Politics The Republic Debate

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


  • Total voters
    110
I find it astonishing that the constitution we started with in 1901 remains largely intact. This partly reflects the difficulty in riding roughshod over the initial intentions of the framers of the document, because of what they wrote, and how they covered their arses. This is as it should be. The founding fathers' (yes, they were all male) efforts have given us a political stability which is the envy of most of the rest of the world. The system as it stands is probably in need of revision, but as Roylion has so eloquently put, the replacement for the system we currently have must, at the very least, be as good as the one we enjoy now.

To have a popularly/directly elected head of state would be a catastrophe of monumental proportions, given the Prime Minister enjoys no such direct, popular acclaim, because he/she is (functionally) elected by members of his own political party. If the events of 1975 were to arise again, our head of state under this proposed model could (rightly) claim a more popular, competing endorsement compared to that of the Prime Minister.

The reason given during the previous referendum for not depending on our parliamentary representatives to choose a head of state was that politicians can't be trusted. If this be the case, this is a complete rejection of the democratic process which elected these people to parliament. If they were so untrustworthy WhyTF were they elected? Is this actually an assertion that the electorate can't be trusted? That this particular notion is one for which I have some sympathy is of no account.

For those who might be interested, I'm fiercely in favour of Australia having an Australian as head of state. Until the republican movement can agree among themselves as to what they want us to embrace as a replacement system, they will remain the irrelevance they proved themselves to be at the previous referendum.

That they chose that illiterate charlatan and plagiarist Peter Fitzsimons as their public face defies belief and is symptomatic of a profound desperation. They are still an impotent, risible and shambolic confection.

How dare you insult the great Australians lifting debate on both sides

peter-fitzsimons.jpg
1402131396957.jpg
 
Is it possible to have a system where the prime minister or the head of state aren't pointless or a rubber stamp?

I would prefer to elect the president, elect the MPs, let them choose a head of the house of reps (formerly PM) and the president acts as international correspondent, public face of government, driver of policy etc etc.
 
Are you sure they're not leaners? Maybe I'm being too generous even with that.

If only they were both on the same side of the debate ....I could then happily support the other side without even thinking
 

skilts

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Feb 14, 2002
17,797
6,858
South-West Gippsland
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Lexton, Northcote Park
Best thing about Peter Fitz is his inability to keep his hands to himself in rucks meant that John Eales got a look in.
As is obvious, I experienced great difficulty in speaking well of the almost-dead. It seems you encounter similar difficulties.
 
Is it possible to have a system where the prime minister or the head of state aren't pointless or a rubber stamp?

I would prefer to elect the president, elect the MPs, let them choose a head of the house of reps (formerly PM) and the president acts as international correspondent, public face of government, driver of policy etc etc.

Ask Gough
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,951
16,605
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
What proposed Republican model?

Any proposed Republican model.

The plebiscite should just be used to set the scene and shut up the Royal loving vocal minority, and move us on to the real question of making sure we select the proper model.

I think Norwegian Blue put it quite succintly.

It's not that he doesn't see it that way, it's that what you described literally CAN'T happen.

Plebiscite: Republic Yes/No? Yes wins! Yaaaay!!

There follows a few year's debate about selecting a republic model. Model 'A' is chosen and is put forward.

Referendum: Model 'A' vs Status Quo? Status Quo wins because Model 'A' is (inevitably) a compromise and it gets shot down like last time.

What then? No new car although the Australian people have previously expressed a desire to upgrade. Keep going and put Model 'B' forward?

You do understand that a model wouldn't have to be put forward as part of a plebiscite don't you Roy? I think you do but as you seem to drop in a comment on the difference each time you respond, thought I'd just cover my bases.

I understand it very well. To ask such a question you obviously didn't read my previous explanation from a few hours ago on plebiscites. I detailed how each plebiscite was presented to the Australian people. Go back and read it.

Alternatively, Alan Jones may be right and the plebiscite may not pass and we can just go on with a pommy Head of State.

We'd go on with a constitutional monarchy anyway irrespective of a plebsicite. Until the Constitution is changed to reflect a republic model via a referendum, we remain a constitutional monarchy.

No I don't think just any republican model is superior, a non-binding plebiscite can set the scene and then the model can be debated. If you think they're all the same - perhaps I could suggest some readings for you?

I've consistently explained the difference between a plebiscite and a referendum and how they impact on our Constitution. Are you sure you do?

In the way Little Johnny was able to give the monarchists a free kick by getting a lot of direct vote republicans to vote 'No' as well as the scare campaign of 'the politicians republic' (even though the way put forward of selecting the HoS was 2/3 parliament vs just the PM in the current model.....no scare tactics or misinformation there).

