Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

Should Australia become a Republic?

  • YES

    Votes: 133 65.5%

  • NO

    Votes: 70 34.5%
  • Total voters
    203

Remove this Banner Ad

Richo83 said:
I fear entanglement with roylion on any issue. I remember my first, and last, many moons ago. It didn't end well for me. So I've been fearful to venture back.

I will say this though: the integrity of having someone who isn't a politician and isn't part of the political process can still exist, even within the republican system. Just because the head of state is elected by politicians doesn't mean the head of state will be a politician, or political. Politicians elect all sorts of positions, many of which provide an apolitical service. In any case, Quentin Bryce, whoever she was elected by, seems to do a good job, and seems to fit the non-political standard just fine. My proposal would simply be to take the head of state position from the Queen, and give it to Quentin or whoever is the gg of the day. Nothing more. I can't remember when Quentin got engaged much in politics. In fact, the last time our gg got engaged in Australian politics to any noticeable degree was when we were still a monarchy. Go ask Whitlam if he thinks the gg remains outside politics. Now while some might say that Kerr made the right decision, he still made a decision, a political decision and a rather important political decision at that.

I'll also say that I agree with Thatcher, that it makes sense for the Britons to have their own apolitical head of state (although I find the situation of a monarchy, a arbitrarily picked family given absolutely enviable luxuries and powers, rather ridiculous). Continuing this, Australia should and could have it's own apolitical head of state. I'm sure if the Britons are smart enough to do it, surely we can figure out a method as well. I mean given the role of the gg is (largely) apolitical, I doubt the fear of a rampant gg is sensible anyway.
Click to expand...

I'd want to know any potential President's entire voting history in that case and why they've voted that way.


I'm not in favour of a Republic just for the sake of it. If it gets looked at again I wouldn't do it until after QEII dies and then I would hope it's not a foregone conclusion.

I'm only in my early 40s and I can't see what the big fuss or hurry is about replacing something that works perfectly well and as an aside would cost a fortune to do.

I like the idea of an independent umpire if and when the need arises.
 
Ship Harry out here, give him the title 'King of Australia', shack him up with Australia's hottest woman, bam, next in line to the head of state is Australian.

Still have the ties to the UK. Still have a constitutional monarchy. Gain an Australian head of state.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

A referendum for a minalmist republic with a head of state elected by a joint siting won't get up because the average punter doesn't trust politicians and wants to have a say. A political president will Chang our political landscape so that would turn many off

A plebesite is probably the only path to a republic with a following poll to choose which type of republic, even this might not work as enough people may not like the unknown model that may be forced on them.

I would think it will be another generation before a republic may be possible.
 
Herne Hill Hammer said:
I'd want to know any potential President's entire voting history in that case and why they've voted that way.


I'm not in favour of a Republic just for the sake of it. If it gets looked at again I wouldn't do it until after QEII dies and then I would hope it's not a foregone conclusion.

I'm only in my early 40s and I can't see what the big fuss or hurry is about replacing something that works perfectly well and as an aside would cost a fortune to do.

I like the idea of an independent umpire if and when the need arises.
Click to expand...

Do you know the GG's voting history?

The Queen isn't an independant umpire, she seeks instructions from the GG and acts on them a la John Kerr.

And Kerr was a Labor man wasn't he?
 
Roylion said:
I've explained why in detail previously on this board in other threads.

So to repeat the main thrust very quickly.

In my view the monarch personifies the continuity and legitimacy of the state. In that role, the monarch acts as a constitutional umpire with the hereditary aspect re-inforcing and complementing their impartiality and their ability to remain above/outside politics. As such, they owe their position to no one political party or political party, unlike an elected head of state who comes from a pool of candidates that have to jockey to be elected. Yet they, like the government, are still bound by the country's constitution.

I tend to agree with British MP Roger Stott who in 1997 said., "I am personally still convinced that there are safeguards in the constitutional monarchy that an elected head of state just would not possess.". Margaret Thatcher said in November 1995 that "Those who imagine that a politician would make a better figurehead than a hereditary monarch might perhaps make the acquaintance of more politicians."
Click to expand...
This.

People get too caught up in abstract ideas of the 'fairness' of a hereditary monarchy, or Australia 'standing on its own two feet'. Things that matter very little in a practical sense.

Our constitutional structure is one of the few things in this country that works nigh-on perfectly and is the envy of the world. Of all the things I think need changing about this country, it's very close to the bottom.
 
Yes, it's long overdue. Change the title of 'Prime Minister' to 'President', get rid of the Governor General, change the flag, change the national anthem.
 
Herne Hill Hammer said:
I'd want to know any potential President's entire voting history in that case and why they've voted that way.
Click to expand...

