Should Australia be a Republic? (2 Viewers)

[wuddie]

Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

frankly, name me one good thing the brits have done for us in the past 50 years. we have a head of state who do not participate in any of our politics, lifestyles and certainly could not care less about our concerns. the queen and our governor general are merely for materialistic symbols, who are no good tax-money consuming 'things'. in fact, we don't even need them unless for constitutional reasons.

so again, anyone thinks republic and independence is a bad idea, give me a good reason. (and don't say commonwealth games, who gives a fk about that)

 

[Indian Princess]

Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

frankly, name me one good thing the brits have done for us in the past 50 years. we have a head of state who do not participate in any of our politics, lifestyles and certainly could not care less about our concerns. the queen and our governor general are merely for materialistic symbols, who are no good tax-money consuming 'things'. in fact, we don't even need them unless for constitutional reasons.

so again, anyone thinks republic and independence is a bad idea, give me a good reason. (and don't say commonwealth games, who gives a fk about that)

basically what you are saying is like telling your parent to fukk off after you graduate and got a decent job thinking you are everything.

If australia becomes a republic the governor-general will be replaced by President if it keeps it current westminster system, and The President will be a mere symbol which you don't think important. There will be no difference in the amount of tax wasted in keeping Governor general or the President. If it follows US presidential system, then you can only felt the real difference, with the PM post being abolished.

Most countries have these powerless mere symbol head of states (Presidents, Kings and Queens etc) and why is it such a burden for Australia, a relatively well off country in the world?

 

[poloktim]

Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

we have a head of state who do not participate in any of our politics, lifestyles and certainly could not care less about our concerns. the queen and our governor general are merely for materialistic symbols, who are no good tax-money consuming 'things'. in fact, we don't even need them unless for constitutional reasons.

Having an apolitical figurehead as the apex of Australian power isn't necessarily a bad thing. The Queen and her Governor-General are expected to not meddle in the affairs of Australian politics, yet have the power to do so should there be a need (like in 1975). If Australia was to keep the Westminster system of government, as Indian Princess mentioned, the president of Australia would have the same roles as the Governor-General has, apart from referring a bill to Her Majesty to assent (which would be pointless).

Also, Australia only funds the Queen when she is either present in Australia, or representing Australia abroad (as in, is officially Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of Australia). All "regal" money from tax-payers goes to funding the Governor-General, and the governors.

 

[HeideggerII]

Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

Why change when it has worked for us for over 100 years

And who is to say it will not work better?

Hence, why I support the Swiss model

Not one crisis in 350 years...

 

[HeideggerII]

Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

I prefer the idea of monarchy - retaining royalty, tradition and all that.

If you want to be a "subject" (as per section 117 of the Constitution), support the monarchy (haha so inferior) - for those who want to be an individual, support a Republic...(the individual, not a philistine on welfare (as the Queen's OWN historian put it) should be sovereign; yes, I'm a classical liberal).


I want an Australian, not a Saxe Coburg-Gotha as our Head of State.

 

[HeideggerII]

Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

If they say that then they are as dellusional as you are in saying that we need to become a republic.

uh, and how many years ago did those things occur?
We do have an Australian head of state, the governer general.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.

"We do have an Australian head of state, the governer general."

Nope, these precedents prove you wrong:

Pochi v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1982] HCA 60 at 9, Re Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Limited v Westpac Banking Corporation; the Northern Territory of Australia [1987] FCA 454 at 8, Nolan v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1988] HCA 45; (1988) 165 CLR 178 at 10-11, The Queen v Sam Scott (1993) 114 ACTR 20 at 66-70, Authorities Superannuation Board v Commissioner of State Taxation (WA) [1996] HCA 32; (1996) 189 CLR 253; (1996) 140 ALR 129, Moller v Board of Examiners [1999] VSC 55 at 19-25, Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30; 199 CLR 462; 163 ALR 648 at 83-88, Kingsman v Health Administration Corporation [2000] NSWSC 136 at 258-9, Buchanan, Donald v Lindisfarne R & SLA.-Branch and Citizens Club Inc and Returned and Services League of Australia [2003] TASADT at 13, 69, 79, 81, 85, 87, 94, 115, Services League of Australia Limited (Costs) [2004] TASADT 2 at 14-19, 21-24.

Steven Spadijer, was 100% right.

And yes William the Conquerer declaring himself King of England is a really great thing to be a product of -

 

[ASNSWR127]

Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

nah no reason to be a republic...

it would cost SO MUCH to change over system's, money which could be spent on more importnant things.

 

[HeideggerII]

Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

nah no reason to be a republic...

it would cost SO MUCH to change over system's, money which could be spent on more importnant things.

The fact is costs so much means, firstly, we might as well get it over and done with and secondly, you are creating history, which is priceless. Nevertheless, actually, it can give us a profit, depending on the model. I support the State Governors simply rotating, annually, as President (as the GG costs us 13 m each year, so that disappears - the State Governor gets no extra pay);* and don't forget everytime a monarch dies that means our coins have to be changed and of course, it can be very cheap: just phase everything out over 15 years (in other words, it costs nothing as we change things every few years anyways). You also seem to forget federalism atm is costing us 49 m per year on paperwork and the occasion gift to Liz; frankly, its your system that is costing us.

Oh and Chief Justice French recently did an article for the Sydney Law Review, discussing ways a dictatorship can be installed under the status quo (so just because it "ain't broken" doesn't mean it can't be broken) - oh, and there is a reason to change: we have a philistine as our Head of State,** someone who stems from William the Conquerer, killing, stabbing, murdering the native Britions and installing himself King, ha: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/22/monarchy.topstories3

Nevertheless, I support slow, statutory reform: start by simply applying the model to the GG atm (so the PM advises the Queen to rotate the GG among the State Governors annually, a list of 8 people is nominated by a 3/4 majority of State Parliament, people choose). The model ought to be in practice, trialled and tested. Then simply crystallise the statue into the Constitution, come the referendum.

As such, your views are dismissed.

* This model is the most stable model in human history, Switzerland has a similar system, producing 300 years of stability.
** Judicial decisions of the High Court which declare the Queen, not the GG, as our Head of State: Pochi v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1982] HCA 60 at 9, Re Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Limited v Westpac Banking Corporation; the Northern Territory of Australia [1987] FCA 454 at 8, Nolan v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1988] HCA 45; (1988) 165 CLR 178 at 10-11, The Queen v Sam Scott (1993) 114 ACTR 20 at 66-70, Authorities Superannuation Board v Commissioner of State Taxation (WA) [1996] HCA 32; (1996) 189 CLR 253; (1996) 140 ALR 129, Moller v Board of Examiners [1999] VSC 55 at 19-25, Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30; 199 CLR 462; 163 ALR 648 at 83-88, Kingsman v Health Administration Corporation [2000] NSWSC 136 at 258-9, Buchanan, Donald v Lindisfarne R & SLA.-Branch and Citizens Club Inc and Returned and Services League of Australia [2003] TASADT at 13, 69, 79, 81, 85, 87, 94, 115, Services League of Australia Limited (Costs) [2004] TASADT 2 at 14-19, 21-24.

 

[HeideggerII]

Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

Who cares? republic or not either way makes little difference.

Although ironically Ian Chappell was the person who made ARM (the Australian Republican Movement). He's a patriot.

 

[ASNSWR127]

Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

The fact is costs so much means, firstly, we might as well get it over and done with and secondly, you are creating history, which is priceless. Nevertheless, actually, it can give us a profit, depending on the model. I support the State Governors simply rotating, annually, as President (as the GG costs us 13 m each year, so that disappears - the State Governor gets no extra pay);* and don't forget everytime a monarch dies that means our coins have to be changed and of course, it can be very cheap: just phase everything out over 15 years (in other words, it costs nothing as we change things every few years anyways). You also seem to forget federalism atm is costing us 49 m per year on paperwork and the occasion gift to Liz; frankly, its your system that is costing us.

Oh and Chief Justice French recently did an article for the Sydney Law Review, discussing ways a dictatorship can be installed under the status quo (so just because it "ain't broken" doesn't mean it can't be broken) - oh, and there is a reason to change: we have a philistine as our Head of State,** someone who stems from William the Conquerer, killing, stabbing, murdering the native Britions and installing himself King, ha: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/22/monarchy.topstories3

Nevertheless, I support slow, statutory reform: start by simply applying the model to the GG atm (so the PM advises the Queen to rotate the GG among the State Governors annually, a list of 8 people is nominated by a 3/4 majority of State Parliament, people choose). The model ought to be in practice, trialled and tested. Then simply crystallise the statue into the Constitution, come the referendum.

As such, your views are dismissed.

* This model is the most stable model in human history, Switzerland has a similar system, producing 300 years of stability.
** Judicial decisions of the High Court which declare the Queen, not the GG, as our Head of State: Pochi v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1982] HCA 60 at 9, Re Burgundy Royale Investments Pty Limited v Westpac Banking Corporation; the Northern Territory of Australia [1987] FCA 454 at 8, Nolan v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1988] HCA 45; (1988) 165 CLR 178 at 10-11, The Queen v Sam Scott (1993) 114 ACTR 20 at 66-70, Authorities Superannuation Board v Commissioner of State Taxation (WA) [1996] HCA 32; (1996) 189 CLR 253; (1996) 140 ALR 129, Moller v Board of Examiners [1999] VSC 55 at 19-25, Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30; 199 CLR 462; 163 ALR 648 at 83-88, Kingsman v Health Administration Corporation [2000] NSWSC 136 at 258-9, Buchanan, Donald v Lindisfarne R & SLA.-Branch and Citizens Club Inc and Returned and Services League of Australia [2003] TASADT at 13, 69, 79, 81, 85, 87, 94, 115, Services League of Australia Limited (Costs) [2004] TASADT 2 at 14-19, 21-24.

hang on a second buggalugs dont be so quick to dismiss that.

