Republic or Monarchy?

[lozzie]

I said republic. However, that would again depend on what type of governmental system was implemented instead. The choice Howard gave voters last time was not exactly a promising model. Why would we need to have a President if we broke away from the British Monarchy. The only difference I could really see as important would be the abolishment of the title of Governor General.

I think the current system of government is fine. However, in saying that, I would prefer to be considered independent from Brittain. I do not like thinking that Australia is ultimately (politically speaking anyway!) under the power of a different culture. Australia has not been similar to England for quite some years now, and just as America broke away and developed a different culture from the Brittish Empire, so has Australia. One day there is the possibility that the Brittish will have differing opinions to Australians, and if we are still tied as tightly as having their soverign then they will have power over us, even if we do not wish it.

In terms of the cost of becoming a republic, everything material costs money. And, it's taxpayers money that would be financing a change, so if the majority want it, then I don't think they would mind. If I had my say on what was funded I'd ask for more on Education... but i think thats both state and federal spending there. Because the fact that public schools in the ACT could spend $7000 on a single smartboard, and then have 3 or 4 of them just blew my mind away. But yes, if enough people want it, then I do not think price would be an issue. I do not think you would have to recall things such as coins and reprint them all, because thats part of our heritage, and is something to have national pride about. They would phase out eventually anyway. But I do think it is time for Australia to 'grow up'.

For eg, a child is nurtured by his or her mother, but one day they will leave home and becme their own person. Australia became her own person, but still needs to move out of home.

 

[Koey]

I see advantages and disadvantages both ways. One thing for sure, we are a very immature country politically.

As we chart our own course, I would hope that we remember mother England with honor, yet not forget the abuses our grandparents suffered or the pillaging of our resources. We seem to have developed several new abuses of our own though: -

1. Mandatory voting is something only found in the Communist world and a few more dictatorial countries. It is embarrassing to tell my British and American friends that we force people to vote, whether they want to or not.

2. Frankly the way we do opposition in Australia is disgusting. I lived for a time in Europe and America and saw how much more well mannered and respectful their politicians are. I hate to listen to our leaders of opposition and their daily whinge or the immature braying of sheep in parliament. It seems that the leader of the opposition's job is to be the most negative man in the country. They only tear down the country rather than build it up. I believe they set an extremely bad example of disrespect for authority to our youth.

 

[Alessandra]

Republic. And while we are at it, we should get that stupid Union Jack off our flag.

I am Italian - England doesn't mean a thing to me.

 

[Alessandra]

It seems that the leader of the opposition's job is to be the most negative man in the country. They only tear down the country rather than build it up. I believe they set an extremely bad example of disrespect for authority to our youth.

I am a Mark Latham supporter, and I intend to vote for him come next election. I have a great dela of admiration for the way he speaks his mind.

 

[Injured Soldier]

One day there is the possibility that the Brittish will have differing opinions to Australians, and if we are still tied as tightly as having their soverign then they will have power over us, even if we do not wish it.

Impossible. The Queen does not have true political power even in Britain. It has been like that for over the past 250 years. In Britain, the parliament is sovereign. The British connections with Australia's political system don't involve the British parliament whatsoever.

1. Mandatory voting is something only found in the Communist world and a few more dictatorial countries. It is embarrassing to tell my British and American friends that we force people to vote, whether they want to or not.

It doesn't make a difference to the voting system. In all democracies, if you are voting age, you are going to statistically vote whether you want to or not. I'd prefer it that we don't have to, but it's not something to be embarrassed over.

Opposition is an awesome position, I wouldn't have Australia's system any other way. Having a shadow cabinet of eagle-eyed hawks reviewing the real cabinet's portfolios is a great idea, and the fact the leader can be the most negative man in the country if he so desires makes it even better. The fact they have become closer together in policy is what I'm worried about.

I'll answer the OP question with a question. Who is Australia's head of state (not the representative, and their title, not name)?

 

[Koey]

I am a Mark Latham supporter, and I intend to vote for him come next election. I have a great dela of admiration for the way he speaks his mind.

