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 > Farewell, Your Majesty > Comments

Farewell, Your Majesty : Comments

By Lyn Allison, published 15/3/2006

Thank you Queen Elizabeth, but now we are grown up we should be doing it on our own.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. All
Lyn, some of us have grown up. Sadly, you are not included in that group. When told of the existence of the Democrats in Australia, the queen was heard to remark: "Just what is it that they do?"
Posted by Sage, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 9:27:24 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
Another article that demonstrates Lyn Allison's unfitness to sit in the Senate. It is obvious that she has no understanding of how Australians feel about politicians. When she took her place in the Senate, notwithstanding that she was a committed republican, she swore or affirmed that she would be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty. She did that because the people have enacted, in section 42 of the constitution, that she must do this before she can take up her seat. And now she comes up with more of this republican tripe. How can we have any reliance on what she says? She mentions that the Queen, under section 59 of the constitution, can disallow any law within one year of the Governor-Generals assent. Has she any idea of the comfort that so many people gain from the fact that the Queen, either directly or through her representatives is standing by, ready to sack, and ready to disallow. Surely she doesn't think that the people trust politicians? What planet does she live on? We have just seen the NSW Parliament remove the oath of loyalty to the Queen, very quietly, without giving the people any say. Thank heavens it does not lie within the power of federal politicians to do the same. Watching the various politicians in Canberra swearing allfiance to the Queen is to me one of the main ethics tests we have available to assess them. When the committed republicans, including many in the government parties, take the oath, I can make a judgment as to whether they are bring truthful, honest and sincere, or whether they are lying in their teeth. And Allison wants to take this away! From a party that pretends to have ethics! Thank heavens the final decision lies with the people.
Posted by plerdsus, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 10:39:01 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
Senator Allison, as usual, blames the Prime Minister for the 1999 referendum on an Australian Republic. Waddle!

The referendum failed because of 1 simple reason. Instead of asking "Are you in principle in favour of a Republic?" and working from there, the referendum asked "Are you in favour of the PM appointing a President with un-codified, ceremonial only powers?"

The good Senator overlooks the role of the Monarch. To defend the people. To defend us against unscrupulous business, corrupt politicians, and despotic laws. Sadly, these powers are seldom used and the media can fill the airwaves and papers with stories of corruption and con merchants. In this respect alone, the Monarch has failed us.

Any Constitutional change must not be taken lightly. The Constitution sets up a framework in which business may operate in a free market, but regulated by Government for the benefit of the people. The writers of the Constitution perhaps saw themselves as "British" as Sen. Allison notes, but also in the forefront of their minds where the social and economic upheavals of the 1890's depression, where, and in particular the Senator's own electorate, business were demanding "freedom of employment contract" and "shoot to kill" were the order of the day. Sound familiar?

Eastern Australia almost became a Marxist country!

Perhaps the Senator should research more and write less.
Posted by Narcissist, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 11:08:23 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
Lyn, Lyn, Lyn,

I'm a republican. Please listen to some simple words of wisdom that hopefully you might just understand.

The Queen and the monarchy are NOT the issues that need your attention. They are not the issues that will strengthen the Democrats. Talk about the Labor party pressing the self destruct button... why copy them?

The key points in our democracy that you need to rebuild your party around are:

1. Education - (See the 11 things I have listed here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4173

2. Health - The public hospital system is near collapse in most states and there is a massive shortage of Drs. Nurses need the support of politicians

3. Mental Health - This is in total dissaray and needs intervention immediately

4. Work Place Reforms - Can you guys put forward better ideas

5. Media ownership... Will the Americans own all our media?

7. Infrastructure ... Rural and City, Enviroment, water, sustainable development etc.

8. National Debt ... Household debt

9. International Trade! International Competitiveness

10. War! War! War! - Should we be there? Put forward an exit strategy

11. Assisting our farmers

12. Tax Reform

13. Value adding in Australia... not overseas!

14. Selling the farm - How much of Australia are we prepared not to own?

15. The AWB scandal... and it's effect on our farmers and overseas trade.

I could go on for ages.

Australia will become a republic in the future, but it is not necessary for it to be done with undue haste. That's why it failed last time... Republicans were divided and conquered in their rush to change.

Also to bring this up now is "a little bit rude" when the Queen is in Australia... Does it show a lack of manners?

You said "I admire her diplomatic skill and ability to inspire confidence in her subjects" Don't just recognise it ... do it yourself! This article shows a lack of diplomatic skill!

Please stick to core issues that affect families, the sick, the elderly, the underprivileged and business competitiveness.
Posted by Opinionated2, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 11:35:55 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
What a contrast between two women. One, an unrepresentative politician, a loser and embittered whiner who blames everyone else for her failures, and tells us we didn’t know what we were doing when we gave the Government a majority in the Senate. The other, a gracious lady respected even by republicans, who tells us that what we do in regard to her thrown and a republic is entirely up to us.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 12:13:58 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
I think it is great that politicians are trying to guage public opinion through forums such as OLO - I wish that all our politicians were better informed.

I am constantly surprised by the lack of respect for our Head of State - even though I voted for a Republic the Queen is still our Head of State and should be respected as such until the situation changes. No politician has the right not to uphold our Constitution. When I became an Australian citizen I was given the choice whether or not to pledge allegiance to the Queen. As far as I am concerned no-one should be allowed to become an Australian citizen unless they are prepared to take on everything it encompasses.

I also believe that the Queen herself is paving the way for Australia to become a republic. She has made reference to Australia 'coming of age' on several occasions. Time for the 'child' to go it alone but remembering that 'Mum' stills loves us.
Posted by sajo, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 12:17:42 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
Yet again we have the clowns who masquerade as democrats advertising their naive adolescent opinions.
It is not us, the voters of Australia, who need to grow up Lyn, but yourself.
I, for one, don't care what you or anyone else thinks about our Constitution as long as it works well. You can call it "not grown up" until you are blue in the face, but until you produce a better option you are simply a fool for trying to undermine what we have.
Republics have a dreadful history of instability due to politicians getting delusions of grandeur and ignoring the rules.
The wonderful thing about our system is there is not just one but two people (the Queen and the Governor General) who have the power to sack the Prime Minister if he doesn't follow the rules.
If you care about Democracy why don't you stand up against State politicians changing constitutions without a vote?
Hulls in Victoria has done this at least three times.
Posted by Bull, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 12:27:04 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
This really is a 15th order issue, Lyn. Don't you have a job to do somewhere? You should try it some time, it might actually win you a vote or two. I can just see it all now, "Elected President clears congestion", "New Republic finds more water", or my own favourite, "New Constitution saves planet".
Posted by Perseus, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 12:56:01 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 trouble with views like these posted by Bull:
'The wonderful thing about our system is there is not just one but two people (the Queen and the Governor General) who have the power to sack the Prime Minister if he doesn't follow the rules.'

...is that: who sacks the Queen if she doesn't follow the rules? Not the Australian people. Who elects the monarch? No-one, she/he gets the job as a birthright. The only person in the triumvirate who is accountable to the Australian people is the PM. I, and a majority of Australians, don't want an unelected foreigner as head of Australia, and I don't think anyone should be restrained from saying it whether the Queen is in Australia or not.
Posted by PK, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 12:58:19 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 queen is a top Aussie.

http://www.geocities.com/topaussieguide/index.htm

wrap your opinions around that.
Posted by Realist, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 1:46:19 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
Hi Guys,

On second looking (I am a skim reader), my apologies the above link could be viewed as distateful. Some may like it but i encourage this to be not viewed.

My apologies all.
Posted by Realist, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 2:01:28 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
Australia is one of the last outposts of the British Empire we have a British Queen to rule over us, we have a British Empire Flag, be thankful for what we have,the Queen pays us a visit so remember we are her loyal subjects, bulldust I want to see her leave and never return, I want a new flag that informs the world we are Australian; our ad hoc flag has past its use by date, it needs to be taken down with respect folded handed to Her Majesty as a going away present, my advice to the royalists if you want to be British you know where you should be,
Posted by mangotreeone1, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 2:42:15 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
Plerdsus begins with the silly idea that parliamentarians cannot support republicanism because of their oath. The full oath is to "be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law." Note the use of the words "successors", indicating that parliamentarians may lawfully discuss republicanism. How could be be otherwise in a democracy?

He continues by talking about "the comfort that so many people gain from the fact that the Queen, either directly or through her representatives is standing by, ready to sack, and ready to disallow." The Queen is not standing by in this sense at all. It is only under some republican proposals that the Head of State is such a position.

Likewise Narcissist says the monarch is there "To defend the people. To defend us against unscrupulous business, corrupt politicians, and despotic laws." This is a myth. In Australia, these matters are delt with by ASIC, ICAC, ARC, HREEOC ect... or ultimately by us the voters.

Finally Bull says republics have "a dreadful history of instability" which is patently false -- ignoring the modern history of monarchies around the world (Russia, Romania, Greece, Japan, China, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Turkey), ignoring current events (Nepal, Thailand) and most importantly the historical context (eg Poland, Denmark during WWII, colonialism in Africa.) He also says the Queen can sack the PM, which is untrue.

To Perseus: Why not save your sarcasm for the Prime Minister or Premiers who do have the job of "clearing congestion" or "saving the planet." I guess you'd have voted against federation in the 1890's for the same reasons?

Ulimately we have a set of comments which are not based upon the Australian constitutional system and not refective of Australian democracy, Australian history or political history in general.
Posted by David Latimer, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 3:01:16 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
Athletes arriving in Melbourne for the Commonwealth Games think its most disrespectful not to play "God Save the Queen" when the Queen is present.

Is Lizzie relevant to Australia - I hope not!

Do I care - no, unless she costs a sizeable portion of our national budget.
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 3:08:11 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
Thanks Lyn Allison for your thoughtful comments. I am not a Democrat but I recognise sense when I see it. Do not be discouraged by the tripe and insults that are directed towards you and your comments. Some people feel great when they put others down. They feel taller and do not know any other way to feel good.

Please keep making sense and help bring on maturity to our country; bring on the Republic.
Posted by Yorgo, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 3:31:27 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
Thanks for the excellent article Lyn, I agree with your republican sentiments.
The violent and contempuous tone of monarchist comments in reply only convinces me more of the rightness of the republican cause. Here's a tip for monarchists: the Queen does not have the power to sack the Prime Minister. Even if she did, this would be totally unacceptable, as it would mean an unelected foreigner would be sacking an elected Australian Prime Minister. As for the Governor-General, yes he does theoretically have the power to sack the Prime Minister, but he should not have that power because is not elected either directly or indirectly by the Australian people.
I am republican because, unlike monarchists, I am loyal to Australia and its people. Monarchists have to realise that loyalty to a foreign monarch is inconsistent with loyalty to Australia and its people.
Posted by middleman, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 6:03:31 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
David Latimer,

I always thought that republicans were a bit deficient in mental capacity, but I thought at least that they could read. Anyone who cares to read the constitution will see that after the oath of allegiance that politicians are required to take there is the note: "The name of the King or Queen of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time". It is great fun to debate these issues, but at least let's get the facts straight.

As far as the Queen exercising her powers is concerned, we were fed that line of tosh in 1975 when commentators said that the Governor-General could not sack the Prime Minister and must asccept his advice. I particularly remember someone called Whitlam who fed us that line. The fact that it has not yet been necessary for the Queen to excercise her powers of disallowance is testimony to the effectiveness of our constitution, which is the fourth oldest on the world
Posted by plerdsus, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 6:07:45 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
I believe Narcissist was correct in his assessment that the referendum failed because of the complexity of the question and the framing of the issue. If the question was put simply "Are you in favour of becoming a Republic?" The answer may well have been overwhelmingly in favour.

plerdsus: I believe the Constitution refers to Queen Victoria and all her heirs and successors which is fairly straight forward as far as interpretation is concerned. I also understand, though I could be mistaken, that the Hawke Government's Australia Act of 1984 effectively reduced the Monarch's powers to little more than ceremonial though until the Constitution is repatriated and redrafted, the ceremonial apron strings will still evidence a puerile existence as a country in our own right.

The time will come when we will follow the path of Canada and 'repatriate' the Constitution. It is widely held that the Constitution is an Australian document which, of course, it is not. It is merely Clause 9 of a British Act of Parliament. The document that creates us as a nation is owned by another country. It is a rather absurd and anachronistic situation.

I really can't understand the reticence in drafting and owning our own foundational document. Canada sees no conflict in its independence whilst retaining its place in the Commonwealth. Australia, surely, has the maturity to do the same.
Posted by Craig Blanch, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 9:00:23 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
I too agree that the complexity of the question was the reason that the referendum failed, they should have asked the simple question first Do you want Australia to become a republic? Yes or No?

But that is exactly why the Republican movements are so divided they wanted to do everything with undue haste. They actually were leaving the Australian people out of the process.

I personally would want to vote for the President... but I would say in the constitution that the President cannot be an ex-Politician and could not be party affiliated!

But hey I want a genuine independent speaker like a judge, not a person from the Govts side... Call me weird but democracy demands an independent arbitrator in our houses of parliament.

All the arguments about seperating church and state and the justice being blind and unbiased go out the window when the arbitrator in our houses of parliament are a member of the party that holds the most seats.

I'd rather have independent arbitrators who forced ministers to tell the truth and answer the question than rush to a republic. Who independently assessed a question out of order and prevented question times being a joke.

But again from the Democrats perspective they have to regain their cred in the eyes of the voting public and the Republican debate is a non-event in that area. Lyn... lead... we need a strong third party in Australia!
Posted by Opinionated2, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 10:43:33 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
I hate to waste a post on the valueless but... here goes

LYNN..who ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 11:05:02 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
I guess that's why the Dems are still wandering about in the wilderness.

They are so far out of touch with the average Aussie they blame the PM for the public having minds of their own.

:)
Posted by deepthought, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 11:44:01 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
I was born in England to strongly monarchist parents. By the time I was 17, I had decided for myself that I was not a monarchist. When I turned 18, the Korean war was being fought and I was called up. I would have had no objection to swearing allegiance to Britain, but I was forced, under implied threat of severe punishment, to swear allegiance to the Queen.

Our parliamentarians are in virtually the same situation. They have been democratically elected, by Australians, but they cannot take their rightfully earned place in parliament without swearing allegiance to an unelected foreign person. This is similar in principle to confessing under torture to something you haven't done, you really have no option.

I felt so strongly about this that I would not become an Australian citizen until the requirement to swear allegiance to the Queen was made optional.

I believe that a simple "Yes" or "No" to Australia becoming a republic would have overwhelming public support. No need to rush after that, the details could be worked out with as much care as was necessary.

The fact that this article was written by a Democrat is irrelevant. There are republicans right across the whole political spectrum and the same sentiments could just as easily have been expressed by a member of any other party.
Posted by Rex, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 11:47:55 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
Response to Plerdsus:

If you are so carefully reading the constitution, why are you suggesting the Queen can sack the Prime Minister? What has that got to do with what the GG sacking the PM. The constitution is pretty clear on this point.

Everyone is aware that the name of the current monarch is substituted. Do you think people believe that the oath continues to be made to Queen Victoria? And what difference does it make to the argument. The word "successors" is not substituted. Bottom line remains that parliamentarians can debate republicanism and they do.

Even John Howard is allowed to say that accepting Charles as King of Australia is a matter for the Australian people: "if they want to change the rules they will." http://www.itv.com/news/index_1850533.html (does someone know where there's a transcript for the interview?)

I don't accept that the Queen can disallow a constitutional amendment bill approved by the Australian people, but you apparently do and you say we should find comfort in it! Would you like to clarify?

And I suggest you shouldn't imply the majority of Australians are mentally deficient.
Posted by David Latimer, Thursday, 16 March 2006 2:57:15 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
I'm always amused by people who say that if the question was yes/no to the question "Do you support a republic?" the results would be different.

Referenda to amend the Constitution are similar to a division in Parliament when voting on an amendment to a clause in a Bill. A specific proposal is either supported or opposed - there is no option of "I like the idea but not the detail". The amendment is there - and it is Yes or No. The 1999 referendum was the same - you liked the specific change, or you didn't. This dichotomy is how change is achieved. It is incumbent on proponents of change to satisfy people within this dichotomy.

Of course, I suppose there *could* be an in-principle plebiscite. But why do republicans think they would win that in the white heat of a campaign? Monarchists could easily run the line that this was writing a 'blank cheque' for a republic, which would be a very effective campaign line. But if the republicans *did* win the plebiscite, what does it achieve? Is there agreement on what a 'republic' is? A supporter of the status quo could argue Australia was a "crowned republic" and vote Yes. The point is a plebiscite would change nothing, would be meaningless because its result could be interpreted in all sorts of ways, and mightn't go the way the republicans want.

This brings us to what I think most republican activists really want by having a plebiscite, and a republic. They're not interested so much in what they want to replace the status quo with - they want an opportunity to give a symbolic 'up yours' to whatever frustrations they associate with the monarchy - whether it's 1975, Keating-style sectarianism, the "Leaving of Liverpool" kids, or queues at Heathrow (among others).

"Elizabeth Windsor" is looking pretty good at this point compared to the alternative (s), Sen. Allison.
Posted by Alexander Drake, Thursday, 16 March 2006 7:29:16 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
David Latimer,

I did not say that the Queen could sack the Prime Minister. I said that the Queen, either directly or through her representatives, could do so. It is the representative who does the sacking, the only direct action the Queen could take is disallowance. However, since the representatives hold office during the Queen's pleasure, in practice it amounts to the same thing.

You asked me to clarify why many people find the Queen's residual constitutional powers a comfort. I believe there are four basic principles in Australian politics, which come directly from the Rum Corps. They are:

1. The Government is the enemy of the People, and can never be trusted.

2. No taxation with or without representation, with any deficiency being made up from the sale of politician's assets.

3. In an election, no matter whom you vote for, a politician is ALWAYS elected.

4. Always vote NO in federal referendums.

As a result of these attitudes the monarch has been seen for many years to have a role in protecting the people from the politicians.

I would not be totally opposed to any form of republic, but I would require increased protection from the political elite. The Swiss republic is one that comes to mind in this regard, as we already have the constitutional approval procdure that they use. What we don't have is citizen initiated referendum, which the Swiss have and which allows the people to overrule the elite.


Since we are talking about different sorts of republics, I thought I would lighten the discussion by passing on a joke from a Polish friend.

Question: What is the difference between a republic and a people's republic?

Answer: It's the same as the difference between a chair and an electric chair.
Posted by joh bjelke, Thursday, 16 March 2006 8:00:03 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
Alexander Drake: I should know by now that nothing is ever as easy as my uneducated logic, in this instance, would have me believe.
Looking back over previous instances of referenda bears out your explanation of the conventions of what is presented for public scrutiny.
Thanks for clearing it up.

Cheers
Posted by Craig Blanch, Thursday, 16 March 2006 11:36:36 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
Rex,

I wasn't objecting to a Democrat having Lyn's opinions... that is fine... even as a polly she is entitled to free speech...ha!

My point is that Lyn should concentrate on the core issues that are facing our democracy and put forward viable alternatives to what are being presented. That is role as I see it for all political parties.

Side issues would be fine if the Democrats were growing as a party and increasing their vote at elections but the reverse is actually happening.

Lyn is the boss in the Democrats at the most crucial time in it's history. Her leadership over the coming months could just be the final determining factor as to whether the Democrats survive as a party.

So if Lyn allows herself to be diverted on issues that really have not much importance in the whole scheme of things then she may be missing her greatest opportunity.

Lyn and the Dems have to use tactics that get their message back into the minds of voters. She has to strictly adhere to the policies that actually can help her party regain strength. A window of opportunity has opened with Govt'sc trampling of the senate, the Greens t-shirt mistake and the shamozal that is the alleged AWB fiasco.

There are heaps of Aussie hurting out there all throughout Australia and Lyn should be focused on fixing what is hurting those Aussies. That way her party may again seem relevant to the people who abandoned them last election.

