Should Australia be a Republic?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shedhand

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnc

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

---

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrisb691

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.

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


:D


Oh I forgot to vote.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wongo

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shedhand

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auld Bassoon

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

---

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

Al :)

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

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)

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...