greens are

[Jerry_Atrick]

@willedoo beat me to it... But basically, what he has said...

 

I was studying law part time in the UK at the time the republic referendum took place. I escaped a lecture on, ironically, constitutional law to get to Aussie House on the Strand to cast my vote. When I returned, (all within the lecture hour), the lecturer asked which way I voted. I declined to state which way I voted, citing my democratic right not to disclose. He drew a conclusion of which way I went, but it was not the correct conclusion.

 

FWIW, the average UK punter couldn't care less whether Aus is a republic or a constitutional monarchy. Nor do they understand why we are not a republic. For me, it isn't about holding onto WASP history, it is about the following:

 

- The Queen as far as the constitution is concerned, is the queen of Australia - not the UK. I think that was a change made in the 90s.

 

- Australia would have remained in the commonwealth, so that can't be a reason to go to a republic.

 

- Australia already has a stable form of government that, by comparison to most, serves Australia reasonably well. The republic model proposed simply replaced the title governor general with president and severed links with the queen - heavy cost - but no real material change.

 

- Parliament is the effective government of Aus -GG with the hel of the queen keeps the lot in check, in theory.

 

- It wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to how we are seen in the rest of the world.. We would still be known as ex-cons and most people I have spoken to throughout the Americas, Europe and to the sub-continent don't even know we are a constitutional monarchy - nor could they really care.

 

- It wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to the person on the street in Aus.. Would we have found ourselves suddenly uplifted or liberated. walking around with permament smiles at our new-found freedom? Nope! We'd have the same drongos running things and the same challenges we had beforehand and the same challenges we have today. Although, the Queen's too far to run to with our pitchforks, so maybe Mal and his boys would have felt the heat a bit more.

 

It was just a lot of cost for very little benefit, apart from Turnbull seeing himself as being the first President of Australia.

 

Also ironically, the state most known for its conservatism - Vic - was the only state from memory that majority voted to become a republic. Obviously, then, so yesterday's thinking ;-)

 

 

[Marty_d]

I'm with Willedoo on this one. Sometimes it seems that there's an excess of government, but it's better than most (if not all) of the alternatives.

 

 

[willedoo]

[uSER=12638]

The republic model proposed simply replaced the title governor general with president and severed links with the queen - heavy cost - but no real material change.[/uSER]

There were a small number of important changes that were slipped into the draft. The prime minister of the day was against a republic, as is well known. There were odd clauses in the government's proposed model that transferred power to the prime minister and away from the president (formerly GG's powers). The PM's right to sack the President without having to provide any reason was a particularly worrying one. At the time of the referendum, I was a devout republican, but after reading the mailed out proposed model word for word, I voted no.

 

It's my opinion the government of the day mislead the Australian public into thinking that they would just scrub out GG and pencil in President. After reading the proposed model, it was obvious they were having having a bob each way. In the event that it passed, the Prime Minister's power was greatly increased above that of our current model. It's only my opinion, but at the time I thought the government drafted that model intentionally to fail by pi**ing off any republicans who took the time to read the fine print. And I think that's what lost the referendum. Johnny's no dummy.

 

 

[willedoo]

I may be wrong, others can correct me if I am, but having a titular head of state such as the Queen protects us from egotistical jerks who think they are God's gift to humanity and their farts don't stink, like an orange skinned, yellow mopped, hire 'em and fire 'em goon in a country about the same size as ours. (Not naming names.)

You've got me thinking there, Peter. Now let's see... Kazakhstan is a little bit smaller than Oz; Canada and Brazil are bigger.

 

Nope, you've got me stumped.

 

 

[Marty_d]

I guess the thing about the British monarchy is, it's an institution which by its nature will mould the heir(s) to the throne in one of two ways.

 

They'll be aware from birth that they have the heavy weight of responsibility that comes with the job, that their every move, word, and especially indiscretion will be recorded for millions of judgmental people, and that they will have no privacy. Ever.

 

This will either cause them to run a mile, a la Edward VIII (along with Mrs Simpson), or they will take that responsibility and do their damndest to shoulder it, a la HRH.

 

This is quite different from that mysterious country who will allow any cretin, whose only qualifications are buckets of money and the ability to rabble-rouse, the top job in the land for a minimum of 4 years. (Unless they're impeached earlier. PLEEEEEASE.)

 

 

[facthunter]

Life is much more exciting (for the whole world ) since Donald came on the scene. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

shorten is going to give us another go at becoming a epublic if he wins the next election. by that time I guess that republics will be something to be avoided if Trump is anything to go by. The no vote will only have to say look at USA and the referendum will be defeated.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

shorten is going to give us another go at becoming a epublic if he wins the next election. by that time I guess that republics will be something to be avoided if Trump is anything to go by. The no vote will only have to say look at USA and the referendum will be defeated.