I want a strong, sensible, relevant 3rd alternative to Labor & Liberal. The Dems may be good legislators (at times) but are they good politicians who can rebuild a damaged party?
Posted by Opinionated2, Thursday, 16 March 2006 2:42:12 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
To David Latimer and all other posters. I was working on a colleague's computer this morning, replying to various other posts, and failed to notice that his computer was logged on to his nickname of "Joh_bjelke", instead of mine. Please accept my apologies, I will try and make sure it doesn't happen again.
Posted by plerdsus, Thursday, 16 March 2006 3:07:15 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
Response to Alexander Drake:

You make some good points. Not only do we have the 'blank cheque' argument but an actual cheque of about $100 million to run a plebiscite. $200 million for two plebiscites. At the very least, we should be asking all the necessary questions of the people in one session (be it 2, 3 or 5 questions) so we only pay once and get the answers at once.

Yesterday (updating a wikipedia article) I was reading the transcript for Clem Jones at the 2004 Senate republican inquiry. He was dismissed for suggesting a plebiscite of 12 to 15 questions. (That's $7 million per question.) The Senators thought it would be too hard or complicated for people. He made the excellent point that if the people can't handle 15 modest questions, why expect them to be able to answer 1 major question correctly.

As a republican, I certainly not motivated by giving an 'up-yours' to anyone; not even to monarchists; not even to Plerdsus! I am interested in the best possible republican reform (or constitutional system) which best matches what the Australian people want. A plebiscite could be part of that, but not with just one broad question.

Response to Plerdsus:
We've gone over this territory before, but I expect people vote for a referendum based on the merits of the proposal. If you are voting NO for worthwhile proposals then you're helping to send the country backwards.

-+-+-

For my wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_model_%28Australia%29

For the John Howard transcripts, they are on his website: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/index.cfm
Posted by David Latimer, Thursday, 16 March 2006 3:38:53 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
I know I have been getting stuck in over the issues that the Dems should be taking up to win back support with the Aussie electorate... so I decided I had better go check out their website to see if I was being a little too critical.

http://www.democrats.org.au/ is worth a visit daily to keep informed.

The Dems have been getting stuck in and on many of the issues we have been jumping up and down about also.

Guess what the media aren't reporting on their press releases and why would they ... the Howard Govt is about to deregulate the media to the benefit of the mega rich media barons. They will be controlling everything we see, read and hear.

So it is only natural they aren't going to rock the boat now by giving the minor parties a fair go.

The Dems Senators have been press releasing their hearts out and being totally ignored by the media. See here http://www.democrats.org.au/news/

Is it in the mega rich moguls interest to have only two parties? It seems so with the new media laws that are being suggested.

I repectfully suggest that all thinking voters on realising this, should visit the Australian Democrats pages, the Greens pages and any other minor parties pages to find out what they are really doing. We owe it to our democracy.

Here are two links just for starters

The Dems http://www.democrats.org.au/

The Greens http://www.greens.org.au/

I'm sure you can visit the others by yourselves.

If the media can't be relied upon to tell us the full story then we had better start going and getting it for ourselves. You may save a few bob... you may not need the media as much as you think
Posted by Opinionated2, Thursday, 16 March 2006 11:06:23 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
I would rather her as my "Master" and the Commonwealth umbrella, than the unknown, "Master".

Australia had the most envied constitution in the world that evoluted because of the injustices of the convict era.

Slowly this is being dismantled by our governments and judiciary system alliance, manipulation of interpretatation, other legislation deleted under the guise of outdated terms of reference.

The Westminster system was created so there would be an even distribution of power thus citizens would achieve the best debate and solutions for their communities.

We see in our governments position the uneveness of this distribution but ideas come from the lower house and this is currently where Australians are fairly represented by the even the even distribution within this house.

The last thing the average person needs is another lawyer looking after them, we so blindly nominate and employ.
Posted by Suebdootwo, Thursday, 16 March 2006 11:30:26 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
'evoluted'??
Posted by anomie, Thursday, 16 March 2006 11:41:38 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
Revolving, changing, turning, mutating, adapting, evolving .......

Use your imagination.

If it is life changing and has the ability to change life, "Evolutionary".
Posted by Suebdootwo, Thursday, 16 March 2006 11:59:32 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
Lyn,
Instead of telling us that we do not need a Constitutional Monarchy; how about you put your mind to tell us just what your model would be for a Republic. It is a lazy mind that can criticise but be constructive and show some creative energy.

I note you admit that Australia has not lost out or remained backward because of our working Monarchical Constitution by the comment: "Few envisaged that Australia would evolve into the vibrant and independent nation it is today." All this under our present Constitution - Why change?

What extra do you want for Australia? How about you tackle the real issues of health and poverty etc that are deteriorating because politicians minds are focused elsewhere.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 17 March 2006 6:32:18 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
Philo, it is a pretty poor debating tactic to enter a debate on a subject and tell your opponent that they should not have even raised the subject of the debate, they should be talking about something else deemed to be more important. It is compounded when you trot out that old 'aint broke, don't fix' argument in the republic debate - only committed Monarchists by that junk. Using that argument, you would never make any constitutional or even legislative change in Australia. We would not even be a Commonwealth today, and plenty argued against it one similar grounds over 100 years ago. While Australia has prospered as a Monarchy doesn't mean we can't do better as a republic.

So, who is it that has a 'lazy mind'?
Posted by PK, Friday, 17 March 2006 10:31:59 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
Plerdsus-If a politician believes that moving to a republic with an Australian head-of state is in the best interest of the people and the sovereign, then s/he has fulfilled their sworn duty

Narcisist- believes that an unqualified hereditary title has some magical power that will curb unscrupulous big business without the advantage of democratic legitimacy.

Opinionated2 and Philo-uses a recipe for dull vision designed to put the republic to the back-burner because there will always be ongoing issues concerning health, education and defence etc. Progress halted is rights denied. It is a monarchist expectation that Australians don’t have the intelligence to think on more than one issue, and that no Australian child will have the intelligence or commitment to be head-of-state of their own country.

Monarchists try to credit Australia’s prosperity to a foreign monarch on top of our constitutional arrangement. But our prosperity has more to do with the resources of an entire continent being shared between 20 million people and our willingness to accept compromise. Our forefathers’ (and foremothers’ in SA) had the wit to accept an entire list of compromises to bring about federation. It is that same wit and acceptance of compromise that makes the constitution workable today, despite its many age cracks.
Posted by Muni, Friday, 17 March 2006 11:28:27 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
Typically useless democrap being useless. Whatever. Who cares about those inconsequential hacks anyway?

Australia should stop the denial and delusion, cut to the chase, and just approach the yanks asking to be a largish state of the USA. Then we can all just reconcile who we are really taking orders from.

Get an idea Lyn. You really do look foolish with the sort of articles you post to this site.
Posted by trade215, Friday, 17 March 2006 4:25:59 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
Maybe a number of well known republican politicians from right across the political spectrum could all put their names to a pro-republican article [similar to what happened with the successful RU-486 campaign] and then some posters may be encouraged to address the issues, rather than just shoot the messenger.
Posted by Rex, Friday, 17 March 2006 4:53:19 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
Whoa Muni,

I don't think I did that at all... I just listed about 15 more important issues that the Dems should be focusing on. And just in case you missed it I went to their website and found out they are commenting on nearly every important issue, but are being totally ignored by the multi - millionaire media barons cause our little Johnny is giving the Barons all they ever wanted...

SEE http://www.democrats.org.au/news/

You're the one who reckons Aussies can think on more than one topic at a time... can you? If I post 15 more important topics... I guess I'm 14 up on you...lol

Also I'm a republican but I just don't think things need to be done with undue haste. I have some sympathy for your "Progress halted is rights denied" comment except the process hasn't been halted... the republican movement just got it wrong the first time and so the process is stalled. And the Libs would call their change in media ownership rules "Progress" when it is actually trampling on our ability to gain independent information in the future.

Please feel free to have a go at me anytime you like but make sure you know what you are talking about before you type. lol
Posted by Opinionated2, Friday, 17 March 2006 5:30:54 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
Republicans seem so caught up in the symbolic trees of monarchy that they are incapable seeing the very clever forest that we have grown under our own constitution.

We have a so-called Head of State who is appointed by the leader of the Lower House of Parliament. That position involves a number of rather tedious public relations duties but does include one very important role. And that role is to sack the person who appointed him if, and only if, that person is no longer able to govern and pass the decision on who will govern back to the people of Australia.

That difficult task was carried out by John Kerr in 1975 and it is a fact of history that the Australian voters opted to change the government by a very large mandate. When the politicians could not agree the people were given the opportunity to elect ones who could.

And that safeguard in our constitution is why the silent majority of Australians voted against a republic. They knew perfectly well that an elected head of state would interpret his/her powers as being bestowed by a mandate. And it is entirely conceivable that his perception of mandate could be at variance with the primary duty to allow the people to make the casting vote.

And all the insults, derision, condescension and accusations of "immaturity" and "living in the past" etc merely confirms our assessment that you people couldn't be trusted to organise nooky in a bordello.
Posted by Perseus, Friday, 17 March 2006 11:10:46 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 Republican movement see a quicker way for themselves and their agendas to become more powerful and rich.

One of the Republican statements is to get the public thinking that there is a maturing and letting go of the apron strings of the monarchy. Australia is all grown up now.

Those creating a Republican model would consider their own presence in the overall scale.

If we thought that the Westminister system lets us down, the Corporate road of a Republic will only serve to destroy the very core of any Freedom we thought we have gained.
Posted by Suebdootwo, Saturday, 18 March 2006 1:12:50 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
A peoples advocate must unify the Nation not divide it along political lines. Voting for a President with regal character would not unify the Nation. A Head of State represents all people not the politicians.

Please tell me how President Bush has unified America free from political bias? To be able to represent all people politicts ought not be involved in the office.

PK,
... Republicans want to rid our Constitution of the Queen of Australia while not causing any political anger, but merely because they believe she is dull politics. Avid Republicans see need to cause anger and conflict in the community toward the World's best working Constitution.

