Heres an issue that suprisingly has'nt been raised on this site specifically.
What do you think and why?
What form of government should we adopt?
Or should we leave the westminster system alone?
Should we have a president?
Or keep the prime minister as leader?

I think you should think a little bit more out of the square. What we really need to do is have the populace select each individual minister's position based on merit. CV's can be displayed of each candidate with the focus to finding the right people to do the job. Somehow we need to take popularity or charisma out of the contest.

I think we should have a president. The next best time to raise the republican issue is now because people want change. Politics have become stale with them. Too much emphasis is being put on how a politician sells himself rather than his skill to do the job.

[smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif]

I agree 100% with merit.
Police minister MUST be ex- cop

Defence minister MUST be ex- Armed forces officer

etc,.

I would love to live in a Republic and finally sever all ties with that shithole on the other side of the world.And the chinless wonders the Windsor's.
To have a President and a duly elected government with one governor in each state/territory,abolish councils any other drain on the public purse and get on with making Australia great again for all Aussies

Enviro do you mean a directly elected president? I think that would make it more about personality, not less.

I believe there are many different ways you can do this but my favourite is that elections should be run on our computers where candidates, who have to pass a criteria test, can submit there CV. We peruse their CV's over a 6 week period then vote online. Maybe the candidates only provide avatars and who they really are is not revealed until after an election. This also takes vanity out of the equation.

I believe the President should select the Foreign Affairs Minister because this job does entail personality being the salesman for Australia. The President would have to accept full responsibility for all actions provided by the Foreign Affairs Minister.

There is a reason why companies don't employ people based on their CV's alone.

Only if the focus was on collective thought and not individual thought.

We have many party's in this country being Labour, Liberal, Democrats, One Nation, Greens etc. These party's are made up of like minded people. The problem with this is, because they are party affiliated they have to agree and vote on the party's preferred choice not their preferred choice. This is what happens when you create teams. (Collective Thought)

To be a real republic or even a democracy you need to get rid of party's. The only Party that counts is the one that forms after each election with the CEO, I mean President, at the helm.

The President can still give direction of the nation but he will need to convince each individual within the newly elected party. This will instil democracy within the government.
:)

Doesn't that just make it harder for people to know how prospective politicians are going to vote on issues in parliament? The people already have a choice between independents and part members. They choose to vote for party members because they want to vote for a set of policies and the parties remove most of the risks introduced by uncertainties about the people involved. There is nothing at all in our constitution about parties, or the prime minister. We could ahve the system you described if people voted that way.

The individuals CV would have their beliefs illustrated.

Policy change's or addition's would be argued in parlaiment and 51% passes the bill. The president makes the final decision based on whether it is allowed to pass or not. This makes the President the fail safe switch. The president is generally voted in for the direction that he wants to take the country, so when judging these policy changes he will be able to take that direction into account.

You really need to get the concept of not having political party's.

:)

By becoming a republic it allows us to change the structure and the foundations of democracy modernising it for today and the future. This allows us to change the system to suit for example, how we vote.
:)

The individuals CV would have their beliefs illustrated.

How many pages would it be? And would you expect people to actually read it?

By becoming a republic it allows us to change the structure and the foundations of democracy modernising it for today and the future. This allows us to change the system to suit for example, how we vote.

We have already made significant changes to how we vote without becoming a republic. They are separate issues.

In our modern society it is possible, with technology, to change how we vote. People will vote based on how much interest they have in voting. If they are interested enough they will read pages and pages about the people they plan to vote for. But if they are disinterested they may just read the candidates beliefs in certain areas. I believe you personally Freediver would read all the pages because it is your interest to do so.

Even today people will go to vote and hardly any of them would know the policies or the beliefs of each party or even the candidate they vote for. John Howard would never have been voted for if he focused on GST, yet we now have GST.

They are not seperate issues Freediver. Anything that is part of the system is the same. Democracy is all about voting and giving the people the choice.

If you were running for environment minister you would display your Green Shift Tax Policy as your belief. Can you tell me what todays environment ministers personal belief is when it comes to GST (as an example). Of course you can't because you can't ask him.
:)

Australia shouldn't become a republic but it shoud ditch liz as the Australian Monarch and instead I'll be the King of Australia.

In fact I think I'll start a political party just for that purpose, it'll be the "For King" party.

Jamie wrote on Jun 26^th, 2007 at 9:53pm:

Australia shouldn't become a republic but it shoud ditch liz as the Australian Monarch and instead I'll be the King of Australia. In fact I think I'll start a political party just for that purpose, it'll be the "For King" party.

Sorry mate position is already taken. ;) ;D ;D

Most countries of the world would love to have a system as transparent, robust and just as the Westminster system.

What advantages would any other system give us ?

Is what we have now called a monarchy ?

Anyway, someone here knows about it, so they can inform us !!!

We have a constitutional Monarchy, meaning I think that our head of state remains the crown but all governance, new legislation etc is handled by the wesminster parliment. We are still sovereign territory of the crown except for the territories and parliment has the say over the military... but has to request authority from the GG to use it offensively?? I'm just trying to remember off the top of my head...

I think it is a sovereignty debate when it comes down to it. Personally I don't really care anymore and as far as I'm aware all it really boils down to is whether we want a democratically elected head of state or a hand picked representative of the crown. It makes no real difference the way I see it since our head of state is more or less a powerless figurehead, not quite as powerful as the US president. In the US the president signs in all new legislation, can move to block legislation (I think) etc. To me it would either be a pointless gesture to show how 'democratic' we are or it would involve a significant reshuffle of our parlimentary system. I think this is the point that is lost on most people, we would effectively have to draft a new constitution (I think).

I don't know I'm not very clued up on it... but I am about to start a new module on Australian government as part of my course so I'm sure I'll come back and correct myself if nobody does it for me :)

The US president has a lot of power. Where we have to get legislation through two houses, the Americans have to get it passed both houses and the president. I think that our voting system provides far more effective checks and balances than the US system.

I always thought that each house in the US had different responsibilities, laws dont have to go through both, just one and the president.

Australia has 3 checks, the US just 2.

freediver wrote on Mar 28^th, 2007 at 2:35am:

The US president has a lot of power. Where we have to get legislation through two houses, the Americans have to get it passed both houses and the president. I think that our voting system provides far more effective checks and balances than the US system.

Don't our laws have to pass both houses and then be signed in by the GG?? The only real difference with the american pres is that he has veto rights, and uses signing statements but I have heard that there is dispute over the constitutional validity of the way in which the signing statements are used.

Our GG does not have any real power, except when the government ceases to function.

The govt has stopped functioning!~!!!!!!!! ;)

Oh, if only you were right, oceans blue  :'(

Actually the GG has a lot of real power enshrined in the constitution, it's just that it is by convention not exercised independently and is labeled as "reserve powers". In theory the GG (as the Queens representative) is functionally the Head of State in a similar executive fashion as the President in the United States. In practice the GG delegates a lot of executive power to the Prime Minister and simply signs the requisite paperwork. How many people have even heard of the Executive Council? It is interesting that the office of Prime Minister is not mentioned at all in the constitution. The "primacy" of this particular Minister is purely a matter of convention. In effect, the PM is the GG's representative in the grubby parliament in the same manner that the GG is the Queens representative in the grubby colonies. It allows those esteemed figures to sit above the tawdry business of day to day government, thus preserving their dignity and authority for when it counts. I fact, however, as we observed in 1975, it is not so easy for these lofty authorities to exercise their power independently once conventions have been established. Just let the Queen try to overrule our GG! Or our PM, for that matter!!

The "primacy" of this particular Minister is purely a matter of convention.

That, and the real power he has as leader of the party or coalition that has the majority in the lower house.

freediver wrote on Apr 8^th, 2007 at 4:21am:

The "primacy" of this particular Minister is purely a matter of convention. That, and the real power he has as leader of the party or coalition that has the majority in the lower house.

Yes, very true.

It is interesting (perhaps), that John Howard's model for the republic which was put to the people in the 1999 referendum would have introduced the office of PM into the constitution explicitly (although indirectly).

One of the major problems I have with having a foreign monarch as our Queen is that the Queen often has to wear several different Crowns and suffers from a sever conflict of interest as a consequence.

A good example is that the Queen or members of the Royal Family often travel overseas from the UK representing the UK at various Trade Shows and as heads of Trade Delegations.   Thats fine, problem is, the UK is competing directly against us.  Therefore, which Crown is the Queen (or her representatives) wearing in such a scenario?  The UK or our's and how she reconcile the differences?

Personally, I've always felt the best solution would be for us to create our own, seperate Crown - a Bunyip Aristocracy, if you like and invite one of the Royals or even one from a different Royal family out to rule us, thereby replacing the GG as our HoS.  We now have Mary, who's a member of the Danish royal family, why not invite her and Fred out here to be our royals?  If that isn't acceptable then I'd suggest Anne, who appears to have her head screwed much better than any of her male siblings.

Of course, doing this would scotch the arguments of both the Monarchists and the Republicans and create a compromise which should satisfy everybody, except perhaps the Queen of English.   Oh, and before anybody thinks its with precedence, remember William of Orange?   ;)

"us to create our own, seperate Crown"

AND

"should satisfy everybody"

How do you arrive at this?
How would creating our own Crown satisfy a Republican?

wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2007 at 2:33pm:

"us to create our own, seperate Crown" AND "should satisfy everybody" How do you arrive at this? How would creating our own Crown satisfy a Republican?

The major argument the Republicans throw up is that "we are ruled by a foreign monarch" and that the "GG does not represent the Australian people," etc., etc.

As I pointed out, if we had our own Bunyip Aristocracy it would scotch their argument.  We wouldn't be ruled by a foreign monarch and our own monarch would represent the Australian people.  QED.

Direct democracy in Australia

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1175406277

the need for political parties

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1173261822/0

Should preference voting be disabled

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1176974719

Republic discussion vs Monarchy (?)

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1174963616

A different Political System  ?

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1175233421

Liberals trying to gag voters..sneaky deceitful.

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1175730573

Rock Enrol

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1171784399

Politics Online

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1176680937

"The major argument the Republicans throw up is that "we are ruled by a foreign monarch" "

No it isn't. I think most true Republican's would object to our own monarch more than a foreign one. A foreign one can be ignored but a local one might have to be taken seriously.
And don't use QED when you haven't proved anything. Its a logical fallacy.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Republic-would-upset-balance-of-power/2007/08/25/1187462569567.html

Defence Minister Brendan Nelson says turning Australia into a republic would shake up the nation's "fundamental balance of power" which had created one of the world's most stable countries.

Dr Nelson spoke at the opening of the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy annual conference in Sydney on Saturday, where he described himself as "not a royalist but I am a monarchist".

"We enjoy a stability which is the envy of many people throughout the rest of the world," Dr Nelson told the 60-strong crowd.

"The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Canada and the United Kingdom are amongst the most stable and tolerant nations throughout the world and they are, of course, constitutional monarchies."

Dr Nelson said much of the support for Australia to become a republic appeared to come from people who wanted "change for its own sake".

The shift would see the nation leave behind a system which had given Australia great stability, not through power wielded by the Queen or her Australian representative the Governor General.

"But instead it is the power they deny others," Dr Nelson said.

"If you transferred that across to a person who may be elected in some form or another, either by the public or a majority of the parliament, then the fundamental balance of power in our country will change.

"People will expect, quite understandably, a person who is the president perhaps under a republic to exercise power in the name of what is popular."

---

Qld to do audit of state-fed relations

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Qld-to-do-audit-of-statefed-relations/2007/09/04/1188783207706.html

The Queensland government will audit its agreements with the federal government, leading up to a constitutional convention in 2009.

Premier Peter Beattie announced the move in state parliament.

He said the audit would examine cross-border arrangements and identify inefficiencies.

A public awareness campaign would inform a debate on federalism, and a discussion paper would be commissioned.

If we could have a good life, to be republic or not is not important.

http://news.smh.com.au/push-for-democratisation-of-gg-choice/20080125-1o30.html

Australia's next governor-general should be someone open to all sides of the republican debate, the Australian Republican Movement says.

The lobby group said the man due to leave the vice-regal job later this year - Major General Michael Jeffery - had declined to receive its representatives during his term in office.

The movement has called on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to consult widely before recommending an appointment to the Queen for her approval.

"During our next governor-general's term it is likely the Australian people will be asked to consider the question of having an Australian citizen as our head of state - instead of a foreign monarch," ARM chairman Major General Mike Keating said in a statement.

Maj Gen Keating said the replacement process was an opportunity for Mr Rudd to "democratise" the office of governor-general through a wider consultation process before the appointment.

"A more open process would be a logical interim measure before we make our ultimate transition to an Australian republic in the coming years," he said.

---

from crikey:

Gordon Pears writes: Re. "2020 summit: Talk for the sake of a talkfest" (yesterday, item 5). The 2020 Summit has the potential to create a fine blueprint for a future Australia. But then what? How can we move from vision to reality? No way: unless we have the right machinery to put it into effect. This will call for a political and constitutional structure designed to encourage thoughtful change rather than inhibit it. Neither Mr Rudd's initiative nor any comment on it that I have read so far makes any reference to this need. The Australian Constitution is a British Act of Parliament designed over 100 years ago mainly to unite six quarrelsome colonies into something resembling a nation. Well, the colonies haven't changed much but the environment within which they quarrel - socially, economically and globally - has changed beyond all recognition. The next federal election should be accompanied by a referendum to amend the Australian Constitution in a number of relevant ways. The minimum this should include would be to replace the present three year maximum parliamentary terms by fixed four year terms (which Mr Rudd already supports). Next, the separation of powers between Commonwealth and States should be re-written in 21st century language for 21st century conditions. Equally, the separation of powers between executive, legislative and judicial branches of the Commonwealth Government needs to be clarified. Finally, the Constitution should include a Bill of Rights. None of this will be easy to achieve, essentially because people with power will always resist change that reduces that power. Not all aspects of a mature and successful democracy can be written into a constitution. This includes much of the structure and behaviour of our political parties. Carmen Lawrence summed up one aspect of this beautifully: "The domination of the Parliament by a disciplined bipolar system means that the House of Representatives comes to be seen at worst as a theatre of meaningless ritual and at best as an institution under the foot of the Executive".

http://news.smh.com.au/republic-by-2010-summit-told/20080419-278x.html

Australia will be a republic within two years if delegates to the 2020 summit in Canberra have their way.

Summiteers in the governance stream voted three to one to endorse the ambitious target, proposed by federal Home Affairs Minister Bob Debus on Saturday afternoon.

Delegates originally agreed to a 12-year target.

But when Mr Debus challenged delegates to commit to a shorter time frame, he was cheered and clapped.

why not just make the gov general head of state? keepe everything the same

What advantages would a republic provide ?

If it was just a matter of making the GG head of state I don't think anyone would bother. I think it is only worth the trouble if there are more substantial changes made.

At the 2020 summit, there was strong support for a bill of rights.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 21^st, 2008 at 1:16pm:

What advantages would a republic provide ?

An excellent question.

None I can think of.

deepthought wrote on Apr 21^st, 2008 at 1:20pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 21st, 2008 at 1:16pm: What advantages would a republic provide ? An excellent question. None I can think of.

Oh you know... removal of the ancient system of monarchy for starters.

Could you explain why that is an advantage, other than appealing to people's ideologies? You realise the Queen does not actually run the country don't you?

freediver wrote on Apr 21^st, 2008 at 7:46pm:

Could you explain why that is an advantage, other than appealing to people's ideologies? You realise the Queen does not actually run the country don't you?

Therefore unnecessary.

It also means that change is unnecessary.

So, what's the advantage? Is there any practical benefit, or is it just about ideology?

Had some guys at work here suggest some advantages of a monarchy.
They said we pay the queen money, pay for her tours and pay for all the GGs.
In essence, a republic would be cheaper.
In hindsight, I don't think that is a significant improvement.

However, it is a suggestion

Referendums aren't exactly cheap either.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2008 at 8:29am:

Had some guys at work here suggest some advantages of a monarchy. They said we pay the queen money, pay for her tours and pay for all the GGs. In essence, a republic would be cheaper. In hindsight, I don't think that is a significant improvement. However, it is a suggestion

If we had a President we would need to pay for s/him and s/his abundant staff.

But even if there is a saving are you willing to make the saving so you can get an inferior system?

DILLIGAF wrote on Mar 6^th, 2007 at 10:47pm:

I agree 100% with merit. Police minister MUST be ex- cop Defence minister MUST be ex- Armed forces officer etc,.

And in the case of an ex-cop not being elected?

Or the case of an incomptetent ex-cop being elected?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2008 at 3:08pm:

DILLIGAF wrote on Mar 6th, 2007 at 10:47pm: I agree 100% with merit. Police minister MUST be ex- cop Defence minister MUST be ex- Armed forces officer etc,. And in the case of an ex-cop not being elected? Or the case of an incomptetent ex-cop being elected?

The Queen doesn't cost Australia ANYTHING.   She is a figure head..  Read the Australia Act 1986.  We don't need this to continue once QE2 goes were all good Queens go.   Lets become a Republic.

Who was in Government in 1986?

You can't blame Howard for this.  ;D

Welcome to the dark side neferti  ;)

Thanx Freediver. ;)

PS why can't I add an avatar from my "collection"?

I had to upgrade the forum recently due to bugs, security issues etc. The option to upload your own avatar is not 'standard'. I haven't gotten around to reinstalling it, plus I need to check the security implications first. Unfortunately the gallery is offline at the moment so you can't upload it there either. If you want I can upload it for you then you can link to it. Alternatively, you can upload it to a flickr account or something like that. Note that it only displays as 65x65 pixels max so try to shrink the image so it doesn't slow down people's internet connection if they are on dialup.

If you have more questions you can post them here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1168580980

Neferti wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2008 at 8:21pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2008 at 3:08pm: DILLIGAF wrote on Mar 6th, 2007 at 10:47pm: I agree 100% with merit. Police minister MUST be ex- cop Defence minister MUST be ex- Armed forces officer etc,. And in the case of an ex-cop not being elected? Or the case of an incomptetent ex-cop being elected? The Queen doesn't cost Australia ANYTHING.   She is a figure head..  Read the Australia Act 1986.  We don't need this to continue once QE2 goes were all good Queens go.   Lets become a Republic. Who was in Government in 1986? You can't blame Howard for this.  ;D

No, can't blame any one politician for this last major vestige of the cultural cringe and distinct national lack of self-confidence. Even the thought that we wait till QE2 dies so as to... what? Not offend her?

Anyway, if her mother is anything to go by, she might be on the job for another 20 years (somewhere round 2028)... She has always ruled out abdication, so unless a foreign Parliament forces the hand of our foreign Head of State, it might be QE2 past 2022.

It has nothing to do with lack of self confidence. It's just no-one cares if someone who doesn't run the country doesn't live in it or isn't elected.

freediver wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2008 at 8:44pm:

It has nothing to do with lack of self confidence. It's just no-one cares if someone who doesn't run the country doesn't live in it or isn't elected.

A self-confident national psyche would have a problem with the notion of a foreign Head of State. It is seen as a ridiculous anachronism to most nations in the world, particularly in Asia where it is perceived by many as a sign that Australia is not ready to stand on its own by clinging to the last link to a foreign once powerful overlord.

A self-confident national psyche would have a problem with the notion of a foreign Head of State.

No it wouldn't. It is lack of self confidence that leads people to get hung up on notions rather than reality.

