View Full Version : Do we want a republic?
Does everyone here want a republic.
Personally I do.
We now have no connection with the Queen and monarchy whatsoever.
We are nothing more than another country to England now, so why can't we see it that way.
The Howard government, when calling the referrendum, did not give Australians enough choice.
He put it up and said do you want this system, knowign full well that the system was ****E and that some republicans would say NO because it was a crap system.
The question needs to be asked again, no matter what Howard thinks.
A simple question needs to be asked, not about a system just, "Do you want a Republic". Once you get the response from that, you KNOW the true response of the public.
You then ask what type of system, and put forward a number of ideas.
Any views?
magpie_joffa
2 Nov 2001, 12:16
Thuck the monarchy its a load of ancient prehistoric bull****....thousands upon thousands of brits are in poverty and homeless.
Yeah what great representitives of the people!!
Shinboners
2 Nov 2001, 12:45
Yep....we should become a republic.
But haven't we got more important things to worry about?
Bloodstained Angel
2 Nov 2001, 12:56
... like what the hell is going on with Sav Rocca at the moment Shinners ? ;)
I believe a republic is a good thing but the model presented at the referendum was flawed.
I also believe that a republic is not the issue in most minds. Getting rid of the Queen as head of State is. To this effect the simple change of making the governor-general head of state would make most happy.
But I differ. I want an end to crown law, crown land, crown everything. I hate the judiciary wearing robes and wigs, the nasty and unfair magistrates courts and everything that goes with the upper class structure embodied by royalty. I for one would refuse a knighthood or any Royal honour.
Bloodstained Angel
2 Nov 2001, 13:06
In answer to the question
I would like our Head of State to be one of us, who lives here, and identifies readily with all of our strengths, weaknesses, hopes and aspirations as a nation.
quite clearly, the Queen of England is not that person.
However I am yet to be convinced that a republic is necessarily the solution to our dilemma.
Constitutional Monarchy has proven to be a remarkably stable, efficient and adaptable system for government down the ages - in stark contrast to republics.
So what to do ? - I dunno
Pity we can't have our own home-grown Herteditary Monarchy huh ?
cheers
Originally posted by Frodo
I believe a republic is a good thing but the model presented at the referendum was flawed.
I also believe that a republic is not the issue in most minds. Getting rid of the Queen as head of State is. To this effect the simple change of making the governor-general head of state would make most happy.
But I differ. I want an end to crown law, crown land, crown everything. I hate the judiciary wearing robes and wigs, the nasty and unfair magistrates courts and everything that goes with the upper class structure embodied by royalty. I for one would refuse a knighthood or any Royal honour.
Frodo, I actually agree with everything you just said!
Aaarrrrggh, ain't that scary?:D
The Hitman
2 Nov 2001, 14:00
In short - yes.
I won't go into the thoughts of it though.
The Hitman
Originally posted by The Hitman
In short - yes.
I won't go into the thoughts of it though.
The Hitman
Always taking the short way out hitter
:rolleyes: :D
Shinboners
2 Nov 2001, 15:15
Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
... like what the hell is going on with Sav Rocca at the moment Shinners ? ;)
Oh, don't tell me that not only does he want $200K per year, but he also wants to be the first president of Australia? :eek: ;) :D :p
The Hitman
2 Nov 2001, 15:24
Originally posted by TheMase
Always taking the short way out hitter
:rolleyes: :D
Okay Luke... :mad: :D
Apart from them colonizing us, what the hell have we got to do with Great Britain. Yes, the majority of our population is of their decendency, but so is America's.
We are the 'Commonwealth of Australia'. I want us to be the 'Republic of Australia'.
Why?
Because we are Australia. We have stood on our own two feet for over 100 years now. The monarchy don't have any influence in England let alone here. Why can't we have our own head of state? Not some old woman who has visited our shores a handful of times.
I would rather an Australian monarchy set up (it won't happen, but it would be better than the English version). We should have a President of Australia. He should be democratically elected by the people, and he should be our head of state.
We should have the first Presidents head on our coins, we should have Australian icons on our notes, and we should not be tied in with the Poms anymore.
I see absoultely no reason why we should be with the monarchy. Not one.
"If it's not broke, why fix it?" was the monarchist slogan.