Constitutional change only happens by civil unrest or civil war. Republicans must constantly sow seeds of discontent to raise anger and hostility toward our established power structure because they passionately want it changed - merely for change sake.

Their agenda is to continually raise the topic to rid Australia of one who swears humble service under God to the protect the people from despotism and oppressive laws. Certainly those content with our present Westminster Constitution do not see the necessity for change. Republicans believe our Constitution is broken and inadequate to best serve us in the future.

Muni, Quote, "despite its many age cracks".

Please Explain! What are the many cracks in our constitution? Your charge that supporters of our constitution believe Australians lack intelligence - is pathetic.

PK how is being a Republic going to help us do better in the future, as you claim? Don't give the tired old line,"We will have our own head of State!" We have an Australian as Head of State in the Governor General.

Please identify how you'd appoint/elect a President? Please give reasons that indicate your anger toward our present Constitution is justified.

The push for Republicanism is such a boring subject it certainly does not excite me as having a just reason for implementation.

Perseus, Good point Politicians protect their own hacks not the people against poor politicians.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 18 March 2006 8:44:03 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
Philo,

Can you give us an example where this has happened?

Your words "one who swears humble service under God to the protect the people from despotism and oppressive laws."

I think I remember a time when South Africa was ruled by a despotic regime promoting a little thing called apartheid. I don't think I remember the Queenprotecting people against that... in fact her Govt under Maggie Thatcher actually tried to undermine the other Commonwealth nations attempts to sanction apartheid out of existance.

The world, including Australia helped stop apartheid not the Queen.

Are you calling Gough a despot? Because that is the only time from my memory I have seen such a thing.

Under the Queen many govts have undermined her citizens rights and she has said didley squat about it.

If you are going to argue your biases at least try to make sense.

I eagerly await you list of times when the Queen has intervened to close down a despotic regime... It's hard to type a blank post...lol
Posted by Opinionated2, Saturday, 18 March 2006 11:21:57 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
Supporters of the status quo keep arguing against a republican movement of their own invention rather than the real thing, which is quite pathetic. To put things back on track, here are the main issues (from wikipedia):

The main argument made by supporters of an Australian republic is that it is inappropriate for someone in a distant country to be their head of state. The argue that a "foreigner" whose main job is as the head of state of the United Kingdom, and spends his or her life there, cannot represent Australia, not to itself, nor to the rest of the world.

Republicans argue that Australia had changed culturally and demographically, from being "British to our bootstraps", as prime minister Sir Robert Menzies once put it, to being increasingly multi-cultural. Aborigines and Australians of Irish origin, they argued, saw it as a symbol of British imperialism.

It is argued that several characteristics of the monarchy are in conflict with modern Australian values. The hereditary nature of the monarchy is said to conflict with Australian egalitarianism and dislike of inherited privilege. (based on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republicanism)

The first argument is the critical one and very hard for supporters of the status quo to counter, so they avoid it and avoid it. Republicans disagree as to the type of constitutional reform required, which is the main reason for lack of success sofar. There is little interest in actually keeping the monarchy because the Queen has no influence the government at all.

Read my article on an Australian republic here:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/archive_details_list.php?article_id=1125
Posted by David Latimer, Saturday, 18 March 2006 2:19:19 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
Spot on post David L. In a nutshell; a monarchy is an anachronism with no political value at all. The hereditary nature flies in the face of true democracy. We can still retain the very best of the Westminster - we just don't need a foreign (english) figurehead. We can appoint our own truly representative of Australia, someone independent of government, such as our Governor General is supposed to be. By not by Prime Ministerial appointment - vote by senate perhaps.

And then we can get a flag that really represents Australia! I have always liked and admired Canada's flag. Would like to see something as simple and succinct for us. I used to believe a combo of Southern Cross & Aboriginal Flag, but now I think a new start for us all. Something we all agree on.
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 19 March 2006 10:21:54 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
Opinionated2, the point (in my view) is not that the Queen physically sought to stop apartheid in South Africa, or for that matter the 1987 coup in Fiji - but that in order to achieve their aims, the South African and Fijian governments had to abolish the monarchy.

From that perspective, the Crown acts as a S&P-style constitutional "credit rating" indicating that the Cconstitution of a country is in reasonable order.
Posted by Alexander Drake, Sunday, 19 March 2006 12:57:30 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
Response to Alexander Drake:

You've just provided one of the reason why republicanism is important.

The Queen giving a constitutional "credit rating" to Australia? Apart from the fact you are wrong about the Queen's influence, nothing could be more offensive to our soverignty.

Australia is not ripe for revolution, apartheid or anything of the sort. With all due respect, this shows a lack of confidence in Australia, its values and its independence.

Response to Scout:
Thanks. Have a read of my article here http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3703 , as a way of retaining the best of the Westminster tradition, yet enabling us to have an apolitical, non-executive, yet elected Head of State. Interested in your thoughts.
Posted by David Latimer, Sunday, 19 March 2006 1:42:11 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
Philo - the Governor General is not Australia's Head of State. That role is given by our Constitution to the Monarch of Great Britain. The G-G is only the Queen's representative here. This post of G-G is a political appointment made by the PM and rubber stamped by the Queen, to fulfil the PM of the day's agenda, such as to keep a low profile and keep the republic issue quiet as the current occupant does. The G-G has no role at all when the Queen is in Australia and he keeps completely out of the way.

Our true head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, by all appearances an impressive woman, does not live in Australia. Her main job is as monarch of Great Britain. Now that she is ageing she will probably play even less of a role in Australia but may remain on the throne well into a long dotage if she is as long-lived as her mother was. American Presidents visit Australia as often and have far more influence in Australia than does the Queen. At least they are elected and can serve only for a maximum of 8 years.

But all this is fine by you I suppose. It ain't broke, ain't it?
Posted by PK, Monday, 20 March 2006 8:37:19 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
David Latimer wrote, "The main argument made by supporters of an Australian republic is that it is inappropriate for someone in a distant country to be their head of state". What a beat up. IT IS JUST A CEREMONIAL GIG!

If there is any serious representing of the country to be made it is, and should be, done by the Prime Minister. In it's current form the monarchy is a quaint bit of colour that we can add to a ceremony, a bit like having bagpipes. It will draw a crowd and make a bit of spectacle.

But an elected head of state, no matter how many times you might claim it wouldn't, will attract all sorts of baggage in an implied mandate. And this implied mandate will operate in a manner that diminishes the primacy of Parliament.

The clear protocol at present is that the Queen, in all matters relating to Australia, does what she is told to do by the Parliament. As she should.

But I guess the <2% Democrat vote in South Australia should be enough to let, soon to be, Ms Alison, know that voters want their elected representatives to concentrate on real issues, here and now.
Posted by Perseus, Monday, 20 March 2006 10:58:46 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
David Latimer suggests that all non-republicans are “supporters of the status quo”, which is not the case. I, for example, think that Australia should be actively working towards closer ties with New Zealand, Canada and the UK, and I see the shared symbolism of the monarchy as a positive aspect of what we already have. To me, abandoning that shared symbol would be a backward step.

David also says that “the main argument made by supporters of an Australian republic is that it is inappropriate for someone in a distant country to be their head of state”. I really do not see distance as an issue. By the standards of most of the world’s countries, Perth is a very long way from Canberra, but it doesn’t mean that people in WA cannot be represented by a Governor General who lives in our capital. If distance were such a problem, Australia’s federation would never have happened.

Most importantly, David suggests that “a ‘foreigner’ ... cannot represent Australia, not to itself, nor to the rest of the world”. This is the real crux of the matter for me: I do not see our Queen as a foreigner, nor do I see Britain as a foreign country. Like all Australians of my generation, I was born British. This legal identity was quite undemocratically stripped from me in the 1970s, at about the same time that Kiwis and Canadians also lost their British identity and the UK itself took the plunge into what is now the EU.

Some people may see this gradual severing of family connections as a good thing and want to take it further, but I do not. In a world where most countries are attempting to work more closely together, some of those among us want to symbolically cut the ties that link us to precisely those societies with which we have most in common.

I know that mine is a minority view, but I see this tendency as intensely parochial: the latest manifestation of what we used to call the cultural cringe. And I find that very sad.
Posted by Ian, Monday, 20 March 2006 11:53:34 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
I said before the main argument made by supporters of an Australian republic is that it is inappropriate for someone in a distant country to be their head of state".

What self-respecting country finds it appropriate to have a Head of State from another country? The above responses from Ian and Perseus show concept of respect for Australian independence. Indeed, Ian says that the UK is not even another country.

Perseus just says the position of Head of State is unimportant. Well in that case, stop arguing and let the republicans make their case.
Posted by David Latimer, Monday, 20 March 2006 12:36:38 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
Lyn Allison has shown just how little she understands the Constitution under which she sits in Parliament. Contrary to Allison's assertion, the Queen does not have the constitutiona power to veto any decision made at referendum by the Australian people. Perhaps she will tell us in which section of the Constitution she found this non-existant power.

If perchance she is referring to section 59, it is an otiose power – functionless, of no practical effect. It has never been used, and since 1926 could never be used.
Posted by DIS, Monday, 20 March 2006 1:15:22 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
Lyn,

The results in the South Australian election show ... you're party is now walking the tightrope of non-existance.

Senator John Coulter was quoted saying:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18532102-29277,00.html

I can only imagine the heartbreak that the still loyal members of the Democrats and those non-members who still live in hope feel today. They see what was once a shining light in our system, crashing to Earth with such a consistent thud.

South Australia was the Democrats strongest State. It was in the past their powerbase. Has the penny dropped yet?

I even came across this site: http://www.megsdesk.com/ Is Meg still a Senator?...lol She has a desk - does she still have a seat?...Ha!

The simple truth is the Democrats are making the mistake that most pollies make. They fail to apologise when they are wrong. Is this false pride - afterall didn't they correctly call on John Howard to apologise to the aborigines? Why can't they do the same here?

As most of their core voters probably believe they were wrong during the GST debacle they should apologise to the public. Lyn - There is strength in an apology!

They apologised to the Aborigines correctly so why can't you apologise on the GST?