Irrespective of the so-called 'scare tactics' or 'misinformation', the monarchists are entitled to voice their opinion. So what you're essentially saying is the republican movement was divided over the best model and some preferred to vote for a monarchy in preference to a model of a republic they did not support, because they thought that the system of constitutional monarchy was superior to the republican model they opposed.

I think if the monarchists joined the debate (after drying their tears with union jack silk hankies) - we're far more likely to just eliminate the Queen and make the GG the HoS in all his/her inert glory and preserve the model that the monarchists love so and for good reason.

I think that many monarchists support the system of consituttional monarchy for more pragmatic reasons other than their love of the Union Jack. One important difference in the system of constitutional monarchy and the minimalist approach is that executive powers are vested in the monarch - not the person of the Governor-General. Therefore the fact the PM appoints the governor-general is of less importance, because the executive powers are not vested in the PM's appointee.
 
Last edited:
Oct 17, 2000
18,951
16,605
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
That's the point I'm making - the Referendum to rewrite the Constitution will ONLY be of choices between models of Republic, because the Republic itself will have already been voted on. This is depending on a YES vote, granted.

This cannot happen. To become a Republic, the Australian Constitution must be altered to say that.

The ONLY way the Australian Constitution can be changed is via a "Yes" double majority vote via a Referendum.

A Referendum is different to a Plebiscite. Yes, they are both votes by the Australian people. The first one changes the Constitution...the latter does not. A referendum to change the Australian Constitution must be a Yes / No and MUST outline (via an accompanying Bill passed by both Houses of Federal Parliament) the exact changes to the Constitution that most be voted on. The question put to the Australian people is the main premise of the Bill.

I have explained this numerous times now.
 
Jun 11, 2007
21,094
20,214
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Meh. Can't happen as explained by RL multiple times.

I see no reason whatsoever why it can't. I mean, looking at this

http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/clos...tion/how-the-constitution-can-be-changed.html

A proposed change must first be approved as a bill by the federal Parliament. It is then sent to the Governor-General in order for a writ to be issued so a referendum can occur.

A referendum is a national ballot on a question to change the Australian Constitution. In a referendum the Parliament asks each Australian on the electoral roll to vote. If a majority of people in a majority of states and a majority of people across the nation as a whole vote 'yes' (called a double majority), then the proposal to amend the Constitution is agreed to. Otherwise the Constitution remains unchanged...

every step can be logically met thusly;

Can a proposed change be approved as a bill by the federal Parliament, then sent to the Governor-General in order for a writ to be issued so a referendum can occur?

There is NO reference or guideline as to how the proposed change is actually set out. Can the proposed change be set out in differing parts so that each part of the proposed change is read and understood by Parliament before being passed?

There is NO OBSTACLE that I can see in Section 128 (SOURCE - http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...spx?_id=630FA7763BE64933B172A7D7E1615ADA&_z=z) of the Australian Constitution that explicitly prevents a particular interpretation of the form this proposal shall take.

Therefore a proposal of differing parts, such as

A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a Republic with

A) a President chosen by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament

B) a President who holds no political affiliation and is directly voted for by the People of Australia

C) a President who is nominated by whichever popularly elected Party holds power.

D) ???

subsequent to decision by National Ballot (Referendum)

seems to be entirely permissible.

Can a national ballot on the above question be held to effect change the Australian Constitution? In said referendum can the Parliament asks each Australian on the electoral roll to vote, and if a majority of people in a majority of states and a majority of people across the nation as a whole vote 'yes' (called a double majority) to a particular model, then can the proposal to amend the Constitution be agreed to?

I can't see why it can't. I truly can't. The politicians are our elected servants, not our masters. The Australian Constitution should safeguard our future, not mire us in the past. The Australian Republic vs Australia the Constitutional Monarchy is a question that needs to be addressed.

It needs to be addressed in a way that does not favour the status-quo, rather the collective political will of the Australian People.
 
May 30, 2006
17,516
10,292
Canberra
AFL Club
North Melbourne
It would seem that one problem republicans have is that if there are people supporting a model different to the one put forward then they may vote for the current monarchy system as they know that the issue would then remain live, whereas if we go with a republican system they don't like it would be practically impossible to change it again in the future.
I couldn't give a rat's about republic or monarchy. Slightly favour a republic, but its a largely pointless argument. Reality is the monarch wields no power, and has not intervened in Australian affairs in a very long time (if at all).

What I will not vote for is any model that puts even more power in the hands of federal Cabinet and the PM; as the Howard-permitted model would have done (according to better minds than mine).