Gg's rarely get involved in politics. On the occasions they have, such as Whitlam, having a monarch head of state hasn't stopped this. A gg will act when s/he feels the need to, monarchy or republic. However, they rarely do now, and will rarely do under a republic model. The powers of a gg would be the same, whether they'd be Australian or English. I mean effectively the gg of Australia plays the role of a head of state anyway. We have a republic by stealth somewhat. This fear of a renegade gg is absurd. I mean no-one fears our currently ggs being political appointments, why should it change when we're a republic?

Caesar said:
Of all the things I think need changing about this country, it's very close to the bottom.
Click to expand...

For me this is the only convincing argument against constitutional change towards a republic, that it's a rather unnecessary change, and that, while the current system is a bit daft, at least it isn't causing problems like many other political systems in Australia, such as the entire parliamentary system.
 
The Queen does nothing anyway. That's why the arguments about the stability of the constitutional monarchy are irrelevant, we are a republic in every sense other than the actual name. It is stupid to continue on like this.

Make the GG the Head of State. Call him the president. Keep everything else more or less the same.

Or the Prince Harry idea. I'd be up for that too.
 
we should be a republic.
Get rid of the mentions of the monarch, continuing having a parliamentary appointed head of state (like the GG) but give the role a different name.
The brits wouldnt care and there would be no risk

Even price charles is reported to have sugested australia should become a republic.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

bloodstainedangel5 said:
The Queen does nothing anyway. That's why the arguments about the stability of the constitutional monarchy are irrelevant, we are a republic in every sense other than the actual name. It is stupid to continue on like this.
Click to expand...

On the flip side, while I agree we're effectively a republic anyway, there could remain the argument that if we're effectively a repbulic, or to use the technical term a de facto republic but not a de jure republic, why bother.
 
Richo83 said:
On the flip side, while I agree we're effectively a republic anyway, there could remain the argument that if we're effectively a repbulic, or to use the technical term a de facto republic but not a de jure republic, why bother.
Click to expand...

I guess it comes down to symbolism, national pride. Sure, symbolism should take a back-seat when it comes down to practicalities, but if they'll be practically the same, then the option that encourages national identity, rather than diluting it, seems the better one to me.
 
bloodstainedangel5 said:
I guess it comes down to symbolism, national pride. Sure, symbolism should take a back-seat when it comes down to practicalities, but if they'll be practically the same, then the option that encourages national identity, rather than diluting it, seems the better one to me.
Click to expand...
But people don't want a republic that's practically the same.

Even if they did, part of the problem with changing is that the GG is for all intents and purposes a bit of a nothing role. It's mostly an administrative position. There is not much glamour in being the representative of a far-off Crown - you're basically an ambassador without any of the diplomatic responsibilities. For all intents and purposes it's a sinecure.

As soon as you turn that into a Presidency, it becomes a whole lot more attractive. You're suddenly at the top of the tree. Even if nothing about the job functionally changes, it means a lot more in terms of prestige. People overseas know what a President is. Presidents are expected to do certain things, be 'presidential'. More people want the job, there will be more lobbying to get it, the selection method will become far more important.

I've always thought of the GG as a bit like the Man in the Shack in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Nobody who wants to make big constitutional decisions should be allowed to. Stick some aged and respected time-serving dignitary into the job who has no interest in power any more, and just wants a cushy low-profile cruise to a nice pension. If by some chance a big crisis does come up, then who better to make the decision than a respected time-server who's pretty much out of the game, and doesn't give two shits about any of the interested parties?

It's easy to rag on John Kerr, but regardless of what you think of his decision he was actually probably one of the better-qualified people in Australia to be forced to make it. Respected lawyer, former Supreme Court Justice, politically aware but for the most part politically neutral.

The system works pretty well but I think once you turn it into a presidency you put a lot of spotlight and interest on the position, largely to its detriment IMO.
 
At the risk of returning to the topic, I've encountered no overwhelming argument which convinces me of the need for a head of state. I'm quite happy to be persuaded otherwise, but is it an imperative to have one? I'm sure there must be ramifications of not having one. What are they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CM86
  • Locked
Society/Culture Should SRP exist?
Replies
7
Views
690
evolved2
evolved2
Cmarsh
The Law Should assisted dying access be extended to the mentally ill?
Replies
21
Views
1K
Cmarsh
Cmarsh
R
Religion Should I have to celebrate Diwali?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
3K
ferball
ferball
S
Society/Culture Which is the best unbiased media outlet in Australia?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
ElectricG
ElectricG
peetoo
Politics TikToc is evil…..but if it becomes an US company…..no problem
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
Markfs
Markfs
Gough
Trump Bibles and trainers, what products should other Presidents have endorsed?
Replies
1
Views
230
Satan
Satan
Geoff
Australia - US Relationship (If Trump Wins 2024)
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Syd
Syd
Back
Top