISMISSED?

Well I think it might have been before the PM for along time presented who he thinks should be GG and the palace has said OK, I can't recall any time where this has happened, the PM is chosen by the House of representatives and appointed by the GG the Queen nor any other monarch has interfered in that either, and yes the Queen has very little influence over politics in Australia including the 1975 dismissal.

Have you ever considered the possibility of having a monarchy completly separated from the UK's? I mean, an Australian royal family? I know this is a LO-OT of speculation but...

That is a thought I have entertained as well, instate a lesser royal as the monarch, for example Princess Beatrice. But it would cost money as she gets older and has some kids, the same way it is going to cost more money should we ditch the present system, it is better to pay our GG our meagre salary and let the POMs pay for the royals

To address the second part first; no, it's not. I've been left to my own devices to try and figure it out, because we were simply never taught it. Even voting and the like was confusing at first. We were never told about the second preferences, things like that. Aside from that traditional trip I think every year six student goes on to Canberra and Parliament House, where everything goes over your head because you're 11 years old and have next to no interest in politics, we were never really taught about the Australian political system.

Well maybe I just grasped onto it well. And this is exactly my point people aren't taught it at school and so do not understand the system, which is why people think we vote in the PM when we clearly don't. Unfortunalty I never went to the Canberra for school, as no aspect of our system was in our curriculum, and on that subject my mum was on her trip to Canberra for school but I think it was in year 8 or 9 or something and in Parliament house on the day Whitlam was sacked.

Mmm, which is a bit worrying, really. Though to be honest, I have faith in Rudd. He's much more likable than Howard ever was, though this may be in part to the nicer voice and tamed eyebrows. I honestly liked some of his proposals put forward during the election campaign. Best of all, he didn't put forward those bloody work choice laws.

Nice to see you vote on appearance, you may have faith in Rudd but what about the rest of his party there are a few in there Gillard, Swan, Combet, Roxon amongst others who will stop at nothing to ensure what they want to happen while Rudd might not be like them the rest are a bunch of snivelling extreme lefties who will attempt to get their twisted ideas in.

Lastly, in referrence to what's being said about Kerr stepping in in 1975 and sacking Whitlam, that wasn't really the GG being corrupt or anything like that. Well, it depends on how you look at it. They said financial mismanagement, and I'd tend to agree, because some of the things being put forward by Whitlam, though brilliant in theory, would have cost a lot of money. I also know that there were more Liberal than Labor in the Senate, and that Kerr was quite conservative by that point, however.

Well yes that is exactly what it was financial mismanagement, during the Whitlam eras we saw inflation go through the roof, in fact thanks to some of Whitlams policies (helped by other external problems) we first saw stagflation in Australia, and some of Whitlams ideas were not brilliant and would have done nothing to achieve any of the macroeconomic objectives of the government. I know some of the Labor camp say Kerr was corrupt and shouldn't have dismissed him as it went against democracy but the people had the chance a few weeks later to elect them again and Fraser and the Liberal party won in a landslide, so that bitch usually falls flat on their back

Well a new constitution is not going to be written up it is merely going to be changed. Now who would the powers go to then?

I don't see that. The current constitution is untenable, badly written, and poorly conceived, to the point where bandage solutions will not save it. A full rewrite would be necessary to resolove the problems.

And if the GG (or whatever we call the new position) is voted in and just goes ahead and does what he feels like, as some politicians do, yes they get voted out but as you said he will make himself the only voter so he will retain power.

Only if people are stupid enough to permit it. The last constitutional change went nowhere because the Australian people recognized a Canberra power grab when they saw it.

Well the Prime Minister can dismiss the GG as well, it all depends on who gets there first.

No, you are in fact completely wrong. The Prime Minister can do nothing. The Monarch alone can appoint or dismiss the Governor General - the Prime Minister may suggest, but nothing more.

Anyway by and large the nowadays the Queen lets Australia run its own affairs she would only interfere were something like this to happen, and I very much doubt that she wouldn't move in and rectify the situation.

