Should Australia be a Republic?

[mario118]

Hey people! My name is Oi Kum and I am from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. I am currently taking the South Australia Matirculation here in Malaysia. The tittle as above, Should Australia be a Republic?, is the topic I'm working on for my legal studies project. Australia has once been colonised by the British and this allow the Queen in Britain to be the official head of state of Australia. The fact here is that Australia is no longer rule by the Queen. That is why there are arguments on whether Australia suite the Constitutuinal Monarchy or a Republic. My argument for this topic is "Australia should be a Republic". I do hope that you all can give your opinion and reasons on whether Australia should be a Republic or not. about this topic. Your kind help is greatly appreciated. Thank you! :D

[bitingmidge]

One of the problems you are going to have to face with a poll like this is that like most Australians, Woodworkers don't care.

What impact will it have on me? None.

So why would I care?

Cheers,

P
:rolleyes:

[Daddles]

We have a system that works well and resolves disputes without the civil wars so beloved in many areas of the world - remember Whitlam's dismissal all those years ago?

We don't need the Queen and the British Monarchy is an embarrassment. I'd like to see us a republic.
However, the new system must be better than the existing or at least no worse. This is why most Australian's voted against Howard's phoney republic a few years back.

Should we have a popularly elected president?
If he's got no real power, he doesn't need to be elected.
If he's got real power, the very person likely to run for election is the very wrong sort of person we want in the job.

See, there are some good things about the current system, apart from the fact that it's a fascinating anaconism and gives foreigners something else to find confusing about Australia (surely an honourable objective in itself). Who would have thought Hayden would make a good Gov Gen, but he did. The current incumbent isn't too bad either.

But personally, I'd like to see Christopha in charge ... as long as his chief advisor is Zenwood and he doesn't have the power to over rule his chief advisor.

Richard

[Ashore]

Should we have a popularly elected president?
If he's got no real power, he doesn't need to be elected.
If he's got real power, the very person likely to run for election is the very wrong sort of person we want in the job.

And one selected by the polies themselves as was moted would be even worse


But personally, I'd like to see Christopha in charge

Shhh he thinks he is , don't tell him he's not or he'll get all stroppy again.:D

[ozwinner]

Well said Daddles.

Al http://www.ubeaut.biz/oldman.gif

[Grunt]

If we have to vote for the Pres then we'll end up with Eddie McGuire. :(

The GG is appointed by the Prime Minister. If the powers of the pres are the same as the GG, I say let the PM appoint the Pres

[bitingmidge]

If we have to vote for the Pres then we'll end up with Eddie McGuire. :(
Or Lisa McCune!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Cheers,

P

[Felder]

And then eventually, after many years of being the bridesmaid, John Woods will finally get the gong.

[Daddles]

And then eventually, after many years of being the bridesmaid, John Woods will finally get the gong.

But only if he wears a white gown :rolleyes:

Richard

[chrisb691]

I voted no. I can't see where the change will create any improvement over our existing system, and if it aint broke...don't fix it.

[Buzzer]

I don't care.:)

[Shedhand]

The sooner we dump the royal misfits the better. Trouble is no-one will ever agree on what sort of republic we should have.
If I had my drutthers I'd prefer a benign dictator. Like say, Gumby. Or Cartman. :D

[Shedhand]

I don't care.:) G'day Buzz. That whats what most americans say and look what they got. :rolleyes:

[Auld Bassoon]

Am I the only one smelling a rat (cat?) here? :D

[Groggy]

While the level of debate on this topic remains at this standard we deserve whatever we get.

How on earth can anyone even joke about entertainers going into politics. They're already sticking their uninformed noses into too many areas that need rational and informed discussion.

The basic premise of changing to a Republic or any other system should be based on agreement and knowledge of the alternatives. Until we have both of those in place any move to change our present setup should be resisted.

You may not like what we have but it does work, and has worked, for over a century - longer elsewhere.

[Auld Bassoon]

And one selected by the polies themselves as was moted would be even worse
:D

Couldn't agree more - that bunch of self-serving, cynical, hypocritical, short-sighted, dimwitted blasted (expletive deleted) pollies choosing a President doesn't bear thinking about.

There aren't many things that make my blood boil, but those *$%@!&^%! mongrels certainly do...

[ozwinner]

Am I the only one smelling a rat (cat?) here? :D

Sorry to dissapoint you Steve but the ISP for Mario118 is from Malaysia.
Must have been something you ate. :D

Al :)

[damienhazo]

It's pretty easy to say you don't care and don't fix it if it aint broke, but imagine the Queen made a decision today that affected your lives...

Sounds dumb but imagine she decided to whack a 100% tax on tools overnight... She can't currently do this of course, but let's just imagine it for the sake of an example that's close to home.
You'd be asking yourself, 'Why is this woman doing this? What right does this pommy have to dictate things in my life?'

