Politics The Republic Debate

[Roylion]

Roylion a couple of questions.
1. can these sort of questions be put to a plebiscite.

Yes.

In Australia a plebiscite is a vote by citizens on a matter of national significance, but one which does not affect the Constitution. Moreover, plebiscites are normally advisory, and do not compel a government to act on the outcome. Only the Australian parliament can authorise the holding of a plebiscite.

Before a national plebiscite can take place, an enabling bill proposing the plebiscite and setting out its purpose must be passed by parliament. The bill thereby becomes an Act enabling a vote to be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission. The enabling legislation may or may not specify any actions expected of the government as a result of the plebiscite. In the case of a carbon tax plebiscite that simply asked whether electors are in favour of a carbon tax or not, the government could ignore the plebiscite result and pursue its own preferred outcome through the Parliament.

1. would you favor australia becoming a republic? 2. which of these models would you favor a) ? b) ? c) ?.

There have been three national plebiscites in Australia:

• 1916: military service conscription (defeated) Yes / No question
  
• 1917: reinforcement of the Australian Imperial Force overseas (defeated) Yes / No Question
  
• 1977: choice of Australia’s national anthem ('Advance Australia Fair' preferred from four options including God Save the Queen, Song of Australia and Waltzing Matilda.) So choice of a range of options.

then once they were voted on a binding referendum question could be put to the people? i am assuming that plebiscites are just an advisory tool for politicians, is that correct?

Yep. Pretty much.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

yes I get that. what I am saying is our constitution is flawed and bias towards the current position.

Things need to be changed that we can have a yes no vote and then work out the how.

I know you explained the Constitutional workings before Roylion, but I too think the current system is fatally flawed. The Republic v Monarchy question should only be a straight YES/NO choice. Should we stay or should we go? If we stay, the rest is academic. If we go, then we all have a choice of which direction the nation takes with regards to form.

The Parliament and the People will still be informed every single step of the way.

 

[Cap]

It's not flawed at all. If the constitution is going to be changed then the people have a right to know (and to vote on) the exact changes that will be made. That means there must be a proposed model of republic (with the exact changes to be made to the Constitution outlined in the accompanying Bill) up against the current model of constitutional monarchy.



No they do not.

If the republican models are so superior to the current model we have, won't whatever republican model is proposed win against the monarchy anyway?

for point a) I am not disagreeing with you on this, what I am saying is there needs to be the provision of a yes no and then a vote on what model with the exact changes.

edit - you've already answered the question with the plebicite bit.

sure that is an extra step, but in no way would I want it to be done without the Countries will behind it.

point b) that is how the '99 referedum was defeated wasn't it - a choice was made and people who didn't like to model voted for the monarchy.

 

[M Malice]

Yes.

In Australia a plebiscite is a vote by citizens on a matter of national significance, but one which does not affect the Constitution. Moreover, plebiscites are normally advisory, and do not compel a government to act on the outcome. Only the Australian parliament can authorise the holding of a plebiscite.

Before a national plebiscite can take place, an enabling bill proposing the plebiscite and setting out its purpose must be passed by parliament. The bill thereby becomes an Act enabling a vote to be conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission. The enabling legislation may or may not specify any actions expected of the government as a result of the plebiscite. In the case of a carbon tax plebiscite that simply asked whether electors are in favour of a carbon tax or not, the government could ignore the plebiscite result and pursue its own preferred outcome through the Parliament.



There have been three national plebiscites in Australia:

• 1916: military service conscription (defeated) Yes / No question
  
• 1917: reinforcement of the Australian Imperial Force overseas (defeated) Yes / No Question
  
• 1977: choice of Australia’s national anthem ('Advance Australia Fair' preferred from four options including God Save the Queen, Song of Australia and Waltzing Matilda.) So choice of a range of options.

Yep. Pretty much.

thanks Roylion, it's just a wait and see what happens for me now. i'll stay away from the republic thread until something concrete happens, just going round in circles here.

 

[Roylion]

- a choice was made and people who didn't like to model voted for the monarchy.

If the country's constitution is to be changed, then the changes need to be clearly laid out for the Australian people to decide if those changes that are proposed to the status quo currently laid out in the Australian Constitution are acceptable to them. The changes cannot be vague or ambiguous as the changes are binding in the event of a "Yes" vote.

 

[Father Jack]

It would seem that one problem republicans have is that if there are people supporting a model different to the one put forward then they may vote for the current monarchy system as they know that the issue would then remain live, whereas if we go with a republican system they don't like it would be practically impossible to change it again in the future.

 

[Moo]

If the model is so superior, then it should be able to get past that. Referendums have succeeded in the past.

Nah, let's have a plebiscite first to just blow the monarchists out of the water and piss all over their the Republican movement is being run by elitists and not representative of the everyday person & silent majority.