Well, why can't we improve? Do we have to be a status quo forever in our existance? We are a nation of ideas and doers, yet we haven't got the guts to be our own selves.
I have no doubt that if the option for a republic was elected by the people, that we would be a republic...and that is the way it outta be!
The Hitman
TigerTank
2 Nov 2001, 15:28
Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
In answer to the question
I would like our Head of State to be one of us, who lives here, and identifies readily with all of our strengths, weaknesses, hopes and aspirations as a nation.
quite clearly, the Queen of England is not that person.
However I am yet to be convinced that a republic is necessarily the solution to our dilemma.
Constitutional Monarchy has proven to be a remarkably stable, efficient and adaptable system for government down the ages - in stark contrast to republics.
So what to do ? - I dunno
Pity we can't have our own home-grown Hereditary Monarchy huh?
cheers
Agree with all of that.
We should have stolen Prince Andrew off the pomes during the 70s when we had the chance.
TigerTank
2 Nov 2001, 15:37
Originally posted by The Hitman
"If it's not broke, why fix it?" was the monarchist slogan.
Well, why can't we improve?
Please explain to me the last time a politician improved anything?
Letting politicians improve the constitution is a bit like letting a fox improve security in the chicken coop.
GOALden Hawk
2 Nov 2001, 15:38
Originally posted by Shinboners
Oh, don't tell me that not only does he want $200K per year, but he also wants to be the first president of Australia? :eek: ;) :D :p
You do realise that if Sav was on $200,000 he would be earning more than the Prime Minister currently is! :eek: :)
Joe Mama
2 Nov 2001, 20:22
Unlike the PM, Sav's worth every cent, and I need to have my head read, I read Frodo's posting about his issue, and I agree with him.
Originally posted by Frodo
I believe a republic is a good thing but the model presented at the referendum was flawed.
I also believe that a republic is not the issue in most minds. Getting rid of the Queen as head of State is. To this effect the simple change of making the governor-general head of state would make most happy.
But I differ. I want an end to crown law, crown land, crown everything. I hate the judiciary wearing robes and wigs, the nasty and unfair magistrates courts and everything that goes with the upper class structure embodied by royalty. I for one would refuse a knighthood or any Royal honour.
Have to say i agree with all of that!!
sigscotty
2 Nov 2001, 21:52
Yep, republic good. Monarchy Bad.
All democratic governments appear to promise much but deliver little. It offers basic civil liberties, free speech, free association and the right to participate in the selection of which set of politicans will form the next government.
Unfortunately the ultimate promise of democracy, true political equality for all citizens is illusory as all governments are as we all know are behest to corrupting influence of satisfying the interests of powerful elites.
If the monarchy, isolated from the state can act in a manner that is impartial but with a view to friendship in protecting the interests of the ordinary citizen then I support the monarchy.
I know the application of real royal power is a thing of the distance past, but if it trappings, regalia and 'ghosts' remain to remind us all of this role then so much the better.
I am in support of Australia remaining a constitutional monarchy. As BSA stated, the system of Constitutional Monarchy has proven to be a remarkably stable, efficient and adaptable system for government down the ages - in stark contrast to republics, as the list of current monarchies throughout the world attests
EUROPE - Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (and associated Commonwealth countries such as Australia, NZ and Canada), Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco
AFRICA - Lesotho, Morocco, Swaziland
ASIA, Malaysia, - Japan, Bhutan, Cambodia (restored recently), Nepal, Thailand, Brunei
MIDDLE EAST (note some these are absolute monarchies, which I do not agree with) - Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman
OCEANIA - Tonga Western Samoa
Intersting to note that the premier republic of the world (USA) are looking at Afghanistan's former monarch Zahir Shah as the only possible person who could possibly unite the various Afghani factions. The monarch is seen in this case to be above politics.
I also don't necessarily agree that the Queen of England should be Australia's Head of State and would prefer we had our own monarch.
eagleskickass
3 Nov 2001, 14:15
I too agree with everything Frodo said
Hang on, did i just AGREE with Frodo, someone take my temperature:D
I am very much a republican, but as Johnny wasn't he thought he'd give the people a referendum, but flaw it KNOWING it wouldn't happen
Well **** you Johnny!
At least if beazley gets in we'll get a REAL simple question, Yes or no DO YOU want a Republic.
Simple question, simple answer!
