Thinking of Moving to Australia

[Montalban]

Thank you for helping me understand the Monarchy relationship in Australia.

Why would becoming a republic be preferable to the current government?

On paper the parliamentary system seems like it should work well.

There is a "Republican Movement"


I am not a Republican though

 

[TheDag]

Thank you for helping me understand the Monarchy relationship in Australia.

Why would becoming a republic be preferable to the current government?

On paper the parliamentary system seems like it should work well.

You will get many different opinions. I can see no benefit at all to changing but rather see it as a complete waste of money. Having said that when we had a referendum on becoming a republic I voted in favour of it because I believe we will eventually become a republic. I also believe it was the best model we will be offered. most people seem to want to spend heaps of taxpayers money on electing a president (who would basically be the same as a governor-general just different title. Parliament would still operate the same way it does. At least I have not heard anyone suggest otherwise.

Ok have another question, we have been hearing about some of the new changes in Aussie politics, which made me end up looking into your government. Something that I found interesting was your Governor General. We don't have anything like it in the US and seems like a great way to counter bad politicians or laws being passed.

My question is, does the Governor General have that much power and if so do they use it? I only saw a couple times in history where it seemed to come into play. Once in the 1930s and again in the 1970s, but I am much more curious in your views.

On a side note only took three weeks to get our passports and my wife should have college applications in shortly.

On a side not my wife met Malcolm Fraser and he said

Gough just wasn't smart enough to see that being right would not save him

When he said this to my wife he was aware that she would be recording his comments. So it was basically an admission that he was ignoring democratic principles here. Of course labour doesn't have a good record on this either in that in the state of Queensland (QLD) labour abolished the Upper House of parliament (or senate) despite holding a referendum and the people of QLD voting no. they did this so they could do more when in government. funnily enough it was labour supporters who complained about actions of a QLD premier in the national party doing cartain things. If lanbour had not abolished the upper house then they may have been able to stop him.

 

[ebia]

Thank you for helping me understand the Monarchy relationship in Australia.

Why would becoming a republic be preferable to the current government?

On paper the parliamentary system seems like it should work well.

Some people object to monarcy in principle. Whether a republic would be better or worse depends heavily on what sort of republic model one is talking about - one of the reasons the debate has never really got anywhere here is that it's presented as the current system verses a republic without defining the latter.

 

[Montalban]

Separate question, do you all get much if any campaign adds for politicians and lobbying?

In the last US presidential election we had well over a year of political adds for primaries and candidates before the election. That does not include all the state/local issues and politicians that take up TV time, junk mail flyers, and automated phone calls.

We get ads too. I think there's something where the 'policy speech' has to get equal time on tv

They also have a 'debate' between the ALP and LP/NP leaders.

 

[Nooj]

Thank you for helping me understand the Monarchy relationship in Australia.

Why would becoming a republic be preferable to the current government?

On paper the parliamentary system seems like it should work well.

It's a religiously biased, sexist, elitist system. I'm for a republic, but honestly it's not the most pressing issue at this time. I'd say Australia will become a republic in a decade or two.

 

[ebia]

It's a religiously biased, sexist, elitist system. I'm for a republic, but honestly it's not the most pressing issue at this time. I'd say Australia will become a republic in a decade or two.

I'm not sure how its any more any of those things than a republic is likely to be, but then you haven't said what sort of republic you envisage.

 

[Nooj]

I'm not sure how its any more any of those things than a republic is likely to be

For one thing, you can't become a monarch if you're not a member of the Anglican church. Males are preferred before females. It's elitist because someone becomes head of state by virtue of simply being born into the right family.

but then you haven't said what sort of republic you envisage.

I don't really care. If it comes down to it though, I support the direct election of the president.

 

[ebia]

For one thing, you can't become a monarch if you're not a member of the Anglican church.

That's not true. Currently the monarch can't be, or be married to, a Roman Catholic but that's the only restriction. They are officially the head of the Church of England when in England, and the head of the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) when in Scotland, but they could, in principle, actually worship the FSM if they want.

Males are preferred before females.

That's true, but I wasn't sure originally whether you were talking about the monarch or the G.G.

It's elitist because someone becomes head of state by virtue of simply being born into the right family.

How is that more elitist than getting the job through political attributes. In the end only one person gets the job - its inherently elistist.

I don't really care. If it comes down to it though, I support the direct election of the president.

Given that there is much more practical difference between different models of republic than there is between the current set-up and some models of republic I find that a very strange position to take.

 

[TheDag]

I don't really care. If it comes down to it though, I support the direct election of the president.