It will happen at some point, but I'm much more concerned about getting it right than getting it right now.
 
Any proposed Republican model.

? You don't have to put up a model in a plebiscite, gauge the interest in having an Australian HoS ...if the answer is 'No' ....then let's not bother with any of this.

To be fair perhaps we could word the plebiscite fairly like ..

'Do you support the continuation of Australia's HoS being foreign to this great nation and being selected under the repugnent hereditary rule and excluding anyone of the Catholic faith?'

I think that many monarchists support the system of consituttional monarchy for more pragmatic reasons other than their love of the Union Jack. One important difference in the system of constitutional monarchy and the minimalist approach is that executive powers are vested in the monarch - not the person of the Governor-General.

What's the difference?

Either they are more likely to act ...which can be dangerous, less likely to act ...which can be dangerous ...or it's the same and in that case it's the same.

Any major decision to act or not act would be better made by someone who is Australian.

the fact the PM appoints the governor-general is of less importance, because the executive powers are not vested in the PM's appointee.

The Queen appoints the GG not the PM.

The Queen could under the constitution refuse to appoint our PM's choice .....this whilst very unlikely, could happen and is enough to say **** em off.
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,951
16,605
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
I see no reason whatsoever why it can't. I mean, looking at this

Can a proposed change be approved as a bill by the federal Parliament, then sent to the Governor-General in order for a writ to be issued so a referendum can occur?

There is NO reference or guideline as to how the proposed change is actually set out. Can the proposed change be set out in differing parts so that each part of the proposed change is read and understood by Parliament before being passed?

There is NO OBSTACLE that I can see in Section 128 (SOURCE - http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...spx?_id=630FA7763BE64933B172A7D7E1615ADA&_z=z) of the Australian Constitution that explicitly prevents a particular interpretation of the form this proposal shall take.

Therefore a proposal of differing parts, such as

A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a Republic with

A) a President chosen by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament

B) a President who holds no political affiliation and is directly voted for by the People of Australia

C) a President who is nominated by whichever popularly elected Party holds power.

D) ???

subsequent to decision by National Ballot (Referendum)

seems to be entirely permissible.

There needs to be a Bill. passed by both House of Parliament, that will become law outlining the exact changes to the Constitution.

For example in 1999 the Bill for the referendum read as follows: (and I've only taken a selection of the first part from the First Reading) outlines the exact amemdments to the Constitution that would have been undertaken in the event of a 'Yes' vote.

"A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with a President chosen by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament

ISBN: 0642 403910

A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with a President chosen by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament

The Parliament of Australia, with the approval of the electors, as required by the Constitution, enacts:

1 Short title This Act may be cited as the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999.

2 Commencement (1) Sections 1, 2 and 3 commence on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.

(2) Schedules 1 and 2 commence at 3.00 pm, by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory, on 1 January 2001.

(3) Schedule 3 commences on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent.

3 Schedules The Constitution is altered as set out in the Schedules.

Schedule 1--Amendments of the Constitution relating to the President

1 Section 59

Repeal the section.

2 Section 60

Repeal the section.

3 Sections 61, 62 and 63

Repeal the sections, substitute, in Chapter II:

59 Executive power The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the President, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth. The President shall be the head of state of the Commonwealth.

There shall be a Federal Executive Council to advise the President in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the President and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during the pleasure of the President.

The President shall act on the advice of the Federal Executive Council, the Prime Minister or another Minister of State; but the President may exercise a power that was a reserve power of the Governor-General in accordance with the constitutional conventions relating to the exercise of that power.

60 The President After considering the report of a committee established and operating as the Parliament provides to invite and consider nominations for appointment as President, the Prime Minister may, in a joint sitting of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, move that a named Australian citizen be chosen as the President.

If the Prime Minister's motion is seconded by the leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, and affirmed by a two-thirds majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the named Australian citizen is chosen as the President.

The qualifications of a person who may be chosen as President shall be as follows:

(i) the person must be qualified to be, and capable of being chosen as, a member of the House of Representatives;
(ii) the person must not be a member of the Commonwealth Parliament or a State Parliament or Territory legislature, or a member of a political party.

The actions of a person otherwise duly chosen as President under this section are not invalidated only because the person was not qualified to be chosen as President.

Each person chosen as President shall, before the term of office begins, make and subscribe before a Justice of the High Court an oath or affirmation of office in the form set forth in Schedule 1 to this Constitution."


and so on

Can a national ballot on the above question be held to effect change the Australian Constitution? In said referendum can the Parliament asks each Australian on the electoral roll to vote, and if a majority of people in a majority of states and a majority of people across the nation as a whole vote 'yes' (called a double majority) to a particular model, then can the proposal to amend the Constitution be agreed to?

