Some of these articles at OLO are aperient so I say 'thank you'.

This article suggests that Italians, Estonians, Greeks, Vietnamese and other ethnic groupings are silly people unable to read or comprehend. How else could they end up in Australia, which is a constitutional monarchy? Wouldn't they take the time to find out all they could about the country before they migrated. To now seek out their views about Australia becoming a republic is a bit rich. If they didn't care enough to arm themselves with knowledge of Australia before they came here why would they care now?

Yes those choice few verses from the National Anthem are being taken rather too literally by our Indonesian (& other) fisher-folk visiting the Top End. "...boundless...to share...across the seas..." etc.

Though they have been visiting here for some 700 years according to the archaological evidence.

Not this Republican window dressing, again. It will not change a single attribute of our lives for the better but it does run the risk of allowing some highly unreliable people to tinker with things that work.

What we do need is to revitalise federalism by adding the new states in the regions that were envisaged by most of the architects of our constitution. For example, the addition of just one extra state would make constitutional change by referendum much more practical by requiring a majority of 4 out of 7 states instead of the existing 4 out of 6.

And I don't mean the 197,000 residents of NT or ACT but, rather, new states formed by the 1.6 million residents of non-metropolitan NSW, the 1.3 million Queenslanders who do not live in the SE corner, or the 1.2 million residents of regional Victoria. They have all had a gutfull of metrotyranny and "city state politics" and all have more in common with folk just over their existing borders than those in "their" (sic) capital city.

And nothing would improve the quality of life of the urban public like the reduced population and growth pressure that such a reform would deliver. Think about that next time you spend the best hour of your day with your nose up a buses muffler.

Middleman,

I welcome this discussion of the Constitution, as not enough people have even the most elementary understanding of it, and it is very germane to the issue of a republic.

To answer you first point, that there is no rule of law requiring an election after the dismissal of a government, you are technically right but in practice wrong. The whole basis of the Westminster system of government is the provision of supply, that is the ability to spend money for the government to function. Section 83 of the constitution provides that no money can be drawn from Treasury except by appropriation made by law. Section 53 clearly provides that this law requires the assent of both houses, not just the lower house as in the UK and some states. As the new Prime Minister would be unable to obtain supply, not having a majority in the reps, an election must follow. In any future dismissal the Governor-General would very likely follow the precedent set by Kerr when an immediate election was one of the conditions under which Fraser was commissioned as PM.

Again, in theory, the GG could in theory commission you or me or any one of his mates to be Prime Minister. However we could not function as we would be unable to obtain supply for the same reasons.

To say that there are only weak conventions preventing the GG from misusing his powers, I would respond that the sanction of the government being totally unable to function is sufficient.

To say that the powers of the GG are so wide as to be a threat to democracy, and at the same time dangerously weak, is not very logical.

You are correct in stating that the power to dismiss is not confined to refusal of supply, and that the GG has a general power to dismiss for any reason at any time. However his continuance in office would depend on the prudent use of this power, which has only ever been used twice.

Sage, this cracked me up!

>>Some of these articles at OLO are aperient so I say 'thank you'.<<

The idea that articles on this forum can be "gently laxative" is not one that had occurred to me before, but it is, on reflection, blindingly apposite.

Thank you for the chuckle.

On a more serious note, plerdsus wrote:

>>The whole basis of the Westminster system of government is the provision of supply<<

This is simply not the case. The ability to block supply is not a feature of "the Westminster system", but is a power copied from the US Senate. Far from being "the whole basis", even the UK's House of Lords has not had that capability since 1911.

If we do become a Republic we need to ensure that the system of Governement returns to the people having the power and defining by the majority what we want our employees to do on our behalf, not politicians defining who is elected as President etc.
And most of all enshrine checks and balances into the system that politicians and the President can not change to ensure they have open slather to do as they want as it appears today they are continually doing and taking our rights away piece by piece under various guises.

If they can provide a system of government by the people and more so accountablity of politicians for their actions and ultimately provide a Govt based on the majority of peoples wishes I would vote for a republic, but until that comes to pass I would never vote for anything less, after all we hire our politicians to represent us the majority, yet nowdays it seems we hire politicians who ignore us the majority and do as they please. So much for democracy!