I don't. When he gave his acceptance speech, I thought wow, finally a leader of opposition who does not want to engage in negative politics. However, he is just as bad as the rest. I don't care who is in opposition, Labor or Liberal, they all whinge and tear down the government in power. It stinks and it's just plain wrong.

 

[lozzie]

I'll answer the OP question with a question. Who is Australia's head of state (not the representative, and their title, not name)?

Our Brittish monarch is Australia's Head of State. ie Queen Elizabeth II.

Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act
Chapter II. The Executive Government.

61. The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

And now I have a question. Can the Queen dismiss the govenor general?

 

[Injured Soldier]

Our Brittish monarch is Australia's Head of State. ie Queen Elizabeth II.

Currently it is Queen Lizzie II, but her official title in Australia's constitution is the Queen of Australia. That so few Australians know their own Constitution makes me nervous about republicans claims of our need to 'break ties'.

I'm a monarchist on the grounds that:

1. It's a waste of money for little benefit.

2. I want to examine the model proposed well before making a decision

3. It will imply significant change to the constitution, and I don't trust the current pollies as far as I can throw them. I want assurances it will be done right, not by a bunch of yahoos that picture themselves as Australia's first president.

Of course, I'm willing to hear arguments otherwise, but on the whole I'm not really convinced.

And now I have a question. Can the Queen dismiss the govenor general?

Yes. But that's acting only upon the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia, and it's never been done. The G-G has dismissed the PM once in over 100 years of Federation, and he did so without the queen's say so. Had Gough Whitlam been so inclined before he was dismissed, he could have had Kerr dismissed instead.

 

[lozzie]

Yeah, I was reading through the constitution but could not seem to find anything about dismissing the Govenor General. But I knew that Whitlam had been pushed out of office.

 

[Koey]

The ONLY reason I see Christians wanting to maintain a subservience to the monarchy is the "Christian" wording in our constitution. It hasn't prevented the reality of Australia being a post-Christian country. Words on paper do not make us a Christian nation.

On the other hand, I don't want a republic like America's. That is not a democracy, but a way for the rich to control who get elected. Come to think of it the selection process for who gets to be on the ballot here is not really democratic either. There is another solution though:

Each town elects leaders. Those town leaders elect district leaders, those district leaders elect state leaders. Those state leaders elect national leaders. All elections are by secret ballot, at all levels. That eliminates bribery, and kicking people out of a party for not voting along party lines is made illegal. People are allowed to vote their conscience. Those elected to higher office are required to get ongoing education, certain credits in political science or economics or a related subject.

Why?

The problem with a popular vote is it is illogical. The ignorant public does not elect who is best qualified, but who can sling the most mud, or make the most promises (whether or not they are good or affordable). Yet, those who are elected to lead locally gain some experience and are best qualified to elect the next level and so on.

 

[Bevlina]

Nor would I like to see a republic like America. I haven't got alot of time for the monarchy and big L. To me, having the cost of the Govenor General is a waste of money.
But, I do nelieve that if Australia ever goes to a republic, the time would come when many, many young Australians who voted for it wished they had voted the other way.
Allessandra...you stated you are Italian. Why do you have the Australian flag there?

 

[Blessed-one]

must be an aussie citizen, otherwise she won't be able to vote.

 

[Injured Soldier]

The problem with a popular vote is it is illogical. The ignorant public does not elect who is best qualified, but who can sling the most mud, or make the most promises (whether or not they are good or affordable). Yet, those who are elected to lead locally gain some experience and are best qualified to elect the next level and so on.

The popular vote has saved the world many times over. Churchill wouldn't have been PM without the popular vote, and the mood of the elites in WWII in Britain, unless they were Churchill's friends, were appeasers. So without the popular vote, Britain would have made a peace deal with the Nazis and WWII would have taken a different and longer course.

The popular vote put Kennedy in power over Nixon in 1960. Kennedy was cautious about the Cuban Missile Crisis, which is how he avoided nuclear war. Imagine if it was Nixon that got in, which he would have had the elites only been voting.

And yet it was not the popular vote that put Hitler in a position of power, but the vote of the parliament. Hitler would never have gained such a vote from the people. It was the disdain and concern of the popular vote that caused such problems.