Originally posted by eagleskickass
IAt least if beazley gets in we'll get a REAL simple question, Yes or no DO YOU want a Republic.
Simple question, simple answer!
I'd vote NO to a simple question like that. I'm not leaving our future to Beasley and his ACTU cronies.
We need it simple but we need to know what we're voting for as the alternative.
As I said previously, if the vote was for a simple change to have the governer general becoming head of state, replacing the queen and being elected by parliamentary vote then I would vote YES.
However, if the suggestion was we moved to presidential elections as in USA then I would vote NO.
Originally posted by TheMase
Does everyone here want a republic.
Personally I do.
We now have no connection with the Queen and monarchy whatsoever.
We are nothing more than another country to England now, so why can't we see it that way.
The Howard government, when calling the referrendum, did not give Australians enough choice.
He put it up and said do you want this system, knowign full well that the system was ****E and that some republicans would say NO because it was a crap system.
The question needs to be asked again, no matter what Howard thinks.
A simple question needs to be asked, not about a system just, "Do you want a Republic". Once you get the response from that, you KNOW the true response of the public.
You then ask what type of system, and put forward a number of ideas.
Any views?
Agree 100%.
Surely, the question should been the simple Yes/No to a republic. The the republican convention should have been held to decide on the best models for a republic, and then go back to the people to vote on the desired model.
Originally posted by Frodo
I also believe that a republic is not the issue in most minds. Getting rid of the Queen as head of State is. To this effect the simple change of making the governor-general head of state would make most happy.
But, isn't that the same thing as becoming a republic? If we have our GG as the head of state we can no longer be a Nation of the Commonwealth, and would become a Republic.
The other problem with that may be that our laws are set up with the two figureheads in mind, and may not be legal when both roles are taken by one person. I would say that the constitution would have to be re-written anyway. Although, I'm not a lawyer, so I am not sure....
Yassar Arafat
7 Nov 2001, 12:57
I used to be a republican and now I am in favour of the status quo b/c by becoming a republic nothing would change and we would spend a whole lot of money that can be used to give the poor people a reason to live.
The system that was put up at the referendum was teh best system b/c that is the system we in effect use now. But once it was labelled the politician'sd republic people voted against it for not knowing why.
Most people though dotn give a fcuk and why should they.
The most important thing at the minute is ensuring the Australian Losers Party lose the federal election.
Originally posted by TheMase
The Howard government, when calling the referrendum, did not give Australians enough choice.
He put it up and said do you want this system, knowign full well that the system was ****E and that some republicans would say NO because it was a crap system.
This statement is largely incorrect.
John Howard did not come up with the model Australia was asked to vote on. The model put to the Australian people was the result of the deliberations held by the 152 delegates (76 appointed by the government on a bi-partisan basis and 76 elected by the Australian people) of the Australian Constitutional Convention in February 1998.
Four models of a republic were discussed and voted on by the Convention. The models were
A Direct Presidential Election
B Direct Election (Hayden model)
C Direct Election (McGarvie model)
D Bipartisan Appointment, which was the model chosen by roughly half the delegates to put to the Australian people in the 1999 referendum.
There was more than enough choice. All Australian electors in 1998-1999, had an opportunity to vote for the 76 delegates that would represent them at the Convention. The other 76 were our elected parliamentarians anyway.
John Howard put forward the exact model that the Australian Constitutional Convention decided upon against the status quo.
In my view 1999 was the correct way to pursue such a monumental change as changing to a republic. Have discussion and debate in the community on the best model for a republic, ratify and decide on a model at a People's Convention (with elected delegates) and then put it up against the status quo of the Constitutional Monarchy. Then the people know the exact terms of what they are voting for or against.
If the republicans want a change to a republic, then they really should get their act together and agree on a model. The divisiveness of the republican movement was the real reason why the republic referendum was lost...not John Howard's manipulation of the circumstances and the referendum choice or question.
Satay Mat
7 Nov 2001, 16:13
I am a republican.
I struggle however to see how we can achieve a republic in Australia without a large shift in opinion in the republican camp.
Beasley's plan is a joke. He plans to have a plebacite on whether we want to be a republic, without specifying which type...that would follow later in a referendum.
Well unfortunately the constituion does not work like that. To change the constituion you must put forward your exact proposed change to the document (ie insert clause here saying this) which people can accept or reject. You cannot put forward 5 options and then pick the one which has the most support, and use that to change the constituion.
