Should Australia become a republic? My view is yes, and I took that view since visiting the Australian Republican Movement website.

It is very impressive.

http://ouridentity.org.au/

With Malcolm Turnbull becoming our new Prime Minister and his previous views on supporting a republic, I believe their is a much better chance of such a move proceeding forward.

Australia needs to stand on its own two feet and an out of date connection to the U.K and romantic feelings towards the Queen don't impress me any more.

Yes, absolutely Australia should become a republic.
It's time Australia grew up and stopped being a 'colony'.

No argument from me there, Nathan and Susie,

Countdown 10, 9, 8, 7, ... I'm sure the "Usual Suspects' will be alone shortly to tell us why we need Liz and Phil and the rest of the mottle crew to bow and scrape to. They'll get their chance soon, Charlie and Godzilla are gracing us with their presence shortly. Godzilla has given strict instruction no "bikini girls" are to get with a bull's roar of Charlie (its bad for his pulputations these days) when they chuck a snag or two on the barbie down at Cottesloe Beach to celebrate the events of 1979, how touching.

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/prince-charles-to-return-to-perths-cottesloe-beach-for-his-67th-birthday-20151014-gk8l2s.html

Yes, I also agree we should become a republic, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I support what another persons idea of what that republic should be.

The US does have a good system with the constitution and bill of rights, but unfortunately the broader government is badly corrupted.
If we create a similar system then we need to safeguard it against becoming what the US system has become.

"It's time Australia grew up and stopped being a 'colony'", what utter claptrap Suse. It's about time some people actually grew up, & stopped falling for B grade slogans.

I wonder just what it is that these lefties admire so much about the United States, or Uganda or the Congo, for that matter, that makes them want to emulate them? From where I stand, our system, regardless of who is head of state, leaves the USA's republic system for dead.

Granted Turnbull, Gillard & Krudd are/were duds, but Obama makes even them look like great leaders.

Like gay marriage, it is another political distraction. Yet again, the moral BS artists are chattering away, in this case led by a bald bombast with a red nappy on his head.

Why would anyone put that stuff ahead of the very serious problems confronting Australia?

What about this,

http://www.lifeline.org.au/About-Lifeline/Media-Centre/Suicide-Statistics-in-Australia/Suicide-Statistics

and this,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-16/we-are-homeless-of-outback-number-of-evicted-farmers-surges/6843528

and this,

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/ambulance-ramping-crisis-at-brisbane-hospitals-says-united-voice/story-fnihsrf2-1227479123907

BTW, has the taxpayer-funded national broadcaster bowed to leftist pressure and removed its 'Struggle Streets' video? Not that Labor and Greens ever displayed any interest. Nope, too busy obsessing about gay marriage and now the 'republic' as well.

Hasbeen, you said "From where (you) stand, our system, regardless of who is head of state, leaves the USA's republic system for dead." Can I take it then that the Ugandan and Congolese systems are light years ahead of ours! LOL, You didn't bag them so they must be okay.

I am with you on that score, I don't want to model our republic on the US system, although some aspects are good and worth following, along with much of what we have now is worth retaining.

Hasbeen, getting a bit hot under the collar again as usual I see.
How very predictable.
Where did I say I liked the US system? I don't, so don't you put words in my mouth.

I would like to see us throw off the old 'mother country' c##p and get on with developing our own version of a republic.
It's no good going on living in the dark ages forever...

When John Howard was Prime Minister, I voted no towards becoming a Republic, because I felt, John Howard had talked me out of such a move, and generally I didn't object to John Howard as Prime Minister - in fact generally I thought he was very good whilst in the role.

I am (in many ways) a conservative person, and I now think by having a good debate on this issue, good options put to people, along with a reputable Prime Minister in place (like we have now), I believe people can properly look into this issue with a lot of professionalism.

Yes...the Republic issue is always termed a distraction whenever it arises.

I think this time though it's going to gain traction. The new chairman, Peter Fitzsimons, has breathed new life into the cause - and I believe ARM has just reached the number of members and finance to start a decent campaign.

Hasbeen,

"It's time Australia grew up and stopped being a 'colony'", what utter claptrap Suse. It's about time some people actually grew up, & stopped falling for B grade slogans.

I wonder just what it is that these lefties admire so much about the United States, or Uganda or the Congo, for that matter, that makes them want to emulate them? From where I stand, our system, regardless of who is head of state, leaves the USA's republic system for dead."

Australia doesn't have to emulate the US or France.

Peter's minimalist model requires a very small change.

As things presently stand, one person gets to choose the Governor General..."one person"...that's the Prime Minister.

The PM then sends a letter to the Queen requesting she affirms that choice. So the Queen appoints the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister.

That's how it's done at present.

The only change in minimalist model would be instead of the Queen appointing the GG - as she would no longer be part of equation - her role would be given over to parliament with a 2/3 majority appointing the chosen person.

Very little change - one last snip of the apron strings...it won't hurt a bit.

