I feel like Australia, New Zealand and any other country with the Queen at the helm is being discriminated against. It's unconstitutional to bombard us with several news broadcasts (need I remind you that we get an "update" regarding the royal weeding every five hours), and that maybe we need to separate ourselves from England to be able to find our place within the world.

(If this is in the wrong forum, just move it. I'm new here and I don't know where everything goes).

I agree, but I don't think we'll cut the apron strings any time soon, we have an overwhelming amount of English immigrants here., and they won't be voting for independence. It probably wouldn't make much difference anyway, we are bombarded by all things American too.

We haven't got our own identity yet, so we have to tag along with the big boys.

Aaron_Maher wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 1:49am:

I feel like Australia, New Zealand and any other country with the Queen at the helm is being discriminated against. It's unconstitutional to bombard us with several news broadcasts (need I remind you that we get an "update" regarding the royal weeding every five hours), and that maybe we need to separate ourselves from England to be able to find our place within the world.

In a world more obsessed with celebrity than at any time in history, where everyone gets their 15 minutes every 30 days , a royal wedding appears to be invoking a mini revival of monarchism in Australia , if only for the fact that the Windsors are the world champion heavyweights of celebrity families who can lay claim and are granted near 24/7 fame on a quiet week and therefore (apparently) deserve "uber-respect".

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 5:16am:

I agree, but I don't think we'll cut the apron strings any time soon, we have an overwhelming amount of English immigrants here., and they won't be voting for independence. It probably wouldn't make much difference anyway, we are bombarded by all things American too. We haven't got our own identity yet, so we have to tag along with the big boys.

i disagree with that I am of English origin and I voted yes at the referendum.. sick of the whingeing to be honest...

but I didnt like the 64 constitution amendments that we were kept in the dark about...but I am sure most that voted yes couldnt care less about those.

The media fascination with royal relationships has no connection to the republic issue.

I can understand a small number of people want to spend a lot of money and effort plus take the associated risk in making a substantial change which will at best  achieve nothing (if we are lucky).

The current mood in Australia does not support making silly feel good changes with no benifit.

It is not the cause of problems like this one, sorry but this comes down to human nature. I know it sound silly to blame a very ordinary vocal group.

.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 7:12am:

In a world more obsessed with celebrity than at any time in history,

It has nothing to do with Monarchy v Republicism. It is all about our obsession with celebrity

I think it's more important to be a functioning democracy than a republic. Until the republicans cotton on to this they have no hope. No-one is going to accept a change merely for the republic label.

I would have argued against FD's point, in the past, when I thought that becoming a Republic would have been valid just for the sake of declaring our own new, and independent identity, as a modern, multicultural nation, in the Asian/Pacific region.

Having seen the recent federal election saga, so calmly managed, due to our political system, and traditions, I would now have to agree with him, that any model for change, would have to at the absolute minimum, guarantee that we were not diminishing any of the standards that we now enjoy, and preferably be able to display areas of improvement, to make it worth our while, to make such a change.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 2:26pm:

Having seen the recent federal election saga, so calmly managed, due to our political system, and traditions, I would now have to agree with him, that any model for change, would have to at the absolute minimum, guarantee that we were not diminishing any of the standards that we now enjoy, and preferably be able to display areas of improvement, to make it worth our while, to make such a change.

Would that not be a given? A system at least as good?

How much does the calm management of the federal election saga, owe to the British Monarch as our head of state?

If you consider the dismissal of a sitting Prime Minister as part of the federal election saga (in what was in some ways a coup d'etat by the parliamentarians), there are many who now claim the office of PM is now permanently damaged. That's thrice in 35 years a head of government has been dismissed by our current system other than by general election.

Quote:

Would that not be a given? A system at least as good?

From what I have seen from the republicans so far, no. They seem to think the label republic is the most important thing. Hence the referendum debacle. Even your response confirms this. You are not telling me that the proposed system is as good. Instead you are hoping that whatever they come up with will be.


Quote:

If you consider the dismissal of a sitting Prime Minister as part of the federal election saga (in what was in some ways a coup d'etat by the parliamentarians), there are many who now claim the office of PM is now permanently damaged.

Not really. That is the whole point of our system. That is what is supposed to happen.

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 2:59pm:

Not really. That is the whole point of our system. That is what is supposed to happen.