Losing Natasha Stott Despoja as their leader, the best profiled Senator was also a mistake.

I said in another post that Lyn may be leader in the most critical time for the Democrats.

She has only a few shots left in her arsenal but only a few weeks to use them.

1. Apologise for the GST errors the party made under the leader at that time!
2. Encourage Natasha to return as leader and/or apologise to Natasha publicly if she refuses (who could blame her?)
3. Stick to core issues - the ones the voters want to hear about.

We will all await your urgent reaction to the election failure in SA at your website http://www.democrats.org.au/

Some of us still want a viable, relevant third party Lyn, and you are now in a corner with only three options... lead, follow or get out of the way!
Posted by Opinionated2, Monday, 20 March 2006 2:14:20 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
The CROWN is a ceremonial position at the moment represented in the person of the Queen of Australia. She holds that office which represents the people of Australia, while she is in Australia personally. At all other times it is the Governor General who represents the people of Australia in a ceremonial position (the Crown). The final authority to dismiss a Government who he feels is acting unconstitutionally resides in him. He is the caretaker of the constitution guarding the agreement we the people of Australia have with our elected lawmakers.

Elected Presidents who are also lawmakers and not merely guardians of Constitutions is a threat to stability. If they had their way elected lawmakers would happily violate their agreements with the people.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 20 March 2006 10:41:18 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
David, you misrepresent my position. You claim that I say that “the UK is not even another country”, when what I actually said was that I do not see Britain as a foreign country. My statement is there for all to read.

Obviously I recognise that the UK is another country, but I do not see it as a foreign one. It is a simple enough distinction. New Zealand is also another country, but I do not see it as a foreign country. As a New South Welshman, Queensland is another state, but I do not see it as a foreign state. This is because of a thing called Federation, which I see as a positive step and would like to continue and expand.

You suggest that I show no respect for "Australian independence": if our ancestors had been so obsessed with their Victorian independence, their Tasmanian independence and so on, we would not have a federation. Thankfully, they could think beyond their existing borders. I wish to do the same.

In today’s world, an obsession with Australian independence at the expense of potential interconnectedness strikes me as parochial and completely contrary to the spirit of Federation. Instead of bunkering down within our given borders, let's think broader.
Posted by Ian, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 8:58:56 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
Philo, you are just digging yourself in deeper. It is not clear that the final authority to dismiss the government rests with the G-G, there is potential for the Queen to refuse to consent. The Queen may instead receive advice from the PM to dismiss the G-G and may be obliged to do so irrespective of the G-G's wishes. The G-G is there at the PM's pleasure, the people have no role in either his appointment or the end of his period of office. I don't know how you see the G-G as the people's representative when it is the members of parliament who are elected and who are accountable to the Australian people. While no-one trusts politicians much, why should we put any greater trust in unelected heads of state? If your quaint views are typical of Monarchists, it is certain that the Australian Monarchy will eventually go the way of the dodo.
Posted by PK, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:43:34 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
Natasha who?

Many people, both in Australia and all over the world, derive considerable comfort from the notion of an omnipotent God. They cannot prove that such a God exists but his or her presence is often felt by them. And he (she) is regarded as something much greater and more powerful than a head of state.

He or she would appear, on the face of it, to be a foreigner. Yet none of his followers regard this as any excuse for diminishing the legitimacy of his role. He is not elected to that role but this, also, does not appear to produce any diminution of his legitimacy.

I make these observations not to diminish the standing of God in anyone's eyes nor to attach any form of divinity to the monarchy. I simply observe that if a person who's existence cannot be proven can play a very important part in peoples lives then an important precedent exists to enable an unelected foreigner to continue to fulfil a constitutional role in which Australians can continue to take comfort and satisfaction from.

Many Australians would invest an "elected god" with about the same respect and "an elected head of state". Zippo.
Posted by Perseus, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:09:42 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
I see no impediment to strengthening our trading ties with other Commonwealth nations, by becoming a republic. The queen has nothing to do with that. After all does not 'commonwealth' mean the 'public good'? Hardly appropriate to have something as anachronistic as a monarchy for the good of the public. Just think of where our taxes could be better spent....

I also do not understand how Ian can view Britain as not 'foreign' so far as I know one needs a passport and to go through customs to enter Britain from Australia. I have never regarded myself as a British citizen - I was born in Australia ergot I am Australian.

David L.

I reread your article. While reading I thought of the K.I.S.S. principle. I believe your proposal certainly has a lot of merit. However, you state: "For an Australian republic, this should be as simple as codifying the one actual duty left to the Queen - the appointment of the representative governor on the advice of the prime minister or premier." I would prefer that the appointment be determined by more democractic means, probably by the senate. I am also interested in suggestions as to the pool of people we could select our Head of State/G.G. from, someone neutral, if that's even possible.
Posted by Scout, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:13:31 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
Response to Perseus:
The number of people who accept the traditional notions of monarchy are lessening. The challenge for republicans, as I see it, is to propose a position which is fundamentally apolitical (non-executive, ceremonial) and yet elected. Being elected is important not so the Head of State has political legitimacy but so that people know and respect the officeholder.

Response to Scout:

Firstly, thank you for your input.

I've accepted the argument from the Richard McGarvie (former Victorian Governor) that the constitutional role of a governor depends upon being selected by the Prime Minister or Premier and appointed by the Head of State. Most republican reject the McGarvie Model but in my view, it is he who has best explained how our constitutional checks and balances really work.

In the 19th century it was Walter Walter Bagehot who discussed the “elegant” parts of government, referring to the Queen. Under the Copernican proposal this unifying function is performed by an elected Head of State, who does not interfere with governors performing their role or governments making policy.

The dynamic of having an elected Head of State, who's selection is very public and non-elected governors, where the selection is entirely private, is advantageous. The former has no real power or mandate; and the latter lacks independent authority.

Involving the Senate in the process would be acceptable provided that the Senators acted with complete transparency. I am not saying they would not, or could not, however politicians do prefer to deal privately and present a fait accompli in the house.

The proposal we are working on are working their way though the republican movement and there will be more articles published this year in OLO. I will keep in mind your suggestion when talking to other republicans.
Posted by David Latimer, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 2:55:20 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
Perseus, I think that only on this site would anyone attempt to draw any kind of parallel beween faith in the existence of God and support for the Monarchy. I know that one of the Queen's roles is supposed to be 'Defender of the faith' but I don't think too many republicans or undecided voters would be swayed by an argument such as the one you put. In most people's minds, a republic is inevitable and they are not keen to continue forever with an unelected foreign head of state. Those republicans with a belief in God are evidently capable of separating the two issues.
Posted by PK, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 3:52:42 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
Just one more overdone fireworks spectacular and the British monarchy might reject us. That should focus our minds.
Posted by Henery, Wednesday, 22 March 2006 1:27:47 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
Scout,

When I say that I do not see Britain as foreign, I am thinking in terms of culture rather than administration. Clearly the UK is another country and, as you point out, we need a passport to go there. I do not, however, see us as being culturally foreign to each other.

In the 1890s, there were seven distinct British colonies in our part of the world. They were separate, but that did not make them foreign to each other. Six of them – New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia – voted to join together; the seventh – New Zealand – decided not to join up and is now a separate country, although not, for me, a foreign one. What we have in common far outweighs our differences.

These things were never set in stone: different decisions could easily have been made. Western Australia, for example, actually voted to leave the federation, but never did. New Zealand could have decided to join – and in fact still could. I would like to see the process of federation continue.

Instead of being simply a New South Welshman, federation means that I am also part of a political unit called Australia. Culturally (but not politically), I am also part of a far larger entity, which we could call the British world: a group of increasingly diverse societies that share a high degree of affinity in terms of culture, institutions and values.

I see the core of this entity as including Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Canada (CANZUK, for short), and I would be keen to see closer political ties to reflect our close cultural connections. I do not see the monarchy as being essential to this project, but it seems to me that becoming a republic would send a negative signal, that we are not interested in sharing sovereignty, even with those countries that we have most in common with.
Posted by Ian, Wednesday, 22 March 2006 3:48:55 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
So why would we need to elect a new rubber stamp every few years?

PK, you may have misconstrued what I said. The point of similarity with religion and monarchy was to simply highlight the fact that we could, just as easily, get by with an imaginary head of state. A virtual monarch would have none of the risks associated with an elected head of state, none of the maintenance costs and overheads, and no need for popularity polls. A virtual monarch would provide exactly the same rubber stamp approval of the will of parliament and avoid all the tedium and expense of actually electing a new rubber stamp every few years.

A VM would only fall down in the PR department. But I think, on balance, that Betty does a better job in the meet and greet department.
Posted by Perseus, Wednesday, 22 March 2006 10:17:00 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
Perseus asks, "why do we need to elect our Head of State every few years?"

Good question.

The short answer is that we don't have to. The 1999 bi-partisan model did not. But this is what many voters want in a republic, and I agree because:

#1 Popular sovereignty. Many people want to see democracy in action. Lines of authority should logically stem from the people to elected officeholders, then to appointed officeholders. Our current system is in-practice 100% democratic, but not seen to be 100% democratic.

#2 Integrity. As Prof John Power explained, “For much of its history, Australia was well served by the monarchical approach. The ‘Crown’ acted as a potent symbol of the public interest and those in authority saw it as their duty to protect that public interest... As the monarchy began its irreversible decline, mechanisms of integrity [eg ICAC, AAT, ombudsmen] began to proliferate, seemingly in compensation.” The republican objective should be restoring this potent symbol of public interest. The rubber-stamping, as you put it, of legal government decision making is part of maintaining the integrity of the state.

In the US there’s debate about the constitutional authority of the President to authorise domestic wire-tapping. An Australian republican proposal should avoid this, as the person actually exercising authority may advise, counsel and warn (rephrasing Bagehot.) Prof Power’s objective is the restore the authority of the governors while maintaining the convention of almost always accepting ministerial advice.