Now the Queen's got 'er head screwed on but what about Charles? Are you sure he wouldn't throw his two bob in on every environmental issue in Oz? Is William going to understand Australia and always have it's best interests at heart? Even when they might conflict with those of the UK?

The relationship between Australia and the 'Colony Mother' is a very complex one which I don't pretend to begin to understand. It has repercussions that affect many things including finance, international relations and military operations. The latter of which should never be underestimated. Indonessia is a hop skip and a jump from Australia, has one of the largest land armies on the planet, and has a very large uneducated Muslim following. In the hands of fanatics, these mostly peaceful people could become quite a problem. England went to war to protect the Falklands, nothing more than a sparrow's crap a good long swim from the Antartic! You think these over-populated 3rd world countries at our doorstep won't be thinking about that when they don't have any more room?

I don't know how I feel about this issue because I don't have all the facts. I do however, know that answers such as 'don't care' should only pop up if, after hearing both sides, the decision is a mute point.

Is it?


Damien
Perhaps the poll should have a 3rd option: Don't have an opinion - as long as it doesn't affect my workshop.

[bitingmidge]

Actually I reckon if you want to know what the PEOPLE think, rather than a bunch of cynical old woodbeaters, you could do worse than look to the result of the last referendum.

Give people an open forum like this one of course they are going to be brave and want change, but give them a REAL referendum where change might actually happen, and it's a different story!

Cheers,

P
:D :D :D

[Grunt]

I think we should make Al our head of state. He'd make a pretty good Queen.


:D:D

[ozwinner]

Read this. (http://www.republic.org.au/6models/index.htm)

Al :o

[ozwinner]

I think we should make Al our head of state. He'd make a pretty good Queen.


:D:D

We would have to ditch the Roo and Emu in favour of the goat on the coat of arms.

It would be the goat tied to a tyre, and eating a blackberry bush.

Al :D

[Groggy]

Actually I reckon if you want to know what the PEOPLE think, rather than a bunch of cynical old woodbeaters, you could do worse than look to the result of the last referendum.

Give people an open forum like this one of course they are going to be brave and want change, but give them a REAL referendum where change might actually happen, and it's a different story!

Cheers,

P
:D :D :DWhile we meekly sit by and review what they offer us we are not going to get anywhere. As had been said before, those in power did the nation a great disservice by putzing around on the issue then putting forward an offering that was in dispute. Of course there was so much dissention it was never going to go anywhere, but it did point out some major failings in our systems.

First, our politicians cannot have a rational debate on the most important of issues and need to try and manoeuvre themselves for an advantage.

Next, the Australian population is largely apathetic on the issue and had decided to vote against change very early on in the process.

Australians, in general, do not want to be involved in the political system because of the negative perceptions that surround it. Unfortunately this is one of those self defeating prophesies and not necessarily based on facts. There are some very hard working and capable pollies who are intermixed with some very corrupt ones.

We, as a nation, are collectively stupid and uninformed enough to vote them back in time and again. Until we lift our own involvement and understanding to the most basic of levels we will continue to stumble along. I had once thought perhaps our political apathy may have descended from being convicts, but this has not been the case elsewhere in the world with similar heritage to our own.

[Grunt]

We would have to ditch the Roo and Emu in favour of the goat on the coat of arms.

It would be the goat tied to a tyre, and eating a blackberry bush.

Al :D


Good idea. We could still eat the animals on our coat of arms.

Mmmmm. Goat Vindaloo.

[Buzzer]

G'day Buzz. That whats what most americans say and look what they got. :rolleyes:
Hi Shedhand,

Good point, I do care now!!
Cheers.

[echnidna]

We would have to ditch the Roo and Emu in favour of the goat on the coat of arms.

It would be the goat tied to a tyre, and eating a blackberry bush.

Al :D

fooey to that,

teach the goat to eat roses and not blackberries,

blackberries are yum but roses are ..CENSORED... :D

[masoth]

Selamat malam.
One day Australia is sure to become a republic. It will, hopefully, not be the same as, say, the USA, or, Singapore.

Australians are mostly carefree and acceptive to new ideas so long at we are NOT FORCED to adopt them. Our migrants, over time, mellow and become believers that easy acceptance is better than intimidation;
We would never accept the benevolent but harsh government as in Singapore;
We would not accept the more religious government of Malaysia.
We would never accept the military influence of government that exists in many other countries; and
Australia is a country of states which formed a federation without war for separation or independence.Generally, Australians are respectable visitors in other countries. We are generous, sometime to our own disadvantage, and one to one greet other peoples courteously.
Out of the capital cities of Australian states and territories our people move , and live at a leisurely pace - somewhat like the gentle pace of life in Malaysian kampongs (if they still exist).

