Should Australia be a Republic? (2 Viewers)

Do you support an Australian Republic? If so which model would you pick?

  • Yes-Model 1

    Votes: 15 15.3%
  • Yes-Model 2

    Votes: 2 2.0%
  • Yes-Model 3

    Votes: 4 4.1%
  • Yes-Model 4

    Votes: 27 27.6%
  • Yes-Model 5

    Votes: 3 3.1%
  • Yes-Model 6

    Votes: 3 3.1%
  • No

    Votes: 44 44.9%

  • Total voters
    98

townie

Premium Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2004
Messages
9,646
Location
Gladesville
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Uni Grad
2009
Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

the only potential problem with the American system as i see it is that it would be very hard to seperate the idea of the head of government being seperate from the parliament. one of the best checks and balances the americans have is that democrats and republicans dont always vote along party lines
 

Not-That-Bright

Andrew Quah
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
12,176
Location
Sydney, Australia.
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

one of the best checks and balances the americans have is that democrats and republicans dont always vote along party lines
I believe that's partially due to the system. Republicans in the house of reps feel more free to dissent from their party on some issues because the house of reps isn't the end of the story, whereas here in australia, it is. That's why I feel we see alot more dissent in the senate also, it isn't the final battle.
 

townie

Premium Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2004
Messages
9,646
Location
Gladesville
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Uni Grad
2009
Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

i think for the american system to work effectively, the president couldnt also be the leader of the party he/she represented

but i do like the idea of a proper seperation of powers between the judicial, executive and legislative
 

townie

Premium Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2004
Messages
9,646
Location
Gladesville
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Uni Grad
2009
Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

Optophobia said:
Stop this sarcasm DAMNIT!
the american system does work, despite the (i believe) ineptitude of the current president, i feel it offers far more checks and ballances than the Australian system
 

Optophobia

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
696
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

one_wit said:
i think for the american system to work effectively, the president couldnt also be the leader of the party he/she represented

but i do like the idea of a proper seperation of powers between the judicial, executive and legislative
No, it's shit for obvious reasons. They have no responsible government. People like you lack trust in the government. You need to give the government SOME trust for it to be effective.
one_wit said:
the american system does work, despite the (i believe) ineptitude of the current president, i feel it offers far more checks and ballances than the Australian system
!!*BUZZ WORD ALERT*!! !!*BUZZ WORD ALERT*!!

Yes, to protect us from the big bad politicians who are so corrupt and immoral.

Technically the North Korean or Nazi German system of government *works*. It's not about if it works, its about its reception to the people. I would never want to be an American.

Don't try to fix what isn't broken.

People always have to try to change things. Nothing is wrong with the current system.
 
Last edited:

Bobness

English / Law
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
1,656
Location
Sligo
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

I remembered i use to support australia being a republic back in 1999.

We had some organised school debate over it. I was winnar :eek:

And to be serious, i supported it because today australia leans more towards america for economic reasons and trading links as opposed to britain. I know there should be more pertinent reasons than the above, but that's what i had in primary ok :eek:
 

timlay

is gonna lawyer you
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
636
Location
Fobtown
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

it doesn't really matter.

just to get sidetracked a bit,
if we WERE to become a republic. what kind of flag would we havE?

boxing kangaroo? -_-
 

Kujah

Moderator
Joined
Oct 15, 2006
Messages
4,736
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

Fark i dont really seem to care now. As long as nothing drastically changes that somehow affects my lifestyle (in a negative way), then im happy with any change in the system.
 

^CoSMic DoRiS^^

makes the woosh noises
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
5,274
Location
middle of nowhere
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

timlay said:
it doesn't really matter.

just to get sidetracked a bit,
if we WERE to become a republic. what kind of flag would we havE?

boxing kangaroo? -_-
hahaha. maybe they should just make it that 'made in australia' logo thing with the kangaroo on it.
actually i dont know what the flag would be...maybe they'd just take off the union jack and put something kinda symbolic around the stars..i dunno something aboriginal maybe. or we could just have a blue piece of cloth with 'australia' written on it in yellow or something. nice and simple and clear lol.
 

Optophobia

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
696
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

bobness said:
I remembered i use to support australia being a republic back in 1999.

We had some organised school debate over it. I was winnar :eek:

And to be serious, i supported it because today australia leans more towards america for economic reasons and trading links as opposed to britain. I know there should be more pertinent reasons than the above, but that's what i had in primary ok :eek:
What the hell does who we "lean towards" have to do with our system of government?

If we start leaning towards china economically, do we adopt communism?
 

townie

Premium Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2004
Messages
9,646
Location
Gladesville
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Uni Grad
2009
Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

Optophobia said:
No, it's shit for obvious reasons. They have no responsible government. People like you lack trust in the government. You need to give the government SOME trust for it to be effective.

!!*BUZZ WORD ALERT*!! !!*BUZZ WORD ALERT*!!

Yes, to protect us from the big bad politicians who are so corrupt and immoral.

Technically the North Korean or Nazi German system of government *works*. It's not about if it works, its about its reception to the people. I would never want to be an American.

Don't try to fix what isn't broken.

People always have to try to change things. Nothing is wrong with the current system.
funilly enough, having an american system of government doesnt make you American

and
Don't try to fix what isn't broken.
!!*CLICHE ALERT*!! !!*CLICHE ALERT*!!
 

Optophobia

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
696
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

one_wit said:
funilly enough, having an american system of government doesnt make you American
Yeh and i said that it did didn't I?

one_wit said:
!!*CLICHE ALERT*!! !!*CLICHE ALERT*!!
A Cliche` has more dignity than a buzz word.
 

wheredanton

Retired
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
599
Location
-
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

poloktim said:
I like the idea of the Queen because she is apolitical. There is no fuss about election fraud, and she is a shining beacon of the government and people.
Off point...but the queen is said to privately prefer the conservatives.

As already mentioned Australia is a republic in everything except name.

If we were to become a republic the president should be appointed rather than directly elected - a directly elected president would cause constitutional issues and create a weird power struggle between the legislature, the PM and the 'president'.
 
Last edited:

Optophobia

Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
696
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

spadijer said:
"we own you - you are still TECHNICALLY British"
If they say that then they are as dellusional as you are in saying that we need to become a republic.

spadijer said:
Perhaps the death of the ANZAC soliders due to British mis-management; World War II campaigns which forced Australians to protect the British - not vica versa - is 'democracy working for you', but for me, its just another example of Britian thinking they are better than us and another example for the need for a republic.
uh, and how many years ago did those things occur?
spadijer said:
I think we can still keep our relations with Britian (and still be in the commonwealth) and a republic at the same time. It's time we have an Australian Head of State, and to grasp our own destiny.
We do have an Australian head of state, the governer general.
spadijer said:
So, say, yes to a republic!
All this would do would make some Australians think "oh yes, aren't we good, we are our own republic, look how brilliant we are".. ie. more dellusioned idiots, much like you find in the USA. Idiots who are so dellusioned that they have no notion of a nation being a socially constructed entity with no inherent power.

Fuck it. People like you seem to have some euphoric dream of Australia "evolving" into its own republic. I see a republic as something disgusting.
 

poloktim

\(^o^)/
Joined
Jun 15, 2003
Messages
1,323
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

spadijer said:
If you believe that we should say as a Constitional monarachy, then, not only are you dellusional, but bound to the shackles of old, out-dated modes of thinking.
If somebody makes an ad-hominem at you, you do not return the favour, ignore it and continue the argument.

Secondly, however, it is your second point that is most disturbing. And far as I can read it, you have no respect for Australian troops, especially for the ANZAC's nor in the World War II campaigns. You imply that something which occured 70 or longer years ago does not deserve respect. Hence you denigrate the lives of peoples forefathers as well as this nation. You also apply that there sacrifice was nothing; and inadvertly or not, advocate that these events don't reflect the following: Whilst this might not have been your real intention, you cannot deny the historicity of these events. They signalled chaos, and flaws on being a part of the British system. In fact, it has already repeated it self twice during the world wars.
You apply an assumed set of morals in your argument. Not everybody may respect the military, regardless of their role in the past. Pacifists may see a military, regardless of how it's used as a disgusting tool of war. This may offend your belief system, but then you viewing the military as something to be revered may offend another person's. Applying your own morals to an argument in the idea that everybody shares them will not work.

Lets hope history does not repeat itself. We do not need Britian any more. As far back as 1942, when Britian could not defend Singapore, let alone Australia, we saw that Britain was little use to us. This was confirmed after the war when Britian joined the European Common Market and reducing trading with us due to our "convinct" past.[/qupte]
In the previous paragraph you've mentioned how we should never forget our forefathers, and how the past is important. Now you're telling us we should cut off our closest tie to not only Britain, but to other Commonwealth Realms (the idea that we all have a common head of state, the Queen).
The UK is not our closest ally any more, everybody can tell you that. However, we do not need to keep modelling ourselves whenever we get a new best friend. Should the PRC become our next closest ally, do you suppose we adapt communism?

Thirdly, moreover, we have been living a lie: The Irish who came here as convicts or later, as regugees of the great Famine in the 1840s and 1850s, had no love for Britian. In fact they hated anything British and had blamed Britian for the uncessary death of over 1.5 million Irish people as well as the forced emigration of another 1.5 millioon at the time; not to count the millions who left there in decades to follow escape the pverty. This was shown in both 1917 and 1967 (an Irish community who is still very strong) when they campaigned against the conscripting of troops to help Britian in the First World War. Thus, what does the Queen mean to the Irish-Australian? European-Australian? Vietnamese-Australian?
I'd suppose the Queen means exactly the same thing to immigrants from Ireland, continental Europe, Vietnam and other Asian nations as well as other nations that aren't Commonwealth Realms as she does to those who were born in Australia or another Commonwealth Realm. She is a figurehead leader who does what she's told. In return Australia gets a stable government, a head of state who does not change every four years, the ability for a failing government, or a failing head of government to be easily removed (via a simple no-confidence vote), and a bit of class and tradition about the way things are done. While the last is not at all important, it's still notable. Especially when you were so eager to mention Australia's past above. :)

Fourthly, America, India, Hong-Kong (which is now China) - France even (although they are not part of the Empire) - have turned into a Republic. One by one, the empire (or rather, the monoarchy) falls. Australia, lets face it will eventually be a republic. Moreover, for as these nations show, economic strength, freedom and national unity. Thus, I remind you they are the most powerful nations on Earth - All republics are. So you are right: "oh yes, aren't we good, we are our own republic, look how brilliant we are".
Look at the United States now. It's pretty much a democratic autocracy. The president can do several things without Congress' approval, those that do need Congress' approval are very easy to get should the president and the majority of congress be in the same political party.
On the other hand, India is a good example you mentioned. The president is a simple figurehead who has reserve powers, similar to governors-general. Parliament still contains the power, the PM is still answerable to parliament, meaning the PM must please parliament (while in the Westminster System this is almost guaranteed, there are times where people will cross the floor). If Australia was to become a republic, I would favour the Indian model most of all.
Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. It is not a republic. It also never was a Commonwealth Realm. Commonwealth Realms have governors-general, Hong Kong had a governor. Hong Kong was a British overseas territory. In 1997 it simply left the UK and became part of the PRC for fifty years of considerable autonomy from the Central People's Government in Beijing. It also never chose to leave the UK. The lease on the New Territories was running out, and when Thatcher attempted to renew the lease, China stated they'd not be renewing the lease, and would like all of Hong Kong returned to China. There was no referendum, the people of Hong Kong had no choice.
Agreed, Australia will most likely become a republic. While I'd not like to see this happen, should it happen Australia will need to at the same time fix up federation. As I said earlier, I'd hope for the Indian method of republicanism to be chosen.
The People's Republic of China is a republic... not a very free one, but it's a republic. Both the Republic of China (Taiwan) and South Korea are also republics, and only recently have they become democratic. There are several examples of republics gone wrong (as with other systems, including constitutional monarchies). Republics cannot be seen as the pinnacle of human freedom or democracy.