It is seen as a ridiculous anachronism to most nations in the world, particularly in Asia where it is perceived by many as a sign that Australia is not ready to stand on its own by clinging to the last link to a foreign once powerful overlord.

You speak for asians now? Is it out of self confidence that you worry how others see us? A self confident nation would not care what they think about our 'monarchy', they would care what we think about it.

Freediver, you are twisting helian's words :P

I believe that Australia is MATURE enough to get rid of the Queen.

I vote Liberal, so I care!

I think we are mature enough to focus on what really matters - on what has a real impact on our democracy. So far all I see from republicans is that they are anti-monarchists. I don't see any positive benefits being proposed. I don't even see suggestions of what we should change to, just what we should change from. It is very difficult to improve on a functioning democracy, but very easy to screw it up.

freediver wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2008 at 9:31pm:

I think we are mature enough to focus on what really matters - on what has a real impact on our democracy. So far all I see from republicans is that they are anti-monarchists. I don't see any positive benefits being proposed. I don't even see suggestions of what we should change to, just what we should change from. It is very difficult to improve on a functioning democracy, but very easy to screw it up.

My issue is with a foreign Head of State, be that person a foreign hereditary monarch, a foreign President or any other non-Australian citizen.

I believe all Australians should have the right to aspire to be the Australian Head of State second neither in name nor in fact to a non-Australian in matters of  state.

The easiest, most obvious and least problematic would be to declare the Governor-General the unqualified Head of State (and not the anachronistic nominal penultimate) with all else being equal to the current process (i.e. the HOS appointed by the Head of Government).

I think there is a risk with the notion of an elected HOS (either by Parliament or directly by the people) with a possible potential adversary in the HOG, both of whom may claim a mandate to speak for the people.

On a lighter note, I imagine a comic scenario where in an effort to one-up the Americans in being first at everything, the Chinese President demands the role of Australian Head of State. Given that we’re OK with a foreigner in the job and like clinging to powerful nations, he reasons, why not a Chinese HOS? He would guarantee that China bought everything Australia produced and make us all stinking rich and would have a share in Chinese political, economic and military power (at least by association). We could go to war all we like alongside the Chinese just like we did with the British and Americans… Hell we could even call him His Majesty, King of Australia if it made us feel better. Of course we'd have to arc up the old cultural cringe to full strength... a bit of 'did but see him passing by' etc... After all, he reminds us,  he made us rich and significant again... just like the old days. So, God save our gracious 国 王

helian - fair comments.
I see the prime Minister as the head of state.


I still see no advantage to Aussie being a republic.
There is always a risk with change, so there HAS to be an advantae to make it worthwhile.
If any present system is functioning well, there has to be a significant advantage for a change to another untried system.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2008 at 10:37pm:

helian - fair comments. I see the prime Minister as the head of state. I still see no advantage to Aussie being a republic. There is always a risk with change, so there HAS to be an advantae to make it worthwhile. If any present system is functioning well, there has to be a significant advantage for a change to another untried system.

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree. Ironic though that a nation, noted even by Irish Presidents to be the most Irish of nations outside of Ireland would have an issue with complete separation from the British Crown.

Helian - yes, I'ld think Aussie was the most irish nation outside of Ireland. (My descent is Irish/Scottish).

I'm even more sure that Aussie will become a republic in the future.
Still, doesn't mean I have to agree with it :-).

Wise people can agree to disagree. Otherwise, there are wars.

Quite fair you would prefer to be "ruled" by an Aussie, than a Brit.
As an Irish/Scot, I can see that.
As an Aussie, I go with what is best.

I thought you were a Kiwi, Sprint?  :D

neferti - very observant of you !!   5/5
kiwi by birth, Aussie by choice, irish/scot by bloodline.
You ?

Some parts of kiwiland are very scottish ! Kiwiland overall is more english.
Aussie is more american.

Oh, and by the way Australia becoming a Republic has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the British.

The Australia Act 1986 severed ALL ties with Britain as far as our Constitution is concerned, legally.  It left the Queen as "nominal" HOS. but all she does is "tick" the PM's choice of Governer-General.  She is NOT paid a cent and has no role in our Government.  She is NOT required.

QE2 is a nice lady and I like her.  We, as a country must look forward a few years.  Surely you don't want Charlie as our nominal HOS?

It's Time to do the final step, I think.  ::)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2008 at 12:10am:

neferti - very observant of you !!   5/5 kiwi by birth, Aussie by choice, irish/scot by bloodline. You ? Some parts of kiwiland are very scottish ! Kiwiland overall is more english. Aussie is more american.

My ancestors were pure Scottish.  Not a drop of Irish blood in my veins.  ;D

Neferti wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2008 at 12:19am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 23rd, 2008 at 12:10am: neferti - very observant of you !!   5/5 kiwi by birth, Aussie by choice, irish/scot by bloodline. You ? Some parts of kiwiland are very scottish ! Kiwiland overall is more english. Aussie is more american. My ancestors were pure Scottish.  Not a drop of Irish of blood in my veins.  ;D

Ah Scotland! Politically breathing again after centuries of English domination. They've even got their own version of wikipedia in Scottish Gaelic (I think).

Check out

http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II_o_the_Unitit_Kinrick for a bit of translation fun!

neferti - really - pure Scots !!!!!!!!!! Excellent.
The Scots were the ONLY country NOT to be overrun to the english.
You have much to be proud of.
My family motto means " With a strong hand." From the 5th century in Ireland.

My issue is with a foreign Head of State

She's a figure head. It's the PM who really runs the place.

The easiest, most obvious and least problematic would be to declare the Governor-General the unqualified Head of State (and not the anachronistic nominal penultimate) with all else being equal to the current process (i.e. the HOS appointed by the Head of Government).

In effect, an extremely costly change that doesn't have any real impact. Plus, it would weaken the role of GG because the PM would be more likely to put in a snivelling lap dog. It could end up being like the deputy PM position - highly political.

I tend to agree with John Howard here.

I like the Queen . I say I'm not a monarchist , but maybe I am?

Nerfiti...welcome.

In effect, an extremely costly change that doesn't have any real impact. Plus, it would weaken the role of GG because the PM would be more likely to put in a snivelling lap dog. It could end up being like the deputy PM position - highly political.

As the PM (the Head of Government) already appoints the GG, what extra cost would there be to implement? I don't believe that snivelling lapdog is a fair description of Sir Zelman Cowen, Sir Ninian Stephen, Bill Hayden, Sir William Deane or Michael Jeffery.

Let's not forget also that the only occasion an Australian GG unilaterally exercised reserve powers was to act against the man who appointed him to the position. Hardly the act of a snivelling lapdog towards his benefactor.

As the PM (the Head of Government) already appoints the GG, what extra cost would there be to implement?

For starters, the referendum.

I don't believe that snivelling lapdog is a fair description of Sir Zelman Cowen, Sir Ninian Stephen, Bill Hayden, Sir William Deane or Michael Jeffery.

Exactly. This is far more likely to no longer be the case once you remove the last impediment to the appointment of a snivelling lapdog. So basically, it is an expensive change that does almost nothing and if it does make a change it will be a change for the worse. This is not about ideology, or national pride, or monarchy. It is about the practical issues of running a country. Australian are practical people. That's why we don't bother fixing alleged 'problems' that don't need fixing.

Let's not forget also that the only occasion an Australian GG unilaterally exercised reserve powers was to act against the man who appointed him to the position.

Isn't that the only time they would do something?

Exactly. This is far more likely to no longer be the case once you remove the last impediment to the appointment of a snivelling lapdog.

The Monarch merely signs the appointment. She has no formal right to question the appointment and as she is a foreigner she should have no right to be consulted at all.

Let's not forget also that the only occasion an Australian GG unilaterally exercised reserve powers was to act against the man who appointed him to the position.

Isn't that the only time they would do something?

So the appointment did not prevent the GG acting counter to the interests of the PM who appointed him. A snivelling lapdog by definition would not have insulted his benefactor. He did not have to act at all... but he did.

You seem to be missing the point helian. I'm not saying that it has happened in the past. I'm saying it is more likely to happen in the future if you make the changes suggested.

So far - no hard and fast advantages for a republic over a monarchy.

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2008 at 2:11pm:

You seem to be missing the point helian. I'm not saying that it has happened in the past. I'm saying it is more likely to happen in the future if you make the changes suggested.

Sorry Freediver, I'm not making myself very clear. What I intended to say was that the foreign Monarch has no power to dissent in any way whether she approves of the appointment or not. The PM may appoint whomsoever he likes (within the law) and the Monarch may not question that appointment, so there is no guarantee that a snivelling lapdog would not be appointed now or in the future under a foreigner or not. She may of course apply pressure in an attempt to appoint her choice using her considerable influence and status to affect the outcome of a sovereign nation's choice of GG. There has been a precedent where an Australian Prime Minister has inisisted on a GG appointment against the wishes of the foreign Monarch as with the case of Sir Isaac Isaacs. Prime Minister James Scullin had to travel to London to personally insist that the old King assent to the appointment which he reluctantly did. The fact that an Australian PM acting under the law should have his decision of GG appointment questioned under these circumstances by a foreigner is unacceptable and should not be allowed to occur.

As with Kerr, apparently QE2 never liked him and was happy with his resignation in '77.

What I intended to say was that the foreign Monarch has no power to dissent in any way whether she approves of the appointment or not.

Why was it necessary for that PM to fly to England then?

She may of course apply pressure in an attempt to appoint her choice using her considerable influence and status to affect the outcome of a sovereign nation's choice of GG.

Gven that GG is a largely ceremonial role, this is a good thing. If people stop paying attention to it because it becomes completely meaningless, we may one day end up with a GG too timid to fulfil their role in a time of need.

The fact that an Australian PM acting under the law should have his decision of GG appointment questioned under these circumstances by a foreigner is unacceptable and should not be allowed to occur.

Yes it should. The whole point of the GG position is that they are independent of the PM. This cannot happen if the PM's choice cannot be questioned. It is absurd to give the PM 100% control over selection of the person whose job it is to sack him.

from crikey:

John Bowyer writes: Re. Adam Rope (yesterday, comments). A change to a Republic cannot come until it is voted on. After two days of the Kevin love-in you would think someone could actually come up with a proper change rather than a "bleat"! The only system change I have heard was from a former Victorian Governor. My suggestion would be that the Prime Minister selects a candidate who has to be approved by both houses of the parliament. This utter rubbish about "lets agree to a change" by politicians and then let them work it out is nothing less than completely contemptible. If you cannot suggest a model then keep out of the debate -- as we have to have a vote on a change to the constitution -- think about it!

Why was it necessary for that PM to fly to England then?

It was necessary for Scullin to take a voyage to Britain because King George V thought that he could get his way by just refusing Royal assent (A GG's appointment had no validity in law until Royal Assent was granted). His expectation was that Scullin would back down. To his credit, he didn't, although he had to make the costly and time consuming trip to demonstrate to an arrogant old aristocrat that he intended to insist on the right of an Australian to choose the Australian Vice Regal. The King was forced to grant Royal Assent.

She may of course apply pressure in an attempt to appoint her choice using her considerable influence and status to affect the outcome of a sovereign nation's choice of GG.

Gven that GG is a largely ceremonial role, this is a good thing. If people stop paying attention to it because it becomes completely meaningless, we may one day end up with a GG too timid to fulfil their role in a time of need.

It is arguably a good thing only where an Australian Parliament or other authorised Australian body can influence the outcome. In Britain, although the Queen is advised by the PM (a euphemism for instructed) she in fact has considerable influence over what she is instructed to do and say. That may be acceptable in Britain, if not formally acknowledged, as at least there she is the unqualified Head of State. No Australian is involved in this process of instruction and neither should there be. Similarly, I believe no foreigner should have any influence whatsoever (either formally through law or informally through influence) over the selction of an Australian GG.

The fact that an Australian PM acting under the law should have his decision of GG appointment questioned under these circumstances by a foreigner is unacceptable and should not be allowed to occur.

Yes it should. The whole point of the GG position is that they are independent of the PM. This cannot happen if the PM's choice cannot be questioned. It is absurd to give the PM 100% control over selection of the person whose job it is to sack him.

The decision, if it is to be questioned at all I believe should be made by a legally authorised Australian body (i.e. Parliament or an Australian body authorised by Parliament).

But it is the Queen's separation from the parliament that makes her a good choice. Replacing the GG with someone linked only to elected representatives only has appeal in that it ditches the monarchy, but in all practical terms it replaces it with something less appropriate.

This separation is similar to the separation of the reserve bank, which could serve as a model. However a reserve bank style institution is not appropriate because the reserve bank does have a day to day job to do, while the GG does not. Maybe a judiciary based appointment could work seeing as the role is constitutional, however you would get just as many fundamentalists getting upset about that because it undermines the separation institutions.

It is the fact that the monarchy is largely redundant and purely ceremonial that makes it a good choice for vetting the GG.

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2008 at 7:45pm:

But it is the Queen's separation from the parliament that makes her a good choice. Replacing the GG with someone linked only to elected representatives only has appeal in that it ditches the monarchy, but in all practical terms it replaces it with something less appropriate. This separation is similar to the separation of the reserve bank, which could serve as a model. However a reserve bank style institution is not appropriate because the reserve bank does have a day to day job to do, while the GG does not. Maybe a judiciary based appointment could work seeing as the role is constitutional, however you would get just as many fundamentalists getting upset about that because it undermines the separation institutions. It is the fact that the monarchy is largely redundant and purely ceremonial that makes it a good choice for vetting the GG.

You don't get it, do you freediver!

It's like FREE DIVING!  Australia should (again) look at us going alone without the Monarchy connection.

''It's not "broke" our Parliamentary System is great.  The Queen is superflous!

I get that you want to do it, it just seems trivial. If it aint broke, why do you insist we fix it?

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2008 at 7:45pm:

But it is the Queen's separation from the parliament that makes her a good choice. Replacing the GG with someone linked only to elected representatives only has appeal in that it ditches the monarchy, but in all practical terms it replaces it with something less appropriate. ... It is the fact that the monarchy is largely redundant and purely ceremonial that makes it a good choice for vetting the GG.

A foreigner "vetting" a decision made by a democratically elected representative (or representatives) of the Australian people is a most inappropriate model. If the foreign monarch prefers an unpopular choice, what then? If she uses her considerable influence to advance the cause of this unpopular choice, what then? Another situation where the legal representative of the Australian people must insist on another  candidate? No democratically elected body, person or persons charged by Parliament with the duty of appointing a GG should have to suffer the opinions of an unelected, foreign Head of State. Australians are eminently capable of making sound decisions when appointing an honourable and dignified Australian to act as the nation's Head of State, without turning to a foreigner to see if it's OK with her.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 24^th, 2008 at 9:52pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 24th, 2008 at 7:45pm: But it is the Queen's separation from the parliament that makes her a good choice. Replacing the GG with someone linked only to elected representatives only has appeal in that it ditches the monarchy, but in all practical terms it replaces it with something less appropriate. ... It is the fact that the monarchy is largely redundant and purely ceremonial that makes it a good choice for vetting the GG. A foreigner "vetting" a decision made by a democratically elected representative (or representatives) of the Australian people is a most inappropriate model. If the foreign monarch prefers an unpopular choice, what then? If she uses her considerable influence to advance the cause of this unpopular choice, what then? Another situation where the legal representative of the Australian people must insist on another  candidate? No democratically elected body, person or persons charged by Parliament with the duty of appointing a GG should have to suffer the opinions of an unelected, foreign Head of State. Australians are eminently capable of making sound decisions when appointing an honourable and dignified Australian to act as the nation's Head of State, without turning to a foreigner to see if it's OK with her.

Who should decide who the Australian head of state is and what process is used to make that decision?

A foreigner "vetting" a decision made by a democratically elected representative (or representatives) of the Australian people is a most inappropriate model.

But why? This is something no-one has explained. It works. Who cares whether the Queen of Australia lives oerseas? The only objection is ideological. There is no practical objection, right?

No democratically elected body, person or persons charged by Parliament with the duty of appointing a GG should have to suffer the opinions of an unelected, foreign Head of State.

Yes they should. That's how it works. That's why it works, because the GG is not a democratic position.

Australians are eminently capable of making sound decisions when appointing an honourable and dignified Australian to act as the nation's Head of State

But we don't, the PM does. When it comes to choosing the person who might sack the PM, I'd choose the Queen over the PM to appoint the person any day.

Am I right that your objection is purely ideological and has no practical basis?


Deepthought, good question, but it seems too much to answer unfortunately. I am deeply concerned that people are calling to overthrow our noble Queen before they have figured out what to replace her with. The french made this mistake a while back. Let's not repeat it.

deepthought wrote on Apr 24^th, 2008 at 9:57pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 24th, 2008 at 9:52pm: freediver wrote on Apr 24th, 2008 at 7:45pm: But it is the Queen's separation from the parliament that makes her a good choice. Replacing the GG with someone linked only to elected representatives only has appeal in that it ditches the monarchy, but in all practical terms it replaces it with something less appropriate. ... It is the fact that the monarchy is largely redundant and purely ceremonial that makes it a good choice for vetting the GG. A foreigner "vetting" a decision made by a democratically elected representative (or representatives) of the Australian people is a most inappropriate model. If the foreign monarch prefers an unpopular choice, what then? If she uses her considerable influence to advance the cause of this unpopular choice, what then? Another situation where the legal representative of the Australian people must insist on another  candidate? No democratically elected body, person or persons charged by Parliament with the duty of appointing a GG should have to suffer the opinions of an unelected, foreign Head of State. Australians are eminently capable of making sound decisions when appointing an honourable and dignified Australian to act as the nation's Head of State, without turning to a foreigner to see if it's OK with her. Who should decide who the Australian head of state is and what process is used to make that decision?

<"But genius", he added, "Lies in asking the right questions">

An excellent question.... And so a debate begins...

Should we have a HOS appointed by the Head of Government (The PM - fundamentally as it is now except without Royal Assent)?

Should the HOS candidates be approved and one appointed by a majority in both houses of Parliament?

Should the HOS be directly elected?

Should the Head of Government and HOS be combined into a single role (i.e. the PM becomes in effect an executive President)?

Should Parliament appoint a "Sovereign Council" comprising of eminent Australians charged with appointing a HOS?

Quote:

A foreigner "vetting" a decision made by a democratically elected representative (or representatives) of the Australian people is a most inappropriate model. But why? This is something no-one has explained. It works. Who cares whether the Queen of Australia lives oerseas? The only objection is ideological. There is no practical objection, right?

The "Queen of Australia" is a foreigner and will never be permitted by foreign law while she is the British HOS to become an Australian. No foreign person is eligible to become an Australian Parliamentarian


Quote:

No democratically elected body, person or persons charged by Parliament with the duty of appointing a GG should have to suffer the opinions of an unelected, foreign Head of State. Yes they should. That's how it works. That's why it works, because the GG is not a democratic position.

The GG is appointed and dismissed by democratically elected representatives of the people. He currently serves at the HOG's pleasure.


Quote:

Australians are eminently capable of making sound decisions when appointing an honourable and dignified Australian to act as the nation's Head of State But we don't, the PM does. When it comes to choosing the person who might sack the PM, I'd choose the Queen over the PM to appoint the person any day.

The PM (and all Parliamentarians) are democratically elected. It needs to be acknowledged that Parliamentarians are of good character and can act appropriately if called on to choose a GG.

