An Australian Head of State! So many words have been written.

Following are some of my thoughts on a method of electing a head of state.

“The people should vote in a single national electorate, by an optional preferential ballot voting, from five nominees, creating the ‘Peoples’ Choice’ of the Head of State”.

The nation should remain known as ‘The Commonwealth of Australia’ (and not ‘The Republic’). This will ease any thought in the public’s mind of a major change and limit the cost of change within the public service; it also ensures that our Head of State is effectually disengaged from the ‘The Crown of the United Kingdom’ whilst maintaining our unique form of Westminster Government.

My reading of the Australian public is they would applaud an Australian Head of State but would not countenance any monumental change in our fundamental and proven form of government.

Due to emigration, the last 70 years has seen a great proportion of our current population having no historic links with Great Britain.

This will require a number of years as it must be in accord with the normal electoral cycle to offset excessive cost, the point of cost will be elevated by the monarchists.

On the subject of electing a Head of State, the powers of the office should be tightly clarified in the constitution as a ceremonial position, viz;

As ‘Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces’
Chair of the Executive Council with the instrument to effect legislation.

The commissioning of members of the High Court on advice of the Executive
Government as contained in the Constitution, plus;

To be Principal Companion and Administrator of the ‘Order of Australia’

‘Head of State - The Thread that Binds the Fabric’; the position should be ‘The Conduit–The Trinity’ between The Parliament, The Executive and The Judiciary.

The position should remain known as Governor General so as to maintain the status quo and thus eliminating any false misunderstanding that the Head of State (or ‘President’) usurps the Executive Government

Dear JMCC,

What you are suggesting has been proposed
in the previous Republic deabtes - and
it is a step in the right direction.

If it would not have been for John Howard's
interference during the last Referendum -
your proposal may have been achieved earlier.

We do need to start with small steps and win
over the monarchist factions with enticements
that appear to be the status quo.

As I stated previously, it is a step in the right
direction. We need to start somewhere.

Now what about the flag?

Foxy,
One step at a time.
new flage YES
Say the current flag witout the 'Jack'
Just a simple flag depecting our place
in the univerce by the southen cross
Plus the 'Federation Star'

Dear JMCC,

My husband had sent in that very design to the
PM's office with the Federation Star replacing
the Union Jack and the Southern Cross tilted at
sixty degrees. (That's how it's sometimes viewed
in the sky, as the earth moves around the sun).

But, you're right, one step at a time.

Removing the Union Jack.. would cut us off from centuries of history.

I don't think such a move would find popular support.. oh.. it might if you bring in umpteen zillion non British or Commonwealth migrants...hey now that's an idea....

I'm all for an Australian head of state, with our current model of government. That is, a Governor-General (why not keep the name, too - it is a link with our past and a reminder that we're not America) with executive but no legislative power. Essentially, cut the Queen out of the picture and keep the rest as it is.

I'm also fine with changing the flag. I like it as it is, and at the end of the day we cannot deny the Britishness of our history (and, in reality, our institutions will retain a very British flavour), but if the people want a new flag, I'm not going to argue.

If we are going to make any changes, then let’s concentrate on how we can improve our system of governance in the interests of a prosperous future.

Our current system, which is hooked into a corrupt donations regime and which panders to continuous growth and is beholden to big business that is driven by the profit motive and forever pushes expansionism, is what we really need to fix.

While I tend to agree with your proposal JMCC, I see it as no more than deck-chair rearranging on a Titanic that is in dire need of steering away from a very big iceberg.

Foxy,
Please do not think I am singlurly seeking you out but you did say in your post,quote "If it would not have been for John Howard's
interference during the last Referendum -
your proposal may have been achieved earlier"

I have heard this said often in debate about a republic and I ask where is the evidence of this alleged interference?

Now I am no fan of John Howard, or of either the major parties, but if i recall correctly JH opened the debate in Old Parliament House, made it plain he supported the Status Quoe and left them to the debate. He even allowed his liberal parliamentry collegues the right to have their say either for or against. He then allowed the referendum to take place with the model that the republicans wanted.

So where did the interference take place?

I am happy to conceed if you can show the interference, but please do not simply continue to give voice to allegations that may not have any basis.

“Boazy/Polycarp/AGIR (SIGWB)

>>> Removing the Union Jack.. would cut us off from centuries of history.