Onb,

Political distraction is right. On the cost alone, the idea of a republic is daft. The Queen is a mere figure head who costs us nothing: the poms do the paying. The queen has no say, in Australia, and the GG, like the queen acts on instruction from the elected government. We also have the Australia Act.

ttbn,

"... The Queen is a mere figure head who costs us nothing: the poms do the paying. The queen has no say, in Australia, and the GG, like the queen acts on instruction from the elected government...."

So she's a mere figurehead - she has no say - we run our own show these days.

What's the point?

Everything you wrote in your post only reiterates the reason Australia should cut the remaining strings.

Certainly not, Nathan!

A republic would heighten the prevalence of nationalism, which is a disease.

Nationalism a disease?
You want open borders why don't you toddle off to Germany?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/10/13/german-protesters-set-up-mock-gallows-to-hang-angela-merkel-for-her-pro-refugee-stance/

I'm sorry Yuyutsu, no offense but I really don't understand comments like that.
Please explain - Tell me why you feel this way?
What is so bad about trying to be proud of our country and wanting to make it a better place?

Isn't that ultimately the reason we're all here on this forum?

Dear Critic,

When we analyse our motives, persistently digging and seeking the root-cause for our thoughts and actions, we arrive at one of just two causes: Fear or Love.

Loving others is commendable and those we love we may invite to join us and our activities, but we never force them into it.

A nation is not inviting, but imposing itself. In the case of Australia, over all those who live in this continent and surrounding-islands, in other cases perhaps over all those of a certain race or lineage, etc. Forcing yourself, your values and your activities on others is something to be ashamed of, not proud of, and in the last count, it's fear-based.

My response was about people's attitudes, rather than borders, but since you asked, I agree that borders could be a necessary evil, yet they are fear-driven, not love-driven. A saint when threatened, turns his other cheek, but as we aren't saints we do what's necessary to defend ourselves. While this is acceptable, it shouldn't become a source of pride: there is nothing to be proud about the fact that we are not saints (and besides, pride is a spiritual impediment).

So much for pride, now you also ask what's so bad about trying to make our country a better place:

Here again, it's a question of motive: is it fear-driven or love-driven (or if a combination, how much of each?). Whatever is love-driven cannot be bad, however one doesn't need to be a nationalist in order to be driven by their love and try to make a country (or the whole-world) a better-place.

Finally you raise the question of why we're here on this forum.
I believe that the reasons vary.
As for me, being proud (of anything) doesn't come into my motives.
I do want to make my environment a better-place, but there are no borders in my motivation: I tend to care more for my local environment and those I personally know, then it gradually diminishes the further I go. In-any-case, the territorial-fact of being in Australia or otherwise doesn't come into it.

A republic yes. We now have a level headed PM, the era of ratbagism is on the back bench. Australia is at its best for 2 years. There is a host of changes Australia needs to go through to set us up for the next 100 years.

Same sex marriage, Republic debate, alt energy, are at the top of the list. Dear old England is not for Australia, it has long passed over. We need to become a separate identity.

With Turnbull and Bill Australia can surge ahead. We need employment and now. Solar and wind along with wave energy are poised to take control and create thousands of employment positions. The political landscape has changed along with the willpower to get Australia moving.

Yuyutsu,

"Certainly not, Nathan!

A republic would heighten the prevalence of nationalism, which is a disease."

Frankly, that's a bit silly.

Are you suggesting that Australia doesn't already see itself as an independent, self-governing nation?

So (in a minimalist model) instead of the Queen appointing the GG on the advice of the PM, that role would be given over to parliament.

The Queen's role is merely a formality, it has no bearing on the machinations of govt within our country.

It's an anachronism.

@ doog,
"Same sex marriage, Republic debate, alt energy, are at the top of the list".

Hey doog, what value of export product and foreign exchange revenue will come from that list?

Yes, the queen and her hanger onners have passed their use by date.

"Like gay marriage, it is another political distraction." Beach, I though you conservatives were big on "multi tasking", or don't you think Australians are intelligent enough to conduct a rational debate about such an issue as a republic, whilst at the same time tackling the myriad of other issues and problems that confront the nation. You refer to but three, there is a thounsand other like problems, all worthy of our attention.
"Not that Labor and Greens ever displayed any interest. Nope, too busy obsessing about gay marriage and now the 'republic' as well." Your man Abbott had two years in government to show interest, did he, nope, more interested in a knighthood for fuddy duddy Phil, and taxpayer funded wrought's for himself and his cronies such as the useless political parasite Bronwyn Bishop. A couple of royalists I am sure you admire.

From a business and employment and prosperity point of view it was the British that initiated and helped develop Australia to what it is today.

What would a republic do economically for Australia?
In contrast, even an idiot can have some idea of what setting up a republic might cost.

Why not think about teamwork between nations, to stimulate and reinvigorate and further develop national economies.
Instead of whinging and talking non-sense

Butch, with statements like that you are never going to be offered access to the 'Melbourne Club', not even through the tradesmen's entrance! Sir Robert would turn in his grave, on hearing that kind of communist talk from you. LOL

JF Aus,

"From a business and employment and prosperity point of view it was the British that initiated and helped develop Australia to what it is today.

