Society/Culture Monarchy vs Republic for Australia, and what is your main reasoning?

[Borscht Mat]

If you want significant change, then there is a potential for risk. You also have to make the case that there is something significantly wrong with how Australia is governed.

If you want superficial change, it is a waste of a large amount of money.

Here is what is wrong. Either:

1. The HOS is the GG and is an Australian appointed by the PM. Then why have the Queen ? What purpose does she serve, other than to confuse who is the Australian HOS ? When she is in Australia we pay all her expenses. So, get rid of her and use the saved monies to change RAAF to AAF.

or

2. The Queen is the Australian HOS (just as the constitution says). In which case our HOS is not a citizen, does not reside here, does not consider herself an Australian and is selected by the method of ˝the fastest sperm˝.

So either she is our HOS and therefore should go, or she is not, and therefore should go.

 

[The Punter]

OK - now go off and get 51% of the population and 51% of the population in four states to agree on a republic model.

(Hint on how to keep alive - don't hold your breath.)

 

[Borscht Mat]

OK - now go off and get 51% of the population and 51% of the population in four states to agree on a republic model.

(Hint on how to keep alive - don't hold your breath.)

I think there is pretty broad agreement amongst republicans anyway. The main issue most countries face is what powers the President should have. I think there is no-one really credible who is saying we should have an executive President like the USA. I think the majority of republicans, and all monarchists if forced, would keep the present arrangement vis a vis the GG and the powers they presently have. This is actually the biggest problem.


That just leaves how to select the HOS.

Here is my idea. I am sure it is full of holes but it is a start. It is based loosely on Malaysia, ironically a monarchy.

In Malaysia each state has a ruling monarch, sometimes Sultan sometimes king, sometimes elected. Together they form the Council of Rulers and this group elect the HOS.

In Australia each state has a Governor. In the event that the GG is unable to fulfill their duties (eg they die in office) the role is performed by the State Governor with the longest tenure.

So, why don't we rotate the GG through the states every 5 years. This:

1. Recognizes that we are a federation of states which is a binding principle of the constitution.

2. Allows each state to decide their own method of selecting their governor. Some may opt for direct election, some appointment by the premier, hell you could even have a Tasmanian Monarch for all I care. The council, consisting of perhaps all of the governors and maybe the PM, leader of the opposition etc could decide the acceptable methods for selecting a state governor (to avoid having a WA based HOS of Australia who got lucky in a packet of cornflakes or something). But in principle each state would simply continue as they are, appointing governors and every 30 years the governor of SA would be the HOS of Australia.

that is it.

So, if enough people in SA wanted a directly elected governor then they can do that and every 30 years that person would be the HOS of Australia for 5 years.

3. What it does is avoid the potential situation outlined above where someone could run on a mandate to be President in an election and therefore have some legitimate power. It reinforces the role of the states, and it allows for some form of direct election if enough people want it.

......

another variation would be to adopt the sort of principle already enshrined in the constitution. Candidates can be nominated by anyone to the council of governors. This council will trim the list to a shortlist. The HOS would be proposed by a 2/3rd majority of the combined houses of federal parliament. This candidate will then be presented to each of the state combined houses, and a majority of states must support it. This would avoid the Bill Hayden situation and you would likely not get an overtly political appointment

In short my idea is to have an appointed HOS with some method for a broader inclusion than simply appointed by the PM, but in the end appointed not elected.



.......

 

[LouisCK]

Just to throw a cat among the pigeons: How about we have a Monarchy, but make them Australian? Monarchists can keep their love for worshiping people by birth/wealth (as many in Australia seem to love to do)

I nominate the Daddo family. The Packers would work also, but they're horrendously ugly.

 

[Father Jack]

How about the Murdochs? We get the whole range of citizenship, from Australian to quasi-British to American to god knows what.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

What about whoever wins the Norm Smith Medal becomes reigning figurehead monarch for the next year? We could have had Stevie J, Hodgey, Chappy, whoever won the dual Normies last year, and Bartel as Australian Heads of State in the last half decade!

 

[Roylion]

In Malaysia each state has a ruling monarch, sometimes Sultan sometimes king, sometimes elected. Together they form the Council of Rulers and this group elect the HOS.

These monarchs are not elected by the people either.

Nine of the thirteen states of Malaysia have constitutional monarchs (eight of which are hereditary, the other monarch is elected by four hereditary chieftains of that state). These nine monarchs (called the 'Rulers') elect from amongst their number the Yang di-Pertuan Agong ("He who is made Lord"), who becomes the Head of State for a five year term. The selection of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong usually follows an order based on the seniority (calculated by length of reign) of each Ruler, although this can be varied at the discretion of the Conference of Rulers.

A Ruler is not eligible for election as Yang di-Pertuan Agong if he is a minor, he does not wish to be elected, or the Conference of Rulers by a secret majority ballot resolves that the Ruler is unsuitable by reason of infirmity of mind or body. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong can only come from one of the nine rulers.