And maybe that ain't a good thing.

Maybe if Parliament dismisses a PM, the act should trigger an immediate dissolution of Parliament. That way, it may give Parliamentarians pause for thought, given the challenger and party would not have the luxury of time to cement his/her position.

Or maybe not.

We do not elect the PM. We elect a local rep. It is their job to do this. The idea that the PM's job is somehow more sacred than the people we actually elect is silly. Concentrating a lot of power in the hands of one person may seem like a good idea because it keeps things simple, but it is not how you achieve stable government.

Aaron_Maher wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 1:49am:

I feel like Australia, New Zealand and any other country with the Queen at the helm is being discriminated against. It's unconstitutional to bombard us with several news broadcasts (need I remind you that we get an "update" regarding the royal weeding every five hours), and that maybe we need to separate ourselves from England to be able to find our place within the world. (If this is in the wrong forum, just move it. I'm new here and I don't know where everything goes).

And then you'll get bombarded about Christmas too.
Isn't that discriminating as well.


Oh and I love the irony of complaining how it is unconstitutional whilst at the same time wanting to remove that constitution!

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 4:58pm:

We do not elect the PM. We elect a local rep. It is their job to do this. The idea that the PM's job is somehow more sacred than the people we actually elect is silly. Concentrating a lot of power in the hands of one person may seem like a good idea because it keeps things simple, but it is not how you achieve stable government.

Yet I'd bet the majority (of those not rusted on) vote based on their expectations of who will be the nation's PM.

Stable government is not guaranteed by the ability of Parliamentarians to dismiss, for any reason, the head of government. In the case of Rudd, disagreeable as he may be, was removed for opportunistic reasons and not necessarily for the good of the nation, as good for the Labor Party.

If it ain't broke, then don't try and fix it.

What is it about some that they have to break things first.

Aaron_Maher wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2010 at 1:49am:

I feel like Australia, New Zealand and any other country with the Queen at the helm is being discriminated against. It's unconstitutional to bombard us with several news broadcasts (need I remind you that we get an "update" regarding the royal weeding every five hours), and that maybe we need to separate ourselves from England to be able to find our place within the world. (If this is in the wrong forum, just move it. I'm new here and I don't know where everything goes).

The only people to benefit from our move to become a republic will be those in the printing industry. Moving to a republic will see only one new position created (President) and several positions declared vacant.

salad in wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 8:06pm:

Aaron_Maher wrote on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 1:49am: I feel like Australia, New Zealand and any other country with the Queen at the helm is being discriminated against. It's unconstitutional to bombard us with several news broadcasts (need I remind you that we get an "update" regarding the royal weeding every five hours), and that maybe we need to separate ourselves from England to be able to find our place within the world. (If this is in the wrong forum, just move it. I'm new here and I don't know where everything goes). The only people to benefit from our move to become a republic will be those in the printing industry. Moving to a republic will see only one new position created (President) and several positions declared vacant.

Continue to call it the Commonwealth of Australia including the coat of arms etc. Keep everything much as it is. Adopt the Swiss Confederation model instead of a Republic. Change only what is necessary, which is basically just the Queen as head of State.

We don't need a President.

Quote:

Stable government is not guaranteed by the ability of Parliamentarians to dismiss, for any reason, the head of government.

Sounds like you are shifting the goal posts. From the current system, you expect a guarantee of stable government. Yet you are happy to toss it out the window in the 'hope' that they come up with something better.

I don't see any reason to change anything nor do I want to change anything. I do see plenty of good old fashioned OOOOOYYYRISH rebel rousing though.

http://www.spinsouthwest.com/wp-content/files/2010/06/Father-Dougal-McGuire.jpg

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 9:37pm:

Quote: Stable government is not guaranteed by the ability of Parliamentarians to dismiss, for any reason, the head of government. Sounds like you are shifting the goal posts. From the current system, you expect a guarantee of stable government. Yet you are happy to toss it out the window in the 'hope' that they come up with something better.

Just challenging the notion that the current system is necessarily stable.

A system where a majority of Parliamentarians can have a HOG dismissed without appropriate constraints (say through an impeachment process requiring legal reasons for dismissal) and without any necessary regard for the welfare of the state, does not guarantee stability.