What would a republic do economically for Australia?"

Erm...can you inform the forum what employment and prosperity is forthcoming to Australia in 2015 by having the Queen formally appoint the GG on the advice of the Prime Minister?

What does being a constitutional monarchy do economically for Australia that being a republic couldn't do?

"Why not think about teamwork between nations, to stimulate and reinvigorate and further develop national economies."

Why, if Australia decided to cut the remaining ties of mere formality, would that preclude teamwork and stimulation between nations to reinvigorate and further develop our national economies?

We're an independent nation already - It's all very well that once we were an outpost of the British Empire...that is no longer the case.

Poirot,

Because the Monarchy is one of our traditions; it's part of our history. The Queen doesn't meddle with our government or way of life, so why go to the trouble and expense of changing to a republic? Change just for the sake of change is ridiculous. Tearing down something that has served us extremely well for over 200 years (it has also worked well for NZ and Canada, too) seems to me to demonstrate a petulance born of malcontentedness and a desire to vent frustrations that have more to do with Left-wing, anarchy than the good of Australia and Australians. Compare Australia with the largest and most 'successful' republics - the USA & GERMANY. NO thanks! Our way of life is much better than theirs.

Butch says yes. He is at the crossroads of life. I always thought someone could never be as bad as he makes out. Republicanism is a moderate’s ambition, it is to much to think butch could ever;

Incredible things happen, and this is one of them.

A vote should be taken at the next election, a simple yes, no, box added to the ballot paper. It can then be thrown around for the next 3 years. The first step is to have that vote.

Howard got to far in front of himself with his republic model, and that ended up stacked to suite him.

Australia is more than ready, to make that Yes No decision. Abbott disgraced us as a nation with his uninformed choice to downgrade Australia in the eyes of the world. [ Philip ]

The US version is only one of many different scenarios we could have, we need a uniquely Australian version of republican democracy. A bill of rights does not make any sense to me, but an Australia ID card is accentual. I do not know how many times my pass port has been photocopied because we do not have ID.

Besides it is dangerous to have to carry a passport wherever you go.

We have full rights as is, I am not sure what that would achieve. It could actually go against our freedom. If it means a slackening of some laws, I would not be in favor.

@ Poirot, "Erm...can you inform the forum what employment and prosperity is forthcoming to Australia in 2015 by having the Queen formally appoint the GG on the advice of the Prime Minister?"

Poirot, that question is typically about nonsense. Like the idea of a republic that question has absolutely no productivity or export revenue relevance.

What would a republic do for employment and prosperity?

Why don't you come to the table with some productive debate and ideas that have or might have potential? Instead of nonsense.

No, I'm still in favour of a monarchy. Long live his Imperial Majesty King Leonard of Hutt, Emperor of Australia & all her Principalities and Domains!

Dear Poirot,

<<Frankly, that's a bit silly.>>
(that a republic would increase national pride)

It's not my own claim which I just invented - this is what the web-site which Nathan introduced claims and Armchair Critic seems to agree with them as well.

Many on that web-site want a republic explicitly because they consider national-pride a desirable outcome. As I consider that same outcome to be negative and it seems (according to them) that the Queen is in their way, then I say "Long live the Queen!"

JF Aus,

"Poirot, that question is typically about nonsense. Like the idea of a republic that question has absolutely no productivity or export revenue relevance."

Lol!...I was merely reframing your statement:

"From a business and employment and prosperity point of view it was the British "that initiated and helped develop Australia to what it is today."

...and asking why you consider having the Queen as figurehead in 2015 has any relevance to Australia's employment and prosperity?

Something which you appear to be unable to answer.

I asked:

"What does being a constitutional monarchy do economically for Australia that being a republic couldn't do?"

To which you responded:

"Why don't you come to the table with some productive debate and ideas that have or might have potential? Instead of nonsense."

So you respond with absolutely no substance to my enquiry ...nothing...zip...zilch.

Where is your "productive debate", JF Aus - so far you've contributed nothing but meaningless waffle to this thread.

Can anybody direct me to the crux of JF Aus's point...other than once upon a time Britain was our master and initiated and helped develop Australia?

Don't accuse other people of posting "nonsense" when you're busy sprinkling it around yourself...and responding to other posters with puffs of hot air with no substance whatsoever.

.....

ttbn,

Notwithstanding that I usually give as good as I get on this forum, I think, all in all, that my contributions to this thread have been quite measured.

So when I read bilge like this:

"....a petulance born of malcontentedness and a desire to vent frustrations that have more to do with Left-wing, anarchy..."

I realise that some here are not interested in discuss the merits or not of the subject at hand, but merely putting in a boot laced with a little partisan hysteria.

Ho hum....OLO at its finest.

