Who wants a Republic?

[holybishop]

but it has to be approved by a special convention which includes not only representatives of the Federal parliament, but representatives from each state too.

So the Senate?

 

[Admiral Byng]

So the Senate?

I was thinking each state parliament sending a delegation of state MPs to special convention. Or, we could have each state parliament vote on it too as well as the Federal parliament.

It would only need to be done about 12 times per century.

 

[GremioPower]

Why? We were first. Our brothers in NZ adopted it soon afterwards, but not officially for decades. PNG adopted it because of their links with us, and Samoa because of theirs with NZ. It's barely visible in the Brazilian flag.

In Brazil's coat-of-arms, though, it is really easy to spot the Southern Cross:

Australia is the biggest country to be fully in the Southern Hemisphere. Australia means "Southern Land". Having the Southern Cross as national symbol makes totally sense for you.

It also makes totally sense for us. So, we use it. We are also green and yellow (gold). So, we have that in common as well.

I don't think that these shared symbols diminish Brazil or Australia.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

'It was obvious the man was interested … and I wasn't': What happened when Sir John Kerr set his sights on Elizabeth

A pioneering feminist trying to change things from the inside, Elizabeth Reid was subjected to the very behaviour she was fighting against — including an unwanted sexual advance from the governor-general.

abc.net.au

 

[Bomberboyokay]

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

How about a system where the PM gets to nominate the person for the role, but it has to be approved by a special convention which includes not only representatives of the Federal parliament, but representatives from each state too. In fact states should hold the majority of votes in this body so the Feds can't just ram through any choice they like, it forces the PM to make a reasonable nomination. After all, this person will be the Crown equivalent in all of the state constitutions too.

We can argue over the title this person gets. I would prefer to call them King or Queen of Australia, but I am open to any other title except President. Just because there are too many people who will be too ignorant and stupid on these affairs that assume a President means a US style president. Which is the last thing I want. I'm open to "The Australian Head of State", "The Australian Crown Wearer", "The Crown-Governor" "Citizen One"... anything except President.

I would just keep Governor-General. The States would still have Governors.
It also gives some indication (not legally binding) that the conventions would remain in place unless specifically altered. A new name could be seen as a new post, and while I'm in favour of decreasing the power held by federal cabinet there is a limit on how much I would want a head of state to wield too.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I would just keep Governor-General. The States would still have Governors.
It also gives some indication (not legally binding) that the conventions would remain in place unless specifically altered. A new name could be seen as a new post, and while I'm in favour of decreasing the power held by federal cabinet there is a limit on how much I would want a head of state to wield too.

I thought G-G was by definition a local deputy of a distant monarch, appointed to day-to-day matters where the time and distance make direct involvement of the monarch impractical. If we're going to go through this in order to express our independence we probably should look at changing the title.

I've been thinking that the new office would somehow need to replace the Crown in all of the state constitutions too. The office would be a first among equals of all the state governors too, or replace all of them, I am not yet sure which. In a sense it would be a new post if were to have a different relationship to the states.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I thought G-G was by definition a local deputy of a distant monarch, appointed to day-to-day matters where the time and distance make direct involvement of the monarch impractical. If we're going to go through this in order to express our independence we probably should look at changing the title.

I've been thinking that the new office would somehow need to replace the Crown in all of the state constitutions too. The office would be a first among equals of all the state governors too, or replace all of them, I am not yet sure which. In a sense it would be a new post if were to have a different relationship to the states.

The definition can be whatever the Constitution decides it is. The term "Governor" doesn't seem to imply any foreign monarch in the US states, so I don't think Governor-General would do so here. And I would keep the state Governors as well. I don't see any need for changes in alignment there. Re-working federalism is a completely different set of arguments, IMO.

