Republic of Australia?

[Wayno]

Should we become a republic? Should we have a referendum again soon, or wait until the Queen passes away? Do we really want Charles as the Monarch of Australia?

wikipedia has a good read on this subject ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_Australia

Will certainly be interesting to see the survey results

[AtD]

It's all well and good to say we should become a Republic, but the question is, what type? I don't want to see us follow the American model where the president has far too much power. I like our current system where the GG has reserve powers.

[Shuz]

I think any republic should follow a model where prior to the election Presidential candidates are nominated for each party (but regulated only so that if you vote Labor, you can only nominate the Labor President of your choice) done so 2 weeks prior to the election. In some ways this mimics the American model, but does not span a whole year to do so! The election is then held with the winning presidential candidates of each party and then elected by the majority.

I also would rather the Governor or Prime Minister who whoever it is, to hold reserved powers to overthrow goverment.

[Wayno]

It's all well and good to say we should become a Republic, but the question is, what type? I don't want to see us follow the American model where the president has far too much power. I like our current system where the GG has reserve powers.

Are there any members that know the options and main pros/cons for each? i'd love to see a comparison...

[ReallyBad]

The Australian Rebuplic should be what we have now however an elected Australian Head of State instead of the Queen. The elected person would effectively have the same powers as the GG does now but doesn't answer to the Queen, parliament is run the same way with the PM the leader of the country.

[Diamond]

If it's not broken don't fix it.

I don't see the big deal about Charles being the Monarch of Australia either...ok, he has big ears and is married to a horse, but at the end of the day the King/Queen of England has next to no influence in the day to day matters of the country.

Also, if the Republic change does go ahead, the Governor-General will be replaced by the 'President' as the Head of State, with the Prime Minister remaining in the same role as he is currently.

[AtD]

The Australian Rebuplic should be what we have now however an elected Australian Head of State instead of the Queen. The elected person would effectively have the same powers as the GG does now but doesn't answer to the Queen, parliament is run the same way with the PM the leader of the country.

I don't think that would work, because an elected GG would politicise the position. The role of the GG is to stay out of politics and only act when circumstance requires. An election would give the GG a mandate to interfere in political decisions, making him a de facto president, IMO.

[Will]

If it's not broken don't fix it.

I don't see the big deal about Charles being the Monarch of Australia either...ok, he has big ears and is married to a horse, but at the end of the day the King/Queen of England has next to no influence in the day to day matters of the country.

Also, if the Republic change does go ahead, the Governor-General will be replaced by the 'President' as the Head of State, with the Prime Minister remaining in the same role as he is currently.

But it is broken. Don't you find it ridiculous that in the year 2008, we have the monarch of another country as our head of state? Don't you find it ridiculous we have the flag of another country on our flag, and the monarch of another country on our currency?

Australia is no-longer a British outpost. We are now a multicultural nation. As such, our head of state should reflect that. It is outrageous that the head of state of Australia is never elected but inherits their title on a system that discriminates against religion and sex. The system is broken.

[AtD]

But it is broken. Don't you find it ridiculous that in the year 2008, we have the monarch of another country as our head of state? Don't you find it ridiculous we have the flag of another country on our flag, and the monarch of another country on our currency?

Australia is no-longer a British outpost. We are now a multicultural nation. As such, our head of state should reflect that. It is outrageous that the head of state of Australia is never elected but inherits their title on a system that discriminates against religion and sex. The system is broken.

I disagree, Will. The system isn't broken, as reflected by the fact Australia ranks third on the UN Human Development Index (And Canada, another British based Conditional Monarchy, is fourth). Political systems are based on delicate balances of power, and the Westminster System has been very successful. I wouldn't like to see Australia adopt the American system, for example, where the executive that holds the power is a political entity that is influenced by the latest scandals in the tabloids. Without a Bill of Rights, we have higher levels of equality and more progressive social policy than the US, a country that has always had equality as the centre point of its constitution.

With The Australia Act having removed almost all legal ties to the UK, the best a republic can achieve is cosmetic changes like new letterheads, and I don't think that's worth risking the system for.

(And by the way, Britian is a multicultural nation too)

[Will]

But it is broken. Don't you find it ridiculous that in the year 2008, we have the monarch of another country as our head of state? Don't you find it ridiculous we have the flag of another country on our flag, and the monarch of another country on our currency?

Australia is no-longer a British outpost. We are now a multicultural nation. As such, our head of state should reflect that. It is outrageous that the head of state of Australia is never elected but inherits their title on a system that discriminates against religion and sex. The system is broken.

