http://www.republic.org.au/


Time for the republic certainty to be brought forward. Stuff waiting for some old lady to die, bring it on earlier.

Republic 2020

Lets set 2020 for Australia to become a Republic.

Poll

You left out 'none of the above'

hope they stop wasting our money on this question for a while.

you left out "not become a republic"

SOB

It is impossibile for Australia and Australians to stay under the feet of very little britain.

Even Sottish ancestry Australians will now desire independence, since Scotland is becoming Independent.

If the scottish people can face the world Independent of england, what are Australians scared of.

____ wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:39am:

It is impossibile for Australia and Australians to stay under the feet of very little britain. Even Sottish ancestry Australians will now desire independence, now Scotland is becoming Independent. If Scotland can, why must Australia hide from the world.

So only your opinion matters. Fine.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:41am:

____ wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 9:39am: It is impossibile for Australia and Australians to stay under the feet of very little britain. Even Sottish ancestry Australians will now desire independence, now Scotland is becoming Independent. If Scotland can, why must Australia hide from the world. So only your opinion matters. Fine. SOB

Australia is on track to becoming majority Asia ancestry background. Thinking England will always dictate is illogical.

Australia will become independent. That became a certainty when the white Australia policy was dumped.

Greens polls are always deceitful. Like a typical progressive, the outcome is known before the deceitful pushing poll is made.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:48am:

Greens polls are always deceitful. Like a typical progressive, the outcome is known before the deceitful pushing poll is made.

Poor little regressive, can't sell his wears, so sulks.


Australians will let loose their shackles and dump the british union jack from our flag.

It's a certainty.

I think a republic would be a dangerous step backwards - we have a very good system in place in many ways supperior to any republic.

I would not trust either of the current potential governments or any projected group before 2050 to make me toast for breakfast let alone make major very significant changes to a system which is clearly not broken.

Why would we spend a truck load of money to get no improvment and be lucky to not make things very much worse just so that a minority of insecure people can wet their pants over it giving themself a warm fuzzy feeling.

____ wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:54am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 9:48am: Greens polls are always deceitful. Like a typical progressive, the outcome is known before the deceitful pushing poll is made. Poor little regressive, can't sell his wears, so sulks. Australians will let loose their shackles and dump the british union jack from our flag. It's a certainty.

Yes I am sure it will you poor little progressive that encapsulate regression. Some people may not wan that to happen.

Me, I just dont like the push by the progressives that encapsulate regression. They waste our money for their pushy ideolgies and they do it like the me me me culture.

____ wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:47am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 9:41am: ____ wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 9:39am: It is impossibile for Australia and Australians to stay under the feet of very little britain. Even Sottish ancestry Australians will now desire independence, now Scotland is becoming Independent. If Scotland can, why must Australia hide from the world. So only your opinion matters. Fine. SOB Australia is on track to becoming majority Asia ancestry background. Thinking England will always dictate is illogical. Australia will become independent. That became a certainty when the white Australia policy was dumped.

hysterical...so you would rather we had a system like they have in Indonesia or Singapore I gather...hummmmmmm..

well at least you may spit it out..

as for dictating and no independence where the hell have you been living for the past 70 year? at the very least..

if anyone dictates its you bloody greenies who get one person in the house and they think they own it.

While I am notionally a republican the need to go there is not that great anymore, IMO.
I believe we will go down that path one day, but
I'm not in a hurry to rush off and do it. The main problem I see is the "right republic for us" scenario.
I don't like the scenarios that are put forward by the major parties as being "best for us" and until I do I'm happy to live with what we have. I also kind of like our " ties to mother England: they have to be better than being the 51st state of the USA, which to me, is a bigger danger, particularly if we become a republic.

Australia has never been a colony of England.....

Dnarever wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:56am:

I think a republic would be a dangerous step backwards - we have a very good system in place in many ways supperior to any republic. I would not trust either of the current potential governments or any projected group before 2050 to make me toast for breakfast let alone make major very significant changes to a system which is clearly not broken. Why would we spend a truck load of money to get no improvment and be lucky to not make things very much worse just so that a minority of insecure people can wet their pants over it giving themself a warm fuzzy feeling.

its interesting woody brings up about some little old lady...that little old lady has been doing her job for 60 years..

do you honestly think we would ever get someone a president for instance to do the same job for 60 years.??? no we wouldnt they would change with the weather.

govts come and go so do presidents and Pm..they dont last very long

in a lot of cases they get the sack which means a large number of the population is less than satisfied with their performance.


with the Queen or King.. they never change we realize most of their job is symbolic..but so what? if its everlasting..and stable...

no corruption.no hands in the till.no credit cards.

how disappointed have we been in our govts.??? they have let us down left right and centre..

I think the queen brings people together she doesnt take sides. neither left or right..

whats wrong with that??

if or when we have a president they will always have a bias wont they?

____ wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:47am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 9:41am: ____ wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 9:39am: It is impossibile for Australia and Australians to stay under the feet of very little britain. Even Sottish ancestry Australians will now desire independence, now Scotland is becoming Independent. If Scotland can, why must Australia hide from the world. So only your opinion matters. Fine. SOB Australia is on track to becoming majority Asia ancestry background. Thinking England will always dictate is illogical. Australia will become independent. That became a certainty when the white Australia policy was dumped.

Thanks for putting the option in. @ least now you are getting an accurate idea of what ppl here think. (I will vote later so you dont know what I voted).

SOB

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:29am:

You left out 'none of the above' hope they stop wasting our money on this question for a while.

But you are happy for us to waste our money by paying the monarchy?

cods wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:14am:

if or when we have a president they will always have a bias wont they?

No, not necessarily.

Why do you say that?

The bi-partisan appointment model will be fine.

