I am just curious in the figure as it has been over 10 years since we had a referendum for it. Personally, I think we should become a Republic.
Who wants a Republic?
- Thread starter AsianWithAFro
- Start date
- Tagged users None
In principle I am in favour of a republic, however, the problem last time was that republicans could not agree on the right model to adopt, and nothing has changed since.
I would vote for a move to a republic on two non-negotiable conditions:
1) The President is NOT directly elected by the public
2) A Bill of Rights, entrenched or not, is NOT part of the proposal.
I would vote for a move to a republic on two non-negotiable conditions:
1) The President is NOT directly elected by the public
2) A Bill of Rights, entrenched or not, is NOT part of the proposal.
- Thread starter
- #4
Yeah the actually formatting of it the Republic is why people voted against it. But when it comes to becoming a republic it is a somewhat aesthesitical in a way as we are replacing the head of state with someone who is Australian. Why do you believe a President/ Governor of the state shouldn't be elected?
The head of state has two functions. A ceremonial role and the exercise of the reserve powers when and only when it is absolutely necessary.
It is of great importance that the head of state is impartial in their decision making. If there was to be an elected head of state they would almost certainly elected on a partisan basis. This could then give rise to a situation where a Liberal head of state uses the reserve powers to dismiss a Labor government or vice versa. I would considered that a highly undesirable outcome.
To ensure the impartial of the head of state you would want to set a significantly high threshold for their appointment. I would suggest something along the lines of 75% support in both houses or 75% support in a joint sitting and the approval by 5 of the 6 premiers.
- Banned
- #6
Mmmmmmm not sure about either of those.
A very limited and simple bill of rights I would support.
I also oppose the idea of having an unelected head of state, unless the position was modelled almost exclusively off the current Governor General position.
Quite happy how things are, brah.
tazzietiger
Premiership Player
- Sep 10, 2010
- 4,808
- 508
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I agree if we went republic we should have a President in the role of the current Governor General and keep to voting for a party and the most seats gain government.
But i think just my personal opinion that many aussies are stuck to the attitude of we'll become republic one day in the future but not now.
But i think just my personal opinion that many aussies are stuck to the attitude of we'll become republic one day in the future but not now.
Yes. President should simply play the same role the G-G does now, politicising the position is a bad idea, and unless you had the President and the Parliament elected in different terms basically defeats the purpose anyway. The executive arm of government already dominates the political system as it is, making it even stronger is madness.
Wouldn't mind a bill of rights, it would stop ridiculous policies such as the internet filter before they even got started.
Wouldn't mind a bill of rights, it would stop ridiculous policies such as the internet filter before they even got started.
Quite happy how things are, brah.
This. It's been said a million times, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Changing to a republic wont make the system any better, and can only make it worse with partial elected head of state. At least in the current system, while the GG has the executive powers, the Queen still has power to dismiss the GG on the advice of the Prime Minister. Such as when Whitlam heard that John Kerr was about to dismiss him, he tried to contact the Queen to advise her to dismiss Kerr but it was too late. It's a sort of safety net which wont be available in a republic.
And to be honest, I dont think Charles will take the reign, and he'll pass it straight to William. People like William, so once he becomes King the republic movement will come crashing to a halt.
Upgrayedd
A Vote for Clive is a Vote for Justice
She aint MY Queen - I have NEVER sworn allegiance to the British royal family. Nations must progress beyond such antiquated ideas as a 'royal' family. We must move on.
And why all the fear over a Bill of Rights?
And why all the fear over a Bill of Rights?
Why do you want the Premiers involved in the appointment of a Head of State?
And therein lies the problem. You and I both seem supportive of the idea of a republic, yet we disagree on a way forward.
Until this tension is resolved between republicans, I can see no way forward, and in all honesty, I can't see a situation in which the tension would be resolved.
I would like to see the minimalist approach. i.e. Nothing changes except the title from GG to Pres, and the Head of State is an Australian citizen.
Why would you want an elected Head of State, unless the HOS was also the head of government?
A bill of rights would do no such thing.
You overestimate the importance of the royal family to the republican debate. The royal family is usually only a discussion point from the monarchists point of view. Most republicans couldn't care less given that our GG is not from the royal family.
It is about Australia having an Australian Head of State, appointed by an elected Australian parliament.
As soon as you explicitly define what IS a right, and enshrine it within legislation, anything not included is automatically defined to NOT be a right. That is a not insignificant problem. Ambiguity can have its advantages.
Also, legislated rights can be difficult to amend down the track, if they become obsolete or irrelevant. See US gun debate.
Yeah why not, anything to be more like america ay 
Whilst I'm theoretically more disposed to a republic than a constitutional monarchy, I abhor changes to anything that are purely idealistic and not really based on any practical reason.
There's far more things I'd rather change about this country other than messing with one of the few things that works pretty much perfectly (or rather, as well as any constitutional system could be expected to work).
There's far more things I'd rather change about this country other than messing with one of the few things that works pretty much perfectly (or rather, as well as any constitutional system could be expected to work).
- Thread starter
- #19
what's wrong with our current flag? The Union Jack represents a part of history
stuart27
Club Legend
Direct election of a President on three provisos:
1. All nominees must not currently, and for a set period of time in the past (say for the last 10 years), be a member of a political party.
2. All nominees must be vetted somehow.
3. The powers of the President must be officially enshrined into law (replacing 'reserve powers') and to an extent, extended (as an elected official there is no way of avoiding the dreaded 'mandate'). I would start by replacing the 'Queen's Assent' role of the GG with a Presidential veto (with the ability for the government to overrule by, say, 2/3 majority) similar to the US.
As soon as possible, please.
Keep the flag.
1. All nominees must not currently, and for a set period of time in the past (say for the last 10 years), be a member of a political party.
2. All nominees must be vetted somehow.
3. The powers of the President must be officially enshrined into law (replacing 'reserve powers') and to an extent, extended (as an elected official there is no way of avoiding the dreaded 'mandate'). I would start by replacing the 'Queen's Assent' role of the GG with a Presidential veto (with the ability for the government to overrule by, say, 2/3 majority) similar to the US.
As soon as possible, please.
Keep the flag.
Get ready for President John Farnham/Steve Waugh/Pat Rafter then.
I really don't think it is representive of modern Australia and sends a message to the rest of the world that Britian still own us in some kind of way.
Well personally I think we have a good system in place. It's good to have an impartial head of state, to oversee things. Also its not as though the monarchy steps in all the time anyway. I'm conservative though, so I like the tradition of it personally. I agree with Caeser's earlier post, there's more important things to worry about.
The best GGs, IMO, are those who come from the courts, especially the High Court. They are people who understand the complexity of constitutional law.
Your proposal would ensure that the President is elected by popular vote, and since the vast majority of Australians could not name a High Court judge, we would never have such people become our President.
Do you mean security vetted? If so, why?
We don't vet the PM or Minister for Defence, so why the GG/Pres?
Been wanting a republic for 20 years.
Don't care what the model is.
Don't care what the model is.
Similar threads