#3 Public Relations. Perseus, you’ve answered your own question. The Head of State should be the PR office for the nation. Plucking a figure out of the air, 80% of our international image is unrelated to politics. Messrs Howard and Downer have the job to explain our role in Iraq, free trade, the UN ect... But in terms of promoting Australia (eg Austrade, World Cup) or commiserating with the world (eg notable funeral, earthquake) an apolitical representative of Australia is the best person for the job (and more available), just as the Queen represents the UK apolitically.

#4 If the people elect the HOS, they'll know who s/he is
Posted by David Latimer, Thursday, 23 March 2006 1:37:17 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
Hello Ian

You stated:

"I see the core of this entity as including Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Canada (CANZUK, for short), and I would be keen to see closer political ties to reflect our close cultural connections. I do not see the monarchy as being essential to this project, but it seems to me that becoming a republic would send a negative signal, that we are not interested in sharing sovereignty, even with those countries that we have most in common with. "

I understand that 37 countries in the British Commonwealth have indeed removed the monarchy. Australia could leade the way. Rather than a negative it could be a positive step in strengthening ties between commonwealth countries and part of the process of leaving behind an anachronistic system.

To David L

Once again your points have resonated agreement within me - so the GG could be elected by senate and HOS by people.

HOS to fulfill all the usual PR jobs as well as promoting Australia abroad and other relevant functions, while remaining politically neutral.

Cheers
Posted by Scout, Friday, 24 March 2006 10:52:33 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
Scout,
How does an elected HOS remaim politically neutral fully protect our agreement in the Constitutional with government with impartial protocols to represent all people? The very fact of an election means they must identify with political advantage over another candidate; which is what politics is about.

Quote, "HOS to fulfill all the usual PR jobs as well as promoting Australia abroad and other relevant functions, while remaining politically neutral."
Posted by Philo, Friday, 24 March 2006 9:25:16 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
Philo, you should be directing that to me.

General election hinge on both policy and personality, at the national and local levels. Parliamentary candidates communicate policy and the governments record.

The task for republicans (and it is certainly incomplete) is to devise an electoral system which has no policy focus. The HOS does not have a policy and cannot implement policy. Hence the election hinges on personality.

A HOS electoral system is related to the nomination process. The funding question is crucial. The voting system is crucial. Media rules may be needed (and can they be enforced?)

So there is plenty of work do do here for republicans. In fact, thats how I usually conclude my articles.
Posted by David Latimer, Saturday, 25 March 2006 12:57:16 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
Hi Scout,

When I think of “the British world”, I am not thinking of the whole Commonwealth. I support the strengthening of the Commonwealth as a whole, but I do not propose closer political ties with the whole organisation, because I do not feel that we all share the same core values and institutions. I would not, for example, think of Papua New Guinea or Lesotho as being essentially British. Barbados? The Bahamas? I don’t know. But my experience does tell me that Canada, Australia and New Zealand share a basic British cultural and institutional core that makes them very similar in important ways.

(I am not saying that this is a matter of unmixed pride. I recognise the sad truth that the CANZ countries derive their fundamental britishness from the fact that their indigenous populations were reduced to minorities in their own land. I do not, however, believe that we can resolve the troubled relationship of mainstream Australia with the country’s Aboriginal peoples unless we fully acknowledge both the good and bad aspects of our British heritage.)

When I talk of the possibility of closer ties with “the British world”, I am thinking primarily of CANZUK, and the kind of ties I have in mind are similar to – and an extension of – the ones we already have with New Zealand: reciprocal rights to live, study and work in each other’s countries, reciprocal social security arrangements, free trade, and so on. How far this could eventually go is an entirely open question. The EU has shown the strengths and limitations of an integration based on geography rather than values: perhaps CANZUK could experiment with an integration based on cultural affinity.

I agree with you that Australia’s constitutional relationship to the monarchy is pretty irrelevant to strengthening the Commonwealth. In terms of closer links between the CANZ countries, I agree that it is not essential, but I personally find it symbolically positive. Others will obviously disagree with my reading of the symbolism, and others still will reject any notion of closer ties. So be it.
Posted by Ian, Saturday, 25 March 2006 1:48:02 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
Ian

Many thanks for your response. I agree with much of what you say and understand your reasons. However, with the shrinking of our world - in economic and political terms and the diverse nature of Australian culture - I see our 'Britishness' as increasingly less relevant.

Philo - ditto David Latimer's post.

David L. - have book marked your Website http://www.copernican.info/

Cheers
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 25 March 2006 8:27:03 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
An elected Australian as HOS would pose certain problems, since the successful candidate would be chosen on personality above all else. Ray-bloody-Martin for President, Oh Yeah!

The method of appointment isn't the main issue, it's the symbolism that counts. The Australian head of state simply doesn't represent Australians, so what's the point of having one?

Amazing how so many respondents play the man & not the ball. How many articles have you submitted to OLO Plerdsus, Opinionated, Leigh et al?
Posted by bennie, Saturday, 25 March 2006 8:57:11 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
I like the Queen of Australia too, she has nice hats and is very kind to her corgis.
I am glad the electorate rejected a republic, the proposal was unclear (different factions of 'republicans' had different ideas) and it was a jingoistic kneejerk by a pompous left wing intelligentsia. If memory serves me, the proposal wasnt supported by a majority in ANY state, let alone a majority.
I know defeated Republicans like to blame the Prime Minister for asking exactly WHAT model of Republic they proposed (there are such a range to choose from- eg Peoples Republic of China)rather than recognising their inability to demonstrate the need for change from a perfectly functional stable system. Republicans need to recognise their shortcomings and reflect on them before trying again.

As for the requirement of democracy that politicians be selected on 'merit not heredity'I wish this were true: Beazley,and Downer followed in daddys footsteps and seem to have found the shoes too big to fill- family connections, party faction and gender often count more than merit.

Voldemort
Posted by voldemort, Saturday, 25 March 2006 11:34:52 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
Scout,

I felt the same about Australia’s “Britishness” until I lived in Brazil: I had always thought “Australia is not really British anymore – we are multicultural now”. In fact, I had always thought of “British” as referring to the United Kingdom as it currently stands, but Brazil taught me to see it as a cultural grouping comparable with “Latin”.

Although “Latin” culture is seen as deriving from the area that is now the Italian province of Lazio, most people would agree that Spain, Mexico and Brazil are all “Latin countries”, and that Italy is not more “Latin” than the others. They have developed very different cultures from that common heritage, but they still recognisably share certain important cultural traits. In the same way, the CANZ countries share important cultural traits with each other and with the UK, which used to be the centre of the British Empire. The only name we have to describe those traits is “British”.

Yes, Australia is multicultural, but so is Brazil: the difference is that Brazil is multicultural but also undeniably Latin, whereas Australia (like Canada) is multicultural but also undeniably British. Brazilian multiculturalism is built on a Latin framework, so everyone more or less adapts and fits into a set of Latin values and institutions.
Our multiculturalism, on the other hand, is built on a British framework. Looking from the outside, it seems clear to me that our values and institutions remain fundamentally British, and that this is the mould within which our multiculturalism is built.

This is merely to explain what I mean when I talk about Australia being British: I do not mean that we are in any sense indebted to Britain as it stands today, but that the British cultures of Australia, of New Zealand, of Canada and of the United Kingdom itself are all indebted to our common (and very recent) past. In the same way, the Latin cultures of Brazil, Mexico, Spain and Italy are all indebted to their more distant common past.

Whether you or anyone else sees this as important is obviously another matter.
Posted by Ian, Sunday, 26 March 2006 2:26:51 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
Still replying to Scout, a second message, due to the word limit.

I do see Australia’s “Britishness” as significant, because I would like to see Australia less isolated in the world, and I do not think that a geographically-based EU-style integration would work for us. I see great benefits, for example, in a close alliance and close trade ties with Japan, but I do not see Australia and Japan as being part of the same thing: I see no real scope for any kind of political integration. We can be close friends, good allies, reliable and important trade partners, but I cannot imagine us ever making laws together.

I can, on the other hand, easily imagine Australia as part of an integrated international grouping together with New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom. We already see each other as similar enough to share consular services in a number of countries around the world, for example. I have no difficulty in imagining the peoples of our four countries electing a common parliament, just as the peoples of our six colonies agreed to elect a common parliament at Federation, a century ago. We can think on a larger scale now.

When the UN voted on the new Human Rights Council last week, Canada, Australia and New Zealand issued a joint statement on the proposal. In fact, the CANZ group is a recognised entity within the United Nations, and the three of us typically speak with a single voice on many issues and support each other’s candidates.

Graham Kelly, New Zealand’s High Commissioner to Canada, says that the CANZ Group makes us “more effective on the world stage, more than our respective size would warrant otherwise.” Isn’t that a good thing? Couldn’t we take it further? Canada is a G7 member: couldn’t a formalised CANZ Group hold a joint seat in that forum, for example? Wouldn’t that sort of integration put us in a stronger position to negotiate for our interests? And wouldn’t it be a good way to start redefining our very unequal relationship with the United States?
Posted by Ian, Sunday, 26 March 2006 2:49:29 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
Thanks Scout.

(re bookmarking http://www.copernican.info/)
Posted by David Latimer, Sunday, 26 March 2006 7:31:01 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
Come on the Queen is after all one of the last we shall have , the shill outbursts from those who care for her and her line seem to agree.
She is from a past that we no longer need, and besides I will no longer need to turn of the medea till after her tour ends if this is her last visit, gone yet has she?.
Posted by Belly, Sunday, 26 March 2006 7:44:47 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
Hello Ian

I have spent some time O/S as well and very much identify with what you are saying vis a vis 'british' background. In fact, travel made me realise just how unique and loaded with potential Australia really is.

If we, as human beings, have any chance to live in relative peace and accommodate the technology which is shrinking our world and blurring our borders we can not afford to think so much in terms of race. We certainly need solidarity within our commonwealth - this gives us much potential for trade and the spread of commonwealth countries opens up areas we don't have such close geographical ties as we do with Asia.

It is the long term which we must plan for - people I deal with daily from friends to business are primarily anglo/european and Asian. As such I tend to see them all as just 'people'. Cultural differences are very much an abstraction - our basic 'humanity' is endemic to all. I see no impediment to close ties with any Asian countries apart from our own (and their) primarily artificial cultural constructs. This is a big topic and I am having difficulty finding the 'right' words.