Quote:

if anyone dictates its you bloody greenies who get one person in the house and they think they own it.

What you think royalty don't? you obviously didn't see the doco on Lizzy a few weeks ago. She treated Blair appallingly for no other reason other than he was a LABOUR PM. That will change with Charlie, he hates Tories.

____ wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:39am:

It is impossibile for Australia and Australians to stay under the feet of very little britain. Even Sottish ancestry Australians will now desire independence, since Scotland is becoming Independent. If the scottish people can face the world Independent of england, what are Australians scared of.

Its a shame the Greens are opposed to republicanism...

Huh I always had the impression the "tories" were the conservatives the supposed "right".

SOB

The Greens only promote the left right political paradigm of deceit of the elites.  They believe in World Government, not republicanism and national independence.  The Greens totally reject an independent, democratic sovereign national Government for the Australian people.

skippy. wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 2:34pm:

Quote: if anyone dictates its you bloody greenies who get one person in the house and they think they own it. What you think royalty don't? you obviously didn't see the doco on Lizzy a few weeks ago. She treated Blair appallingly for no other reason other than he was a LABOUR PM. That will change with Charlie, he hates Tories.

I went and asked some poms and they say blair was not a tory. He was labour and labour is not tory.

SOB

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:44am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 9:29am: You left out 'none of the above' hope they stop wasting our money on this question for a while. But you are happy for us to waste our money by paying the monarchy?

Sure, just like I like paying for abortion as contraception

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:22pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 2:34pm: Quote: if anyone dictates its you bloody greenies who get one person in the house and they think they own it. What you think royalty don't? you obviously didn't see the doco on Lizzy a few weeks ago. She treated Blair appallingly for no other reason other than he was a LABOUR PM. That will change with Charlie, he hates Tories. I went and asked some poms and they say blair was not a tory. He was labour and labour is not tory. SOB

I'm against Global Government but i'm also against becoming a republic. I'm yet to see a republic country that is better then Australia. but with that said both Australia and England have their own problems.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:25pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 10:44am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 9:29am: You left out 'none of the above' hope they stop wasting our money on this question for a while. But you are happy for us to waste our money by paying the monarchy? Sure, just like I like paying for abortion as contraception

Medicine is cure not prevention

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:40pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:25pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 10:44am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 9:29am: You left out 'none of the above' hope they stop wasting our money on this question for a while. But you are happy for us to waste our money by paying the monarchy? Sure, just like I like paying for abortion as contraception Medicine is cure not prevention

Medicine?

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:43pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:40pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:25pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 10:44am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 9:29am: You left out 'none of the above' hope they stop wasting our money on this question for a while. But you are happy for us to waste our money by paying the monarchy? Sure, just like I like paying for abortion as contraception Medicine is cure not prevention Medicine?

Dont worry

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:58am:

cods wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 10:14am: if or when we have a president they will always have a bias wont they? No, not necessarily. Why do you say that? The bi-partisan appointment model will be fine.

because everyone is biased... it goes with human nature..

what bi par.. are you referring too.?.

I didnt know there was one!

I have always believed everyone has a leaning,

unless you were brought up on a desert island.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:43pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:43pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:40pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:25pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 10:44am: progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 9:29am: You left out 'none of the above' hope they stop wasting our money on this question for a while. But you are happy for us to waste our money by paying the monarchy? Sure, just like I like paying for abortion as contraception Medicine is cure not prevention Medicine? Dont worry

Yeh I ddint think it had much to do with what we were talking about.

Are you happy with having English born leaders of both political parties overseeing the mass migration of the English Aristocracy to form a new elite in Australia and assume executive positions lording it over fifth generation Australians like me and by passing Australians for those positions?  Are you happy with the British empire seizing control of our borders, demonizing our people with propaganda, stealing our assets, resources and infrastructure and replacing Australias jobs with cheap imported labor?  Are you happy to see Australia betrayed by British agents of the likes of Gillard, Abbott, Howard, Swan, Peter Reith, Alan Jones, Pauline Hanson ect, systematically smashing our people and bringing us back under British colonial rule?  Being servile to a foreign country is all good to you is it?

Prevailing wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:45pm:

Are you happy with having English born leaders of both political parties overseeing the mass migration of the English Aristocracy to form a new elite in Australia and assume executive positions lording it over fifth generation Australians like me and by passing Australians for those positions?  Are you happy with the British empire seizing control of our borders, demonizing our people with propaganda, stealing our assets, resources and infrastructure and replacing Australias jobs with cheap imported labor?  Are you happy to see Australia betrayed by British agents of the likes of Gillard, Abbott, Howard, Swan, Peter Reith, Alan Jones, Pauline Hanson ect, systematically smashing our people and bringing us back under British colonial rule?  Being servile to a foreign country is all good to you is it?

Have some respect for the mother country you convict spawn  :P

I love it when the spin doctors & hirelings like skippy say, I am a republican...really and truly I am, but here is why it is a bad idea...point for point and why I want to remain tied to Mother England...the rule of a foreign country....:P

adelcrow wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:52pm:

Prevailing wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:45pm: Are you happy with having English born leaders of both political parties overseeing the mass migration of the English Aristocracy to form a new elite in Australia and assume executive positions lording it over fifth generation Australians like me and by passing Australians for those positions?  Are you happy with the British empire seizing control of our borders, demonizing our people with propaganda, stealing our assets, resources and infrastructure and replacing Australias jobs with cheap imported labor?  Are you happy to see Australia betrayed by British agents of the likes of Gillard, Abbott, Howard, Swan, Peter Reith, Alan Jones, Pauline Hanson ect, systematically smashing our people and bringing us back under British colonial rule?  Being servile to a foreign country is all good to you is it? Have some respect for the mother country you convict spawn  :P

No, Not convict ancestors.  I may post a photo of my first generation Australian family one day, I have a brilliant copy.:P

Prevailing wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:59pm:

I love it when the spin doctors & hirelings like skippy say, I am a republican...really and truly I am, but here is why it is a bad idea...point for point and why I want to remain tied to Mother England...the rule of a foreign country....