And then there is our right to be part of the monarchy.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 10:14pm:

And then there is our right to be part of the monarchy.

The ridiculous charade of one, you mean.

freediver wrote on Nov 27^th, 2010 at 2:59pm:

Quote: Would that not be a given? A system at least as good? From what I have seen from the republicans so far, no. They seem to think the label republic is the most important thing. Hence the referendum debacle. Even your response confirms this. You are not telling me that the proposed system is as good. Instead you are hoping that whatever they come up with will be. [quote]If you consider the dismissal of a sitting Prime Minister as part of the federal election saga (in what was in some ways a coup d'etat by the parliamentarians), there are many who now claim the office of PM is now permanently damaged.

Not really. That is the whole point of our system. That is what is supposed to happen.[/quote]


Thats true.
Would the republicans have prefered the army to take over for them?

Marvelous system that.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 5:27am:

freediver wrote on Nov 27th, 2010 at 2:59pm: Quote: Would that not be a given? A system at least as good? From what I have seen from the republicans so far, no. They seem to think the label republic is the most important thing. Hence the referendum debacle. Even your response confirms this. You are not telling me that the proposed system is as good. Instead you are hoping that whatever they come up with will be. [quote]If you consider the dismissal of a sitting Prime Minister as part of the federal election saga (in what was in some ways a coup d'etat by the parliamentarians), there are many who now claim the office of PM is now permanently damaged. Not really. That is the whole point of our system. That is what is supposed to happen.

Thats true.
Would the republicans have prefered the army to take over for them?

Marvelous system that.
[/quote]
Do you reckon you might have missed the point?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 6:46am:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 5:27am: freediver wrote on Nov 27th, 2010 at 2:59pm: Quote: Would that not be a given? A system at least as good? From what I have seen from the republicans so far, no. They seem to think the label republic is the most important thing. Hence the referendum debacle. Even your response confirms this. You are not telling me that the proposed system is as good. Instead you are hoping that whatever they come up with will be. [quote]If you consider the dismissal of a sitting Prime Minister as part of the federal election saga (in what was in some ways a coup d'etat by the parliamentarians), there are many who now claim the office of PM is now permanently damaged. Not really. That is the whole point of our system. That is what is supposed to happen. Thats true. Would the republicans have prefered the army to take over for them? Marvelous system that.

Do you reckon you might have missed the point?
[/quote]



Have you realised what this thread is about yet?

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 6:47am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 6:46am: Do you reckon you might have missed the point? Have you realised what this thread is about yet?

I'll take that as a yes.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 6:49am:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 6:47am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 6:46am: Do you reckon you might have missed the point? Have you realised what this thread is about yet? I'll take that as a yes.

Is that your answer?
As if it is then you should re-read the thread.
It helps if you know what we are talking about first.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 7:16am:

Is that your answer? As if it is then you should re-read the thread. It helps if you know what we are talking about first.

Yes, that would be my reply to your post #22.

What is your point in reply 22?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 7:21am:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 7:16am: Is that your answer? As if it is then you should re-read the thread. It helps if you know what we are talking about first. Yes, that would be my reply to your post #22. What is your point in reply 22?

So you think you know what the thread is about.

I think you need to re-read it then to understand the essence.

For me the main issue with the republic debate is the fact that everyone pushing for the change seems determined that in the next attempt the process will be rigged.

What they want is a staged process where we have a vote on principal, this casts the current system warts and all against an ideological utopia. (with no detail)

If the republic wins at this stage the current system would be doomed.

Stage two is to derive the model to use or to give options for a vote this is putting the horse before the cart, they already won and now they will tell us what we got.

At no time does the final model get to play off against the current system.

All the republic models may as last time be flawed but in this process it will not matter as we are locked in to selecting one of them. (We would have to vote in favour of a system we may very well believe is inferior to what we have).

I believe that any process which does not give the final option of selecting a republic model or staying with the tried and proven system we have would be dishonest.

I have no time for any proposition which would result in the rebirth of our nation based on a dishonest process; I think that would say something of our society which we should not be too proud.

In the future who would be pleased too have history teach our grandchildren that Australia had to cheat in order to become a republic.

" Son you should be proud of our republic - is is based on the most dishonest principals we could find".

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 7:27am:

So you think you know what the thread is about. I think you need to re-read it then to understand the essence.

