Republic vs Monarchy (1 Viewer)

[White Rabbit]

Get rid of the Pomes and take on the Dutch Royal Family as our new head of state

Honestly, it really doesn't bother me either way. While a true republic could be benifical - unlike the watered down version we were offered - I like the idea of being within the Commonwealth. The Queen doesn't do much anyway, she's just a figure head these days, Australia has the autonomy she needs so I figure, why change it? It will just end up costing us lots of money.

 

[erawamai]

There are many arguments against a bill of rights, mainly stemming from the fact that it takes alot of power away from the government and transfers much more power to the courts. Essentially, if we had a bill of rights most of the immigration cases would be found in favour of the detainee's, the cases i cited above (excluding behrooz) had a 4:3 majority, with McHugh J saying that if there was a bill of rights he would have ruled otherwise.

A million arguments going both ways for a bill of rights. Not likely to get up for some time. At least while the Liberal government in power and the Australian people are right wing.

-------------------------------------------------

As for the republic Australia is a republic in all but name. And as for the model. The 'President' should be appointed by parliament. Direction election of the president would give him the support the electorate and possibly more legitimacy then the PM and parliament. That is bad. You would have a continual struggle between Head of state and head of parliament. That is bad.

Such an 'intellectual' argument was rejected by the Australia people. The people wanted a direct election of a president because they pretty much don't understand how parliament works. They don't understand the ramifications. Just simply a populist idea.

I believe the Australian people are too dumb to actually understand (knowing how suspicious we are of intellectuals, elites and anyone who tries their best (tryhard!) and that we invented tall poppy syndrome) to ever listen to any such tripe. Hardly any of us understand what the senate does let alone explain parliament and head of state. If you changed the name to president half the population would think he or she would be like the American president.

A republic would be nice. However I we are already one in many ways. I mean King Charles of Australia? Makes me feel a little sick.

 

[White Rabbit]

Republic all the way, the British monarchy is so irrelevant to everyone except for British immigrants

Because Brits, Scots, the Welsh and those from Ulster - as well as their decendants within Australia going back over 200 years - are also utterly irrelevent to Australia. It's not as if they make up over 80% of Australias entire population

 

[erawamai]

Because Brits, Scots, the Welsh and those from Ulster - as well as their decendants within Australia going back over 200 years - are also utterly irrelevent to Australia. It's not as if they make up over 80% of Australias entire population

How exactly is the royal family relevant to Australian governance and people who live in Australia? Simple question.

 

[White Rabbit]

How exactly is the royal family relevant to Australian governance and people who live in Australia? Simple question.

I'm not saying it is. I really don't care either way - I'd keep a monarchy out of tradition more than anything. That post was in response to supercharged, who stated that

Republic all the way, the British monarchy is so irrelevant to everyone except for British immigrants

implying that while the monarchy is still relevant to those decended from the British Isles, they, as usual, don't matter and their opinion should not be brought into account when deciding. EVERYONE has the right to decide, even if they are the dreaded anglo-saxon australians.

 

[supercharged]

Because Brits, Scots, the Welsh and those from Ulster - as well as their decendants within Australia going back over 200 years - are also utterly irrelevent to Australia. It's not as if they make up over 80% of Australias entire population

However, whether or not the majority of these 'decendants' still identify with the 'motherland' and hence the monarchy is another question.

 

[loquasagacious]

I'm with erawami. The problem with the republic debate is that it is driven by the US, we don't look to Germany or other countries with a weak HoS, we look to the US with a strong HoS and want to emulate it.

There is no good reason for us to have a strong directly elected HoS but we want one because it looks good in movies. As people we also like the personal touch - for instance many people think that John Howard is directly elected....

I believe that any HoS should be a figurehead position much as the G-G, direct electing them would create tensions in governance and be expensive. I would propose the HoS be selected by an absolute majority in both houses from a pool of candidates selected by Cabinent from public nominations.

 

[loquasagacious]

Realistically speaking a republic will be hard to get off the ground until Elzabeth dies because of a sentimental attachment.

As far as the steps to get there - I would suggest a series of plebiscites (or one big one asking people to vote several times eg would you like model A or B, A or C, B or C and so on). The most popular model then being put to the people in a referendum. With the model hopefully being the one of minimal change I envisage and not the arse kicking president one....