We all love something.I love it when wankers  need to use sox because their main nick is banned.Hi corporate maggot. ;D ;D ;D

skippy. wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:07pm:

Prevailing wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:59pm: I love it when the spin doctors & hirelings like skippy say, I am a republican...really and truly I am, but here is why it is a bad idea...point for point and why I want to remain tied to Mother England...the rule of a foreign country.... We all love something.I love it when wankers  need to use sox because their main nick is banned.Hi corporate maggot. ;D ;D ;D

has whitey gone.. or are you lying again???

do you really know when someone uses another ID or is it all guess work??and with a bit of luck you could be right for once?

I am not sure why you care to be honest

cods wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:13pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:07pm: Prevailing wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:59pm: I love it when the spin doctors & hirelings like skippy say, I am a republican...really and truly I am, but here is why it is a bad idea...point for point and why I want to remain tied to Mother England...the rule of a foreign country.... We all love something.I love it when wankers  need to use sox because their main nick is banned.Hi corporate maggot. ;D ;D ;D has whitey gone.. or are you lying again??? do you really know when someone uses another ID or is it all guess work??and with a bit of luck you could be right for once? I am not sure why you care to be honest

Well I know in this case, one of the mods agreed prevailing was CW. ;D ;D  Though I probably should have written suspended, doubt corporate maggot got banned.

cods wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:13pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:07pm: Prevailing wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:59pm: I love it when the spin doctors & hirelings like skippy say, I am a republican...really and truly I am, but here is why it is a bad idea...point for point and why I want to remain tied to Mother England...the rule of a foreign country.... We all love something.I love it when wankers  need to use sox because their main nick is banned.Hi corporate maggot. ;D ;D ;D has whitey gone.. or are you lying again??? do you really know when someone uses another ID or is it all guess work??and with a bit of luck you could be right for once? I am not sure why you care to be honest

From the direction whitey was taking, I wouldnt be surprised if he has had action taken against him from the mods.


As far as knowing for sure or getting direct feedback, you or I are not lefties ,so the chances of us knowing are pretty close to zero on this board.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:19pm:

cods wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:13pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:07pm: Prevailing wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:59pm: I love it when the spin doctors & hirelings like skippy say, I am a republican...really and truly I am, but here is why it is a bad idea...point for point and why I want to remain tied to Mother England...the rule of a foreign country.... We all love something.I love it when wankers  need to use sox because their main nick is banned.Hi corporate maggot. ;D ;D ;D has whitey gone.. or are you lying again??? do you really know when someone uses another ID or is it all guess work??and with a bit of luck you could be right for once? I am not sure why you care to be honest From the direction whitey was taking, I wouldnt be surprised if he has had action taken against him from the mods. As far as knowing for sure or getting direct feedback, you or I are not lefties ,so the chances of us knowing are pretty close to zero on this board.

All it takes is half a brain, I know, you fail.

Prevailing is Whitey..I know this because I'm his carer  :P

skippy. wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:21pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:19pm: cods wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:13pm: skippy. wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 4:07pm: Prevailing wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 3:59pm: I love it when the spin doctors & hirelings like skippy say, I am a republican...really and truly I am, but here is why it is a bad idea...point for point and why I want to remain tied to Mother England...the rule of a foreign country.... We all love something.I love it when wankers  need to use sox because their main nick is banned.Hi corporate maggot. ;D ;D ;D has whitey gone.. or are you lying again??? do you really know when someone uses another ID or is it all guess work??and with a bit of luck you could be right for once? I am not sure why you care to be honest From the direction whitey was taking, I wouldnt be surprised if he has had action taken against him from the mods. As far as knowing for sure or getting direct feedback, you or I are not lefties ,so the chances of us knowing are pretty close to zero on this board. All it takes is half a brain, I know, you fail.

You would know, but as you would know, can you be sure this time round.

The Royalist traitors are selling Australia into debt bondage to China...you want to stay tied to China, ruled by an English Born Elite and owned by China?  If Not Vote for independence.

Republics fall into dictatorships pretty quick. They're not really democratic.
I like the parliamentary system preferably without queens or kings. I like compulsory voting. I think Oz has the best system and would be perfect without the queen. I don't call this a republic even tho' some would.

Prevailing wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 5:37pm:

The Royalist traitors are selling Australia into debt bondage to China...you want to stay tied to China, ruled by an English Born Elite and owned by China?  If Not Vote for independence.

Who is the independence party?

Dnarever wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:56am:

I think a republic would be a dangerous step backwards - we have a very good system in place in many ways supperior to any republic. I would not trust either of the current potential governments or any projected group before 2050 to make me toast for breakfast let alone make major very significant changes to a system which is clearly not broken. Why would we spend a truck load of money to get no improvment and be lucky to not make things very much worse just so that a minority of insecure people can wet their pants over it giving themself a warm fuzzy feeling.

exactly. What do we get out of becoming a republic? a new face on our coins and rename the GG to President? Seems like a lot of angst and expense for nothing whatseover. It isant as if England has ANY control over us anyhow? It is all completely ceremonial. and lets fact it, the poms do GREAT ceremony while we... suck at it.

Prevailing wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 5:37pm:

The Royalist traitors are selling Australia into debt bondage to China...you want to stay tied to China, ruled by an English Born Elite and owned by China?  If Not Vote for independence.