The other four states never supply the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong appoints the Governors of those four states, at his discretion, after considering the advice of the state's Chief Minister. He also appoints the Mayor and City Council of Kuala Lumpur, which is a Federal Territory.

 

[The Punter]

I don't think many of the people on here who are supporters of the status quo, are full of

love for worshipping people by birth/wealth

We just support a system that has worked in 109 of 110 years.

Remember the French are on their fifth republic. If at first you don't succeed...

However, if you do succeed at first ...

 

[Father Jack]

I don't think many of the people on here who are supporters of the status quo, are full of



We just support a system that has worked in 109 of 110 years.

Remember the French are on their fifth republic. If at first you don't succeed...

However, if you do succeed at first ...

You make it sound like we are incapable of organising a government without the help of the British.

 

[The Punter]

What help? What do the British actually do?

 

[Father Jack]

They provide our head of state. Our head of state must be British.

 

[The Punter]

Here, have a head of state.

Done.

Still 23 hours, 59 minutes and 55 seconds left in the day.

That person does no other work in that capacity.

Meanwhile the Governor General is assenting her little heart away.

So who's the Head of State?

 

[Father Jack]

The British person who lives in Britain.

 

[The Punter]

Well done. Sky still not fallen in. People still living their lives without despair. Laws still being assented by someone other than British Monarch, who derives their power from place other than British Monarch.

 

[Father Jack]

... so why don't we just take the British monarch out of the equation completely?

 

[The Punter]

As previously stated....

If you want significant change, then there is a potential for risk. You also have to make the case that there is something significantly wrong with how Australia is governed.

If you want superficial change, it is a waste of a large amount of money.

 

[Slax]

Spoke to a few people inside various political parties and the basic view is that whilst there is some merit in the debate neither the ALP or Greens are interested in pushing this agenda. The major parties have the following stance from what I could gather

Liberal - Generally pro-monarchy but also fail to see a valid reason for change
Nationals - Total pro monarchy.
ALP - No real stance on the issue lean towards republic but the topic isn't even in the same suburb to bring about any internal debate.
Greens - Pro republic, but also not on their agenda at this time as beleive it distracts from more important changes that need to be made.

The whole momentum that the pro republic lobby built up in the lead up to the century of federation has been lost and given that the major parties won't bother to push a subject that really contains little to no political gain it'll require a large amount of effort to get the debate back to where it was a decade ago.

The republicans couldn't even get a decent debate going on the topic during the Queens visit, so any chance of it raising it's head properly in the press before her death is highly unlikely.

 

[Father Jack]

As previously stated....

we either are capable of creating a system of government without the British, or we are not. Either we are prepared to pay the cost (and will it be that large, in the scheme of things? I think not) to have our own head of state, or we are not.

Our government should be unequivocally our government.

 

[The Punter]

Frank Kelly

Clearly we are not about to agree. I don't accept any premise you have suggested, let alone the arguments based on them.

I don't believe the Australian Government is in any way not independent of every other country. Julia Gillard is not a Privy Councillor and the Queen has no role in the governing of Australia, except by agreement of the Australian Parliament to preside over Executive Council meetings when she is in the country. And I couldn't tell you the last time she actually did that.

You believe her constitutional existence proves we're not independent. I disagree, as she has no influence over Australia's Government.

You believe the symbolism of removing the Queen from our structure would be important. I believe it would absolutely not be worth the cash.

You believe 1975 was unacceptable. Hard to argue with that, but it will never happen again. If Tony Abbott isn't going to try to block supply, who will? The Australian body politic is once bitten, forever shy.

You believe that people who support the status quo are personally devoted to the Queen of the United Kingdom. I am not, and I am sure many others are not too. I would not bow if I ever met her (or her successor). This was the point I was trying to make when I hopped back in this thread.

Those are the facts, and we'll never meet anywhere in between.

The only difference: constitutional history and our system of altering the constitution make it highly likely I'll get my way.

 

[Father Jack]

Frank Kelly

Clearly we are not about to agree. I don't accept any premise you have suggested, let alone the arguments based on them.

I don't believe the Australian Government is in any way not independent of every other country. Julia Gillard is not a Privy Councillor and the Queen has no role in the governing of Australia, except by agreement of the Australian Parliament to preside over Executive Council meetings when she is in the country. And I couldn't tell you the last time she actually did that.

You believe her constitutional existence proves we're not independent. I disagree, as she has no influence over Australia's Government.

You believe the symbolism of removing the Queen from our structure would be important. I believe it would absolutely not be worth the cash.

You believe 1975 was unacceptable. Hard to argue with that, but it will never happen again. If Tony Abbott isn't going to try to block supply, who will? The Australian body politic is once bitten, forever shy.

You believe that people who support the status quo are personally devoted to the Queen of the United Kingdom. I am not, and I am sure many others are not too. I would not bow if I ever met her (or her successor). This was the point I was trying to make when I hopped back in this thread.

Those are the facts, and we'll never meet anywhere in between.