Do you realise what sort of person we will end up with as president if we vote for them? it will be some sporting personality like Dawn Fraser or maybe more recently Ian Thorpe. lovely people but are they suited for the job? According to Dawn Fraser herself she was hopeless at the job. We need to have someone who is capable of doing the job they are supposed to.

 

[Nooj]

I didn't think of that. Alright then, I'm going to not support a direct election, I'll just shut my mouth before I make any more stupid suggestions and stay in the 'I oppose the monarchy' camp.

 

[ebia]

Do you realise what sort of person we will end up with as president if we vote for them? it will be some sporting personality like Dawn Fraser or maybe more recently Ian Thorpe. lovely people but are they suited for the job? According to Dawn Fraser herself she was hopeless at the job. We need to have someone who is capable of doing the job they are supposed to.

Not if you make the job so meaningless that it doesn't really matter.

 

[nolongerhome]

Not if you make the job so meaningless that it doesn't really matter.

I'd say the best way to become a republic is simply to create the position of President and give all the Governor General's powers to the President.

 

[Tahoenite]

I'd say the best way to become a republic is simply to create the position of President and give all the Governor General's powers to the President.

That would be like electing a king, in the US the presidents powers are pretty limited.

Most of the presidents that have seemed like they have done the most good for the country were hated while there were in office.

Our current president is fighting for legislation that the people tell him not too, the one before that most people hated for going to war, and the one before him was supposedly impeached for lying under oath yet they never removed him from office.

Presidents may be good, but in the US I do not think our current government will survive another twenty years

 

[ebia]

I'd say the best way to become a republic is simply to create the position of President and give all the Governor General's powers to the President.

I think you'd need to make real the in-practice restrictions that already exist; an elected person is far more likely to think they have a mandate to actually use the theoretical power that exists than a G.G. or the queen is.

 

[ebia]

That would be like electing a king, in the US the presidents powers are pretty limited.

The President of the United States has way more power - both theoretically and even more so in practice - than the English Monarch does in England or Australia. No English monarch since about George I has had as much real power as the US President.

 

[Montalban]

That would be like electing a king, in the US the presidents powers are pretty limited.

Most of the presidents that have seemed like they have done the most good for the country were hated while there were in office.

Our current president is fighting for legislation that the people tell him not too, the one before that most people hated for going to war, and the one before him was supposedly impeached for lying under oath yet they never removed him from office.

Presidents may be good, but in the US I do not think our current government will survive another twenty years

A President doesn't have to have a lot of powers. In Ireland and Israel (I believe) the President is not the head of government

 

[nolongerhome]

That would be like electing a king, in the US the presidents powers are pretty limited.

Most of the presidents that have seemed like they have done the most good for the country were hated while there were in office.

Our current president is fighting for legislation that the people tell him not too, the one before that most people hated for going to war, and the one before him was supposedly impeached for lying under oath yet they never removed him from office.

Presidents may be good, but in the US I do not think our current government will survive another twenty years

It really wouldn't be like electing a king at all.

They would be required to apply the final step to the legislative process, would disolve parliament and call elections when requested or required, would swear in elected representatives and would perform ceremonial duties. That is all. As ebia said, it probably wouldn't hurt to formalise some of the informal rules regarding the exact nature of the role, but if the position of President simply carried on the role of Governor General they would have far less power than the American President because your President, unlike our Governor General, has an active role to play in the legislative and executive branches of government. The GG has no such role to play. They really are simply a figurehead and ceremonial position.

 

[TheDag]

I didn't think of that. Alright then, I'm going to not support a direct election, I'll just shut my mouth before I make any more stupid suggestions and stay in the 'I oppose the monarchy' camp.

I often use discussions to get different view points so please don't keep your mouth shut because of me. I enjoy most of your posts

Not if you make the job so meaningless that it doesn't really matter.

a very good point. the style of republic we were offered at the referendum was basically going to be a call the GG president instead. The position was to be filled by a person that two thirds of both houses of parliament agreed on. it has been rare that a single party has had two thirds majority in both houses at the same time so I think it was fairly safe. of course with a forced retirement of president after certain amount of time then it would not be a long period of time. Also under the system we were offered the government would have had the power to sack the president as well.

 

[Tahoenite]

Slight switch what do you all think of the idea of living in New Zealand? Boring or a nice place to live?

 

[Montalban]

Slight switch what do you all think of the idea of living in New Zealand? Boring or a nice place to live?

New Zealand cops don't carry guns! (except for special response units)

New Zealand is to us in much the same way Canada is viewed by the US, only I suppose we're culturally more linked because we shared ANZAC traditions