Your replies 14, 20 & 22 refer to what?

Dnarever wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 7:32am:

I have no time for any proposition which would result in the rebirth of our nation based on a dishonest process; I think that would say something of our society which we should not be too proud.

What's honest about a system where Parliamentarians can dismiss a head of government arising from cynical opportunism and without any necessary regard for the best interests of nation?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 7:38am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 7:32am: I have no time for any proposition which would result in the rebirth of our nation based on a dishonest process; I think that would say something of our society which we should not be too proud. What's honest about a system where Parliamentarians can dismiss a head of government arising from cynical opportunism and without any necessary regard for the best interests of nation?

As I said warts and all - and there is no indication that a new system would be any different in this particular and more likely worse.

In the situation you are referring to the then GG  and opposition leader acted improperly, Just as likely for a President to do the same.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 8:05am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 7:38am: Dnarever wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 7:32am: I have no time for any proposition which would result in the rebirth of our nation based on a dishonest process; I think that would say something of our society which we should not be too proud. What's honest about a system where Parliamentarians can dismiss a head of government arising from cynical opportunism and without any necessary regard for the best interests of nation? As I said warts and all - and there is no indication that a new system would be any different in this particular and more likely worse.

How would it be worse if, say, the GG (or a council of state governors) was recognised as the head of state replacing the current foreign head of state?


Dnarever wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 8:05am:

In the situation you are referring to the then GG  and opposition leader acted improperly, Just as likely for a President to do the same.

The dismissal I am referring to is that of Kevin Rudd's.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 7:38am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 7:32am: I have no time for any proposition which would result in the rebirth of our nation based on a dishonest process; I think that would say something of our society which we should not be too proud. What's honest about a system where Parliamentarians can dismiss a head of government arising from cynical opportunism and without any necessary regard for the best interests of nation?

If it is within the constitution then it is an honest system.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 8:05am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 7:38am: Dnarever wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 7:32am: I have no time for any proposition which would result in the rebirth of our nation based on a dishonest process; I think that would say something of our society which we should not be too proud. What's honest about a system where Parliamentarians can dismiss a head of government arising from cynical opportunism and without any necessary regard for the best interests of nation? As I said warts and all - and there is no indication that a new system would be any different in this particular and more likely worse. In the situation you are referring to the then GG  and opposition leader acted improperly, Just as likely for a President to do the same.

That's exactly right.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 8:26am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 7:38am: Dnarever wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 7:32am: I have no time for any proposition which would result in the rebirth of our nation based on a dishonest process; I think that would say something of our society which we should not be too proud. What's honest about a system where Parliamentarians can dismiss a head of government arising from cynical opportunism and without any necessary regard for the best interests of nation? If it is within the constitution then it is an honest system.

Oh really? ;D

A system that allows Parliamentarians to dismiss a head of government without that HOG having acted illegally, without any legal process and that encourages spin-doctoring to sell a probable act of cynicism to a bewildered nation does not 'keep the bastards honest'.

Dismissals of HOGs in Australia is mostly about the bruised egos of disgruntled Parliamentarians (the deputy) and the fortunes of the ruling party and not about the interests of the nation.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 8:27am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 8:05am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 7:38am: Dnarever wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 7:32am: I have no time for any proposition which would result in the rebirth of our nation based on a dishonest process; I think that would say something of our society which we should not be too proud. What's honest about a system where Parliamentarians can dismiss a head of government arising from cynical opportunism and without any necessary regard for the best interests of nation? As I said warts and all - and there is no indication that a new system would be any different in this particular and more likely worse. In the situation you are referring to the then GG  and opposition leader acted improperly, Just as likely for a President to do the same. That's exactly right.

;D

How would it likely be worse?

That reply refers to the wrong dismissal.

What is 'exactly right'?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 8:14am:

The dismissal I am referring to is that of Kevin Rudd's.

KR was not dismissed he just lost the party leadership, Would you include the Liberal PM it happened to as well?

Their is nothing in any plan for a republic which would change this part of the system or process in any way.

Quote:

A system where a majority of Parliamentarians can have a HOG dismissed without appropriate constraints (say through an impeachment process requiring legal reasons for dismissal)

There are appropriate constraints. They are political. They have to reapply for their job every few years. That is how democracy works. Your criticism of what happened ignores the elephant in the room. Our representatives are held accountable for their actions. That you agree with how the people judged them is a problem inherent to democracy, not our particular system.


