Is it time for Australia to become a Republic?

[Jerry_Atrick]

Back in 1999, which is 24 years ago, now, I was about 3 years in the UK, studying law when the referendum was announced. I was still eligible to vote, and, ironically, during a constutional law lesson, I sauntered off to the Strand to cast my vore in the referendum for a republic. The vote I cast was based on a cost-benefit assessment and weighing up the arguments for a republic at the time. I chose to vote no because the arguments didn't stack up; we had (and still have) a stable government, I couldn't see how we would feel any better after the initial euphoria died down and the world doesn't even know we are a constitutional monarchy where the symbolic head of state lives in another country.

 

In other words, I saw no practical upside, I saw a cost that could be better spent of meaningful things (OK, that is wishful thinking), and I saw the intorduction of political risk.

 

But, after being here for the best part of 25 years, and seeing the new monarchy, of which even here, a fringe repulican movement is gathering attention, I have to wonder is it time for Australia to move on from a head of state that is further away than the Queen was from Australia?

 

What is driving me questioning is now a good tim e to have a republic? Well, to be honest, there hasn't been much in the way of change to our political situation that a republic would necessarily fix; And I still reject the arguments put forward by the republicans. What I have learned since I have been here is that the monarch and royal family aren't quite the benevolent people they make out to be. I am not saying in any way they are evil;  but do they represent the values Australia wish to be? Lambeth Palace has suggested that people publicly and privately swear an oath of allegience to the King.

 

It shows, if nothing else, that it really is outdated. As one journo noted (in a Fairfax paper), in a modern democracy, it is indeed the leaders that should be swearing an oath of allegiance to the people that leaders should have to swear to. However, this anachranism, for some reason, has really got up my goat. Even my partner, who is quite patriotic and leans more conservative, scoffed at the idea. And, while I don't begrudge them their wealth for the carp they have to put up with, is it not somewhat disproportionate to what they do? The Royals have requested, and the government have agreed to pay for the coronation. This is actually quite different to days gone by, where the Royals paid for it themselves; while the King now enjoys a considerable tax-free income (although, they now have to pay tax on portions of that income).

 

I like Charles - I have liked him when the rest of the world didn't really think him much more than an eccentric royal meddling in affairs that didn't concern him. They scoffed at his public concerns of climate, environment, and food quality (aka organics). He has a company, Duchy Organics, only available in Waitrose (one of the up market supermarket chains). I understand the profits are donated to charities. As a Royal, I would prefer him to, say Andrew. But, I think the Royals have been surrounded in controversy and are now a bit of a tainted brand, such to the point that do we want them as head of the Australian state now?

 

But, if we were to ditch the monrachy and become a republic, what would be the best way to do it? For me, I would want as little risk to political stability and least cost as possible. Despite the GG being the monarch's representative, it is entirely a symbolic and ceremonial function - with one notable exception. For me, a GG appointed the way it is done today works; but with one slight change. The function of our modern democracy has its problems, but largely works. But, on the odd occasion it doesn't, the GG has to be able to exercise the one additional power the GG practically has, which is the dismissal of the government (or more accurately, dissolution of parliament and appointment of a caretaker government). This is a very strong power and has to be limited to specific circumstances and this is where the tightening has to be in the constitution; it should compell the GG to dissolve parliament and appoint a caretaker government when those situations arise (e.g. the ddouble dissolution). In addition, the constitution should be amended that when a caretaker government is appoointed under such a condition, then there should be now power of that caretaker government to intorduce new policy legislation or push through legislation or other policy that caused the GG to be compelled to dismiss the government; i.e. they can only really sign the cheques and perform the admin of government until a a new government can be formed by a general election.

 

When the government dissolves parliament for an election, the convention is much the same as the above - no new policy/legislation that wasn't already there. However, I believe, SFM has violated it; but even if he hasn't, it would make sense to enshrine it in the constitution to ensure it is never violated if the government needs to be dismissed.

 

This would replicate what we have today, but shift it to a republic; involves the least political risk (after all, look at the US presidential style, and France, under a similar style of separatrely elected president is also not the most stable form of government).