Quote:

I am deeply concerned that people are calling to overthrow our noble Queen before they have figured out what to replace her with. The french made this mistake a while back. Let's not repeat it.

I agree - but I don't believe the majority of Australians want a Republic.  Some areas of the media are trying to convince us that we do, but the average person is very wary of this huge change.

There seems to be a minority pushing an agenda.

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2008 at 10:00pm:

The french made this mistake a while back. Let's not repeat it.

The core problem with revolutions is how to justify only the one and also prevent other subsequent coups for the same reasons. However, no one is suggesting a revolution or a coup d’état that I know of.

I am deeply concerned that people are calling to overthrow our noble Queen

I think you can rest assured that QE2 will not be cut to the quick if we opt to remove her completely from our political system. She won't be mad at us. (cringe, cringe).

While Menzies did but see her passing by,
We can love her from afar
from that day we say ta ta. ;D  

mantra wrote on Apr 24^th, 2008 at 10:49pm:

[quote] I agree - but I don't believe the majority of Australians want a Republic. .

I believe they do.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 24^th, 2008 at 10:29pm:

deepthought wrote on Apr 24th, 2008 at 9:57pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 24th, 2008 at 9:52pm: freediver wrote on Apr 24th, 2008 at 7:45pm: But it is the Queen's separation from the parliament that makes her a good choice. Replacing the GG with someone linked only to elected representatives only has appeal in that it ditches the monarchy, but in all practical terms it replaces it with something less appropriate. ... It is the fact that the monarchy is largely redundant and purely ceremonial that makes it a good choice for vetting the GG. A foreigner "vetting" a decision made by a democratically elected representative (or representatives) of the Australian people is a most inappropriate model. If the foreign monarch prefers an unpopular choice, what then? If she uses her considerable influence to advance the cause of this unpopular choice, what then? Another situation where the legal representative of the Australian people must insist on another  candidate? No democratically elected body, person or persons charged by Parliament with the duty of appointing a GG should have to suffer the opinions of an unelected, foreign Head of State. Australians are eminently capable of making sound decisions when appointing an honourable and dignified Australian to act as the nation's Head of State, without turning to a foreigner to see if it's OK with her. Who should decide who the Australian head of state is and what process is used to make that decision? <"But genius", he added, "Lies in asking the right questions"> An excellent question.... And so a debate begins... Should we have a HOS appointed by the Head of Government (The PM - fundamentally as it is now except without Royal Assent)? Should the HOS candidates be approved and one appointed by a majority in both houses of Parliament? Should the HOS be directly elected? Should the Head of Government and HOS be combined into a single role (i.e. the PM becomes in effect an executive President)? Should Parliament appoint a "Sovereign Council" comprising of eminent Australians charged with appointing a HOS?

The question should not create more questions though.  If it does it is not already answered.  And if it is not already answered then it it is not worth considering or it becomes merely an academic exercise.  This is not necessarily bad but it is not the right time to consider change if the answers to critical questions are unknown.

To debate it it is fun, to risk it is dangerous.

The only common theme in your posts helian is 'foreigner'.  Are we, as a nation, so embarrassed by our past that we have to chnage it to . . . .  what exactly?

Why does a 'foreigner' make you so uncomfortable?

Why are you so willing to throw out a perfectly good, and demonstrably superior, system of government because of embarrassment when the alternatives are as yet unknown?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 24^th, 2008 at 11:11pm:

mantra wrote on Apr 24th, 2008 at 10:49pm: [quote] I agree - but I don't believe the majority of Australians want a Republic. . I believe they do.

Didn't we have a vote on this recently? Didn't it prove the exact same point I am trying to make - that until you come up with a better alternative, calls to overthrow our noble queen are somewhat vacuous. Until you replace your list of possible alternatives with a single one, you only have half of an idea.

The question should not create more questions though.

All great questions spawn others nearly as great.

The only common theme in your posts helian is 'foreigner'.

Because being  foreign is the ironic prerequisite to becoming the Australian Head of State.

We ask…we expect of all immigrants that, after a time, they become Australian citizens. That they commit to this country, remain loyal and  defend her with their lives against all enemies foreign and domestic including the country of their birth if necessary. Much is expected of those to whom much is bestowed.

It would be at the very least a courtesy to those from whom much is expected that we are consistent with what we ask of our leaders in fact or in name.

However, we do not ask the foreign Head of State to commit to this nation in the same way. We may not ask the foreign Head of State to commit to this nation by becoming an Australian citizen because the land of her birth (of which she is their natural born Head of State) would not permit her to do so and would discourage an Australian Parliament from making such a request. The British Parliament would forbid such an act and the British people of course would have a problem with a foreign Head of State. That would be a feature of a lesser state, I imagine they would think. Such as a colony, for example.

Helian I think I mentioned this before. The Queen is not our HOS. Once we make people realise that the PM is actually our HOS, do you think this whole 'republic issue' will go away?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 9:46am:

The question should not create more questions though. All great questions spawn others nearly as great. The only common theme in your posts helian is 'foreigner'. Because foreign is the ironic prerequisite to becoming the Australian Head of State. We ask…we expect of all immigrants that, after a time, they become Australian citizens. That they commit to this country, remain loyal and  defend her with their lives against all enemies foreign and domestic including the country of their birth if necessary. Much is expected of those to whom much is bestowed We do not ask the foreign Head of State to commit to this nation in the same way. We may not ask the foreign Head of State to commit to this nation by becoming an Australian citizen because the land of her birth (of which she is their natural born Head of State) would not permit her to do so and would discourage an Australian Parliament from making such a request. The British Parliament would forbid such an act and the British people of course would have a problem with a foreign Head of State. That would be a feature of a lesser state... a colony, perhaps.

So that's it in its entirety - the old (and I thought forgotten) cultural cringe?  That we will never be as good as everyone else while everyone else thinks we are a 'colony' with a 'foreign' head of state?

Let me tell you no one (with the obvious exception of an embarrassed few) thinks that way.  Australia has defeated many a foe, we have shown the world how to run an economy and we have beaten all comers on the sporting field.  We have nothing to be ashamed of and much to be proud of.

I feel no diminution by having a Head Of State who is the British Monarch.  Because I am proud of our history and grateful for our heritage.

We have the best system of government in the world - there is no valid reason at all to change to an inferior system.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 9:53am:

Helian I think I mentioned this before. The Queen is not our HOS. Once we make people realise that the PM is actually our HOS, do you think this whole 'republic issue' will go away?

Actually she is.  The PM is an elected representative.  But the GG is our nominal Head of state as HM's representative.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 9:53am:

Helian I think I mentioned this before. The Queen is not our HOS. Once we make people realise that the PM is actually our HOS, do you think this whole 'republic issue' will go away?

The Prime Minister is our Head of Government.

QE2 is our nominal Head of State with her reserve powers vested in the Governor General.

Head of Government and Head of State are two separate roles.

So that's it in its entirety - the old (and I thought forgotten) cultural cringe?  That we will never be as good as everyone else while everyone else thinks we are a 'colony' with a 'foreign' head of state?

Closer to the crux of the issue is that it would be at the very least a courtesy to those from whom much is expected that we are consistent with what we ask of our leaders in fact or in name, such as being an Australian citizen when you are bestowed the privilege and honour of becoming the Australian HOS.

Let me tell you no one (with the obvious exception of an embarrassed few) thinks that way.  

Do you speak for "we the People"? regardless of age, gender, ethnicity  political belief?

Australia has defeated many a foe, we have shown the world how to run an economy and we have beaten all comers on the sporting field.  We have nothing to be ashamed of and much to be proud of.

OK... The Americans are pretty good at running an economy and defeating people (well, used to be good at defeating people) . and the Chinese aren't bad at it these days either. They're both not too foul at sports if Olympic medal tallies are anything to go by.

I feel no diminution by having a Head Of State who is the British Monarch. .

Are you a WASP?

We have the best system of government in the world - there is no valid reason at all to change to an inferior system.

Who is suggesting an inferior model?

OK, if you want to be pedantic, the queen is our 'nominal' head of state and the PM is the real HOS.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 10:33am:

OK, if you want to be pedantic, the queen is our 'nominal' head of state and the PM is the real HOS.

It is not being pedantic. The roles are entirely separate and defined in law. The HOG is subordinate to the HOS, hence the reason Kerr could successfully dismiss Whitlam and order the dissolution of Parliament.

Not all political systems recognise two roles. The Americans after the revolution decided that the separate roles were problematic and combined them both into a single role, that of the President who is in effect both HOG and HOS.

The HOG is subordinate to the HOS

Not in any real sense.

You seem to be getting hung up on purely technical and ideological problems, while ignoring what is really happening. If you could fix the technical 'problems', whatever you think they are, without changing what really happens and without incurring any real cost, it wouldn't bother me. But I don't think you can do that. Any ideologue who demands change while ignoring reality is a danger to society.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 11:45am:

The HOG is subordinate to the HOS Not in any real sense. You seem to be getting hung up on purely technical and ideological problems, while ignoring what is really happening. If you could fix the technical 'problems', whatever you think they are, without changing what really happens and without incurring any real cost, it wouldn't bother me. But I don't think you can do that. Any ideologue who demands change while ignoring reality is a danger to society.

Please read something on the Westminster system of government and its adaptation in the form of the Australian system of government.

The HOG is subordinate to the HOS. This is not a technical or ideological nicety. It is a constitutional fact.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 10:23am:

Closer to the crux of the issue is that it would be at the very least a courtesy to those from whom much is expected that we are consistent with what we ask of our leaders in fact or in name, such as being an Australian citizen when you are bestowed the privilege and honour of becoming the Australian HOS.

It is the other way around.  Before there was an Australia there was a monarch.  The monarchy came first.  We are fortunate it is so.



NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 10:23am:

Do you speak for "we the People"? regardless of age, gender, ethnicity  political belief?

Not only do I speak for the people, the people speak for the people when in 1999 a republican model was rejected.

And, apart from Cardboard Kev's love-fest, I don't recollect it ever being brought up in any conversation.  In my experience Australians are damned proud to be Australian, they don't have any hang up about 'foreigners'.



NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 10:23am:

OK... The Americans are pretty good at running an economy and defeating people (well, used to be good at defeating people) . and the Chinese aren't bad at it these days either. They're both not too foul at sports if Olympic medal tallies are anything to go by.

The Americans have multi trillion dollar debt, the Americans have a whacking great divide between rich and poor and the Americans have a social welfare system that is invisible.  They also have a population more than ten times ours and have a huge military.  We still beat them at some sports despite our tiny population - and we do it all with a constitutional monarchy.

The Chinese?  I don't think for a moment you can compare our lives to that of the Chinese.  And they do not have a constutional monarchy.




NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 10:23am:

Are you a WASP?

No, I am a bumble bee.



NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 10:23am:

Who is suggesting an inferior model?

The republicans are.

Still so far I see no specific fact as to any advantage a republic has over the monarchy.

Sure, discuss a "foreign" HOS, if it is appropriate or not.
What advantage would a voted in aussie have, over the system that has been stable for 200 years ?

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 11:45am:

The HOG is subordinate to the HOS Not in any real sense. You seem to be getting hung up on purely technical and ideological problems, while ignoring what is really happening. If you could fix the technical 'problems', whatever you think they are, without changing what really happens and without incurring any real cost, it wouldn't bother me. But I don't think you can do that. Any ideologue who demands change while ignoring reality is a danger to society.

In every sense.

The Constitution is clear in this regard.


Quote:

The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

It is the other way around.  Before there was an Australia there was a monarch.  The monarchy came first.  We are fortunate it is so.

The privilege is bestowed on the Prince of Wales or the heir presumptive upon his/her ascension to the British throne.

In my experience Australians are damned proud to be Australian

And prouder they will be still when the requirement for a foreign Head of State is abolished.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 2:39pm:

Still so far I see no specific fact as to any advantage a republic has over the monarchy. Sure, discuss a "foreign" HOS, if it is appropriate or not. What advantage would a voted in aussie have, over the system that has been stable for 200 years ?

Perhaps then we should allow foreigners to run for Parliament.

The HOG is subordinate to the HOS. This is not a technical or ideological nicety. It is a constitutional fact.

Except that the PM does not answer to the Queen. This is what I mean about the difference between reality and whatever imaginary legal problems you care to seek out. Ask any lawyer. Our statuatory law is full of inappropiate mandates and holes. Rather than devoting our lives to correcting things that don't matter, we just get on with life. That's why Australians don't care that we are a monarchy, because in reality we are a democracy and the monarchy only exists in the minds of the republican ideologues and some old bits of paper.

You can pull out all the bits of paper you want to try to convince Australians that we are a monarchy and that Kevin Rudd answers to Elizabeth. But no sane person will believe you. Until the republicans start talking common sense and acknowledge that it isn't the grand struggle they make it out to be, the will continue to be ignored by the general public. Which is why it's lucky we are a democracy.

The primary argument in favour of remaining a monarchy, is that is what we have always known.

If that were the sole criteria for deciding what  we, as a people, should do, then we never would accept any change, or make any progress.

The fact of the ideological argument that many people find it obscene, that by a mere accident of birth, someone should be deemed to be supreme ruler, shows a maturity and growing confidence in the ability to make our own future.

It is not unlike the indigenous apology, a sign of recognition of our past, but not at the expense of neglecting our future.
Our future is as a republic, sooner rather than later, I expect to see it in my lifetime, and I will celebrate the day as a real sign of my country, and it's people, coming of age.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 3:01pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 25th, 2008 at 2:39pm: Still so far I see no specific fact as to any advantage a republic has over the monarchy. Sure, discuss a "foreign" HOS, if it is appropriate or not. What advantage would a voted in aussie have, over the system that has been stable for 200 years ? Perhaps then we should allow foreigners to run for Parliament.

But this too would require a change to the Constitution and the point I keep making is that this form of government and this constitution has served us well and made us one of the most successful nations on earth.  Why regress?

No mozzaok, the primary argument for keeping what we have is that it appears to be as good as or better than all the alternatives put forward, including those tried by other countries. Or rather, it is the absence of a sound argument in favour of change. A constitution is not something you should change just for the sake of change.

deepthought wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 7:08pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25th, 2008 at 3:01pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 25th, 2008 at 2:39pm: Still so far I see no specific fact as to any advantage a republic has over the monarchy. Sure, discuss a "foreign" HOS, if it is appropriate or not. What advantage would a voted in aussie have, over the system that has been stable for 200 years ? Perhaps then we should allow foreigners to run for Parliament. But this too would require a change to the Constitution and the point I keep making is that this form of government and this constitution has served us well and made us one of the most successful nations on earth.  Why regress?

Well... I was being facetious, but hey! Why not? In fact let's do away with citizenship altogether! Let's be lead by example If it's not good enough for the foreign HOS to become a citizen... Why should it be required of anyone?

mozzaok wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 7:07pm:

The primary argument in favour of remaining a monarchy, is that is what we have always known. If that were the sole criteria for deciding what  we, as a people, should do, then we never would accept any change, or make any progress. The fact of the ideological argument that many people find it obscene, that by a mere accident of birth, someone should be deemed to be supreme ruler, shows a maturity and growing confidence in the ability to make our own future. It is not unlike the indigenous apology, a sign of recognition of our past, but not at the expense of neglecting our future. Our future is as a republic, sooner rather than later, I expect to see it in my lifetime, and I will celebrate the day as a real sign of my country, and it's people, coming of age.

Hear, Hear!

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 8:11pm:

mozzaok wrote on Apr 25th, 2008 at 7:07pm: The primary argument in favour of remaining a monarchy, is that is what we have always known. If that were the sole criteria for deciding what  we, as a people, should do, then we never would accept any change, or make any progress. The fact of the ideological argument that many people find it obscene, that by a mere accident of birth, someone should be deemed to be supreme ruler, shows a maturity and growing confidence in the ability to make our own future. It is not unlike the indigenous apology, a sign of recognition of our past, but not at the expense of neglecting our future. Our future is as a republic, sooner rather than later, I expect to see it in my lifetime, and I will celebrate the day as a real sign of my country, and it's people, coming of age. Hear, Hear!

You liked the bit about the APOLOGY?  I've just gone from republican to a reformed-monarchist.

There you go!   KEEP what we have ........

Neferti wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 8:40pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 25th, 2008 at 8:11pm: mozzaok wrote on Apr 25th, 2008 at 7:07pm: The primary argument in favour of remaining a monarchy, is that is what we have always known. If that were the sole criteria for deciding what  we, as a people, should do, then we never would accept any change, or make any progress. The fact of the ideological argument that many people find it obscene, that by a mere accident of birth, someone should be deemed to be supreme ruler, shows a maturity and growing confidence in the ability to make our own future. It is not unlike the indigenous apology, a sign of recognition of our past, but not at the expense of neglecting our future. Our future is as a republic, sooner rather than later, I expect to see it in my lifetime, and I will celebrate the day as a real sign of my country, and it's people, coming of age. Hear, Hear! You liked the bit about the APOLOGY?  I've just gone from republican to a reformed-monarchist. There you go!   KEEP what we have ........

You're being a bit fickle, don't you think?

Obviously!  I voted YES in the 1999 Referendum.  I still think is a reasonable idea.

........ for Australia to go to the next step in our maturity as a Nation.

mozzaok - I also feel aussie may become a republic within my time.
The question has been repeatedly raised, one time it'll get voted through.
I don't see why that might signify a "progression" of our nation.

Wishing to remain with the system we have may be seen as a stick-in-the-mud.  
Most of those antirepublic purely ask for advantages of one, and are not offered any.
If a huge change if offered, it HAS to possess advantages, the larger the change, the more decisive and concrete the advantages required.

Most monarchies of the world are very good for their countries.
Many are in Europe and the pacific nations, they aer well loved by their citizens.

Many countries of the world would LOVE the westminster system.

I cannot think of a system that has any decisive, concrete advantages over the westminster system.
"Show me the money" , as the movie goes ..........

What was the alternative proposal in the 1999 referendum?

Timing is important.
The point about our constitution serving us well, is valid, only when comparing us to other models which you consider inferior, and assume that a move to becoming a republic would see us mirroring mistakes they may have made.

The fact of the matter is that we will need a new constitution, and how good it is will be up to those we choose to shape it.

So let us all start to demand higher standards from our pollies, and by the time the inevitable occurs, we may see them produce a constitution which improves on what we now consider adequate.

Many have bemoaned that we have no 'Bill of Rights' enshrined in our laws, and we are seeing the US people reacting to the diminution of their rights under their new 'Patriot Act', good men will learn from these mistakes.

I think we deserve better, and I believe we are smart enough, and mature enough, to deliver it.
At some point we must make that leap of faith, all we can do is try to ensure the best people possible are voted in to manage the transition, so it becomes a positive step forward for us all.

Neferti wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 9:02pm:

Obviously!  I voted YES in the 1999 Referendum.  I still think is a reasonable idea. ........ for Australia to go to the next step in our maturity as a Nation.

Obviously!

