Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

Should Australia become a Republic?

  • YES

    Votes: 76 62.8%
  • NO

    Votes: 45 37.2%

  • Total voters
    121

Remove this Banner Ad

Groupie_

Born Naked
Jul 19, 2010
57,780
104,134
Safeway Carpark
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond VFL
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.
 

JimDocker

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 16, 2007
5,980
3,421
Fremantle
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Doncaster Rovers, Boston Celtics
I am a Republican at heart. But I would not vote for a Republic if it is the popularly elected model put forward.

The President should be chosen by a joint sitting of both houses of parliament and the presidential powers should be very limted. Similar to what the GG currently has.

Yes to a Republic, but only a minimal change to the constitution.
 

Subprime

Premiership Player
Sep 27, 2007
3,967
442
Ether
AFL Club
Collingwood
I'd vote yes and I don't have any concerns about which of the previously proposed models is selected.

My preference is for the minimal change model but a popularly elected President with the same powers as the G-G isn't a cause for concern.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
May 3, 2009
20,568
16,603
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
Yes to a minimalist republic. G-G to be replaced by a new "Australian Head of State" (I wouldn't even call the office "President") appointed on the same basis as what happens with the G-G.

The reason for our remarkable political stability has been Parliament and conventions under which it operates. I wouldn't want to change the political landscape by risking a popularly elected and politicised President who might take it upon themselves to start blocking or delaying assent to legislation from the Parliament.
 

Teffy

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
May 6, 2011
5,694
38
Norf
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Crutchy Push
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.
 

jonoman89

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 3, 2007
10,213
404
AFL Club
Carlton
System isn't broken, doesn't need to be fixed.

A symbolic effort shouldn't have drastic consequences. There's no way to determine just what a republican system would do to our legal system.
 

Subprime

Premiership Player
Sep 27, 2007
3,967
442
Ether
AFL Club
Collingwood
System isn't broken, doesn't need to be fixed.

A symbolic effort shouldn't have drastic consequences. There's no way to determine just what a republican system would do to our legal system.
The system installs an English person as Australia's Head of State.

That needs to be fixed.
 

Andre

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 3, 2002
26,770
33,083
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I am a Republican at heart. But I would not vote for a Republic if it is the popularly elected model put forward.

The President should be chosen by a joint sitting of both houses of parliament and the presidential powers should be very limted. Similar to what the GG currently has.

Yes to a Republic, but only a minimal change to the constitution.
Agree mostly. The last thing I want to see is an activist president (be they Liberal, ALP or Green inclined) feeling they have the right to block policies they don't agree with.

The constitution would need some of the powers now resting with the GG in good faith transferred explicitly to the PM. Things like the GG being commander in chief or rejecting bills. Other then a figurehead, the President would need to have strictly defined powers as to when they could remove a government before they call an election. E.g. being able to pass money bills via the Senate or the like. It would effectively need to be written such that Kerr's actions in ditching Whitlam would be valid in an identical situation.

If they put up a sensible model along these lines it'd do better then the last referendum. Also it'd be hard to campaign against a model that puts down on paper what is effectively the current system, with just GG renamed President and elected by a joint sitting rather than put forward by the PM alone.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jonoman89

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 3, 2007
10,213
404
AFL Club
Carlton
How would this impact on our legal system?
A whole new constitution wide open to a whole new era of constitutional interpretation in line with republican ideals or whatever else is put into it. Even amending the current Constitution could see dramatic differences in the law.

Our current Constitution is interpretted incredibly differently than what it was intended to, in many cases in a manner entirely repugnant to the drafter's intentions. It is highly likely that the same would occur again over time, but we don't know whether a corrupted repbulican constitution would be better than our current one.

There is no real way of knowing what the effect of a republic would be until we have it. It's not worth the risk. At least now we know how our system works, and it's been pretty useful so far.

It would be change for change's sake. Symbolism should take the back seat in this debate IMO.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
16,234
13,239
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Care to explain why?
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."
 

Father Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 23, 2006
20,656
16,531
between hope and reality
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur FC
It would be nice to have a head of state who doesn't live twelve thousand miles away. It would also be nice if they spoke with an Australian accent.

Surely we are capable of not having to rely on the British to supply our head of state for us?
 

Richo83

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 2, 2005
19,693
7,331
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
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.
 

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
May 3, 2009
20,568
16,603
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
A whole new constitution wide open to a whole new era of constitutional interpretation in line with republican ideals or whatever else is put into it. Even amending the current Constitution could see dramatic differences in the law.

Our current Constitution is interpretted incredibly differently than what it was intended to, in many cases in a manner entirely repugnant to the drafter's intentions. It is highly likely that the same would occur again over time, but we don't know whether a corrupted repbulican constitution would be better than our current one.

There is no real way of knowing what the effect of a republic would be until we have it. It's not worth the risk. At least now we know how our system works, and it's been pretty useful so far.

It would be change for change's sake. Symbolism should take the back seat in this debate IMO.
Ok. But I don't think we need to write a new constitution, just replace the wording referring to the crown or the G-G and replace it with whatever we decide to call the new office. The rest of it can carry over unchanged and provide the sort of continuity that would prevent a whole new interpretation.

IMHO anyway.
 

tandino

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 16, 2007
12,459
9,693
Showers Stand
AFL Club
Essendon
Any model needs to reflect the will of the people. The people should not be shoe-horned into accepting a model that the self-appointed experts believe is superior.

They tried to pull such a trick the last time around and it was a disaster.
 

Pie eyed

Premium Platinum
Jun 26, 2007
40,035
18,631
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Magpies
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."
I agree can appreciate the sentiment.
I voted for a Republic, simply because I want Australia to stand on it's own two feet, devoid of any possible inference we are beholden to any other nation.
That said, on the day we should forward a letter to Britain thanking them for their input over the last 200 odd years.
 

Ted38

Premiership Player
Jan 10, 2006
4,202
462
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
The Jihadi Jets
It would be nice to have a head of state who doesn't live twelve thousand miles away. It would also be nice if they spoke with an Australian accent.

Surely we are capable of not having to rely on the British to supply our head of state for us?
Like Joolya? Wouldn't that be embarrassing?
 

Monniehawk

Premiership Player
Apr 1, 2008
3,525
637
Mornington Peninsula
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore, St Alba
I have a solution: an Australian monarch, and an Australian royal family. Shotgun.
Yeah! Dead on!
A genuine, dinky-di Aussie Republic.
We need an Aussie icon for our republic - and I propose the greatest of those Aussie icons -The Pub!

I mean, think about it Cobber, Digger, me ol' True Blue.
If we take the PUB out of republic, just see what's left! :rolleyes::mad:
(Snnnkkkx! Pppptttuie!)
 

Empire_Persian

Club Legend
Aug 30, 2007
2,320
726
NT
AFL Club
West Coast
Like it or not, this continent was colonised by the British.

Why deny our historical roots to the "mother-land" and change a well functioning system? I don't have a problem with becoming a Republic - yet - the PRO's of becoming a Republic do not outweigh the costs and risks of change in my opinion.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad