The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The clash of sentiments, or the monarchy-republic debate in Australia > Comments

The clash of sentiments, or the monarchy-republic debate in Australia : Comments

By Stephen Chavura, published 19/1/2017

Australia is in an interesting situation, for there seems no good positive reason to stay a monarchy and no good positive reason to switch to a republic.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
There is no " monarchy- republic" debate in Australia. The media has no interest at the moment, so there is nothing to discuss.

An interesting piece,though,which indicates that the republic nonsense is a waste of time. Australia has some actually vital matters to deal with, starting with an all-time low in government.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 19 January 2017 10:24:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are myriad trade and commerce reasons to switch to a republic and few if any to retain a FOREIGN monarch, But particularly one that spruiks for the mother land and against us in trade and commerce related contests!

One can't be half pregnant, nor a part time sovereign, or when economically convenient! moreover, one shouldn't need both passport and visa to seek an audience, with our HEAD OF STATE!

As ever the monarchists in our midst will mount the usual disingenuous argument for doing nothing!? What would change if an Australian was our elected head of state? Very little, given is mostly a symbolic role and the one occupying it is a Parliamentary appointment!

, And if that were to continue? Most of this obtuse obfuscation would melt back into the Victorian era, from whence it came?

The usual suspects/control freaks are against change or the irrevocable bill of rights that would surely follow, if more power were invested in the people, rather than those who want to continue to wield it like a divine born to rule right?

But before we become a republic, we need to finally become a fair dinkum democracy! As does the major parties! Our alleged rights and or our voting intentions, ought not be be disabled or rerouted by electoral manipulation or the stroke of a parliamentary/party pen?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 19 January 2017 11:44:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ttbn..
Too true. As more evidence, Baird is gone, we await another dog for the NSW dog and pony show.
Bet nothing changes for the better!
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 19 January 2017 11:44:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Al..
You summed up the populations anxieties in your last paragraph.
Won't happen and shouldn't happen. Agree with Author here!
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 19 January 2017 11:49:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The best argument to become a republic is to change our political system at the same time.
There is no will at all from our pollies to move to a system that would make them more accountable, so it will only happen with a peoples movement, and things have to be completely stuffed before we would motive enough of us to do something.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Thursday, 19 January 2017 12:15:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The statement that there is “no good positive reason to switch to a republic” is true only if one assumes - wrongly - that the arguments of the Australian Republican Movement are all that can be said on the matter. The ARM has never had a clue about the real issues, and a docile media refuses to cover any rival ideas.

The author does not seem to have a grasp of what occurred in 1975, and how it invalidates the argument that ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. The 1975 crisis only happened because of Crown power.

The Liberals blocked supply in the senate, so that they could cause an early election and take government. The senate could not do that on its own. It had to rely on the power of the Crown to dismiss an elected government, and to dissolve the House of Representatives even though the government had a working majority in the House.

So if these remnant Crown powers had not existed, had they instead been vested in the House as democracy requires, the Liberals would NOT have blocked supply. There would have been no point. There would have been no crisis at all. Labor would have seen out its term, unless the House voted it out before then (as happened to Labor governments in 1917 and 1932, and to non-Labor governments in 1929 and 1940).

Our Constitution is hopelessly broken, because it contains two ways of gaining government. The first is what we all expect to happen - that one party wins the election. But the Constitution actually sets out the a different way - gaining the favour of the Governor-General, who is not obliged to follow the result of the election. This permits the minority which lost the last election to throw out the majority which won, if the Governor-General is prepared to support them, as in 1975. The strategy could not work were it not for the antiquated power of the Crown.

[More following]
Posted by Philip Howell, Thursday, 19 January 2017 12:18:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Comment continued]

1975 pointed to a deeper problem in our Constitution. It contains two sets of rules - those which we all expect will be followed, which are only conventions, and those which are actually written into the Constitution. The latter confer powers on the Crown which are incompatible with democracy. Most of the time the problem is not apparent, because parties fight their disputes on the basis of the unwritten, democratic rules. But when it suits one party to fight on the basis of the written rules, which are not democratic, the system breaks.

Anyone who says ‘it ain’t broke’ does not understand the significance of the 1975 crisis. Nor do they understand that by simply removing powers from the head of state, when we change her identity, we can entrench democracy at the same time as removing an obsolete monarchy.

I suggest the author, and others, reads www.advancingdemocracy.info. Then you’ll understand the benefits which could flow from becoming a republic, and why nobody should listen to the ARM.
Posted by Philip Howell, Thursday, 19 January 2017 12:20:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With not a mention of the type of republic being offered, the point is missed.