Oh, OK. I'm getting used to those accursed emoticons to denote irony and humour. Even had to start using them myself.  ;D

Mozz why do we need to make it a leap of faith? What can't we expect to know what we are changing to, before we commit to a change? Surely it's not that difficult.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 9:27pm:

Timing is important. The point about our constitution serving us well, is valid, only when comparing us to other models which you consider inferior, and assume that a move to becoming a republic would see us mirroring mistakes they may have made. The fact of the matter is that we will need a new constitution, and how good it is will be up to those we choose to shape it. So let us all start to demand higher standards from our pollies, and by the time the inevitable occurs, we may see them produce a constitution which improves on what we now consider adequate. Many have bemoaned that we have no 'Bill of Rights' enshrined in our laws, and we are seeing the US people reacting to the diminution of their rights under their new 'Patriot Act', good men will learn from these mistakes. I think we deserve better, and I believe we are smart enough, and mature enough, to deliver it. At some point we must make that leap of faith, all we can do is try to ensure the best people possible are voted in to manage the transition, so it becomes a positive step forward for us all.

Yet the Americans have the republic you admire and the Bill of Rights you yearn for.

While we have a thousand years of evolution of laws which gives us unprecedented freedoms, a Westminster system of government, the rule of law, separation of powers doctrine and centuries of common law to protect us.

Why change because some feel inferior and immature?  Most of us don't, most of us love Australia just as it is.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 25^th, 2008 at 7:07pm:

The primary argument in favour of remaining a monarchy, is that is what we have always known. The fact of the ideological argument that many people find it obscene, that by a mere accident of birth, someone should be deemed to be supreme ruler, shows a maturity and growing confidence in the ability to make our own future.

I believe that those who are the most insistent that the foreign HOS remain in place would be those who either identify as white anglo-saxon protestants or are the near descendants of WASPs. Persisting with a foreign HOS to non-WASPS (or those who do not identify themselves as such) is a ridiculous and senseless anachronism.

I don't believe it is about being Australian. I believe it is about clinging to what are anachronistic ethnic sensibilities.

If a referendum were put to the people in the form of one simple question : "Should Australia become a republic?" (i.e. should we sever the ties to a foreign Head of State), I believe the vote would be more like 70 to 80 % in favour.

Quote:

If a referendum were put to the people in the form of one simple question : "Should Australia become a republic?" (i.e. should we sever the ties to a foreign Head of State), I believe the vote would be more like 70 to 80 % in favour.

Interesting point of view Helian, and your argument might carry a little weight, but not much.  Many Australians of ethnic origins are second and third generation Australian and this system has worked well for them and their children.  Many immigrants are from republics and perhaps wouldn't want to revisit one.

In my view - the vote would be conservatively 65% against - and most of those selling a republic , would consider themselves elite to some extent (real or imagined) and that's fine - each to their own.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 26^th, 2008 at 9:37am:

mozzaok wrote on Apr 25th, 2008 at 7:07pm: The primary argument in favour of remaining a monarchy, is that is what we have always known. The fact of the ideological argument that many people find it obscene, that by a mere accident of birth, someone should be deemed to be supreme ruler, shows a maturity and growing confidence in the ability to make our own future. I believe that those who are the most insistent that the foreign HOS remain in place would be those who either identify as white anglo-saxon protestants or are the near descendants of WASPs. Persisting with a foreign HOS to non-WASPS (or those who do not identify themselves as such) is a ridiculous and senseless anachronism. I don't believe it is about being Australian. I believe it is about clinging to what are anachronistic ethnic sensibilities. If a referendum were put to the people in the form of one simple question : "Should Australia become a republic?" (i.e. should we sever the ties to a foreign Head of State), I believe the vote would be more like 70 to 80 % in favour.

I strongly doubt very many people who arrived here 50 years ago or just yesterday believe the place they came from had a superior form of governance than Australia's.   If they do they are free to return to their chosen form of governmental control.

Chances are they love what we have and now call themselves proud Australians.  And if they came here before 1993 they would have pledged allegiance to our Queen.  After 1993 they pledged commitment to Australia, of which the Queen is head of state.

I think you will find that, unless they all told porkies, they meant it.

I strongly doubt they also took on an inferiority complex about it at that time.

Freediver, the 'leap of faith' I was referring to, was that of going from an accepted and comfortable status quo, into a new, and hopefully improved system.

We are a pretty young country, but we do have high standards of education, social justice, and individual freedom.

Those in favour of going to a republic, optimistically, believe that with all our natural advantages, and with the good will of the people, we can improve on our current system.

The timing issue is due to the fact that we need people of exceptional integrity, wisdom and foresight, who also are prepared to be consultative in shaping the direction of a new constitution.So that means ideally it would be implemented by a very 'Centrist' government, which will include people from all walks of life, and all political persuasions, to contribute to the setting of a new constitution.

It is not without risk, but if done well, it could set us up to become the very best that we can be, as a nation.

In my view - the vote would be conservatively 65% against - and most of those selling a republic , would consider themselves elite to some extent (real or imagined) and that's fine - each to their own.

I think you overestimate the feelings of continental Europeans, the Irish, Africans and Asians (including those from the Indian subcontinent) towards Britain (and England in particular). Most (if not all) nations that make up these areas do not have a fawning admiration for the UK or its monarchy. The monarchy for many has very negative connotations, being considered a symbol of British imperial domination. Unquestioning admiration for the monarchy is only prominent among WASP-descent populations.

Even in Scotland, the English Crown is seen as a symbol of all that the Scots had taken from them. Their independent identity, their separate political system, their language... hence the popular move towards complete separation from England in the current form of devolution. In Scotland, there is no great love for their foreign head of state. They are even chagrined that QE2 style herself as such in Scotland where QE1 never ruled.

I strongly doubt very many people who arrived here 50 years ago or just yesterday believe the place they came from had a superior form of governance than Australia's.  If they do they are free to return to their chosen form of governmental control.

Many came for many reasons. Many were displaced after WW2. They had nothing and, sure, they’d experienced the worst kinds of political ideology and the consequences. They came to Australia out of a need to escape their strife-torn homelands or poverty or uncertainty and no doubt saw Australia as a peaceful, stable and rich nation to which they could commit their lives. But I seriously doubt they came to Australia because it had a foreign Head of State. If anything I would imagine that many were uneasy about committing to a foreigner other than the nation and its people to which they chose to belong.

Chances are they love what we have and now call themselves proud Australians.  

I would not doubt that for a second.

And if they came here before 1993 they would have pledged allegiance to our Queen.  After 1993 they pledged commitment to Australia, of which the Queen is head of state.
I think you will find that, unless they all told porkies, they meant it.

I strongly doubt they also took on an inferiority complex about it at that time.

Yes, they would have taken the oath as required but their oath was to the nation and the people of Australia. I doubt they fell in love with the foreign head of state, they probably just accepted it as an inane eccentricity.

It is quite easy to be a loyal and patriotic Australian without a fawning love for the foreign head of state.

If a referendum were put to the people in the form of one simple question : "Should Australia become a republic?" (i.e. should we sever the ties to a foreign Head of State), I believe the vote would be more like 70 to 80 % in favour.

I don't think so. We already voted against it. By not stating what we will change to, you increase the risk. Plus, even if it did succeed, you would still have to hold another referendum to actually change the constitution. No-one would be happy about that sort of waste. Maybe you could hold a summit about holding a referendum to ask the people whether they want to vote on thinking about doing something.

We are a pretty young country, but we do have high standards of education, social justice, and individual freedom.

We are also world leaders in electoral reform, being one of the first countries to adopt preferential voting - something the yanks are only just getting around to doing. Australians are all for change, if there are practical benefits. I myself have a very suitable model that could allow us to ditch the Queen, but the national government would be the last place I would test it on.

Most (if not all) nations that make up these areas do not have a fawning admiration for the UK or its monarchy.

I think you misunderstand people's reasons for rejecting a republic.

The monarchy for many has very negative connotations, being considered a symbol of British imperial domination.

And yet we still vote for it.

Unquestioning admiration for the monarchy is only prominent among WASP-descent populations.

For practical Australians, ie the vast majority, it has nothing to do with monarchists vs republicans. They are the extremists in this debate, because they misrepresent the cause and ignore the practical issues. This anti-monarchist sentiment you want to bring into Australia from Scotland or wherever is just another useless European import that Australians have rejected. We reject both the monarchists and the anti-monarchists, which is why you cannot get any traction with your movement. Australians don't care. We got the Queen of our back already so there's no point carrying a grudge for over a century.

Admiring the current system of government has nothing to do with fawning or adulation.  It is realism.  Australia has one of the most (if not the most) stable societies on earth.  Why?  Lots of reasons but I would say central to it is our system of politics, our rule of law, the sovereignty of parliament and the freedoms we take for granted.

Where did they come from?  Our heritage.

I don't believe in burning down buildings because they are old or no longer serve my selfish purpose.  I don't believe in digging up aboriginal burial grounds because there are only old bones in it.  I don't believe in putting my aging grandparent in the bin because he is no longer useful.   And I don't believe in chucking out a system of government 1000 years in the making because I'm embarrassed about who heads it.

Call me odd but I guess that unless I have a bloody good reason to do any of those things I'm happy with things just the way they are.

Freediver

The referendum was cynically manipulated to ensure a negative outcome. The majority of Australians, it was clear were uneasy about a head of state being appointed by politicians but much less so about the question of Australia becoming a republic. The question put to the people fused the two issues (should we become a republic and should politicians appoint the Head of State). An honest referendum would have first asked the people “Should Australia become a republic?”. If the answer to that simple question was NO then that would have been the end of the debate probably for our lifetimes. A second referendum (to achieve a positive result) under those circumstances would have been political suicide and out of the question. Had it been YES then the debate about the Head of State could have begun. Instead the nation is still in limbo about the simple question, “Do the people want a republic”.

As you say, Australians are a practical people. There is nothing practical about maintaining a legal singularity such that all immigrants to Australia are expected to become citizens except the foreign head of state.

You suggest Australians are apathetic about their system of government. I suggest to you that they are not.

The majority of Australians, it was clear were uneasy about a head of state being appointed by politicians

Yet that is the only option that has been suggested here, with the insistance that it must be better because it isn't a monarchy, despite the obvious flaws. Of course Australians would be happy to become a republic 'in general'. You can include me there. Obviously it will always be the specific suggestion that makes people uneasy, which makes talking about becoming a republic 'in general' totally pointless. It seems the republicans learned nothing from this debacle of their own creation and still talk about a republic as if it is the solution to all problems, regardless of the actual model.

The question put to the people fused the two issues (should we become a republic and should politicians appoint the Head of State).

It is impossible to separate them. You cannot become a republic without actually becoming a republic. You cannot become a republic 'in general' without become a 'specific' republic.

Had it been YES then the debate about the Head of State could have begun.

You do not need a referendum about whether to start a debate. Having such a meaningless referendum would have been political suicide. Australian's don't care whether we are a republic or a monarchy. They do however care about democracy and to a lesser extent how the GG is appointed. That is, they care wbout how the GG is specifically appointed, not whether the ideologisits label it monarchy or republic.

Instead the nation is still in limbo about the simple question, “Do the people want a republic”.

There is no limbo because people don't care about the label.

There is nothing practical about maintaining a legal singularity such that all immigrants to Australia are expected to become citizens except the foreign head of state.

Wrong. There is nothing practical about changing it for the sake of the 'singularity' either. There is something practical in not wasting millions on pointless referenda.

You suggest Australians are apathetic about their system of government. I suggest to you that they are not.

No, I suggested they are apathetic about imaginary issues, not the real ones.

Until the republicans stop talking about [wave arms in air]becoming a republic[/stop waving] and start talking about a real, specific change, they will be ignored by mainstream Australia. 'Trust us, we'll figure the details out later' just does not cut it. To illustrate this point, I'm more than happy to become a republic, in general, but you have driven me to supporting the monarchy with your dangerous ideological zeal. Like most Australians, I don't care about republics or monarchies, I care about the real issues. Perhaps if you stopped trying to tell people what they should care about and actually listened to them, you and other republicans might get some mainstream support.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/should-australia-become-republic.html

I am starting to believe that there are very few true republicans in Australia. What we have instead is a bunch of wandering, aimless anti-monarchists who will latch onto any label to cover up the fact that they only have half an idea. When you ask these anti-monarchists what a republic is, they respond in unison 'not a monarchy'. A true republican would be aghast at their lack of interest, lack of knowledge and lack of support for a living, breathing republic.

The republicans had their chance in 1999. They blew that chance because they still hadn't come up with an acceptable model. Only the most naive among them would expect a second chance when they still haven't learned from their mistake. Only the most naive would expect a commitment to a republic from the Australian people without a commitment from the republicans on what the model will be. Nearly a decade out and they are still bleating about becoming a republic while ignoring the reason for their rejection.

Many republicans blame John Howard for their loss, but it is far from Howard's fault. It is true that the proposal put forward by Howard was a bad idea and was doomed to fail, but the same thing would have happened regardless of which model was put forward. Many suggest that we should have first had a referendum on whether to become a republic. However, such a referendum would be pointless. It would not commit the government to any action. If the republicans could not come up with an acceptable model before such a pointless referendum, getting a bunch of people to sit around a table for a summit is hardly going to produce an acceptable model after the referendum. You do not need a referendum to hold a summit. You do not need to commit to a republic before finding out what you are committing to.

What the republicans are desperate to prevent people from realising is that a republic sounds good in theory, but bad in practice. They want to make Australians commit to a republic and create enough political momentum behind the movement so that by the time people realise that the devil is in the detail, it will be too late and no politician will be prepared to reneg on a promise and put a stop to it.

What republicans fail to realise about the Australian people is that they don't care about the labels monarchy or republic. One thing we do care about is democracy, but we already have democracy - one of the most functional and stable democracies in the world. Unfortunately you cannot change from a monarchy to a republic without changing how our democracy works. So far, all the proposals for how to actually go about this change make the democracy less functional.

To get an idea of what a republic is in practice, ask an American. They get it drummed into them at school that America is not a democracy, but a republic. Australians, being practical people, can't make much sense of such an absurd statement. It sounds just as absurd as if our local anti-monarchist mobs tried to insist we were not a democracy because we are technically a monarchy.

We need to keep our focus on what matters, which is ultimately democracy. The anti-monarchists are prepared to sacrifice our democracy in order to become a republic. They inevitably try to sweep the practical issues about becoming a republic under the carpet, instead insisting that so long as we get rid of the Queen everything will work out fine in the end. Well, it won't.

We are a democracy. The democratically elected Prime Minister runs the country, not the Queen. The position of Governor General is a largely ceremonial position, but still an important one. If giving the Queen technical authority over approving a candidate for a ceremonial position is what it takes to have a functioning democracy then I am more then happy to swallow my pride and call myself a democrat.

Until such time as the republicans stop bleating about a republic and start communicating about democracy, they stand no chance of convincing everyday Australians to make an unnecessary change that may well leave them far worse off.

The majority of Australians, it was clear were uneasy about a head of state being appointed by politicians.
     Yet that is the only option that has been suggested here, with the insistence that it must be better because it isn't a monarchy, despite the obvious flaws.

I certainly have not suggested that this is the only option available. I prefer a model that does not involve serving politicians in the selection process at all. Would you like to read it?

It is impossible to separate them. You cannot become a republic without actually becoming a republic. You cannot become a republic 'in general' without become a 'specific' republic.

You do not need a referendum about whether to start a debate. Having such a meaningless referendum would have been political suicide. Australian's don't care whether we are a republic or a monarchy. They do however care about democracy and to a lesser extent how the GG is appointed. That is, they care about how the GG is specifically appointed, not whether the ideologists label it monarchy or republic.

You can most certainly separate the two.

You can ask the simple question then, as you suggest, hold a summit to determine the model. Democracy would never be compromised. Democracy would be nominally enhanced by removing the need for a foreign and hereditary head of state. No Australian currently has the right to choose the person of the foreign head of state. Under any republican model, Australians would determine who the Head of State would be. You can be sure one of the prerequisites to becoming HOS would be that he/she must be an Australian citizen and perhaps even further, hold no allegiance to any other nation or state.

There is no limbo because people don't care about the label.

There is certainly a limbo. The simple question was not directly put to the people. Neither side can claim that the people unequivocally supported or rejected the creation of an Australian Republic. That is the possible result when two issues are fused. Questions in referenda (if honestly put) should result in an inarguable outcome. Because of this equivocal outcome you can be sure that another referendum sooner or later will occur.

To illustrate this point, I'm more than happy to become a republic, in general, but you have driven me to supporting the monarchy with your dangerous ideological zeal.

I’m surprised you’re as timorous as you suggest. However, scaring you was not my intent.

The anti-monarchists are prepared to sacrifice our democracy in order to become a republic.

This is patently absurd. No republican is suggesting democracy be compromised. Perhaps your fear has transmogrified into paranoia. Please offer an example where republicans are suggesting that democracy be compromised.

We are a democracy. The position of Governor General is a largely ceremonial position, but still an important one. If giving the Queen technical authority over approving a candidate for a ceremonial position is what it takes to have a functioning democracy then I am more then happy to swallow my pride and call myself a democrat

We are a democracy and will always remain a democracy.

I am more then happy to swallow my pride and call myself a democrat

So you are embarrassed and uneasy by the current system then.

To get an idea of what a republic is in practice, ask an American. They get it drummed into them at school that America is not a democracy, but a republic.

Utter drivel. Americans are in no doubt that their system of government operates as a democracy and it is demonstrably the most democratic system of government in the world. Read something about how democracy works in the US before you make such ludicrous allusions, immediately after you read something about the Westminster system of government.

We are a democracy and will always remain a democracy.

OIC, you think all democracies are equal do you? I guess if you think that whether we are technically a monarchy is so important, then it makes sense that you would be satisfied with what is only technically a democracy.

Utter drivel. Americans are in no doubt that their system of government operates as a democracy

Yet I frequently have Americans tell me that they are a republic and not a democracy. Apparently that's what they are taught in school. It is no more drivel then you going on about our HOS being a foreigner. Technically correct drivel of course, just like America being a republic, but still drivel.

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2008 at 9:53pm:

OIC, you think all democracies are equal do you? I guess if you think that whether we are technically a monarchy is so important, then it makes sense that you would be satisfied with what is only technically a democracy.

Show me where I have suggested an undemocratic or less democratic system of government? You seem not to have read much about any political system nor have you comprehended what is posted here. You cannot show any example where any republican has suggested a less democratic system of government. You cannot seem to understand that complete separation from the British crown is (at the very least nominally) more democratic. You cannot seem to comprehend the difference between a Head of Government and a Head of State and you contradict yourself.

Show me where I have suggested an undemocratic or less democratic system of government?

That's what a republic is. If not, we would have made the change already. Australia voted against a republic. That's what democracy is all about. You claim I don't know about other systems of government. Are you aware that the founding fathers of America designed their republic around fear and distrust of the will of the people? They openly tried to undermine democratic principles.

Like I said, come up with a system that works better and Australians will gladly make the switch. But if you keep insisting that merely ditching the Queen will improve things regardless of what happens people will continue to see you as an ideologue with a slim grasp of reality. Merely 'not undemocratic' or 'not less democratic' isn't good enough. It has to be better, or you are wasting everyone's time. 10 pages into this debate and the republicans are still not promoting a specific model as being better, just bleating about the Queen being our HOS. There's a waste of time already.

That's what a republic is. If not, we would have made the change already.

Would you please desist in making these ludicrous assertions about what a republic is. Please read something about systems of government first. Do you think that by repeating this garbage (that republics are necessarily undemocratic or less democratic than a constitutional monarchy) that somehow it will just be true?

Australia voted against a republic.

If you are referring to the referendum, then the only outcome you can be sure of is that Australians voted against a republic where the head of state was elected by politicians.  As two issues were fused there can be no unequivocal assertion from either side about the will of the people towards a republic per se.

the founding fathers of America designed their republic around fear and distrust of the will of the people?

The founding fathers designed their republic around fear and mistrust of European monarchs particularly the English monarch. They mistrusted all aristocrats and they prohibited titled citizens from holding Federal public office. Read the declaration of independence, the United States Constitution, The Bill of Rights, They were all written to defend the people against not only unelected aristocrats but from government itself. The Bill of Rights specifically guarantees every citizen inalienable rights that cannot be legislated away.

Thomas Jefferson : “I have no fear, but that the result of our experiment will be, that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master”.

The experiment he was referring to was democracy which was unknown in Europe at the time. The master he was referring to was a monarch or unelected Head of State and Government or a feudal lord.

Would you please desist in making these ludicrous assertions about what a republic is.

Why don't you tell us what it is then? If a republic is so much better, why the lack of details? Is it that you can't actually think of a republican model that is better than the one we currently have?

As two issues were fused there can be no unequivocal assertion from either side about the will of the people towards a republic per se.

Australians aren't interested in unequivocal assertions about republics or monarchies. Only the ideologues are. Australians are interested in the specifics of how our democracy works and don't care what label the ideologues give it. You cannot have an unequivocal assertion about something so vague and ill defined.

The founding fathers designed their republic around fear and mistrust of European monarchs particularly the English monarch.

They also mistrusted the will of the people and designed their republic around that fear. There is far more to being a republic than being 'not a monarchy'. For someone so keen to accuse others of ignorance of other democracies, you don't seem to know much about this issue. Then again, you seem to think all democracies are the same and that being a republic is more important.

The Bill of Rights specifically guarantees every citizen inalienable rights that cannot be legislated away.

That's really nice, but irrelevant.

Why don't you tell us what it is then? If a republic is so much better, why the lack of details? Is it that you can't actually think of a republican model that is better than the one we currently have?

You mean you can’t even source the most basic information on what a republic is? Check out the structure of a Presidential Republic or a Parliamentary Republic. You do know how to source documents don’t you?

Australians aren't interested in unequivocal assertions about republics or monarchies. Only the ideologues are. Australians are interested in the specifics of how our democracy works and don't care what label the ideologues give it.

You arrogate too much to yourself. You don’t speak for Australians. Referenda and elections are the only sound indications of the will of the people. A question in referendum if properly defined will result in an unequivocal statement of will. Two issues were fused and the NO vote did not result in an inarguable statement of will.

They also mistrusted the will of the people and designed their republic around that fear. There is far more to being a republic than being 'not a monarchy'. For someone so keen to accuse others of ignorance of other democracies, you don't seem to know much about this issue. Then again, you seem to think all democracies are the same and that being a republic is more important.

You’re just making this up on the fly. Show me an instance of where the founding fathers architected the US Constitution out of fear of the people.

The Bill of Rights specifically guarantees every citizen inalienable rights that cannot be legislated away.

That's really nice, but irrelevant.

Irrelevant? How is it irrelevant? Again, you’re just making it up as you go along. No administration can deny any citizen the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Again, show me an instance where the Bill of Rights is irrelevant in this regard.  

So far I have not seen a single quote from any reliable source or reference to any reliable document from you that supports either your theories on republics and their relationship to democracy or your assertion that the US Constitution was architected out of fear of the people.  

You mean you can’t even source the most basic information on what a republic is?

Sure I can, but I'm not going to make your case for you. Based on my knowledge of republics, we are better of with our system. If you can't make your case either, I guess I'll leave it at that.

A question in referendum if properly defined will result in an unequivocal statement of will.

Yet you propose we have a referendum to test for general support for a republic - perhaps the most useless referendum we've ever had. You might as well have a referendum asking whether we should be nicer to each other.

Show me an instance of where the founding fathers architected the US Constitution out of fear of the people.

The electoral college. It was designed to get their choice of candidate in for the first president rather than leaving it entirely to the people. They thought interfering with the process as much as possible was the only way ot avoid 'mob rule.'

Irrelevant? How is it irrelevant?

This is about a republic, not a bill of rights.

---

Republic not inevitable, says Abbott

http://news.smh.com.au/republic-not-inevitable-says-abbott/20080427-28sb.html

Federal opposition frontbencher Tony Abbott says there's nothing inevitable about Australia becoming a republic.

The staunch monarchist on Sunday said he believes Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is too politically clever to rush into another referendum on the issue.

Based on my knowledge of republics, we are better of with our system.

There is no necessary mutual exclusion with a republican system of government and democracy. A monarchy is by definition an undemocratic system of government in that the head of state is not elected by the people or the people's representatives.

You might as well have a referendum asking whether we should be nicer to each other.

No, we might as well have a referendum on whether Australia should be a republic.

There is no necessary mutual exclusion with a republican system of government and democracy.

Well that's good to know isn't it? I guess it's a start for the republican movement - we will at least still be a democracy if they get their way. How about this for a republican slogan: "Republic - at least it's not a dictatorship"

A monarchy is by definition an undemocratic system

Is Australia a democracy? Is Australia a monarchy? This is the sort of stupid claim that makes Australians distrust the republican ideologues.

No, we might as well have a referendum on whether Australia should be a republic.

It would be an absurd waste of time. More of a waste even than arguing with repulicans for ten pages without even finding out what specific changes they want to make to our democracy. Referendums are for changing the constitution, not deciding to have a meeting about whether we should have a referendum. Referendums are not a plaything to give reassurance to ideologues who come up with a nice sounding idea but can't turn it into something useful, but still want some kind of vindication from the public.

You are the only Australian I have ever heard of who was unaware that republics and democracy were not mutually exclusive.

Is Australia a democracy? Is Australia a monarchy? This is the sort of stupid claim that makes Australians distrust the republican ideologues.

The Australian system of government is a Constitutional monarchy.

Is Australia a democracy?

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2008 at 2:40pm:

Is Australia a democracy?

Of course and our Head of State is currently an unelected foreigner.

So, a monarchy is by definition undemocratic, yet Australia is a monarchy and a democracy? And you wonder why Australians don't take republicans seriously...

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2008 at 2:46pm:

So, a monarchy is by definition undemocratic, yet Australia is a monarchy and a democracy? And you wonder why Australians don't take republicans seriously...

You mean monarchists not Australians.

It's hard to take someone seriously who says we are technically not a democracy. It's like the Americans saying they are not a democracy because they are a republic. The Australian people are concerned about the reality of the situation.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2008 at 2:53pm:

It's hard to take someone seriously who says we are technically not a democracy. It's like the Americans saying they are not a democracy because they are a republic. The Australian people are concerned about the reality of the situation.

The reality of the situation is that Australians expect of immigrants that they become Australian citizens. In a future Australia, the system of government will lead by example and demand of the unqualified head of state that he or she be a citizen of Australia.

An Australian first and only.

Wow, what an inspiring ideology. Pity you can't turn it into something useful.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2008 at 3:03pm:

Wow, what an inspiring ideology. Pity you can't turn it into something useful.

The abolition of the foreign Head of State and the institution of the unqualified Australian Head of State will be the courtesy extended to all citizens and a direct statement to all immigrants (from whom much is expected) that no foreigner shall reign or preside over this nation.

Clarify what benefit there is in remaining a monarchy?

All I can see is a fear of change.

The simple fact is that monarchies are an outdated system, left over from medieval times, which are largely ceremonial and symbolic.

If you see some positives in having a symbolic head of state, born and living in another country, could you please elucidate on what they might be?

If you are merely stating a preference for a 'Westminster" style of government, then that is more understandable, but does not mean we need to remain a monarchy in order to achieve that result.

The style of government we ultimately choose, will be up to the people, and I agree that some models should be put before the people, so they can make an informed choice.

Helian you really would go on sprouting that rubbish forever, without ever risking the promotion of a specific change, wouldn't you?

How heavily involved are you with the republican movement?

Mozz, the benefit is that the appointment of the GG is less political. It's not a real big deal, as it only matters once or twice a century, but it does work. This was what drove the outcome of the 1999 referendum. If you can come up with a way of ditching the Queen and improving our system of government at the same time I will gladly support you. I am promoting such a change myself, but I wouldn't stoop so low as to promote it on the basis of being a republic.

It has nothing to do with fear, but rather practical concerns with a republican systems.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2008 at 3:23pm:

Helian you really would go on sprouting that rubbish forever, without ever risking the promotion of a specific change, wouldn't you? How heavily involved are you with the republican movement? Mozz, the benefit is that the appointment of the GG is less political. It's not a real big deal, as it only matters once or twice a century, but it does work. This was what drove the outcome of the 1999 referendum. If you can come up with a way of ditching the Queen and improving our system of government at the same time I will gladly support you. I am promoting such a change myself, but I wouldn't stoop so low as to promote it on the basis of being a republic. It has nothing to do with fear, but rather practical concerns with a republican systems.

What is this obsession about not becoming a republic if not about maintaining a foreign head of state. What exactly do you imagine a republic to be per se?

I'm surprised you haven't realised this. It's not about supporting a foreign HOS. It's about the actual changes to our democracy involved. You know, the ones you are reluctant to discuss? You are doing a remarkable job of pretending not to hear my concerns, and the concerns of the Australian people on this.

How heavily involved are you with the republican movement?

"It has nothing to do with fear, but rather practical concerns with a republican systems."

I have to disagree FD, I believe it is very much about fear, which is not to say it is an unfounded fear, because your concern about ending up with an inferior system to what we now have, could very well happen, if the wrong people steer this debate in the wrong direction.

It is that leap of faith thing again, when we reach the point, which I believe we inevitably must, where we do make the change to a new, independent, and wholly Australian system of government, we will be relying on the politicians of the day to deliver the best option possible.

I think it is the very modern mistrust of politics, and politicians, which stymies this debate.
We do not see any inspirational 'Statesman', whom we trust enough to deliver this best possible outcome we desire.
I do not really believe that people of vision and integrity are no longer around, but I do think it is much more difficult for them to rise to positions of prominence in modern politics.

The point is that we cannot tread water forever, one day we will have to stroke out on our own.

but I wouldn't stoop so low as to promote it on the basis of being a republic.

It's not about supporting a foreign HOS

It has nothing to do with fear, but rather practical concerns with a republican systems.

This is what I find intriguing. You’re OK with removing the foreign head of state, an hereditary monarch, yet you wouldn’t “stoop so low” as to promote a republic and you have a problem with republican systems.

A republic is the direct rule of a nation by the people of that nation. What other kind of viable system of government would there be after the replacement of a monarchy?

How heavily involved are you with the republican movement?

I am not directly involved with any republican movement.

I am aware of that there is more than one possible republican model and that the Australian people must endorse a particular model out of many possible and I do have some strong views on what model that should be.

we will be relying on the politicians of the day to deliver the best option possible

No we won't. Whatever model is chosen, it will have to be approved via referendum. if the politicians stuff up, the people will simply reject the idea.

I think it is the very modern mistrust of politics, and politicians, which stymies this debate.

I trust politicians far more than I trust republicans who refuse to engage in debate about specific changes to our constitution.

The point is that we cannot tread water forever, one day we will have to stroke out on our own.

Our system of government is hardly dysfunctional. We could hang onto indefinitly if no suitable replacement is proposed.

yet you wouldn’t “stoop so low” as to promote a republic

My proposals are a practical improvement to our democracy and do not need any association with monarchism or republicanism.

and you have a problem with republican systems

I have a problem with every proposal put forard by the republican movement, but more so with republicans who won't put forward a specific proposal.

I am aware of that there is more than one possible republican model and that the Australian people must endorse a particular model out of many possible and I do have some strong views on what model that should be.

I hope you can understand that I have trouble believing you have strong views, given your hesitance to voice them. However, the fact that you acknowledge it as an issue is a breakthrough for this debate. So, which model do you prefer and why?

OK. Here it is broadly speaking.

I do not have an issue with a Parliamentary Republic which is to say a democracy where executive power is vested in Parliament and the Head of State is largely ceremonial but holds reserve powers similar to those currently vested in the Governor General.

The candidature of the Australian Head of State should be determined by a ‘Sovereign Council’.

The Sovereign Council should be comprised of 11 eminent Australian citizens of good character and each must be the recipient of the Companion of the Order of Australia (the highest Australian award). Each recipient must have held the award for no less than five years. The most senior AC will be declared President of the Sovereign Council and his role will be to break a deadlock. The council members and its President must be approved by Parliament. The council should be comprised equally of men and women (where possible) and be representative of the sciences, law, arts, sport and politics (where possible).

The Sovereign Council selects an eminent Australian (either from within the Council or external to the Council) as the candidate for Australian Head of State. The candidate must be an Australian citizen and the recipient of a Companion of the Order of Australia. He must hold the citizenship of no other nation or state or hold any office that would conflict with or compromise his/her duties as Head of State.

The selected candidate would be presented to Parliament for endorsement and declared the Head of State presumptive.

At the termination of the incumbent HOS’s term of office, the presumptive would be declared by Parliament the Australian Head of State.

After the endorsement of the candidate, the Sovereign Council will be disbanded and have no further role in governance.

The Head of State may serve a maximum of two terms.

The removal of Head of State would require a majority in both Houses of Parliament.

Who selects the SC?

How would the cost of this system compare to our current system?

What impact would this have on the awarding of CoAs?

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2008 at 4:20pm:

Who selects the SC? How would the cost of this system compare to our current system?

The most senior recipients of the Companion of the Order of Australia have first option. If any one declines, then the next senior etc. until 11 members have been chosen and accepted. The invitations can be sent from the Prime Minister's department or from Parliament itself.

ACs are awarded for eminent achievement and merit of the highest degree in service to Australia or to humanity at large.

The cost would be negligible. Whatever it costs to fly them to Canberra and put them up in a hotel, I guess.

What if the 11 nominees are all senile?

What impact would this have on the awarding of CoAs?

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2008 at 4:28pm:

What if the 11 nominees are all senile? What impact would this have on the awarding of CoAs?

Incapacity due to health would disqualify an AC from membership of the council.

ACs are awarded for eminent achievement and merit of the highest degree in service to Australia or to humanity at large.

Nominations for AC would be reviewed by the Order of Australia Council, independent of any political interference (as they are now), and then approved by the incumbent Head of State.

So who decides which companions are too senile to take part?

I think you misunderstood my second question.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2008 at 4:33pm:

So who decides which companions are too senile to take part? I think you misunderstood my second question.

A doctor's certificate of competency from a health check. It could also be a requirement that a candidate be aged between, say 40 and 75.

Not anyone can just be awarded a Companion of the Order of Australia. A nominee must have contributed in an outstanding way to Australian life or endeavour in the sciences, arts, law, etc... An AC recipient eligible would invariably be a highly respected and eminent Australian. It is not possible that those unworthy of the award can be nominated through political intrigue. Also because a recipient must have held the award for at least 5 years (greater than a term of government) and would be subordinate to other more senior AC recipients, attempted political intrigue would be pointless for any short term gain. I don't see any negative impact on the process of awarding an AC. On the contrary, I believe that it will further ennoble the award.

The Sovereign Council recommends a candidate for the Head of State presumptive. Parliament endorses the candidate. Immediate executive power (apart from the reserve powers) would be still vested in Parliament so the position is mostly ceremonial but under this system will always be occupied by an undeniably eminent Australian.

I think this is the best proposal I've seen. It's kind of cute how you've replaced the Queen with the closest thing we have to local royalty. Having the most elderly, or an arbitrary age limit is a bit of a problem. I think there is also a risk that the constitutional role will start to define the award in the public's eye. I can also envisage it becoming a media circus - just like the royal family is. They would try to extract every bit of drama they could. I think it would also end up costing significantly more than the current system.

How many of these awards are given each year? You will end up with a new bunch every time, with it being a bit of a lottery based on who has passed the age limit.

freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2008 at 8:39pm:

I think this is the best proposal I've seen. It's kind of cute how you've replaced the Queen with the closest thing we have to local royalty. Having the most elderly, or an arbitrary age limit is a bit of a problem. I think there is also a risk that the constitutional role will start to define the award in the public's eye. I can also envisage it becoming a media circus - just like the royal family is. They would try to extract every bit of drama they could. I think it would also end up costing significantly more than the current system. How many of these awards are given each year? You will end up with a new bunch every time, with it being a bit of a lottery based on who has passed the age limit.

I don't doubt there would be devilish details to hammer out, but what I imagine is that a model something like this would offer the people a guarantee that politicians don't manoeuvre to place cronies into the role. The idea of senior eligibility has a few advantages, the main one being it is easy to determine who may sit on the council regardless of which party is in power and who is eligible for the role of Head of State. Secondly, a senior Australian is less likely to be headstrong in the role of HOS or (in the case of a council member) about his or her choice put to the council.

With regards to a circus, it is possible this will occur but a council will only be convened for a couple of weeks every five years. Also, there will be not much chance of a candidate race for eligibility. Either you’re a five year plus AC recipient or you are not. It could also be forbidden for a candidate to lobby for the role.

The role of Head of State, being largely ceremonial may not be of intense interest to the media or the people, so long as the people feel assured that an appropriate and respectable candidate is ultimately chosen. However, you are right about the eligibility being a bit of a smorgasbord although it would be thinned by those who declined acceptance of consideration for the role. Only a few AC holders, I imagine, would want the role of HOS. Still in the event that too many accepted consideration, the process would require a bit of refinement.

Without reading the rest of the posts (because there's so many), I'd say yes I'd like the right model of a republic for Australia; I'd vote against it however, because I'm 99.9% sure that we'd get shafted.
There's enough so-called set in stone laws that we're unable to access already without seeing them totally extinguished via a bogus bill of rights.

AMADD - that's a wonderfully pragmatic pratical view.
I love it.

Course the "common aussie" will get "done like a dog" if there is a huge change promising all sorts of idealist baits and chest beating.
Somewhere somehow someone stands to benefit greatly from such a change.
Why else would it be pushed?

Amadd wrote on Apr 28^th, 2008 at 12:16am:

Without reading the rest of the posts (because there's so many), I'd say yes I'd like the right model of a republic for Australia; I'd vote against it however, because I'm 99.9% sure that we'd get shafted. There's enough so-called set in stone laws that we're unable to access already without seeing them totally extinguished via a bogus bill of rights.

The majority of this thread is about the creation of an unqualified Australian Head of State, not about architecting a Bill of Rights. That's a whole other epic right there. It was briefly referred to earlier, but not in the context of an Australian Bill of Rights.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 28^th, 2008 at 12:29am:

AMADD - that's a wonderfully pragmatic pratical view. I love it. Course the "common aussie" will get "done like a dog" if there is a huge change promising all sorts of idealist baits and chest beating. Somewhere somehow someone stands to benefit greatly from such a change. Why else would it be pushed?

As far as the issue of Head of State goes, where the role is largely ceremonial (with severely restricted reserve powers) such as a Parliamentary republic, it is not of great significance to Parliamentarians in the case of Parliament exercising executive power.

It becomes significant under Presidential Republican models.

Sprintcyclist, I read that NZ has a Bill of Rights. How well does it work over there?

from crikey:

How to get an Australian head of state: no referendum, no worries

Michael Gordon-Smith, a bureaucrat and former member of the Australian Broadcasting Authority, writes:

There’s an alternative answer to the Republic question that deserves examination.

Most of the popular enthusiasm for the creation of an Australian Republic is for the idea that Australia should have its own head of state. There is strong majority sympathy for the idea that the Australian head of state should belong uniquely to Australia: ie. be Australian and be the head of no other state. Inheritance to first-born sons is anachronistic and many of the connotations associated with the English monarchy no longer fit comfortably with contemporary Australia.

On the other hand, there isn’t much appetite for a significant change to the way Australian government is organised. Most of the arguments against a Republic are about the wisdom of leaving things unchanged if they are working well and about the risks of changing the existing structures. Opposition to the proposal for a directly elected President reflects concern at the potential for conflict raised by creating a new office that might legitimately claim a popular mandate separate from the members of Parliament.

The referendum process makes the creation of a Republic difficult. Strong majority support for the principle of an Australian head of state fragments in the face of specific structural proposals. There is little antipathy to the current Queen and that adds to the resistance to change. Malcolm Turnbull recently commented that the next real opportunity for the Republican cause would be at the end of Elizabeth II’s reign.

The problem is to find someone to replace Elizabeth II, who will have the same lack of involvement in the government of Australia but who will be Australian and might be called something other than King or Queen, and to make the change without needing a referendum.

What’s at issue is not the nature of the Australian polity but the succession. The Australian Parliament already has the power to make laws about that, and about royal titles.

The Australian Parliament could, without changing the Constitution, without making any change to the existing arrangement, without altering the office of Governor-General, legislate a change to the way the monarch’s position was transferred. If it wished, it could also change the term used to refer to the holder of the office.

There would be an Australian head of state, unique to Australia. There would be no change to the existing structures of government. There would be no need for a referendum.

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2008 at 5:14pm:

from crikey: How to get an Australian head of state: no referendum, no worries Michael Gordon-Smith, a bureaucrat and former member of the Australian Broadcasting Authority, writes: There’s an alternative answer to the Republic question that deserves examination. Most of the popular enthusiasm for the creation of an Australian Republic is for the idea that Australia should have its own head of state. There is strong majority sympathy for the idea that the Australian head of state should belong uniquely to Australia: ie. be Australian and be the head of no other state. Inheritance to first-born sons is anachronistic and many of the connotations associated with the English monarchy no longer fit comfortably with contemporary Australia. On the other hand, there isn’t much appetite for a significant change to the way Australian government is organised. Most of the arguments against a Republic are about the wisdom of leaving things unchanged if they are working well and about the risks of changing the existing structures. Opposition to the proposal for a directly elected President reflects concern at the potential for conflict raised by creating a new office that might legitimately claim a popular mandate separate from the members of Parliament. The referendum process makes the creation of a Republic difficult. Strong majority support for the principle of an Australian head of state fragments in the face of specific structural proposals. There is little antipathy to the current Queen and that adds to the resistance to change. Malcolm Turnbull recently commented that the next real opportunity for the Republican cause would be at the end of Elizabeth II’s reign. The problem is to find someone to replace Elizabeth II, who will have the same lack of involvement in the government of Australia but who will be Australian and might be called something other than King or Queen, and to make the change without needing a referendum. What’s at issue is not the nature of the Australian polity but the succession. The Australian Parliament already has the power to make laws about that, and about royal titles. The Australian Parliament could, without changing the Constitution, without making any change to the existing arrangement, without altering the office of Governor-General, legislate a change to the way the monarch’s position was transferred. If it wished, it could also change the term used to refer to the holder of the office. There would be an Australian head of state, unique to Australia. There would be no change to the existing structures of government. There would be no need for a referendum.

Couldn't be done.  Stop reading crikey for goodness sake.

Why couldn't it be done?

A little rhetorical trick. Does he mean that the head of state would be called 'President' or say, 'Supreme Governor' and that the presumptive head of state would be Britain's Prince of Wales or the heir-presumptive to the British crown? If so His/Her title would not be say, 'Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia' but 'Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, President of Australia'.  

However, the 'President' would not be an Australian citizen, no matter what laws the Australian Parliament pass to make this model so, without a change to British law allowing the British Head of State to hold a foreign nationality and why would the British Parliament and the people want that? A foreign head of state. Why would Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor want that if she was then subject to Australian law including paying income tax?

If he is referring to an Australian being appointed head of state, with all else being equal, then that model is a Parliamentary republic. If that's what he means, then why not call it like it is? Of course in that model's permutation he'd have a GG and a HOS... bit of an overkill or the start of an infinite regress???

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2008 at 5:28pm:

Why couldn't it be done?

Because the Constitution makes the structure of the Parliament clear in Ch 1, Part 1, s 1.

The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called ''The Parliament,'' or ''The Parliament of the Commonwealth.''

This creates an insoluble problem without an amendment to the Constitution.  And this can't be done except (as set out in Ch 8, s 128) . . .

This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following
manner:–

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.

But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the first-mentioned House in the same or the next session again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, the Governor-General may submit the proposed law as last proposed by the first-mentioned House, and either with or without any amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State and
Territory qualified to vote for the election of the House of
Representatives.

When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one-half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.

And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting
approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting
also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the
Governor-General for the Queen's assent.

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.

In this section, "Territory" means any territory referred to in section one hundred and twenty-two of this Constitution in respect of which there is in force a law allowing its representation in the House of Representatives.

In other words a referendum.  To remove the Queen from the constitution (and her heirs and successors) a referendum is required.

deepthought wrote on May 1^st, 2008 at 5:58pm:

In other words a referendum.  To remove the Queen from the constitution (and her heirs and successors) a referendum is required.

That'd be it, right there!

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 1^st, 2008 at 6:18pm:

deepthought wrote on May 1st, 2008 at 5:58pm: In other words a referendum.  To remove the Queen from the constitution (and her heirs and successors) a referendum is required. That'd be it, right there!

Yes.

However, the 'President' would not be an Australian citizen, no matter what laws the Australian Parliament pass to make this model so, without a change to British law allowing the British Head of State to hold a foreign nationality and why would the British Parliament and the people want that?

Are you referring to the article I posted from crikey? It's got nothing to do with the British head of state or the British parliament.

If he is referring to an Australian being appointed head of state, with all else being equal

That's how I interpretted it.

Because the Constitution makes the structure of the Parliament clear in Ch 1, Part 1, s 1.

There is nothing in the bits you quoted to dictate who the Queen should be. As far as the constitution is concerned, it could be Cate Blanchett, or Dame Edna.

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2008 at 10:29pm:

There is nothing in the bits you quoted to dictate who the Queen should be. As far as the constitution is concerned, it could be Cate Blanchett, or Dame Edna.

I think you'll find the constitution is not that easy to subvert.

Why not? And why is it even a 'subversion' of the constitution? Why can't I be Queen?

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2008 at 10:35pm:

Why not? And why is it even a 'subversion' of the constitution? Why can't I be Queen?

I dunno. I was guessing you were male.

Does the constitution say the Queen has to be female?

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2008 at 10:42pm:

Does the constitution say the Queen has to be female?

No. Just the English language....

And, of course, any use in the constitution of the pronouns 'she' and  'her'.

And, of course, any use in the constitution of the pronouns 'she' and  'her'.

For example?

Maybe I am crediting our forefathers with too much foresight, but I would expect they included in the constitution suitable provisions for the day when the Australian monarchy passed to a male. Maybe tradition, and thereby the English language, is suitably flexible that if the monarchy passes to an offspring or an usurper, any legal reference to the King or Queen is simply assumed to refer to the new monarch.

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2008 at 10:59pm:

And, of course, any use in the constitution of the pronouns 'she' and  'her'. For example? Maybe I am crediting our forefathers with too much foresight, but I would expect they included in the constitution suitable provisions for the day when the Australian monarchy passed to a male. Maybe tradition, and thereby the English language, is suitably flexible that if the monarchy passes to an offspring or an usurper, any legal reference to the King or Queen is simply assumed to refer to the new monarch.

for example: 'her heirs and successors'.

Maybe I am crediting our forefathers with too much foresight, but I would expect they included in the constitution suitable provisions for the day when the Australian monarchy passed to a male.

Yes, of course that's true. We're just having a laugh. I thought.

Now on a serious note, this 'King' or 'Queen'. How would they be appointed?

freediver wrote on May 1^st, 2008 at 10:29pm:

However, the 'President' would not be an Australian citizen, no matter what laws the Australian Parliament pass to make this model so, without a change to British law allowing the British Head of State to hold a foreign nationality and why would the British Parliament and the people want that? Are you referring to the article I posted from crikey? It's got nothing to do with the British head of state or the British parliament. If he is referring to an Australian being appointed head of state, with all else being equal That's how I interpretted it. Because the Constitution makes the structure of the Parliament clear in Ch 1, Part 1, s 1. There is nothing in the bits you quoted to dictate who the Queen should be. As far as the constitution is concerned, it could be Cate Blanchett, or Dame Edna.

As far as the bits I posted it could be Queen Edna - but that is not the entire Constitution I posted.  In the preamble it makes it clear for those who are inclined to believe there is more than one Queen of Australia.

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

And your quip about male or female is surely that - remember that the Queen referred to in the Constitution is in fact Queen Victoria.  There have been male 'heirs and successors' already.

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

Yes, when subverting constitutions... there's always those pesky definitions of terms to blow off.

Now on a serious note, this 'King' or 'Queen'. How would they be appointed?

I think the parliament would just have to pass a law:

What’s at issue is not the nature of the Australian polity but the succession. The Australian Parliament already has the power to make laws about that, and about royal titles.

The Australian Parliament could, without changing the Constitution, without making any change to the existing arrangement, without altering the office of Governor-General, legislate a change to the way the monarch’s position was transferred. If it wished, it could also change the term used to refer to the holder of the office.

Deepthought:

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

That does not appear to rule out a local Queen, just allow a foreign one.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 11:11am:

Now on a serious note, this 'King' or 'Queen'. How would they be appointed? I think the parliament would just have to pass a law: What’s at issue is not the nature of the Australian polity but the succession. The Australian Parliament already has the power to make laws about that, and about royal titles. The Australian Parliament could, without changing the Constitution, without making any change to the existing arrangement, without altering the office of Governor-General, legislate a change to the way the monarch’s position was transferred. If it wished, it could also change the term used to refer to the holder of the office. Deepthought: The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. That does not appear to rule out a local Queen, just allow a foreign one.

I think the parliament would just have to pass a law:

And that law would be...?

That does not appear to rule out a local Queen, just allow a foreign one.

That refers exclusively to the British head of state insofar as that HOS is the hereditary heir to the British (English) crown. Again I think you will find the terms 'heir' and 'successor' are defined in law.

... And we would've got away with it too if it weren't for those meddling definitions....

First of all, anyone can be a successor. It does not require an heir. Secondly, it does not say that the Queen of England must be the Australian Queen.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 11:43am:

First of all, anyone can be a successor. It does not require an heir. Secondly, it does not say that the Queen of England must be the Australian Queen.

When interpreting constitutional law, I believe, the interpreter must take into account what the architects intended a constitutional statement to mean.

I would say that there is no one who could successfully argue that the architects of the constitution intent of the statement 'Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom' was to refer to anyone other than the British head of state insofar as that head of state is the hereditary heir to the British (English) crown.

If the British abolished the monarchy and created a British parliamentary or presidential republic, then there would be a need to amend the Australian Constitution to state that Australia still recognises the de jure heir to the British crown and his/her heirs and successors as the Australian Head of State or declare an Australian republic.

I would say that there is no one who could successfully argue that the architects of the constitution intent of the statement 'Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom' was to refer to anyone other than the British head of state insofar as that head of state is the hereditary heir to the British (English) crown.

That's not what I'm saying. Rather, I'm saying that 'extend to' does not mean the same as 'apply exlcusively to'. They are saying that she can be the Queen. They are not saying she must be the Queen.

In addition, 'successor' opens to doors to anyone. Otherwise they would have left it at heirs.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 12:19pm:

I would say that there is no one who could successfully argue that the architects of the constitution intent of the statement 'Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom' was to refer to anyone other than the British head of state insofar as that head of state is the hereditary heir to the British (English) crown. That's not what I'm saying. Rather, I'm saying that 'extend to' does not mean the same as 'apply exlcusively to'. They are saying that she can be the Queen. They are not saying she must be the Queen. In addition, 'successor' opens to doors to anyone. Otherwise they would have left it at heirs.

Well that depends on what  'heirs' and 'successors' was defined to be. If 'heir' refers to the legitimate son or daughter of the reigning monarch and 'successor' to an aristocrat who is the indirect heir (a niece, nephew, cousin, 2nd cousin etc) or the heir as declared by the British Parliament who is not the most closely related as occured with George I upon the death of Queen Anne and Victoria after both George IV and William IV died without legitimate heirs.

Are you absolutely certain that the term 'extend to' constituionally speaking is not intended to mean exclusive to all other than the British head of state insofar as that head of state is the hereditary heir to the British (English) crown?

No.

It doesn't matter how you interpret heir. It's successor that matters, and it just means whoever replaces the monarch.

If this works, you could even have your little scheme of getting aged award recipients to fight it out in the ring for the right to award the GG role. Of course, we would still have to call it a monarchy so the republicans wouldn't be happy, but it would achieve the same thing at far less cost.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 12:51pm:

No. It doesn't matter how you interpret heir. It's successor that matters, and it just means whoever replaces the monarch. If this works, you could even have your little scheme of getting aged award recipients to fight it out in the ring for the right to award the GG role. Of course, we would still have to call it a monarchy so the republicans wouldn't be happy, but it would achieve the same thing at far less cost.

It matters in constituional law what terms such as 'monarch', 'heirs', 'successors' and 'extends to' were actually intended to mean. It is no good just making up new definitions to suit yours or my point of view. It's just not that easy.

Can you imagine the cost of a constitutional debate trying to wangle a hare-brained interpretation out of what have been for over a century undisputed definitions of terms?

Also you have not offered anything on how the 'monarch' would be appointed and why we would have a GG and a HOS. What would be the point of the two positions? The current point of the role of GG is to represent the foreign head of state as the Vice-Regal because the  foreign HOS cannot be present due to the fact he/she is in England. That would not be the case with an Australian HOS when he/she is required to act in that role.

It matters in constituional law what terms such as 'monarch', 'heirs'

Yes but the definition of 'heirs' is irrelevant to this discussion because the term successor is broader. It's like if the constitution said the Queen must be QEII or someone else and you got hung up on whether someone else could be Queen if they weren't QEII. I am reading the plain english version of the constitution. You are reading some tradition into it that isn't actually written there.

Also you have not offered anything on how the 'monarch' would be appointed

Yes I have. I suggested we could use your scheme. I suggested Dame Edna. I suggested Cate Blanchett. I suggested myself. We could make it anything we want.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 2:43pm:

It matters in constituional law what terms such as 'monarch', 'heirs' Also you have not offered anything on how the 'monarch' would be appointed Yes I have. I suggested we could use your scheme. I suggested Dame Edna. I suggested Cate Blanchett. I suggested myself. We could make it anything we want.

My scheme is a suggestion of how, I agree. The others are suggestions of who not how they would be elected, which is the point.

However, my scheme does not exclude an actual amendment to the constitution nor does it entertain the possibility of having an Australian HOS and a GG representing that HOS. Mine is a parliamentary republic with a system for appointing the HOS involving eminent Australians and not Parliamentarians.

I wouldn't contemplate taking the idea to the people that we play silly buggers with the constitution, twist its terminology into linquistic knots and squeeze out of it via the square root of bullshit that 'successors' really means Cate Blanchett who will be appointed by never-you-mind and as the Australian HOS will be known as Queen Cate.

Oh... and we'll keep the GG because.... ah... well... he's doing a damn good job.

There is no 'interpretation' difficulties with making Cate Blanchett the Queen. If we make here Queen, she is by definition the successor to Australia's throne. The constitution deliberately leaves this wide open, probably because of the history of usurpation.

Mine is a parliamentary republic with a system for appointing the HOS involving eminent Australians and not Parliamentarians.

Didn't I already predict that the republicans would be upset about the fact that it is a monarchy, even though it is identical to a republic? If we can legislate who the HOS is, there would be no difficulty in legislating a process for selecting the HOS.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 3:55pm:

There is no 'interpretation' difficulties with making Cate Blanchett the Queen. If we make here Queen, she is by definition the successor to Australia's throne. The constitution deliberately leaves this wide open, probably because of the history of usurpation. Mine is a parliamentary republic with a system for appointing the HOS involving eminent Australians and not Parliamentarians. Didn't I already predict that the republicans would be upset about the fact that it is a monarchy, even though it is identical to a republic? If we can legislate who the HOS is, there would be no difficulty in legislating a process for selecting the HOS.

Come on, no serious republican is that superficial. A republic is the adjective that describes the rule of nation by the people of that nation.  What it is locally called if not a parliamentary or presidential republic is irrelevant. You can call the model a Bunyip Razoo if that's what the people wanted. Functionally it will be a republic.

I don't have a problem with any terminology. If you noticed in my previous emails, I've not used a term for the head of state. I used the acronym HOS to avoid that debate. I used the term parliamentary republic to define what in fact my version of republic would be (otherwise) known as if, say, Bunyip Razoo doesn't cut it with the people.

I would, however, not be in favour of an hereditary HOS foreign or otherwise.

Anyway, enough of this constitutional stupidity. A serious debate would always involve a constitutional change that would need to be put to the people to define the role of the HOS and define what we mean by Head of State and what authority over Parliament that role should have.

Why can't you have a serious debate about a legislative change?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 3:55pm:

There is no 'interpretation' difficulties with making Cate Blanchett the Queen. If we make here Queen, she is by definition the successor to Australia's throne. The constitution deliberately leaves this wide open, probably because of the history of usurpation. Mine is a parliamentary republic with a system for appointing the HOS involving eminent Australians and not Parliamentarians. Didn't I already predict that the republicans would be upset about the fact that it is a monarchy, even though it is identical to a republic? If we can legislate who the HOS is, there would be no difficulty in legislating a process for selecting the HOS.

Australia doesn't have a 'throne'.  For Cate Blanchett to be Australia's Queen she would need to succeed Queen Elizabeth II.  It is the English Sovereignty where she needs to succeed - the Constitution is clear in this regard.

May I suggest you read the Constitution instead of crikey?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 4:57pm:

Why can't you have a serious debate about a legislative change?

You mean why can't you? Let's not just crap on about ridiculous interpreatations of the constitution. I have put forward what I believe is an arguable model for appointing an Australian head of state in what would in effect be an Australian republic.

Even if you could wangle wacko interpretations of the constitution through some kind of rhetorical alchemy, I believe the people would expect to be consulted as they rightly should be. So let's just get back to the fact that a referendum would be required to change the constitution to abolish the office of foreign HOS replacing it with an Australian HOS.

It is the English Sovereignty where she needs to succeed - the Constitution is clear in this regard.

Where does the constitution say that our parliament cannot legislate who succeeds QEII?

Let's not just crap on about ridiculous interpreatations of the constitution.

Why is the interpretation rediculous? Where does it say who the successor must be?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 5:42pm:

It is the English Sovereignty where she needs to succeed - the Constitution is clear in this regard. Where does the constitution say that our parliament cannot legislate who succeeds QEII? Let's not just crap on about ridiculous interpreatations of the constitution. Why is the interpretation rediculous? Where does it say who the successor must be?

I already posted that bit.

Well you obviously misinterpretted it.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 5:52pm:

Well you obviously misinterpretted it.

No, I understand it perfectly.  You have been reading too much crikey and now you believe in a comic book world.

