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

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Father Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Posts
17,415
Likes
9,696
Location
between hope and reality
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur FC
Who says that preferential voting will happen in this instance? It's one vote for one person to fill one position.
You think we'd fill that position off a non-majority vote? Preferential voting is an excellent system and I can see no reason whatsoever that we'd move away from that.
 

Bomberboyokay

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 27, 2014
Posts
24,332
Likes
21,187
Location
The Temple, Boyle Heights
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
West Ham, Roosters
The Monarchy is an excellent system and I can see no reason whatsoever that we'd move away from that.
The monarch removed a democratically elected government and appointed an unelected one. For... we don't know why, she refuses to release her records with the Governor-General on the subject. John Kerr didn't want the letters hidden decades later.
 

Father Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Posts
17,415
Likes
9,696
Location
between hope and reality
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur FC
The Monarchy is an excellent system and I can see no reason whatsoever that we'd move away from that.
The Monarchy is a ridiculous unrepresentative antiquated system that has no place in a modern democracy and it is beyond ridiculous that we have it inflicted on a country to whom the Monarchy doesn't even belong. We should decide who represents our country as Head of State and the manner in which they represent it.
 

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 3, 2009
Posts
18,404
Likes
13,968
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
The Monarchy is an excellent system and I can see no reason whatsoever that we'd move away from that.
It is an excellent system if the monarch lives locally and acts in a way like they are the embodiment of the character of the nation.

QEII does an excellent job of this as the monarch of England. Not so well as the monarch of the other 15 countries. We get totally short-changed in having to borrow England's monarch and pretend she is our own.
 
Joined
May 5, 2006
Posts
46,291
Likes
47,507
AFL Club
West Coast
It is an excellent system if the monarch lives locally and acts in a way like they are the embodiment of the character of the nation.
Having a royal family is basically a novelty in the 21st century.

Constitutional monarchy as a concept is pretty antiquated. Would we want someone like Andrew Forrest calling the shots because his family has been here since the 1800s and owns a lot of stuff? That's basically what hereditary title is.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Posts
13,821
Likes
12,786
Location
Belgrave
AFL Club
Geelong
My understanding is that Australia is a compound republic. We are not a constitutional monarchy. We don't really have a Queen. We can't have Queen Liz II as our Queen. A monarch by definition can only be the head of one state. In her case the United Kingdom.

What are we? "the Commonwealth of Australia,[13] is a sovereign country comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania and numerous smaller islands."

I think we get confused by the leftovers of Federation which was an act written up in the British Parliament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Australia#Federal_Constitution

To my mind, it was John Kerr that sacked the Whitlam government. The Queen was just advice and consent. Change it and turn Kerr into a populist President not liking which direction the government is going and so he sacks it. Same diff.
 

telsor

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
29,735
Likes
25,845
Location
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
Until someone comes up with a concrete proposal for a republic, then I say stick with what we have. When they do, I'll consider it.

Not because I have any particular love for the monarchy, but more in the 'if it ain't broke...' logic, and in a practical sense, the system we have (broadly) works.

Even a minimalist change is a pretty substantial thing, and for the larger 'popularly elected President' model, you might as well throw the current constitution out the window and start again from scratch. Either way, you'll need significant clauses added to spell out and limit the powers of the new head of state, even if it's just codifying the current 'conventions'.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Posts
19,277
Likes
7,274
Location
???
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Miami Dolphins(NFL)
What would actually change as a republic?
We'd get a president, a new flag, new money, and a new constitution (of which very few actually know what's in)

It'd be so damn costly, and shouldn't even be looked at until homelessness is sorted out
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
12,965
Likes
8,450
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #340
We are not a constitutional monarchy.
We are.

We don't really have a Queen. We can't have Queen Liz II as our Queen. A monarch by definition can only be the head of one state. In her case the United Kingdom.
A monarch can reign in multiple monarchies simultaneously. History is littered with monarchs who ruled / reigned in multiple states.

What are we? "the Commonwealth of Australia,[13] is a sovereign country comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania and numerous smaller islands."
Australia has a legally separate Australian monarchy, the monarch acting with regard to Australian affairs exclusively upon the advice of Australian ministers.

To my mind, it was John Kerr that sacked the Whitlam government. The Queen was just advice and consent.
The reserve powers exercised by the Governor-General are vested in the person of the monarch of Australia.
 