As the advert used to say - it won't 'heppen overnight' and it won't be easy, and there will be lots of problems along the way, but it is more than just Australia's coming of age - it is time to work towards the maturity of our species.

The more we cling to our perceived differences the more conflict we will find eg, religious differences being a major problem right now. In light of all this, I find the idea of a monarchy not just outmoded but irrelevant.

I am aware that much of this sounds very idealistic, but what else is there to work towards if not a cohesive world?

Regards
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 26 March 2006 9:32:10 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
Scout,
So dropping the Crown from our constitution will mean the development of our human species. Interesting. Please indicate how Australians will lead the way in the advancement of the human species above others because we wish to become like many having a Republican society?

I thought Australia was now among the top in the fields of inteligence and creative development. Well it is good to have a fantacy a dream when you cannot have the reality yourself.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 26 March 2006 3:28:36 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
Until the illegal acquisition of this country by the British -which was compounded by federaltion and then addressed in international and constitional law, questions relating to republic or monarchy will be what they continue to be, obsessive and banal.
><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><((((º>
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 26 March 2006 4:23:39 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
Scout,

I totally agree that we should not be thinking or talking in terms of race. When I talk of Australia’s Britishness, I am talking about culture, not “race”. I have friends from a range of backgrounds – Chinese, Slovenian, Latvian, Thai – whose values fit just as well as mine within our culture. I used to see this as evidence that our culture was no longer British, but I changed my mind when I saw the way Brazilians all learn to be Latin, regardless of their Portuguese, African, German or Japanese background.

Brazil is Latin because that is the culture that was established during the colonial period, and now everyone more or less fits into that mould, regardless of where their grandparents were born or what they look like. It is in that sense that I see Australia as British: our culture is no longer connected with any particular ethnic group.

I do not, however, see cultural differences as being quite as abstract as you suggest. You put the debate in the negative terms of “clinging to our perceived differences”: I am not suggesting that we should push other cultures away, but that we should first recognise and build on the similarities we have with other British countries – similarities that go way beyond the “common humanity” that we share with all people.

In fact, I don’t see how we can truly take our place in the world until we can recognise who and what we really are. I don’t see how we can resolve our relationship with our Aboriginal population and with our geographical neighbours unless we can acknowledge our British cultural heritage.

What does this have to do with the monarchy? Not very much, perhaps, but I get the feeling that some people want to elect an Australian head of state simply as a way of denying the fact that ours is a British culture shaped by contact with this land, with the Aboriginal peoples and with the cultures of our neighbours and other migrants. And that strikes me as dangerous.
Posted by Ian, Monday, 27 March 2006 8:45:42 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
Ian

Why should a head of state remain British and a monarch?

I'm simply turning your question back on itself.

I think perhaps you see the desire for an Australian HOS more as an act of rebellion. I'd like to credit the Australian public with more intelligence than that.

In fact, I'd go so far to wager that the first publically elected HOS in Australia would be caucasian and male.

Thus far, we appear to be in agreement with retaining the Westminster system - keeping it simple and to remain with and strengthen ties within the commonwealth.

I admit that I put a much more abstract slant on cultural characteristics to emphasize my point. Some 2nd gen. Aussies I know (from both Asian and European backgrounds) have been even more Aussie than Hoges. Being Australian is, and will continue to be, a blend of all cultures with the foundation being provided by Britain. Just as you found the LAtin equivalent in Brazil. Britishness will always be a part of who we are but not all of who we are.

I used to work in public housing, one woman I remember in particular was from Somalia - her story of how she migrated to Australia is fantastic and too long and not relevant here. I simply want to state that I assisted her application for housing for herself, husband and six children. When the application was approved she told me that the very first thing she would ensure was that any of her relatives or friends who wanted to visit would have to phone her first. In Africa, people tended to just turn up on the doorstep without an invite and she liked the Australian way where we make more formal arrangements. I know this is purely anecdotal and just a little story, but it goes to show how swiftly customs are adopted by immigrants from a very different background.

Also, people like her are as deserving of representation in Australia as anyone else - our Flag doesn't represent her with its Union Jack, nor does a British Monarch.

Cheers
Posted by Scout, Monday, 27 March 2006 9:26:51 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
Response to Scout:

You said "I'd go so far to wager that the first publically elected HOS in Australia would be caucasian and male."

I am not so sure. Three of the six state governors are female and I have been promoting the idea that former governors can be nominated by state governments in the election of Head of State.

This would mean that female candidates may be appear in equal numbers on the ballot for HOS. The current HOS (QE2) being female may make it easier for the electorate to imagine a female continuing in the role.

Though I'm not currently ready to take you up on your bet, if these sorts of proposals get the green light, then I would do so.
Posted by David Latimer, Monday, 27 March 2006 11:51:55 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
Heads of State ought to have served an extended period in public office in a nonpolitical and impartial office of high esteem before becoming a Head of State. Example: Peter Cosgrove. The person must have the respect of the people, as that person is the peoples quardian of our contract with elected political powers who formulate laws to govern us. Popularly elected representatives [eg Bush] is not apolitical. He is more divisive than any GG we have ever had. Kerr was vindicated in his decision to sack Whitlam as supported by the Electors.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 27 March 2006 6:18:32 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
Response to Philo:

Thats another reason why I am promoting the idea of former state governers being nominated by their state govts in an election for Head of State -- because of their experience. But I also think there should be a general nomination (pardon the pun) so that any Australian (eg Peter Cosgrove) can become Head of State.
Posted by David Latimer, Monday, 27 March 2006 8:03:42 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
Scout,

I didn’t say that all Australian opposition to the monarchy is adolescent rebelliousness, but do I think that it is a factor in many people’s thinking.

You ask “Why should a head of state remain British and a monarch?”

Why British? Given that I see our culture as British, it makes perfect sense for our head of state to be British. Given that I do not see my identity as being limited to Australia’s borders, it makes little difference to me whether that person be from Australia, New Zealand, Canada or the UK. As I have said, I would like to see us drawing closer to these countries, and the fact that we have a common head of state seems to simplify matters. If the Australian states had not had a common head of state in the 1890s, Federation would have been that much more complicated.

Why a monarch? As I said, I don’t wave flags for the concept of monarchy per se, but since the monarchy is one of the institutions that links the four countries that I would like to see moving closer together, I have no problem in living with it. It doesn’t offend me. The Queen doesn’t represent us? Neither does the Chief Justice of the High Court, and I don’t see anyone wanting to elect judges. The important thing to me is that our government does represent us. The monarchy is a symbol, and I have no problem with it.

If the CANZUK countries were to federate, for example, any elected president would necessarily be from one or other of the four countries: they would represent one and not the others. I think the monarchy would be a useful way of not letting little nationalisms get in the way of broader unity. It doesn’t represent us, nor does it represent New Zealand, nor Canada, nor the UK. It simply is.
Posted by Ian, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 10:18:38 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
Ian

I have really enjoyed our exchanges, however I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. I see Australia as greater than just its British Heritage and a republic as a way of redressing that.

I also note that you focus on strengthening ties with the primarily Anglo CANZUK countries. I see an opportunity to consolidate our relationship with all commonwealth countries.

As for the monarchy - it represents the UK far more than any other country - it is not neutral at all. Just as the Danish Monarchy represents Denmark.

David L

I'm probably just cynical, but until women have at least 50% representation in law, business and politics, it is always going to be a more of a gamble for women to attain high office than it is for men (men are kind of like the default if you get my meaning). However, I applaud your optimism and commend your agenda.
Posted by Scout, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 12:23:51 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
Can't say I blame ya for being a bit cynical, Scout. I will try though.
Posted by David Latimer, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 1:32:59 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
Scout,

I appreciate that not everyone is going to see things as I do.

I’d just like to point out that I am not of Anglo background, and I don’t see much relevance in focussing on “race”or ethnicity, as you do when you refer to “the primarily Anglo CANZUK countries”. My emphasis is on the cultural similarities of the primarily British societies, not the origin or appearance of the people who live in them.

You say that our flag does not represent more recent migrants, but of course you could say exactly the same thing of the Union Jack itself in the UK, or of the red, white and blue stripes of the French revolution. I don’t see how it could ever be otherwise: a flag cannot be changed with each generation to ensure perfect representation.

Anyway, thanks for the debate.

Ian
Posted by Ian, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 3:32:49 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
One of the most satisfactory threads I have participated in.

I have learnt a lot - thanks to Ian and David L.

Look forward to conversing again.

Cheers

Dianne
Posted by Scout, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 10:07:01 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 things that you find when you keep asking questions. Surely there are some Democrats people here who actually realise that Andrew Bartlett did apologise for the GST debacle.

It appears about half way down the page here : http://www.democrats.org.au/speeches/index.htm?speech_id=1384&display=1

If the Democrats who read these pages haven't felt it necessary to point people like me to this article then either they didn't know themselves or they just don't realise the power of an apology to the average voter.

An apology means people take responsibility for the decisions and show they are human and are sorry for the effects of their decisions or judgements. The Dems have certainly been punished at the ballot box for that decision but this may open a few eyes and at least inform people that the Senators have realised that the GST was a major issue in their fall from grace amongst voters.

It does make me wonder who are the advisors in political parties and do they truly understand the powerful ramifications of an apology?

I congratulate Andrew Bartlett for the apology. It is a shame that it was only given at their 2004 annual conference, because, it is the voters who voted for the Democrats, who aren't members, who needed to hear this apology also.

Afterall the Dems members will probably vote for the Dems but it is the non-member, swinging voters that may not have abandoned them so furiously had they been aware of the apology.

Please pick up your game Democrats as the media aren't giving you proper coverage so you need to find new ways to get your message out to the broader community.

We need a strong 3rd party.. We're trying to listen but it is YOUR duty to make yourselves heard!
Posted by Opinionated2, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 7:51:10 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 office of the Monarch [King/Queen] representing the Crown [the people] in our case is an educated position from childhood where they are taught the Westminster system of Law and Government and the duties their office holds. They are the defender of the faith [values] embodied in the Westminster system of Government.