The overriding question is whether the elite will permit the people to choose the head of state or keep that for themselves. The 1999 referendum failed on that very point.

We have three options:
* don't change
* have a republic where the Head of state (HoS) is chosen by the parliament /committee of eminent scholars, ex-pollies or whatever
* have a republic where the people choose the HoS.

The monarchists and some traditionalists want the first
Those who don't trust the people to make the right choice want the second.
Then there's the rest.

Had 1999 referendum been about allowing the people to make the choice, that referendum would have easily passed.

But instead Turnbull and the rest of the elite, distrusting the people as always, thought they could get away with the so-called minimalist approach which deprived the people of a role.

So a significant number of those who want the third option sided with the 'No' side on the basis that they'd wait for another day when their preferred option would be made available.

There's little point in talking about Republic v.Monarchy. Its like talking about painting or not painting the kitchen without discussing the proposed new colour.

The issue is what type of Republic being proposed. Only when it is one where the people choose the HoS will it come about.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 19 January 2017 12:24:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mhaze,

You mentioned three options - but there is a fourth:

Have no HoS!

So long as you insist on having a HoS, I rather have him/her/it be as remote, disinterested, old and mute as possible:

How about a Galapagos tortoise?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 19 January 2017 12:57:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philip, the same outcome would have occurred in 1975 if Australia had had a president with the same powers as the Governor General, which would almost certainly have been the case.

What we need is an Australian monarchy. The queen earns billions each year for the UK, not just in tourism but also trade, when she visits other countries they fall over themselves to offer trade. Monarchs are treated like monarchs overseas, presidents, apart from the US, get nothing like the same treatment; Governors General are lucky to get a car to pick them up from the airport.

We should start a petition for Prince Harry to become an Australian citizen, marry Sophie Monk, and become our new king.
Posted by Billyd, Thursday, 19 January 2017 1:20:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Billyd,
The crucial point you make is president WITH THE SAME POWERS. The point I am making is that changing the identity of the head of state makes no sense UNLESS we change the powers, and I have set out in the Advancing Democracy model what those powers should be. The head of state should not be a bludger like the royals, but should be a worker like the rest of us. The proper job for an impartial head of state is to take over from the speaker in the House. Perhaps you should look at the Advancing Democracy model. It's about time we aimed for something better than any other country has on offer.
Posted by Philip Howell, Thursday, 19 January 2017 1:33:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You gotta laugh at the rightards here who genuflect to queenie and her spawn, the biggest parasites in existence.
While happily putting the boot into so called bludgers on the dole and the pension.
I dont see dole recipients swanning round in chauffeur driven limos, living in palaces and attending any and all events, for free mind you, that are going.

Cant you fools see the discrepancy here?
What its ok if you steal millions from the public but expect whips and chains if its a few hundred.

Sheesh what morons.
Posted by mikk, Thursday, 19 January 2017 3:15:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
God forbid we become a republic.

Just think for a minute. A republic could end up with a clown like Obama running the show.

We would also see millions going to the legal fraternity for years with the constitutional challenges that would come for every word of change to the constitution.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 19 January 2017 3:47:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's a very common misconception that the queen, and the rest of the royal family are bludgers, parasites, and that they cost the taxpayers millions.

The monarchy own vast tracts of land, including many farms and businesses and a lot of property. This is run by a government dept. called Crown Estates. Under a voluntary agreement between the monarchy and the government, all profits from Crown Estates is handed to the exchequer, in exchange for a stipend. This stipend covers the cost of running the monarchy, including the upkeep of publicly owned properties, travelling expenses, and wages to all the royal staff and hangers on.

In the 2015/2016 fiscal year, the Crown Estates paid £304m to the government, with around £50m returned. When you add this to the money earned from tourism and trade the monarchy are a huge asset ..... to the UK.
Posted by Billyd, Thursday, 19 January 2017 4:51:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philip Howell,

The most pertinent point about 1975 was that the bills being blocked were supply bills. As such I'm not sure that your proposed changes in the "Disagreement between the Houses" resolves the issue.

As per your proposal, only the Reps can dissolve parliament even when bills have been twice rejected by the Senate. That's OK as far as it goes and would work in regards to most bills. The government in the House could simply refuse to go to the polls even though their bill(s) were twice rejected. This already happens and governments only use the so-called DD triggers when they think they can will eg 2016.

But this was supply. Failure to pass the bills meant that the government was going to run out of money. Public servants unpaid, contractors unpaid, pensions unpaid. To be sure Whitlam had come up with some hair-brained notion of running on IOUs but that was hardly sustainable.

So contra your claims, even with your proposed changes , Fraser would still have blocked supply knowing that the Reps would eventually have no choice but to dissolve both houses to save the national economy.

In the end, we ended up with a situation where an intractable problem was resolved by handing the solution to the people. In many parts of the world it would have been resolved by the army or the mob. If that's not a well-functioning democracy I don't know what is.

For what its worth in terms of proposed changes, my preference is for an elected GG/President which retains all the current black-letter powers of the GG.This was proposed in a marvellous book "Elect the Governor-General" by Solomon written in 1976 in response to the 1975 crisis. The result would be a President with roughly the same powers of, for example, the French President.
The book will be hard to find but is in the National Library (http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/854348). I have a treasured copy.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 20 January 2017 8:34:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mhaze,

Thank you for taking the time to actually consider my proposal and deal with it on an intellectual level. Unfortunately intellect has been missing from the republic debate.

I read 'Elect the G-G' soon after it came out. It would result in an executive presidency, which very few Australians want.

You are correct in saying that under my proposal the senate would still have the legal power to block supply, and could do so to try to force an election. But the Constitution would explicitly state that governments are determined by resolution of the House, and that elections prior to expiry of the 3 year term can only occur if the House votes for an early election.

So the question becomes would there be an opposition-controlled senate prepared to be that bloody-minded that it would try to subvert these express terms in the Constitution by holding the country to ransom.
[to be continued]
Posted by Philip Howell, Friday, 20 January 2017 9:34:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This about sums it up...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvKIWjnEPNY

"Divine providence" the doctrine by which Australian politicians evidently operate under.
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Friday, 20 January 2017 10:45:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some ideas for your discussion Stephen:

(1)Elected President by popular vote of the people.
(2)Elected number of parliamentarians,(actual number dependent on number of electorates) - must be from electorate represented.
(3)President nominates ministers ('cabinet') from the elected parliamentarians.
(4)All bills through the parliament by secret ballot, decision by conscience vote than adversarial party lines.(Unconscionable vote)
(5)Government governs by privilege from the people for the people.
(6)Code of conduct for parliament.(No helicopter rides and condominium purchase trips)
(7)All parliamentarians must sit in parliamentary sittings or suffer a pro-rata salary reduction.
(8)The foundation stone for the parliament shall be the constitution,(to be hammered out in a following post) to exercise privilege of Democratic procedures without interventionist government. Honouring and protecting individual "Rights".
(9)Presidential candidates must have resided in the republic for 25 years and have attained the age of 35 years.
(10)Parliamentary candidates must have resided in the Republic for 15 years and have attained the age of 25 years plus have resided in the electorate sought for 3 years immediately prior, and continue residency whilst in office.
(11)Any parliamentarian who attracts an Ostrakos vote of 50% + 1 will be automatically removed from office.
(12)The Parliament shall remain One house.

Ideas...?
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Friday, 20 January 2017 11:05:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The Constitution for instance, whilst establishing the respective powers of the federal compact, does not specify nor even refer to, the unwritten conventions upon which the Westminster system of government operates. Responsible government, the primacy of the House of Representatives and even the office of the Prime Minister, are nowhere mentioned in the Australian Constitution, yet these constitutional conventions play a very important role in the successful functioning or process of the Australian Constitution."

"Australia remains one of the few countries in the world without a constitutional charter of rights. This means that rights in Australia are neither inalienable nor inviolable. Rights are granted, protected, limited and potentially removed by acts of government."

From: The Constitution and Protecting Rights,

"Australia is now the only common law country that does not have a statement of its rights and freedoms, and there is clearly not enough protection for basic rights within the current system. Canada instilled its Bill of Rights in 1982, NZ in 1990 and the UK in 1998."

Pg4 Extract from "Political Leadership on a Bill of Rights" Senator Brian Grigg, Aust Democrats
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Friday, 20 January 2017 11:12:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[continuation of reply to mhaze - sorry - the system wouldn’t let me upload this for 3 hours]
In 1975, it was very hard for the Liberals to hold the line in the senate. Many in a position to know said they would have yielded in a few days had Kerr not acted. The same pressure would happen in a repeat crisis, but the law would more clearly be against the result the opposition was trying to achieve. In 1975, there were lots of claims by conservatives about a convention that a government without supply must resign. I consider any such convention only applied to governments denied supply by lower houses, but the point muddied the waters about who was right, and who was wrong. Under my proposal, it would be very clear which house had which rights, and senate intransigence would be seen for what it was - an attempt to overthrow the result of the last election.