Even though the Australian Republic would be different tothe American one, even if it wasn't, mid-term elections coupled with leader limitation is the most effective democracy. I suggest you read Karl Popper's Open Society and its Enemies which showed Republics are the most effective. Jurgen Habermas supports a deliberative democracy - one where we have multiple heads of State, much like a Supreme court. Habermas goes on to prove that Republics are most effective - but I think that you don't like the American model - I don't 100% of the time either. I therefore believe you should certainly read the latter, and until you do, do not reply on my posts.
I also am not a fan of the US model, and preferably would like to see little change to the Westminster system of government should/when we become a republic.

However, my third point, not only do we live in a multi-cultural country, we need to see Asia not as a threat; but as a hope. More importantly, I question your point that the Governor general is our head of state. We did not elect him. So, what I will give America credit is this: That from the slums and ghettos (such as Bill Clinton) to the rich ends of town a man can have the thrill to rise; to build himself into something great. For the kids of that country to dream to have the right to have the highest office in the land; the thrill of campaining. Any role the Governor-General plays in breaking political deadlocks can be played by a President - someone elected for, by and of the people.
An elected president would serve no meaning in a Westminster style government. S/he would simply be a figurehead giving "royal" assent to bills passed in parliament to make them law. But if Australia were to become a republic, the president would need to be elected. I think the previous referendum on Australian republicanism proved that. An elected figurehead. I guess Ireland has done it.

Currently, the Queen is a most intelligent, charming and proper person and is highly regarded - even by Republicans such as myself! But, as the country gears progressively for a Republican system of government the above credentials are insufficent, if not irrelevant. The fact is that she is foreign (i.e. of another nationality) and economically useless - she pays no taxes into the Australian consolidated revenue, and by virtie of her birthright status, she alienates hundred of thousands of true Aussie citizens whether they be native born or naturalised. Retention of the British monarch in our system of governent maintains Britishness to a great degree. The English language dominates, as does, to a minor extent, the British culture. This, in many ways, denies the multicultural, economic and social strands of the country.
The Queen is interesting in regards to citizenship. All peoples of Commonwealth Realms (that is, the countries that share the office of the head of state with Her Majesty) are subjects of The Queen. For example, let's use the UK. All citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are subjects of The Queen. If she was a citizen of the UK, she would then also be a subject of herself. For Australian purposes, the Queen is treated as a very special anomaly, she is granted a Special Purpose Visa upon arrival, and has right of abode in Australia (as with all Commonwealth Realms).

So to paraphrase you: If you don't like our history go home. People like you seem to have some frivlous, outdated dogma for Australia which says this: "staying" a monoarchy in the face of changing world circumstances is the way to go. You seem to want Prince Charles are your King; you seem to be the first person, to my knowledge, that suggests hope, idealism and renewal are negative things. You are truly stuck in what can only be described as the "impotence": We can never truly grown up with out own sense of identity and a feeling of a common future if we do not take this final step. It is important to our own self-identity and sense of common destiny that we go it alone.
We live in a global society. There's very little we can go at alone. There will always be international observers. The age of nations minding their own business is over.
 

Tamazoid

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2004
Messages
108
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
1999
Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

Nice try, but you just keep digging. You made an unequivocal, absolute statement that was manifestly incorrect. You can claim to have intended what you purport to but that doesn't change the fact that you didn't type that.

True, the US is our major ally, but the close relationship with the UK continues economically, politically, culturally and militarily. It is still a major source of our immigrant intake, there is a strong business relationship and our militaries collaborate closely. In fact last year AUKMIN was instituted.

As for the republican 'movement', surely you jest. It never was, it isn't and it's not likely to be in the future.
 

Jachie

it ain't easy being white
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,662
Gender
Female
HSC
2008
Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

How can anyone be happy about our head of state being someone who doesn't even live in our country?

I'm all for a Republic.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top