Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[pazza]

Been a republican for 20 years. See no reason to change that view.

What buggered the vote last time was the Phil Cleary led Popular Elected Model group and not the ARM model.

 

[tandino]

The President of Italy is elected by the Chamber of Deputies (HOR) and the Senate as well as regional representatives.

The President is not elected by the people. Take a look at the last election (2006) to witness all the political posturing bullshit that came with the election of Napolitano.

 

[Subprime]

The President of Italy is elected by the Chamber of Deputies (HOR) and the Senate as well as regional representatives.

The President is not elected by the people. Take a look at the last election (2006) to witness all the political posturing bullshit that came with the election of Napolitano.

Thanks for that, I mis-read wiki.

 

[Caesar]

You know its true.

It's not. The entire history of democratic government disagrees with you. Power gravitates to popular individuals commanding a mandate.

But you continue to base your ideas on little more than naivete and reference to fledgeling systems less than a century old.

There's not much point discussing it with you.

 

[Subprime]

It's not. The entire history of democratic government disagrees with you. Power gravitates to popular individuals commanding a mandate.

But you continue to base your ideas on little more than naivete and reference to fledgeling systems less than a century old.

There's not much point discussing it with you.

You've put up the example of the USA which has had a President with broad executive powers since day one as an example of of your point.

This isn't the system being proposed in Australia.

For those interested here's the list of parliamentary republics...

 

[tandino]

The gold standard for Westminster systems with elected Presidents is the Republic of Ireland. As for how well it works, I don't really know the history of it well enough to make a judgement on if it would be suitable here.

 

[tandino]

If you think back to 1975, which was the last time the Governor General really exercised his powers available to him, you can only think how things may have worked if he had the extra weight of a mandate from the people behind him.

I think he probably would have pushed the button quicker.

 

[Caesar]

You've put up the example of the USA which has had a President with broad executive powers since day one as an example of of your point

Its irrelevant, because the point I am talking about isn't tied to the level of executive powers. Merely the the manner in which power has shifted in democracies and republics over thousands of years. The USA is just one example of many. As I keep saying, it is merely indicative of a broad trend in virtually all systems with a representative head of state throughout history.

When the only examples you have to point to are fledgling European systems of a few decades old, its not solid evidence that they will survive the political gravity that all previous similar systems have succumbed to.

Not really a solid basis to go messing with something that works. I'd rather stick with our proven system, thanks.

 

[dr nick]

Get your f***ing stars off our flag!!!

 

[maelcoluim]

We're a de facto republic as it is...a move to officially sever ties with the British monarchy would only be cosmetic.

to removing the Union Jack from the flag.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Call it what you like. Australia need to absolutely remain under the exact same system of government we have now. Right wrong , good bad it doesn,t matter its the safest form of government there is out side a benevolent dictator and that is an impossibility
because humans can,t do it.
Our monarchial system has a protector called the crown or governer general. NOW LISTEN, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUEEN OR ENGLAND ITS A SYSTEM WE HAVE AS AN INDEPENDANT SOVERIEGN NATION. Which is exactly what we are. If you have an anti british monarchy bent, then your foolish or lack understanding, our system has nothing to do with Britain we use that system because its safe and works.
The Queen during the 1975 dismissal would have had no more than figure head status
GG Kerr had the say and Gough got thrown out because one or some of his ministers were going to get a very dodgy loan from the ME through a dodgy Pakistani broker Khemlani. Kerr did the deed! You don,t think so ? Your wrong.
Call the governor general the President if you want to, just never change the system.
Don,t be that dangerous and stupid , all you republicans , have a look at history and see the whose stable and who isn,t , and I,m not talking about middle eastern monarchys they are just dictatorships in the extreme and that is why they are in turmoil.
THINK!

 

[JoondalupJ]

if you think back to 1975, which was the last time the governor general really exercised his powers available to him, you can only think how things may have worked if he had the extra weight of a mandate from the people behind him.

I think he probably would have pushed the button quicker.

kerr acted under an extreme circumstance, as our system allowed.
Probably lucky he did. Although personally it ruined him.

 

[JoondalupJ]

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.

The Queens got nothing to do with it .Thats why most of you republicans have no idea what your talking about. We have a great safe system, my question would be WHY????

 

[JoondalupJ]

Yes, it's long overdue. Change the title of 'Prime Minister' to 'President', get rid of the Governor General, change the flag, change the national anthem.

And shoot anyone who disagrees!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JoondalupJ]

we should be a republic.
Get rid of the mentions of the monarch, continuing having a parliamentary appointed head of state (like the gg) but give the role a different name.
The brits wouldnt care and there would be no risk

even price charles is reported to have sugested australia should become a republic.

like i said call it what you like just don,t change it .

 

[CF]

England is not politically relevant to us anymore. That is the cold hard truth. Since WW2 the USA has become our biggest Allies. Since Prime Minister John Curtain told Churchill to screw himself, our troops are coming home to defend our Country from an advancing Japanese threat, Australia has began to see it's own needs has priority over the Mother Country. Prior to that we always did what England told us to do.

