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



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The power to appoint > Comments

The power to appoint : Comments

By Nick Ferrett, published 24/4/2008

The central reason the republic referendum went down in 1999 is that the people could not accept the model being foisted upon them. The people wanted the power to appoint the head of state.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
“The people wanted the power to appoint the head of state”. (In 1999)

This was not the only reason a republic was rejected, and it is more than likely that most Australians would again reject a costly referendum with the view of an even more costly installation of a republic now, or in the foreseeable future.

There is absolutely no advantage for individual Australians in a republic.

“None of the choices will be the one the public wants”, the author correctly states. This means that, even if the public does want a republic, it will have to vote against any referendum the urgers put up until it looks as if they are going to get what they want.

What a bloody stupid waste of time and money!

No politician in Australia or any group pushing for such a radical change to our political system can be trusted at the moment.

“No” is the only answer to a republic
Posted by Mr. Right, Thursday, 24 April 2008 10:32:57 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
As a grown man (note grown, not mature) in my 40's, I asked my mother what she thought about the whole republican issue. She told me that in her view Australia would one day become a republic but now is not the time. She said that whether us trendy Republicans want to believe it or not, there are a lot of Australians who have a legitimate fondness of the Monarchy. You only have to see how many turn out when there is a Royal visit or how many buy trashy magazines promising a Royal expose. It may be silly, it may be irrational but, no, the ability to choose a head of State wasn't the overwhelming reason that people chose to say 'no'.

For the record, I am a Republican and I think that Parliamentary selection of our titular head of state, with power vested in the PM is the way to go ... however, I still listen to my mum and she says 'wait'.
Posted by Nigel from Jerrabomberra, Thursday, 24 April 2008 12:48:59 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
Nigel, you are still young. Would you trust John Howard, Julia Gillard, Mark Latham even, or perhaps Kevin Rudd, to appoint a real Head of State. The people who voted against it last time wouldn't, neither will they vote for it again. The truth of the matter is that we do not trust politicians of any persuasion to do those things which we are quite capable of doing for ourselves, and appointing a Head of State is one of them. Just because the Queen's representative is appointed on the recommendation of the government of the day, gives no credence to similarly appointing a President, so the proposition will again fail.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Thursday, 24 April 2008 2:01:24 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 irony is that Australia's monarchists are the most keenly aware that a referendum on a republic will pass with ease. That's why we can look forward to two years of furious bluster about how pointless it is, and how it was rejected last time, etcetera, ad nauseum.

And the advantage of a republic, Mr Right, is pride.

In any case, young prince Harry doesn't have a drop of Windsor blood in him (being the child of Diana and Major James Hewitt), so in two generations the royal line will end anyway.
Posted by Sancho, Thursday, 24 April 2008 3:06:20 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 Howard gone, no more tricks to divide the republicans. We are more than 75% of Australian population and we are ready to put the monarchy in to museum. Do you want republic? YES! That's it. The story will finish very soon and it will finish for EVER! The power to appoint the head of Australian state belongs to Australians AND ONLY TO AUSTRALIANS. Monarchist you have no future. Leave the queen alone and come with republicans!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Thursday, 24 April 2008 4:52:51 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
As an immigrant POM, I look forward to the day when I can be an Australian citizen in the true sense. That other immigrants who become Australian citizens, no longer have to be beholden to a foreign head of state, at their citizenship ceremonies!
Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 24 April 2008 5:23:54 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
Why not just vote to remove reference to the Monarch in the Constitution ? Wouldn't that make us a republic, or at least a commonwealth ?
Posted by westernred, Thursday, 24 April 2008 6:08:14 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
There are two factors in Australian society that delay the adoption of a republic-

1 Compulsory voting, the apathetic and ignorant will usually vote "no"

2 Too many Australians still have the "cultural cringe", they need to be reassured by the magical connection with the British monarchy.
Posted by mac, Friday, 25 April 2008 8:46:51 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
I might get shot at for this, but I am really appalled by the lack of cogent arguments being put forward by those on the Republican side of the debate. It seems that all we get is bluster and name calling of those who take a differing point of view.

How about producing something more scholarly, with some substance. You may then convince those who are undecided, that perhaps, you have a good case. At the moment, I would suggest that we have more important things for the nation to consider, such as how we should be managing the environment to preserve it for future generations.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 25 April 2008 1:40:47 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 concur with the desire to become a Republic and also believe that the last referendum was contrived to ensure a vote of No.

The overriding message was that most Australians wanted to be able to vote for their President and the 1999 referendum did not provide that option, instead offering only one choice - a bipartisan appointment by Parliament.

I voted Yes as I do not have an issue with a bipartisan parliamentary appointment, particularly if the role was to be very much a ceremonial one similar to the current role of the Governor-General. But the point is that Australians did not get to opportunity to choose the method of appointment and that was the farce of the 1999 referendum.

Ways a President can be appointed (From Wikipedia):

"Alternative methods for selecting a president

Election
- by the federal Parliament alone
- by federal and state Parliaments (as in India)
- by a popular vote (as in the Republic of Ireland)

Selection
- by the Prime Minister
- by consensus among the Government and Opposition
- by a constitutional council (known as the McGarvie Model)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999
Posted by pelican, Friday, 25 April 2008 3:42:28 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
I've got to concur with the author on this one - I'm firmly in the camp wanting a republic, but I voted against the model put forth last time for the reasons outlined in this piece.
That's why it bothers me a little when monarchists try to point to the rejection at the last republic referendum as evidence Australians want a monarchist model.

That's crap. One day I hope to see a genuine referendum on a republic, where the public chooses the governor general. If that's rejected, then I'd accept the will of the majority - but not these half arsed models.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 25 April 2008 3:42:31 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
The last two are good points.

I ask, "Why are you in favour of a republic?" Note, I do not ask "Why do you think monarchists are dills?"

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 25 April 2008 4:27:10 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
More devious spin to bring in a rightwing agenda of public-private partnerships and hand over the remaining social infrastructure to the profiteers. But how to do this? There are concerns by some of the predators about the fraudulent character of what is being discussed. Others financial interests are concerned about the sabotage that is becoming more visible with the blantant run down of the public hospital system and reports of subsequent deaths that are hard to cover up. Two children have died in the recent period over no specialists being available. Many parents have still not forgotten the destruction of the Childrens Hospital with its specialised and experienced staff. Hence the main obstacle and references to "the elimination of corporate and financial regulations in a new relationship between federal and state governments. Treasurer Wayne Swan co-chaired the group session on the “Future of the Australian Economy”, along with David Morgan, former CEO of Westpac Bank and current chairman of the Australian Bankers’ Association. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s two-day “2020 summit” concluded yesterday amid an outpouring of rhetoric about “fresh ideas” and “long term visions” for Australia’s future. In fact, the summit represented yet another attempt by the Labor government to fashion a “democratic” facade for its right-wing economic agenda. In those sessions regarded by the government, big business and the media as the most critical—dealing with productivity and the future of the economy—senior Labor ministers and corporate CEOs hammered out proposals to slash tax rates, abolish business regulations, and privatise infrastructure development.
Posted by johncee1945, Friday, 25 April 2008 5:07:21 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
What TRTL said - exactly.

I become more than a little P.O.'d when monarchists bleat on that Australia rejected becoming a republic. We rejected a single model - that was all on offer. This was one of the the most blatant pieces of manipulation by the cynical Howard regime, I am still angry about it.

We need a sincere and genuine referendum, if Australia still opts for a monarchy, then I will accept the decision.
Posted by Fractelle, Friday, 25 April 2008 5:13:22 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
I'm all for Australia becoming a republic, though like David I feel we have much more pressing issues to deal with at the moment. I agree, we can't afford to let the republican issue distract us from the far more urgent environmental debate. And I still think it's too early to waste millions of dollars conducting referendums so soon after the last lot. The current queen has a lot of personal support amongst the Australian people. Perhaps the end of her reign might be a more fitting time to reignite this debate and a time when the republican idea is more likely to gain acceptance.

I supported the model proposed last time round for selecting a head of state. I considered then and still do a bipartisan selection process conducted by our elected representatives to be the fairest and most democratic option. The model of people electing a president sounds appealing at first glance but my feeling is it could have several drawbacks.

Huge amounts of money and effort would be expended in winning our vote. The last thing we need is an expensive campaigning circus. The democratic process would soon be corrupted by corporate heavy weights.

The winner of a popular vote would very likely be a television or sporting celebrity and while they might be popular and well known it doesn't necessarily follow that they would have the ability to unite and inspire the nation. Popular vote would never turn up someone of the calibre of Sir William Deane for example. His was a bipartisan governmental appointment and he soon became a much loved and admired figure despite most never having heard of him to begin with.
Posted by Bronwyn, Saturday, 26 April 2008 1:08:52 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
Bronwyn
Do not worry Bronwyn Australians know what to do. We ONLY want a simple, fair referendum. Do you want Republic? YES! That's it. For a new begin, FOR OUR AUSTRALIA!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Saturday, 26 April 2008 8:22:11 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 think a popular vote would get us a populist president. Pushing for a representative that could challenge our political leaders would undermine the strength of the system we have now. Approval from two-thirds majority of parliament would be a simple substitute.

Ray Bloody Martin for President! Yay!
Posted by bennie, Saturday, 26 April 2008 4:47:59 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
I am a socialist and a republican. I voted no at the last election arguing we should reject a republic of the rich. I want all institutions of state to be democratically elected.

In addition if you had read the papers associated with the proposal (ie how the Constitution would have been re-written) as I did it was a key point of the minimalist republic to keep the anti-democratic reserve powers.

However our democracy is limited. We elect politicians for a number of years and they can do whatever they like (eg privatisation of electricity in NSW) to stuff us over in the interim without us having any recourse. So I think one solution, one that has been tried in the Paris Commune (before the French bourgeoisie destroyed it in rivers of blood) and the early days of the Russian revolution (before Civil War, foreign intervention and the rise of Stalinism killed it) is to have automatic recall of elected representatives.

Thus the President is elected by everyone across Australia.

If she decades to do anything we don't like, then we vote her out and put someone else in the next day. T

Our democracy is limited in another way. It doesn't extend into the realm of production. Who elects the leaders of business? Not ordinary working families. So the same principles could apply here too, and in the day to day running of workplaces we could do the same for electing our immediate bosses. And I'd apply the same principle to the present Federal Parliament.

I know, a pipe dream given we live in a democracy that is designed in such a narrow way so that the a tiny minority can extract and expropriate profit from the majority, but hey it's late at night and one can dream.
Posted by Passy, Saturday, 26 April 2008 11:20:50 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
Passy

Love your dream. If the dream ever became a reality we would have far more accountable leaders in both politics and business.
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 27 April 2008 11:07:16 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
Passy you wrote
"We elect politicians for a number of years and they can do whatever they like" and "Thus the President is elected by everyone across Australia."
Passy a friendly question to you. When we can press more when the head of the state is elected direct from the people or when he/she is elected from the parliament? You said "Thus the President is elected by everyone across Australia." NO! YOU MAKE A BIG MISTAKE! When the president elected direct from the people he does not need the people until the next presidential elections. BUT WHEN HE IS ELECTED FROM THE POLITICAL PARTIES THEN THE POLITICAL PARTY/TIES WHICH ELECTED HIM THEY NEED US. In the state elections, federal elections, City councils etc. When they need us we can press them and we have many opportunities many ways to press them. There are so many candidates for federal or state parliament, Senate, so many candidates for city majors etc. When he elected from parliament we have a chance to press BUT WHEN THE PRESIDENT ELECTED DIRECT WE CAN NOT DO ANYTHING FOR THE NEXT YEARS. If the president elected direct then the role from the mass media is very big, they play a very important role but they can not play so big role if he is elected from the parliament, for the election of so many candidates for the parliament senate etc. When the role of the media is smaller then the role of the people is bigger, then our democracy is healthier.
If Passy you want a better control on politicians until the next elections at least on the major issues as war in Iraq, I WANT TOO, then we must be ready any time to use the online referendums, this kind of elections cost very little, can organized very fast although there is a little risk for fraud. But comparing the benefits from the referendum with the risks, the benefits advanced any risk.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Sunday, 27 April 2008 6:50:09 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 Antonios

I think if you re-read my post, especially about the automatic right of recall, you'll see you and I are in agreement.