We don't, in a general way, identify with the Royal Family. Some like them, some don't and generally we politely direspect politicians.

When the Austraian constitution is changed and a democratic republic is formed our head of state is likely to be addressed as Kanga. I suspect that is dificult for you you appreciate - you would have to BE AUSTRALIAN to understand that it can be a form of respect offered to any one in such a high statiion.

I hope ypu do well in your studies,

soth.

[chrisb691]

Sounds dumb but imagine she decided to whack a 100% tax on tools overnight... She can't currently do this of course, but let's just imagine it for the sake of an example that's close to home.


Why imagine something that is constitutionally impossible?

[Shedhand]

Hi Shedhand,

Good point, I do care now!!
Cheers.G'day mate. Good on ya. I don't care whether youf fer or agin so long as you care enough to make an informed choice and not just follow the sheep.
Cheers

[Shedhand]

Couldn't agree more - that bunch of self-serving, cynical, hypocritical, short-sighted, dimwitted blasted (expletive deleted) pollies choosing a President doesn't bear thinking about.

There aren't many things that make my blood boil, but those *$%@!&^%! mongrels certainly do...G'day Auld matey. I have to agree that many of the things you say are valid. Its just as well the bugger's DON'T run the country. Thank your god for the smart (very much smarter) public servants. ;)
Cheers (and maintain the rage)

[johnc]

At some point we will become a republic, the last one only failed to get up because the P.M. managed to manipulate the choices to lead us to reject the referendum. There is a lot to be said for the current system, but do not forget our current head of state is appointed by the Prime Minister even though he cannot be easily sacked by the P.M.

The head of state cannot put forward legislation so the idea of the Queen imposing a 100% tax on tools is an impossibility. Our system is straight forward, legislation can be put forward by either the Senate or the Lower House, it must pass a vote in both houses before it is presented to the Governor General. Legislation becomes law once it is signed by the G.G. at which point it receives Royal Assent.

We appoint our own G.G. but the Queen gives the final nod and has never refused to do so. We frame our own laws and act independantly of the English sysem on which we are based. Although we refer back to English common law that is based on historical origins and that basis goes back before Federation, the Yanks also refer to the same origins and I guess do not pick up anything after they booted English troops out of their own country.

We have a system that has constantly evolved since Federation, we have done it peacefully and each change has gradually untied the apron strings of our origins. The country is almost a republic the final step is a minor one and one which I believe is overdue. I favour appointment of the head of state by a joint sitting of parliament, you have only got to look at the mess some countries have ended up with an elected head to realise no one way is a panacea. Odly enough the same self serving purile wankers that fill the halls of parliament are probably capable of a better outcome than the general public because at least they have a chance of seeing something behind an individuals public mask. If you think about it what does that say about the capacity of the rest of us.

Our system of separating the powers of state is a good one, keeping the Judiciary, Religion, Politics, and Military in their separate boxes minimises the risk of the civilian unrest by keeping everyone honest(ish) and leaving no one with the power to unleash mayhem unchecked. In this country we should be grateful for the stability our political masters have managed despite their inherent weaknesses.

John.

[Shedhand]

At some point we will become a republic, the last one only failed to get up because the P.M. managed to manipulate the choices to lead us to reject the referendum. There is a lot to be said for the current system, but do not forget our current head of state is appointed by the Prime Minister even though he cannot be easily sacked by the P.M.

The head of state cannot put forward legislation so the idea of the Queen imposing a 100% tax on tools is an impossibility. Our system is straight forward, legislation can be put forward by either the Senate or the Lower House, it must pass a vote in both houses before it is presented to the Governor General. Legislation becomes law once it is signed by the G.G. at which point it receives Royal Assent.

We appoint our own G.G. but the Queen gives the final nod and has never refused to do so. We frame our own laws and act independantly of the English sysem on which we are based. Although we refer back to English common law that is based on historical origins and that basis goes back before Federation, the Yanks also refer to the same origins and I guess do not pick up anything after they booted English troops out of their own country.

We have a system that has constantly evolved since Federation, we have done it peacefully and each change has gradually untied the apron strings of our origins. The country is almost a republic the final step is a minor one and one which I believe is overdue. I favour appointment of the head of state by a joint sitting of parliament, you have only got to look at the mess some countries have ended up with an elected head to realise no one way is a panacea. Odly enough the same self serving purile wankers that fill the halls of parliament are probably capable of a better outcome than the general public because at least they have a chance of seeing something behind an individuals public mask. If you think about it what does that say about the capacity of the rest of us.