 

 

[facthunter]

Inheriting POWER is not acceptable.  as a form of government. Pommes do the Pomp and ceremony far better than the others though and it brings in the Tourists but we can't afford it. DON'T need it and the Australia of today is not very British. and who wants another nations flag in the corner of their OWN  FLAG, After all  the Brits only thought it had value as a PENAL COLONY. My lot came here by choice in 1862.   Nev

[old man emu]

2 minutes ago, facthunter said:

the Brits only thought it had value as a PENAL COLONY

Geez I wish people would stop accepting that lie and actually research the reasons the British had for establishing a colony here in the Southwest Pacific.  It was all to do with blocking French expansion; to obtain land to grow the hemp needed for the miles and miles of rope required by sailing ships of the British Navy and Mercantile Marine and exploit the tall timber for masts and hulls of those ships. In order to do that, the British had to get people here, and after several prior examples of failed colonies in Africa and the Americas, they decided to establish the new colony with the Expendables - prisoners who they could compel to got to the ends of the Earth.

 

Now, back to topic. Having lived my life under one Head of State, who put her all into carrying out the very many duties that position entailed, I was not prepared to call for a republic while she lived. Call it a show of respect for her. I always said, "No republich while Elizabeth is Queen." No she has passed and I am prepared to stand up for a republic. However, the immoral behaviour of our politicians that has been exposed makes me sceptical of most methods for selecting a Head of State that have been proposed. Perhaps we should examine the procedure currently employed to select a GG to see if it can still do as well as it has done since 1978. What I do oppose is anything like the US system which we have come to abhor because of so many unsavoury practices and politicisation. Like the Monarchs we have had, the Head of State must be above petty politics. 

[rgmwa]

I thought the Queen did a good job but now that she’s gone this would be a good time for Australia to move on with some form of republic that requires minimal change to the system of government that we have now. 

[nomadpete]

Fine!

 

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

Inheriting POWER is not acceptable. 

2 hours ago, old man emu said:

I do oppose is anything like the US system which we have come to abhor

 

That only leaves us one option.....

 

Vote one for A.I.

 

Job done!

3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

It involves the least political risk

 

[Old Koreelah]

What are we most offended by?

Having someone else’s flag in the corner of ours. (The US state of Hawaii is still happy to have a Union Flag like ours does).

Having a foreign Head of State?

 

Most Australian’s will put up with a fair amount of crap before we get riled enough to toss out the baby with the bath water.

Although I once supported the push for a republic, the recent degeneration of the Republic of America has caused me to value the stability of our monarchy.

In centuries to come, what will our history books say was the pivotal moment that got our She’ll Be Right attitude off its backside?

Being asked to swear an oath of allegiance, etc. Perhaps Charlie should purge his advisors.

[nomadpete]

Perhaps our "she'll be right mate" apathy is actually the root of our national stability.

That is, we lack enough rabid extreme patriots to ever really revolt/riot.

(Note the word 'patriot' itself ends with 'riot').

 

The flag issue has been flown unsuccessfully before so I can't see that bothering the majority.

 

And I am pretty certain the recent crazy US experience will put a lot of Aussie voters right off the idea of presidential elections. We are pretty disenchanted by our present election theatre as it is. The punters mostly watch it as though an election is a horse race, then after a week of moaning about the results, go back to average apathy

 

For sure, this new 'swearing alligience to the king' until death-us-do-part, puts me right off.

 

And like OME expressed, I was comfortable having a remote monarch, that was only whilst Lizzie was with us. (No offense intended, Charlie old mate)

 

So far, I find Jerry's argument is sounding like the least unpalatable option.

 

But if it came to the crunch, I'm sure I would have voters remorse if we went down the republic path.

[old man emu]

What seems to be lost in this Monarchy/Republic debate is the fact that The monarch of Great Britain and the monarch of Australia are two different positions. It simply happens that the same person happens to be monarch of both. For centuries now, the monarch of Great Britain has basically been a figurehead with mainly only ceremonial duties. We continue the practice of receiving our laws "by Royal consent", but the last monarch who rejected a law created by parliament got the ultimate in "short back and sides".