I have drawn the proposal this way so that it does not bring up any issue about reductions in the senate's formal powers, which would raise arguments about federalism. The proposal would allow the senate to reject money bills which did discriminate for or against one or more States. The only thing the senate could not do - at a practical level, not a legal level - would be to use that mechanism to change the government or force an early election.

The crucial difference is this: the decision to dismiss a government and/or go to the polls would not be vested in an unelected 3rd party, but in one of the protagonists in the dispute. So, re-considering 1975, the senate would have needed to hold out long enough to convince Whitlam and his supporters to go to an election; rather than convincing Kerr. There is no reason to think that in such circumstances an elected government would be less bloody-minded than the opposition.
Posted by Philip Howell, Friday, 20 January 2017 1:55:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phillip, let's go back to what "federation" was meant to achieve. From what I read in the lead up to 1900, most of the thrust of argument was for unitising the rail systems and trade between the colonies - for obvious reasons. The whole ideal of that is watered down by the transferring of powers via the Commonwealth.

In the mid 1850's, John West asked this: "Who opposes Federation?" Coming up with the following. 1. Those who believed it would lead to a dissolution of the British connection. 2. Those who wanted to keep functions of government under their control. 3. 'Merely ambitious men surcharged with egotism'.

The British connection is very strong apart from the appeals to the Privy Court now taken over by the High Court, and having witnessed the raft of legislation put through in the dead of night under Fuhrer Howard and Co - post 9/11, there are many bumbling around Malfunction Junction aka Capital Hill who have no respect for the rule of law or indeed the separation of powers. That common law rights, fought for and won over centuries of legal and social history, both here and in Britain were abrogated and thrown away at a whim speaks volumes about the creeping fascism many choose to ignore. We certainly have today in government, the men (and women) supercharged on egotism.

What should have happened is the standardising of laws. Yes, retain the "state" identities, but from 1901 institute uniform laws across all Australian jurisdictions with relevant state case law applicable in future cases/decisions. It would have gotten us some way out of the mess that we have today.

WA's Remonstrance of 1933 would have gained that state 'independence' had their been a greater will, & the proposed increase on tax for big miners recently put forward by Pilbara member Brendon Grylls will no doubt be hosed down by the vested interests in Canberra and elsewhere who see a threat to their annual dalliances with 'rent boys' & hookers in the Bahamas, garages full of Porches and condominiums on the Gold Coast.
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Friday, 20 January 2017 3:04:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Albie, I am less concerned with Federation and far more concerned with democracy, as defined by one person one vote, one vote one value, at all levels of the Federation. Any other arrangement suggests some are more important than others.
Posted by Philip Howell, Friday, 20 January 2017 3:21:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My problem with an elected president is the same as that expressed by the government, that he or she will be, de-facto, empowered by the people to express opinions which are political, and as he/she will almost certainly have a political leaning one way or the other, is likely to be biased.

This has a double face, either they will have the same leaning as the elected government, or of the opposition. If they support, politically, the opposition, they could use their position to undermine the government.

A head of state elected by parliament will be a faceless nobody, with no political leanings, who almost no-one will be able to name, an inevitable consequence of both sides making sure the person is of no threat to them.

Vote Prince Harry and Sophie Monk for Australia's first king and queen.

The alternative is a nobody, a politically interfering president, or Prince Charles.
Posted by Billyd, Friday, 20 January 2017 4:30:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Philip Howell,

We've somewhat moved away from the republic debate here since it seems your major concern is to firmly establish to primacy of the House of Representatives as against the G-G/President and the Senate. Were that primacy to be established it could be done just as easily with or without a republic.

In the end, the issue is about supply. Effectively the GG doesn't and hasn't overturned the clear wishes of the House except in that one case where the smooth operation of the nation was endangered by the parliamentary impasse over supply.

It may be true, as you say, that in 1975 the Senate might have caved to pressure had Kerr not intervened although Fraser and (toe-cutter)Withers always maintained that the Senate would have remained firm. Some Libs were nervous because the polls were moving against them but the leadership was confident that would reverse once the election was on, as indeed happened.

So the primacy of the House is clear and well-established everywhere other in regards supply where a recalcitrant senate can hold the government to ransom. I'm not sure your proposals overcome that problem.

Might I suggest the following options:

1) A change to section 54 which in effect allowed, when supply was withheld by the Senate, for appropriations to continue on a monthly basis at the rate of 1/12th of the previous year's appropriations for all items. Thus the government could continue indefinitely through to the end of their term, although they wouldn't be able to implement new spending measures. The problem for the recalcitrant senate would be that the government could then bide their time and then call a DD at a time of their advantage while continuing supply would remain assured.