Quote:

For me the main issue with the republic debate is the fact that everyone pushing for the change seems determined that in the next attempt the process will be rigged. What they want is a staged process where we have a vote on principal, this casts the current system warts and all against an ideological utopia. (with no detail) If the republic wins at this stage the current system would be doomed. Stage two is to derive the model to use or to give options for a vote this is putting the horse before the cart, they already won and now they will tell us what we got. At no time does the final model get to play off against the current system.

I've seen this a number of times too, and it does highlight the lack of substance from the republican cause. Luckily it is a purely rhetorical trick as it could never happen that way. At the end of the day, we have to vote on an actual change to the constitution. If the alternative is a blank page and a committee, people will vote no, just like last time.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 8:42am:

How would it likely be worse? That reply refers to the wrong dismissal.

You are correct we were talking about different things.

In terms of the GG point it would very likely be worse.

Like it or not the GG's right to dismiss a government is an important safeguard. The republic model may well remove this possibility and would be certain to remove the secondary safegusrds. (which the GG in 1975 improperly ignored)

Even if the dismissal provisions remain it would be difficult to see that a government appointed representative or direct elected rep being more apt to use / not use the provision inapropriatly, we could easily have a rep who either had a debt to the government of the day or percieves more personal power than should be the case.

Would the Rebublic model replace the level of supervision on government with some other method - not probable.

The result would almost certainly be more power in the hads of our government and less accountability.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 8:56am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 8:14am: The dismissal I am referring to is that of Kevin Rudd's. KR was not dismissed he just lost the party leadership, Would you include the Liberal PM it happened to as well? Their is nothing in any plan for a republic which would change this part of the system or process in any way.

By that, KR was dismissed as Australia's head of government.

There are a few ways you could change that process. One would be that a head of government can be removed only through impeachment. Another (which would not necessarily stop it but likely make a Parliamentarian rebellion less likely) would be the immediate dissolution of Parliament upon dismissal of a HOG, giving the usurper much less advantage to secure his/her position and refer the matter immediately to the people. Another would be a requirement of, say, 2/3 of both houses to consent to dismissal.

The Liberal PM it happened to (if you're referring to Howard) was decided by the people.

Why should the nation be held hostage to the ambitions of an impatient / belligerent or ego-driven deputy?

Dnarever wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 9:05am:

The party Leader in Australia is always for the party to deciede as was the case previously when Bob Menzies was removed as PM and replace by the Country party leader Arthur Fadden.

The leader of the party and the role of Head of Government do not necessarily need to be mutually inclusive. Clearly initially they would be, but having elevated the party leader to the new role of HOG, the constitution could protect him/her from arbitrary usurpation.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 9:05am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 8:42am: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 8:27am: Dnarever wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 8:05am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 7:38am: Dnarever wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 7:32am: I have no time for any proposition which would result in the rebirth of our nation based on a dishonest process; I think that would say something of our society which we should not be too proud. What's honest about a system where Parliamentarians can dismiss a head of government arising from cynical opportunism and without any necessary regard for the best interests of nation? As I said warts and all - and there is no indication that a new system would be any different in this particular and more likely worse. In the situation you are referring to the then GG  and opposition leader acted improperly, Just as likely for a President to do the same. That's exactly right. ;D How would it likely be worse? That reply refers to the wrong dismissal. What is 'exactly right'? There is only one dismissal - you are talking about something different which has led to some confusion on the matter. The party Leader in Australia is always for the party to decide as was the case previously when Bob Menzies was removed as PM and replace by the Country party leader Arthur Fadden.

Again this is correct.

It is easy to understand this if you follow the thread.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 9:15am:

Again this is correct. It is easy to understand this if you follow the thread.

;D

You seem incapable of your own opinion.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 9:15am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 9:05am: The party Leader in Australia is always for the party to deciede as was the case previously when Bob Menzies was removed as PM and replace by the Country party leader Arthur Fadden. The leader of the party and the role of Head of Government do not necessarily need to be mutually inclusive. Clearly initially they would be, but having elevated the party leader to the new role of HOG, the constitution could protect him/her from arbitrary usurpation.

