Society/Culture Monarchy vs Republic for Australia, and what is your main reasoning?

[Craigyboy]

Are you for a Monarchy or Republic for Australia, and what is the main reason you are one way or the other?

If you vote 'Other' for either, explain why.

 

[The Punter]

We've had 1 constitutional crisis in almost 100 years. That's incredibly good going.

The process to alter the constitution to create a republic is messy and expensive.

That money would make no discernable improvement to Australians' way of life.

If it ain't broke ... and it ain't broke.

 

[fairdinkum]

Should have allowed voters to select more than one option. Both 'if it aint broke' and 'less political corruption' would have suited me.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

We've had 1 constitutional crisis in almost 100 years. That's incredibly good going.

The process to alter the constitution to create a republic is messy and expensive.

That money would make no discernable improvement to Australians' way of life.

If it ain't broke ... and it ain't broke.

Only a minor thing, a democratically elected government removed by . . . . . . . . . . the representative of the monarch.

Republic all the way

 

[Contra Mundum]

Can't see the risk in a minimal model whereby the Governor-General is the head of State selected from a short list approved of by both houses of Parliament.

 

[The Punter]

Because any changing of the words in the constitution increase the risk of unforeseen happenings.

The events of 1975 are often cited as a criticism of our current arrangements, and it's hard to argue against the politics, or the moral aspect.

But the Governor-General of Australia derives her power from the Constitution of Australia, not the British Crown as they do in New Zealand and Canada.

So, she represents the Crown, but does not derive her power from the Queen. A minimalist model, where all references to the British Monarch was removed and replaced with some reference to the Australian Crown would do nothing to fix the problem of 1975.

And you don't have to replace the Queen to codify the Governor-General's powers. That is a separate issue.

 

[evo]

I don't really care much either way these days. But one thing I would like to see if do we get rid of Queeny her head be placed on a pike and paraded down Elizabeth St.

It was one of the few advantages of living in the middle ages.

 

[Scotland]

Pro-republic on the basis that the head of state of Australia (regardless of how active or powerful their role actually is) should be Australian and elected.

I reckon we won't become a republic until such time that $2 coins are basically worthless to avoid having to re-mint millions of coins. Would be cool to see historical Australian figures on the coins as well as the notes.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Because any changing of the words in the constitution increase the risk of unforeseen happenings.

The events of 1975 are often cited as a criticism of our current arrangements, and it's hard to argue against the politics, or the moral aspect.

But the Governor-General of Australia derives her power from the Constitution of Australia, not the British Crown as they do in New Zealand and Canada.

So, she represents the Crown, but does not derive her power from the Queen. A minimalist model, where all references to the British Monarch was removed and replaced with some reference to the Australian Crown would do nothing to fix the problem of 1975.

And you don't have to replace the Queen to codify the Governor-General's powers. That is a separate issue.

Yeh but Constitutional Conventions are not laws! You can't codify something that is amorphous. How does a minimalist republic endanger us?

 

[buddy23]

I believe that we should eventually become a republic... but it is very low on the priority list.

 

[The Punter]

Any change increases risk. Untested laws are riskier until they are tested.

And I'm not talking about conventions: in 1975, the Governor-General exercised power he had under the constitution, and the holder of that position still holds today.

 

[Pessimistic]

can respondents also state if they ar born overseas and have taken out citizenship

And if not why not - to me they have no right to vote on this issue

Once 'they' die off, the republic will be in

 

[Admiral Byng]

Minimalist republic based upon Westminster pricniples. It is our system of Westmisnter parliament and the conventions that go with it that are the root cause of our stability, not the monarchy per se.

Upon the death of the current queen I'd like to see The Crown and the G-G merged into the one office to be called "Australian Head of State" (not President), to be appointed by the same rules as the G-G.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Any change increases risk. Untested laws are riskier until they are tested.

And I'm not talking about conventions: in 1975, the Governor-General exercised power he had under the constitution, and the holder of that position still holds today.