Export and foreign exchange. Is that what your againstism is about. That is somewhat of a naked comment. All our govt; has to do is set the stage and export and foreign exchange will take off like a rocket. Remember we have had 2 years of stagnation, and depressed economics.

I am sure our govt; can handle both issues at the same time. It was always about getting the right sort of govt; in place. And now we have that, and the outlook has risen to is best for 2 years.

We now have the best pair of political leaders in history, it is now a matter of what we want them to do for us as a nation. We must unite around our chosen leaders, surge forward, and prosper.
We need to be a republic and distance our selves from the motherland.
A national ID of who we are and not where we come from. England today is a very small part of Australia we are diverse and multicultural. This is one of the worlds best melting pots, of mixed race and delicious foods. Where would you be without a cappuccino. Sipping Earl Grey tea at noon with a kipper sandwich.

Give me a lump of rump and a bottle of beer and I would do anything for you.

Time has moved on and so must we, the time is right to consolidate Australia as a stand alone nation, and take NZ as another state and build a bigger Australia.

"<<Frankly, that's a bit silly.>>
(that a republic would increase national pride)"

That's not quite how you put it - is it, Yuyutsu?

This is how you put it:

"A republic would heighten the prevalence of nationalism, which is a disease."

Replete with all the rhetorical bells and whistles that put one in mind of nationalist hysteria.

"Many on that web-site want a republic explicitly because they consider national-pride a desirable outcome..."

I suspect there's already a bit of that "calamitous" national pride circulating in Australia....you know the kind of thing that makes one proud of their country and its achievements - and eager to contribute to furthering its development.

Gawd! - "national pride"...what have we come to!
(Sarc)

If people visit the Australians for Constitutional Monarchy website, it looks very second rate and is very negative in its overtone in some parts.

You only have to see its website title to see that. It's NO to something. I hardly consider that positive.

http://www.norepublic.com.au/

Also their website is overloaded with what I consider silly comments like:

"Some of us believe that Australia is already a form of republic under the Crown: a "crowned republic". Australia now enjoys all the desirable features of a republican government and a constitutional monarchy without any disadvantages of either system."

This organisation is desperately trying to find and connect to as much as possible to keep our current system in place, where as if they had a clear purpose, the group would not need to write comments like the above on their website.

Furthermore I am not against, the many elements of Australia's history, (as I have benefited from these, some though have also lost). That is why a move towards a NEW country is needed, with clear goals, aims and objectives for 2015 and beyond.

A well developed, positive Republic will be in my view be the way forward.

Dear Poirot,

<<the kind of thing that makes one proud of their country and its achievements - and eager to contribute to furthering its development.>>

"Country" in English has more than one meaning - one is positive, simply denoting "the land around us and its features" (and often also refers to rural areas as opposed to urban), the other negative, denoting that collectivising power which bundles together all the people who live on the land whether they like it or not.

Pride is a weakness of character, so it is not something to encourage.
We should instead be thankful for the land we live on and wish our neighbours to be well and prosper.
Meanwhile we should be contemptuous of involuntary organisations that impose themselves on us and our neighbours and be ashamed to have anything to do with them.

---

Dear Nathan,

<<That is why a move towards a NEW country is needed, with clear goals, aims and objectives for 2015 and beyond.>>

So what are your intentions regarding those who live in this continent but do not share the same goals, aims and objectives at yourself? Would it be OK for you to make them miserable in order to have it your way?

Poirot,

I'm sorry that you are upset by my theory of why many people desire a republic.

If you have sound reasons why you think that a republic would be good for Australia and Australians, you don't belong on my list of 'malcontents' tired of their lot and wanting something new that might make them 'feel better'.

So, how about it: what are your true reasons for believing that, despite the cost and inconvenience, a republic would be good for Australia and Australians? You can say what I think is 'bildge', but you will need to do better than that to persuade me of the necessity of Australia becoming a republic.

Poirot,

Australia's agenda should surely be about developing newly productive business and employment and export revenue generating opportunity, yet you Poirot are more interested in appointment of the GG.

The view you seem to have in this regard does not make sense economically.
Australia needs newly productive business and employment and export revenue, especially now the wool industry is not what it used to be.

How will a republic make a difference to Australia's economy?

At present creating a republic is just talk and more talk which in my view lacks productive purpose and sense in these economically difficult times.

If PM Turnbull chose to assist develop newly productive industry as part of a republic then I would support that republic.
I would feel proud to be part of an economically improved prosperous and independent Australia.

My "productive" debate to this thread is this.
Tony Abbot released the Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper to which I made a submission via the Green Paper.
My submission suggests new water infrastructure to allow farmers to increase Australian food and fibre production and exports, while at the same time helping river and ocean vital ecosystems.
But will MT follow through with such a productive suggestion or not?
If not why not?

f.y.i. I suggest assess Index F - Fairfax., at
http://agwhitepaper.agriculture.gov.au/supporting-information/published-submissions-green-paper

I think PM MT would do well to lead by example and then he will most likely gain strong support. But at present I don't even see a tweet from him about such new export productivity.