Short term elected persons cannot fully comprehend the importance and dignity of this office unless they have been well educated in the system. A Republic that puts into office popular personalities fails to realise the priming for such a role. I see nothing abnormal in heiredity sucession, it happens all the time in family business. Ask Jamie Packer!
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 10:23:42 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
Forever in our hearts and soles will we be a part of the British Empire, and all that we have learnt and received will not be forgotten, but with a stable economy and government it is time that we move forth from our established mother and found ourselves as a republic. As I still am a youth of Australia and ineligible to vote all I can say is that soon there will be time for change and time for us to be recognised as our own country.
Posted by Rin, Sunday, 9 April 2006 1:28:28 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
Rin,
I thought Australia was already recognised an an autonomous nation, with our own Constitution, Government, Laws and Justice system; we are not beholden to any other National power. Why are you so obsessed with republican indoctrination that the Queen of Australia is some motherhood dependency? The Queen represents and serves in the office of Crown [the people of Australia] to protect the Constitution on behalf of us the people of Australia. The Governor General holds that position here in Australia so - is he our Father? Do we need to remove him also as we breakaway from the Fatherhood traditions of Westminster? We already stand alone as an autonomous nation and Government. That the Queen of Australia is also Queen of several Sovereign Commonwealth nations does not make us immature; it rather makes us stronger as a community of Nations.

We as well as Canada voted recently to retain the Monarchy and thereby the Westminster System of Government. Australia is a stable society, only those that have been indoctrinated in Republicanism want to destabelise our Government and our institutions. My Scottish ancestors came here under Dunmore Lang a Scott an avowed Republican so the Republican movement is not a new phenomon it has been around since Australia was settled by the British. Yes probably we will become a Republic in the future - an Islamic Republic. So stay around to see Republicanism arise in Australia as our borders are removed into Indonesia.
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 9 April 2006 4:03:15 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
Rin is obviously a person who is capable of thinking for him/herself, Philo, and doesn't need your patronising comments. Rin acknowledges Australia's history as part of the British Empire and has no criticism of that.

From your many posts, you appear to be a person who relies on dogma rather than on constructive thought. Well, how about accepting that we're not all like that.

Howard made sure that the republican referendum would go his way. Most Australians want a republic. It's just the details which haven't yet been settled, but that will come.

We know that you are obsessed with your brand of Christianity, but your comments about Australia becoming an Islamic republic are absolutely ridiculous. But maybe it would suit you if our govt was controlled by Christian extremists and then discrimination against those whose lifestyles you do not approve of could be enshrined in law.
Posted by Rex, Monday, 10 April 2006 5:48:03 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
Thanks Scout for bookmarking the website. Our group has also started a forum at http://www.7gs.com/copernican/ which discusses republican models having an Australian Head of State succeeding the Queen.
Posted by David Latimer, Tuesday, 13 June 2006 10:02:01 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
As the question whether Australia should be a Republic runs in our minds, can we actually come to a wider perspective by asking " is the constitution out of date?". Since the constitution outlines the structures,principles and procedures of the government, it should outline the type of government which Australia should have since Australia no longer has a Queen. Having a Head of State which is not neccessary for Austrlia who no longer is in control of the Queen simply basically creates the question "is the constitution out of date?".
Posted by jaadoo, Saturday, 17 June 2006 4:16:08 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
jaadoo,
With comments like this" "Australia no longer has a Queen. Having a Head of State which is not neccessary for Austrlia who no longer is in control of the Queen simply basically creates the question "is the constitution out of date?".

It is obvious you do not understand our current constitution; as Queen Elizabeth is still Queen of Australia and the Commonwealth of which we are a member. The Governor General is our local peoples Representative. He stands there to approve laws to be applied upon the population by Governments, and dismiss governments that are not acting according to the constitution or the will or the best interest of the people. The people are sovereign and are represented by the Crown - Head of State.

Republicans wish to remove the Westminster form of distribution of powers, and make it more political with popular elected head of State. They then would hold a sectarian political interest and the State would become more volitile as powers are challenged by sectional interests. Those with sectional interests find this very appealing, because they get their opinions enforced upon populations if their representative is in power.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 17 June 2006 11:53:01 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
Philo
It is true that Queen Elizabeth is still the Queen of Australia. I'm saying that Australia has now grown up to be a matured and great country. Thus it is time for independance. The Head of State maybe the local's Representative.But is He an Australian? Australia needs an Australian to be the Head of State. Based on your comments you seemed to be going "out of track". We all know that the Head of State is the Queen's Representative. Why do we need a monarch system here when we are capable of standing on our own feet? This basically brings a question to our minds as it is mentioned before, " is the constitution out of date?". The constitution outlines the structures, principles and procedures of the government. Such structures in the government system simply creates a doubtful thought on the constitution which suppose to reflect the values of the current generation.
Posted by jaadoo, Saturday, 17 June 2006 12:18:10 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
jaadoo,
The Governor is the peoples representative, with power as vested by the Crown. The Crown represents the people's System of Government fought for by the people against despotic kings and Parliaments; That is now the Westminster formulated distribution of powers. They have no power to form laws, or enforce taxes on people; unlike Presidents.
Posted by Philo, Saturday, 17 June 2006 3:46:40 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
jaadoo,
I agree that Australia is becoming more mature, but I don't share your view that maturity as a country involves becoming more separated from other countries.

When an individual grows up, they often pass through a rebellious period that may involve rejection of their family. This is the age when young people are most likely to be obsessed with "independence". Maturity comes when they move out of that period and into a wiser acceptance of their connections with other people.

With a young country, I would say the same pattern holds. Yes, Australia is reaching maturity, but the sign of that is NOT demanding greater signs of independence, but rather recognising the value of being connected with others and realising that connectedness does not compromise independence.

As a country, Australia is obviously independent and has been for far longer than I have been alive. We are also, however, part of a family of nations, and I see no reason at all for rejecting the symbols of that family. I favour greater connection rather than greater separation.

I look forward to the time when Australia has the maturity to say "yes, she is our Queen, just as she is the Queen of New Zealand, Canada and indeed the United Kingdom. Let's work more closely with these other members of our family of nations, rather than seeking to emphasise our small differences."
Posted by Ian, Sunday, 18 June 2006 2:12:28 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
Ian
I'm not saying that just because Australia is independant It has to be seperated. I'm not asking Australia to be seperated. Having our own identity does not mean being seperated from other countries and nations. for example Australia and China so as other nations do share a very close and healthy relationship. Having our own identity does not mean we have to be seperated. As to maturity, we don't compare a human's life to a country. Australia has the capabality of having it's own identity. Why just waste that capabality? It is true that there are many pros and cons regarding the Republic system but even the monarch system has it's pros and cons. We still take the risk and go for the best.
Posted by jaadoo, Sunday, 18 June 2006 4:33:24 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
jaadoo,
Our relationship with China is of a different nature from our relationship with the United Kingdom. Like Canada, like New Zealand and like the UK itself, we are a British nation, not a Chinese one. Our history, our institutions, our values and our culture all make that quite clear enough.

I know it is not common to compare the development of a country to that of a person, but when the analogy fits, why not use it? There is no doubt that Australia has its own identity: no one is ever going to confuse Australia with the UK just because we have the same Queen. My point is that our obviously unique identity makes more sense within the British family of nations than outside it.

This is not wasting our individuality, it is making the most of it. Working more closely together with our obvious allies brings greater strength, just like it brought greater strength for the Australian colonies to work together and form our Federation a century ago.

Thinking small means stressing our uniqueness at the expense of our similarities. Thinking big means putting small differences aside for the sake of far more important similarities. That is what the states did in the 1890s to form our Federation. The next step is to work more closely with those with whom we have most in common: Canada, New Zealand and the UK. That is how we can find our place in the world.
Posted by Ian, Sunday, 18 June 2006 6:05:36 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
Philo has said:

"The Governor is the peoples representative," -- there is nothing to support this statement. Section 2 of the constitution says something entirely different: "A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth."

"... with power as vested by the Crown." -- section 61 of the constitution says something entirely different: "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen."

"The Crown represents the people's System of Government fought for by the people against despotic kings and Parliaments;" -- Huh? There is nothing to support this statement which is self-contradicting.

"They have no power to form laws, or enforce taxes on people; unlike Presidents." -- Incorrect. Even in the United States, the President does not form laws or institute taxes. That is done by Congress. An non-executive Australian President would certainly not have these powers.

Philo's post is an example of how support for constitutional monarchy is generated by continuous misinformation.
Posted by David Latimer, Tuesday, 27 June 2006 4:04:41 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
David,
Please quote the vows made by the Queen at her Corination to understand whose power she represents and serves. The Queen of Australia and the Governor General of Australia serves the citizens of Australia, and ratifies Laws put in place by elected representatives of the people. These elected representatives were once supposed to be impartial, but they now represent very political opinions and sectional groups. These sectional and political interests the Monarch [Crown] does not represent.

The Crown represents the power of the people that is bestowed upon her to protect the peoples interest in laws imposed upon them. The Monarch / Governor General must sign all legislation before it can be enacted upon the people. The Governor General upholds these vows on behalf of the Crown. Read the struggle of the English people and their history to understand who the Crown now represents.

The Crown also represents the citizens who form the State at Law. Our Courts uphold laws put in place by the Crown on behalf of the interests of the wellbeing of the citizens. Criminals confront the standards laws put in place by the citizens of the state [the Crown].
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 27 June 2006 8:21:20 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
David,
I do not think that it furthers the debate to present one's own opinions as facts and opposing opinions as misinformation.

To take just the first example, you say that there is "nothing to support" the statement that the the Governor-General represents the people, and yet it could be said that you support that very statement with your quote from the Constitution. The equation is quite simple: the Governor-General represents the Crown, the Crown (as Philo shows in his reply) represents the people, therefore the Governor-General represents the people.

You clearly do not feel represented by the Crown or by the Governor-General; others (equally clearly) do feel represented in that way. Neither of these feelings is objectively right or wrong.
Posted by Ian, Wednesday, 28 June 2006 1:00:27 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. All

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