How was anything tested after the dismissal. The change required for the minimal model is stuff all. as a very wise person once wrote:

[FONT=&quot]Nineteen sections of the Australian Constitution refer to the Queen, directly or indirectly. Thirty refer to the Governor-General. All of these references would need to be changed. Depending on what the States decide to do, it may also be necessary to change sections which refer to State Governors. Section 12 for example gives Governors power over the timing of State elections.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]While these changes are numerous, they are not necessarily dramatic. In some cases, the reference to the Queen could simply be taken out, without altering the effect of the section. For example, the requirement for the Governor-General to give the "Queen's assent" to a constitutional amendment under section 128 could just as easily refer to "assent". Similarly, the reference to "the Queen's Ministers of the State" in section 64, could read "Ministers of State".[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In other sections, the changes would require further thought. Section 117, for example, prevents discrimination against "subjects of the Queen" on the grounds of their State residence. Two modern day equivalents are "citizens" or "people". The second would give the section a much wider operation than the first.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In addition to removing references to the Queen, creation of a republic would need new sections to be included in the Constitution dealing with the appointment and, perhaps, the powers of a new Head of State. These changes would, of course, be more significant. They are the subject of much of the present debate (look at Fact Sheet 2.4).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]It is possible that the occasion might be used to make other amendments as well. It is sometimes suggested, for example, that Chapter 2 of the Constitution should describe the Executive Government more clearly, at least by referring to the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Some provisions of the Constitution now are outdated and might be removed at the same time. It is possible that other types of constitutional changes might also be discussed over the period leading to the constitutional centenary and put to referendum, with the republic or separately. Changes to Chapter 1 to spell out political rights more clearly is an example.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[The Punter]

All small changes. Other than a repeat of 1975, which due to the political fallout will almost certainly never happen again, there seems no good reason to make these changes.

We are democratic.

We are independent.

We are incredibly stable.

We have better things to spend millions of dollars on.

And it ain't broke.

 

[The Goon]

Voted republic - other simply because I agree to a certain degree with all of those reasons. Primary reasons would be both independence and having an Australian head of state (equally), Secondary would be the fact that the monarchy is a cancerous institution.

 

[Contra Mundum]

All small changes. Other than a repeat of 1975, which due to the political fallout will almost certainly never happen again, there seems no good reason to make these changes.

We are democratic.

We are independent.

We are incredibly stable.

We have better things to spend millions of dollars on.

And it ain't broke.

I agree its a low order priority but if you think that having a monarch of a foreign country as our Head of State is "not broke" - I pity you. People said the same thing about getting rid of the Privy Council as the last Court of Appeal - stuff all happened.

 

[Admiral Byng]

All small changes. Other than a repeat of 1975, which due to the political fallout will almost certainly never happen again, there seems no good reason to make these changes.

We are democratic.

We are independent.

We are incredibly stable.

We have better things to spend millions of dollars on.

And it ain't broke.

Except for the bit about the person holding the office being a foreigner and selected based on accident of birth, rather than being an Australian citizen selected on the basis of merit. if we can change that last little bit without losing the rest of the positives I reckon do it.

 

[The Punter]

Removing the Privy Council actually had an affect on people - imagine if the Mabo decision had been appealed to the Privy Council. It was no longer a final court of appeal, so the fact that the High Court was made a difference.

The minimal change would have no affect on anyone (with a large cost attached), while the larger change (codifying powers, direct election) would bring a level of risk and uncertainty.

And the Governor-General is Australia's Head of State.

You can pity me all you like, but it's kind of like Americans protecting their 2nd amendment because the King of England could attack them any time otherwise. I don't think about the British Monarchy and they have no affect on me. The Queen cannot instruct me what to have for breakfast. The Australian Constitution empowers her so much, that when she visited in 1954, they needed to enact legislation so she could chair an Executive Council meeting.

Cancer is something that attacks the host - how are the British Monarchy cancerous? Odd, subject to ridicule for their personal lives, yes, but not cancerous. And no British Monarch has had any detrimental effect on Australia since we became a nation.

Why? Because they have no real power here. We are in every way an independent nation - no nation can tell us what to do by law. (I don't want to get into Australian-US relations here, that is not what I am talking about and any mention is just changing the subject to another flight of fancy.)