If you're talking Elizabeth II, the lackluster Queen, I would agree; she's never stood up to anyone yet and I don't expect her to. Charles III could be an entirely different story.

What if we were to get rid of the Queen and the the GG went ahead and did this then there would be no appeal, especially if he dismissed the government first, or if the GG is elected by either the parliament (read ruling party) or by popular vote, and by and large would more than likely belong to the same party as the government then they could just step in and do this anyway.

So, you're saying that the system proposed by the last referendum was a bad one. Well, gee, maybe that's why it TOTALLY FAILED?

Just bcause you can see worse systems doesn't make the crappy one Australia has any better, and it doesn't in any way preclude moving to a superior one.

The Queen provides an independent and free balance which in the case of any wrongdoing can step in and correct the situation.

No, she can't, actually. The Monarch actually has exactly one power in Australia: the power to assign or dismiss the Governor General. All other powers are assigned to the Governor General's office; the Monarch can only work through him.

Blouman Empire, I really do recommend you get a copy of the constitution and have a good read of it. You will quickly discover how dismal it is.

It is in no way a statement of the nation's aspirations.

In fact, it is simply an Act of the British Parliament.

None of this "We the people..." stuff that speaks of the values of the people whom it supposedly empowers.

Here's the first 3 paragraphs.

****

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of the Almighty God, have agreed to unite in indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

****

So, Australia exists courtesy of the expedience, advice, consent and authority of the British Parliament, thanks be to god and Queen Victoria.

. Aside from that traditional trip I think every year six student goes on to Canberra and Parliament House, .

say what,i have never heard or went on this so called traditional trip every year six student goes on to Canberra and Parliament House

say what,i have never heard or went on this so called traditional trip every year six student goes on to Canberra and Parliament House

It's probably because you didn't go to a school that could afford it.


Most grade 7 students (pehaps it's 6 in other states) go to Canberra.

I've never had that trip either (in fact I've never been to Canberra).

It would have to be a pretty expensive school to do that trip...

I went to a NSW public school and we visited Canberra in year 6 and then the public high school took us to Canberra in year 8

I don't see that. The current constitution is untenable, badly written, and poorly conceived, to the point where bandage solutions will not save it. A full rewrite would be necessary to resolove the problems.

Ok but I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future.

No, you are in fact completely wrong. The Prime Minister can do nothing. The Monarch alone can appoint or dismiss the Governor General - the Prime Minister may suggest, but nothing more.

Well during the time of Peter Hollingworth, the PM gave him the option of either resigning or being dismissed, now while the Queen might have done this it would have been under the orders of the PM, as I said the Queen doesn't really involve herself in Australian affairs that much and had the PM told her to dismiss the GG then she would have.

If you're talking Elizabeth II, the lackluster Queen, I would agree; she's never stood up to anyone yet and I don't expect her to. Charles III could be an entirely different story.

Do you have some sort of proof showing that this is going to happen, or is it just scaremongering designed to get people to support a republic. Fear of the unknown will make people do strange things.

So, you're saying that the system proposed by the last referendum was a bad one. Well, gee, maybe that's why it TOTALLY FAILED?

Just because you can see worse systems doesn't make the crappy one Australia has any better, and it doesn't in any way preclude moving to a superior one.

Well describe to me a better one.

No, she can't, actually. The Monarch actually has exactly one power in Australia: the power to assign or dismiss the Governor General. All other powers are assigned to the Governor General's office; the Monarch can only work through him.

Yes wrongdoing by the GG she can step in then, and correct it as per the possible situation that you described, or she could come onto Australian Soil and receive all the powers that the GG has.

I went to a NSW public school and we visited Canberra in year 6 and then the public high school took us to Canberra in year 8

Yeah it seems like that has been the thing for a long time for NSW to do, I am not to sure about other states but SA and NT don't, hell the SA education cirriculum doesn't even have anything about it in it, and we didn't even go to the State Paraliment. Shame I moved away from NSW at the end of Year 5.

