Printable View
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 ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooQuote:
Originally Posted by damienhazo
G'day,
A huge YES!
But not based on the last proposal put forward, what a joke - a President with a Prime Minister. :confused:
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
Sheddy, there was a referendum. Remember? It was called a General Election. And I seem to remember the result overwhelmingly endorsed Kerr's action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shedhand
Bob,Quote:
Originally Posted by echnidna
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.
Hey Peter, you forget the landing strip on the top of the Gas Factory (Parly house) for the flying pigs :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
Richard
Ok Peter, I am really quite personally offended by this, but would like to hear your reasoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
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.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groggy
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.
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. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Auld Bassoon
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
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
Just to be argumentative Sheddy, should your loyalty to the party override your loyalty to the public, which the party members belong to anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shedhand
I think the difference is that of 'ruling class' vs 'elected officials'. :rolleyes:
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
Why? The GG isn't despised by half the population.Quote:
If we have a political appointee, half the population will despise him/her.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Groggy
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