Father Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Posts
17,415
Likes
9,696
Location
between hope and reality
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur FC
What would actually change as a republic?
We'd get a president, a new flag, new money, and a new constitution (of which very few actually know what's in)

It'd be so damn costly, and shouldn't even be looked at until homelessness is sorted out
by that measure, no government money should be spent on anything but homelessness until homelessness is sorted out.
 
Joined
May 5, 2006
Posts
46,291
Likes
47,507
AFL Club
West Coast
Why don't we just ditch the Queen and just have a Prime Minister as Head of Government and State.
We could do this, but whatever we do requires changing the constitution one way or another.

The PM is effectively the head of state anyway. If we're having a big important meeting with Trump or Merkl or Xi Jinping or whoever we send ScoMo, not Peter Cosgrove or Elizabeth II. The GG is a ceremonial position, the queen sets foot here about once every decade.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
12,965
Likes
8,450
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #347
Why don't we just ditch the Queen and just have a Prime Minister as Head of Government and State.
While in reality there is no constitutional system where there is a complete separation of powers, the desire is, as far as possible, that separation. The doctrine of the separation of powers divides the institutions of government into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. The legislature makes the laws; the executive puts the laws into operation; and the judiciary interprets the laws. The Prime Minister of Australia is part of the the legislature and therefore as far as possible does not employ executive powers.

Under section 2 of the Constitution, the provision of executive power in Australian government is in the form of the monarchy. The Governor-General acts as the Queen's representative and exercises certain royal prerogative powers and functions. These are vested in the person of the monarch, not the Governor-Geenral, which provides further checks and balances. The Governor-General can refer legislation to the Queen, if he/she so desires, but is not compelled to do so..

The actual appointment to the office of Governor-General is made by the monarch on the Prime Minister's recommendation. After receiving his or her commission, the Governor-General takes an Oath of Allegiance to the Australian monarch, as well as an Oath of Office undertaking to serve Australia's monarch "according to law, in the office of Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia", and issues a proclamation assuming office.

The Governor-General is advised by the Federal Executive Council (all current and former Commonwealth Ministers and Assistant Ministers). Under this Chapter, the Governor-General is the commander in chief, and may appoint and dismiss the members of the Executive Council, ministers of state, and all officers of the executive government. These powers, along with the powers to dissolve (or refuse to dissolve) parliament (Section 5, Section 57), are termed "reserve powers" and their use is dictated by convention.
 

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 3, 2009
Posts
18,404
Likes
13,968
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
Can anyone provide an argument that:
a) Australia requires a Monarch,
and
b) Australia requires a President.
Why don't we just ditch the Queen and just have a Prime Minister as Head of Government and State.
I want someone who can, in extreme circumstances, sack the PM, or sack the parliament and call fresh elections. The PM should never be a law unto themselves, and should know they are not. Without that person in the GG (or President, or Queen or Galactic First Citizen-Emperor or whatever we call it) with the power to look over their shoulder they might start acting out of line.
 

tandino

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Posts
8,957
Likes
4,217
Location
Showers Stand
AFL Club
Essendon
You can't foresee the unforeseeable. But I think if you remove the power of the Senate to block supply bills, you take away what will probably be the main potential for deadlock and crisis. What we would lose is the ability for minority parties to frustrate the agenda of an elected Government. What we would gain is that nobody will be able to use the mechanics of the parliamentary process to hold a Government to ransom. The obligation would remain with the Government of the day to ensure they maintain the confidence of the house and to ensure they put up legislation that will get through the Parliament.

1975 could not have happened in the United Kingdom or Ireland, or New Zealand with no Upper House.

If that is changed, I feel that a directly-elected President would present less of a risk.
 
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Posts
13,821
Likes
12,786
Location
Belgrave
AFL Club
Geelong
We are.



A monarch can reign in multiple monarchies simultaneously. History is littered with monarchs who ruled / reigned in multiple states.



Australia has a legally separate Australian monarchy, the monarch acting with regard to Australian affairs exclusively upon the advice of Australian ministers.



The reserve powers exercised by the Governor-General are vested in the person of the monarch of Australia.
Educate me. What monarch (as opposed to a emperor/empress) has ruled over more than one sovereign state?
 
Top Bottom