Blouman Empire, I really do recommend you get a copy of the constitution and have a good read of it. You will quickly discover how dismal it is.

It is in no way a statement of the nation's aspirations.

In fact, it is simply an Act of the British Parliament.

None of this "We the people..." stuff that speaks of the values of the people whom it supposedly empowers.

Here's the first 3 paragraphs.

****

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of the Almighty God, have agreed to unite in indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:

And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen:

Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-

****

So, Australia exists courtesy of the expedience, advice, consent and authority of the British Parliament, thanks be to god and Queen Victoria.

Yes this was how we became a federation, after all we needed the people who owned the colonies to allow us to break away from them by the British Parliament. Now we didn't go to war like the Americans, as you say "we the people" and the British Parliament allowed it. So yes we were allowed by the British Parliament to form an independent nation. The Australia Act went further and broke away any possible influence by the British Parliament, while it didn't remove this part from the constitution it gave dissolved the clause that allowed the House of Lords to overrule any law passed by the Federal Parliament (this was never enacted upon) and eliminated us from being existing at the privilege of the British Parliament, so while we needed permission by the people who controlled the colonies to leave us to our own devices in the beginning as they had control of it, we don't have need for it, perhaps you should read up on the Australia Act as it gave us more independence (in theory as Britain had never interfered with our parliament) without eliminating the checks and balances of our system.

We never went. Maybe its a NSW and Canberra thing, because they are geographically closer. Or maybe I just went to a pov primary and first high school. Second high school I went with my politics group on their yearly trip, but that was entirely voluntary and self-funded.

Anyhow, Australia will only become a republic if there is a viable alternative. Most people will have a major cbf attitude unless that happens. If there IS a workable model, then I think it'll happen when old Lizzie carks it.

I went to a NSW public school and we visited Canberra in year 6 and then the public high school took us to Canberra in year 8

I went to a Vic school, we must not want to do it.

It's probably because you didn't go to a school that could afford it.


Most grade 7 students (pehaps it's 6 in other states) go to Canberra.

affording it has nothing to do with it, more like which state you in and i guess WA don't want to waste money or time sending kids there

affording it has nothing to do with it, more like which state you in and i guess WA don't want to waste money or time sending kids there

Imagine how expensive it would be to get to Canberra from Perth...

Imagine how expensive it would be to get to Canberra from Perth...

not cheap , just taking a train to Vic is about a thousand dollars

And how do you guys feel having a foreign head of state? Is it important at all?
One who has absolutely NO influence whatsoever on your country?

If you seriously think that makes Australia an oppressed country then I laugh at you.

Ok but I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future.

In this I can only conclude unfortunate agreement.:mad:



Well during the time of Peter Hollingworth, the PM gave him the option of either resigning or being dismissed, now while the Queen might have done this it would have been under the orders of the PM, as I said the Queen doesn't really involve herself in Australian affairs that much and had the PM told her to dismiss the GG then she would have.

Yes. Elizabeth II pretty much does whatever she is told to do. There is NO reason to assume ANY future Monarch would follow the same pattern, and EIIR is now an old woman.


Do you have some sort of proof showing that this is going to happen, or is it just scaremongering designed to get people to support a republic. Fear of the unknown will make people do strange things.

Well, unlike idiotic terrorist scares and rumours of the apocalypse, this is actually something to be concerned about. If there is one thing the history of politics shows us, it is that once a power exists, sooner or later, it will be used.

You seem to be basing your expectations of the behaviour of the Monarch on Queen Elizabeth II. Fair enough; unless you are considerably older than I am (and judging by your writing style, I find this unlikely), she's the only royal who's sat the throne in your lifetime.

However, EIIR is not the person the next Monarch will be. Charles is a bit of a wacko, but he appears to be a stronger and more willful man, more like his father than his matrilineal descent. As to William or Harry, who really knows at this point?

