Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[Old Skool]

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.

Good post.

How often has an election ever resulted in the diminishment of executive power?

I only became aware last night after reading a paper on the Ridgeway ruling in the High Court, that the supposedly entrenched constitutional guarantee of a trial by jury (s80) does not in exist, as the Parliament have been deemed to have the power to define what is indictable!!!!!!

Theoretically, Australia is one Governer General, four High Court judges and an Executive Cabinet away from a totalitarian society.

If it can be corrupted, eventually it will be. There is a totalitarian takeover via stealth underway.

This is not the republican model I want.

 

[RogersResults]

How often has an election ever resulted in the diminishment of executive power?

The last Federal election where the executive government can't treat either house of parliament as a 'rubber stamp' is an example.

I only became aware last night after reading a paper on the Ridgeway ruling in the High Court, that the supposedly entrenched constitutional guarantee of a trial by jury (s80) does not in exist, as the Parliament have been deemed to have the power to define what is indictable!!!!!!

Like voting, what is "indictable" is up to the legislature. (The States can also make their own laws on whether you get a jury trial or not.) Occasionally although things like the right to vote are not in the Constitution, the high court has found that the Constitution implies a representative form of government.

Theoretically, Australia is one Governer General, four High Court judges and an Executive Cabinet away from a totalitarian society.

Well, you still get to vote for the legislature but once a government is formed, you are correct that they could operate with a high degree of totalitarianism. Ultimately Constitutions and Constitutional courts can't do anything to stop that unless the society as a whole agrees to adhere to the rules. (By "Executive Cabinet" I take it that you mean "Executive Council".)

If it can be corrupted, eventually it will be. There is a totalitarian takeover via stealth underway.

Probably more true of the United States where the executive is not directly responsible to a parliament.

This is not the republican model I want.

I'd reckon a system where the de facto head of state can be appointed or dismissed by the biggest bully in the Party room is not a model you'd like to continue with either.

 

[Old Skool]

The last Federal election where the executive government can't treat either house of parliament as a 'rubber stamp' is an example.

Really? Can you provide more detail?

Like voting, what is "indictable" is up to the legislature.

C'mon Roger, the electorate are never asked their opinions on subjects like this, and there are no constitutional barricades in place to eject a piece of legislation that contradicts an election promise anyway.

"Parliament is paramount", so by extension of that notion, "the executive is apex"

Occasionally although things like the right to vote are not in the Constitution, the high court has found that the Constitution implies a representative form of government.

The High Court has never defined the constitutional fundamentals of this issue.

Well, you still get to vote for the legislature but once a government is formed, you are correct that they could operate with a high degree of totalitarianism. Ultimately Constitutions and Constitutional courts can't do anything to stop that unless the society as a whole agrees to adhere to the rules. (By "Executive Cabinet" I take it that you mean "Executive Council".)

Is this the model for a republic?

The changing of a few words in the Australian Constitution Act at the last referendum did nothing to alter the overall power structure of the political machine. It simply rubber stamped it's existence. The constitution is colonial in nature and revolves around governing the masses. It simply does not pay enough attention to individual liberty.

A people brought up with libertarian ideals will, at the very least, have a self serving interest in demanding these rights for others. How is this bad for society? IMO, it is much more effective social tool than laws prohibiting behaviours, as it places the responsibility directly on the individual. It's imperative that this issue is placed beyond the reach of the executive who have an undeniable vested interest in setting the bar in relation to the extent of these individual freedoms.

Unfettered democracy, as exhibited in the Australian model, is doomed to fail by it's very nature in condensing massive power in the hands of a highly cultivated select few.

I am seriously concerned for my society and it's current vulnerability to social engineering and unfettered democracy. I just can't push this point home strongly enough.

 

[RogersResults]

Really? Can you provide more detail?

In the current parliament The Labor Party which in effect appoints the Prime Minister who then decides the make up of the Executive Council has neither a majority of votes in the house nor the senate. Currently a break on the executive using the parliament as a 'rubber stamp', no?

C'mon Roger, the electorate are never asked their opinions on subjects like this, and there are no constitutional barricades in place to eject a piece of legislation that contradicts an election promise anyway.

"Parliament is paramount", so by extension of that notion, "the executive is apex"

If you are interested here is an article here on representative democracy by the then Chief Justice of Australia: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/gleesoncj/cj_lucinda.htm

The High Court has never defined the constitutional fundamentals of this issue.

