Politics The Republic Debate

Are you in favour of Australia becoming a Republic with an Austalian head of state?


  • Total voters
    110

mighty tiges

Premiership Player
Aug 21, 2002
4,120
5,942
oneeyed-richmond.com
AFL Club
Richmond
Republicans have failed to advance their cause since the referendum. A republic is an expensive leap into the unknown, away from the relative stability, prosperity and freedom from many foreign ills we enjoy today (although if you've read the papers lately you can be forgiven for believing Australia is some sort of hellhole).

A few celebrity republic-pushers appear to desire something noteworthy in their epitaphs.
Typical desperate monarchist fear-mongering. It's all they have left to argue with. Like they try the laughable "politicans' republic" remark while forgetting a constitutional monarchy is a 'politicians' monarchy' and that the politicians we have are a product of their monarchist system :oops:.

We are a relative stable, prosperous and free nation because us Australians and only us Australians made and make it that way. Us same Australians will still be here in our country where we finally get our own head of state. Yeah, it would be a real "unknown" having Aussies running Australia :rolleyes:.

Someone on the other side of the planet who has never been an Australian citizen and has never lived here does diddly squat for Australia. This foreign monarchy acts for the UK's interests. It was only recently this "Queen of Australia" was promoting her homeland to the Chinese president and seeking Chinese investment for the UK. All they do for us Aussies though is bludge off our taxes to pay for their holiday junkets here to promote themselves and get us Aussie taxpayers to pay for their expensive gifts they present to Australia :oops:.
 

Coach_Required

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 19, 2008
9,683
28,197
Perth
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Liverpool & Boston Celtics
I couldn't careless who is our head of state, I actually think its all a waste of time anyway. My main concern is just how much money will this cost us taxpayers once again. Sick and tired of Governments getting us to vote on a referendum but then find a way to change the rules years down the track anyway then throw in a levy tax or tax increase to get us to pay for their waste of government funds.
 

Ron The Bear

Up yer arse, AFL
30k Posts 10k Posts
Jul 4, 2006
35,845
36,723
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Typical desperate monarchist fear-mongering. It's all they have left to argue with. Like they try the laughable "politicans' republic" remark while forgetting a constitutional monarchy is a 'politicians' monarchy' and that the politicians we have are a product of their monarchist system :oops:.

We are a relative stable, prosperous and free nation because us Australians and only us Australians made and make it that way. Us same Australians will still be here in our country where we finally get our own head of state. Yeah, it would be a real "unknown" having Aussies running Australia :rolleyes:.

Someone on the other side of the planet who has never been an Australian citizen and has never lived here does diddly squat for Australia. This foreign monarchy acts for the UK's interests. It was only recently this "Queen of Australia" was promoting her homeland to the Chinese president and seeking Chinese investment for the UK. All they do for us Aussies though is bludge off our taxes to pay for their holiday junkets here to promote themselves and get us Aussie taxpayers to pay for their expensive gifts they present to Australia :oops:.

Ah the Queen, that international wheeler/dealer and shaper of economies...

State your case for change, including the practical benefits that the massive expenditure of taxes will bring, keeping in mind jingoism doesn't work in 21st century Australia.
 
That dirty old lefty Phil the Greek was reputed to have said, "What's wrong with those people?" on hearing we'd voted to retain the monarchy last time. I'm a big Betty Windsor fan, with kin in all the decent bits of the Empire, but enough is enough, and Australia needs to come up with a model where we can end up with our own HoS. Swearing allegiance to anyone always feels a little weird to me, but doing it to a foreign HoS is just plain bizarre.
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,951
16,605
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Swearing allegiance to anyone always feels a little weird to me, but doing it to a foreign HoS is just plain bizarre.

You mean the Queen of Australia? When The Queen visits Australia, she speaks and acts as Queen of Australia, and not as Queen of the United Kingdom. When she is not here, the Governor-General acts in her name and exercises the reserve powers vested in her.
 

