Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[medusala]

If a republic is such a great system of government then surely one would expect the vast majority of the longest running democracies to be republics.

It would be nice if someone could prove this was in fact the case.

 

[Cap]

What is Frances system of Government?

American has done pretty well - in reality we knock of the Queen and have an actual Australia doing the same job, not much will change

except having Gillard representing us at functions.

 

[The_Reaper]

What is Frances system of Government?

American has done pretty well - in reality we knock of the Queen and have an actual Australia doing the same job, not much will change

except having Gillard representing us at functions.

France are onto their 5th republic, so it is debatable how stable their government has been.

 

[Cap]

yes, I was just doing the reading, not sure I like their setup

I like ours - I think it works well - I would just like an Australia Head of State

One that is not attached to a political party and acts as simply a head of state.

How that person comes to that position is another issue - somehow you need some dignified enough to complete the position, but not too popular so you end up with Eddie McGuire.

 

[Si Botak]

France are onto their 5th republic, so it is debatable how stable their government has been.

Good point. Republics =/= Automatically Stable...

Just ask Italy.

 

[Blue and Silver]

If a republic is such a great system of government then surely one would expect the vast majority of the longest running democracies to be republics.

It would be nice if someone could prove this was in fact the case.

Democracies evolve over time. Take England, the constitutional monarchy system meant that Parliament initially acted as a sort of buffer against the worst exploits of Kings. After a while positions such as the Prime Minister emerged and the executive operations of government were transferred to the Parliament.

I would not take the American republic as a shining example of how to do things. Certain aspects of the system are beyond crazy, in particular the great extent to which a movement has to go in order to change the constitution. Other aspects such as the electoral college are downright un-democratic.

I think we should move towards a republic, but not with great haste. The key issue I have with the current system is the partial separation of powers which allows the heads of the legislative (Parliament, they make the laws) to also be the executive (The enforcers and enactors of the law).

I would prefer them to be separate bodies who monitor each-other duly. This also allows us to directly elect our leaders, as opposed to having them indirectly elected. In the current system, people who live in safe electorates have no say in the change of government, only swinging electorates have a say. In an ideal system we all get an equal say in who the head of the executive is.

 

[Radical Roo]

Nah i prefer the monarchy, with the link to the monarchy, we r village yahoos.

 

[Groupie_]

Australia Day BUMP


I think that if there was a referendum in the near future, a Republic will be voted in.

There's just too many immigrants in the country now who have no ties to the Monarchy at all and there's also a growing amount of white Australians who do not like the monarchy.

Last time 6,410,787 voted no to the republic.
5,273,024 voted yes.

I think the next time there is a referendum the yes votes will comfortably outnumber the no votes.

Views..

 

[Admiral Byng]

Australia Day BUMP


I think that if there was a referendum in the near future, a Republic will be voted in.

There's just too many immigrants in the country now who have no ties to the Monarchy at all and there's also a growing amount of white Australians who do not like the monarchy.

Last time 6,410,787 voted no to the republic.
5,273,024 voted yes.

I think the next time there is a referendum the yes votes will comfortably outnumber the no votes.

Views..

there are 3 blocs in the republican debate:

Monarchists
Minimalist Republicans (HoS appointed by Parliament)
Direct Electionist Republicans (HoS appointed by election)

Whatever republican model is put up, it will be one or the other, it is impossible to have both. Thus the vote of the latter two blocs will always be split. There are enough of either type of republican that will vote for the Monarchy over the opposing republican model.

 

[MacMum]

No......I'm not a huge fan of the Royals, but they are only figureheads anyway, so are harmless to my/our everyday life...

...but I do like the parlimentary system we have...as they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it..

It works, so see no reason at all to change things, just for the sake of change..

..and if we go to a republic, the stupidity of a lot of people, they are likely to vote in Eddie McGuire or Cate Blanchett or the likes!

 

[Groupie_]

there are 3 blocs in the republican debate:

Monarchists
Minimalist Republicans (HoS appointed by Parliament)
Direct Electionist Republicans (HoS appointed by election)

Whatever republican model is put up, it will be one or the other, it is impossible to have both. Thus the vote of the latter two blocs will always be split. There are enough of either type of republican that will vote for the Monarchy over the opposing republican model.

For us to become a Republic in the future, I think there has to be a referendum put on the directly elected mode.

Whats the point of having a Republic if the parliament chooses the head of state.

 

[Admiral Byng]

For us to become a Republic in the future, I think there has to be a referendum put on the directly elected mode.

Whats the point of having a Republic if the parliament chooses the head of state.

I'd vote for the Monarchy over a direct election republic.

I like our system of parliament, I want to keep it. Under that system the HoS (the Queen) and her representative (G-G) are both non-partisan. I'd like to replace both with one non-partisan Aussie. If you open it up to an election, you will get a politician.

 

[Groupie_]

I'd vote for the Monarchy over a direct election republic.

I like our system of parliament, I want to keep it. Under that system the HoS (the Queen) and her representative (G-G) are both non-partisan. I'd like to replace both with one non-partisan Aussie. If you open it up to an election, you will get a politician.

Would you vote for a Monarchy over a republic with a head of state appointed by parliament?

 

[Admiral Byng]

Would you vote for a Monarchy over a republic with a head of state appointed by parliament?

No,

I would vote for an appointed head of state republic first, the Monarchy as second preference, and direct election republic last.

 

[Blessed]

It will never happen.

Too many interest groups are in place to stop it.

 

[Hornberger]

If a republic is such a great system of government then surely one would expect the vast majority of the longest running democracies to be republics.