There is a window now to deal with the problem. Once those emergency powers are actually used, it will be too late.

Well describe to me a better one.

Sure. We'll start with a greater division of the Executive from the Legislature. Make the GG /equivalent popularly elected to a three year term, and forbid reelection. He heads the Executive, appointing the ministers from those elected to Parliament, has the power to call elections, and is required to do so within certain timing guidelines fromthe previous elections. He has the power to enact treaties, subject to approval of the Federal Parliament. He is not given any power to rule by decree, and any order he gives to the Civil Service or the MIlitary is subject to revocation by act of Parliament.

The Parliament itself is now free to engage in it's appointed duty to make legislation. To reduce the tendency towards making laws for the sake of being seen to be doing something, and to ensure that our legal system remains up to date, all laws have a sunset clause of ten years; if they are not renewed in that time, they lapse and become null. This also applies to amendments to bills. So Parliament should have plenty of work to keep it busy.

The Federal government is strictly limited to dealing with items of national importance and foreign policy; in any clash between the powers of the states and the Federal Government, the High Court will begin with the assumption that the state law is the higher.

A bill of rights including freedoms of speech, assembly, travel and the vote will be included and will be binding upon all Australian governments.

There you go, an outline of a massively superior system to the one we currently have. I'm certain there are dozens of others.

Yes wrongdoing by the GG she can step in then, and correct it as per the possible situation that you described, or she could come onto Australian Soil and receive all the powers that the GG has.

Nope. I repeat, the powers in the Australian Constitution are NOT ascribed to the Monarch, but to the office of the Governor General. All the Monarch can do, regardless of where he/she is, is dismiss the GG and appoint someone else to replace him.

I suppose that technically, the Monarch could assign the position to his/herself, though that makes the possibility of overuse of the emergency powers even worse, since then there would literally be no appeal.

Yes. Elizabeth II pretty much does whatever she is told to do. There is NO reason to assume ANY future Monarch would follow the same pattern, and EIIR is now an old woman.

Well, unlike idiotic terrorist scares and rumours of the apocalypse, this is actually something to be concerned about. If there is one thing the history of politics shows us, it is that once a power exists, sooner or later, it will be used.

You seem to be basing your expectations of the behaviour of the Monarch on Queen Elizabeth II. Fair enough; unless you are considerably older than I am (and judging by your writing style, I find this unlikely), she's the only royal who's sat the throne in your lifetime.

However, EIIR is not the person the next Monarch will be. Charles is a bit of a wacko, but he appears to be a stronger and more willful man, more like his father than his matrilineal descent. As to William or Harry, who really knows at this point?

There is a window now to deal with the problem. Once those emergency powers are actually used, it will be too late.

Well from what you have said I am assuming that you were born before 1952, now then did George VI, Edward VIII, George V, Edward VII or Victoria interfere or go against the will of the Parliament, the PM or the GG? Hell Victoria even allowed us to govern ourselves. Now as I said rather than trying to make some people afraid by saying when Charles becomes King he will use his powers much more aggressively and attempt to override our parliament or impose himself on us, do you have any proof of this. And just as a side bit we may never have a Charles III it is said that he may want to be crowned George VII.

Nope. I repeat, the powers in the Australian Constitution are NOT ascribed to the Monarch, but to the office of the Governor General. All the Monarch can do, regardless of where he/she is, is dismiss the GG and appoint someone else to replace him.

I suppose that technically, the Monarch could assign the position to his/herself, though that makes the possibility of overuse of the emergency powers even worse, since then there would literally be no appeal.

Yes which provides a handy check and balance system so if the GG decides to do something crazy then she can step in. Now if we were to get rid of the Monarch and just have the GG and the PM then it would become a race on to who dismisses each other first and send the political system into a spin rather than having an independent "referee" if you will just in case something does happen.