M Malice

Hall of Famer
Aug 31, 2015
31,433
72,024
By the Gabba.
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Valleys. Chelsea.
maybe when the inevitable republic happens we can change our anthem from advance australia fair to "god save our gracious president":eek:
 
That dirty old lefty Phil the Greek was reputed to have said, "What's wrong with those people?" on hearing we'd voted to retain the monarchy last time. I'm a big Betty Windsor fan, with kin in all the decent bits of the Empire, but enough is enough, and Australia needs to come up with a model where we can end up with our own HoS. Swearing allegiance to anyone always feels a little weird to me, but doing it to a foreign HoS is just plain bizarre.
When exactly were you made to swear allegiance to the Queen?
 
We used to have to do it primary school, swear allegiance to both the flag, and her maj. Even back then it felt not quite right.
I started school in 1995 and never had to do it. So I think that argument is irrelevant these days.
 
Mar 17, 2009
21,636
17,319
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
You mean the Queen of Australia? When The Queen visits Australia, she speaks and acts as Queen of Australia, and not as Queen of the United Kingdom. When she is not here, the Governor-General acts in her name and exercises the reserve powers vested in her.

Yes, but the GG acts on the advice of the PM, not the Queen, except of course in the case of one notable drunken GG who acted on behalf of the leader of the opposition.:rolleyes: So much for having a 'system' of Gument.

The current system is well past its use by date IMO. It doesnt represent what this country has become. A multi ethnic & multi cultural place that is becoming more cosmopolitan & very much more Asianised as time goes by & the effects of where we live, SE Asia, are strongly emerging & will continue that way. Its our future. Geez, I'm a WASP getting on towards retirement & can see it!
 
Aug 14, 2011
44,794
16,853
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
Yes, but the GG acts on the advice of the PM, not the Queen, except of course in the case of one notable drunken GG who acted on behalf of the leader of the opposition.:rolleyes: So much for having a 'system' of Gument.

The current system is well past its use by date IMO. It doesnt represent what this country has become. A multi ethnic & multi cultural place that is becoming more cosmopolitan & very much more Asianised as time goes by & the effects of where we live, SE Asia, are strongly emerging & will continue that way. Its our future. Geez, I'm a WASP getting on towards retirement & can see it!

Yep, but its one thing to change the name, quite another to fiddle with the settings.
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,951
16,605
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Yes, but the GG acts on the advice of the PM, not the Queen, except of course in the case of one notable drunken GG who acted on behalf of the leader of the opposition.:rolleyes:

But those reserve powers are vested in the Crown (the monarch) not the office of the Governor-General or the person that holds that office. The Governor-General exercises those powers in the day to day running of the government, but the Queen can also exercise those powers if needed.

For example Section 59 of the Australian Constitution states

"The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor‑General’s assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor‑General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known."

This reserve power has never been used, but it is there.

So a government theoretically could pass a law which is given the Royal Assent by the Governor-General and subsequently within twelve months, it or a new government could recommend to the Queen that she disallow that same law. That law would then become defunct. Whether the Queen would actually do so would be the question, especially if the same Governor-General is in office.

Section 58 states that the Governor-General can assent to a law passed by both Houses of Parliament in the Queen's name, or he can withhold assent or he can "reserve the law for the Queen's pleasure."
 

Lester Burnham

Cancelled
Jul 9, 2013
4,492
4,406
AFL Club
Geelong

mighty tiges

Premiership Player
Aug 21, 2002
4,120
5,942
oneeyed-richmond.com
AFL Club
Richmond
Ah the Queen, that international wheeler/dealer and shaper of economies...

State your case for change, including the practical benefits that the massive expenditure of taxes will bring, keeping in mind jingoism doesn't work in 21st century Australia.
You're argument is exactly like that of religious believers that twist things around and say atheists are wrong because living in a world where there's no god will make no positive difference. Sorry, those of us that don't believe in the nonsense of these ancient man-made institutions - royal, religious or otherwise - don't need to prove their irrelevance to modern Australia. The onus is on the believer.