What would be the practical advantages of Australia becoming a republic?

Yuyutsu,

A move towards a new country in terms of clear goals, aims and objectives for beyond 2015 can be very positive, in terms of looking forward in a range of directions, not just mine. Living in a past environment (and keeping what some may consider good elements - and that is open to interpretation of course), but not allowing any forward thinking, new elements in terms of progression can be denying opportunity in terms of improvement - and there are many vested interests in that regard, unfortunately.

Is Mise and JF Aus,

The view you seem to have in this regard does not make sense economically... what would be the practical advantages of Australia becoming a republic?

In an article: An Australian republic: a worthwhile investment it says:

"For example, whenever a member of the royal family visits Australia - any member, not just the Queen - the Australian taxpayer picks up the tab. For example, it cost us almost $400,000 for a five day tour by Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall in 2005 and $1.8 million for a visit by the Queen to Melbourne in 2006. Not paying for royal tours in future will be an ongoing benefit for Australian taxpayers for the rest of the life of the Australian nation."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-07-28/35542

In tough financial times, I'll gladly get rid of these taxpayer funded trips. If I wish to visit the Queen or the Royal family I'll visit them at my own expense, whilst in the U.K.

Dear Nathan,

With due respect, you have not answered my question:

What are your intentions regarding those who live in this continent but do not share the same goals, aims and objectives at yourself? Would it be OK for you to make them miserable in order to have it your way?

So long as you bundle together all people who live in a certain area into a "nation" whether they like it or not, then some people's "forward" and "positive" may spell hell for some others. Do you care?

I sailed through a fair bit of the Solomon islands, in the decade after they gained self government. In very faded paint, many of the public buildings still bore the sign,

"BRITISH SOLOMON ISLANDS PROTRECTATE".

I was most impressed with the maturity of these people, who had not rushed out & spent limited recourses painting out those signs.

From what we see of our lefties, maturity is most definitely not their strong point. I'll bet many of them have already bought the paint. Of course they don't give a damn that it would cost hundreds of millions, just to change the stationary, for absolutely no advantage.

Meanwhile they will still want more welfare, & the taxpayer to fund stupid things like trams on the Gold Coast, & football stadiums in Townsville. Will they ever learn, that if it won't earn it's cost, it's not worth doing.

Hassy, your idea that everything should be reduced to dollars and cents is typical of right wing conservative thinking, if you can't make a quid out of it, its not worth having. What a boring world it would be if we were to loose sight of the real things in life that matter, and simply concentrate on the mundane superficial nonsense. You mention the Solomon Islands, a place I am yet to visit, although I have spent time in Vanuatu and Fiji etc, Fiji we visit often, not so much as a tourists, but where my partner does some voluntary aid work with children's education. In these place you can observe what can best be described as "the happy poor", people who have little in the way of material things, but are rich in the things which matter most, love, culture. family, contentment etc, things money can't buy. Add in some of the benefits money can buy and you have possibly the ideal life.

NathanJ,
It's not that I agree with creating a republic for the sake of it.

I think it best to leave the republic issue aside until Australia can put together an independent economic development policy and plan that most if not all Australians would be truly proud to be associated with.

If PM Turnbull was to lead newly productive development for example, then I would support newly productive republic policy, and I think many Australians would also.

Yuyutsu,

"Nathan, What are your intentions regarding those who live in this continent but do not share the same goals, aims and objectives at yourself?"

It's not just about myself.

In reality, it not simply about (those, I assume, you would call humans), it is about a new nation and attitudes - and this can include any element. So at a basic level, discussion could or should occur at any level, as any movement is not simply about what I want, or what you may want, or what others may want (in terms of humans).

So being too human centric, and at the same time, not looking into a future of any nature (due to vested interests of many humans), will come at a personal price of humans, not just in Australia, but worldwide and this includes freedom.

A system that we have at present - that has been imposed on humans (in Australia - and this includes the natural environment) can't simply be seen as "good" without some type of in depth assessment or discussion on change.

Poirot,

Unable to come up with a logical reason for Australia becoming a republic?

I thought not.

Doog,
"We need to be a republic and distance our selves from the motherland".
That is not part of what would be best for Australia, we need close cooperation not distancing ourselves.

To become an independent republic would do absolutely nothing for Australia except satisfy the petty minds of the British antagonists.

Some of my ancestors were immigrated by Dunmore Lang to the Hunter an avid Republican of the 1850 -60's and it indicated his hostility toward Britain. My convict British and Free Scottish ancestors continually argued about separation from Britain. The convict heritage always wanted the Home Country though deported by them.

ttbn,

"Poirot,

Unable to come up with a logical reason for Australia becoming a republic?

I thought not."

Pathetic, mate...you think the only thing I've got to do is sit around here looking at OLO. Spent most of yesterday up the coast.

If you're happy having the Queen formally sign off on the PM's choice then so be it.

Tell me what other control UK royalty has over our nation?

Are we not already an independent governing entity?