There is nothing in the bits you quoted that dictates who may succeed the Queen.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 6:12pm:

There is nothing in the bits you quoted that dictates who may succeed the Queen.

Isn't there?  So anyone may step into the role according to you?  Anyone at all?  What is stopping them doing so?  Why doesn't Cardboard Kev, a known republican, simply declare himself Queen and forget the palaver of a referendum?

Because it would not be a politically astute move. Technically, so long as he could get the legislation through parliament, there is nothing stopping him. At least, nothing that you have presented.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 6:26pm:

Because it would not be a politically astute move. Technically, so long as he could get the legislation through parliament, there is nothing stopping him. At least, nothing that you have presented.

So the clause that I posted that explains that the constitution may only be amended with a successful referendum is not a real hindrance to Kevvy?  He has some sort of super authority which would enable him to pass a law (which requires royal assent) to amend the constitution without a constitutional requirement and it will get royal assent?

Maybe you all should read the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act?

http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/641/top.htm

:D

Neferti wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 6:32pm:

Maybe you all should read the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act? http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/641/top.htm :D

Who should neffy?  I already suggested freediver do so, are you agreeing?

No thanks Nef, its too early to fall asleep.

I know you have Deepthought.  I meant others who obviously haven't.

Neferti wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 6:34pm:

I know you have Deepthought.  I meant others who obviously haven't.

;)

So the clause that I posted that explains that the constitution may only be amended with a successful referendum is not a real hindrance to Kevvy?

Correct. The whole point of the proposal was that it avoided the need to change the constitution.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 6:35pm:

So the clause that I posted that explains that the constitution may only be amended with a successful referendum is not a real hindrance to Kevvy? Correct. The whole point of the proposal was that it avoided the need to change the constitution.

Wow.  That's strong stuff you're smoking mate.  You'll be asleep before the footy even starts.

I bet Kevvy hasn't read The Constitution Act.  ;D

Neferti wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 6:37pm:

I bet Kevvy hasn't read The Constitution Act.  ;D

You mean Queen Kevvy.  His Royal Cardboardness.

Seems that some people think Kevvy is the new "superman" ... leap tall buildings and et cetera?

Ooops .....

Should we get back to The Queen and ... ?

Act to extend to the Queen's successors




The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

NB.  UNITED KINGDOM.

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

NB.  EXTEND TO.

Haven't we been over this already nef?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 6:52pm:

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. NB.  EXTEND TO. Haven't we been over this already nef?

Are you saying that 'extend to' in the Constitution has some other meaning than 'extend to' in crikey?

No, I'm saying it has the plain english meaning. That is, it does not mean 'apply exclusively to'.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:03pm:

No, I'm saying it has the plain english meaning. That is, it does not mean 'apply exclusively to'.

So you are saying, let's get this clear, you are saying that you (with the help of crikey) have spotted what no one else in the country has before.  A loophole in the Constitution?  

That the Queen's position in the parliament could be any old tool that steps up and claims to be her successor?  That being the UK sovereign is irrelevant? Nothing is stopping the Reverend Fred Nile, for example, from announcing himself to be the Queen's successor as succession is not exclusive to anyone in particular?

That's awesome.  Why hasn't anyone else seen that glaring loophole before do you think freediver?

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 6:52pm:

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. NB.  EXTEND TO. Haven't we been over this already nef?

"extend to" is irrelevant,  it's the "heirs and successors" that is meaningful.  The British Monarchy "succession" is the key.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Monarchy#Succession

Prince Charles is QE2's "heir apparent".  Wills is second "in line".

Are you arguing the term "extend to"?  The above clearly states (to me) that when QE2 dies, Charles will immediately become our HOS, although we would have to pass some legislation rather quickly to make him KING of Oz.  I am sure he would like being called Queen of Australia.  :)

That the Queen's position in the parliament could be any old tool that steps up and claims to be her successor?

No. It has to be passed by parliament.

That being the UK sovereign is irrelevant?

Not necessary.

"extend to" is irrelevant

No it isn't. It is in the constitution. You can't just say it is irrelevant because it doesn't support your argument.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:15pm:

That the Queen's position in the parliament could be any old tool that steps up and claims to be her successor? No. It has to be passed by parliament. That being the UK sovereign is irrelevant? Not necessary. "extend to" is irrelevant No it isn't. It is in the constitution. You can't just say it is irrelevant because it doesn't support your argument.

Hang on a sec, why does the parliament get to decide?  It doesn't mention that the Queen's successor is decided by the commonwealth parliament?  How did you come up with that new constitutional clause which isn't in the old constitution we have relied on for over 100 years?  And does that change the UK sovereign at the same time?  That will surprise the poms.

The old fashioned way to succeed the throne was to start killing off the royal family. Obviously this has never been enshrined in law. Where the constitution does not specify how things work, it is obviously up to parliament to decide. Yes you could declare yourself Queen if you want, but if no-one pays any attention to you it's not going to work.

It's a bit like the position of PM. It only exists through tradition.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:24pm:

The old fashioned way to succeed the throne was to start killing off the royal family. Obviously this has never been enshrined in law. Where the constitution does not specify how things work, it is obviously up to parliament to decide. Yes you could declare yourself Queen if you want, but if no-one pays any attention to you it's not going to work. It's a bit like the position of PM. It only exists through tradition.

It isn't up to Parliament to decide though.  Though I keep saying it, it appears you put your hands over your ears.  The Constitution may only be amended by referendum.

Parliament doesn't get a say.  The people do.

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

Goodness me!  

As I see it, "extend to" merely means covers.  It is the current Monarch in Britain (through a change in OUR Constitution, since it was Queen Victoria on the Throne when it was legislated) that our Constitution refers to and the "heirs and successors" (i.e Charles, William, Harry).

Freediver,


Quote:

The old fashioned way to succeed the throne was to start killing off the royal family. Obviously this has never been enshrined in law. Where the constitution does not specify how things work, it is obviously up to parliament to decide. Yes you could declare yourself Queen if you want, but if no-one pays any attention to you it's not going to work.

You have no idea about British History, do you?


Quote:

It's a bit like the position of PM. It only exists through tradition.

Back to the drawing board for you, mate.  ;) A PM is voted in by a Democratic society.  A Monarch's "position" is passed down through heirs (and successors).  ;D

Good point DT, except that the pollies do get to frame the question, and that plays a huge part in whether a referendum will be able to pass or not.
Howard's shameful manipulation of the last referendum on this issue is a perfect case in point.
After virtually assuring no chance of a positive vote, we proceeded to waste all that effort so he could blithely, and with his not unusual disingenuousness, claim that the people agreed with him.

Have you stopped beating your wife?
Yes or No reply only allowed.
How you phrase a question, and what options you offer do have a determining effect on the outcome.

Oh, by the way Freediver.  In the British Parliament the Queen just "opens parliament", the same as our GG does.  She "sees" the PM when necessary (as our GG does) but QE2 has NOTHING to do with the Governing of the UK.  :D

deepthought wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:28pm:

freediver wrote on May 2nd, 2008 at 7:24pm: The old fashioned way to succeed the throne was to start killing off the royal family. Obviously this has never been enshrined in law. Where the constitution does not specify how things work, it is obviously up to parliament to decide. Yes you could declare yourself Queen if you want, but if no-one pays any attention to you it's not going to work. It's a bit like the position of PM. It only exists through tradition. It isn't up to Parliament to decide though.  Though I keep saying it, it appears you put your hands over your ears.  The Constitution may only be amended by referendum. Parliament doesn't get a say.  The people do.

Exactly!  ;)

Neferti wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:47pm:

Oh, by the way Freediver.  In the British Parliament the Queen just "opens parliament", the same as our GG does.  She "sees" the PM when necessary (as our GG does) but QE2 has NOTHING to do with the Governing of the UK.  :D

Don't be so sure of that. Officially that is true but unofficially she has an enormous influence over the speech she reads in Parliament despite the fact that it is "officially" the Prime Minister's speech.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 6:12pm:

There is nothing in the bits you quoted that dictates who may succeed the Queen.

Mate, stop acting like a fool. If you want to discuss a viable republican model, then propose one or support a viable process towards the institution of an Australian head of state. Stop playing games by pretending the constitution can be subverted. It is dishonest and the act of a shyster, a bush lawyer or just a plain idiot.

Constitutions exit in law such that they cannot be altered by mere legislation. They must be above that, otherwise they would have no authority over the whims of the government of the day. They are rarely altered and when they are, they require either referenda or something like a two thirds majority in the lower house and the upper house where one exists.

Let's discuss a viable model that guarantees to all Australian citizens that no foreigner shall reign or preside over this nation.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 7:50pm:

Neferti wrote on May 2nd, 2008 at 7:47pm: Oh, by the way Freediver.  In the British Parliament the Queen just "opens parliament", the same as our GG does.  She "sees" the PM when necessary (as our GG does) but QE2 has NOTHING to do with the Governing of the UK.  :D Don't be so sure of that. Officially that is true but unofficially she has an enormous influence over the speech she reads in Parliament despite the fact that it is "officially" the Prime Minister's speech.

Helian,

I am a Republican.  

I haven't looked at the British "Constitution".  Have you?

However, I understand that QE2 has a similar role in the British Westminster system as she does in Australia. A figure head but more important to the Brits than she is here. Pomp and Ceremony?

I like QE2, she has spent her entire life being nice to people and I am sure it has been difficult. Money isn't everything.  I'll feel sad when she dies :D

Neferti wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 8:14pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 2nd, 2008 at 7:50pm: Neferti wrote on May 2nd, 2008 at 7:47pm: Oh, by the way Freediver.  In the British Parliament the Queen just "opens parliament", the same as our GG does.  She "sees" the PM when necessary (as our GG does) but QE2 has NOTHING to do with the Governing of the UK.  :D Don't be so sure of that. Officially that is true but unofficially she has an enormous influence over the speech she reads in Parliament despite the fact that it is "officially" the Prime Minister's speech. Helian, I am a Republican.   I haven't looked at the British "Constitution".  Have you? However, I understand that QE2 has a similar role in the British Westminster system as she does in Australia. A figure head but more important to the Brits than she is here. Pomp and Ceremony? I like QE2, she has spent her entire life being nice to people and I am sure it has been difficult. Money isn't everything.  I'll feel sad when she dies :D

Nef

I don't dispute one word of your statements here. The British head of state has no more constitutional executive power in Britain than she or her vice regal has in Australia.

However, it is well known in Britain that due to her status and enormous influence not just with Parliamentarians and with individuals in the house of lords but also with the most powerful members of the aristocratic class system including many of the so-called upper middle class and the nouveau riche that she can easily influence a prime Minister and the government of the day.

In Britain to the British she is the embodiment of walking, breathing history. She is related, directly or indirectly to most of Britain's heads of state and senior royals in Britain and the continent for nearly 1000 years. Among other titles, she is also heir to the title of Duke of Normandy, the French title of William the Conqueror and her pedigree goes on and on and on.

Such a figure is not easily dominated in Britain if at all. This kind of pedigree and its influence is a scourge on democracy and the reason most de jure Princes and Kings of European nations are forcibly exiled when their rule is abolished.

A PM is voted in by a Democratic society.

Wrong. We do not elect the PM. Parliament does not elect the PM. The PM is simply the person who leads or controls parliament. It could be anyone as far as the constitution is concerned.

Stop playing games by pretending the constitution can be subverted.

You are the one playing games by pretending the proposal is a subversion of our constitution.

Constitutions exit in law such that they cannot be altered by mere legislation.

I really can't figure out why this point won't sink in. The proposal in question is not a modification of the constitution. It is a change that is wholly within the limitations imposed by the constitution.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 9:11pm:

A PM is voted in by a Democratic society. Wrong. We do not elect the PM. Parliament does not elect the PM. The PM is simply the person who leads or controls parliament. It could be anyone as far as the constitution is concerned. Stop playing games by pretending the constitution can be subverted. You are the one playing games by pretending the proposal is a subversion of our constitution. Constitutions exit in law such that they cannot be altered by mere legislation. I really can't figure out why this point won't sink in. The proposal in question is not a modification of the constitution. It is a change that is wholly within the limitations imposed by the constitution.

I reckon you should chat to a constitutional lawyer before you sing a rainbow over how you imagine constitutional terminology can be twisted.

Until then, let's agree to disagree. My model for a post foreign-head-of-state nation is effectively a democratic parliamentary republic with a citizen head of state nominated by eminent Australians then endorsed and declared by parliament.

I accept that this will require a referendum to ask the people to amend the constitution to abolish forever the requirement for a foreign head of state. The constitution's terminology will define the role of HOS and require that he or she be an Australian citizen first and only.

My previous posts outlay the kind of process I imagine Australians could accept for the selection of a HOS candidate as it eliminates Parliamentarians from the eligible candidature and selection processes.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2008 at 9:11pm:

A PM is voted in by a Democratic society. Wrong. We do not elect the PM. Parliament does not elect the PM. The PM is simply the person who leads or controls parliament. It could be anyone as far as the constitution is concerned. Stop playing games by pretending the constitution can be subverted. You are the one playing games by pretending the proposal is a subversion of our constitution. Constitutions exit in law such that they cannot be altered by mere legislation. I really can't figure out why this point won't sink in. The proposal in question is not a modification of the constitution. It is a change that is wholly within the limitations imposed by the constitution.

I think you will find it won't sink in because it's silly to imagine the framers of the Constitution decided that they didn't really mean the Constitution to be the document which would be the blueprint for the future of Australia.

I think you will find it won't sink in because it's silly to believe that the creation of a republic is as simple as declaring a Queen of Australia by selecting some goose at will and creating legislation which makes her the successor within the sovereignty of the UK without the poms even noticing they got a new Queen too.

Incidentally in this Boy's Own Crikey version of Australia who succeeds Queen Kevvy?  Her heirs and successors?  Or do we have a summit of the best and brightest and they decide who our androgynous monarch is to be on our behalf?  Then they wipe their chins with the Constitution because it is no longer worth the paper it is writtten on?

It has to be done at some time of the year - the republicans will find anything to complain about:

http://news.smh.com.au/national/queens-birthday-honours-anachronistic-20080609-2nuh.html

Honouring the achievements of Australians on the Queen's Birthday long weekend is anachronistic and a flawed relic of days gone by, republicans say.

Australian Republican Movement chair Michael Keating says announcing the honours list this weekend devalues the awards by linking them to the British empire.

"It's really some kind of flawed relic of days gone by," Mr Keating told ABC Radio.

From the article that led me to this forum:
"To get an idea of what a republic is in practice, ask an American. They get it drummed into them at school that America is not a democracy, but a republic. Australians, being practical people, can't make much sense of such an absurd statement."

And here I thought most non-Americans knew more about America than the Americans.

The difference Between a Democracy and a Republic is The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority.

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.

Now, The Constitution in the United States has been twisted, manipulated, etc. over the years but the "fathers" meant for it to be a Republic where every individuals rights are protected and Government was supposed to remain small.

I could rattle on all day and give various examples of how the US Constitution has been used the way it wasn't meant, however the point is... IF people can not or will not educate themselves about the differences between a Democracy and a Republic, and/or the reasons why the "fathers" chose that for the U.S., then perhaps it's best to leave well enough alone, eh?

The Queen doesn't actually do much at all when it comes to Australia. She's just a figurehead. The Governor General on the other hand is a pretty busy guy, but his role is hardly that of a President.  

If we go to a Republic, the current role played by the Governor General is all we need of the figurehead. If we go to a president with real political power like in the US, that would totally change the political landscape in Australia, and that's not what I would want, and I suspect it's not what most Australians would want.

I think we need to remain part of the Commonwealth, but that the figurehead should be Australian and play almost the same role as the Governor General does at the moment. If you describe that as a republic, then I'm in favour of such a move.  

If it's not broken, don't fix it, but the Queen has to go as head of state.

Jamie wrote on Jun 26^th, 2007 at 9:53pm:

Australia shouldn't become a republic but it shoud ditch liz as the Australian Monarch and instead I'll be the King of Australia. In fact I think I'll start a political party just for that purpose, it'll be the "For King" party.

Paul Keating wants that role  ;D

Welcome to OzPolitic Dyna. I always thought it was the system of federalism rather than protection of individual rights that made America 'undemocratic'.

DynaSore wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 2:43am:

IF people can not or will not educate themselves about the differences between a Democracy and a Republic, and/or the reasons why the "fathers" chose that for the U.S., then perhaps it's best to leave well enough alone, eh?

Agreed.

DEMOCRACY:
- A government of the masses.
- Authority is derived through mass meeting or other form of "direct" expression.
- Results in mobocracy.
- Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
- Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
- Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC:
- Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
- Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
- A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
- Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
- Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
- Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

(Source: US War Department Training Manual No. 2000-25, November 30, 1928.)



Most Australian believe that a republic is simply a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch. That is an incomplete definition; there is much more to it than that. The differences are subtle but has far reaching impacts for the individual.

Even though most politicians, teachers, journalists and citizens believe that the US Founders created a democracy, it is not true. The Founders knew the differences between a Republic and a Democracy and they have repeatedly emphasied that they had founded a republic.

James Madison said "We may define a republic to be ... a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic."

He also warns that "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths..."

Benjamin Franklin was said to have replied when asked what type of govt the Founders have created "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Most people don't even know what it is let along try and keep it.

- Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.

;D

Did you copy that from an American site Acid?

freediver wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 1:16pm:

- Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. ;D Did you copy that from an American site Acid?

LOL. It was from an extract of a US War Dept handbook, circa Cold War (I think). Hence the rhetoric.

;D

I should add that there have been no true democracies for 2500 years. What we have nowadays are neo-democracies.  

The last true democracy was in Athens, where the people took all the decisions and instructed their 'politicians' to carry them out.

/pedantic mode off

muso wrote on Jul 8^th, 2008 at 3:42pm:

I should add that there have been no true democracies for 2500 years. What we have nowadays are neo-democracies.   The last true democracy was in Athens, where the people took all the decisions and instructed their 'politicians' to carry them out. /pedantic mode off

The first, and the last??

Even then it wasn't a true democracy by modern definition. Only adult male Athenians citizens who had completed their military training as ephebes had the right to vote. Women, children, slaves and those who have the Athenian citizenship temporarily suspended (for civil or criminal infractions) are excluded.

/pedantic mode off

;)

I don't care if we become a Republic or not! Not in the short term anyway. We have a pretty good working system now, that could use improving for sure, but none of the suggestions that the government or respective oppositions have put forward suggest a better or even equal system.

And sorry I need a better excuse than the old BOOHOO I don't wanna belong to England anymore. The 'we're not part of England' is just a sook argument and needs to grow up.

Right or wrong, the predominant linage, and historical continuity of the people and culture of this country is British. Resent it if you need to, but denying it is simply childish. It's the sort of argument that we used as teenagers. Extensive reading of history helped me realize the obvious. Australia and Australians did not errupt into existance with no ties to anyone else. I know there are many ties to many other countries, but I am talking about the predominate influence on our Executive, Legal and cultural systems.

I find it akin to the lets get rid of the Union Jack from our flag. If thats what the majority eventually want then so be it. But I think we have a distinctive flag (OK NZ flag is close) that my father, uncles, grandfathers fought under. Some died under. So I would be reluctant to see it go.

Replacing the system we have simply to be rid of the 'holding on to apron strings' just doesn't wash. I think of myself as 4th gen Australian and have just welcomed my son as 5th generation. Our heratige is Welsh and Scottish, and whatever foriegners raped our grandmothers amonst the tit-for-tat european wars of the last 2000 years. I'm sure there is the blood of roman soldiers and moor brides running in our veins. And I'm glad of it.