I fear you are right, Yenn. In politics, timing is everything. Shorten is not clever to push the Republic issue at this time; the American republic's failing are likely to dominate the news for the next couple of years.

 

 

[facthunter]

They have republicans but it's an association of states. Having Trump there is not a fault of being a Republic even of it was /is. HE is an anomaly. but he has been elected , even if Hillary got 3 million more votes and Putin didn't want her in..

 

France is a Republic. They rolled a few heads of the aristocrats when they formed it. Saudia is a Kingdom, based on inheriting the position is essentially a Dictatorship. You have an unelected leader or one doing it by lineage (birth) or some other means. A democracy cannot really have a "King or Queen" without it having some sort of arrangement whereby the Monarch carries out certain procedural functions but doesn't really RULE. The elected government makes the rules. It brings in the tourists and some of the Poms love Betty Windsor but she is not in any way elected. It's a hangover from a past era of a class based Feudal system, not something likely to have favour as a modern system of government.

 

The worst you can have is a religious Totalitarian state where individual rights and freedoms disappear under a group of unelected "God" People. You might vote it in, as Iran did, but if it doesn't work OK you have no way of getting rid of it. Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

FH

 

France has a lot more revolutions since it's inception!.

 

Something like 26 comes to mind.

 

If we become a republic can we have more votes at a later date, just in case it's not as good as we thought.

 

Or do we follow France & have a few (lots) of revolutions.

 

I prefer a CD, Constitutional Democracy, We vote for our leader's.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[octave]

My opinion on a republic for what it's worth is this.

 

Although I disagree with the monarchists, I do accept that our system works reasonably well, therefore I favour a minimalist republic. The president could be appointed by parliament as is the case with the governor general at present. Whilst GGs have varied in quality throughout our history other than Kerr I don't believe there have been any terrible ones and in any case, their power is quite limited.

 

Cut ties with the monarchy, change the title of GG to president, the president retains current GG powers. Change from Commonwealth of Australia to the Republic of Australia.

 

 

[facthunter]

You can't have a contest between the "President" and the elected parliament. The situation is clarified in the UK, so even Betty is only a titular head. Everyone knows their role. The royalty thing costs a bucket, but you have to give the Poms credit. They do the whole ROYAL thing very well and are in that way the envy of the world. The yanks replace Royalty with worship of Money with a dose of simplistic God thrown in and millions of guns. I prefer the British system. It's $#!tloads more classy but Straya doesn't need another country's flag in a quarter of it even if there's residual nostalgia for it out there, the IRAQ war should have severed that. and whenTHEY went into the EU and abandoned our products/exports We now know the ME war WAS about cheap "American " oil, and profit for American Industry..WE should make our own decisions and be a strong honest broker rather than an R slicker. The next world war won't be won by anyone. Everyone will lose. It's just GROSS MADNESS to even think of it. Nev

 

 

[willedoo]

You can't have a contest between the "President" and the elected parliament.

Nev, from what I remember, that was a big issue with the referendum. The pollies, quite rightly in my opinion, wanted the President appointed by Parliament and nominated by whatever process. It seemed like a lot of the public wanted to elect the President directly by popular vote. That caused concern that the President could start to flex the muscles by claiming a public mandate. Some say it has the potential for a power struggle between the President and Parliament, which we can all do without.

 

 

[spacesailor]

HOW ABOUT.

 

We get our native Aboriginal people to elect OUR native President.

 

That should appease everyone except the pollies.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

FWIW, I think the constitutional monarchy works pretty well... From a UK perspective, it is a net contributor to the coffers when you think about the tourism it brings in with the appropriate tax slugs to flights, hotels, airports, train tickets, etc. Of course, it works because the current monarch is a good-un.. has a superior sense of duty and has been a moderating influence in all but the more deep-rooted views held by the governmet of the day.

 

In an Aussie sense, it also works reasonably well. It provides someone to whom the armed forces has allegiance and therefore helps ensure that the force of the constitution is upheld. Real (as much as possible these days) democracy is exercised through parliament, with clear rules and power limitations, and as a result, even when there are contentious issues and scandals, there has been a stable form of government, law and order, which is good for a society. So, why upset the apple cart is my view... I am not pro or anti monarchy or republic - I am pro a fair and just society and while neither Aus nor the UK are perfect, in in relative terms, they are hard to beat.. Competence of pollies is a different matter..

 

 

[kgwilson]

QE2, well she's OK & the system works OK. Whats wrong is having half a dozen states & a territory making different laws on everything when there are only 24 million of us. The tyrany of time and distance disappeared umpteen years ago but we persist with the stupid state & federal system. Get rid of the states & get rid of a useless upper house where you can get elected on only 50 direct votes & have the ability to hold the country to ransom. How smart is that? One national government and local authorities would make management of the country far more effective & things might even get done. The upper house is a complete waste of time given the lack of competence of half of its occupants. It achieves nothing by stifling most of the progressive laws. Queenie can stay & her rep who is appointed by the government anyway won't change anything but provides a level of stability that may easily disappear once some populist Pres get the nod & starts the power grab over time.