The reality for me is that as Australia continues to evolve as a nation that becoming a Republic is an obvious step forward. Where it gets tricky is deciding what type of Republic we develop into. That's where the debate always stumbles. I can understand why some people would think it would be better to stay as we are. It's the safest step forward maybe, but the problem is that it does not properly represent us as a nation anymore.

personally I don't think we need to change too much on the road to being a republic. It's just a matter of do we keep a GG type person (but call him something different) who has some constitutional powers in times of political crisis, but is primarily a figure head; or do we just scrap the GG role altogether and have the Prime Minister as the highest political leader with some safe guards that can allow both houses to jointly move for an election if there is some form of political crisis (under a given set of rules so as this can't be done willy nilly)

One cannot also forget the part our courts play in Law in our country so maybe another approach is to use the Courts also as a Constitutional watchdog. But as I am sure if my post gets any responses and ppl argue that my opinions are wrong or wont work just underlines the difficulties the Country faces in establishing itself as a Republic.

In the end if the change to a republic has to be done by people who are willing to put political posturing and motivation aside and do what is best for the Country. There's a real problem. Lastly, part of the process of becoming a republic should be about defining who and what we are as Australians. This is something that many ppl struggle with. I am not talking about Vegemite and kangaroos, but what are our values and beliefs that set us apart from other nations? That make us quintessentially Australian? This is part of the challenge in asserting our own independence.

When the USA wrote it's "Declaration of Independence" they set down a document that said this is who we are, this is what we believe in, and these are the ideals that we govern our society by. I think this is just as an important part in becoming a Republic than deciding what type of political system you put in place to Govern.

 

[BarneyBent]

Is there any reason we couldn't just sever ties to the Queen, and keep the GG's position, and NOT change the name? So the GG is the actual head of state, rather than a representative. Everything else stays exactly the same. We change the flag (sorry all those bogans with Aussie flag tattoos out there).

 

[Caesar]

A Head of State and a Vice-Regal Representative are two very different things. It is accepted that we don't get a big say in the GG primarily because the GG is first and foremost the representative of the Queen, not us.

Call him what you want, I doubt people would be willing to accept a Head of State appointed under the current arrangements for the GG. If you were lucky you might get it past the initial referendum, but sooner or later there would be a demand for them to be appointed by mandate.

Once the HOS receives a mandate from the people, then you start to have problems. There is little conflict between the Crown and the PM precisely because only one of them can legitimately claim the backing of popular sovereignty.

 

[tandino]

kerr acted under an extreme circumstance, as our system allowed.
Probably lucky he did. Although personally it ruined him.

Oh I certainly agree with that. He really made the only decision available to him, and despite the ramblings of a vocal minority, his decision was vindicated by the people's vote.

I think his actions were influenced by the Queen, in that he couldn't have told Whitlam that the dismissal option was on the table because as quick as a flash Whitlam would have got on the phone with the Palace and would have had Kerr sacked. The Queen would have had to follow the advice of her Prime Minister, as she should and does.

If people take issue with what happened in '75, their problem should be with Whitlam and Fraser.

 

[Jabso]

All monarchies should be abolished, let alone us becoming a republic.

 

[BarneyBent]

A Head of State and a Vice-Regal Representative are two very different things. It is accepted that we don't get a big say in the GG primarily because the GG is first and foremost the representative of the Queen, not us.

Call him what you want, I doubt people would be willing to accept a Head of State appointed under the current arrangements for the GG. If you were lucky you might get it past the initial referendum, but sooner or later there would be a demand for them to be appointed by mandate.

Once the HOS receives a mandate from the people, then you start to have problems. There is little conflict between the Crown and the PM precisely because only one of them can legitimately claim the backing of popular sovereignty.

Why on earth would there be demand for them to be appointed by mandate? I think that's a rather large assumption based on rather little. The PM is appointed by public mandate, the PM will be the leader.

 

[tandino]

Well, for starters, directly-elected republican models are more popular in the polls as opposed to a parliament-elected model.

And I think there was a lot of resentment about an elected Prime Minister getting the arse and being replaced by an unelected Prime Minister, not elected by the people but by the factional bosses and faceless men.

When you think back to last year, you had a unelected Prime Minister being sworn in by an unelected Governor General, and our two largest states by population being governed by unelected Premiers. I think the public hold dear their right to the Government of their choice.

 

[Caesar]

Why on earth would there be demand for them to be appointed by mandate? I think that's a rather large assumption based on rather little. The PM is appointed by public mandate, the PM will be the leader.

You call the entire history of democracy 'very little'? Name me one single long-standing democratic state - existing or defunct - where the head of state is chosen (rather than hereditary), but does not receive a mandate from the people to fulfil that role.

The idea that a republic founded on popular sovereignty would not have a HOS selected by the people is an anathema. It's why they don't exist - or if they do exist, they tend to be very shortlived.

The shortsightedness of so many people on this topic is frightening. If you're setting up a constitution, two things are fatal - not taking heed of history, and assuming everyone will approach things with the same frame of reference you do.

Saying "hey, Ireland goes alright, that's proof enough" when they've only been a republic for 60 years is an incredibly dangerous way to think. A constitution designed to stand for centuries needs more a circumspect approach.

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

Well, for starters, directly-elected republican models are more popular in the polls as opposed to a parliament-elected model.

You mean like the American model?

Where who can raise the most millions/billions ends up in charge?

 

[tandino]

You mean like the American model?

Where who can raise the most millions/billions ends up in charge?

Who said anything about an American model?

There are examples of directly-elected Presidents in parliamentary systems, Ireland for instance.