It's just a non-issue (rather than a little one), and there are better things to spend the money on.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Removing the Privy Council actually had an affect on people - imagine if the Mabo decision had been appealed to the Privy Council. It was no longer a final court of appeal, so the fact that the High Court was made a difference.

The minimal change would have no affect on anyone (with a large cost attached), while the larger change (codifying powers, direct election) would bring a level of risk and uncertainty.

And the Governor-General is Australia's Head of State.

You can pity me all you like, but it's kind of like Americans protecting their 2nd amendment because the King of England could attack them any time otherwise. I don't think about the British Monarchy and they have no affect on me. The Queen cannot instruct me what to have for breakfast. The Australian Constitution empowers her so much, that when she visited in 1954, they needed to enact legislation so she could chair an Executive Council meeting.

Cancer is something that attacks the host - how are the British Monarchy cancerous? Odd, subject to ridicule for their personal lives, yes, but not cancerous. And no British Monarch has had any detrimental effect on Australia since we became a nation.

Why? Because they have no real power here. We are in every way an independent nation - no nation can tell us what to do by law. (I don't want to get into Australian-US relations here, that is not what I am talking about and any mention is just changing the subject to another flight of fancy.)

It's just a non-issue (rather than a little one), and there are better things to spend the money on.

She can - after all she owns all the land in Australia. The only thing holding her back are your sacred "conventions" which never restricted anyone from doing anything

Put it another way no Australian can ever be our head of State. I question your patriotism

 

[Contra Mundum]

Sophie Mirabella would spread the crap that the GG is the head of State in Australia. A secondary school kid reading the Australian Constitution could tell you otherwise - for example, where does legislative power reside in our Constitution:

- SECT 1
Legislative power

The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament , or The Parliament of the Commonwealth .

er where is the reference to our Head of State

 

[Happy Mastenator]

The minimal change would have no affect on anyone (with a large cost attached), while the larger change (codifying powers, direct election) would bring a level of risk and uncertainty.

Worst excuse ever, cost is minimal in the grand scheme of things, and who said you need to codify powers? And where did direct electoin come in? At the moment the GG is appointed upon recomendation of the government, no need to change, their powers have been refined for centuries, the courts would stop them if stepped outside that.

And the Governor-General is Australia's Head of State.

Wrong, the GG is the Queen's rep, and not the head of state.

You can pity me all you like, but it's kind of like Americans protecting their 2nd amendment because the King of England could attack them any time otherwise. I don't think about the British Monarchy and they have no affect on me. The Queen cannot instruct me what to have for breakfast. The Australian Constitution empowers her so much, that when she visited in 1954, they needed to enact legislation so she could chair an Executive Council meeting.

Why? Because they have no real power here. We are in every way an independent nation - no nation can tell us what to do by law. (I don't want to get into Australian-US relations here, that is not what I am talking about and any mention is just changing the subject to another flight of fancy.)

Sort of defeats the point you make above about it being a dramatic thing if we ditch her then....

 

[The Punter]

She can - after all she owns all the land in Australia. The only thing holding her back are your sacred "conventions" which never restricted anyone from doing anything.

By this logic, Barack Obama owns all the land in the United States.

And I question your judgement.

If there is to be little change (Monarchy v Republic), why bother? Shouldn't money be spent on improving people's lives?

 

[Admiral Byng]

By this logic, Barack Obama owns all the land in the United States.

And I question your judgement.

If there is to be little change (Monarchy v Republic), why bother? Shouldn't money be spent on improving people's lives?

No he doesn't, their constitution is different.

The Queen will die eventually. We should look at what we are going to do as a replacement. A referrendum question can be tacked onto a Federal election at some time in the future to minimise costs.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

By this logic, Barack Obama owns all the land in the United States.

And I question your judgement.

If there is to be little change (Monarchy v Republic), why bother? Shouldn't money be spent on improving people's lives?

Why bother? that is basically your argument now?

How about our head of state is an old english woman, who will be succeeded by an old english man with huge ears married to a horse who he was banging while married. Will and Kate may be nice and all but so what. We should trade the English for the Danes at least that way we'd have a real Aussie princess in Mary.