BTW if there is ever a kangaroo placed on our flag. I'm going to Canada.

locutius wrote on Aug 4^th, 2008 at 4:33pm:

And sorry I need a better excuse than the old BOOHOO I don't wanna belong to England anymore. The 'we're not part of England' is just a sook argument and needs to grow up.

Is it a better argument to expect a citizen of the nation to be Head of State?

It is phrased slightly differently, which is a start I guess.

freediver wrote on Aug 4^th, 2008 at 5:09pm:

It is phrased slightly differently, which is a start I guess.

And a fundamentally different point, as well.

It's hard to imagine why it must not be that case that a citizen may aspire to role of Head of State.

How about this:

And sorry I need a better excuse than the old BOOHOO I don't wanna have a Brit as HOS anymore. The 'we're not ruled by a Brit' is just a sook argument and needs to grow up.

freediver wrote on Aug 4^th, 2008 at 5:47pm:

How about this: And sorry I need a better excuse than the old BOOHOO I don't wanna have a Brit as HOS anymore. The 'we're not ruled by a Brit' is just a sook argument and needs to grow up.

So why must a citizen not aspire to be be Head of State? Are you suggesting that the role is so insignificant and unworthy of any citizen's aspiration?

It is more an example of cultural insecurity, in the form of a cultural cringe, to retain a foreign Head of State and an example of cultural maturity to expect at all times that the incumbent of the nation's highest office be a citizen of that nation.

It has been said on this thread before... What we expect of all immigrants, that they become citizens we should also expect of the Head of State.

It has nothing at all to do with insecurity. In fact, it stems from a quiet security. We feel so secure that we focus more on what actually works rather than ignorant nationalism. If we were insecure, we would dump the Queen in a flash and make sure everything was Australian, regardless of how well it worked. All the responses here attest to that. No-one is covering up some kind of embarrasment at being Australian.

freediver wrote on Aug 4^th, 2008 at 6:14pm:

It has nothing at all to do with insecurity. In fact, it stems from a quiet security. We feel so secure that we focus more on what actually works rather than ignorant nationalism. If we were insecure, we would dump the Queen in a flash and make sure everything was Australian, regardless of how well it worked. All the responses here attest to that. No-one is covering up some kind of embarrasment at being Australian.

So why must a citizen not aspire to be be Head of State? Are you suggesting that the role is insignificant and unworthy of any citizen's aspiration?

You can aspire to whatever you want.

freediver wrote on Aug 4^th, 2008 at 6:21pm:

You can aspire to whatever you want.

Except to be the Australian Head of State.

You can aspire to that too if you want.

freediver wrote on Aug 4^th, 2008 at 6:22pm:

You can aspire to that too if you want.

Or to be an ethnic African or a Martian... Let's leave the definition of 'aspire' to those things that are achievable and within the context of the topic.

No Australian citizen should expect that his/her aspiration to be Head of State is realisable under the current system.

I think this is what the BOOHOO bit was about.

freediver wrote on Aug 4^th, 2008 at 6:45pm:

I think this is what the BOOHOO bit was about.

Is that an example of how you see the role of Head of State? Insignificant? Interesting for someone who runs a politics forum would see the nation's highest political role treated with so much disregard.

Would this be an example of your quiet security... or your cultural cringe? Have you been indoctrinated by an anachronistic system to believe that the role is irrelevant?... or is it dull complacency? Do you simply not care?

Helian, Interesting that you think that it is being suggested the having an Australian as Head of State is being treated as 'Insignificant'. I made no such suggestion. But I will state quite clearly that it is not at the top of my own criteria of priorities. There are greater issues at stake. I can't really add to what freediver has offered in reply. They could have been my own words.

When we get a Republic AFTER we get the details right, then I will say long live the Republic.

I might add that it is one of the great sidelining items that gets put before parliment and the public. A great means of directing interest away from more important or controversial subjects. It will be interesting to see the timing of the Rudd government 's reintroduction of the republic to national debate.

When it happens, that's the best time for the electorate to have  peripheral vision.

locutius wrote on Aug 5^th, 2008 at 12:28am:

Helian, Interesting that you think that it is being suggested the having an Australian as Head of State is being treated as 'Insignificant'. I made no such suggestion. When we get a Republic AFTER we get the details right, then I will say long live the Republic.

I believe the issue should be seen in the more profound light of national identity than trivialising it with the notion that it is singularly about an anti-English dummy-spit.

Is it right that no Australian citizen can, with any hope of realisation, aspire to the office of Head of State? It's not good enough for the Scots that they endure a foreign HOS as the current Scottish appetite for secession from the union with England attests.

When immigrants go through the process of becoming citizens, which they are expected to do, one of the advantages of citizenship they are told is the privilege of partaking in the Australian political process either as a voter or a candidate for election to political office. It is ironic that the highest political office is currently necessarily reserved for a foreigner and even more ironic that the HOS is not even required to be resident in the country.

There are details to get right, for sure. I have suggested a republican model in posts to this thread previously that I believe address most of the details that have been a problem to many.

What are the details that need to be got right as you see them?

Interesting for someone who runs a politics forum would see the nation's highest political role

I see PM as the highest role.

I believe the issue should be seen in the more profound light of national identity

You make it about identity politics. I am more concerned about practical issues. I don't care about identity politics. As locutius pointed out, there are far more important things to worry about.

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2008 at 11:20am:

I see PM as the highest role.

Well it ain't. The office of Head of State is the highest political office.


freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2008 at 11:20am:

I believe the issue should be seen in the more profound light of national identity You make it about identity politics. I am more concerned about practical issues. I don't care about identity politics. As locutius pointed out, there are far more important things to worry about.

This is symptomatic of the cultural cringe - the downplaying of the role of the citizen in developing the nation's highest office and the trivialising of the role.

It's got nothing to do with cultural cringe.

I guess it comes down to how you define 'high'. The PM has the most important and meaningful role.

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2008 at 11:57am:

It's got nothing to do with cultural cringe. I guess it comes down to how you define 'high'. The PM has the most important and meaningful role.

A nation that has a foreigner as its Head of State needs to define clearly why no citizen should ever considered worthy of the office.

How one defines 'high'??? The roles of Head of State is the highest political office. The Head of Government is usually the penultimate role. The two offices can be combined as with the US model.

How would you define... 'high'?

Most powerful.

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2008 at 1:11pm:

Most powerful.

A Head of State can dissolve Parliament and with that make vacant the role of Head of Government.

That's nice dear.

freediver wrote on Aug 5^th, 2008 at 1:30pm:

That's nice dear.

W@nker

What do you think is the most powerful position in Australian politics?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 5^th, 2008 at 7:52am:

locutius wrote on Aug 5th, 2008 at 12:28am: Helian, Interesting that you think that it is being suggested the having an Australian as Head of State is being treated as 'Insignificant'. I made no such suggestion. When we get a Republic AFTER we get the details right, then I will say long live the Republic. I believe the issue should be seen in the more profound light of national identity than trivialising it with the notion that it is singularly about an anti-English dummy-spit.

First off Helian, I will make every effort to work through what has been written before in this Subject by yourself and others. I would like to examine the possible solutions that you have provided. Being brand new to the site my enthusiasim was to provide a comment and become involved in some of the discussions taking place. I did read a few pages of this subject, but since there are 19 odd pages and so many other subjects to look at, I felt confident of offering my own take on this subject. Now with that said....

I find that it is you that are labouring this particular point, one that I have not attacked as a fair point. What I have said is that it is not a crucial enough point to modify my position to that of rabid republican.

It's part of my discriminating nature to ask whether this current system (as flawed as it may be) is a lesser system to the vague blank contract (details to be filled in later) that I was expected to support in a referendum. A referendum that was filled with emotional dribble rather than any concrete models to choose from.

It is far from an anti-english dummy spit, thanks for upholding my point there. I was starting to think that was your position with your persistance on the HOS situation. However the anti-english sentiment is a pretty heart felt one, and is often the only argument pursued, by those that don't even know how their existing political system works (not directed at anyone here).

It was not an uncommon catchcry for the Republican lobby, and honestly it just smacked of bloody laziness. In fact it was relying on bloody laziness of the electorat to buy that catchcry.

I hope I like your suggestions, or at least find them thought provoking.

locutius

To make searching easier.

A proposal for a republican model starts here (page 12) and rolls to page 14

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1173182998/150

The first post is Reply #160 - Apr 27th, 2008, 2:14pm.

The GG is a rubber stamp appointed by the government and recommended by the PM.

Clearly the head of government ie; the PM is the most powerful politician in the country.

Thanks Grendel. It's a bit hard to be taken seriously if you don't concede the obvious.

freediver wrote on Aug 6^th, 2008 at 9:27am:

Thanks Grendel. It's a bit hard to be taken seriously if you don't concede the obvious.

You mean like the 'Cate Blanchett for Queen' republican model?

Don't all Australians deserve the right to have potentially fulfillable aspirations to be Queen?

Grendel wrote on Aug 6^th, 2008 at 5:09am:

The GG is a rubber stamp appointed by the government and recommended by the PM. Clearly the head of government ie; the PM is the most powerful politician in the country.

Poor Gough... He shoulda shot first.

Give me 10 valid reasons why we should have a Republic.
What is wrong with being associated with the Monarchy.
When you look back at history it is a good thing that we were part of the Empire and we may need that support again in the future.
Look at the Principles involved, not the individuals.
If the System ain't broke, don't try to fix it. Attempts to fix it could make things worse than they are now.

Welcome to OzPolitic nasho. Congratulations on getting everything right in your very first post. It's all downhill from here  ;)

Of course it should,unfortunetly the Queen WILL NOT let us go.Any prime minister that tries to go through with this will be sacked by her.This WILL NOT happen,i hate the royal crime syndicate,those of you who just think she's a liitle old lady who just pot's around being rich is totally mislead,she is very very ruthless.The English are masters at hiding behind gov,and councils just as they do here in Oz,those of you who think she is just our head of state you are totally wrong,we are owned.Research your constituation and you will find out we are slaves to the Monarch just like the USA.And remember they just gave us,this pretend democracy becuase they were sick of the revolutions every four or five years so they came up with democracy,which makes us believe we have a say,which works.It is a total con,we need to be a republic,on every clause needs to be a referendom.This is our only hope of freedom.

liko, that is not 10 good reasons. You will have to try harder than that.

nasho23 wrote on Aug 25^th, 2008 at 4:59pm:

Give me 10 valid reasons why we should have a Republic. What is wrong with being associated with the Monarchy. When you look back at history it is a good thing that we were part of the Empire and we may need that support again in the future. Look at the Principles involved, not the individuals. If the System ain't broke, don't try to fix it. Attempts to fix it could make things worse than they are now.

Just like in WW2?

I hate the royal family.

But then again, I don't want independence as a new constitution will undoubtedly be worse than what we currently have.

liko, now you are starting to think about it.

Any prime minister that tries to go through with this will be sacked by her.

Like Howard? Once the referendum were done, it would be a bit late for the Queen to sack him. And besides, that is the one thing that would guarantee we become a republic.

I'm not liko, but I agree with what he/she says.

Whilst it might seem like drivel and paranoia, if you were rehearsed on the issues (which would take a week of TALKING to get across), you yourself would be able to see what's going on.

Sorry Easel, I mixed you up with Liko.
My comment still stands.
I have not heard 10 good reasons to become a Republic. I have only heard Drivel and Paranoia.

I don't need 10 good reasons but a few would be nice. Who cares about the Royal family. Not me. They're a non entity as far as I'm concerned. So they don't even come into the equation. And as freediver says, to sack a PM now would be fait accompli and self defeating.

If we stick with the question pure and simple " Should Australia become a Republic". Sure, yes. absolutely. But not at any cost. And I for one have not been convinced by any of the models, nor do I think this should be left in the hands of politicians or celebrities and certainly not the rich.

If the pollies were serious, they would begin educating the broader public about political systems and models so everyone can vote on a model and Constitution and Bill of Rights if that were decided upon.

I believe it's almost suicidal for this country to become republic.
Very very silly move.
Oh well, not the first one :-X Australia is a new country, it has a long long way to learn things, unfortunately.

VETERAN LABOR LEFT WINGER  BOB ELLIS DECIDES CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY
IS THE BEST SYSTEM

Bob Ellis from Your ABC 28/8/2008

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2348261.htm

If anybody asks me, and they usually don't, I always say I'm an
Australian republican, and I'd vote as I did in 1999 to end the
monarchy and 'break John Howard's heart'.

But I've yet to sort out a worry I've had for twenty years, and it's this.

The best countries in the world are monarchies.

Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Spain, Japan, the United Kingdom,
Canada, New Zealand and Australia, all monarchies, are enviable
societies; and they're in sharp contrast with Iraq, Iran, Syria, Gaza,
Israel, Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Congo, Nigeria, Cuba, Mexico, Haiti,
Panama, North Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan,
Myanmar, Haiti, Russia, China and the United States, all of which are
republics and most of which overthrew their kings with violence.

There are some exceptions, of course. Austria and Germany, both
republics, are very good societies now, though they in recent times
produced Hitler. The monarchies of Saudi-Arabia and Kuwait are very
bad societies, stoning adulteresses to death and banning alcohol.
Nepal in its pre-Maoist phase was pretty shocking but good to go
trekking in. Tonga, though it has pleasant ruritanian-socialist
qualities, line-ball.

Some republics are line-ball too. Greece since its king was evicted
has flirted with military dictators, and Italy likewise with colourful
short-arse fascists; and as for Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania,
Georgia, the Ukraine and East Timor it's perhaps too early to say.

India and Pakistan, though technically ruled by the British Queen, are
too confused in their present wobbly arrangements to classify either
way. Zimbabwe though theoretically under Elizabeth II has lately
acquired a usurping mad monarch of its own. And Monaco and
Liechtenstein, though theoretically monarchies, are more like
heightened municipalities. Thailand, remotely ruled by a thoughtful
king who interferes now and then, is probably line-ball too.

But you would still be hard put to find twelve republics to match
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Spain, Japan, the United Kingdom,
Canada, New Zealand and Australia, my good monarchies. Venezuela?
Guatemala? Fiji? The United States? Give me a break.

Why is it constitutional monarchies work as well as they do? It's
because, I think, they provide a level of judgement above the level of
chiacking politicians, which dignifies the country. It's the
constitutional equivalent of an umpire.

However illusory, it gives the voters a comfort-zone which the
opposing system does not. In a Republic, Alan Jones can be elected
President, and for millions of Australians there is no joy in that. In
a Republic, a George Bush can be accorded god-like qualities, and this
can enrage decent civilised atheists everywhere.

A constitutional monarch is less like a god, or a Caesar or a Great
Dictator, and more like a Guardian Angel; and somewhere in the human
psyche there is room for this idea. It's what I call a sustaining
fantasy, the kind of thing we suspect isn't true, but it's what keeps
us going.

It needs good mild monarchs in the saddle however, Elizabeth not
Gyanendra, to keep the show on the road. And it needs, perhaps, the
kind of monarchs the Dutch and Scandinavians have, monarchs on
bicycles, monarchs with middle-class hobbies like stamp-collecting and
water-colours.

Or monarchs like Princess Di who hug AIDS patients and campaign
against cluster-bombs and show off their legs.

There may be an argument for preventing an eighty-year-old King
Charles from ascending the throne in 2028. But he seems, so far, to be
more modern and sympathetic in his beliefs – in multiculturalism,
sensible diet, architectural preservation, Spike Milligan, Buddha and
sustainable farming – than, say, Tony Blair or John Howard, who
prefer, on the whole, to slaughter heathens. And he's not a murderous
dipstick like the avid Republican George Bush.

He might be worth keeping, and impoverishing a little.

Or perhaps you disagree.

Welcome to OzPolitic Siren.

With his 12 good monarchies, do they share any other similarities, not not having a directly elected leader?

Hello Grendel. Well you certainly gave us a mouthful of interesting material. You don't sound like a Republican at all.
As I have said before, I have not heard 10 good reasons yet to change a system (monarchy) that has served us very well for a very long time in this Country.
I will say again, If IT Ain't Broke, Don't Try to Fix IT, to do so will certainly stuff up a good system.
I don't know what all the hulla bulloo is about, we have a great Country here, but some people are never satisfied. The grass always seems greener on the other side.
For those of you who are not satisfied with what we have here in Australia, stop your complaining, get a life, and help the rest of us to maintain a great way of life in a great country or else, somewhere down the track of time, we may end up like Zimbawbe and how would you like that.
I am an Ex Serviceman who has served this Country and I am very proud and happy with our Flag and our system of Government, just the way it is now. Leave it alone.

Some of the proposals would not necessarily stuff it up, just make it a hell of a lot more complicated. They would replace the Queen with a committee of respected citizens chosen in a sufficiently arbitrary manner. It would satisfy the people who object to the foreigner in the mix and technically make it no longer a monarchy, without really changing how it works.

Hello frediver, untill I have seen some of these so called proposals, I am not prepared to trust these people who are desirous of changing how our system works.
Who are going to pick this comittee of great citizens and who will they be.
I currently know of no one I would trust with running this Country as a Republic.
It is easy to sit back now and say that if we become a Republic things will not be changed.
There is no way I can be led into believing that crap.
Leave it alone.

nasho23 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2008 at 8:13pm:

Hello frediver, untill I have seen some of these so called proposals, I am not prepared to trust these people who are desirous of changing how our system works. Who are going to pick this comittee of great citizens and who will they be. I currently know of no one I would trust with running this Country as a Republic. It is easy to sit back now and say that if we become a Republic things will not be changed. There is no way I can be led into believing that crap. Leave it alone.

Who are going to pick this comittee of great citizens and who will they be.

The committee to select the Head of State could be comprised of the Companions of the Order of Australia (the highest award given to those Australians for outstanding achievement to Australia or humanity at large).

I currently know of no one I would trust with running this Country as a Republic.
How about an eminent Australian (an AC) as chosen by a committee of eminent Australians (all ACs)?

It is easy to sit back now and say that if we become a Republic things will not be changed.

What will change is an eminent Australian will be our HOS - a role model for his/her fellow Australians and that an Australian can aspire to be Head of State.

freediver wrote on Sep 4^th, 2008 at 8:03pm:

It would satisfy the people who object to the foreigner in the mix and technically make it no longer a monarchy, without really changing how it works.

It would actually make it no longer a monarchy.

nasho23 wrote on Sep 4^th, 2008 at 7:59pm:

I am an Ex Serviceman who has served this Country and I am very proud and happy with our Flag and our system of Government, just the way it is now. Leave it alone.

Thank you for your service.

However, I don't see the point of raising it in regards to how you feel the country should be run. It's like saying, "I'm a cotton farmer, and I like the way the state education system is run." What does being a cotton farmer have to do with the issue at hand?

It would actually make it no longer a monarchy.

So long as you didn't call the chosen few your royal highness. Other than in name, it's the same thing, except that there is far higher potential for political motivation in choosing the few.

easel - I think being a cotton farmer is quite different to be someone who has put themselves at risk for our freedom.

Thank you nasho23. Thank you very much.
I greatly appreciate your efforts and am in your debt.

How does putting your life at risk give your opinion greater value in a political arena?

If nasho was talking about something military I would give his opinion all the respect in the world.