Not sure if I agree or not, While I was not a supporter of what occured with Rudd the typical reasons seem sound.

Poor performance of the leader is the trigger.

If the leader were to be protected what would happen if the party leader were to become mentally unstable (happened before) and could not be replaced.

The reality is that a party has replaced their leader in government twice in Australia in over 100 years, the fix may be worse than the disease.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 9:05am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 8:42am: How would it likely be worse? That reply refers to the wrong dismissal. You are correct we were talking about different things. In terms of the GG point it would very likely be worse. Like it or not the GG's right to dismiss a government is an important safeguard. The republic model may well remove this possibility and would be certain to remove the secondary safegusrds. (which the GG in 1975 improperly ignored)

The head of state in a republican model (whether the HOS is a President or a 'Sovereign Council' such as state governors acting collectively), would and should have the power to dismiss a government within appropriate constitutional constraints and refer the matter to the people via a general election.


NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 8:42am:

Even if the dismissal provisions remain it would be difficult to see that a government appointed representative or direct elected rep being more apt to use / not use the provision inapropriatly, we could easily have a rep who either had a debt to the government of the day or percieves more personal power than should be the case. Would the Rebublic model replace the level of supervision on government with some other method - not probable. The result would almost certainly be more power in the hads of our government and less accountability.

How would more power be vested in government (by which I'm guessing you mean the HOG or Parliamentarians) and less accountability? Currently Parliamentarians can dismiss a HOG without a necessarily appropriate reason (i.e. cynical opportunism), the HOG can dismiss the GG. What if the HOG and the HOS were protected from arbitrary dismissal?

Helian, you still haven't explained why we need to protect the HOG from removal by parliament. It is a good thing that it is easy for parliament to dislodge the PM.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 9:32am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 9:15am: Dnarever wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 9:05am: The party Leader in Australia is always for the party to deciede as was the case previously when Bob Menzies was removed as PM and replace by the Country party leader Arthur Fadden. The leader of the party and the role of Head of Government do not necessarily need to be mutually inclusive. Clearly initially they would be, but having elevated the party leader to the new role of HOG, the constitution could protect him/her from arbitrary usurpation. Not sure if I agree or not, While I was not a supporter of what occured with Rudd the typical reasons seem sound. Poor performance of the leader is the trigger. If the leader were to be protected what would happen if the party leader were to become mentally unstable (happened before) and could not be replaced. The reality is that a party has replaced their leader in government twice in Australia in over 100 years, the fix may be worse than the disease.

In the past 35 years our system allowed for 3 dismissals, one of a government, 2 of a HOG.

Hawke and Rudd were both dismissed as HOGs. In Australia, usurpers can overthrow the HOG for any reason including ego and/or party fortunes.

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 9:39am:

Helian, you still haven't explained why we need to protect the HOG from removal by parliament. It is a good thing that it is easy for parliament to dislodge the PM.

That depends on the reasons. Without constraints a HOG can be dismissed for any reason and it's usually due to the inflated ego of a deputy. Howard nearly suffered the same fate as Hawke and Rudd on this matter. Dismissal should always be solely about the interests of the nation as the motivating factor and not a pretenders ego and/or party fortunes.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 9:32am:

The reality is that a party has replaced their leader in government twice in Australia in over 100 years, the fix may be worse than the disease.

With regard to the dismissal of the Whitlam government, Kerr and Whitlam endured an acrimonious relationship with both paranoid about the possibility of one dismissing the other. The foreign head of state was absolutely useless in assisting Australia through the crisis and cowered at the Palace begging to be kept out of it.

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 9:39am:

Helian, you still haven't explained why we need to protect the HOG from removal by parliament. It is a good thing that it is easy for parliament to dislodge the PM.

In the case of Rudd, it was a good thing. Bob Ellis' book "Suddenly Last Winter" explains it in great detail. Rudd was becoming unapproachable, and the cabinet was becoming autocratic - a one-man band. Nobody would stand up to him individually. Apart from that, he showed traits of reverting to his school days when Abbott showed up. Rudd was always the quiet scholarly type, and Abbott was like a rerun of the days when he used to retreat into his shell when confronted with the playground bully. He could never confront Abbott.  

You could see his soft centre come out when he was finally ousted. The hard shell and the bad temper were facades that hid the scared little studious schoolboy that was inside.  

Rudd is a very intelligent person - much more so than Julia Gillard, but he lacked balls. Gillard has more balls than Rudd.

muso wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 9:56am:

freediver wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 9:39am: Helian, you still haven't explained why we need to protect the HOG from removal by parliament. It is a good thing that it is easy for parliament to dislodge the PM. In the case of Rudd, it was a good thing. Bob Ellis' book "Suddenly Last Winter" explains it in great detail. Rudd was becoming unapproachable, and the cabinet was becoming autocratic - a one-man band. Nobody would stand up to him individually. Apart from that, he showed traits of reverting to his school days when Abbott showed up. Rudd was always the quiet scholarly type, and Abbott was like a rerun of the days when he used to retreat into his shell when confronted with the playground bully.   You could see his soft centre come out when he was finally ousted. The hard shell and the bad temper were facades that hid the scared little  swot that was underneath.   Rudd is a very intelligent person - much more so than Julia Gillard, but he lacked balls. Gillard has more balls than Rudd.

;D

So dismissal of a HOG can be about balls? So that's egomania, party fortunes and... balls ;D

Is the national interest 4th?

We all know they'd have suffered Rudd's carry-on if he was popular.

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 9:39am:

Helian, you still haven't explained why we need to protect the HOG from removal by parliament. It is a good thing that it is easy for parliament to dislodge the PM.

Do you really expect an answer?

Besides if it is within the constitution then it is all legal.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 10:03am:

freediver wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 9:39am: Helian, you still haven't explained why we need to protect the HOG from removal by parliament. It is a good thing that it is easy for parliament to dislodge the PM. Do you really expect an answer? Besides if it is within the constitution then it is all legal.

;D

Did I not answer already? Clearly you're stupid.

So far you've answered none of my questions and hidden behind others.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 10:03am:

freediver wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 9:39am: Helian, you still haven't explained why we need to protect the HOG from removal by parliament. It is a good thing that it is easy for parliament to dislodge the PM. Do you really expect an answer? Besides if it is within the constitution then it is all legal.

As expected, it's not able to answer.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 10:21am:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 10:03am: freediver wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 9:39am: Helian, you still haven't explained why we need to protect the HOG from removal by parliament. It is a good thing that it is easy for parliament to dislodge the PM. Do you really expect an answer? Besides if it is within the constitution then it is all legal. As expected, it's not able to answer.

Yep, you're plain blood-simple stupid.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 10:21am:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 10:03am: freediver wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 9:39am: Helian, you still haven't explained why we need to protect the HOG from removal by parliament. It is a good thing that it is easy for parliament to dislodge the PM. Do you really expect an answer? Besides if it is within the constitution then it is all legal. As expected, it's not able to answer.

Maybe the question needs to be put in a much more simple manner, if that were possible.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 10:26am:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 10:21am: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 10:03am: freediver wrote on Nov 28th, 2010 at 9:39am: Helian, you still haven't explained why we need to protect the HOG from removal by parliament. It is a good thing that it is easy for parliament to dislodge the PM. Do you really expect an answer? Besides if it is within the constitution then it is all legal. As expected, it's not able to answer. Maybe the question needs to be put in a much more simple manner, if that were possible.

;D

Moderators!

Quote:

That depends on the reasons. Without constraints a HOG can be dismissed for any reason and it's usually due to the inflated ego of a deputy.

Actually, it always boils down to the party's re-election prospects, which boil down to the will of the people. It is not without constraints, as you imply. Reality is a pretty tough constraint that every sitting MP must face. The will of the people is a far more appropriate constraint than whatever convoluted legal scheme you might come up with to protect the PM from that will. You do your best to make it sound like a petty power grab, but there are a lot of people involved and they all have a lot to lose and they all have their eye on the next election.

In any case, you still haven't explained why it is a bad thing. Sure, it is bad for the sitting PM, but our system is not in place for the benefit of the PM. You err in assuming that protecting the PM is the same thing as protecting the interests of the country.

Or perhaps you have some scheme that will take the politics out of politics?

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 11:14am:

Quote: That depends on the reasons. Without constraints a HOG can be dismissed for any reason and it's usually due to the inflated ego of a deputy. Actually, it always boils down to the party's re-election prospects, which boil down to the will of the people. It is not without constraints, as you imply. Reality is a pretty tough constraint that every sitting MP must face. The will of the people is a far more appropriate constraint than whatever convoluted legal scheme you might come up with to protect the PM from that will. You do your best to make it sound like a petty power grab, but there are a lot of people involved and they all have a lot to lose and they all have their eye on the next election. In any case, you still haven't explained why it is a bad thing. Sure, it is bad for the sitting PM, but our system is not in place for the benefit of the PM. You err in assuming that protecting the PM is the same thing as protecting the interests of the country. Or perhaps you have some scheme that will take the politics out of politics?

The removal of a Head of Government should be solely about the interests of the nation and not solely due to the demands of a pretender or party fears.

Let the dismissal of a HOG necessarily trigger a dissolution of Parliament. At least then the ruling party MPs demonstrate they're prepared to let the people be the arbiters of their actions.

Quote:

The removal of a Head of Government should be solely about the interests of the nation and not solely due to the demands of a pretender or party fears.

And how would any of your schemes achieve this? As far as I can tell, it would undermine the interests of the nation at every turn. Again, you are big on rhetoric, but you only focus on the motivations of the players (and more often than not miss them completely). You are yet to explain how the country beneifts.

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 11:39am:

Quote: The removal of a Head of Government should be solely about the interests of the nation and not solely due to the demands of a pretender or party fears. And how would any of your schemes achieve this? As far as I can tell, it would undermine the interests of the nation at every turn. Again, you are big on rhetoric, but you only focus on the motivations of the players (and more often than not miss them completely). You are yet to explain how the country beneifts.

How would a dissolution of Parliament on the dismissal of a HOG necessarily undermine the interests of the nation? This action would considerably raise the stakes against arbitrary dismissal based on an alleged succession deal or party fears.

If it is the case that the ruling party want rid of their leader which, under our system, effects a dismissal of the HOG, then let the ruling party by necessity take the risk of failure at the polls.

Quote:

How would a dissolution of Parliament on the dismissal of a HOG necessarily undermine the interests of the nation?

Because it concentrates power in the hands of one person.


Quote:

This action would considerably raise the stakes against arbitrary dismissal based on an alleged succession deal or party fears.

Which is good because?

I am having trouble piecing together your actual argument. Is this it:

1) MPs only act out of ego and self interest, while ignoring their constituents and what might happen in upcoming elections.

2) The PM will save us from this, even though they are in a position that is not directly elected.

3) The PM must therefor be protected from MPs, because the PM is somehow (magically?) more likely to do the right thing, so protecting the PM equates to protecting the country.

Close?

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 12:29pm:

Quote: How would a dissolution of Parliament on the dismissal of a HOG necessarily undermine the interests of the nation? Because it concentrates power in the hands of one person. [quote]This action would considerably raise the stakes against arbitrary dismissal based on an alleged succession deal or party fears.

Which is good because?

I am having trouble piecing together your actual argument. Is this it:

1) MPs only act out of ego and self interest, while ignoring their constituents and what might happen in upcoming elections.

2) The PM will save us from this, even though they are in a position that is not directly elected.

3) The PM must therefor be protected from MPs, because the PM is somehow (magically?) more likely to do the right thing, so protecting the PM equates to protecting the country.

Close?[/quote]

4) all of the above

5) none of the above


6) your guess is as good as mine

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 12:31pm:

4) all of the above 5) none of the above 6) your guess is as good as mine

Jesus, Mellie you lonely old kunt!

What? Another sock, another friend?

freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 12:29pm:

Quote: How would a dissolution of Parliament on the dismissal of a HOG necessarily undermine the interests of the nation? Because it concentrates power in the hands of one person.

No it doesn't.


freediver wrote on Nov 28^th, 2010 at 12:29pm:

Quote: This action would considerably raise the stakes against arbitrary dismissal based on an alleged succession deal or party fears. Which is good because? I am having trouble piecing together your actual argument.

Nah you're not.

So making it harder to depose the PM does not give him more power?

there is no republic that is as good or better then Australia. Thats a fact. why in hell would you want to lower our standards to that of a republic.

Oprah could always be el presidente, after all, her fat a rse has been kissed by Australia ever since it arrived here……..lol