Politics The Republic Debate

[Present Not Past]

Australia is a nation that stands on it's own in the world. The fact that we have the Queen of England as our head of state is an anachronism.
Personally, it makes me feel like vomiting when I think that Prince William will one day stand as the head of state of my great nation.
Surely to God there are greater Australians than him who can stand among us as a leader of this great nation.

 

[tandino]

They should nail the approach properly this time. First the stay-or-leave plebiscite, which shall be binding insofar as a YES then proceeds to the referendum on the model preferred (with the subsequent change to the Australian Constitution) whereas a NO halts proceedings right there and then.

If the majority want a Republic, they should IN NO WAY be stymied by a minority NO vote. The NO campaign last time was crafty - I'll give them that. Dividing the YES campaign was machiavellian and shrewd enough to succeed against larger numbers... so we as a nation must never allow our democratic wishes be subverted like that again.

The only fair structure.

PLEBISCITE
Should Australia have its own Head of State?

YES--/\--NO
|
|

REFERENDUM
Choose Model a) b) c) d) e)...

I believe the plebiscite at least should be via mandatory voting - it wouldn't make sense that the NO voters still be forced to vote on a model should the YES bloc have it and things proceed to a referendum.

The key is that the plebiscite itself keeps or ejects the reigning British Monarch as Australian head of state - whichever model gets up in the referendum decides the model.

From what I understand you can't have a multiple choice Referendum.

I guess maybe you could have a yes/no referendum and leave the model up to a plebiscite (and thus not actually be inserted in the constitution), but if you have to rely on that sort of trickery to get a particular model up, then it's probably not worth it in the first place.

 

[tandino]

There's only one way this will get up, and that's for the YES bloc to actually prove it's a bloc and fall into line behind the only model that's going to come out of a broad public consultation, which will be some form of Ireland-style direct election model.

The sooner they accept this, the sooner we can get on with our lives.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

From what I understand you can't have a multiple choice Referendum.

I guess maybe you could have a yes/no referendum and leave the model up to a plebiscite (and thus not actually be inserted in the constitution), but if you have to rely on that sort of trickery to get a particular model up, then it's probably not worth it in the first place.

As I understand it

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2015/08/plebiscite-or-referendum-whats-the-difference.html

According to the Budget Macquarie Dictionary, a plebiscite is 'a direct vote of the qualified electors of a state in regard to some important public question'. (State here is used in a generic form and doesn't mean Australian state...)

...In Australian usage, 'referendum' is generally reserved for votes to amend the Australian Constitution under Section 128 of the Constitution, though the word referendum is not used in the Constitution.

so it seems accepted that only a referendum can change the Australian Constitution, which must happen if the British Monarchy is to be relaced as Australian Head of State.

The plebiscite asks the question, the referendum changes or amends the Australian Constitution itself, in this instance based on the Republican model selected.

As for whether you can have a multi-choice referendum, to my mind it follows logically that following a YES/NO vote that saw the YES voters prevail, you'd then decide on the Republican model.

As a referendum is the only way to achieve Constitutional change, this is how I'd do it.

Always happy to learn more about the process though...

 

[Norwegian Blue]

As for whether you can have a multi-choice referendum, to my mind it follows logically that following a YES/NO vote that saw the YES voters prevail, you'd then decide on the Republican model.

As a referendum is the only way to achieve Constitutional change, this is how I'd do it.

Always happy to learn more about the process though...

Doesn't work that way. A referendum has to be of the form:

Here is <a proposed change to the constitution>. Do you agree to make this change? YES/NO

It's impossible for a multiple choice referendum for that reason.

 

[skilts]

Is it of vital importance to have a head of state at all? It seems to me that this is the starting point for such a debate. What are the possible consequences of not having one if we didn't?

 

[Long Live HFC]

Is it of vital importance to have a head of state at all? It seems to me that this is the starting point for such a debate. What are the possible consequences of not having one if we didn't?

yeah I don't see an inherent need for a ceremonial head of state. however to answer your question, I think it's mostly a matter of making minimal changes to the constitution. you'd almost be able to cross out 'governor general' and replace it with 'president' in the document, and you're good to go. the more changes that are made, the more complex a referendum becomes, the less chance we have of getting a consensus etc.

 

[Taylor]

How does the Russian model work? President is in power until the PM takes over control etc?

 

[MaddAdam]

Yes, by force if required, and any who oppose us will be executed as the traitors they are.

 

[MaddAdam]

How does the Russian model work? President is in power until the PM takes over control etc?

Putin does what he wants and those who disagree are murdered or sent to the gulag.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Yes, by force if required, and any who oppose us will be executed as the traitors they are.