It would be nice if someone could prove this was in fact the case.

That is a seriously idiotic argument.

 

[Old Skool]

A real republic, where the people hold constant and ultimate power over the political process? Yes.

The changing of a couple of words in a colonial constitution republic? Hell NO!

It looks as though you are referring to the second option, so my vote is NO.

This..

 

[Hornberger]

This..

So you agree with yourself. That is nice to know.

 

[Asgardian]

I reckon it will happen in the next decade, or when the queen dies..

Would you vote yes this time around on Australia becoming a Republic? IMHO I think that this time the in favour votes will far outnumber the against votes.

Absolutely, the sooner the better.

 

[mighty tiges]

The constitutional monarchy of PNG is going well at the minute .

Anyway as far as Australia's constitution goes, we just simply ignore the parts which have become impractical and inconvenient rather than change specific sections to fit in with current accepted practice and conventions. As such the PM and elected government has greater executive power and the GG less executive power than the constitution states.

2 Governor-General
A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s
representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

In practice the PM effectively appoints the GG. The Queen automatically acts on the advice of the PM.

58. When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure.

Recommendations by Governor-General.
The Governor-General may return to the house in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation.

In practice the GG doesn't withhold assent nor offer up amendments to be returned to the House of Reps for consideration.

59. 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.

Nice to have a constitution that allows a non-citizen and non-resident to have the power to veto any laws we make .

61. The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

In practice by convention the Queen doesn't exercise executive power and the GG is also limited by convention to act on advice from the Federal Executive Council (government ministers) on top of having about four 'reserve powers' - to appoint a PM, dismiss a PM, dissolve parliament or not dissolve parliament.

Ministers of State.
64. The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such
departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.
Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council,and shall be the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth. Ministers to sit in Parliament.

As mentioned above - in practice the GG is bound by convention to act on the Federal Executive Council's advice. The GG doesn't even need to attend Executive Council meetings as long as she is notified about them. Also technically once you (as a minister) are on the Executive Council you're there for life but in practice only current ministers attend.

68. The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's
representative.

In practice the command of our armed forces rests with the PM and cabinet. The GG does not decide if our troops go off to war.



On a further note neither the PM nor the Cabinet are mentioned in our constitution. Their existence and importance in our system of government is another accepted convention. The decisions of Cabinet are made legal by their formal ratification by the Federal Executive Council (effectively a rubber stamp in practice).

Likewise the GG appointing as PM the parliamentary leader of the party (or coalition of parties) which has a majority of seats in the House of Reps is another convention not stated in our constitution. Political parties are only mentioned relating to senate vacancies (section 15) added in 1977.


Monarchists seem fine with a current constitution that blurs the roles of executive power and outside of it requires additionally agreed accepted practices, conventions and even official positions that aren't at all stipulated or even mentioned in our current constitution. Meanwhile at the same time they criticize even a minimalist republic (replacing the Queen/GG with a appointed Australian head of state by a joint sitting of both houses of parliament) by demanding that any new republican constitution has to be thoroughly explicit in every detail with executive power roles well-defined in law and that won't rely on the very same additional accepted practices and conventions currently used in practice. Sorry guys, you can't have it both ways.

 

[Caesar]

Conventions work in a constitutional monarchy because people are naturally opposed to the Crown accumulating more power - because the Crown is, by definition, anti-democratic. That acts as an inherent safeguard.

That natural inclination does not exist where the HOS is someone who can cloak themselves in the guise of democratic legitimacy. That is, a President.

That is why conventions cannot be relied upon to curtail the HOS's power in a republic.

 

[Old Skool]

Conventions work in a constitutional monarchy because people are naturally opposed to the Crown accumulating more power - because the Crown is, by definition, anti-democratic. That acts as an inherent safeguard.

Really? In Australia? How?

 

[Caesar]

Nobody wants the GG to have more power. Any suggestion of expanding their purview would be swiftly cut down by weight of popular opinion, who naturally prefer such things to reside within the legislature, rather than with the representative of a decrepit old inbred German.

Not so with republics, which inevitably see power gravitate towards executives lacking legislative accountability. Perceived legitimacy is a dangerous thing.

 

[Old Skool]

Nobody wants the GG to have more power. Any suggestion of expanding their purview would be swiftly cut down by weight of popular opinion, who naturally prefer such things to reside within the legislature, rather than with the representative of a decrepit old inbred German.

Not so with republics, which inevitably see power gravitate towards executives lacking legislative accountability. Perceived legitimacy is a dangerous thing.

The Australian system provides virtually unfettered powers to the political machine.

A system whereby all power must make it's way in to the hands of a select few given a long enough time scale.

The GG is an appointment of that machine.

I don't see the big difference.

 

[RogersResults]

Nobody wants the GG to have more power. Any suggestion of expanding their purview would be swiftly cut down by weight of popular opinion, who naturally prefer such things to reside within the legislature, rather than with the representative of a decrepit old inbred German.

Not so with republics, which inevitably see power gravitate towards executives lacking legislative accountability. Perceived legitimacy is a dangerous thing.

The executive government in Australia which the electorate has no direct say in the composition of, is beholden to a Party caucus for its make up. Neither the constitution nor popular opinion seems to have had much effect on the growing power of the executive over the legislature.

I'm not aware that in republics such as Austria, Finland, Germany and Switzerland have had power "gravitating" to the executive because they have elected presidents instead of an appointee like the Australian GG.

Switzerland with a president but no person as, or position of "head of state" is a model worth looking at.