Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[Roylion]

That's not a yes/no question now is it.

It is a Yes / No question.

It ends with a question....

Do you approve this proposed alteration?

You answer....."Yes" or "No". I found it quite easy to answer.

I don't need a long convoluted post to point that out.

You appear to unaware of how referendum questions are devised or how the 1999 referendum question was constructed.

You now know.

This will be the process for any future referendum question on a republic.

Should we become a Republic - yes/no

I'll repeat.

The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) 1984 states quite clearly that the referendum question MUST set out the title of the proposed law to alter the Constitution, and then ask whether the voter approves of the proposed law.

See how easy that is ?

It's not that difficult surely.

A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Do you approve this proposed alteration?

You read the question as above and then simply answer "Yes" or "No" on ther ballot paper

It's not that hard. It was very clear on what was being proposed to the average voter, even if they hadn't read the actual legislation.

Certainly not a 'manipulated' question as you attempted to claim.

 

[Father Jack]

It was a simple exercise in splitting the republican vote and then pretending that it was a fair vote.

 

[Cap]

It is a Yes / No question.

It ends with a question....

Do you approve this proposed alteration?

You answer....."Yes" or "No". I found it quite easy to answer.


You appear to unaware of how referendum questions are devised or how the 1999 referendum question was constructed.

You now know.

This will be the process for any future referendum question on a republic.


I'll repeat.

The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) 1984 states quite clearly that the referendum question MUST set out the title of the proposed law to alter the Constitution, and then ask whether the voter approves of the proposed law.



It's not that difficult surely.

A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Do you approve this proposed alteration?

You read the question as above and then simply answer "Yes" or "No" on ther ballot paper

It's not that hard. It was very clear on what was being proposed to the average voter, even if they hadn't read the actual legislation.

Certainly not a 'manipulated' question as you attempted to claim.

No I'm just aware that the constitutional question needed to be the end of the discussion and not the start. It didn't need to include the way in which the President would have been elected

A simple yes/no plebiscite would suffice to get the process started, that would allow the Govt of the time to work out the detail (how elected, who can dismiss who powers etc)

Once established and the relevant laws ready to go (or passed with provision they change when the relevant changes to head of state occur)

It's a simple question
A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President

Which we all know, would pass.

We all know why that didn't happen and it doesn't help when your sitting PM is a monarchist.

 

[Roylion]

It was a simple exercise in splitting the republican vote and then pretending that it was a fair vote.

The republicans need to get their act together and agree on a model for a republic.

The 1998 Constitutional Convention, 152 strong delegate body (half elected by voluntary postal vote by the Australian people and half appointed by the federal government) considered four models of a republic and voted on the model to be put to the Australian people. This of course then influenced the question via the process I have already described.

The majority of those elected and appointed to the 1998 Constitutional Convention were in favour of a republic.

58% of the 76 Government appointed delegates to the Constitutional Convention voted for a republic. Those who abstained numbered 8 (11%) and those who voted against a republic numbered 24 (31%).

Of the twenty Federal politicians that were appointed by the Government, as part of their 76 appointed members, (including 12 Coalition MPs), 13 (65%) voted for a republic.

Of the twenty State politicians, appointed to the Convention by the Government, 16 (80%) voted for a Republic.

The 152 delegates chose one model from the four republican models on offer through a process of voting, whereby the model receiving the lowest vote in each round of voting was knocked out until only one model remained.

 

[Cap]

It was a simple exercise in splitting the republican vote and then pretending that it was a fair vote.

to fair, they let it happen.

But that's how the Monarchy colonised countries.

 

[Cap]

The republicans need to get their act together and agree on a model for a republic.

I know it's a foreign concept for people who enjoy a Monarchy

But it's actually the people that ought to decide.

The people didn't need to be asked on only one model, that was just a furphy.

 

[Roylion]

No I'm just aware that the constitutional question needed to be the end of the discussion and not the start.

It was. The question was assembled after the 1998 Constitutional Convention had voted on a model for a republic.

Three questions were considered by the Convention

1. Whether or not Australia should become a republic; (58% of the 76 Government appointed delegates voted for a republic. Of the 20 Federal politicians appointed by the Government, including 12 Coalition MPs, 65% voted for a republic. Of the 20 State politicians, appointed by the Government, 80% voted for a Republic.)

2. Which republic model should be put to the voters to consider against the current system of government; (the vote for the winning model was 73 for, 57 against and 22 abstentions)
3. In what time frame and under what circumstances might any change be considered. (Recommendation was for a referendum in 1999)

It didn't need to include the way in which the President would have been elected

Of course it did. That was the model that was chosen by the 1998 Constitiutional Convention which met to discuss a republican model.

A simple yes/no plebiscite would suffice to get the process started,

A referendum still needs to be held. A model needs to be chosen and the model chosen needs to be put up against the existing model via that referendum.

that would allow the Govt of the time to work out the detail (how elected, who can dismiss who powers etc)

That detail was in the Consitution Alteration (Establisment of Republic 1999 Bill.

​

Once established and the relevant laws ready to go (or passed with provision they change when the relevant changes to head of state occur)

It's a simple question
A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President

The question was:

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

The model of choosing the President was outlined in the Bill and reflected in the question.

Which we all know, would pass.

That's debatable.

 

[Roylion]

I know it's a foreign concept for people who enjoy a Monarchy

But it's actually the people that ought to decide.

The people didn't need to be asked on only one model, that was just a furphy.

The Constitutional Convention of 1998 voted on the model. Only one model can be put up against the existing system in order to outline the exact changes to the Constitution.

 

[tandino]

I don't want to burst any bubbles, but 'no model' is really just a 'let Parliament decide' model, which has no chance of getting up anyway. It's a fools errand.

 

[Cap]

The Constitutional Convention of 1998 voted on the model. Only one model can be put up against the existing system in order to outline the exact changes to the Constitution.

I think we can all agree, that wasn't the best choice.

The choice needs to be put to the people.

 

[Roylion]

I think we can all agree, that wasn't the best choice.

And what is the best choice?

The vote for the winning bi-partisan model was 73 for, 57 against and 22 abstentions.

The choice needs to be put to the people.

It can only be put to the people as a plebiscite, not a referendum.

 

[Cap]

And what is the best choice?

The vote for the winning bi-partisan model was 73 for, 57 against and 22 abstentions.

I think ultimately it will be a public vote.

It can only be put to the people as a plebiscite, not a referendum.

yep, probably more than 1.

 

[peetoo]

The monarchy basically exists by Acts of Parliament and has been so since 1689. For example The Bill of Rights 1689 is an Act of the English Parliament, specifically the "Convention Parliament' which consisted of 513 elected Members of Parliament.

The 'Declaration of Right' which is now part of the Bill of Rights had thirteen clauses limiting the powers of the monarch.

Some of the more important ones are as follows:

• The power of suspending and executing laws rests in the hands of Parliament.
• The Crown does not have the legal authority to dispense or execute laws.
• The imposition of any taxes by the Crown without the permission of Parliament is illegal.
• A standing army at peacetime without the consent of Parliament is illegal.
• Members of Parliament have freedom of speech and their proceedings should not be questioned in any place outside of Parliament.
• Parliament should be held frequently to uphold the laws.

This was essentially the end of absolute monarchy with the most important the vesting of control of the military in Parliament, not the monarch. This meant the monarch could not impose his or her will on the people by force. The monarch could no longer suspend laws, levy taxes or make royal appointments.


The coronation oath reflected the changes. Mary II and her husband William III swore to govern according to "the statutes in Parliament agreed on" instead of by "the laws and customs ... granted by the Kings of England".

Even the Royal succession was to be decided by Parliament as the representatives of the people.


For example the Australian monarchy could be abolished by a Bill changing the Constitution that is voted in the affirmative by the Australian people.




We did. 1999.


Change the Laws of Succession to the Australian Crown. Last time we did that was the Succession to the Crown Act 2015 which commenced on 26th March 2015.


We do take responsibility for our government.

Australian law provides for the Crown of Australia via a number of statutes including the The Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Royal Marriage Act of 1772 as well as the Succession to the Crown Act of 2015. All are Australian law and all are independent of Great Britain. Were Great Britain to alter any of these Acts under their own law, it would have no impact on the Acts in Australian law.

Murdoch media claim to be fair and representing the people. It doesn’t work in practice.

 

[Roylion]

Murdoch media claim to be fair and representing the people. It doesn’t work in practice.

Well thanks. I'll keep that in mind.

 

[tandino]

Murdoch media claim to be fair and representing the people. It doesn’t work in practice.

So you're saying don't trust Murdoch? Fair enough.

Murdoch appeals to Australians' pride

In a last-ditch attempt to persuade Australians to vote for a republic, Rupert Murdoch yesterday warned that they would lose their self-respect if they did not end their links with the monarchy in Saturday's referendum.

www.theguardian.com

 

[tandino]

Earned a spicy retort from Howard

The media tycoon's intervention provoked a furious response from the Australian prime minister, John Howard.
"As an American citizen, Mr Murdoch should understand that this is a matter for Australians to determine," he said. "We don't need Americans coming here to tell us our constitution is no good and that we should throw it out in favour of a republic with the president chosen by politicians."

 

[peetoo]

Chosen by politicians paymasters more like.

I’m republican (just keep the title commonwealth) but realise if we successfully do get a republic. It’s probably our owners wanting even more say. So maybe not. At leastt a foreign monarch is cheap

 

[barreness]

The modern constitutional monarchy gains its fundamental authority via various Acts of Parliament and not via the doctrine of the 'Divine Right of Kings'. The concept of the 'Divine Right of Kings' as the origin of monarchial authority does not currently exist and hasn't existed since at least the 17th century.

Tim Harris, who is a social historian of politics who specialises in Later Stuart Britain and is the author of several works dealing with this era, argues that the continued existance of the monarchy has been since 1689, a "social contract" between ruler and people that serves the needs and wants of the people and not some deference to a 'Divine Right of Kings' doctrine.

Good on him but that's the historical justification, why are you my king? because god

We have a lot of enduring monarchies from this point, including our own

It's a social contract and it has been pretty good so far but that's the basis, god said, ****ing bullshit

 

[The Punter]

Everything about why we will still be a Constitutional Monarchy in 30 years time encapsulated in one internet forum thread.

 

[Roylion]

Good on him but that's the historical justification, why are you my king? because god

Because of parliament.

Parliament decided the form of government. England was a republic between 1649 and 1660. The monarchy was restored in 1660 when Parliament invited King Charles II to take the throne. The elected Convention Parliament proclaimed that Charles II had been the lawful monarch since the death of Charles I in January 1649.

Parliament also decided who was to be the monarch by determining the law of succession and the conditions a prospective monarch must meet to be the monarch.

Parliament also decides the role and powers of the monarch.

It's a social contract and it has been pretty good so far but that's the basis, god said, ******* bullshit

The doctrine of the 'Divine Right of Kings' is not the basis for a modern constitutional monarchy and hasn't been since 1689.

 

[burge13]

I know it's a foreign concept for people who enjoy a Monarchy

How many people 'enjoy a monarchy' versus 'don't care as this is a non issue'.

I think you'd find 95% of people fall into the latter and 5% of people are passionately split about what happens

Still yet to hear a coherent argument for change other than 'HeAd oF StAtE' mind you. Something that affects precisely 1 person, the head of state themselves

 

[Roylion]

I think ultimately it will be a public vote.

So direct election of the President?

 

[Gough]

So direct election of the President?

Absolutely, it beats having someone squeezed out of a random English uterus as a way of selecting our head of state any day of the week.

 

[Roylion]

Absolutely, it beats having someone squeezed out of a random English uterus as a way selecting our head of state any day of the week.

Many republicans oppose the method of direct election of a President, arguing the position then becomes politicised.

 

[Cap]

How many people 'enjoy a monarchy' versus 'don't care as this is a non issue'.

I think you'd find 95% of people fall into the latter and 5% of people are passionately split about what happens

Still yet to hear a coherent argument for change other than 'HeAd oF StAtE' mind you. Something that affects precisely 1 person, the head of state themselves

Of course not, it was a light hearted dig.

An Australian as the Head of State is a perfectly coherent statement.

Given to are a Trump fan however, I can see why you would auricle struggle with coherent statements