The political heirarchy may be in the best position to choose the next position up the ladder, but they won't always choose the best because they ha vested interest. Our popular voting system is a pain in the butt (it takes a degree to understand how preferences work properly and elections always bring mudslinging and ultimately broken promises), has many flaws (compulsory voting), but it is still one of the best systems in the world. Certainly better than the alternative.

 

[lozzie]

I don't think compulsory voting is a flaw. If you don't know what to vote for in an election, you can always place an invalid vote. Confidentiality means that you can't get in trouble for it.

If we did not have to vote, polititions would be making more unrealistic promises and longer campaigns to try and win citizens to vote in the first place. At least our polititions dont have to go to the effort of convincing us to leave our houses during election day.

 

[Koey]

I don't think compulsory voting is a flaw...At least our polititions dont have to go to the effort of convincing us to leave our houses during election day.

I know, they treat us like CHILDREN and fine us $50 if we don't vote. Sorry, I'm tired of it!!! It's dictatorial, not freedom!!!

 

[lozzie]

I know, they treat us like CHILDREN and fine us $50 if we don't vote. Sorry, I'm tired of it!!! It's dictatorial, not freedom!!!

I still think that its better than the American system. I would hate to think that something like the weather would effect how many people chose to vote. And if it is compulsory, then of course there needs to be some kind of punishment. Otherwise some people would not comply. I guess I see it in the sense that you can still vote informally.

 

[Koey]

I don't know enough about both systems to compare. However, even under compulsory voting, the weather could hold you up.

Hey, I saw your profile. I play bass too.

 

[Nihilist Comedian]

A quick thought on having a republic; we wouldn't have the Queen's Birthday Holiday! Then again, maybe we'd have a Republic Day.

John Howard's previous Republic package deal was a sham. Don't worry, when I become PM, I'll give you an offer that you can't refuse.

 

[Stormboy]

Republic

 

[Glacial]

I know, they treat us like CHILDREN and fine us $50 if we don't vote. Sorry, I'm tired of it!!! It's dictatorial, not freedom!!!

Careful, you sound a hell of a lot like a far-left revolutionary (read: anarchist) there.

Seriously though, this is absurd. You're really that worried about compulsory voting. If anything - it is beneficial to our political process. Voting is a responsibility. We live in one of the best countries in the world - with relative freedom and liberty. If you're too lazy to vote, then you deserve to be fined. Look at the situation in the US, more than half the population just doesn't bother to vote - do we really want a situation like that? Voting doesn't inconvenience you, if you really want - you can even do it by mail. I would also argue that not having compulsory voting negates the democratic process. If a government is elected by 25% of the people (out of the 45% who bothered to vote), then it isn't really a democratically elected government. The benefits outweigh the costs.

It's also interesting to note that the fines aren't enforced if you give a reason for not voting. It doesn't actually matter whether the reason is valid or not, you just have to give one. Personally - I feel that this is too lax, and that the fines should be enforced, but hey, that's just me. Furthermore, to those who claim that only backward nations have compulsory voting in place, as far as I know - the following countries are amongst the nations with cv (in one form or another) currently in place: Greece, Cyprus, Belgium & Austria. I'm interested by your 'it's not freedom!' comment. Purely out of interest, what's your stance on gay marriage and other social issues where freedoms and equal rights are being restricted?

I'm also a little bit perplexed by your 'negative politics' point. Yes, our politicians are 'lively', but I think that's a good thing. They aren't afraid to speak their minds - if they see something that sucks, they'll say so. Pussyfooting around and holding back to be respectful is all very well - but when it starts to impede open governance and free speech, we've got a problem.

Now - having said that, I don't like the ad hominem bonanza that goes in in Australian politics, it isn't productive, and it gets us nowhere. Ultimately we have to realize that the vast majority of people are uneducated idiots, and that politicians realize this - and as such set out to dupe the electorate. If you're familiar with propaganda, brain washing, leading and so forth, then you'll be able recognise how politicians use spin to get people on their side. Most politicians are cut from the same mould, but I don't think that the 'colourfulness' of Australian politics is necessarily the major problem with our system.

The paradox of democracy eh?