Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[Mitcham VIC 3132]

Just a reminder that if Britan became a republic, we'd remain a monarchy until we amended our constitution. Britain does not have one, we do.

And given what Lizzie, Maggie and Bertie's wife did to Marion Crawford, i'm not surprised Lizzie backed Randy Andy until she died.

 

[Gough]

Time to keep the foot firmly on the neck and strangle the life out of the monarchy.

 

[Mitcham VIC 3132]

https://www.bigfootycontent.com/video/2194/2194294-ee01d85030d3711322b0b99966ba4db7.mp4

 

[Gough]

It's funny watching the English who've indulged and protected the royal family for generations get upset when they behave like like people who've indulged and protected all their lives. Andy's a creature of their own making.

 

[Mitcham VIC 3132]

1030 Khz 3DB Melbourne 5PM News 11-11-1975 MP4 file


View attachment 75-11-11-3db-5pm.mp4

 

[Mitcham VIC 3132]

A Night To Remember, 27 years ago. (Apologies to Walter Lord):


View attachment 7 Network News Australia - Referendum Update 06111999.mp4

 

[Mitcham VIC 3132]

Didn't even get a year And a half until Kerr

 

[Ghost Patrol]

You been hoarding old newspapers Mitcham? Pulling up the lino floor?

 

[Mitcham VIC 3132]

no. well-read (defence against most of the general public who assume physical disability means mental one) and a collector of odds and sods. A stroke in infancy = impaired filter (hence why things like "1967 borders" being spouted irritated me so because i know that they were not borders (at Arab insistence in 1949) and were never intended to be).

 

[Frank Bunn]

Just a reminder that if Britan became a republic, we'd remain a monarchy until we amended our constitution. Britain does not have one, we do.

It's a moot point really because the UK isn't going to become a republic any time soon. Charles and Camilla were not very popular but there's been a massive PR campaign on their behalf. Next cab on the rank is William and Kate, both uncontroversial. That might take the Royal Family to 2050 or beyond.

Hypothetically, if it ever happened, there would be bipartisan support for a change to Australia's constitution. The discussion would be around what model of a republic we would choose. Though there are some Australian monarchists who think we should have our own royal family!

 

[JustaBattler]

no

 

[schneebly111]

In 2021 Barbados, a tiny Caribbean nation of 300,000 became a Republic. The old Governor General became the first President with basically all the previous responsibilities. They did it without any fuss and there hasn't been much drama since.

It astounds me that, Constitutional requirements aside, we can't do the same. I mean we could and it would be fairly simple but the historical British Colonial hang ups in our society probably make the idea unachievable. Barbados became a Republic because they truly wanted to move away from Britain, Australia hasn't reached that point yet.

 

[Boston tiger]

The USA Trump situation probably isn’t helping the Republic cause.

 

[Mitcham VIC 3132]

The USA Trump situation probably isn’t helping the Republic cause.

As the Guardian noted, President is now out of the question as the name of the office post Jan/6 and such

 

[The Punter]

As the Guardian noted, President is now out of the question as the name of the office post Jan/6 and such

Head Dude?

 

[Mitcham VIC 3132]

Head Dude?

Can republicans rally after Australia’s resounding no to constitutional reform on the voice? | Paul Karp

The support of a bare majority is a poor start before scare campaigns start. Could shock news from the UK shake us up?

www.theguardian.com

We don’t even know what an Australian head of state would be called – but after Donald Trump and January 6 the term “president” is likely to be out of the question.

 

[Seeds]

Im all for being a republic.

But if we have republic debate it will simply take air time from much more important discussions on the need for reform to fix the housing crisis, the looming health care crisis, the rising threat to democracy, need for regulation of social media and ai and the threat of lobby groups.

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

Nah. An unnecessary cost for little to no gain. Spend the money it would cost to become a republic on essential services or teachers.

 

[schneebly111]

As the Guardian noted, President is now out of the question as the name of the office post Jan/6 and such

Why is it assumed a “President” is just an American term?

150 nations in the world have a president.

 

[schneebly111]

Nah. An unnecessary cost for little to no gain. Spend the money it would cost to become a republic on essential services or teachers.

It’ll probably be spend on subsidies for coal mining instead.

 

[btdg]

Im all for being a republic.

But if we have republic debate it will simply take air time from much more important discussions on the need for reform to fix the housing crisis, the looming health care crisis, the rising threat to democracy, need for regulation of social media and ai and the threat of lobby groups.

I find it strange that you see debate about becoming a republic as separate to all of those things.

At its heart, the question of whether we become a Republic is about asking 'what is the form of government that will best enable us to deal with the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century and beyond'.

To become a Republic requires constitutional change and presumably a shift in the role, power and operations of government, and the system as a whole.

Even just the introduction of a President becomes a question of roles and responsibilities - if we had one, what would they do? Do they have executive powers like in the USA? If so, does that lead to an increased centralisation of politics, and does it require further permanent checks on power (a la the Bill of Rights).

Our current, Bicameral Westminster system has the advantage of stability; it can't easily be hijacked by a Trump (or worse). But it has the disadvantage of being inherently conservative and slow-moving. We've found it impossible to get any consistent traction on a range of issues like climate change, indigenous rights, and even more recent big issues like housing affordability.