 

 

[Marty_d]

The upper house is a complete waste of time given the lack of competence of half of its occupants. It achieves nothing by stifling most of the progressive laws.

It also puts a brake on unfair/unjust legislation and bad policy. Anyone remember a certain Budget... 2014 was it?

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

I can't recall if it is NZ or Israel (or both) that have unicameral systems, but I much prefer a bicameral system to act as a check and balance for, as Lord Hailsham once said of the Tony Blair government (I think) - a political party with such a majority is an elected dictatorship. When there is a minority/coalition government (where there is some ideological/philosophical divergence in the coalition) or where a majority is slim, a unicameral system will work - but where the majority is large - I am not so sure (esp with most pollies around these days).

 

I agree with removing the states though.. Aus is all one country and it is crazy that there are different road laws, criminal codes, building codes, court structures, etc. There is an argument it ensures a state's interests are defended, however, a state is an arbitrary drawing of borders - local authorities are better at managing local interests.

 

 

[storchy neil]

as the 2014 spending cut the double dippers would have a hard time neil

 

 

[Marty_d]

as the 2014 spending cut the double dippers would have a hard time neil

Yeah the trouble was they wanted to cut from people who couldn't afford it, rather than people who could. Talking about things like the GP co-payment.

 

 

[storchy neil]

no I'm implying the poor me that are subsidized rent health car rego travel who have not bloody well worked take a good look at those that have ripped of the your welfare system neil

 

 

[kgwilson]

I can't recall if it is NZ or Israel (or both) that have unicameral systems, but I much prefer a bicameral system to act as a check and balance for, as Lord Hailsham once said of the Tony Blair government (I think) - a political party with such a majority is an elected dictatorship. When there is a minority/coalition government (where there is some ideological/philosophical divergence in the coalition) or where a majority is slim, a unicameral system will work - but where the majority is large - I am not so sure (esp with most pollies around these days).

I agree with removing the states though.. Aus is all one country and it is crazy that there are different road laws, criminal codes, building codes, court structures, etc. There is an argument it ensures a state's interests are defended, however, a state is an arbitrary drawing of borders - local authorities are better at managing local interests.

NZ doesn't have an upper house. Neither does Queensland & it should given the history of its politics & general level of past corruption. The concept of the upper house to provide the checks and balances is excellent. The reality of having a bunch of unelected lords who are asleep half the time or those who get there on a pathetic system of preferences when they only got 50 people to vote for them is what is flawed. Anyway if the upper house wasn't there and there was some poorly conceived legislation that got through, it is less than 3 years till the next election & they can be kicked out. What happens now is the upper & lower houses play ping pong with the legislation until the next election & so it goes & f*#! all gets done.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

HOW ABOUT.We get our native Aboriginal people to elect OUR native President.

 

That should appease everyone except the pollies.

 

spacesailor

Finally, someone put this great idea out there! At first glance, it sounds totally undemocratic and elitist, but it's not too far different to the system we have now. It would put an end to PMs getting rid of potential rivals by sending them to Yarralumla. At last, an Australian would be our head of state! And who better to be above politics than someone whose lineage goes back tens of thousands of years?

 

There are several well-respected, experienced, indigenous elders who could provide the same level-headed leadership that has given us stability for generations.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

NZ doesn't have an upper house. Neither does Queensland & it should given the history of its politics & general level of past corruption. The concept of the upper house to provide the checks and balances is excellent. The reality of having a bunch of unelected lords who are asleep half the time or those who get there on a pathetic system of preferences when they only got 50 people to vote for them is what is flawed. Anyway if the upper house wasn't there and there was some poorly conceived legislation that got through, it is less than 3 years till the next election & they can be kicked out. What happens now is the upper & lower houses play ping pong with the legislation until the next election & so it goes & f*#! all gets done.

If there was no upper house our reps might take a bit more care about the bills they vote for.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think the upper house with it's committees and checking the way the money is spent and accounted for etc, is ESSENTIAL. The current voting system has produced anomolies because of the stupid double dissolution "smart" move that was supposed to FIX things but made them worse. States give competition. If something is better next door you get mad and want at least the same deal. The STATES in the USA will save that country from being completely stuffed by Trump, because they have enough power to arrange their affairs by them selves You don't want all Government CENTRALISED in some single PLACE . State and local government are more responsive to the areas they embrace. They ALL need some sort of performance AUDIT and corruption accountability structure. Some of the larger states are a bit too big to handle/cover and the NT has a small population. and can't support itself by raising capital from the limited populace . If you remove Alice Springs and Darwin from the equation the rest of the place is deserted almost. Tassie has the population of Geelong. NZ has the population of Melbourne. Nev