You're the one who wants to keep and impose this foreign monarchy, that does nothing for Australia or us as people, on us Aussies as our head of state. The onus is on you to justify why we should still keep this irrelevant foreign monarchy after you've admitted by you're very own post that removing them will make no practical difference, thus proving this foreign monarchy does nothing for Australia (except bludge millions off our taxes for their self-promotion junkets to Australia :rolleyes:).
 

Bomberboyokay

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts
Sep 27, 2014
34,227
28,861
AFL Club
Essendon
You mean the Queen of Australia? When The Queen visits Australia, she speaks and acts as Queen of Australia, and not as Queen of the United Kingdom. When she is not here, the Governor-General acts in her name and exercises the reserve powers vested in her.

Give up, nobody believes your "She's Australian" crap.
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,951
16,605
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Give up, nobody believes your "She's Australian" crap.

Is basic comprehension beyond you?

I said Queen Elizabeth is the "Queen of Australia".

For the umpteenth time, the Crown of Australia is legally distinct from the Crown of the United Kingdom. Whatever action the Queen of the United Kingdom takes as Queen of that nation has no bearing on the Crown of Australia or Australia as a country. If the UK were to become a republic tomorrow, there would still be a Crown of Australia and Elizabeth II would still be the Queen of Australia.
 

Bomberboyokay

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts
Sep 27, 2014
34,227
28,861
AFL Club
Essendon
Is basic comprehension beyond you?

I said Queen Elizabeth is the "Queen of Australia".

For the umpteenth time, the Crown of Australia is legally distinct from the Crown of the United Kingdom. Whatever action the Queen of the United Kingdom takes as Queen of that nation has no bearing on the Crown of Australia or Australia as a country. If the UK were to become a republic tomorrow, there would still be a Crown of Australia and Elizabeth II would still be the Queen of Australia.

She's as Australian as her dad was Indian.

Give it up, champ.
 
Aug 14, 2011
44,794
16,853
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
You're argument is exactly like that of religious believers that twist things around and say atheists are wrong because living in a world where there's no god will make no positive difference. Sorry, those of us that don't believe in the nonsense of these ancient man-made institutions - royal, religious or otherwise - don't need to prove their irrelevance to modern Australia. The onus is on the believer.

You're the one who wants to keep and impose this foreign monarchy, that does nothing for Australia or us as people, on us Aussies as our head of state. The onus is on you to justify why we should still keep this irrelevant foreign monarchy after you've admitted by you're very own post that removing them will make no practical difference, thus proving this foreign monarchy does nothing for Australia (except bludge millions off our taxes for their self-promotion junkets to Australia :rolleyes:).

So tell me who the president might be ?
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,951
16,605
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
She's as Australian as her dad was Indian.

Give it up, champ.

Give what up?

Are you saying that Queen Elizabeth II does not hold the title of Queen of Australia?
Are you also claiming that the Crown of Australia is not legally separate and distinct from the Crown of the United Kingdom?
 
Aug 14, 2011
44,794
16,853
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
Give what up?

Are you saying that Queen Elizabeth II does not hold the title of Queen of Australia?
Are you also claiming that the Crown of Australia is not legally separate and distinct from the Crown of the United Kingdom?

Roy, didn't you see the earlier offering:
Give up, nobody believes your "She's Australian" crap.

You cant put brains into monuments Roy, move on mate.
 

mighty tiges

Premiership Player
Aug 21, 2002
4,120
5,942
oneeyed-richmond.com
AFL Club
Richmond
If the Republicans are dinkum they need to tell those voting how the president is appointed - todays political class are not worthy of trust.
The political class which is a product of the constitutional monarchy system.

This time you'd expect it to be done in two stages. First a plebiscite on whether we want our own Australian head of state. Then, if yes, a referendum one to select which model is preferred:

1) Minimalist - PM nominates and selects the president (as he/she selects the GG now).

2) 2/3s majority - joint sitting of both houses of parliament nominates and selects the president.

3) nominated direct election - joint sitting of parliament nominates candidates; people vote to select which one is to be president.

4) open direct election - open candidacy.
 
Back