Start getting up to speed on this issue here with these two recent High Court judgements, involving prisoner voting rights and early closure of the Commonwealth electoral roll which have have given more weight to the concept of representative democracy.

Is this the model for a republic?

The changing of a few words in the Australian Constitution Act at the last referendum did nothing to alter the overall power structure of the political machine. It simply rubber stamped it's existence. The constitution is colonial in nature and revolves around governing the masses. It simply does not pay enough attention to individual liberty.

You are correct that the constitution is in need of more reform that removing the British monarchy. If you are proposing a form of 'direct' democracy then that is a whole new debate.

Consider the following:
Would women in Switzerland have had to wait until the 1970's until they got the vote if the decision had not been left to a popular vote?

Would African-Americans have been granted civil rights including the franchise, especially in Southern states if the issue had depended on a popular referendum?

Would the death penalty (the ultimate deprivation of liberty) have been abolished in Australian states if left to a referendum and what about decriminalisation of homosexuality?

 

[mighty tiges]

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.

We have conventions for one simple and obvious reason - because it is only practical to delegate the vast responsibilities required to run a modern nation rather than impossibly expect one person to understand and deal with all the problems in the country, come up with all of the solutions and make all of the decisions. Hell, we have a three tiers of government and tens of thousands or more of public servants and they struggle to pull it off.

 

[Old Skool]

We have conventions for one simple and obvious reason - because it is only practical to delegate the vast responsibilities required to run a modern nation rather than impossibly expect one person to understand and deal with all the problems in the country, come up with all of the solutions and make all of the decisions. Hell, we have a three tiers of government and thousands or more of public servants and they struggle to pull it off.

Conventions exist to give the perception of public participation.

 

[Caesar]

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.

Most of those republics are exceptionally young. The power shifts that I am talking about occur over centuries.

Time and time again, history shows that power in republics centralises around individuals wielding executive power who are not accountable to anybody on a day-to-day basis yet can lay claim to representing the will of the people.

I prefer to keep our powerful executives within the confines of the legislature. The current system ensures that is the natural order.

 

[Father Jack]

Why can't we have a stamp made of Australian rubber?

 

[Gough]

Most of those republics are exceptionally young. The power shifts that I am talking about occur over centuries.

Time and time again, history shows that power in republics centralises around individuals wielding executive power who are not accountable to anybody on a day-to-day basis yet can lay claim to representing the will of the people.

I prefer to keep our powerful executives within the confines of the legislature. The current system ensures that is the natural order.

So if it has been shown time and time again, it might be nice to see some examples, and, if what you postulate is correct, I guess Obama will have no problem raising the debt ceiling when next it is needed. None of that pesky legislature to deal with.
There is no real reason that Australia's head of state should continue to be someone who 12000 miles away was lucky enough to get squeezed out of the right lady bit. I know this sounds a touch crude, but essentially that's how you get to be Australia's Head of State.
Laughable isn't it?

 

[Cap]

So if it has been shown time and time again, it might be nice to see some examples, and, if what you postulate is correct, I guess Obama will have no problem raising the debt ceiling when next it is needed. None of that pesky legislature to deal with.
There is no real reason that Australia's head of state should continue to be someone who 12000 miles away was lucky enough to get squeezed out of the right lady bit. I know this sounds a touch crude, but essentially that's how you get to be Australia's Head of State.
Laughable isn't it?

\
Amen to that

simply rename queen to President and don't change the powers.

The problem is the american wannabes who want elections to be social occasions like in the US. I'm happy with the current system just not the head of state.

Even then if people are so drawn to monarchies establish one in Australia there are plently of royal rellies in the country.

just make sure you can use force when challenging!

 

[Ghost Patrol]

 

[Pessimistic]

Quin has weighed in too. ‘All talk no action’

 

[anchor man]

Bloody hell Betty and Charlie putting the Faith Healer on notice. He kowtows to them. Must be thinking of a British Gong.
But then he releases all his pent up anger and frustrations on poor Little Dom.
Laid it out straight, that he would tell Australia when the borders could be opened. Certainly a case of SOL. For those much younger than me, that stands for "s**t on the liver".
After all this time, it has sunk through his thick noggin, that the outer borders are his domain.

 

[Gough]

Bloody hell Betty and Charlie putting the Faith Healer on notice. He kowtows to them. Must be thinking of a British Gong.
But then he releases all his pent up anger and frustrations on poor Little Dom.
Laid it out straight, that he would tell Australia when the borders could be opened. Certainly a case of SOL. For those much younger than me, that stands for "sh*t on the liver".
After all this time, it has sunk through his thick noggin, that the outer borders are his domain.

