Politics The Republic - no way

[LeverPuller]

The "Yes" side have the American example, which used to be a plus, to overcome.

Also don't have anyone to rally the troops. Malc will be politically unviable. If Shorten goes in for it I wouldn't be surprised if Tone goes the other side.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Western Europe and America have flourished since telling their monarchies to get bent. I say yes It'd also be one less slap in the face for Indigenous Australia.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Western Europe and America have flourished since telling their monarchies to get bent. I say yes It'd also be one less slap in the face for Indigenous Australia.

Most of Western Europe have Monarchies still, they are just less influential. So they are effectively like Australia.

Spain, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium all have Monarchies.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Hell yeah to a Republic! I'd be happy to just keep the GG's position, just call them The Prez from now on. We need a 'Strayan head of state at all costs though, that is the imperative.

 

[Lebbo73]

Republic yes. Of course, it's inevitable so let's get it done, Rest of the world is laughing at us.
Bring it on.
And change the damn flag while we're at it.

No one is laughing at us. I ain't a Monarchist but wgy change something for another thing when it isn't broke? This referendum proposed by Shorten will just be another expensive waste of money. The Monarchy is popular again. The referendum has no chance of succeeding.

 

[M Malice]

What exactly is the difference between the Labor & Liberal party's nowadays?.....I'm not seeing alot, other than the fact that what use to be 'right-wing' is now considered 'centrist' policy.....An incremental manipulation of the line, prefaced solely upon so-called 'economic measures'.....Economic measures expressed upon the interest of big business at the expense of the citizenry.

Concisely explains my strongly apathetic, cynical view on the political system in the majority of the western world. We are sold the illusion of choice at every election and everything that leads up to it is an elaborate dog and pony show, hence why I very rarely engage in any sort of political debate nowadays.

 

[Colonial]

No one is laughing at us. I ain't a Monarchist but wgy change something for another thing when it isn't broke? This referendum proposed by Shorten will just be another expensive waste of money. The Monarchy is popular again. The referendum has no chance of succeeding.

It is broke an Australian cant hold the highest office in this country.

Not that expensive. Costs will be around the same as when the royals visit or about half of one of those new jet fighters.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[skilts]

Why is it necessary to have a head of state at all, be it president or governor general?

 

[Colonial]

Why ius it necessary to have a head of state at all, be it president or governor general?

Someone has to lead.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

What's there to stop a Yes/No referendum to delete all the Queen bits and leave the specific model to be determined subsequently by Parliament acting on a non-binding plebiscite.

It's got zero chance of getting up, but legally that would be possible wouldn't it?

No. It wouldn't. Deleting The Queen would simply leave a vacant head of state.

 

[skilts]

Someone has to lead.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Why?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Why?

Because in the absence of leadership, a leader will impose himself/herself.

 

[Colonial]

Why?

Anarchy. Mad Max 2. Cool and all but even then someone leads.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[FredLeDeux]

No. It wouldn't. Deleting The Queen would simply leave a vacant head of state.

We've had plenty of those, both here and in Britain.
It's called hereditary monarchy.

 

[tandino]

No. It wouldn't. Deleting The Queen would simply leave a vacant head of state.

Can't Parliament pass laws to provide for a head of state?

 

[FredLeDeux]

Can't Parliament pass laws to provide for a head of state?

No, it's a constitutional amendment, it needs a referendum.

 

[tandino]

No, it's a constitutional amendment, it needs a referendum.

I know it needs a referendum.

To put it simply, the 1999 proposal pulled stuff out of the Constitution and put stuff back in. If you had a referendum that did half the job, that pulled all the stuff out, then Parliament would have to fill in the gaps

 

[sherb]

I don't see how a republic would make the country any better, so I am not fussed about it personally.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I know it needs a referendum.

To put it simply, the 1999 proposal pulled stuff out of the Constitution and put stuff back in. If you had a referendum that did half the job, that pulled all the stuff out, then Parliament would have to fill in the gaps

No, Parliament can't do that, because it would legally amount to amending the constitution as it stood after the first set of changes, and that would need a 2nd referendum.

 

[Roylion]

I know it needs a referendum.

To put it simply, the 1999 proposal pulled stuff out of the Constitution and put stuff back in. If you had a referendum that did half the job, that pulled all the stuff out, then Parliament would have to fill in the gaps

To change how the Head of State is selected or the powers vested in and/or exercised by of the Head of State, requires changes be made to the Constitution. How the Head of State is selected and the powers vested in and/or exercised by of the Head of State are already in the existing Constitution.

The reserve powers are:

• The power to dissolve (or refuse to dissolve) the House of Representatives. (Section 5 of the constitution)
• The power to dissolve Parliament on the occasion of a deadlock. (Section 57)
• The power to withhold assent to Bills. (Section 58)
• The power to appoint (or dismiss) Ministers. (Section 64)

In Section 58 for example the Constitution reads: "When a proposed law passed by both Houses of Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare ... that he assents in the Queen's name." The Royal Assent brings such laws into effect, as legislation, from the date of signing.

Sections 58 to 60 allow the Governor-General to withhold assent, suggest changes, refer to the Queen or proclaim that the Queen has annulled the legislation. A number of Governors-General have reserved Royal Assent for particular legislation for the Queen. Such assent has usually been given during a scheduled visit to Australia by the Queen.

Section 128 and section 51 of the Constitution specifies that alterations to itself cannot be made without a referendum.

The alterations to the Constitution MUST be put up against the current Constitution for the voters to approve or disapprove of any alterations to said Constitution.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I know it needs a referendum.

To put it simply, the 1999 proposal pulled stuff out of the Constitution and put stuff back in. If you had a referendum that did half the job, that pulled all the stuff out, then Parliament would have to fill in the gaps

Parliament doesn't have the power to do that, unless given the power within the Constitution, which can only happen by Referendum. And so the circle goes....

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I don't see how a republic would make the country any better, so I am not fussed about it personally.

It's a funny one, isn't it. I'm Australian of Irish/Italian heritage mostly. I have no particular hereditary love for Great Britain or the Royal Family and ideally, the boss of Australia would be Australian. That said, despite all of its many faults, our democracy works pretty well by comparison with almost every other system of government in the world. Especially by comparison with the United States. The idea of Presidential elections in Australia fills me with horror.

So because I love my country, and believe that the system of government is less intolerable than almost any other system of government in the world, and knowing that an alternative system of government would be drawn up by Turnbull, Shorten, and that bandanna wearing intolerant flog, I'd just as soon leave things as they are.

 

[Admiral Byng]

It's not that hard people...

We can't have an open-ended change to the Constitution. It must be a specific change (outlined in detail in the Act which authorises the referendum). The referendum question phrased as a yes/no is asking along the lines of "do you agree with this specific change?".

It can't be along the lines of "do you agree with some sort of in-principle change along these general lines and let us figure out the details later?". That is invalid.

 

[skilts]

Because in the absence of leadership, a leader will impose himself/herself.

If this be so, what is the role of the prime minister?

 

[Snake_Baker]

If this be so, what is the role of the prime minister?

The power to withold assent is redundant under the contemporary structure, and dissolving parliament & appointing and dismissing ministers is basically a ceremonial function that could be shifted to the speaker, but how would you deal with the deadlock powers? Place them in the hands of the High Court?