I don't think such a move would find popular support.. oh.. it might if you bring in umpteen zillion non British or Commonwealth migrants...hey now that's an idea.... <<<

Never mind the history of Australia's first inhabitants or the mixed ethnicity of people who arrived with the First Fleet - they weren't all WASPs, Boazy.

Besides, Canada hasn't lost any of its "British" heritage since the introduction of its Maple Leaf flag, the British heritage which you value above and beyond any other.

In conclusion, a flag that actually represents all Australians would be a great start.

.

AN AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND REPUBLIC

.

Hi everyone !

Perhaps you may be interested in reading this article, published recently in "Rethink Australia" ...

http://rethinkaustralia.org/submissions.htm

Have a great day !

.

Australia and New Zealand united?

The name of the new country could be….. Auszealand…. (or Aussieland or Auzzieland).

And the new flag could simply have an emu and a kiwi….and the Southern Cross.

Simple.

So let’s do it!

Gillard’s empire would expand. John Key would become a state premier.

Dear Banjo,

Surely you couldn't have forgotten the so
called "flaws"
that were argued over in the Republic model
that we were presented with in the last
Referendum? It was Howard's biggest trump
card and he milked it for all it was
worth by making public statements at the time,
over the control that politicians would have.
He made public statements in newspapers, on
TV shows (Kerry O'Brien's)and so on.
He did not just walk away and let people decide
for themselves as you claim.

The end result was Howard got what he wanted.
A significant number of people
who voted "no" still wanted a Republic, however,
they feared the one that was being proposed.
John Howard exploited that fear and the "no"
campaign very strongly. He thoroughly
exploited the lack of trust most people have
in politicians generally.

But don't take my word for it -
do your research.

We invited New Zealand (and Fiji, apparently) to join our nation way back when the idea of federation was floated. they said 'no' then, and would probably say 'no' again now.

Ludwig says:

"The name of the new country could be…..
Auszealand…. (or Aussieland or Auzzieland)."

Ludwig, I am so disappointed in the limited range of your thinking. I expected more and better of you. What was wrong with the logical extrapolation of 'New Australia'? It not only combines elements of both names, but relegates the issue of multiculturalism to history. In one stroke, we would all of us become New Australians!

What an opportunity to disposses the aboriginal members of the community not only of the land of their forefathers, but of the right to have guilt peddled by whitefellas on their account. They, too, would be reduced to the status of New Australians by but the stroke of a pen! Its almost a Final Solution.

I can, however, foresee the Fijians hanging back in accepting any renewed offer of Anschluss. Their likely view of the prospective New Australia could probably best be epitomised by the words from an old song. 'Too many Indians and not enough Chiefs .....' is I think how it went, didn't it?

Foxy,
I disagree with your opinion entirely on this matter.

JH opened the debate, in Old Parliament House, on the issue and then took no further part in that debate.

After that debate concluded he to put it to a referendum, as he had previously agreed to, and that did happen. The model put to the referendum was the model chosen by the republicans, JH did NOT choose the model.

The republic was soundly defeated, even though it was supported by almost universial madia coverage. If JH spoke against it he is entitled to do so, that is not interference.

I too rallied against what I called 'the politicians republic' and, at my own expense, placed adds in my local paper bringing attention to some noted republicans such as Hitler, Edi Armin and Muselini, etc.
Looking for someone to blame? Blame me and the electorate.

No, the public voted against a republic and those supporting it have been trying to find someone to blame, other than acknowledge the fact that the public rejected it. There was no interference by JH.

Whether or not a different model may have done better in the referendum is simply hypothectical. The reality is that the republic was defeated.

Ludwig,
The kiwis wouldn't have a part of it and I don't blame them. Our politicians are nothing to crow about.

Dear Banjo,

There can be no honest denial of the
fact that John Howard had a very high degree of
antipathy towards the Republic and used everything
at his disposal to make public statements against
it. Now you may see that as merely expressing his
opinion - but going on shows like the 7.30 Report,
and others, as well as using his pull with newspapers,
radio talk shows et cetera,
to me comes under the heading of trying to
sway public opinion. Let's also not forget the wording
of the Referendum itself.

Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion.
As I am to mine.

<< Ludwig, I am so disappointed in the limited range of your thinking. I expected more and better of you. >>

Ooow Forrest, I’ve just re-read my last post and… you’re right! What on Earth am I on about?

We don’t want those Kiwis to unite with Oz! Pfff, what a horrible thought!

Although the idea of a new flag with a big tough looking emu staring down at a little cowering kiwi... under the tranquil stars of the Southern Cross ... does have a certain appeal ( :>/

<< The kiwis wouldn't have a part of it and I don't blame them. Our politicians are nothing to crow about. >>

But Banjo, thousands upon thousands of Kiwis come to Australia to live…because life and therefore arguably the political regime is better here.

I reckon a significant proportion of their population would be in favour of uniting with Oz, just as long as appropriate safeguards were in place to make sure that they received equality with mainland Ozzies. And the proportion has probably grown recently since Kiwiland introduced an ETS and will continue to grow as it beds in!

Hmm, what all this has got to do with the subject of this thread, I am not sure ( :> {

If Australians are fair dinkum about a republic a referendum on an equal rights republic with governance conducted by agreement between women's and men's legislatures, courts and corporate committees would receive overwhelming support this weekend because there's hardly anyone left in Australia who doesn't support equal rights between women and men. An equal rights republic rebadges the Senate a women's legislature with members elected by women and the House of Representatives a men's legislature with members elected by men, each with exactly the same powers to initiate, review, amend, accept or reject legislation enacted with passage through both. A cabinet of equal numbers of women, appointed by a majority of the women's legislature, and men, appointed by a majority of the men's legislature, reconciles the business of the parliament and provides the republic with leadership, while sovereignty resides with a cabinet nominated council of governors-general comprised of equal numbers of distinguished senior women and men. The States and Territories follow suit, their interests preserved through women's and men's lines of communication, and the courts recognise women's and men's jurisdictions. What greater honour than for Her Majesty to pass sovereignty to senior citizens presiding over the first women's legislature of the modern era.

Ludwig,
If you want a debate or argument with a kiwi, then suggest we amalgamate and if you suggest that NZ become part of Aus then, from my experience, be prepared to put your dukes up, because they see them as fighting words.

They are very nationalistic, even though they come here in droves. I have never seen the figures but I reckon not many would take up citizenship here.

An example, even though our Jessica Watson was born here and lives here, some Kiwis tried to claim her as one of them, because her grandparents are Kiwi, (not sure about her parents). All in good humour of course, but the poor girl had to declare her nationality from the middle of the Indian Ocean. "Sorry Grandpa, but I'm Aussie"

Best not even broach the subject of rugby. Not so 'friendly rivalry'

But you are right, it is off topic, sorta got sidetracked somewhere. My apologies.

I think we should dispense with parliament and install Queen Julia in our very own monarchy, from which she can simply rule by decree based on the latest opinion poll. It'd certainly be cheaper than the current system, where no matter who you vote for you get a government that does exactly that.

I'm with you, CJ....and it appears that Bertrand Russell pondered the issue also. In "Freedom verses Authority in Education" he wrote: "Democracy, as conceived by politicians, is a form of government, that is to say, it is method of making people do what their leaders wish under the impression that they are doing what they themselves wish."

A very convoluted thread, but has anybody asked if we actually have a reasonable candidate for the job (apart from Jeff Kennett of course)?

I am tending to think, changing it all might not be that great. In these troubled times, the head of state would have to be picked from a minority to show how cool we are. So we'd end up with an obese stuttering left-handed lesbian who comes from Africa and speaks no English, which I am sure also has its merits.

I reckon any PM of the day will see themselves as the logical candidate, like a bit of a retirement package to go with all the big time super and airfares.

<< I think we should dispense with parliament and install Queen Julia in our very own monarchy… >>

Mmmmm, interesting!

CJ, I’d give her about three months to prove herself as being genuine about sustainability issues and the concomitant move away from high immigration and continuous growth. Then if she shines, and if she gives an undertaking to maintain that sort of policy direction, yes we should install her as our Queen!!

Once she ascends to the monarchy, she wouldn’t have to worry about opinion polls!

Hey, that really does sound very enticing. Then we wouldn’t have to worry about our stupid political setup where the two major parties, which are essentially identical in their philosophies, are vying for the right to take the country into a totally unsustainable future and down the road to ruin!

.

AN AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND REPUBLIC

.

I see more good reasons for this to happen than for it not to happen.

