Republic vs Monarchy (2 Viewers)

[Liberal Scum]

It's been at least 6 months since this issue has been discussed, and since I don't like bumping ancient threads I thought I'd create a new one.

I'll start by saying I'm not entirely swayed by either idea, I think that the monarchy is redundant, and the idea of having a non-Australian being able to dismiss the prime minister is somewhat unsettling, but at the same time I realise the problems that constitutional change has brought about in other countries (eg Nazi Germany), and thus am reluctant to bring about such change when there is no huge difference between the status quo and the proposed model so far as the everyday functioning of government is concerned.

What are the thoughts of others on the issue, and why?

PS Apologies for the lack of full stops.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well, some of the greatest countries in the world are constitutional monarchies. For whatever reason (perhaps that for any power-hungry government, they have to remember that they are not actually top of the food chain) they seem to work better than the republics of the world.

 

[Liberal Scum]

The United States seem to do pretty well for themselves.

 

[Armani]

Personally I'm of the opinion that a radical change of government is not required. I am however quite sceptical of the idea of having a popularly elected individual to represent the country unopposed. Only if the republic model allowed swift removal of the head of government should there be a sudden change of faith in the individual would I be in favour of the republic model. Still, if it is not broken, why fix it?

 

[Kwayera]

And to add to what Not-That-Bright has said, despite 'hiccups', in comparison to the rest of the world we have one of the strongest and most effective governments in existence - as a product of, rather than in SPITE of, being a constitutional monarchy.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well the united states also has a very strong bill of rights.

edit:

if it isn't broken, why fix it?

Some would claim that becomming a republic would give us a greater national identity. Also, many people are of the opinion that even if we do need a 'check and balance', having the Queen / GG makes us an undemocratic nation anyway.

 

[Armani]

Has not certain activists been campaigning for an Australian Bill Of Rights? Must of been an SMH article which stated, with the introduction of the new anti-terrorism laws, that we should require them.

 

[Rafy]

I'm for a republic. But not one when the head of state is the Head of government as well (i.e America). The President should be independent of the elected government, although yes this means a largely ceremonial role.
The position of Governor-general becomes President, and we remove all ties with the UK. Then perhaps we may have a head of state that actually lives in the country.

I also favour the President being directly elected (as opposed from majority vote by parliament)

Of course the counter argument is that a change to such a model really dosent change much, and probally wouldnt be worth the effort.


I also agree, the concept of a monarchy is redundant, especially for a country such as ours.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well particulary after Al-Kateb v. Godwin, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v. Al Khafari and Behrooz v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs many people have been making calls for an Australian Bill of Rights (the result of these thress cases being that the high court had ruled that an illegal immigrant could be detained indefinitely, even under inhumane conditions.)

 

[Liberal Scum]

And to add to what Not-That-Bright has said, despite 'hiccups', in comparison to the rest of the world we have one of the strongest and most effective governments in existence - as a product of, rather than in SPITE of, being a constitutional monarchy.

Apart from the dismissal of Whitlam and the subsequent election of the spineless Fraser who didn't really push much neoliberal reform through, how has it affected Australia?

Well the united states also has a very strong bill of rights.

Is there any reason why we couldn't create a similar one? (Sans perhaps the second amendment).

 

[Armani]

I defend my right to carry a firearm!

 

[Generator]

In principle, I support the push for an Australian republic, and would vote 'yes' at a referendum such as that proposed by Mark Latham sometime last year. However, till I see the models that are to be considered, I'm quite happy for the current system to continue, provided that the executive is checked by something or someone at some stage. There is only so much abuse of the democratic process that I can stand.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Is there any reason why we couldn't create a similar one? (Sans perhaps the second amendment).

There are many arguments against a bill of rights, mainly stemming from the fact that it takes alot of power away from the government and transfers much more power to the courts. Essentially, if we had a bill of rights most of the immigration cases would be found in favour of the detainee's, the cases i cited above (excluding behrooz) had a 4:3 majority, with McHugh J saying that if there was a bill of rights he would have ruled otherwise.

 

[Liberal Scum]

I defend my right to carry a firearm!

How can you defend that right when you have no firearms with which to do so?

 

[Liberal Scum]

There are many arguments against a bill of rights, mainly stemming from the fact that it takes alot of power away from the government and transfers much more power to the courts. Essentially, if we had a bill of rights most of the immigration cases would be found in favour of the detainee's, the cases i cited above (excluding behrooz) had a 4:3 majority, with McHugh J saying that if there was a bill of rights he would have ruled otherwise.

Is removing power from the government and giving it to a somewhat independent judicial system such a bad thing?

 

[Armani]

I shall obtain a firearm so I may defend my right to carry it!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well the judiciary is not elected, where as the executive is. While of course there are many problems with this argument, including that just because someone has voted in a government, does not mean they agree with them on every issue... but the argument still stands.

I personally used to be not in favour, however I currently swing more towards being in favour of one.

 

[supercharged]

Republic all the way, the British monarchy is so irrelevant to everyone except for British immigrants

 

[Armani]

I am seriously of the intention to plant my boot in a certain person's curly haired head right at this moment.

 

[Liberal Scum]

Well the judiciary is not elected, where as the executive is. While of course there are many problems with this argument, including that just because someone has voted in a government, does not mean they agree with them on every issue... but the argument still stands.

I personally used to be not in favour, however I currently swing more towards being in favour of one.

I see your point, and concede that this is a definite issue that would need ironing out.

Constitution:
bleh. I was actually a republican for a while, untill i realised that there was a strict correlation between left wingers and pro-republican.. At which i instantaneously converted to somewhat of a monarchist and haven't gone back.

...