Republican Debate (1 Viewer)

[Enlightened_One]

Now don't hate me for restarting this debate, but...I heard it on the news, so blame them.

Anyway, apparently some people from the Upper House are conducting a study concerning a Republic of Australia. They reckon that in five years the whole attitude of the country will have changed.

So what's your views on the whole Republican idea?

 

[CM_Tutor]

Australia will become a republic in the not too distant future, IMO - but no serious movement will occur until we have a republican PM. It is an inevitable change, as opinion among young people and even the middle aged is overwhelmingly in favour of the change. The only reason it was shot down last time was sabotage by the PM and stupidity by the republicans in trying to impose a structure that was unpopular.

You might want to read the opinion piece in today's SMH by Professor George Williams:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/12/1081621891159.html

It covers the impediments to the change quite well.

 

[ohne]

Yes there is a Senate commitee on a Republic at the moment. My opinion is Australian's overwhelmingly said no at the last referendum and that decision should be respected. You can't just ignore a decision and keep holding referenda until the people vote the way you want them to. Australia's constitution must be respected. I think the government should wait at least another 10-15 years before they can start thinking about another referendum.

 

[Generator]

Ah, I can recall that despite it being a 'yes or no' vote in theory, it was promoted as a politicians' republic against the current system...

The situation will only move beyond its current state after a proper yes or no referendum is held.

 

[CM_Tutor]

Generator is right. A referendum with the simple question "Do you support Australia becoming a republic?" would be supported by a sizable majority of the population. After such a referendum is the time to sort out the model, not before it.

 

[Josie]

People voted against the dodgy system which our MONARCHIST Pm came up with, they did not vote against the Republic. Australians want a republic, and I think it will happen.

 

[CM_Tutor]

There are a lot of things to do with the republican debate that can be blamed on the PM. Unfortunately, the model put at the referendum is not one of them. The model was agreed by the constitutional convention, and was supported by the ARM - it wasn't Howard's model.

 

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by ohne
Yes there is a Senate commitee on a Republic at the moment. My opinion is Australian's overwhelmingly said no at the last referendum and that decision should be respected. You can't just ignore a decision and keep holding referenda until the people vote the way you want them to. Australia's constitution must be respected. I think the government should wait at least another 10-15 years before they can start thinking about another referendum.

The only reason why IMO that the referenda did not succeed was because of the poor wording of the question, it was not simplified.
Also, due to the fact that the draft structure of the republician system in australia was dodgy.
Im not gonna give my opinions coz i dont feel i know enuff about it. but what i do know is that studies have shown that the majority of australians would like a republic.

 

[ohne]

Originally posted by Josie
People voted against the dodgy system which our MONARCHIST Pm came up with, they did not vote against the Republic. Australians want a republic, and I think it will happen.

Firstly the PM had little to do with the model put to referendum. It was a model agreed to by a number of groups and people at the constitutional convention. The Australian Republican Movement also supported this model although now unsuprisingly they are saying it was a dodgy model despite supporting it in the first place .

As for your comments about it being a dodgy system it is impossible to fully survey the reasons most people voted no. Saying it was because of the model offered is just speculation on your part. There is no guarantee that putting up another model would increase the yes vote.

 

[CM_Tutor]

Ohne, that is an argument worthy of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy.

 

[ohne]

Originally posted by CM_Tutor
Ohne, that is an argument worthy of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy.

What can I say? Thankyou...

 

[Snapwizard]

Enlightened_One - for me theres no real debate~~ I'm gonna vote republic and so is most of the people I know ~~ seems like the older Australians tend to vote Constitutional Monarchy.

 

[santaslayer]

and your reasons are...?

this is a debate u know!

 

[AGB]

i dont really think there are reasons of any substance as to why we should become a republic except for the fact that some people want to and some dont...

 

[CM_Tutor]

AGB, here's a couple of hypotheticals for you:

1. The NSW government passes legislation that allows medically supervised euthanasia, along similar lines to that passed by the NT government a few years ago. The Federal government passes its own legislation to override the NSW Act. Who should have the final say on whether the Federal Act has the power to override the NSW Act?

2. John Howard is re-elected at the next Federal election, but the Greens gain the balance of power in the Senate. Together with the ALP, they refuse to pass ANY legislation. Who should have the final say over resolving this matter?

 

[Snapwizard]

i

Originally posted by santaslayer
and your reasons are...?

this is a debate u know!

The Queen has passed her prime!!

 

[Enlightened_One]

Originally posted by CM_Tutor
AGB, here's a couple of hypotheticals for you:

1. The NSW government passes legislation that allows medically supervised euthanasia, along similar lines to that passed by the NT government a few years ago. The Federal government passes its own legislation to override the NSW Act. Who should have the final say on whether the Federal Act has the power to override the NSW Act?



The final say is held by the Consitution. It states, quite plainly, that any law created by the Commonwealth would over rule any law by a State. Though the Commonwealth can only legislate in certain areas, and most of the State governments laws are outside the jurisdiction of Commonwealth law.
If Commonwealth law did not over ride State law our system would collapse, and there would be no need for a central government, as each State would have the complete control, as if it were a country.



2. John Howard is re-elected at the next Federal election, but the Greens gain the balance of power in the Senate. Together with the ALP, they refuse to pass ANY legislation. Who should have the final say over resolving this matter?

The result, as has happened once before, would be for the Governor General to dismiss everyone and recall an election. That is the upside of our system. The governor general cannot create laws, all he does is assent to them before they became an Act. The fact iswWe have one man who can do only one thing in reality, get rid of the government. It's a safegaurd against tyranny etc.

 

[Alexander]

I thought a democracy was a safeguard against tyranny...if anything it's tyranny having some old bloke with the power to dissolve a majority government

 

[teh winnar!]

BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE QUEEN DIES AND TEH VATICAN MAKES IT'S MOVE AGAINST ENGLAND FOR DEFECTING AND BEING DIRTY PROTESTANTS!1?

I DON'T WANT TO BE FACING UP AGAINST THE POPE'S ARMY BECAUSE THEY'RE FROM SWITZERLAND AND THEY HAVE HILARIOUS HATS




EDIT: SO WE SHOULD BE A REPUBLIC. CASE CLOSED

 

[Calculon]

Originally posted by teh winnar!
BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE QUEEN DIES AND TEH VATICAN MAKES IT'S MOVE AGAINST ENGLAND FOR DEFECTING AND BEING DIRTY PROTESTANTS!1?

I DON'T WANT TO BE FACING UP AGAINST THE POPE'S ARMY BECAUSE THEY'RE FROM SWITZERLAND AND THEY HAVE HILARIOUS HATS




EDIT: SO WE SHOULD BE A REPUBLIC. CASE CLOSED

But the Swiss are neutral and have been for many years, why should they become hostile now?