There isn't even a real need for the States to change in unison with the federal level. It would be strange not to, and could throw up some quirks, but not a true necessity.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Historian wins bid to read 'Palace letters' previously deemed 'private'

The High Court determines that the Queen's correspondence with then governor-general Sir John Kerr around the time of the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 1975 are not "private papers" and can be accessed by historian Jenny Hocking.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Bomberboyokay]

 

[Pessimistic]

laugable

 

[Pessimistic]

If a republic ever gets up here, you can bet your arse it’s mining companies which engineered it and will profit from it

 

[Admiral Byng]

So the Senate?

Haha. old thread bumped gives me a new idea I hadn't thought of before.

How about this new National Cabinet of all the premiers and the PM, with each Fed and State parliament holding a confirmatory vote on it. It will be a very rare thing that we get one party holding all 6 states plus being in power federally too. It will pretty much always have to be somebody competent with cross-party support.

 

[Caesar]

Haha. old thread bumped gives me a new idea I hadn't thought of before.

How about this new National Cabinet of all the premiers and the PM, with each Fed and State parliament holding a confirmatory vote on it. It will be a very rare thing that we get one party holding all 6 states plus being in power federally too. It will pretty much always have to be somebody competent with cross-party support.

No thanks. Aside from the fact that using the National Cabinet for any kind of binding vote gives a ridiculous amount of power to Tasmania and the territories, it is effectively a star chamber - minutes are exempt from FOI requests.

Happy for any head of state to be appointed but it needs to be through a transparent process that doesn't give glorified local mayors any kind of real national power.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Pressure on Prince Andrew to speak to FBI investigators was mounting after his friend Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested on charges of sex trafficking and perjury as part of its ongoing inquiry into the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

At a press conference in New York in which prosecutors detailed the allegations facing Maxwell, they urged the Prince to come forward.

“We would welcome Prince Andrew coming in to talk with us, we would like to have the benefit of his statement,” said Audrey Strauss, acting US attorney for the southern district of New York.

“I have no further comment beyond what I just said, which is that our doors remain open, as we previously said, and we would welcome him coming in and giving us an opportunity to hear his statement.”

Prince Andrew under pressure after arrest of Ghislaine Maxwell

Royal ‘bewildered’ after US attorney asks him to come forward following arrest of his friend over alleged sex crimes

www.theguardian.com

 

[medusala]

No thanks. Aside from the fact that using the National Cabinet for any kind of binding vote gives a ridiculous amount of power to Tasmania and the territories, it is effectively a star chamber - minutes are exempt from FOI requests.

Catch 22 though.

State / local level pollies tend to be crap.

Best (large) run countries tend to be federations / decentralised. Yet at a time of national crisis you can hardly have one state wagging the tail.

Imagine giving Tas or NT as you mention the ability to veto Australia going to war.

 

[Pessimistic]

Veto going to war? Sounds like a great idea

 

[Bomberboyokay]

 

[Bomberboyokay]

 

[Bomberboyokay]

 

[Taylor]

This is a fair comment.

The English built an empire by stealing countries, they might have been the ones to start removing slavery but they are the ones that built the USA and it's machine before it was taken over by the formerly English new Americans.

Passing the bill to the group responsible ends up at the feet of the royal family.

 

[Caesar]

Faruqi probably just wants to make sure nobody asks for her correspondence pertinent to a conspiracy to topple an elected official.

 

[Munga]

If a republic ever gets up here, you can bet your arse it’s mining companies which engineered it and will profit from it

Yep. Why the hell would we want someone like #scottyfrommarketing running a corrupt republic, dishing out hundreds of billions to his mates in the coal or defense industry. Where whoever has the most money to promote themselves becomes president. People certainly have a bee in their bonnet about the royals or the English for whatever reason, but are blinded not to see a republic isn't the answer. Some of the best, progressive, peaceful, most livable countries in the world are monarchies, whether only ceremonial or not. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, UK, UAE, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Japan... Some of the s**t people are posting here about a couple of royals has absolutely nothing to with politics or running a country successfully.

 

[medusala]

lol. Pathetic hyprocrite given Mughal empire.

Reparations? Ok, you can start by paying all the Hindus in India for their suffering before being rescued by the British.