Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

Should Australia become a Republic?

  • YES

    Votes: 145 66.5%
  • NO

    Votes: 73 33.5%

  • Total voters
    218

Remove this Banner Ad

I think I’ve reached that conscious point where I’ve stopped caring at all about the notion of a republic.

The context now also feels very different to 1999 (for various reasons), it doesn’t seem very achievable nor desirable for the foreseeable.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Hawke reckoned the death of QE2 would be the opportunity

Trouble is Charles won’t last long enough to be really unpopular, and wills will inherit while he’s still young enough to make it in celebrity stakes, which is really what it is today
 
I think I’ve reached that conscious point where I’ve stopped caring at all about the notion of a republic.

The context now also feels very different to 1999 (for various reasons), it doesn’t seem very achievable nor desirable for the foreseeable.

This is probably the position most people take.

It's interesting to me that while our head of state is still notionally the King, they have almost no role - even ceremonially, and their delegate (the governor general) is even more invisible.

We seem to have accepted a de facto state where we don't really have a head of state... we just pretend we do.

We have an elected representative government, and therefore a prime minister (and cabinet) elected via representative democracy, and a bicameral parliament, as well as a strong common law tradition.

Rather than a republic, we could just become a 'not monarchy', remove the official status of the King, and keep everything else the same and I don't think anyone would notice. But weirdly that's more work than NOT doing that, so the status quo continues and probably will for a long time to come. Even if support was 90% for a Republic it would still take a monumental effort to run an referendum and I just don't think enough people care that strongly enough about it...
 
Probably what is more important than the debate about republic or constitutional monarchy is the constitution.

The constitution limits the power of the federal government, the separation of powers and the controls in place to dissolve parliament.

Which nations have enjoyed 120 years of relatively stable government and a stable transfer of power between government's? There will be some but not many! There is lots to dislike about our system until we benchmark them.
 
This is probably the position most people take.

It's interesting to me that while our head of state is still notionally the King, they have almost no role - even ceremonially, and their delegate (the governor general) is even more invisible.

We seem to have accepted a de facto state where we don't really have a head of state... we just pretend we do.

We have an elected representative government, and therefore a prime minister (and cabinet) elected via representative democracy, and a bicameral parliament, as well as a strong common law tradition.

Rather than a republic, we could just become a 'not monarchy', remove the official status of the King, and keep everything else the same and I don't think anyone would notice. But weirdly that's more work than NOT doing that, so the status quo continues and probably will for a long time to come. Even if support was 90% for a Republic it would still take a monumental effort to run an referendum and I just don't think enough people care that strongly enough about it...

Dare I say it……a commonwealth? We need to remain thus. But ship out the state governors. We don’t send messengers on horseback any more
 
Dare I say it……a commonwealth? We need to remain thus. But ship out the state governors. We don’t send messengers on horseback any more

Every Australian state is also a constitutional monarchy with a governor who is the King's representative in that state. Unless a state changes its own constitution to become a republic, the state remains a constitutional monarchy. And that's even Australia becomes a republic.

In Victoria's case, the Victorian Parliament must pass amendments to the Constitution Act 1975.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Every Australian state is also a constitutional monarchy with a governor who is the King's representative in that state. Unless a state changes its own constitution to become a republic, the state remains a constitutional monarchy. And that's even Australia becomes a republic.

In Victoria's case, the Victorian Parliament must pass amendments to the Constitution Act 1975.

Never the less, I am very comfortable with the title commonwealth of australia - it describes us better than any of republic, kingdom, monarchy.
States too. Let the monarchy wither away like dozens of other monarchies. No real need to do anything, AUKUS nonsense excepted

Wasn’t commonwealth the title of Britain when Cromwell took over and shipped aot a Charlie overseas so monarchists cold still wait misty eyed for the return?

So not much different from what we have now
 
Last edited:
Never the less, I am very comfortable with the title commonwealth of australia - it describes us better than any of republic, kingdom, monarchy.
States too. Let the monarchy wither away like dozens of other monarchies. No real need to do anything, AUKUS nonsense excepted
You are a stunning gun....why not AUKUS...is a good move...
 
status quo continues and probably will for a long time to come. Even if support was 90% for a Republic it would still take a monumental effort to run an referendum and I just don't think enough people care that strongly enough about it...

Albo should try and when he fails he'd be 0-2 for referendums.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

Back
Top