I see a plebiscite as an important step to towards sorting out the constitutional angle, even if that takes another decade.

Of course all Australians would actively support moving towards an Australian Head of State, if that is what the majority of us want ....unless of course you hate democracy?

 

[Roylion]

I know you explained the Constitutional workings before Roylion, but I too think the current system is fatally flawed.

It's not "fatally flawed". It is perfectly reasonable and logical that the people, voting on a proposal to change the central document that establishes the State and outlines the various powers of the executive, legislature and judiciary know and understand EXACTLY what changes they are voting for. It is also perfectly reasonable and logical,that those proposed changes be directly compared with the existing model currently in existence for acceptance or rejection as the people see fit.

The Republic v Monarchy question should only be a straight YES/NO choice. Should we stay or should we go?

If we are making changes to the existing Constitution,to become a republic then it must be by a referendum and the exact changes must be outlined to the Australian people for them to make an informed decision.

If we stay, the rest is academic. If we go, then we all have a choice of which direction the nation takes with regards to form.

But the Constitution can't be changed in that fashion. For good reason. Any proposed change must be made against the existing clauses of the Constitution.

The Parliament and the People will still be informed every single step of the way.

No they won't. Under what you are proposing I'm participating in a binding vote for a new form of government for Australia without knowing the fine details of that new form of government. That's just not acceptable.

 

[Roylion]

Nah, let's have a plebiscite first to just blow the monarchists out of the water and piss all over their the Republican movement is being run by elitists and not representative of the everyday person & silent majority.

Have a plebiscite. It's non-binding. Only then can a referendum be held and it must be put up against the existing model.

Of course all Australians would actively support moving towards an Australian Head of State, if that is what the majority of us want ....unless of course you hate democracy?

Are you understanding anything I've said? Because if you did you wouldn't be making a comment like that. Have a plebiscite. However a plebiscite is non-binding. To change the Constitution to become a republic the chosen republican model must be put up against the existing system in a referendum. A referendum is binding.

 

[Moo]

Have a plebiscite. It's non-binding. Only then can a referendum be held and it must be put up against the existing model.

Would of thought it was reasonably obvious from my wording that I understand a plebiscite is non-binding.

Are you understanding anything I've said? Because if you did you wouldn't be making a comment like that. Have a plebiscite. However a plebiscite is non-binding. To change the Constitution to become a republic the chosen republican model must be put up against the existing system in a referendum. A referendum is binding.

Ummmm of course I can make a comment like that, has nothing to do with the instruments - more to do with if you're going to BS with 'put up the model and if it's great ...of course everyone will vote for it' ...I'm just countering with 'hold the plebiscite and of course all the Monarchists will back democracy'.

Each is equally ridiculous in its political naivety.

 

[Roylion]

Ummmm of course I can make a comment like that, has nothing to do with the instruments - more to do with if you're going to BS with 'put up the model and if it's great ...of course everyone will vote for it' ...I'm just countering with 'hold the plebiscite and of course all the Monarchists will back democracy'.

Each is equally ridiculous in its political naivety.

Oh please. If the proposed republican model is so superior to the current constitutional monarchical system we currently have then it should be relatively straight forward to gain a double majority. Especially if such a model has already been chosen by a plebiscite.

A non binding plebiscite followed by a binding referendum where the chosen model is put up against the status quo should be straight forward for republicans shouldn't it? Any Republican model is inherently superior to a constitutional monarchical system isn't it? Most of the Australian population think this don't they?

Isn't the above process democracy at work? Twice over?

I'm certainly happy to go through the process I've just described. All I'm saying is that a referendum (proposed model vs. status quo) must be part of the process to change the Australian Constitution.

 

[Lach72]

Why are we calling for plebiscites everytime something gets a bit difficult?

How about the peanuts running the show make a case, explain it and lead?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

A non binding plebiscite followed by a binding referendum where the chosen model is put up against the status quo should be straight forward for republicans shouldn't it? Any Republican model is inherently superior to a constitutional monarchical system isn't it? Most of the Australian population think this don't they?

Obviously we can agree to disagree on this, but to my mind the sole question is Should Australia become a Republic? No is status quo. Yes is against the status-quo. The only thing that matters is YES versus NO. NO ends it right there and then. YES means we decide on the model.

It is exactly like buying a new car, in my mind. A family puts getting a new car to the vote because they're sick of the old model. The majority vote for getting a new one. That's it and end of story - no matter what model of car they're getting, that family IS getting a new car.

Fair enough you don't see it that way though, Roy

 

[Roylion]

Obviously we can agree to disagree on this, but to my mind the sole question is Should Australia become a Republic? No is status quo. Yes is against the status-quo. The only thing that matters is YES versus NO. NO ends it right there and then. YES means we decide on the model.

"Yes" via this method means we still haven't changed the Constitution. And the Constitution will still need to be formally changed by a vote of the people.

It is exactly like buying a new car, in my mind. A family puts getting a new car to the vote because they're sick of the old model. The majority vote for getting a new one. That's it and end of story - no matter what model of car they're getting, that family IS getting a new car.

And who actually makes that final decision of model, make etc.? Is that new car (of whatever model) going to determine the method of selecting the head of the family in the foreseeable future, how long the head of the family will remain the head of the family, future family rules and decisions, family roles? Will this be decided on who can get from the front door to the drivers door first, who can grab the keys first or by some other method? And where will this be written down? How will that be agreed upon?

 

[Norwegian Blue]

Obviously we can agree to disagree on this, but to my mind the sole question is Should Australia become a Republic? No is status quo. Yes is against the status-quo. The only thing that matters is YES versus NO. NO ends it right there and then. YES means we decide on the model.

It is exactly like buying a new car, in my mind. A family puts getting a new car to the vote because they're sick of the old model. The majority vote for getting a new one. That's it and end of story - no matter what model of car they're getting, that family IS getting a new car.

Fair enough you don't see it that way though, Roy

It's not that he doesn't see it that way, it's that what you described literally CAN'T happen.

Plebiscite: Republic Yes/No? Yes wins! Yaaaay!!

There follows a few year's debate about selecting a republic model. Model 'A' is chosen and is put forward.

Referendum: Model 'A' vs Status Quo? Status Quo wins because Model 'A' is (inevitably) a compromise and it gets shot down like last time.

What then? No new car although the Australian people have previously expressed a desire to upgrade. Keep going and put Model 'B' forward?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

It's not that he doesn't see it that way, it's that what you described literally CAN'T happen.

Plebiscite: Republic Yes/No? Yes wins! Yaaaay!!

There follows a few year's debate about selecting a republic model. Model 'A' is chosen and is put forward.

Referendum: Model 'A' vs Status Quo? Status Quo wins because Model 'A' is (inevitably) a compromise and it gets shot down like last time.

What then? No new car although the Australian people have previously expressed a desire to upgrade. Keep going and put Model 'B' forward?

That's the point I'm making - the Referendum to rewrite the Constitution will ONLY be of choices between models of Republic, because the Republic itself will have already been voted on. This is depending on a YES vote, granted.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

"Yes" via this method means we still haven't changed the Constitution. And the Constitution will still need to be formally changed by a vote of the people.

We the People will change it, via Referendum.

And who actually makes that final decision of model, make etc.? Is that new car (of whatever model) going to determine the method of selecting the head of the family in the foreseeable future, how long the head of the family will remain the head of the family, future family rules and decisions, family roles? Will this be decided on who can get from the front door to the drivers door first, who can grab the keys first or by some other method? And where will this be written down? How will that be agreed upon?

Again, We the People will decide. All them things will be shopped around for the people to decide. It's gonna be a Great Orgy of Democracy!

 

[Cap]

Roylion so how do you think it woud work best?

I mean how to you go to a referendum without knowing what model the country wants? with your understanding what is the best way to do it?

 

[Taylor]

for point a) I am not disagreeing with you on this, what I am saying is there needs to be the provision of a yes no and then a vote on what model with the exact changes.

edit - you've already answered the question with the plebicite bit.

sure that is an extra step, but in no way would I want it to be done without the Countries will behind it.

point b) that is how the '99 referedum was defeated wasn't it - a choice was made and people who didn't like to model voted for the monarchy.

The monarchists split the republicans by giving them the bad choice and they were either republic at any cost or they would wait until the right choice came about.

 

[Norwegian Blue]

That's the point I'm making - the Referendum to rewrite the Constitution will ONLY be of choices between models of Republic, because the Republic itself will have already been voted on. This is depending on a YES vote, granted.

Meh. Can't happen as explained by RL multiple times.

 

[kfc1]

Why are we calling for plebiscites everytime something gets a bit difficult?

How about the peanuts running the show make a case, explain it and lead?

Well if you had bothered to read the previous page or two you would know why

 

[Moo]

Oh please. If the proposed republican model is so superior to the current constitutional monarchical system we currently have then it should be relatively straight forward to gain a double majority. Especially if such a model has already been chosen by a plebiscite.

What proposed Republican model?

The plebiscite should just be used to set the scene and shut up the Royal loving vocal minority, and move us on to the real question of making sure we select the proper model.

You do understand that a model wouldn't have to be put forward as part of a plebiscite don't you Roy? I think you do but as you seem to drop in a comment on the difference each time you respond, thought I'd just cover my bases.

