Society/Culture The Republic Debate Reignited

[DeanoT]

If friendly aliens landed without a head of state, would we force them to have one, or would we just amend the Vienna convention to deal with the evolving political climate?

What would the foreign nations do?

That is not worth responding to.

All the High Court would be doing is interpreting the constitution and making the appropriate order. I really don't see how it is illogical. Give me one situation where it falls down.

The role of the Head of State's representatitive (the GG) is here

http://www.gg.gov.au/governorgeneral/category.php?id=2

The role of the High Court is here

http://www.highcourt.gov.au/about_01.html

Some background on separation of powers, and the role of an independent judiciary is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_in_Australia

Read all three, and if you still come to the conclusion that there would be no problem in having our Head of State being the High Court (apart from the silly notion of 7 judges comprising the Head of State), then there is nothing else I can give you.

 

[pmad87]

That is not worth responding to.

In other words, you have no response. Sure, it's a little outside the square, doesn't mean it's wrong.

The role of the Head of State's represenatitive (the GG) is here

http://www.gg.gov.au/governorgeneral/category.php?id=2

The role of the High Court is here

http://www.highcourt.gov.au/about_01.html

Some background on separation of powers, and the role of an independent judiciary is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat...s_in_Australia

Read all three, and if you still come to the conclusion that there would be no problem in having our Head of State being the High Court (apart from the silly notion of 7 judges comprising the Head of State), then there is nothing else I can give you.

Obviously, the 7 judges wouldn't be the HOS, because there wouldn't be a HOS. I know what all of those things are, and you are still unable to give me a concrete scenario where this system falls down, as it should if it is illogical as you say.

I see you are a little bit opposed to new and novel ideas. I am tempted to make a thread about my proposed solutions to global warming.

 

[Wally Carter]

I'd rather keep the current joke system rather than be seduced in to voting for a claytons republic again.

 

[mantis]

I assume you mean Kerr ?

Same thing, though I guess I'm giving dogs a bad name, by using them as a comparison.

 

[pmad87]

Mantis, what happened with Kerr could happen again under our current system. Having a directly elected president isn't the only way to fix this problem, and indeed it could result in similar but worse problems.

 

[DeanoT]

In other words, you have no response. Sure, it's a little outside the square, doesn't mean it's wrong.

Obviously, the 7 judges wouldn't be the HOS, because there wouldn't be a HOS. I know what all of those things are, and you are still unable to give me a concrete scenario where this system falls down, as it should if it is illogical as you say.

I see you are a little bit opposed to new and novel ideas. I am tempted to make a thread about my proposed solutions to global warming.

I'm sorry if I am not giving you the respect you think your views deserve, but when someone makes the suggestion that we do not require a head of state, then I'm afraid my tolerance levels get exhausted very quickly. The roles and responsibilities of the head of state are enshrined within several aspects of law, including our own constitution, and various international laws. You can not abolish the position of the head of state.

If you want to abolish the governor-general, that is fine, but the roles and responsibilities of a head of state do not disappear, they must be transferred to someone. They could be transferred to the head of government, although this has complications, some of which have been previously outlined.

The functions can not be transferred to the judiciary, for the simple requirement that there be an independent judiciary. You can not fulfil the role of a head of state while simultaneously performing the role of the High Court.

I am not opposed to new ideas, I am an advocate for a republic and president, and therefore am clearly an advocate for change in this area.

I am opposed to ideas which are not well developed, have no understanding of the constitutional basis upon which the country is formed, have no regard to international law or custom, or suffer a complete lack of understanding of the necessity of the position of the head of state, and how its role is incongruous with the objectives of the High Court.

I'll leave my contribution there. This is getting tedious.

 

[medusala]

Just change the hos to the Queen to whoever the parliament or government decides, and stay with the powers of the hos and pm. Simple really..

It is simple and there was a model on this basis (McGarvey [sp]).

Yet the Republicans were not interested as they wanted to push a number of changes through that had nothing to do with changing the head of state.

If not for this shameful behaviour the republic may well have got up as a number of soft monarchists would have voted for it, myself included.

An elected president is a recipe for disaster.

 

[B_GLassi]

Looking at how much the immigrant population has grown since last time I would say its a certain yes.

In terms of the model, I don't think we should go American style.

 

[WA ROO]

I assume you mean Kerr ?

The country owes this man a massive debt.

Back to the Republic Debate,question is why is this been drug out now?
Who needs a smokescreen to hide behind?