God save the Queen

 

[Taylor]

I don't see a point to a head of state changing to another effectively powerless high profile and paid position for a mate.

It is almost like the PMs don't want to give up their relevance internationally.

Leader of the house of reps is a person nobody cares about while the president shakes hands.

 

[MaddAdam]

God save the Queen

Up the republic.

Tiocfaidh Ar La.

 

[The Punter]

An expensive process to create a solution for which there is no problem.

 

[Whit3y]

just fix the budget hockey

 

[MaddAdam]

An expensive process to create a solution for which there is no problem.

Well, there is the slight problem that I'm an AUstralian citizen and I oppose having the head of state of one of history's most vile regimes as "ours".

And having that butcher's apron on the flag is sickening.

Ya know, we may as well have the swastika.

 

[kfc1]

41 posts was quicker than expected

 

[The Punter]

I didn't have this thread down for such an early Godwin appearance.

Look, I can understand the sentiment in the first two sentences. But the problem with that is: the Governor-General is our Head of State. His power derives from the Australian Constitution, not the British Crown as it does to the Governors-General of Canada and New Zealand. When the Queen first visited Australia as Queen in the 1950s, they had to amend legislation just so she could preside over an Executive Council meeting. She rightly stated she had no power to act when petitioned by the Speaker of the House of Representatives after The Dismissal.

Regardless of what the government is doing now regarding the effectiveness of spending, the fact is the move to a Republic would be an expensive way to change very, very little about most Australians lives. Australia has existed in some form for 114 years, with one constitutional crisis. That's pretty good going.

I feel no warm regard for either the flag or the British Monarchy, and if we were starting Australia from scratch, then I would be advocating a Republic. But the fact is the system we have has been working for over a century.

 

[MaddAdam]

I didn't have this thread down for such an early Godwin appearance.

Look, I can understand the sentiment in the first two sentences. But the problem with that is: the Governor-General is our Head of State. His power derives from the Australian Constitution, not the British Crown as it does to the Governors-General of Canada and New Zealand. When the Queen first visited Australia as Queen in the 1950s, they had to amend legislation just so she could preside over an Executive Council meeting. She rightly stated she had no power to act when petitioned by the Speaker of the House of Representatives after The Dismissal.

Regardless of what the government is doing now regarding the effectiveness of spending, the fact is the move to a Republic would be an expensive way to change very, very little about most Australians lives. Australia has existed in some form for 114 years, with one constitutional crisis. That's pretty good going.

I feel no warm regard for either the flag or the British Monarchy, and if we were starting Australia from scratch, then I would be advocating a Republic. But the fact is the system we have has been working for over a century.

I'm aware of the constitutional bullshit that has been dreamed up to disguise the fact that we have a foreign head of state.

And the money angle is such mewling, gutless stuff.

FFS, how much did Abbott just spend to rebrand Customs?

Anyway, we can pay for the re-branding of government documents by selling off anything to do with royalty post the change to idiot Americans.

Another plus is that it will annoy uber-flog David Flint so much he may leave the country.

 

[The Punter]

If the constitution is rubbish, then that's what it is, but until you change it, it's the constitution. Apologies for relying on the law as it is currently written.

Considering this was a debate about the Republic, I declined to get in a debate about comparisons of how much value governments get from doing other things. But having said that, consecutive federal governments in this country have had a spending problem, and that is still the case.

 

[MaddAdam]

If the constitution is rubbish, then that's what it is, but until you change it, it's the constitution. Apologies for relying on the law as it is currently written.

Considering this was a debate about the Republic, I declined to get in a debate about comparisons of how much value governments get from doing other things. But having said that, consecutive federal governments in this country have had a spending problem, and that is still the case.

You used the "would cost too much" angle, defend it or admit it is malarkey.

 

[The Punter]

It would cost more that a Marriage Equality plebiscite, because as has been explained well on here by Republicans, it would require multiple votes because Republicans can't agree to begin with. And a plebiscite on Marriage Equality actually effects where many people can leave their estates and other legal things of a similar sort.

$200 million for a Republic that makes no one's life better (other than the President) is wasteful and I won't support it.

 

[MaddAdam]

It would cost more that a Marriage Equality plebiscite, because as has been explained well on here by Republicans, it would require multiple votes because Republicans can't agree to begin with. And a plebiscite on Marriage Equality actually effects where many people can leave their estates and other legal things of a similar sort.

$200 million for a Republic that makes no one's life better (other than the President) is wasteful and I won't support it.

It would make my life better and I support it.

 

[The Punter]

Do you have $200 million?

 

[Gough]

It's said that our own Head of State can't understand how she's still in the job.