Politics Should Australia become a Republic?
- Thread starter Groupie_
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Father Jack
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 23, 2006
- 22,928
- 25,030
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
Do you think we'd pay much more for a President than we do for a G-G?
Schneebly11
Cancelled
- Apr 7, 2020
- 2,311
- 4,973
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Why not the exact same system of government we have now with a G-G? We can even keep calling that dude/dudette the G-G.
We just sever any Monarch acting above the G-G. Now as I understand the Monarch will never again interference in Australian government so it makes no practical difference.
When QE2 carks it we just replace all the coins and notes with her head with an Australian symbol. We’re surely not going to put big ears on our money, are we?
My thought is that support for a Republic was highest during the 90s. It’s declined since then, I think that’s a consequence of a more multicultural society, and as the Anglo population heads towards a minority they’ve become more sympathetic to the British, it’s something for them to cling onto to give them a sense of superiority over the rest
We just sever any Monarch acting above the G-G. Now as I understand the Monarch will never again interference in Australian government so it makes no practical difference.
When QE2 carks it we just replace all the coins and notes with her head with an Australian symbol. We’re surely not going to put big ears on our money, are we?
My thought is that support for a Republic was highest during the 90s. It’s declined since then, I think that’s a consequence of a more multicultural society, and as the Anglo population heads towards a minority they’ve become more sympathetic to the British, it’s something for them to cling onto to give them a sense of superiority over the rest
- Moderator
- #230
Tthe GG isn't currently the head of state. The Queen is and the reserve powers exercised by the Governor-General in Australia are vested in the person of the Queen.
While the Governor-General is appointed by the Prime Minister, he/she exercises those reserve powers in Australia on behalf of the Queen in whom those powers are vested. Those reserve powers cannot be removed from the Queen, unless by changing the Constitution of Australia via a referendum of the Australian people.
The Queen cannot be removed by the Prime Minister / the Government.
If the monarch is removed via a vote of the Australian people, then those reserve powers will need to be vested in the new head of state. Therefore, as the Head of State should not be chosen by the Prime Minister / government of the day, another method to select the new Head of State will have to be arrived at.
Direct election by the Australian people or appointment by at least 2/3rds - 3/4s of the Australian parliament?
Father Jack
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 23, 2006
- 22,928
- 25,030
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
I think we should something similar to the Irish model, with a direct election and candidates being nominated via maybe the Federal government or even a combination of state governments.
killtaker1993
Club Legend
- Sep 17, 2021
- 1,865
- 4,459
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
It won't happen in our lifetimes, but it will happen eventually
- Sep 26, 2012
- 9,443
- 1,622
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Roarcus….
sataris
Chief Toastie Officer
- Feb 15, 2015
- 10,113
- 20,171
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Direct election imo.
Leadership spills and attempted leadership spills distract them from actually governing.
Not a fan of the US system, but someone somewhere must have figured this out.
That depends. If they're appointed by parliament probably not much more. I don't know what the search cost would be. But if it was an elected president it would cost a lot more.
I'm not against it if the Head of State remained a ceremonial position. I'm in favour of just appointing the Australian test cricket captain president. We could alternate between the men and women's teams. Either that or a lottery.
- Moderator
- #236
The Head of State wouldn't be just a "ceremonial" position. Then whole point of a Head of State is that reserve powers would be vested in the office. Just like the present Head of State.
Last edited:
Yes reserve powers are vested in the office of GG in the constitution, but you are ignoring convention.
Father Jack
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 23, 2006
- 22,928
- 25,030
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
I'd just be happy with a PM that didn't
- Moderator
- #240
Reserve powers are vested in the Queen, not the Governor-General. The Governor-General exercises these powers as the Queen’s representative.
And how exactly am I ignoring convention?
The Queen's powers are delegated to the GG. Do you think the Queen sacked Whitlam?
- Moderator
- #243
But they are the Queen's powers. Not the Governor-General's.
I think we're done.
- Moderator
- #246
What checks and balances do we have if the Government violates the Constitution?
Who can dissolve the Parliament or remove the government?
Maybe it’s an advisory body rather than a head of state. The body has to prove in the highest court the government violated the constitution.
- Moderator
- #248
It is a no for me. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. I don't care if it is not Australian, so it isn't broke.
I certainly don't want an elected President. I don't want any sort of campaigning for a role this important. I much prefer the current method. A G-G/President should be beyond party politics and politics altogether.
I certainly don't want an elected President. I don't want any sort of campaigning for a role this important. I much prefer the current method. A G-G/President should be beyond party politics and politics altogether.
An advisory body would never come to a decision, and who appoints them? An elected HOS would be a disaster. An apolitical HOS state, much like we've got now is the best option.
The Queen's powers are delegated to the GG. She's HOS in name only.
Similar threads