Independance = jointly owned by yanks and china

SOB

I believe that it is long overdue that we become a Republic. The Monarchy has no real influence on us, and it's not right, in my opinion, that our Head is not Australian, and only "achieved" her role through birth, and no effort/skill in her own right.

It's an unfair system, to me.

john_g wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 6:04pm:

I believe that it is long overdue that we become a Republic. The Monarchy has no real influence on us, and it's not right, in my opinion, that our Head is not Australian, and only "achieved" her role through birth, and no effort/skill in her own right. It's an unfair system, to me.

All good things come to those who wait. Where and what is the better alternative.

What will the "system" be when/if the royalty is removed?

SOB

john_g wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 6:04pm:

I believe that it is long overdue that we become a Republic. The Monarchy has no real influence on us, and it's not right, in my opinion, that our Head is not Australian, and only "achieved" her role through birth, and no effort/skill in her own right. It's an unfair system, to me.

thats a pretty basic argument but lacks any impetus. Yes our official head of state is the queen but in every aspect - both practical and constitutional she has zero power. The monarchial powers are vested in the GG instead. Becoming a republic changes nothing. We'd even still be a member of the commonwealth and called the Commonwealth of Australia.  it isnt an unfair system because she has zero power.

I need a better reason to change a system that aint broke.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 6:06pm:

What will the "system" be when/if the royalty is removed? SOB

EXACTLY THE SAME - which is the point.

I would have voted none of the above.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 6:11pm:

I would have voted none of the above.

That isnt possible. Yes in 3 ways and no. What option could there be?

SOB

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 6:06pm:

... what is the better alternative.

Replace the monarch with a Head of State appointed by the Australian Federal Parliament.

Bi-partisan appointment republican model.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 6:06pm:

john_g wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 6:04pm: I believe that it is long overdue that we become a Republic. The Monarchy has no real influence on us, and it's not right, in my opinion, that our Head is not Australian, and only "achieved" her role through birth, and no effort/skill in her own right. It's an unfair system, to me. All good things come to those who wait. Where and what is the better alternative.

Yes, that is a fair question. I don't know, I don't think that the American system is great, but I would take it over the Monarchy.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 6:07pm:

john_g wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 6:04pm: I believe that it is long overdue that we become a Republic. The Monarchy has no real influence on us, and it's not right, in my opinion, that our Head is not Australian, and only "achieved" her role through birth, and no effort/skill in her own right. It's an unfair system, to me. thats a pretty basic argument but lacks any impetus. Yes our official head of state is the queen but in every aspect - both practical and constitutional she has zero power. The monarchial powers are vested in the GG instead. Becoming a republic changes nothing. We'd even still be a member of the commonwealth and called the Commonwealth of Australia.  it isnt an unfair system because she has zero power.

That's the point, though. What is the point of having the monarchy, and the gg, when they both do essentially nothing for us, and we pay them to do it?

No Republic will be perfect, it is only our vigilance to preserve our independence and freedom that will make it what it could become.  However the staying with the status quo out of fear is a poor option considering how corrupted our current subservient system is.  I dont know about you, but I dont place any faith in sticking with being the Monarchs serf, the serf of the CEO, the International  banks or any foreign power and just hoping for some pity from them.  We deserve our independence - Australia should be free and bound and owned by no one.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 6:18pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 6:06pm: ... what is the better alternative. Replace the monarch with a Head of State appointed by the Australian Federal Parliament. Bi-partisan appointment republican model.

Oh like the rejected offer of john howard as supreme leader?

SOB

john_g wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 8:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 6:07pm: john_g wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 6:04pm: I believe that it is long overdue that we become a Republic. The Monarchy has no real influence on us, and it's not right, in my opinion, that our Head is not Australian, and only "achieved" her role through birth, and no effort/skill in her own right. It's an unfair system, to me. thats a pretty basic argument but lacks any impetus. Yes our official head of state is the queen but in every aspect - both practical and constitutional she has zero power. The monarchial powers are vested in the GG instead. Becoming a republic changes nothing. We'd even still be a member of the commonwealth and called the Commonwealth of Australia.  it isnt an unfair system because she has zero power. That's the point, though. What is the point of having the monarchy, and the gg, when they both do essentially nothing for us, and we pay them to do it?

Oh gawd no. Our system is bad enough but to go to that yank system and all its friggin years of insulting each other just to find out who will run . . . . .  nooooooooo

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 7:11am:

john_g wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 8:03pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 6:07pm: john_g wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 6:04pm: I believe that it is long overdue that we become a Republic. The Monarchy has no real influence on us, and it's not right, in my opinion, that our Head is not Australian, and only "achieved" her role through birth, and no effort/skill in her own right. It's an unfair system, to me. thats a pretty basic argument but lacks any impetus. Yes our official head of state is the queen but in every aspect - both practical and constitutional she has zero power. The monarchial powers are vested in the GG instead. Becoming a republic changes nothing. We'd even still be a member of the commonwealth and called the Commonwealth of Australia.  it isnt an unfair system because she has zero power. That's the point, though. What is the point of having the monarchy, and the gg, when they both do essentially nothing for us, and we pay them to do it? Oh gawd no. Our system is bad enough but to go to that yank system and all its friggin years of insulting each other just to find out who will run . . . . .  nooooooooo SOB

The Republican system is not perfect none is because humanity is not perfect and the battle against the forces of tyranny that seek to enslave humanity is a constant.  But to choose to be a free and independent republic and not a Serf is a positive choice, its choosing liberty and national independence for all of our people.  There is no good argument to remain a serf under foreign rule and occupation.

The forces of fear and tyranny will always argue from the bottom of the pond that change is to be feared, that there is security in the serfdom you know...what a joke.  The brave and the progressive choose freedom from foreign rule and national independence for Australia.