In 1900 GDP per capita in NZ = 107% GDP per capita in Australia. In 2010, it was down to 63.4%

If New Zealand had joined the federation in 1901, it would have been the third most powerful State. Today, it would only be the fifth most powerful, as it continues to slide backwards.

New Zealand has a lot to gain economically by joining the federation.

New Zealand has a good army, a small navy and no air force. It no longer has the benefit of the ANZUS treaty since this was suspended by the US when NZ refused to allow US atomic warships to enter NZ ports.

It cannot defend itself in the event of major hostilities.

We are all cousins. We enjoy the same values, the same culture, the same way of life.

Our two countries are virtually amalgamated already. The last hurdle is purely political.

All the Australian States held a referendum in 1900 to join the federation. New Zealand did not. Its political leaders decided against it, for reasons that no longer exist, without giving the New Zealanders any choice whatsoever.

We are now into the 21st century. We have reached adulthood. It is time we stood on our own feet, all of us, together, and faced the world as one.

We have much more and much better to do than simply stare at our own navels, or at each other's, for that matter.

Of the 53 Commonwealth members, 31 are now republics. Her gracious majesty, the Queen, would not be at all offended if Australia & New Zealnd also declared a republic.

.

<< New Zealand has a lot to gain economically by joining the federation. >>

Banjo Paterson, the economic reasons that you have listed all make sense for New Zealand. But the opposite is true for Australia, which would have to incur considerable economic costs in order to bring a new Kiwi state up to par with all other Auszealand states!

What’s in it for Australia?

Thinking about Australia's current "Head of State"

*Lizzie Winza*

I am reminded by recent news out of the land of poms regarding her request for a pay rise, and personally applaud the current pommie pm (despite him being a consevative) on his unequivocal refusal.

I note further that 1 particular chap has pushed his claim for *Lizzie* to open the books up for public scrutiny (excepting security related expenditure) all the way to their High Court.

In this regard though, and in recent times, changes were made to the "Freedom of Information" laws exempting *Lizzie et al* from scrutiny.

What a laugh!

A number of the comments coming out of the palace have been likened to those made by certain english mp's during the expenses scandal who also did not wish to be scrutinised.

It s reckoned that *Lizzie* spends about 70 million dollars per year including $100,000 per go train rides. The palace say in response to this that her status as a tourist draw card more than justifies this BUT oddly also that her unique constitutional position justifies her exemption from FOI.

..

I wonder also how much wealth is bled out of this our nation on a monthly and yearly basis to end up in the coffers of other nations for industrious activities which we ought be doing ourselves?

And here again I note the view of some who did not think it worthwhile investing in the development of the skills base of our own Australian people.

..

Finally, I note and hope that others become aware, that kiwis and poms enjoy favored status in numerous Australian statutes.

I hope that the prevailing will of this nation becomes one where people choose to grow into a more unique entity in our own right, building on the foundation of self reliance.

.

Dear Ludwig,

.

In the event of amalgamation, a more prosperous New Zealand would be an advantage to the new global economy of Australia & New Zealand. Together, we would both be greater and stronger.

Trinidad & Tobago and Eastern & Western Germany are good examples of this.

If a major war were to break out, we Australians would vave to come to the rescue of New Zealand anyway. It would be better and more efficient if we amalgamated our armed forces and organised them properly beforehand.

The new global nation, spanning the Tasman Sea and including both countries would have a lot going for it. This is a win/win situation.

.

Dear DreamOn,

.

"I hope that the prevailing will of this nation becomes one where people choose to grow into a more unique entity in our own right, building on the foundation of self reliance".

Australia & New Zealand are quite complementary. We would both gain by amalgamating and form, a bigger, stronger nation, far more capable of standing alone, with greater independence.

Though we would still need the protective, nuclear umbrella of the US until we could develop something equivalent ourselves.

.

Dear all,

.

Before deciding what sort of "head of State" we want, we need to decide what sort of State we want !

.

We have an Australian Head of State in the Parliamentary appointed Quentin Bryce.

Philo
sorry old mate the Queen is our head of state the GG is just her rep' in oz and is offered for appointment alone by the PM to the Queen.

The Head of State is essentially an office of which is held by the Queen of Australia. In every way Quentin Brice acts in that capacity. She does not have to consult or act on orders from Buckingham Palace.
It is a figurehead role to ensure the Australian constitution is enacted and the citizens rights are protected. While Queen Elizabeth is in Australia she assumes that position.