Our system of separating the powers of state is a good one, keeping the Judiciary, Religion, Politics, and Military in their separate boxes minimises the risk of the civilian unrest by keeping everyone honest(ish) and leaving no one with the power to unleash mayhem unchecked. In this country we should be grateful for the stability our political masters have managed despite their inherent weaknesses.

John.Except that the lines separating the influence of the religous right and the military over executive government are becoming increasingly blurred and beginning to emulate the US system. Witness the appointment of militarist god-botherer Major-General Michael Jeffery (not to discount or denigrate his military service) by equally arch-Conservative John Winston Howard.
Cheers

[johnc]

Except that the lines separating the influence of the religous right and the military over executive government are becoming increasingly blurred and beginning to emulate the US system. Witness the appointment of militarist god-botherer Major-General Michael Jeffery (not to discount or denigrate his military service) by equally arch-Conservative John Winston Howard.
Cheers

Shedy,

You could have also tossed in the same JWH appointing an Anglican Bishop as a GG against prudent advice. Poor old Hollingsworth discovered that church and state do not mix and was forced to resign, more over his mishandling of abuse scandels within his own church. There are disturbing signs that our current Government is making to many politically expedient appointments, against the long term national interest. Yes I would agree there is some blurring and we should all be concerned about the long term consequences of that.

John

[Shedhand]

Shedy,

You could have also tossed in the same JWH appointing an Anglican Bishop as a GG against prudent advice. Poor old Hollingsworth discovered that church and state do not mix and was forced to resign, more over his mishandling of abuse scandels within his own church. There are disturbing signs that our current Government is making to many politically expedient appointments, against the long term national interest. Yes I would agree there is some blurring and we should all be concerned about the long term consequences of that.

JohnIf there'd been a referendum when John Kerr was staggering around the mansion we would be a republic by now. :rolleyes:

[Bodgy]

I think the system works well, as it is

Currently its not the person, but the institution. Lizzie has been a wonderful, hard working and emminently sensible Queen, presiding over enormous changes in both Britain and the world. Chukka, whilst only 10 cents on the dollar, would be governed by precedent and law, so not much would change in reality. What will change will be the loss of respect for the monarchy, which will probably lead to its effective demise, both here and in the UK. Lizzie would know this and may empt to go straight to Billy.

The big plus for us remaining a monarchy is that Lizzie could not give a fig about Oz scum politicians, probably has about as much respect as we do. Consequently any decision she makes is completely impartial.

Contrast this with any likely candidate for President of an Oz republic. If he's chosen by the PM, he will just be an expensive cipher. If he is chosen by popular vote, he or she will inevitably be some sort of wanker. Look around at who might win currently, Alan Jones for God's sake???

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

All the arguments for a republic seem to be emotionally based, I've yet to see anything compelling based on a factual thesis as to how we'd be better off.

[silentC]

Doesn't seem to make much difference either way to me. The same people will still run the country. It wouldn't even stop them coming here for free holidays because we shell out for any visiting royal, whether they are one of ours or not.

[Sturdee]

Why imagine something that is constitutionally impossible?

Are you sure?

Under the constitution she can instruct her GG not to approve legislation, passed by the parliament, and reserve it for her to personally approve the bill when she is here next. And then not come for many years.

Further under her reserve powers she can sack the Prime Minister of the day or any other minister, appoint others to their position, even those that are not elected to parliament and prorogue parliament and not call another election untill such time as she or her appointed ministers need money.

Further she can take over command of our armed forces.

And you don't think there is a need for change.:confused:


Peter.

[Wongo]

When I become the Prime minister of Australia I will get a new cabinet.


:D


Oh I forgot to vote.:D

[Grunt]

When I become the Prime minister of Australia I will get a new cabinet.


:D


Oh I forgot to vote.:D

Will you make that Cabinet out of blackwood or radiata pine?

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

Anything'd be better than the current MDF one. All wet'n'soggy... [shudder]

[Auld Bassoon]

Its just as well the bugger's DON'T run the country. Thank your god for the smart (very much smarter) public servants. ;)
Cheers (and maintain the rage)

G'day Sheddy!

Agreed. In another life I worked with a specialised consultancy firm that performed a lot of assignments with various state and federal agencies / departments. There were certainly a lot of very bright and capable people in the higher echelons of those bodies (somewhat reminsicent, however, of "Yes, Minister).

One key thing that I did stun me, on quite a few occassions, was the staggering number of individual agendas being pursued...

Whilst on this, the one organisation that did NOT impress was the ADF HQ staff in Canberra. The regular military types were fine, but the bureaucrats were like something out of Tolstoy...

[ozwinner]

The regular military types were fine, but the bureaucrats were like something out of Tolstoy...