Can someone fix up this defective poll, which appears to have been prepared by someone with no understanding of our present constitution?

The last option in the poll reads
Quote:

Want us be a colony of england forever

which is not possible as:
a) we have not been colonies since federation and
b) we were British colonies, not English ones.

The question should read along the lines of " Want us be a constitutional monarchy forever, with the British sovereign as the Australian head of state".

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 6:18pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 6:06pm: ... what is the better alternative. Replace the monarch with a Head of State appointed by the Australian Federal Parliament. Bi-partisan appointment republican model.

That is the option which was clearly defeated last time and in my view probably the worst option of all.

I would think that in a republic we would want a head of state representing the people and definatly not one in debt to both major political party's.

If we have a republic I would think that the most likely flavour would ba bannana.

This is the Monarchists strategy to get the Republican debate bogged down in detail.  We just  want a strait up debate and referendum on an Australian head of state and a declaration of independence.  The form the republic takes is decided with due process after the referenda.

So you want a debate but you don't want any detail in it?

Frances wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:14pm:

So you want a debate but you don't want any detail in it?

Last time they put in the detail and everyone worked out that they didn't like the system proposed and voted against it.

Next time they are determined to get it through without telling us what it is going to be in any more than the most airy fairy feel good generic detail.

What the plan is is to put up the current system worts and all against the idealised theory of an unspecified republic.

Once a republic is locked in they will then tell us what it is going to be whether we like it or not.

I think dishonest in the extreeme but it is the intended process planned.

I don't know. If someone presented a good, solid alternative Republic, then I would have an open mind. The problem with changing, is that it could turn us from a dictatorial democracy into an outright dictatorship. I am definitely a fence-setter on the whole notion of Monarchy vs Republic.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:21pm:

Frances wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:14pm: So you want a debate but you don't want any detail in it? Last time they put in the detail and everyone worked out that they didn't like the system proposed and voted against it. Next time they are determined to get it through without telling us what it is going to be in any more than the most airy fairy feel good generic detail. What the plan is is to put up the current system worts and all against the idealised theory of an unspecified republic. Once a republic is locked in they will then tell us what it is going to be whether we like it or not. I think dishonest in the extreeme but it is the intended process planned.

And what about a discussion in a thread that has a question that is factually inaccurate on two counts and is calculated to skew the results of the poll in favour of a republic?

Frances wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:24pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:21pm: Frances wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:14pm: So you want a debate but you don't want any detail in it? Last time they put in the detail and everyone worked out that they didn't like the system proposed and voted against it. Next time they are determined to get it through without telling us what it is going to be in any more than the most airy fairy feel good generic detail. What the plan is is to put up the current system worts and all against the idealised theory of an unspecified republic. Once a republic is locked in they will then tell us what it is going to be whether we like it or not. I think dishonest in the extreeme but it is the intended process planned. And what about a discussion in a thread that has a question that is factually inaccurate on two counts and is calculated to skew the results of the poll in favour of a republic?

The reason I didn't vote and commented on page 4 than my vote is for "none of the above".

Frances wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:14pm:

So you want a debate but you don't want any detail in it?

The debate over whether we have a head of state from Australia or a foreign monarch is entirely a separate issue to the debate over the detail of the Republic which is really just another debate with Malthusian Royalists who will try to preserve as much of their oligarchical power as possible within the framework of a republic.  I see no reason for that debate to stall a simple referendum on the issue of the Monarchy.  I want to move forward to an independent Australia, bring on a referendum.

matty wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:21pm:

I don't know. If someone presented a good, solid alternative Republic, then I would have an open mind. The problem with changing, is that it could turn us from a dictatorial democracy into an outright dictatorship. I am definitely a fence-setter on the whole notion of Monarchy vs Republic.

Sensible position but I hope the fence is strong and comfortable.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:36pm:

matty wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:21pm: I don't know. If someone presented a good, solid alternative Republic, then I would have an open mind. The problem with changing, is that it could turn us from a dictatorial democracy into an outright dictatorship. I am definitely a fence-setter on the whole notion of Monarchy vs Republic. Sensible position but I hope the fence is strong and comfortable.

http://lateralmovements.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Penis-posts.jpg

Prevailing wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:35pm:

Frances wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:14pm: So you want a debate but you don't want any detail in it? The debate over whether we have a head of state from Australia or a foreign monarch is entirely a separate issue to the debate over the detail of the Republic which is really just another debate with Malthusian Royalists who will try to preserve as much of their oligarchical power as possible within the framework of a republic.  I see no reason for that debate to stall a simple referendum on the issue of the Monarchy.  I want to move forward to an independent Australia, bring on a referendum.

We currently have a good reliable stable system, I think that the majority who support the current system are not monachists.

I will not vote for change unless I know exactly what I am voting for, not just a feel good sentiment followed by the risk of a choice between dissapointing alternatives at a lower standard than what we currently have.

Be honest stand up in front of me and give me the real options.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:41pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:36pm: matty wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:21pm: I don't know. If someone presented a good, solid alternative Republic, then I would have an open mind. The problem with changing, is that it could turn us from a dictatorial democracy into an outright dictatorship. I am definitely a fence-setter on the whole notion of Monarchy vs Republic. Sensible position but I hope the fence is strong and comfortable. http://lateralmovements.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Penis-posts.jpg

It does look a lot like the republic model on offer.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:47pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:41pm: Dnarever wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:36pm: matty wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:21pm: I don't know. If someone presented a good, solid alternative Republic, then I would have an open mind. The problem with changing, is that it could turn us from a dictatorial democracy into an outright dictatorship. I am definitely a fence-setter on the whole notion of Monarchy vs Republic. Sensible position but I hope the fence is strong and comfortable. It does look a lot like the republic model on offer.

What's your alternative?

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:55pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:47pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:41pm: Dnarever wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:36pm: matty wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:21pm: I don't know. If someone presented a good, solid alternative Republic, then I would have an open mind. The problem with changing, is that it could turn us from a dictatorial democracy into an outright dictatorship. I am definitely a fence-setter on the whole notion of Monarchy vs Republic. Sensible position but I hope the fence is strong and comfortable. It does look a lot like the republic model on offer. What's your alternative?

What we have till someone comes up with something better.

The reality is that we have a good system which is unique, we are not just a clone of everyone else.

We are not really tied to the Monarchy in any but the most tenuous manner, they have absolutly no influence and we clearly have our own identity.

We have one of the worlds best flags and showing a primary part of our heritage on one corner is no big deal.

I am not against changing but I definatly will not support a sneaky rort where they will not tell me what I am voting for up front.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 11:44pm:

Prevailing wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:35pm: Frances wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:14pm: So you want a debate but you don't want any detail in it? The debate over whether we have a head of state from Australia or a foreign monarch is entirely a separate issue to the debate over the detail of the Republic which is really just another debate with Malthusian Royalists who will try to preserve as much of their oligarchical power as possible within the framework of a republic.  I see no reason for that debate to stall a simple referendum on the issue of the Monarchy.  I want to move forward to an independent Australia, bring on a referendum. We currently have a good reliable stable system, I think that the majority who support the current system are not monachists. I will not vote for change unless I know exactly what I am voting for, not just a feel good sentiment followed by the risk of a choice between dissapointing alternatives at a lower standard than what we currently have. Be honest stand up in front of me and give me the real options.

That is not true at all, we have an ol,igarchical Monarchial system where we are subservient to a foreign head of state and do not have national independence.  The status qua only preserves that dictatorship and its entrenched elitist corruption.  At the very least Australia should have its own head of state, I for one know the battle against tyranny is eternal, but the way forward is national independence and our own head of state and that is what we should be voting on.  The moment we go to a republic I know exactly how the Royalists are going to fall to try to preserve power, big deal, Independence and our own head of state is moving forward.

Prevailing wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 12:14am:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:44pm: Prevailing wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:35pm: Frances wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:14pm: So you want a debate but you don't want any detail in it? The debate over whether we have a head of state from Australia or a foreign monarch is entirely a separate issue to the debate over the detail of the Republic which is really just another debate with Malthusian Royalists who will try to preserve as much of their oligarchical power as possible within the framework of a republic.  I see no reason for that debate to stall a simple referendum on the issue of the Monarchy.  I want to move forward to an independent Australia, bring on a referendum. We currently have a good reliable stable system, I think that the majority who support the current system are not monachists. I will not vote for change unless I know exactly what I am voting for, not just a feel good sentiment followed by the risk of a choice between dissapointing alternatives at a lower standard than what we currently have. Be honest stand up in front of me and give me the real options. That is not true at all, we have an ol,igarchical Monarchial system where we are subservient to a foreign head of state and do not have national independence.  The status qua only preserves that dictatorship and its entrenched elitist corruption.  At the very least Australia should have its own head of state, I for one know the battle against tyranny is eternal, but the way forward is national independence and our own head of state and that is what we should be voting on.  The moment we go to a republic I know exactly how the Royalists are going to fall to try to preserve power, big deal, Independence and our own head of state is moving forward.

The old claytons model:

The change you have when your not having a change.

Change the letter heads and stamps and pretend there was a problem and it is fixed.

One of the worst options an expensive change which achieves nothing.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 12:21am:

Prevailing wrote on Jun 3rd, 2012 at 12:14am: Dnarever wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:44pm: Prevailing wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:35pm: Frances wrote on Jun 2nd, 2012 at 11:14pm: So you want a debate but you don't want any detail in it? The debate over whether we have a head of state from Australia or a foreign monarch is entirely a separate issue to the debate over the detail of the Republic which is really just another debate with Malthusian Royalists who will try to preserve as much of their oligarchical power as possible within the framework of a republic.  I see no reason for that debate to stall a simple referendum on the issue of the Monarchy.  I want to move forward to an independent Australia, bring on a referendum. We currently have a good reliable stable system, I think that the majority who support the current system are not monachists. I will not vote for change unless I know exactly what I am voting for, not just a feel good sentiment followed by the risk of a choice between dissapointing alternatives at a lower standard than what we currently have. Be honest stand up in front of me and give me the real options. That is not true at all, we have an ol,igarchical Monarchial system where we are subservient to a foreign head of state and do not have national independence.  The status qua only preserves that dictatorship and its entrenched elitist corruption.  At the very least Australia should have its own head of state, I for one know the battle against tyranny is eternal, but the way forward is national independence and our own head of state and that is what we should be voting on.  The moment we go to a republic I know exactly how the Royalists are going to fall to try to preserve power, big deal, Independence and our own head of state is moving forward. The old claytons model: The change you have when your not having a change. Change the letter heads and stamps and pretend there was a problem and it is fixed. One of the worst options an expensive change which achieves nothing.

Sorry, national independence and an Australian head of state achieves volumes.  Especially at a time when the oligarchical elites are doing their level best to destroy not only Australia, but western civilization so entrenched are they in centuries old theories and dreams about population control, scientific dictatorship ect.  The Western world is on its knees as its rulers sell out the farm.  Many of us do not want to let them take us down with their death cult.

Reading some of the stuff posted in this thread makes me wonder if maybe we would be better off retaining the monarchy......

Dnarever wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 12:12am:

We have one of the worlds best flags ...

According to whom?