2) A provision that any decision by the GG (or whatever) to prorogue the parliament would need ratification by a simple majority in the House. Kerr sacks Whitlam, prorogues parliament, House vote fails to ratify, election delayed. Thus the Senate can never win - supply continues although constrained and the election timing is entirely in the hands of the PM.

/TBC
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 20 January 2017 5:00:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
/continued

Despite the fact that constitutional change is notoriously difficult, I feel these types of changes would stand a fighting chance.

One other change I'd advocate is regards DoubleDs such that, once a bill has been rejected twice, a joint sitting over that bill (and nothing else) is held with a majority vote being all that's need to get it through with a DD still happening if it failed the joint sitting. It wouldn't resolve Turnbull's current problems, but it would have done wonders for Abbott and most other PMs who faced a hostile Senate.

As regards the 'Elect the GG' idea, I agree that the nation isn't ready for that type of change. But then I don't think they're ready for the type of changes you advocate either. But...

it seems we are now in a period of perpetual governmental gridlock which will only worsen as minor parties gain support. This at the same time as the nation, locked into continued and growing budgetary malaise and economic headwinds wherever one looks, has a crying need to decisive action. I foresee that one a decade (two at the most) there will be a constituency for radical change as our dire problems come more into focus. A leader with significant, though constitutionally limited, power would be looked on much more favourably.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 20 January 2017 5:02:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mhaze,

I don’t think concerns about the primacy of the House involves moving away from the republic debate.

If we’re talking about a head of state, the powers of that position must be central to the discussion, and they will impact on others exercising power in the system. There is no reason a head of state should be able to overrule our representatives in the House. The only reason we have that is because historically the King held that power.

It is correct to say we could approach the supply issue by limiting the Senate’s power. Most State constitutions provide that the upper houses may only delay, not reject, the budget. Similarly, a restriction could be placed on the Governor-General’s powers, but in principle, those powers should not exist. We can elect our representatives, and they can elect the government. They can remove the government during the term, or we can remove them on its expiry. Having one person able to override the decision of everyone is not democratic. That person must inevitably have his or her own political attitudes which will affect his/her decisions.

I agree we should have joint sittings before, not after, a double dissolution.

I also share your concerns about gridlock.

The Advancing Democracy proposal is not designed to fix this, or every other problem. It is limited to the changes required to improve stability. Imagine, for instance, if a future government was resisting action on climate change, when the public was hysterical about a spate of droughts, floods and bushfires? A future G-G could dismiss the elected government, as per 1975. Surely that would exacerbate divisions. A dismissal always infers a judgment on the present government, which should only be made by us, or our representatives.

If Advancing Democracy was ever adopted, I’d follow it up with Advancing Democracy II - a guarantee of one vote one value in the House, plus voter recall in both Houses. I think voter recall offers a better restraint on governments than an upper house.
Posted by Philip Howell, Saturday, 21 January 2017 8:47:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philip Howell

I am a little saddened by your obvious ignorance of the Australian public's attitude towards politicians. This dates from convict times and is deeply ingrained in our culture. One of the best expessions of this that I have ever heard came from a Broken Hill miner, a lifelong Labor man, who was asked in 1993 what was his opinion on the republic. (This was when Paul Keating was Prime minister and John Hewson was Leader of the Opposition).

He said: "I'd have to vote NO. What an opportunity to stick it up Keating, without having to elect Hewson".

I also consider that your interpretation of the reserve powers is a little exaggerated. If the GG dismisses a PM and appoints someone else to take his place, that person will not be able to govern, as he would not have a majority in the Reps. All the GG can do, if there is a stalemate between the two houses is to force an election and let the people decide the issue. Remember, contrary to what many think, no government is entitled to a three year term. They are only entitled to a term with a maximum length of three years, as the GG is entitled to dissolve the Reps under section 5 at any time. We were fortunate in 1975 that the preconditions existed for a double dissolution, as otherwise we would have just had an election for the reps.

The result of all this is that many thinking people draw great comfort from the fact that under section 64 the PM holds office during the pleasure of the GG. I know at least one former republican who has reverted to being a monarchcist when faced with the possibility of a Trump-like PM here (her first name could be Pauline, who managed to get elected on a winning platform of a very substantial reduction in policician's salary and expenses.)
Posted by plerdsus, Monday, 23 January 2017 8:20:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy