Who wants a Republic?

[Caesar]

Let's face it, if we were to just replace the GG with a President it would be the best job in the country. Completely ceremonial, brilliant perks, awesome title - who wouldn't want to do it? Make it popular vote, and with no real expertise needed you end up with Zaphod Beeblebrox representing us all over the world. No thanks, would rather keep it by appointment and have some vestige of meritocracy about the process.

Alternatively, if you wanted to make it elected, you could add some sort of responsibility/real executive power that requires expertise. But then you're diminishing the power of the legislature, and inevitably politicising the office. Personally - I don't want that either.

We voted on the only sort of model I'd be prepared to accept last time around - and it fell in a heap.

 

[Niximus]

This. It's been said a million times, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

The current system has allowed a situation where one government or the other came down to a choice by two men who were elected by a tiny minority of the Australian population.

That's a pretty good example of being broken.

 

[Caesar]

Beats all the other alternatives.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Yes.

Would prefer a ceremonial, elected president (Ireland seems to make it work) but would vote yes for an unelected president if it was the option at referendum.

 

[holybishop]

The current system has allowed a situation where one government or the other came down to a choice by two men who were elected by a tiny minority of the Australian population.

That's a pretty good example of being broken.

Well changing the head of state is not going to fix THAT. Understand the damn system better.

 

[tandino]

I would vote for a move to a republic on two non-negotiable conditions:

1) The President is NOT directly elected by the public

I'd say you'd be waiting a while then.

 

[Niximus]

Well changing the head of state is not going to fix THAT. Understand the damn system better.

?? I was countering your claim that the system 'aint broke' by pointing out that it is indeed 'broke'. Perhaps if you understood the 'damn system' better you wouldn't have made such a claim.

I understand the system quite well. I would not simply 'replace the Head of State', I would give the system a complete overhaul, rebuild it from the ground up. A directly elected President would be one of those changes but not the end of it.

I'd like the country to implement changes to make the decisions made by our government a more true reflection of the public's views. I would enshrine some basic rights in our Constitution (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, separation of church and state...). I'd seriously look at abolishing state governments (or at least the bicameral versions most states have now).

 

[Caesar]

Our system works as well as any in the world, and better than most. I'm not inclined to mess with it.

 

[Dagger5]

One thing I have always disagreed about is the fact that the GG and the PM can dismiss eachother (PM gets GG dismissed through the Queen). It should be made to be something like a 75% majority of a joint sitting of parliament that gets the head of state dismissed.

 

[TheBloods]

I really see very little purpose in changing the current system.

 

[TheBloods]

The current system has allowed a situation where one government or the other came down to a choice by two men who were elected by a tiny minority of the Australian population.

That's a pretty good example of being broken.

How does becoming a Republic fix that?

 

[DeanoT]

I'd say you'd be waiting a while then.

That may well be true, in which case I am happy with the status quo.

If the option of a republic with an elected President was put to a referendum, I would vote no.

Which goes to my original point that we won't have a republic until such time that republicans agree on a unified way forward.

 

[Niximus]

How does becoming a Republic fix that?

In itself it doesn't - please read the whole thread. It wouldeed to occur with other changes.

I was addressing one of the arguments used against a republic "if it aint broke don't fix it". The system is indeed 'broke'.

 

[TheBloods]

In itself it doesn't - please read the whole thread. It wouldeed to occur with other changes.

I was addressing one of the arguments used against a republic "if it aint broke don't fix it". The system is indeed 'broke'.

Yes, but the other changes don't need us to become a republic to implement.

With respect to republic-monarchy, the system is not broken.

 

[pazza]

It is a 2 stage process for mine.

You first ask the question about the republic itself.

Then after a period of time, propose the model.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

We're long over due for a republic. I say, bring the bitch on!

 

[Niximus]

Yes, but the other changes don't need us to become a republic to implement.

With respect to republic-monarchy, the system is not broken.

That depends on what you perceive as broken. I think we can all agree that the power the last 2 independents had is a flaw in the system. That's why I used that as my counter to his claim.

IMO (and other share this) giving a non-elected person power over the legislature is another major flaw.

I also find the idea of a monarchy itself as a big break in the system. The idea of a 'ruling class' of elite is against the core values of myself and many other Australians.

When One raises issue of the unelected Head of State the Monarchists are always quick to point out that the Queen/GG don't generally exercise their powers and are mostly ceremonial. Well, if we agree that there are flaws in the system and it needs to be changed, why would we not cut such a pointless position?

 

[TheBloods]

That depends on what you perceive as broken. I think we can all agree that the power the last 2 independents had is a flaw in the system. That's why I used that as my counter to his claim.

Whether it is broken or not with respect to a minority government is irrelevant to the argument of a constitutional monarchy or a republic.

IMO (and other share this) giving a non-elected person power over the legislature is another major flaw.

Many republicans don't. And there is little practical problem with it anyway.

I also find the idea of a monarchy itself as a big break in the system. The idea of a 'ruling class' of elite is against the core values of myself and many other Australians.

Again there is no practical problem with this.

When One raises issue of the unelected Head of State the Monarchists are always quick to point out that the Queen/GG don't generally exercise their powers and are mostly ceremonial. Well, if we agree that there are flaws in the system and it needs to be changed, why would we not cut such a pointless position?

It's expensive and pointless. This part isn't broken so there is nothing to fix.

The arguments for a republic continue to be weak. Until some decent ones are mounted we will not change.

 

[Niximus]

Whether it is broken or not with respect to a minority government is irrelevant to the argument of a constitutional monarchy or a republic.

Many republicans don't. And there is little practical problem with it anyway.

Again there is no practical problem with this.

It's expensive and pointless. This part isn't broken so there is nothing to fix.

The arguments for a republic continue to be weak. Until some decent ones are mounted we will not change.

I'd be interested to know what you would consider 'practical' problems in a system of government...

It seems as though I could be handed the title of Head of State and you'd be fine...

 

[TheBloods]

What's the practical problem with our current or previous GG?

 

[Caesar]

It seems as though I could be handed the title of Head of State and you'd be fine...

Well, you wouldn't, which to me seems to be a point in the current system's favour.

 

[Niximus]

What's the practical problem with our current or previous GG?

How about that we need a foreign citizen to appoint them for one?

 

[placebo]

Can't say I'm all that excited about the thought of our current crop of politicians drafting a decent bill of rights.

 

[KUNG FU]

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.

Why do people have to hijack political movements with their own agendas? Change needs to be gradual. Attempts to add complexity to institutional change will always undermine the political momentum. If people want a Bill of Rights, then that is a totally separate issue and a different referendum.

The question for me is simple: Would you prefer an Australian as head of state?

I actually think conservative monarchists threw the baby out with the bath water on the republic referendum. Instead of merely removing a hereditary head of state and effectively renaming & raising the importance the Governor-General's title, we might face a totally different political system that gets tacked onto the (apparently inevitable) republican transition and all the uncertainties that come with that.

 

[Niximus]

Can't say I'm all that excited about the thought of our current crop of politicians drafting a decent bill of rights.

I'd probably have open nominations for potential rights.

They'd then obviously have to be reviewed to remove obvious trolls (i.e. The right to Steve's mum every Wednesday..etc) Like right can be grouped together and then we simply vote on it. Tick the rights you would like enshrined in an Australian Bill of Rights. Get an agreed upon amount ticking any one right (>50%, >66% etc) and it gets in.

Then they'd need to be reviewed again incase some are mutually exclusive - in that case you could either go with the most popular one or throw it back to another vote.