Now as I said were what you described as to what the GG could do, the Queen can dismiss the GG and appoint another one that will reverse those insane changes. When the Monarch is on Australian Soil she takes over all the powers of the GG and correct it. But what you described is never going to happen, I know that there is the potential for it to happen but so could a elephant rampage escaped from the zoo rampage through my backyard, but that wont happen either.

*hears noise out back, looks outside sees elephant rampaging through backyard" WTF. lol

I will respond to your proposal for a new system later and in a bit of detail.

Republicanism is on Rudd's agenda. This doesn't mean it is definitely going to happen, but it puts a referendum back onto the radar. The 'proposed' date is 2010, but I think that it will likely get pushed back. Malcom Turnbull, the likely leader of the liberal party by the time any referendum comes to pass, is also perhaps the most signifacant republican in Australia. This would mean the leaders of both of the two major parties would be behind Republicanism in the even of a referendum. Thus you won't have people voting against it for simple party/leader loyalist reasons.

I have two minds on this issue. On one hand it is the most overblown non-issue currently making the rounds. In reality, it is of very little practical importance- and amounts essentially to an extremely expensive letterhead and plaque swapping operation.

On the other hand, our consitution is perhaps the worst part of Australian politics. It is so dismally irrelevant, poorly written, and otherwise inapplicable that I am actually amazed the current system both (a) runs, and (b) claims to extend from it. For the last century Australia has been teetering on a constitutional crisis that inexplicably hasn't bloomed. In this regard Australia almost has an english-style yet unspoken common law to bridge the gap betwwen the very imperial-colonial constituion we have, and the reality of the government as it runs.

Republicanism is the only plausible reason I can conjure the basically scrap the entirety of our old consitution and write a fresh and applicable one.

My main concern with the referendum is which model they will propose. That is, after all, what killed the last referendum (the proposed model turned many republicans away). Personally I think it would be better to first have a referendum on whether republicanism is desired, then on the likely success of the first referendum, follow up with another referndum on which model will be chosen.

Well from what you have said I am assuming that you were born before 1952, now then did George VI, Edward VIII, George V, Edward VII or Victoria interfere or go against the will of the Parliament, the PM or the GG? Hell Victoria even allowed us to govern ourselves. Now as I said rather than trying to make some people afraid by saying when Charles becomes King he will use his powers much more aggressively and attempt to override our parliament or impose himself on us, do you have any proof of this. And just as a side bit we may never have a Charles III it is said that he may want to be crowned George VII.

Ah? I hadn't heard that. That would be a nice nod to his grandfather (and I certainly can't blame him for avoiding a reign name of "Charles").

Of course, I cannot have "proof" of what may happen in the future; that's ridiculous. But we have historical records of nations like the Weimar Republic in Germany and various of the South American States that show overwhelmingly that weaknesses in the constitution of a state can be all to easily preyed upon by unscrupulous politicians.

Yes which provides a handy check and balance system so if the GG decides to do something crazy then she can step in. Now if we were to get rid of the Monarch and just have the GG and the PM then it would become a race on to who dismisses each other first and send the political system into a spin rather than having an independent "referee" if you will just in case something does happen.

Sure. The system we have couldn't possibly function without the Monarch as a capstone. But even with that capstone, the system is still dangerously vulnerable.

Now as I said were what you described as to what the GG could do, the Queen can dismiss the GG and appoint another one that will reverse those insane changes. When the Monarch is on Australian Soil she takes over all the powers of the GG and correct it. But what you described is never going to happen, I know that there is the potential for it to happen but so could a elephant rampage escaped from the zoo rampage through my backyard, but that wont happen either.

I hope you're right. I honestly do; I love living in this country, and I'd hate for some sort of nasty dictatorship to take over here.

Better not to let it be possible than live in hope it won't happen.

*hears noise out back, looks outside sees elephant rampaging through backyard" WTF. lol

:D

I will respond to your proposal for a new system later and in a bit of detail.

I'll be interested in your critique.