 

[Richo83]

It is simple and there was a model on this basis (McGarvey [sp]).

Yet the Republicans were not interested as they wanted to push a number of changes through that had nothing to do with changing the head of state.

If not for this shameful behaviour the republic may well have got up as a number of soft monarchists would have voted for it, myself included.

An elected president is a recipe for disaster.

It's so simple really, the pm doesn't need to have the veto power, everyone's panicking oh suddenly the pm will have enlarged powers of the US, not if we change our westminister system. Simply change the name of our hos from the queen to whoever the parliament decides, the hos and pm have the same roles (i.e. hos = ceremonial and pm = leader of country in westminister system).

As for people supporting an elected hos, I'm not convinced the Australian public needs to elect a largely ceremonial role. It's like demanding the public elect the speaker of the house. Why? I mean I wouldn't call myself a soft monarchist, I'd call myself on this issue an apathetic republican, but I don't like the notion of an elected hos for reasons I have illustrated. With an offer of the change of the naming, not role of hos from the queen to whoever, that would surely win. Problem is, it's largely cosmetic, and somewhat unnecessary.

 

[bit_pattern]

Simply change the name of our hos

you should call the GG a ho, republican or no republican

 

[medusala]

It's so simple really, the pm doesn't need to have the veto power,

The ALP tried to get changes in to prevent another Gough episode (amongst other things like the joke of a preamble)

It is hard to get constitutional change up via referendum so all the loopy charachters try to sneak through change under the guise of something else.

If it was really about a republic then they would be happy with the minimalist solution.

That they weren't says it all.

 

[pmad87]

I'm sorry if I am not giving you the respect you think your views deserve, but when someone makes the suggestion that we do not require a head of state, then I'm afraid my tolerance levels get exhausted very quickly. The roles and responsibilities of the head of state are enshrined within several aspects of law, including our own constitution, and various international laws. You can not abolish the position of the head of state.

If you want to abolish the governor-general, that is fine, but the roles and responsibilities of a head of state do not disappear, they must be transferred to someone. They could be transferred to the head of government, although this has complications, some of which have been previously outlined.

The functions can not be transferred to the judiciary, for the simple requirement that there be an independent judiciary. You can not fulfil the role of a head of state while simultaneously performing the role of the High Court.

I am not opposed to new ideas, I am an advocate for a republic and president, and therefore am clearly an advocate for change in this area.

I am opposed to ideas which are not well developed, have no understanding of the constitutional basis upon which the country is formed, have no regard to international law or custom, or suffer a complete lack of understanding of the necessity of the position of the head of state, and how its role is incongruous with the objectives of the High Court.

I'll leave my contribution there. This is getting tedious.

When I have time, I will rewrite the constitution, eliminating all references to the governor general and HOS and giving some of the roles to the PM, and some to the HC. Also there would be a new diplomatic post, created by parliament, not by the constitution, for the ceremonial aspects, dealing with foreign officials etc. Perhaps two diplomatic posts if the work is too much for one person. I'll PM it to you and tell me if it's still illogical.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

I think that the only change that need to be made is replace the Queen/Governor General with an Australian head of state with all the same powers (the current system isn't really broke) and the only real change that then needs to be made is to decide on how ths HOS is selected.

Im in favor of parliament selecting the HOS via a 2/3 majority maybe with the premiers of each state putting together a short list of candidates.
Which is better than the current system that i think goes along the lines of the PM suggesting someone to the Queen

For those in favor of direct election, do you really want a politician as our head of state? and would you want to directly elect the state governors as well?

Now i believe the most important thing to discuss is what to call the Head of State.
Will it be President? Chancellor? Queen/King? Captain? Top Dog?

We can call it whatever we like doesn't have to be called President.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

This is crap. The 1999 referendum was a minimalist model. There was no elected president. No executive presidency.

The only significant changes were:
a) To replace the Queen and Governor-General with a ceremonial President
b) To have the President appointed by a two thirds majority of joint parliament

The line about there being a "number of changes" was monarchist fiction. Many of changes to the existing Constitution were necessary to distinguish the President of the Senate from the President of Australia.


Indeed. That's why it wasn't put up in 1999.

Could have just been simpler by not using the word President for head of state, I don't think there is any real reason that the head of state of a republic has to be called President. We could keep using King or Queen only they would no longer be hereditary, or even just Governor General.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

President is the universally standard term for a republican head of state.

Doesn't mean it is the term we have to use, we could call it the Important Bloke/Sheila and there would be nothing wrong with it from a technical standpoint.