It would for example stop an elected john Kerr sacking Gough Whitlam because we the people would give him a deadline to give his views on support or otherwise for the PM. If he doesn't support the PM we sack the President then and there.

Anyway, I think I may have inadvertently taken people away from the article and the author's arguments. In our present society the idea of elected representatives subject to automatic recall will not arise, and in the context of the residency question has, possibly, too many impracticalities (as well as raising the obvious question, why have a figure head as head of state either elected or not)?

regards
Posted by Passy, Sunday, 27 April 2008 7:00:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is widely accepted that the 1999 referendum was defeated not because of public support for the monarchy but because of confusion and uncertainty about the question which proposed the Queen and the Governor-General should be replaced by a president appointed by a two-thirds majority of members of Federal Parliament.

Many people did not want politicians to have the final say in selecting a president.

If a referendum were held - perhaps to coincide with the next election in 2010 - major political parties would be arguing the detail, not the principle.

But the precise blueprint for a future republic in Australia could again meet opposition. Some would want a president elected by the people while others would prefer (and I'm one of them) appointment by a joint sitting of Federal Parliament.

However, it is time to urge people to rationally examine their attitude to a republic and the selection of a domestic head of state and become involved in sensible, bi-partisan debate.

Australia will eventually become a republic.

The only question is, when?
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 28 April 2008 10:28:19 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
Foxy said: "But the precise blueprint for a future republic in Australia could again meet opposition. Some would want a president elected by the people while others would prefer (and I'm one of them) appointment by a joint sitting of Federal Parliament."

Foxy, if the referendum allows us to choose the method of selection (without anymore political party tricks in the wording) then democracy is served.

There will always be opposition and I also prefer a bi-partisan appointment by parliament but if the majority wanted to select a Head of State via popular election then so be it. I believe most Australians would accept the outcome as a win for democracy no matter their own preference.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 28 April 2008 11:29:36 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
I voted no at the last referendum for the same reasons as many other Republicans. However, at the moment I don't think our representatives are quite mature enough just yet. They squabble and bicker, rather than debate and write mature laws. It really bothers me they have to keep copying laws from other nations such as the UK or the USA, rather than coming up with an original thought. Our representatives do not know what leadership means on the international level. Something that being a republic requires, i think. We defer to other nations rather than taking an independent stand (now i suppose this is partly because we are still a Monarchy). Our representatives are parochial luddites who can't stand the thought of freedom. Still that attitude could change quite quickly, depending on the ability of new leaders.

As for the article, it's a terrible one.
Posted by Steel, Tuesday, 29 April 2008 12:27:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Steel,

We haven't done so badly with our choices in the past. As I wrote in a another post -just take a short look back - at some of our PM's and their achievements.

Gough Whitlam in his short term in office started Medibank, the precursor to Medicare, which is the basis of our health care system by providing free or easily affordable health care for all citizens. He also opened up dialogue with communist China, resulting in our current strong trade relationship with the Asian powerhouse. And he ended our involvement in the Vietnam war.

Malcolm Fraser built on Medibank which evolved into Medicare - the health system we still use more than 30 years later. He was also the first PM to seriously address the issues of Indigenous Australians, and after leaving office has become very much an elder statesman, focusing much on human rights and poverty.

Bob Hawke & his successor, Paul Keating made a huge amount of reform, changing Australia from a country "riding on the sheep's back" (an agricultural nation) and relying much on mining, to a country exporting goods and services all around the world. They floated the Aussie dollar, which had been indexed against the US dollar, which freed up the trade market and brought major investors to the country.
They brought the unions under control, whilst still retaining a fair wages system across the nation. One of Keating's last acts as PM was to sign a defence agreement with our biggest neiughbour, Indonesia, and improve our country's relationship with that nation of more than 100 million people.

We now have a PM who is fluent in Mandarin, and has been a foreign ambassador both in Beijing and Stockholm. He has represented us overseas in the past. In his short term in office much has already been achieved. And I'm sure that we need have no fears regarding our
future.

In the words of our National Anthem, "... With courage let us all combine to Advance Australia Fair."
Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 29 April 2008 11:00:57 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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