So lets say he has one vote "do you want a republic y/n" and the answer is y=66, n=33%.
It then goes to a 2nd vote....
"IF you had to have a republic which of these would you choose ?"
a) direct election
b) PM appoints
c) US style
etc etc etc
Lets then say that Direct Election wins with 33% of the vote.
This does not change the costitution....even if it got 51% of the vote it would not change the constituion. You would then need a third vote (this time a referendum)
Q: "Shall we change the costituion to replace the Queen with head of state elected by the people ?"
This is no different to the question put by Howard except the model is different....but you will still get the Monarchists and the "Appointee" grouping together and it will fail.
It doesn't matter how many plebacites you have....at the end of the day you need to have a referendum which puts forward one model and you must choose between that and a Monarchy. The best you could hope for in the above example is that the "Appointee" republicans realize they will never get their way and side with the other republicans rather than the Monarchists. This didn't happen last time and I doubt if it will happen next time.
Satay Mat's Republic.
We have an Australian Head of State.
The head of state rotates between the states (we are afterall a commonwealth of states). So for this 5 years the head of state of Australia is the Governor from NSW, next 5 from SA, then WA and so on.
Each state is free to choose their own method of choosing their Governor...it could be direct election, it could be appointment...could be a monarchy or you could draw a name from a hat.
This is what happens in Malaysia. Malaysia is a Monarchy but has several royal families one for each of the 13 states. The King rotates between the head of each state. In theory a state (say Sabah) could decide to have an elected head rather than a monarchy so the head of Malaysia would be elected by the people of Sabah when it was their turn.
What do you all think ?
Satay Mat
Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
Constitutional Monarchy has proven to be a remarkably stable, efficient and adaptable system for government down the ages - in stark contrast to republics.
Agree totally with you BSA. Thats why I favour retention of the current form of goverment.
"If it aint broke, dont fix it" applys here. So far every republican model thrown up as an alternative to the current model has to me, not seemed to be as an attractive alternative to the safe and stable goverment (even though were way over-governed,but thats another story) we currently reside under.
Dippers Donuts
7 Nov 2001, 22:50
Originally posted by Grendel
Agree totally with you BSA. Thats why I favour retention of the current form of goverment.
"If it aint broke, dont fix it" applys here. So far every republican model thrown up as an alternative to the current model has to me, not seemed to be as an attractive alternative to the safe and stable goverment (even though were way over-governed,but thats another story) we currently reside under.
and so if the GG was replaced by a president, with all the current GG's powers remaining the same, would that suffice for you.
No real change EXCEPT one of us, ie an aussie, could one day become our head of state.
If the only change was to make the governor general our head of state, instead of the queen, I'd vote for it tomorrow.
I even like the title of Governor-General...its distinctive, and has no more monarchist connotations than retaining the title of Prime Minister would have...
But really, there's a lot of changes to our constitution that I'd like to see ahead of the republic issue.....moving away from the Westminster two-party system, towards an actual representative parliament.....that kind of thing.
I also noticed that the royal visit ignored one of the monarchist strongholds in South Australia.....mayeb the Queen doesn't want to be head of state?...sick of all the flack.
Originally posted by Porthos
If the only change was to make the governor general our head of state, instead of the queen, I'd vote for it tomorrow.
Then of course comes the big question. By what method would the governor-general be chosen and more importantly who by? Direct election by the people? A bi-partisan choice by Parliament? Who would be eligible? How do we ensure the Governor-General remains above politics and makes decisions following Australian constitutional law?
At the moment the Prime Minister appoints the Governor-General, but the Governor-General is not the Australian Head of State. Any decisions made by current and future Governer-General's must be ratifed by the Queen and in time her heirs and successors.
If the Governor-General is Head of State, instead of the monarch, do we need to codify the powers of a governor-general, which states exactly what they can and cannot do? The Queen's powers are outlined in the existing Australian constitution, but with an elected head of state, there are obviously changes that will need to be made. For example, how long would the term of a governor-general be for? How can a governor-general be dismissed. After all an hereditary constitutional monarch by their very definition, cannot be dismissed.
So basically, even with the "small" change of replacing the monarch with a governor-general we would still be grappling with the same questions and issues we were in 1999.