A plebiscite can be held.

But then...as per the Constitution a Bill to alter the constitution must be passed by both House of Parliament.

The relevant part of Section 128 of the Australian Constitution reads:
This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.

When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.

And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent.


Note the use of the word "altered". To become a republic the Constitution must be "altered". Voters have to vote for (approve) or against (not approve) the specific alterations to the Constititution. These are presented in a Bill (i.e a law).

I can't see why it can't. I truly can't. The politicians are our elected servants, not our masters. The Australian Constitution should safeguard our future, not mire us in the past. The Australian Republic vs Australia the Constitutional Monarchy is a question that needs to be addressed.

It needs to be addressed in a way that does not favour the status-quo, rather the collective political will of the Australian People.

The alterations to the Constitution MUST be put up against the current Constitution for the voters to approve or disapprove of any alterations to said Constitution.
 
The Republic issue like the same sex marriage issue are both no longer debates and have not been for sometime. Both issues are in abeyance waiting for the right people to die before being made law.
 

Tyberious Funk

Premiership Player
May 13, 2005
3,101
4,130
Melbourne
AFL Club
West Coast
I can't see why it can't. I truly can't.
Government of the day puts forward a referendum for the people to choose to become a Republic. Let's imagine it carries comfortably.

Now, they put forward a second referendum with two possible republican models. Imagine both of them are terrible. What happens? What if both of them are almost identical?

Do you see, by allowing the first referendum to go through, you've essentially empowered the Government to change the Constitution however they want. It's a blank cheque.

If you can't see how that's a problem, you aren't looking hard enough.
 

Tyberious Funk

Premiership Player
May 13, 2005
3,101
4,130
Melbourne
AFL Club
West Coast
Is it possible to have a system where the prime minister or the head of state aren't pointless or a rubber stamp?

I would prefer to elect the president, elect the MPs, let them choose a head of the house of reps (formerly PM) and the president acts as international correspondent, public face of government, driver of policy etc etc.

You mean like the American system? Whereby you can have a Democrat President, and a Republican parliament... thus creating complete gridlock?

Yeah, nah.
 
You mean like the American system? Whereby you can have a Democrat President, and a Republican parliament... thus creating complete gridlock?

Yeah, nah.
That sounds great, keeping politics as slow moving as possible creates a stable nation.

Running through law change like it is the last day of trade week is dangerous.
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,951
16,605
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
The Republic issue like the same sex marriage issue are both no longer debates and have not been for sometime. Both issues are in abeyance waiting for the right people to die before being made law.

Same sex marriage doesn't have to be put to the Australian people via a Yes / No vote in a referendum.

Whether Australia becomes a republic does.
 
Jun 11, 2007
21,094
20,214
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Government of the day puts forward a referendum for the people to choose to become a Republic. Let's imagine it carries comfortably.

Now, they put forward a second referendum with two possible republican models. Imagine both of them are terrible. What happens? What if both of them are almost identical?

Do you see, by allowing the first referendum to go through, you've essentially empowered the Government to change the Constitution however they want. It's a blank cheque.

If you can't see how that's a problem, you aren't looking hard enough.

I can definitely see how it would be a problem if it went exactly as you laid out. The Republican model wouldn't be proposed by the pollies though, it would be one decided on by the People before it was submitted to both houses of parliament for the two clearances.

I still want to get back to Roylion - he's right of course, but I may have some more thoughts to put forward. I like this though - everyone's learning things and nobody's flinging faeces at each other.

Not yet anyway;)
 
I can definitely see how it would be a problem if it went exactly as you laid out. The Republican model wouldn't be proposed by the pollies though, it would be one decided on by the People before it was submitted to both houses of parliament for the two clearances.

I still want to get back to Roylion - he's right of course, but I may have some more thoughts to put forward. I like this though - everyone's learning things and nobody's flinging faeces at each other.

Not yet anyway;)

I'm trying to wind Roy up just a little (and failing).

Roy is very knowledgeable though and I do enjoy reading and learning from his input.
 
Oct 17, 2000
18,951
16,605
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
The Republican model wouldn't be proposed by the pollies though, it would be one decided on by the People

Via a plebiscite. No problem with that.

before it was submitted to both houses of parliament for the two clearances.

Via a referendum. Chosen model up against the existing Constitution. Specific changes to the Constitution outlined by a Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament for the people to peruse and vote upon.
 
Back