I disagree, Will. The system isn't broken, as reflected by the fact Australia ranks third on the UN Human Development Index (And Canada, another British based Conditional Monarchy, is fourth). Political systems are based on delicate balances of power, and the Westminster System has been very successful. I wouldn't like to see Australia adopt the American system, for example, where the executive that holds the power is a political entity that is influenced by the latest scandals in the tabloids. Without a Bill of Rights, we have higher levels of equality and more progressive social policy than the US, a country that has always had equality as the centre point of its constitution.

With The Australia Act having removed almost all legal ties to the UK, the best a republic can achieve is cosmetic changes like new letterheads, and I don't think that's worth risking the system for.

(And by the way, Britian is a multicultural nation too)

I am not advocating adopting an American style of republic. So, you see nothing wrong with a foreigner being our head of state? The monarchy is an institution which actively discriminates against women, but additionally why does our head of state always have to be an Anglican?

[AtD]

I am not advocating adopting an American style of republic. So, you see nothing wrong with a foreigner being our head of state? The monarchy is an institution which actively discriminates against women, but additionally why does our head of state always have to be an Anglican?

I don't think it's worth throwing our constitution into disarray because of those reasons alone.

And for the record, I'd vote yes for a republic if the system proposed had sufficient checks and balances. I just worry that our overly-American culture will blindly copy-paste the US Presidential Democracy and all it's trimmings.

[Mants]

the monarch really has little or no say in the running of our nation. anyway, isnt it the GG that holds most of the power? and my understanding is that the current GG, michael jeffery, is australian.

[Will]

I am not advocating adopting an American style of republic. So, you see nothing wrong with a foreigner being our head of state? The monarchy is an institution which actively discriminates against women, but additionally why does our head of state always have to be an Anglican?

I don't think it's worth throwing our constitution into disarray because of those reasons alone.

And for the record, I'd vote yes for a republic if the system proposed had sufficient checks and balances. I just worry that our overly-American culture will blindly copy-paste the US Presidential Democracy and all it's trimmings.

I would not like an American system too. I think we should all strive to preserve the Westminster system, but adapt it to a republic.

I don't have a drop of British blood running in my veins, yet I consider myself an Australian. As such, for me, Britain is just another country. For me the issue of the republic is one of dignity and national identity. I no longer want the Queen's image in public buildings, on our currency or postage stamps.

[aussie2000]

I vote to wait til the Queen passes, I agree mostly with Will, I mean it is 2008 and Australia has been a country for over 200 years, yet out head of state is that of another country. A head of state needs to be a person of that nationality and needs to LIVE in that country, especially for us, a country that is wealthly, well respected and well known. I love the Queen, I think she is a great and influential head of state and I am quite proud that she is my head of state, but she won't be forever and thats why I think that when she gives up the throne or passes away the referendum should be held.

Thought 1: I would like to keep the current system and just give all the Queen's 'power' to the Governor General, who would be called the President, however I believe that we the people should be able to choose that person and not the government. So i guess that would mean we would have to vote twice, for a governement (Liberal/Labour) and a President in different elections.

Thought 2: Scrap the Governor General and make the Prime Minister the President and head of state similar to the US, but still keeping our old values, like the people vote for the party not the President, so a majority of members of a party have to agree on things in order for them to happen and the president would be the representative of the party.

Thought 3: Go to bed

What do you think?

[stelaras]

May i remind youy all of the first two lines of our national anthem..


Australians all let us rejoice
for we are young and FREE


How are we free when our head of state is the governor general who takes direct orders from the Queen of another country.. It aint freedom it is perceved freedom..!

If we are to truly be on control of our own destiny then we should become a republic.


Here are some interesting points about the constitution of our "FREE" country that you may or may not know about! The excerpts are taken from the parliament of Australia website


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."

2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

3. There shall be payable to the Queen out of the Consolidated Revenue fund of the Commonwealth, for the salary of the Governor-General, an annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall be ten thousand pounds. The salary of the Governor-General shall not be altered during his continuance in office.

4. The provisions of this Constitution relating to the Governor-General extend and apply to the Governor-General for the time being, or such person as the Queen may appoint to administer the Government of the Commonwealth; but no such person shall be entitled to receive any salary from the Commonwealth in respect of any other office during his administration of the Government of the Commonwealth.

5. The Governor-General may appoint such times for holding the sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit, and may also from time to time, by Proclamation or otherwise, prorogue the Parliament, and may in like manner dissolve the House of Representatives.

58. When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure. The Governor-General may return to the house in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation.

59. The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.

60. A proposed law reserved for the Queen's pleasure shall not have any force unless and until within two years from the day on which it was presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent the Governor-General makes known, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, that it has received the Queen's assent.

Importantly, you as an individual are not a subject of the state...you are a subject of the Queen!!

117. A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.

which means by definition every possesion that you own, including the land on which your house is built on is not YOURS! it belongs to the Queen!


Bring on a Republic!