Does that imply a need for change or reform? Not necessarily. But I think the question of governance is intrinsically a part of things like a seeming inability of government to adequately respond to teh housing crisis, to fast-moving changes in AI and technology.

And it is definitely and obviously closely linked to the 'rising threat to democracy' and 'threat of lobby groups' (both of which would be a much greater threat under a Republic with an executive president, for example)

 

[Seeds]

I find it strange that you see debate about becoming a republic as separate to all of those things.

At its heart, the question of whether we become a Republic is about asking 'what is the form of government that will best enable us to deal with the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century and beyond'.

To become a Republic requires constitutional change and presumably a shift in the role, power and operations of government, and the system as a whole.

Even just the introduction of a President becomes a question of roles and responsibilities - if we had one, what would they do? Do they have executive powers like in the USA? If so, does that lead to an increased centralisation of politics, and does it require further permanent checks on power (a la the Bill of Rights).

Our current, Bicameral Westminster system has the advantage of stability; it can't easily be hijacked by a Trump (or worse). But it has the disadvantage of being inherently conservative and slow-moving. We've found it impossible to get any consistent traction on a range of issues like climate change, indigenous rights, and even more recent big issues like housing affordability.

Does that imply a need for change or reform? Not necessarily. But I think the question of governance is intrinsically a part of things like a seeming inability of government to adequately respond to teh housing crisis, to fast-moving changes in AI and technology.

And it is definitely and obviously closely linked to the 'rising threat to democracy' and 'threat of lobby groups' (both of which would be a much greater threat under a Republic with an executive president, for example)

Im assuming Im misreading your last paragraph. It appears you are claiming democracy is under greater threat if we form a republic? If so, wouldnf that be a reason not to form one?

And if we spend a year debating a republic none of those issues will gain the air time they need. They simply wont. Housing needs to be the number one debate issue. If the air time is given to republic debate instead then it wont be on housing and nothing will change. Having a president wont help that debate.

 

[btdg]

Im assuming Im misreading your last paragraph. It appears you are claiming democracy is under greater threat if we form a republic? If so, wouldnf that be a reason not to form one?

And if we spend a year debating a republic none of those issues will gain the air time they need. They simply wont. Housing needs to be the number one debate issue. If the air time is given to republic debate instead then it wont be on housing and nothing will change. Having a president wont help that debate.

You aren't misreading me at all. Of course there are greater risks to democratic stability if we shift from a long-term, stable system to something new, different and untested. But there are risks of stagnation and instability from staying the same and not evolving as the world changes around us, too - that's life.

Here's probably the crux of the issue in Australia. I'd say a hefty, whopping majority of Australians think we should formally cut ties with the UK, become an independent state, and probably also remain in the Commonwealth and maintain close diplomatic ties. The issue becomes the model of republic (or whatever) that we choose - how does it actually work?

Our Westminster system has worked very well and promotes democratic stability, and the Aussie version seems a pretty good version of it. Bicameral parliament but with a lower house / government that is clearly accountable for policy, combined with an upper house that seems to give appropriate voice to minority parties - yep, it's pretty good.

And having a neutral figure-head sitting at the 'top' with very limited power, but with the capacity to sit outside the system as a final balance is also pretty good. It also gives us someone apolitical for public events, greeting foreign dignitaries, etc.

If you keep a version of that but bring in an elected, US-style President with executive powers, there's an inherent risk that it changes, well, everything. A single figure-head is a much simpler target for corruption, much more open to a populist, will find it easier to concentrate power, etc. But last time we did the Republic thing, Australians rejected the non-elected, powerless 'president' model that was proposed.

That isn't, however, a reason not to do so. It just means that any process of constitutional reform needs to be very carefully thought through, and probably handled in a cautious and systematic manner, with a process that involves separating the question of 'Republic?' from 'model?', and probabaly that is run over 5-10 years with a constitutional convention leading the process, etc.

But I think we can talk about this alongside other 'big issues' - those aren't going anywhere, and probably should be part of the Republic discussion. If the Westminster system has a weakness, it seems to be the inertia that plagues its response to 'big' problems like housing affordability, indigenous rights, climate change, energy policy etc. So often these require social opinion to shift so far one direction that the 'opposite' party enacts legislation (eg: gay marriage could only happen under a Liberal government), or we end up with back and forth nothingness for decades. It's also just been so ham-fisted at dealing with anything to do with technology, AI, cybersecurity etc.

Bringing in a republic would mean necessary constitutional change, and that could potentially allow us to explore different models that are more suitable for responding to these types of issues. There's an opportunity ot lean into technology and its power to further democratise the system as well.

Basically: the question of governance applies equally to both 'should we keep a foreign King as our head of state' and 'how do we reform the system to improve responses to problems that seem impossible to address with the current system'.

 

[schneebly111]

Basically: the question of governance applies equally to both 'should we keep a foreign King as our head of state' and 'how do we reform the system to improve responses to problems that seem impossible to address with the current system'.

Doesn’t the GG just do everything a Monarch does anyway? Just keep the current system but sever the British ties.

 

[Mitcham VIC 3132]

Doesn’t the GG just do everything a Monarch does anyway? Just keep the current system but sever the British ties.

The Yes campaign republicans wanted to do this in '99.

... and Ted Mack and Clem Jones are now long dead, and King Tampon the First is our King.