Thank god for the Australian military type.. http://www.ubeaut.biz/woohoo.gif

Al :)

[Auld Bassoon]

I can't (for fairly obvious reasons) relate in detail a conversation that I was privy to, but a certain Army Colonel was laying into a certain UWOS (Utter Waste of Space) bueaucrat, belabouring the blister about some supposed "decision" he had made, when said article of dung replied (I kid you not) with "I foreshadow that I will be summoning a panel to review these alleged allegations"...

The Colonel just smiled and noted that "As you are a civilian contractor, you have no authority to summon any panel of any sort - you have to get my permission, which will NOT be forthcoming. In any case, this is a moot point, as you are now FIRED" - or words to that general effect.

It was killing me to keep a straight face :D

[echnidna]

Are you sure?

Under the constitution she can instruct her GG not to approve legislation, passed by the parliament, and reserve it for her to personally approve the bill when she is here next. And then not come for many years.

Further under her reserve powers she can sack the Prime Minister of the day or any other minister, appoint others to their position, even those that are not elected to parliament and prorogue parliament and not call another election untill such time as she or her appointed ministers need money.

Further she can take over command of our armed forces.

And you don't think there is a need for change.:confused:


Peter.


But what would you have instead?

A President and a Prime Minister who both think they are THE BOSS?
(Just Like East Timor has)

[damienhazo]

I explained the reason for the 100% tool price thingy. The first few replies to this thread reflected an apathy that is pretty representative of the general Australian public. I wanted to make the point that people are usually only apathetic about issues that don't concern them...


Children react to commands
Adults on the other hand, react to emotion.
I wanted to provoke an emotional response by making the connection between decision-making and the impact such decisions can have on our lives.

Never underestimate how far the tenticles of power can reach...

[Daddles]

Never underestimate how far the tenticles of power can reach...

Yep, I've got one scatching an itch on my back right now. Ooo it's nice. Oooooo ... lower, lower ... ooooooooooo aaaaaahhhhhhhhh ... right there ... no, not the whip, the whip, oh yes, the whip, give me the whip aaarrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhh oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[Waldo]

G'day,

A huge YES!

But not based on the last proposal put forward, what a joke - a President with a Prime Minister. :confused:

[Studley 2436]

We are basically a republic allready. For that reason change to a republic won't happen quickly but that is OK because the system we have works well as it stands.

Others have said the Queen is the head of state but she in fact has less power than the GG. The GG on the other hand is the head of the public service the head of the military etc and could order a coup anytime he felt like it. Whether the military would do it is another thing but the GG could order it.

When we say a President it was shown clearly that the electorate wants to elect it's own President. We haven't discussed what role or power the president would have. Would it be like the American President or a ceremonial role like the Irish President? No one has talked about that. Off in Laté Land they want a republic but out in the McMansions they aren't going to let Laté Land run off with the country. Basically they are not going to have a republic thrust on them to suit Laté Land. People might want a republic but it is going to be their republic.

Suppose the Pres was elected and had the power to dismiss the Government but should he do so could only do it by means of calling a General Election. At said election the Pres would have to stand as well then the electorate would decide who was right and wrong. This would mean the Pres wouldn't sack the Government without having very good reason. The same goes for approval of law. The Pres has to sign it into law but can only refuse if he believes the law to be illegal and can then send it to the High Court for advice before sending it back to Parliament for redress.

I think custom should be that the Pres just signs it into law except in the most extreme circumstance.

Studley

[Eddie Jones]

If there'd been a referendum when John Kerr was staggering around the mansion we would be a republic by now. :rolleyes:

Sheddy, there was a referendum. Remember? It was called a General Election. And I seem to remember the result overwhelmingly endorsed Kerr's action.

[Sturdee]

But what would you have instead?

A President and a Prime Minister who both think they are THE BOSS?
(Just Like East Timor has)

Bob,

I would like to see a President elected by both houses of parliament in a joint sitting with an 80 % majority vote. This majority so that only an eminent Australian can be elected. Current or former officers of the armed forces, religious leaders or politicians to be ineligible.

The powers of the president to be codified instead of having unwritten reserve powers. These to be limited to the way he/she handles disputes and deadlocks within the parliament by referring such issues back to the peole by way of referendum.

Fixed terms of parliament with fixed election dates. Minimum numbers of sitting days to be drastically extended forcing parliament to actually debate issue and really scrutinize proposed laws. Requirement on parliament to take into account impact statements of those groups drastically affected by proposed laws.

Ministers to be required to actually answer questions put to them by parliament. Removal of automatic parliamentary privilige and replace same with a qualified privilege.

And finally make lying in parliament and the making of false or misleading election promises a criminal offence with a mandatory minimum jail sentence.

Those would be my suggestions.


Peter.

[Daddles]

Those would be my suggestions.
Peter.

Hey Peter, you forget the landing strip on the top of the Gas Factory (Parly house) for the flying pigs :D

Richard

[Groggy]

"Current or former officers of the armed forces, religious leaders or politicians to be ineligible."Ok Peter, I am really quite personally offended by this, but would like to hear your reasoning.

My reason for taking offence is that you consider me or others unfit to serve as President because of my employment; I personally see my previous employment as having provided valuable insights which would bring some qualities to the Government process that are sorely needed.

As an aside Peter, you seem to want people who will ensure that work is done in a timely fashion. I will point out that Australian military officers deployed over 2000 people to Timor recently on a few days notice. There was a lot more than one government around the globe that took note of the significance that feat.

[Bodgy]

Groggs

I discount you having been a Vicar and you seem too straight to have been a political slime, so I guess u woz in the Forces.

I was in the Cadets, am I banned too?

[Sturdee]

Ok Peter, I am really quite personally offended by this, but would like to hear your reasoning.

My reason for taking offence is that you consider me or others unfit to serve as President because of my employment; I personally see my previous employment as having provided valuable insights which would bring some qualities to the Government process that are sorely needed.

As an aside Peter, you seem to want people who will ensure that work is done in a timely fashion. I will point out that Australian military officers deployed over 2000 people to Timor recently on a few days notice. There was a lot more than one government around the globe that took note of the significance that feat.


Greg,

Firstly my sincere apologies to you if I have offended you or any other serving military officers. Personally I have the greatest respect for them in the way they are currently handling the tasks given to them.

Whilst I do not agree with us being in Afghanistan or Iraq the soldiers themselves are doing their task well. My objection is with little Johnie sending troops to war at the US instructions.

My objection to religious leaders is that there should be a clear separation between church and state and in our multicultural nation there are too many conflicting religions to accept one over the other. Better to have none and the ones we have had haven't impressed me.

My objection to politicians is that otherwise it will become jobs for the boys and the PM of the day using this to remove a political headache by promoting someone to this high office.

The reasons for military officers is partly the above whereby the PM could promote a senior officer as reward for toeing the PM's line ( say the children overboard incident ) or from the overseas experience where the military have grabbed power on a number of occasions.eg. South and Central America, North Africa, Asia and Pacific islands. There is no reason to assume that in the future we would be immune from such political coups.

If the President hasn't got close and intimate links with the military than this becomes much more difficult. Whilst I agree that there may be some difficulty with current officers being disqualified, if this was adopted then you would be aware of these restrictions when joining. Same as every seppo knows that unless you are born in the USA although a citizen you can not become President.

Maybe the restriction should be on the ranks of general or equivalent.

Peter.

[Shedhand]

G'day Sheddy!

Agreed. In another life I worked with a specialised consultancy firm that performed a lot of assignments with various state and federal agencies / departments. There were certainly a lot of very bright and capable people in the higher echelons of those bodies (somewhat reminsicent, however, of "Yes, Minister).

One key thing that I did stun me, on quite a few occassions, was the staggering number of individual agendas being pursued...

Whilst on this, the one organisation that did NOT impress was the ADF HQ staff in Canberra. The regular military types were fine, but the bureaucrats were like something out of Tolstoy...

Love it (and the vernacular) mate. I tell you this cobber if I wasn't so loyal to my Party (member of 36 years standing) I could creat real havoc among the buggers who THINK they run the place. Every so often I get a call from some media grub wanting me to spill my guts. Eventually they'll forget my name and move onto the next bitter and twisted individual. Sometimes though, in my moments of black meloncholy I write a missive which never gets sent. :o
I unload here on occassion. That serves as my release. The difference between me and the tragic Mark Latham is that I can control my bitter, twistedness. ;)
Cheers

[Groggy]

Peter,

I read your post and in particular the preceding sentence to the one I quoted, which read "I would like to see a President elected by both houses of parliament in a joint sitting with an 80 % majority vote. This majority so that only an eminent Australian can be elected."

I understood this to be a good approach in that an individual (PM perhaps) could not unduly influence the selection of a President. However, a few facts about promotions:

Military promotions do not become 'political' until the 'Star' rank is reached (Generals), even then it is mostly the Defence Minister or his Department. So the possibility for "tainting" an individual is really only in the very upper echelons of one, two or three star officers.

Next, by excluding current and previous serving officers, you remove many tens of thousands of gifted and highly trained individuals who may have served anywhere from one to 40 years. This would cause more than a little dissent as, what would you say to the lady would held a commission for one year 25 years ago - not welcome? But someone who had trialled drugs, spiked trees, assaulted police (but escaped without a record - wonder who I'm talking about) was a suitable candidate?

The same would apply to any walk of life, we should not discriminate on any basis - and could not by law - any law abiding citizen (born here) would be suitable - especially if elected by both Houses in a joint sitting with an 80% majority as you stated.

I understand your concerns but I think the risk of influence is removed by your other requirements.

Oops, nearly forgot - you did not exclude Public Servants, who potentially would be the easiest for a pollie to gain influence over as they work in their environment much more than military or church.

Now, if I had been a retired Military Padre I really would have let fly :D .

cheers,

Greg

[Groggy]

Love it (and the vernacular) mate. I tell you this cobber if I wasn't so loyal to my Party (member of 36 years standing) I could creat real havoc among the buggers who THINK they run the place. Just to be argumentative Sheddy, should your loyalty to the party override your loyalty to the public, which the party members belong to anyway?

I think the difference is that of 'ruling class' vs 'elected officials'. :rolleyes:

[graemet]

A few thoughts that have niggled in the back of my brain while reading the posts to this thread.
If we have a President with executive power, we will have all those who crave power seeking election/appointment with the attendant electioneering, lies, corruption so endemic in the "Home of the Brave".
If we have a Figurehead President elected popularly, we will get a soapy star or a sportsperson with no brains.
If we have a political appointee, half the population will despise him/her.
The present British monarchy, while it offends the sensibilities of most Australians, doesn't cost us much at all, keeps its nose out of our business, and removes the need for us to worry about another tier of government. It might not be logical or effective but it works and it's cheap.
Cheers
Graeme

[Grunt]

If we have a political appointee, half the population will despise him/her.

Why? The GG isn't despised by half the population.
I think the Queen is ok, but the rest of the Royals are complete frick wits. I shudder when I think of Chuck as our Head of State.

[Shedhand]

Just to be argumentative Sheddy, should your loyalty to the party override your loyalty to the public, which the party members belong to anyway?

I think the difference is that of 'ruling class' vs 'elected officials'. :rolleyes:Not to be argumentative Groggy, loyalty is an intensely personal thing. If I spilled my guys about some of my former colleagues and in doing so I caused damage to the party at large I couldn't live with myself.
It's a tribal thing. I guess submariners, underground miners, cops and robbers are about the only other tribes which engender strong loyalties through the embrace of an ideology or common interest.
Cheers

[Shedhand]

Why? The GG isn't despised by half the population.
I think the Queen is ok, but the rest of the Royals are complete frick wits. I shudder when I think of Chuck as our Head of State.Chuck?? Mate do you mean Plugger? (think about it) :D :D

[echnidna]

Not to be argumentative Groggy, loyalty is an intensely personal thing. If I spilled my guys about some of my former colleagues and in doing so I caused damage to the party at large I couldn't live with myself.
It's a tribal thing. I guess submariners, underground miners, cops and robbers are about the only other tribes which engender strong loyalties through the embrace of an ideology or common interest.
Cheers

Gunna giveya a greeny fer that but I haven't spread enough around
(whatever that means)

[Waldo]

and removes the need for us to worry about another tier of government. Graeme
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

G'day,

Why does having a President, mean a need for another tier of governemnt? Why with Australia becoming a republic mean it needs to be another system of government so different from that that we have now?

:confused:

[Harry72]

Hyjack...

How do I sharpen my 4 1/2 stanley blade its blunt!

[Wongo]

Mario118, hows your legal studies project going?:D

[Waldo]

Hyjack...

How do I sharpen my 4 1/2 stanley blade its blunt!

G'day Harry72,

With my Veritas MkII Honing Guide that I just got yesterday. Come over sometime and you can borrow it. :D

[Groggy]

Not to be argumentative Groggy, loyalty is an intensely personal thing. If I spilled my guys about some of my former colleagues and in doing so I caused damage to the party at large I couldn't live with myself.
It's a tribal thing. I guess submariners, underground miners, cops and robbers are about the only other tribes which engender strong loyalties through the embrace of an ideology or common interest.
CheersWell I understand loyalty very well, I also understand the priority of loyalty. Family, country, etc all engender loyalty, but if (as you appear to be saying) you value your party above your country then I'd be more than a little uncomfortable with our political process.

If there is a conflict between the good of the Party and the good of the country, it should be a no-brainer decision - how could it be otherwise?

I'm guessing you would put country over Party, but would suffer emotionally because of it. (You just haven't said so.)

[Studley 2436]

Electing a President with non exective powers poses no problem to me. I suspect if you say anyone can't be elected the it will be over thrown in the High Court. They will say that each citizen is equal and toss it out.

Likewise notice the trouble when the GG (Kerr) wasn't a politician! Whoever is chosen or elected you will get a politician of some description. I for one would much rather elect a President. One chosen out of Parliament wouldn't suit me one bit especially not this idea of a joint sitting.

Studley

[Waldo]

G'day Studley 2436,

Had a look at your site. The shots, 'Silhouetted Couple' and 'Beach seen from the Bluff' are very nicely composed. And the simplicity of a black & white shot with good composition always works. I looked through the other galleries, but these two stood out for me.

[Studley 2436]

Many Thanks Waldo
Have to update the site actually with some more recent stuff and do some other things as well. I'll keep you posted

Studley

[Sturdee]

Electing a President with non exective powers poses no problem to me. I suspect if you say anyone can't be elected the it will be over thrown in the High Court. They will say that each citizen is equal and toss it out.
Studley

The High Court interprets the constitution in case of a dispute being refered to it, it doesn't make the constitution. If disqualifications to an office is included in the constitution the High Court will willingly accept it.

Also nowhere in our constitution is the notion that each citizen is equal, in fact there are a number of instances where it is clear that they are/were not.

Specifically for decades aboriginals or Torres straight islanders were not considered citizens and were excluded on the basis of race. It took a referendum to change that inequality, one of the few referendums that got carried. Also there are disqualifications on being eligible as a voter or member of parliament.


Peter.

[Studley 2436]

Yeah allright Sturdee got me there on the fine print slap me in the face with an old stinky fish.

Studley

[Shedhand]

Gunna giveya a greeny fer that but I haven't spread enough around
(whatever that means)Thanks cobber. It's the thought that counts.
I never have trouble giving greenies. Maybe I'm not giving out enough!! :confused:
Cheers

[Shedhand]

Well I understand loyalty very well, I also understand the priority of loyalty. Family, country, etc all engender loyalty, but if (as you appear to be saying) you value your party above your country then I'd be more than a little uncomfortable with our political process.

If there is a conflict between the good of the Party and the good of the country, it should be a no-brainer decision - how could it be otherwise?

I'm guessing you would put country over Party, but would suffer emotionally because of it. (You just haven't said so.)

G'day Groggy
You're right mate. I would put country before party (and family for that matter) if the crunch came.

Whether I write a book or spill my guts to some gutter dwelling media grub about my former colleagues, what I might impart would have no bearing on ordinary punters (don't you just hate it when pollies refer to us as "ordinary voters" - I'm gonna ask one day, "What about extraordinary voters?").
All I would do is put at risk the reputation of a great and historically significant organisation which will be around long after the rorters, drunks and womanisers are forgotten.
Cheers

[echnidna]

long after the rorters, drunks and womanisers are forgotten.
Cheers

Dunno about that, its been going on like that ever since the very first parliament in UK. One lot of grubs gets replaced by another lot.
But better that than a totalitarian society

[Groggy]

All I would do is put at risk the reputation of a great and historically significant organisation which will be around long after the rorters, drunks and womanisers are forgotten.Oh? You mean the H.R. Nicholls Society? ;):D

Sorry 'bout that Sheddy, sometimes I can't help meself!

[zenwood]

. . . But personally, I'd like to see Christopha in charge ... as long as his chief advisor is Zenwood and he doesn't have the power to over rule his chief advisor.
Doesn't that make zenwood in charge? Cool! That's me. I promise I'll only do good things, really I wil.

Mwahahahahaaaaaaa!

[mario118]

Mario118, hows your legal studies project going?:D

hey Wongo, thanks for asking...haha...my legal studies project is doing great...with all the comments and opinions you all posted here has really helped me a lot in my progression of the project!!!! Thank you people!!!! Do continue to post more comments about the topic. Appreciate it very much!!!! Your help is greatly appreciated...:) .

[Studley 2436]

Doesn't that make zenwood in charge? Cool! That's me. I promise I'll only do good things, really I wil.

Mwahahahahaaaaaaa!
NO no Zenwood will make us junk our buzzers and thicknessers and we will be only allowed to get Lee Neilson planes

Studley

[Pat]

NO no Zenwood will make us junk our buzzers and thicknessers and we will be only allowed to get Lee Neilson planes


And what's wrong with Dark methods? Hee Hee :D

On the subject of the thread, why change? Most pollies are only in it for themselves and why add another layer of 'em?

(Apologies to Sheddie, who is redeeming himself by being on this BB)

[Studley 2436]

I think that is the arguement for not changing. It won't make any real difference to anything although I think one day it will happen.

[Christopha]

I reckun we should do away with the Queen, her fambly an all of her ancesters an every refrense to em. There goes Victoria, p'raps we could call it North Tassie. Queensland could be just called Canetoadia, Adelaide? what about Nowhere else?The Princes highway could be called "the Main Road" Etc etc..... what about a few more sujjestions?

[silentC]

Nah, Queensland can stay. We'll just have to make all the folk from Darlinghurst move there.