The only difference: constitutional history and our system of altering the constitution make it highly likely I'll get my way.

The bolded is the crucial bit, and as for your last point, well, conservatism often wins, mainly due to the status quo being the best thing for the elite. I reckon this is one of those situations.

 

[Consolaçao]

I think there is pretty broad agreement amongst republicans anyway. The main issue most countries face is what powers the President should have. I think there is no-one really credible who is saying we should have an executive President like the USA. I think the majority of republicans, and all monarchists if forced, would keep the present arrangement vis a vis the GG and the powers they presently have. This is actually the biggest problem.


That just leaves how to select the HOS.

Here is my idea. I am sure it is full of holes but it is a start. It is based loosely on Malaysia, ironically a monarchy.

In Malaysia each state has a ruling monarch, sometimes Sultan sometimes king, sometimes elected. Together they form the Council of Rulers and this group elect the HOS.

In Australia each state has a Governor. In the event that the GG is unable to fulfill their duties (eg they die in office) the role is performed by the State Governor with the longest tenure.

So, why don't we rotate the GG through the states every 5 years. This:

1. Recognizes that we are a federation of states which is a binding principle of the constitution.

2. Allows each state to decide their own method of selecting their governor. Some may opt for direct election, some appointment by the premier, hell you could even have a Tasmanian Monarch for all I care. The council, consisting of perhaps all of the governors and maybe the PM, leader of the opposition etc could decide the acceptable methods for selecting a state governor (to avoid having a WA based HOS of Australia who got lucky in a packet of cornflakes or something). But in principle each state would simply continue as they are, appointing governors and every 30 years the governor of SA would be the HOS of Australia.

that is it.

So, if enough people in SA wanted a directly elected governor then they can do that and every 30 years that person would be the HOS of Australia for 5 years.

3. What it does is avoid the potential situation outlined above where someone could run on a mandate to be President in an election and therefore have some legitimate power. It reinforces the role of the states, and it allows for some form of direct election if enough people want it.

......

another variation would be to adopt the sort of principle already enshrined in the constitution. Candidates can be nominated by anyone to the council of governors. This council will trim the list to a shortlist. The HOS would be proposed by a 2/3rd majority of the combined houses of federal parliament. This candidate will then be presented to each of the state combined houses, and a majority of states must support it. This would avoid the Bill Hayden situation and you would likely not get an overtly political appointment

In short my idea is to have an appointed HOS with some method for a broader inclusion than simply appointed by the PM, but in the end appointed not elected.



.......

Whilst I want a republic, we need to keep it simple. The fact is that the current system works extremely well, aside from the fact that a respresentative of an inbred, unelected foreigner signs off on the laws created by our democratic parliamentary system*.
Best to keep it the same, having a head of state elected by a sizable parliamentary majority.

* Seriously, how can anyone call themselves a true believer in democracy yet defend the current system!?!).

 

[The Punter]

Class war ... snore.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

 

[Gethelred]

... because, if nothing else, it'd be the best means to renegotiate the relationships by law between the states and the federal government, and to properly federalise this country to make it a) more efficient, and b) to declutter the s**t out of several different legislative areas, due to the limits of the constitution.

In an ideal world (at least, if I was willing to forgo my anarchism and create a system that is more efficient than the current arrangement whilst still resembling it in form) you'd have sized up local governments covering roughly 4 times the territory they do, obtaining funding for local services via federal funding based on population not revenue raising, state independent representatives (not party affiliated) sitting in a greatly expanded Senate (replacing the state legislative assemblies) with the House of Representatives being the house of government, with the Prime Minister position being dissolved for the President/HOS, or completely separating the HOS position from the legislative process, only providing for them a veto akin to the current governor-general's role, that if they fail to sign a piece of legislation it cannot pass into law.

Doing so would dismantle the patently ridiculous state distinctions/politics which cause just so, so much legislative overlap and clutter which isn't reformed due to extreme difficulty (you'd have to get agreement from both/all states and federal governments at the same time. Most governments don't have the stomach for reform over their own areas of responsibility!) and due to the greatest straitjacket of all, the constitution's limitation over the powers of the federal government. It was the only way to get all of the states to agree; surely, we're past that now.

It would also disenfranchise revenue raising as a governmental hobby. Why this should be considered a good thing should go relatively unsaid; there's something to be said as to the merits or lack thereof with regards to speed cameras when, during the last police pay dispute in Victoria, the police placed a car with lights ahead of their unmarked cars to encourage people to slow down, hitting the government where it hurts them the most. I also do not see parking fines as a manifestation of anything other than poor infrastructure planning.

And, finally, you've got the distinct advantage that we would finally no longer hold a foreign ruler as our ultimate head of state. I get that we're lazy, but that we're still being ruled over by a country we held the Ashes against for the better part of 25 years at a game they invented is a mite ridiculous, as far as I'm concerned.

Obviously, throw in a federal ICAC to go with it, just after the second election, to allow for a smoother transition.

 

[its free real estate]

Monarchy but the monarch must be Australian.