 

[supercharged]

Realistically speaking a republic will be hard to get off the ground until Elzabeth dies because of a sentimental attachment.

How about Prince Charles as King of Australia? I would be so pissed off if I saw his face on the back of coins and notes.

 

[malkin86]

How exactly is the royal family relevant to Australian governance and people who live in Australia? Simple question.

They keep the glossies running, don't they?

I agree that there is a sentimental attachment to Queen Elizabeth - that perhaps isn't there for Prince Charles.

Queen Elizabeth would not interfere in Australian politics - in the 1975 dismissal, she wrote a letter saying that it would not be proper for her to intervene. I think that Prince Charles would follow her example, although he might want to speak out against issues that concern him (GM, etc.) from time to time.

The 'reality TV' show Australian Princess is actually quite interesting in relation to this - to see what the royalty's role is, (mostly just being someone to aspire to, as I see it) and to watch how the women adjust to this role.

 

[spell check]

i find it repulsive anywhere in the world that humans still allow people to be born into a position of power and superiority just because they are part of a certain family

i thought we knew that god didn't appoint kings anymore

 

[leetom]

Imagine if we currently had a Presidential system in place, and Presidential elections took place right about now. The Labor candidate would win, possibly a big win- which would be weird considering the results of the 2004 parliamentary elections.

 

[Capitalist Pig]

Imagine if we currently had a Presidential system in place, and Presidential elections took place right about now. The Labor candidate would win, possibly a big win- which would be weird considering the results of the 2004 parliamentary elections.

Howard still has like 20% higher preferred PM polling over Beazley.

 

[Generator]

Given that the Queen is currently in Australia, I thought that it would be a good idea to revive the most recent thread discussing the notion of an Australian republic.

Queen arrives in Canberra

 

[transcendent]

who's queen is in what now? but townie has always been in Australia.

 

[Generator]

Wow, that in-joke wasn't even close to being funny.

 

[transcendent]

thank you thank you :bows:

 

[withoutaface]

I've slightly changed my view on the subject, and become a constitutionalist (note: different from monarchist. I feel zero attachment to the queen or tradition) for the time being, because our constitution is a very strong document with just the right balances of power, and it would be folly to change it over something that has little bearing on anything anyway. Also, if a bill of rights were to be drafted today it would be filled with bullshit positive rights, and you can't have a positive right without taking away from someone else. That said, once the rest of my agenda is acheived (haha, like that's every going to happen) I'd like to see Australia become a republic.

 

[*Minka*]

Republic.

We are no longer a little colony of England. Time to stop acting like one.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Having a monarchy, I believe, creates a necessary 'final say' in the most extreme conditions.

Imagine having a game of rugby without a referee. America's referee (the Supreme Court) is so involved in politics that they mayaswell just be some of the players... As Gore Vidal said in the interview with Bob Carr, the Americans have nowhere to turn to externally. The judiciary, the executive, and the parliament are so intertwined that there really is no hope for change.

Having the governer general and the Queen ensures that when our parliament (or High Court) acts up, they can be put back into place. Yes the monarchy is so detatched that they don't know what's going on, but that's actually the point of a foreign, separate power.

I think we're so lucky with our politicians that we sometimes forget that the Queen plays a practical role. The fact that the Queen (and, supposedly, the Governer-General) are outside of the political sphere allows this to function.

If we became a republic, any President would eventually have something to do with the government before his appointment. The head of state should not come from government. Furthermore, it's impossible to establish a hereditary class of leaders -- how would we chose? Personally, I like the fact that the monarchy is hereditary, that way, there is no choice of leader - no campaigns, no corruption, no fuss. Cruel and unusual monarchs are a good price to pay for a detached leader.

Also, there's the fact that the election process of the President would involve the Parliament and the People too much. The Commonwealth monarchy works because they insist on staying out of government matters (some people think it's a bad thing, but they should wake up). The fact that our monarchy spends all day opening parks, making lame speeches, and learning different languages is a good thing. As soon as they get involved in how things are run, they essentially become part of the system that they should be above.

The Commonwealth monarchy is too valuable a tool to get rid of.