I'm assuming that HM has learned a thing or two about diplomacy after the best part of four generations of on the job training and do wonder whether this was accidental.

 

[Pessimistic]

Bloody hell Betty and Charlie putting the Faith Healer on notice. He kowtows to them. Must be thinking of a British Gong.
But then he releases all his pent up anger and frustrations on poor Little Dom.
Laid it out straight, that he would tell Australia when the borders could be opened. Certainly a case of SOL. For those much younger than me, that stands for "sh*t on the liver".
After all this time, it has sunk through his thick noggin, that the outer borders are his domain.

still waiting for the action. Restrictions put in a lot quicker than being eased

 

[Wallaby]

Can we just put the Royals in a little box and ship them off to Anmerica to become Disney stars?

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...anet-helicopter-queen-charles-william-climate

 

[Gough]

Can we just put the Royals in a little box and ship them off to Anmerica to become Disney stars?

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...anet-helicopter-queen-charles-william-climate

These guys only exist because the same group of people who think climate change is bollocks still think that they're a good idea. They should be careful.

 

[anchor man]

I'm assuming that HM has learned a thing or two about diplomacy after the best part of four generations of on the job training and do wonder whether this was accidental.

Oh, never was it accidental. She meant the Faith Healer without doubt.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Can we just put the Royals in a little box and ship them off to Anmerica to become Disney stars?

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...anet-helicopter-queen-charles-william-climate

Don't ship them to the Caribbean. Barbados doesn't want them either!!

Barbados Is Ready to Say Goodbye to the Queen

Barbados Is Ready to Say Goodbye to the Queen

This year, it plans to become a republic—here’s why, and what that means for others in the region.

foreignpolicy.com

June 28, 2021

On Sept. 16, 2020, Barbados Governor General Sandra Mason—Queen Elizabeth II’s representative in the country—announced that she would soon be out of a job. “The time has come to fully leave our colonial past behind,” Mason said.

Mason added that by Nov. 30, 2021, on the 55th anniversary of the country’s independence, Barbados will break up with Elizabeth and instead swear in a local Barbadian president as head of state. In doing so, Barbados is going to become a republic.

The announcement was not a surprise for anybody on the tropical island: The debate on republicanism has been alive and well for around 40 years. However, the timing picked by the government to give the queen a final farewell has raised eyebrows.

The economy of Barbados, an eastern Caribbean island of around 280,000 people, depends heavily on the tourism industry—and despite some innovative efforts, such as the creation of a remote working visa, visitors have been scarce during the COVID-19 pandemic. With unemployment in 2020 nearing 13%, becoming a republic may not be everyone’s top priority. Yet Mia Mottley, the country’s popular and charismatic prime minister, is determined to get it done.

With recent discussions around race in the royal family and a looming transition of power in the British monarchy, some wonder if Barbados could also start a domino effect and challenge the influence of Britain in all its overseas realms, already weakened by Brexit...

 

[dusty1234!]

Y
E
S

 

[Pessimistic]

Face masks don’t deter body language experts deciphering smiles or lack of them

Body language decode Prince Harry’s ‘attitude’ at Super Bowl

The slumped look and unhappy demeanour of Prince Harry at the Super Bowl has come into question

www.geo.tv

 

[Pie eyed]

Face masks don’t deter body language experts deciphering smiles or lack of them

Body language decode Prince Harry’s ‘attitude’ at Super Bowl

The slumped look and unhappy demeanour of Prince Harry at the Super Bowl has come into question

www.geo.tv

Zero *s given.
A person who exists to "interpret" such trivial rubbish and sells such BS to tabloids is less than deserving of life.
The entire tabloid press could get cancer and I would not give so much as a nod.

 

[Pessimistic]

Love this

Queen only answers phone to two people

THE QUEEN only answers her "anti-hacker encryption" phone to speak with two of her most frequent callers - neither of which is her son and heir to the throne Charles - a royal commentator claimed.

www.express.co.uk

 

[Gethelred]

Zero fu**s given.
A person who exists to "interpret" such trivial rubbish and sells such BS to tabloids is less than deserving of life.
The entire tabloid press could get cancer and I would not give so much as a nod.

That escalated quickly.

 

[RobbieGray17]

so what exactly do we get out of it?