(not that I think flags are important, by the way)

Frances wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 12:32am:

Reading some of the stuff posted in this thread makes me wonder if maybe we would be better off retaining the monarchy......

Stop your fear mongering and nonsense - who would not want their own head of state and national independence..

Frances wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 12:32am:

Reading some of the stuff posted in this thread makes me wonder if maybe we would be better off retaining the monarchy......

Yeah, it would save Australia the time and worry of actually having some say in who our Head of State is.

Best to just let them be born into the position and live on the other side of the planet.

Long live the king:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00788/charles-kilt-1_788452c.jpg

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 12:33am:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 3rd, 2012 at 12:12am: We have one of the worlds best flags ... According to whom? (not that I think flags are important, by the way)

take a good look at the flags around today. most are boring or incredibley boring. Only a handful are even interesting including the american UK and ours. canadas is good BECAUSE of its simplicity while france and italy is just... simple. Countries that prife themselves on elgance in design have a flag whch wouldnt challenge a 2yo to colour in.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 12:43am:

Frances wrote on Jun 3rd, 2012 at 12:32am: Reading some of the stuff posted in this thread makes me wonder if maybe we would be better off retaining the monarchy...... Yeah, it would save Australia the time and worry of actually having some say in who our Head of State is. Best to just let them be born into the position and live on the other side of the planet. Long live the king: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00788/charles-kilt-1_788452c.jpg

Our genuine head of state is already the GG. he has the reserve powers and is appointed by the PM. By no practical measurement is australia under the ties of the monarchy. We get the good bits of the monarchy - pomp and ceremony - and the even better bits of a republic - independence.

I like the NOTION of a republic. I just cant see a single advantage in becoming one.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 6:23pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 3rd, 2012 at 12:43am: Frances wrote on Jun 3rd, 2012 at 12:32am: Reading some of the stuff posted in this thread makes me wonder if maybe we would be better off retaining the monarchy...... Yeah, it would save Australia the time and worry of actually having some say in who our Head of State is. Best to just let them be born into the position and live on the other side of the planet. Long live the king: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00788/charles-kilt-1_788452c.jpg Our genuine head of state is already the GG. he has the reserve powers and is appointed by the PM. By no practical measurement is australia under the ties of the monarchy. We get the good bits of the monarchy - pomp and ceremony - and the even better bits of a republic - independence. I like the NOTION of a republic. I just cant see a single advantage in becoming one.

I like the idea of an Australian head of state. Yes, I know that the GG effectively is, but the monarch is still the official head of state. I see good and bad in both. If it were a good model, then I'd probably vote for change. If it were not, then I wouldn't. Having Gillard as head of state is a thought that I could barely stomach, although I couldn't really stomach Charles either.

I think that it would have passed in 1999 if it were a better model. It's a bit like the NT one in 1998. It was very close, and would have passed if the amount of Senators increased to 12, like the states, instead of a mere 3.

matty wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 7:22pm:

If it were a good model, then I'd probably vote for change. If it were not, then I wouldn't.

Sorry, but Prevailing has already told us we're not allowed to see the details....

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 6:20pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 3rd, 2012 at 12:33am: Dnarever wrote on Jun 3rd, 2012 at 12:12am: We have one of the worlds best flags ... According to whom? (not that I think flags are important, by the way) take a good look at the flags around today. most are boring or incredibley boring. Only a handful are even interesting including the american UK and ours. canadas is good BECAUSE of its simplicity while france and italy is just... simple. Countries that prife themselves on elgance in design have a flag whch wouldnt challenge a 2yo to colour in.

So, just your subjective opinion.

I think the Australian flag is quite awful.

Just my subjective opinion though.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 6:23pm:

Our genuine head of state is already the GG. he has the reserve powers and is appointed by the PM.

Two points:

No, the GG is not the genuine Head of State (it's divided between the Queen of Australia and the GG).

And, the GG is a she, not a he.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 8:43pm:

So, just your subjective opinion. I think the Australian flag is quite awful. Just my subjective opinion though.

Agree. The Australian flag is the flag the Brits gave to everything when they couldn't be bothered - take the blue ensign, stick something across the middle and call it a flag. I saw a doco where there was a British lighthouse with a flag almost identical to ours. Boring!

If the Eureka stockade flag hadn't become a bogan symbol I'd vote for that one.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 8:43pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2012 at 6:20pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 3rd, 2012 at 12:33am: Dnarever wrote on Jun 3rd, 2012 at 12:12am: We have one of the worlds best flags ... According to whom? (not that I think flags are important, by the way) take a good look at the flags around today. most are boring or incredibley boring. Only a handful are even interesting including the american UK and ours. canadas is good BECAUSE of its simplicity while france and italy is just... simple. Countries that prife themselves on elgance in design have a flag whch wouldnt challenge a 2yo to colour in. So, just your subjective opinion. I think the Australian flag is quite awful. Just my subjective opinion though.

I'm not particularly inspired by the flag either, whhopp de dooo,  copy the english flaf and add a few stars. ... a lot of thought went into that one (not) ........ same goes with our anthem ... most people I know say  'land down under' should be our anthem ...

John Smith wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 8:55pm:

most people I know say  'land down under' should be our anthem ...

I've never heard anyone suggest that, but maybe I hang around with a rather different lot of people...

Democratic Republic Of The Common Man, Not Royal Families, inbreeding and hereditary, oligarchical dictatorship...:P

Who said anything about a dictatorship?