 

We don't seem to recognise the British way of revolution, and political and cultural revolution there has been since the 1920s when the comings and goings of the Prince of Wales, later Edward VIII, were fodder for the print and newly popular newsreels and even music hall ditties. low and steady, and if there is to be panic, let it be organised.

 

 

 

His abdication was mainly brought about by pressure from his subjects. Since then the British Monarchy has become more celebrity than Untouchable. Look at the difference between the current coverage of Prince Harry's family relationship and that of Queen Victoria's son, Prince Leopold, the haemophilia sufferer, and probable epileptic. Queen Elizabeth II was a rock in the storm of change. For that we respected her. We've mocked Charles since his teenage years. Now we are looking to mock him, and the Monarchy he stands for by severing ties. But are we cutting the limb from the wrong side?

[nomadpete]

It is a debate where all possible outcomes have some very unpleasant possibilities.

And even approaching it from a 'which is least worst' perspective doesn't help - the outcomes are unpredictable either way.

[nomadpete]

Another variable that is beyond our control is .......

When Charles is gone, how well will the monarchy perform?

[willedoo]

2 hours ago, old man emu said:

For that we respected her. We've mocked Charles since his teenage years. Now we are looking to mock him, and the Monarchy he stands for by severing ties. But are we cutting the limb from the wrong side?

Is that Charlie at Timbertop?

[Old Koreelah]

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Another variable that is beyond our control is .......

When Charles is gone, how well will the monarchy perform?

I doubt that will be a problem. The current lot have sure learned that the survival of the family Firm depends on public support. While ever the RF are seen to be decent role models, people will support them.

Contrast their behaviour with that of our elected leaders, many of whom are very dodgy characters.

 

[nomadpete]

Good point Old K

 

But it is still a dilemma

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, nomadpete said:

Good point Old K

 

But it is still a dilemma

No, I don't think so. Elizabeth established the Firm's culture. I can't see any future monarch straying from her principles.

[spacesailor]

Due to Charles Age , his reign will be Short . His age even if he makes his Grandmother's 99 year age , 

Will allow a 23 year reign,  before King Willie has a go . At 63 years old .

Looking at our present & former politicians,  they will make a bad Republic but. A great dictatorship. 

spacesailor

[Marty_d]

I think his grandmother hit 103 didn't she?

[Jerry_Atrick]

I think part of the problem is he is also older to start with and people are saying he should probably give way to Willi who should be more in touch with the vast majority of the poulations. To me, they are largely out of touch, anyway. I think Lizzie was a little unfair to Charles to make hiom wait so  loing, but I guess the Dianna --> Camilla saga needed time to settle.

[spacesailor]

The ' Queen of Hearts ' V ' Princess Ugly Consort '.

Will never be forgotten , or forgiven .

Just mho .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

A marriage arranged by others Spacey.  Nev

[red750]

Recent doco's on TV have shown that Diana was 'chosen' by the firm to produce an heir, and was most unhappy. Shots of Charles smiling at her and she is staring at the floor. Very lovey dovey. Once she had produced the heir and the 'spare', she wanted out. Then Charles could marry his 'true love'.

[Old Koreelah]

The Guardian loves to get stuck into The Establishment and this article by a Canadian reporter contains a classic description: 

“Christianity has been reduced to a scandal management system, with costumes”!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/03/king-charles-iii-coronation-canada-britain

 

[facthunter]

Is it christianity,Or British ROYALTY?  Nev

[spacesailor]

My reading of Diana  was & to quote " there's always been THREE in fhis marital bed " ,

Not that long ago in the UK,  an.adulterous could and should have been taken to court .

Only Mormons  enjoy sharing their husband with a different woman .

Saves the older wife having to beare all the children .

spacesailor

[Marty_d]

Well, being royalty, they can probably afford big beds.

What's that old saying,  two's company but three is a lot more fun?

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, spacesailor said:

there's always been THREE in fhis marital bed "

Does this refer to Camilla, or the Queen maintaining control?

 

[Edit] for the avoidance of doubt, I was not inferring in a physical manner...

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Jerry_Atrick