You arent thinking of all the costs...

every singe uniform of every single serving member of every single police/fire and ambulance service would have to change, every sign, every piece of ornamental and traditional items would have to change, all the defence forces would have to change... then there is the rest of the public service! that is just the tip of the iceberg!

then there is all of the tradition to be lost so rather than creating history one would actually be destroying it... ANZAC would be lost forever, the rising sun on our cap badges would be gone - entire institutions lost. the history erased in all but memory and text books.

We would no longer have so much tradition and so much history - you are really willing to throw that away? for what?? so we can sort of say to Britain *childish voice* "we are big boys and girls now", sorry not worth it...

 

[sam04u]

Yes.

 

[Iron]

Some think that this will spark a latent, more potent Australian nationalism which will almost certainly be racist - cf meshing us with the region and the paradise of equality

 

[sam04u]

Some think that this will spark a latent, more potent Australian nationalism which will almost certainly be racist

I doubt it. The whole idea that we're linked to Britain in the way the governments of the past have suggested is false. Australia and Britain are worlds apart, and our relationship should reflect that. The anglophilia which haunted Australia in the past, was a cause of the White Australia policy and the great deal of racism in this country.

But when faced with reality. This country was occupied by Aboriginals, has a close proximity and dependance on trading with it's Asian neighbours, has a mixed population, etc.

The idea of severing that symbolic anglo, colonial, relationship we have with Britain will advance the cause of multiculturalism. It will also allow for us to have a more serious relationship with our neighbours.

 

[Iron]

Propaganda. Multiculturalism is rapidly becoming code for Asian monoculturalism -soon comrades, soon we will be totally intergrated! Glory!

Dont see how you can justify that British heritage has been symbolic and haunting. It has been a very real cause for good. White Australia Policy was implemented in spite of Britain's close relationship with, say, Japan - the motherland was not happy with it, but seeing as though most of Asia was under Empire anyway, there werent any very hard feelings. Truth is that White Australia was necessary for this nation's development. Otherwise the disasterous slave labour of the US would have been inevitable, and we would not have developed the unique institutions of egalitarianism (which indirectly, ironically, have been used to support mulitculturalism)

 

[JaredR]

No. Next Question.

He's back!!!!

 

[sam04u]

Propaganda. Multiculturalism is rapidly becoming code for Asian monoculturalism -soon comrades, soon we will be totally intergrated! Glory!

No you.

Dont see how you can justify that British heritage has been symbolic and haunting.

It could very well just be me, but in reading your text I find it hard to derive meaning. I argued that our current relationship with the British has been symbolic, as it's not based on anything, other than the ridiculous notion of "heritage", which doesn't apply to the aboriginals, it doesn't apply to me as the child of immigrants. We have people with many different "heritages". Again, it has been such since Churchill practically pushed Australians to a side, saying Australians "come of a bad stock". Again, this was only years after the Australians shed blood due to this heritage in the first World War, which we comemorated not all that long ago.

White Australia Policy was implemented in spite of Britain's close relationship with, say, Japan

Right, that's why good ole' Barton practically said:
Even though we believe man is equal, we mean good, white, men of British descent. That's totally in spite of the British. The idea was for the British to immigrate to this country because of those British policies.

Otherwise the disasterous slave labour of the US would have been inevitable

Are you suggesting we would have bought slaves had we not had a white Australia policy? Does that mean you're saying it was good?

Seriously, Iron.

 

[Iron]

Look up Queensland sugar-cane before Federation. It was a slippery slope and not a bad argument for the policy. The reality was that our standard of living was amazingly high, and there were lots of poor souls in the region willing to do the same work at a fraction of the price. The policy was just a tariff on people. So, yeah, I think it was a good policy.
Fall of empire, rise in global technologies etc made it indefensible.

 

[sam04u]

*nonsense*

The point was not the effect, but rather the reasoning or motives behind it.
I mean mustard gas was responsible for finding new ways to treat cancer. Does that mean the idea of creating chemical weapons is good?

The reasoning/motives behind the white Australia policy were in no way good.

 

[Iron]

Sure it was justified by theories of racial superiority, but we can overlook that for a moment, surely, take a breath and look at it in the socially-cohesive economic terms I was steering towards. It has really been the only policy that was above politics - the crimson thread that united the colonies. It freed us to genuinely pursue egalitarianism, provide the living wage, look after those who fall off the wagon. It allowed us to establish a real community, real sense of identity and purpose. It was a flourishing, blooming rose cut short by war, economic realities and a left wing hijack

 

[_dhj_]

If we want to be a 'middle power', 'evolving' into a republic will not help us achieve the status. We need to strengthen militarily, for instance by developing nuclear weapons. It's a question of substance, not form.