Hey, I'm Kenneth. I am not a law student but Legal Studies is one of my subjects in the South Australian Matriculation(SAM) Pre-University Programme. I am doing a research study and would like to enquire on a few things regarding a republic system of government. I have posted something regarding the Constitution in the past which is more specific. I would greatly appreciate if you could state your opinion(whether agree or disagree) clearly according to each question and provide valid reasons.

1) Does a repulic form of government help to ensure a perfect seperation of power? In other words, does a republic prevent one body from dominating another body, such as the Executive Body dominating the Legislative Body since election is done seperately.

2) There are many roles of the Governor General that became obselete in the Constitution since Australia gained its independence in 1986. Hence, in your opinion, do you think that these roles should be removed from the Constitution through a republic?

3) Australia has evolved into a multicultural society throughout the years. In your opinion, do you think that an Australian Head of State should replace the current Head of State who grew up in Britain and is appointed by the Queen of England?

4) The British monarchy, by nature, discriminates against women as women are only eligible if no male heir exists. Also, the heir must not be a Catholic and must be a member of the Church of England. This is in conflict with Australia's anti-discrimination laws in which any arrangement of having males to gain precedence over females is prohibited. Therefore, do you think that democratic rights and equality between genders should be made obligatory with the presence of a republic?

Lastly, in general, do you think a republic should be encouraged to replace the current constitutional monarchy?

I hope that you are able to respond to this post as soon as you can. Thanks for taking time to even read about this also. I appreciate it.

-Kenneth Chaw-

ken, i mentioned in my response to your first inquiry that politics was about power, not about theory.

before you settle on an answer to "what must be done", it is wise to ask "how will it be done" and "who will do it".

there is endless talk about politics in australia, but the speakers are a very small part of the population and their talk is mere chatter. they are in truth 'chatterati' because all power to actually do things resides in parliament, and in fact in cabinet. although they chatter about democracy, most know nothing about it, simply because there is no vestige of democracy in australian history or culture.

consequently, any change to the constitution will be carried out by politicians for politicians. this fact was very visible in the last referendum and was a part of it's failure.

i presume you are merely filling out your academic resume, rather than actually educating yourself in any constructive way- let me commend you for initiative in getting the chatterati to rough draft your papers.

Ken
You are asking some complex questions and you have obviously given the issues a bit of thought.
There is a far greater chance that the "separation of powers" doctrine will remain intact under our current system. e.g. the US President has certain veto powers and the Governor-General and State Governors do not.
The Catholic church acknowledges the Pope as the superior authority so that a Catholic could not be King or Queen of England and still retain that separation of powers.
The law of succession could be changed to grant females the right to succeed.
Australia, as you recognise, is an independent country and the Governor-General has two roles - one is to be our head of state and the other is to be the Queen's representative in her role as head of the Cth. Republicans who try to say this is not the case either misunderstand or are deliberately trying to misinform people as to the role of G-G.
Monarchies on the whole make for very stable governments - they give people something to have allegiance to which has nothing to do with party-political issues. They may be anachronistic and elitist but I doubt there is anything better to replace them with....who wants to go the way of the US or Russia or some of the African states?

better a good monarchy than a bad republic, it's true. but why not a democratic republic? as opposed to a monarchy with 'work choices', slavish submission to america, and a legal system that is treated with contempt by all.

Kenneth,
As I stated in our email correspondence the Commonwealth of Australia is not independent and the judges of the High Court of Australia firstly recognised that not a single legislation was enacted to say so. They themselves had no constitutional power to amend the constitution by their judgment to declare the Constitution to be applied differently.
1/ The Commonwealth of Australia constitution Act 1900 (UK) is the only valid constitution.
Becoming a republic makes not one iota difference to the separation of power. It is based on constitutional provisions, and as long as they are followed that is all that is relevant.

2/ The role of the Governor-General has remained in the constitution however it is that the Prime Minister (albeit unconstitutionally) is taking over prerogative powers from the Queen, this is and remains unconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES.

3/ Australia's head of State is not appointed by the Queen as she is the Head of State and constitutionally only a person born in the UK can be appointed , upon recommendation of the British Government, to be appointed Governor-General. Nothing to do with an Australian Prime Minister. the governor-General was never head of State but represents the head of State as the "Chief Executive"/"Administrator" of the Commonwealth of Australia. "Constitutionally" he and not the Prime Minister runs the country! The Prime Minister is his servant!

4/ the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is unconstitutional as it is against the "general community" and Subsection 51(xxvi) only allows legislative powers against a "coloured race"! Therefore the commonwealth of Australia has no constitutional powers to deal with this as the constitution is above the Government, the Parliament and the Courts!
See also my website http://schorel-hlavka.com

If you get a flat tyer, do you then fix the flat or you just buy another car?
surely, the same with the current system, if politicians are vandalising constitutional powers then get rid of the politicians, not the system itself.

I suggest that this last correspondent needs to do a course in Constitutional Law.
Ken, he is misleading you.