John Smith wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 8:55pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 3rd, 2012 at 8:43pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2012 at 6:20pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 3rd, 2012 at 12:33am: Dnarever wrote on Jun 3rd, 2012 at 12:12am: We have one of the worlds best flags ... According to whom? (not that I think flags are important, by the way) take a good look at the flags around today. most are boring or incredibley boring. Only a handful are even interesting including the american UK and ours. canadas is good BECAUSE of its simplicity while france and italy is just... simple. Countries that prife themselves on elgance in design have a flag whch wouldnt challenge a 2yo to colour in. So, just your subjective opinion. I think the Australian flag is quite awful. Just my subjective opinion though. I'm not particularly inspired by the flag either, whhopp de dooo,  copy the english flaf and add a few stars. ... a lot of thought went into that one (not) ........ same goes with our anthem ... most people I know say  'land down under' should be our anthem ...

Our flag and anthem are pretty lame.

Time for a change.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 4^th, 2012 at 1:45am:

Our flag and anthem are pretty lame. Time for a change.

I don't have a problem with the flag, but the anthem is bloody pathetic.  Song of Australia was much better.

Frances wrote on Jun 4^th, 2012 at 1:49am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 1:45am: Our flag and anthem are pretty lame. Time for a change. I don't have a problem with the flag, but the anthem is bloody pathetic.  Song of Australia was much better.

I have no idea what that is.

:-/

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 4^th, 2012 at 1:51am:

I have no idea what that is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FfQ8x-Wv8w

It was one of four songs voted on in 1977. Nationally it came last, but it was the most popular choice in South Australia.

Frances wrote on Jun 4^th, 2012 at 2:02am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 1:51am: I have no idea what that is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FfQ8x-Wv8w It was one of four songs voted on in 1977. Nationally it came last, but it was the most popular choice in South Australia.

That's worse than a Nickelback song!

OK, maybe not that bad.  Still bad though.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 4^th, 2012 at 2:06am:

That's worse than a Nickelback song! OK, maybe not that bad.  Still bad though.

But would you agree that it's much better than Advance Australia Fair (either the original or the desexed version)?

At least it sounds like a national anthem.....

No the new Australian Head of State will never show bias as the occupant of the position is legaly restricted to acting in an apolitical manner and it makes no difference how they will be chosen . The laws that apply to the position now -  will not change . Only the occupant will change  :)

lejon wrote on Jun 10^th, 2012 at 7:41pm:

No the new Australian Head of State will never show bias as the occupant of the position is legaly restricted to acting in an apolitical manner and it makes no difference how they will be chosen . The laws that apply to the position now -  will not change . Only the occupant will change  :)

smell the naievete...

Grasp the reality  ;D

lejon wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 12:56pm:

Grasp the reality  ;D

being apolitical is an expectation and a convention. It is not however a constitutional demand - primarily because defining it is near impossible. Kerr acted apolitically according to most but I can list you people here who disagree.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 6:04pm:

lejon wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 12:56pm: Grasp the reality  ;D being apolitical is an expectation and a convention. It is not however a constitutional demand - primarily because defining it is near impossible. Kerr acted apolitically according to most but I can list you people here who disagree.

I don't know if Kerr acted out of political bias - he did however act improperly, un necessarily and well outside the required conventions.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 6:59pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 6:04pm: lejon wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 12:56pm: Grasp the reality  ;D being apolitical is an expectation and a convention. It is not however a constitutional demand - primarily because defining it is near impossible. Kerr acted apolitically according to most but I can list you people here who disagree. I don't know if Kerr acted out of political bias - he did however act improperly, un necessarily and well outside the required conventions.

not really at all. His choices were to sack the govt or have the govt collapse and unable to pay for the running of the country. He didnt really have any other option. And he did after all refer the matter to the final arbiter - the voters. Most people who reject Kerrs actions fail to realise thatthe people themselves endorsed it. It is in a curious way the ultimate stamp of authenticity - unless of course the people's opinion isnt valued.

advance australia fair is terrible

Dnarever wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 6:59pm:

I don't know if Kerr acted out of political bias - he did however act improperly, un necessarily and well outside the required conventions.

Although Kerr was once associated with the ALP, by the time he was appointed Governor General, his political views had changed considerably.  I don't think that he was guilty of political bias though.  The installation of Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister was, however, a bad move that gave the impression of political bias.

Improper?  Yes.  He was reportedly advised by Sir Roden Cutler to let Whitlam know what he was proposing to do.  He did not heed this advice.  It would have been the proper thing to do.

Unnecessary?  I think that he did what he did in the belief that it was in the best interests of the nation.  The crisis facing the government may have been able to be resolved in other ways, but the options were running out and, as has been pointed out, Kerr's actions were, in a way, approved of by the public at the subsequent election.

Kerr may have acted outside the expected conventions, but I don't think that he acted outside the required conventions.

(double post)

Frances wrote on Jun 11^th, 2012 at 8:44pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 11th, 2012 at 6:59pm: I don't know if Kerr acted out of political bias - he did however act improperly, un necessarily and well outside the required conventions. Although Kerr was once associated with the ALP, by the time he was appointed Governor General, his political views had changed considerably.  I don't think that he was guilty of political bias though.  The installation of Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister was, however, a bad move that gave the impression of political bias. Improper?  Yes.  He was reportedly advised by Sir Roden Cutler to let Whitlam know what he was proposing to do.  He did not heed this advice.  It would have been the proper thing to do. Unnecessary?  I think that he did what he did in the belief that it was in the best interests of the nation.  The crisis facing the government may have been able to be resolved in other ways, but the options were running out and, as has been pointed out, Kerr's actions were, in a way, approved of by the public at the subsequent election. Kerr may have acted outside the expected conventions, but I don't think that he acted outside the required conventions.

you ahve to feel sorry for the poor bugger who was put in a terrible place by the circumstances. for all the angst, Ive not seen anyone come up with a viable option to the course of action he took. It is one of the values of our system that it went to an election that decided he matter once and for all.