Alternatively, Alan Jones may be right and the plebiscite may not pass and we can just go on with a pommy Head of State.

A non binding plebiscite followed by a binding referendum where the chosen model is put up against the status quo should be straight forward for republicans shouldn't it? Any Republican model is inherently superior to a constitutional monarchical system isn't it? Most of the Australian population think this don't they?

Isn't the above process democracy at work? Twice over?

No I don't think just any republican model is superior, a non-binding plebiscite can set the scene and then the model can be debated. If you think they're all the same - perhaps I could suggest some readings for you?

In the way Little Johnny was able to give the monarchists a free kick by getting a lot of direct vote republicans to vote 'No' as well as the scare campaign of 'the politicians republic' (even though the way put forward of selecting the HoS was 2/3 parliament vs just the PM in the current model.....no scare tactics or misinformation there).

I think if the monarchists joined the debate (after drying their tears with union jack silk hankies) - we're far more likely to just eliminate the Queen and make the GG the HoS in all his/her inert glory and preserve the model that the monarchists love so and for good reason.

certainly happy to go through the process I've just described. All I'm saying is that a referendum (proposed model vs. status quo) must be part of the process to change the Australian Constitution.

Agreed.

Why are we calling for plebiscites everytime something gets a bit difficult?

How about the peanuts running the show make a case, explain it and lead?

Yes those ******* plebiscites we have every 70 or so years are getting out of control.

Lach ...why do you hate freedom so?

 

[Taylor]

What proposed Republican model?

The plebiscite should just be used to set the scene and shut up the Royal loving vocal minority, and move us on to the real question of making sure we select the proper model.

You do understand that a model wouldn't have to be put forward as part of a plebiscite don't you Roy? I think you do but as you seem to drop in a comment on the difference each time you respond, thought I'd just cover my bases.

Alternatively, Alan Jones may be right and the plebiscite may not pass and we can just go on with a pommy Head of State.



No I don't think just any republican model is superior, a non-binding plebiscite can set the scene and then the model can be debated. If you think they're all the same - perhaps I could suggest some readings for you?

In the way Little Johnny was able to give the monarchists a free kick by getting a lot of direct vote republicans to vote 'No' as well as the scare campaign of 'the politicians republic' (even though the way put forward of selecting the HoS was 2/3 parliament vs just the PM in the current model.....no scare tactics or misinformation there).

I think if the monarchists joined the debate (after drying their tears with union jack silk hankies) - we're far more likely to just eliminate the Queen and make the GG the HoS in all his/her inert glory and preserve the model that the monarchists love so and for good reason.



Agreed.



Yes those ******* plebiscites we have every 70 or so years are getting out of control.

Lach ...why do you hate freedom so?

Plebs are non binding, they are the illusion of freedom.

 

[Moo]

Plebs are non binding, they are the illusion of freedom.

It would build the case for a republic (or end it), and re-launch the campaign & would also give some sort of indicator as to how strong the feeling in this country runs.

It actually would be the right reason to run a plebiscite...to gauge the feeling of the nation and give some indication of how urgent/non-urgent the work on the model needs to be.

Could even be run to coincide with the next federal election, may give Bill the chance to at least win 1 thing on election night.

 

[skilts]

I find it astonishing that the constitution we started with in 1901 remains largely intact. This partly reflects the difficulty in riding roughshod over the initial intentions of the framers of the document, because of what they wrote, and how they covered their arses. This is as it should be. The founding fathers' (yes, they were all male) efforts have given us a political stability which is the envy of most of the rest of the world. The system as it stands is probably in need of revision, but as Roylion has so eloquently put, the replacement for the system we currently have must, at the very least, be as good as the one we enjoy now.

To have a popularly/directly elected head of state would be a catastrophe of monumental proportions, given Prime Ministers enjoys no such direct, popular acclaim, because they are (functionally) elected by members of their own political party. If the events of 1975 were to arise again, our head of state under this proposed model could (rightly) claim a more popular, competing endorsement compared to that of the Prime Minister.

The reason given during the previous referendum for not depending on our parliamentary representatives to choose a head of state was that politicians can't be trusted. If this be the case, this is a complete rejection of the democratic process which elected these people to parliament. If they were so untrustworthy WhyTF were they elected? Isn't this actually an assertion that the electorate can't be trusted? That this particular notion is one for which I have some sympathy is of no account.

For those who might be interested, I'm fiercely in favour of Australia having an Australian as head of state. Until the republican movement can agree among themselves as to what they want us to embrace as a replacement system, they will remain the irrelevance they proved themselves to be at the previous referendum.

That they chose that illiterate charlatan and plagiarist Peter Fitzsimons as their public face defies belief and is symptomatic of a profound desperation. They are still an impotent, risible and shambolic confection.