The last apron string - the "formality" is all we've got.

You tell me how that aids Australia, either economically or otherwise?

Poirot,
What would it cost in dollars to cut the last apron string?

all very interesting, but what are the advantages of becoming a republic?
Are there any?

What model of a republic?

Elected Head of State or an appointment by 'the boys'from 'the boys'?

JF Aus,

"What would it cost in dollars to cut the last apron string?

Lol!...probably similar to the amount of tax revenue we'd accrue if people like the Prime Minister didn't stash their dosh in tax havens like the Caymans for tax minimisation purposes - and other Australian millionaires actually paid their taxes.

"Budget pain? Not for millionaires who pay no tax"

"The latest tax statistics show 75 ultra-high-earning Australians paid no tax at all in 2011-12. Zero. Zip.

Each earned more than $1 million from investments or wages. Between them they made $195 million, an average of $2.6 million each.

The fortunate 75 paid no income tax, no Medicare levy and no Medicare surcharge, even though 60 of them had private health insurance.

The reason? They managed to cut their combined taxable incomes to $82. That’s right, $1.10 each."

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/budget-pain-not-for-millionaires-who-pay-no-tax-20140511-zr9o3#ixzz3oy1HR0iSe's 55 more from 2015

Here's another 55 exposed in 2015.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tax-office-statistics-reveal-the-55-millionaires-who-paid-no-tax-20150429-1mw2zp.html?stb=twt

....

Is Mise,

I've posted the "minimalist model" on this thread - perhaps you could go back and have a peek.

Yes, Poirot, but what are the advantages?

//but what are the advantages?//

It will give the republicans a nice warm fuzzy feeling. I, however, will be saddened that Prince Leonard will have been denied his opportunity to become our rightful monarch.

Long live King Leonard! (hopefully)

Poirot,

I suppose you think it's tricky to ask me questions which are irrelevant, because I'm happy with the status quo, and because you do not have logical reasons for change. It's more than a bit "pathetic" to call for a republic when you have no reasons why we should have a republic. Change for for the sake of change is pretty pathetic, too. Go "back up the coast" and do what ever bogan things you do up there.

Paul1405 if you want to through your own money at useless projects, like trams & football stadiums, great, go for it. However when we are on our way to a Greek future it is time to stop wasting money on such rubbish.

I can't believe people are happy with the Commonwealth games in the Gold Coast. I recently saw many photos of the Olympic sites in Grease, now Derelict & falling into ruin, as there is no real productive use for them now.

Ours won't fall into ruin, because we will continue to t6hrow public money at them, even if only used for school Tiddlywinks competitions once a year.

I do agree with you that money & "things" are not necessary for a great life. Infact things can restrict you. In the Solomons the people have embraced outboards, to their determent. Yes they can get to places faster than under sail as in the old days. They have even started to loose the old skills.

They are now restricted in the range of their fishing & other expeditions, due to the unreliability of outboards not properly maintained. It may have been much slower by sail, but they could cut a new mast, & plait a new sail on any island, & get to their destination

Dear Nathan,

You are correct to write that the coercive system that we currently have cannot be seen as good, but as a solution you come full-circle back to the notion of "nation". A new nation is still a nation and you suggested nothing to prevent the coercion of those people who take no interest in it, who simply want to continue living on their land and pursue their own way of life without interruption, based on their own goals and values that could be different than yours.

At a philosophic level, I support a republic.
At a practical level, I'd want us to be spectacularly careful about playing around with a system of government that has provided us with one the most stable democracies the world has ever seen.

As an example of the pitfalls that await an unthinking rush to republic:

Poirot" "So (in a minimalist model) instead of the Queen appointing the GG on the advice of the PM, that role would be given over to parliament." OK seems simple enough. No need to think too hard about it, eh?

So a simple majority of the parliament or Fitzsimmon's 2/3rds majority?

Either way, what if we end up with a GG what decides to ignore the conventions of the office. How to get rid of him/her? Parliament again? But maybe the parliament likes the things thispostulated GG is doing. Maybe get a 2/3 vote for dismissal is impossible.

What most of the knee-jerk republicans don't understand is that the constitution and workings of government rely heavily on convention. If you read the constitution (and how many Aussies have!!) you'll find that the theoretic powers of the GG are greater then almost any other democratic head of state

The GG can appoint and dismiss ministers, dismiss governments and call elections, refuse to call elections, appoint a new PM sack a PM, put minority parties into government. The GG can refuse to sign a bill into effect irrespective of how many parliamentarians support the bill. The GG has no fixed terms.

Current GG's don't use these powers because of conventions about what they should do and because they could be so easily removed.

But imagine a situation where parliament appoints the GG. Turnbull no longer runs for PM. He heads a party but doesn't run for parliament at all. Once his party wins a parliamentary majority they appoint him GG and since this was known by the electorate in the election the new GG claims a mandate and starts using the powers available in the constitution. Closer to dictatorship than is comfortable

That's 350...

"....Go "back up the coast" and do what ever bogan things you do up there."

Lol!....ttbn - one of the more irksome blow-ins of our current OLO family.

The only time I interact with bogans is when I meet the likes of you on forums like this.

Poirot,

My 'bogan' remark was uncalled for, and I apologise for it. However, you still haven't come up with a single reason why Australia should be a republic. I suppose "tiresome blow ins" like me, who question opinions you have apparently been espousing ad infinitum for who-knows-how-long, must very irritating to you. Most Australians do not live their lives online, and, in a small pond, you tend to think that your utterings reign supreme. In the real world, arguments and opinions have to be backed up with logic and facts. While I enjoy OLO, I spend most of my time in the real world, listening to and reading people who actually know what they are talking and writing about. I believe in freedom of speech, and everyones right to express opinions. But, if opinions don't stand up to testing, they are not worth having. If you are not prepared to have your opinions tested, you are wasting your time here.

ttbn,

Firstly, thanks for the apology.

".... However, you still haven't come up with a single reason why Australia should be a republic...."

I have put my views across and given an example of one model. It's my opinion that Australia, as a self-governing nation with the Queen presiding as a mere formality, should consider the option of parliament appointing the GG in his ceremonial role as head of state.

That other people disagree is perfectly in order. I suppose in years gone by when we stopped importing our Governors General from Britain, people were opposed to that as well...in an "if it ain't broke, then why fix it" manner.

I'll point out that on this thread it was you who chose to be combative in my direction.

You say:

" Most Australians do not live their lives online, and, in a small pond, you tend to think that your utterings reign supreme.....While I enjoy OLO, I spend most of my time in the real world, listening to and reading people who actually know what they are talking and writing about...."

Precisely - and yet when I'm away for a while (in the real world), you decided to have a little snide prod:

"Poirot,

Unable to come up with a logical reason for Australia becoming a republic?

I thought not."

And to top it off, you believe that because you disagree with me that I'm somehow against having my opinions tested.

Get this....I couldn't give a toss if you think Australia should reject a republic - that's your prerogative.

But don't come the high and mighty telling me I'm "wasting my time here". Who are you to strut around here rancorously flinging out your brief run-by comments - and then chastising other posters for having an opinion?

You don't want a republic - fine...and er...so what?

Now I'm off (to the real world) to do some historical research and digitise some really old photos.

Have a nice day : )

I think OLO is more like the real world, or at least more like the world as it is supposed to be, involving honesty that can be verified.

In the world outside OLO there are all types of newspaper radio and tv stories involving spin and lies, that can not be publicly challenged or verified.

Here on OLO it's possible to reply and question and reveal truth and reality of comments made.

mhaze, "At a philosophic level, I support a republic.
At a practical level, I'd want us to be spectacularly careful about playing around with a system of government that has provided us with one the most stable democracies the world has ever seen"

Well said.

There are also the substantial direct and indirect costs concerned. All have to be paid for and suck money, expertise and attention away from the fundamentals that government was put there to provide. Essentials such as transport, hospitals and other infrastructure that are already jostling for resources.

It is not lost on the long-suffering public that it is the aged, the ill and other vulnerable groups who will be doing without services to suit the cultural elitists' self-loathing and Anglophobia, and their pastime of dabbling in social change (and refusing to be accountable for the unforeseen negative consequences).

"At a practical level, I'd want us to be spectacularly careful about playing around with a system of government that has provided us with one the most stable democracies the world has ever seen"

Does this mean we change nothing in relation to Australia and government and its governance?

"Essentials such as transport, hospitals and other infrastructure that are already jostling for resources."

Yes, and this is under our current form of government and governance. Movement re government could be seen as positive in that context.

With a "no change" approach in Australia and other countries, by what some would argue to be (now) very heavy over governance, a fresh approach (for refreshment) should (at least) be assessed now to see any potential (or non potential) benefits, in regards to change.

It's not something to be frightened of, like eating a snail for example.

Can someone nominate a Republic that has a better lifestyle than Australia? To become a Republic will not improve anyone's status or life, it is just an anti-British fad.

NathanJ,

It is not an adequate response for you to assume as leftists do that 'she'll be right' and Australia is a 'wealthy country' that can easily afford additional imposts on the federal Budget.

If you listen to Parliamentary debates or read newspapers you should be aware that any new commitments have to be made possible by costs elsewhere. That is how Labor with their treacherous Greens sidekicks put the budget into the red and through loans take away from our children and their grandchildren as well.

Make that, "any new commitments have to be made possible by CUTS elsewhere".

otb,

"....you should be aware that any new commitments have to be made possible by costs elsewhere. That is how Labor with their treacherous Greens sidekicks put the budget into the red and through loans take away from our children and their grandchildren as well."

Pfft....if the govt closed its sadistic gulags of Manus and Nauru it might save a bit.

$280 million every three month period according to Senate Estimates yesterday...over $1 billion per annum to abuse people.

Do you have any explanation for the $143 billion Hockey and the govt added to our net debt during the Abbott tenure...with nothing to show for it?

Poirot,

Others have taken the time to correct you on that stuff on numerous occasions before and in all manner of threads, so I will not bother to retrace their footsteps.

Now, where is the patient Shadow Minister to play your forum parlour game of tit-for-tat, where you never make reasonable exchanges and make up your own 'rules' as you go?

.

The constitution of Australia was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 became law on 9 July 1900, and entered into force on 1 January 1901.

In Australian law, legislation enacted by the British Parliament by “paramount force” is referred to as “imperial” law. Our constitution is an example.

In 1901 Australia was a federation of six British colonies. We had - and still have - a colonial constitution. Nothing has changed despite the eight relatively marginal amendments voted by referendum since it was enacted by the British Parliament 115 years ago.

Despite, also, the fact that Australia is no longer a federation of colonies of the United Kingdom, due to two pieces of legislation :

• the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, and
• the Australia Act 1986, which was passed in equivalent forms by the United Kingdom Parliament and the Australian Federal Parliament (using legislative powers conferred by enabling acts passed by the Parliaments of every Australian state).

The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act is the point at which Australia became, de jure, an independent nation, while the Australia Act severed the last constitutional links with the United Kingdom – just 29 years ago. Elizabeth II acts in a distinct capacity as monarch of each country.

The UK does not have a constitution. It relies on its parliamentary legislation which is partly overridden by European law as a member of the European Union.

Laws passed by the EU are legally superior to domestic law, and are subject to a higher constitutional court, the European Court of Justice.

Australia’s colonial constitution has little in common with the UK’s parliamentary system and, of course, is not subject to the EU’s constitutional court. However, the UK has a Bill of Rights - and our constitution does not.

Regrettably, our colonial constitution is racist :

• Section 25 – States can stop people voting because of their race,
• Section 51; 26 – Allows racial discrimination by federal parliament.

We need a new constitution – whether monarchist or republican !

.

.

Also, on the question of religion so far as the Constitution is concerned, allow me to quote Professor Denise Meyerson of Macquarie University :

« Section 116 of the Australian Constitution states that the Commonwealth “shall not make any law for establishing any religion”. There is no such restriction on the legislative power of the States and Territories.

The neutral state is not founded on belief in the non-existence of God and it does not attack religious beliefs as false or irrational. Instead, it refrains from taking any position on religious matters, leaving people free to believe and act as they please in their private lives, provided only that they do not violate the rights of others.

Although the Australian Constitution appears to entrench the principle of separation between religion and the state, the guarantee is of little practical importance, given the High Court’s view that section 116 does not prohibit the state from encouraging or giving aid to religion and that there is no constitutional obstacle to laws that indirectly assist the religious to further their religious goals.

In my view, the state neutrality approach is preferable because it is of the essence of separating the state and religion that governmental acts should not serve interests whose value is evident only on the basis of personal insights and revelation. The exercise of state power should be confined to serving interests whose value can be supported by evidence and arguments that everyone can understand, regardless of their religious views. »

Allow me to add that it is my firm view that the Australian Constitution should be couched in terms such that it is crystal clear to all that it is subservient to the Australian sovereign people exclusively, without reference to any so-called higher authority or superior entity of any nature whatsoever.

The wording of the Constitution should neither presume nor attempt to impose religious belief on anybody.

.

.

For those of us who have always enjoyed the Australian life-style and can see no reason why it should not be any different for our children and grandchildren, here are a couple of things worth considering :

1. Only 60% of Australian adults and just 42% of 18-29 year-olds consider that "democracy is preferable to any other kind of government", according to the 2014 Lowy Institute poll.

Those who do not see democracy as the preferable form of government consider that :

"democracy is not working because there is no real difference between the policies of the major parties" (45%)

"democracy only serves the interests of a few and not the majority of society" (42%)

Though most of us have only a fairly scrappy knowledge of the laws that govern us, we all have an acute sense of justice, innate or acquired, from an early age.

No need to ask for whom the bell tolls. It clearly sounds the death knell of the legendary egalitarian culture on which our nation was built. It rings out a warning for the privileged few to take their precautions in order to stay at least one step ahead of the clamour of the streets.

The human rights war against the so-called Islamic State (Isis) has caught Australia on the wrong foot as the only democratic country in the Western world without a bill of rights. Riding on a wave of revulsion for the atrocities committed, public support for human rights has never been so strong.

2. Here is an example of the practical advantages of building a good, solid Constitution for Australia :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kT2Kt8TVPU

.

Banjo Paterson,
Great post.

Lets' s be clear about this: there is no logical reason for Australia becoming a republic. For those of you who have emotional attachments to the idea of a republic, the old adage applies - ' be careful what you wish for'. REMEMBER, this issue was mooted FROM ABOVE, by people claiming they know better than the rest of us do, and they did it for elitist, political reasons.

I'd still like to hear some good reasons and advantages for a republic.

So Banjo, we'll put you down as not being in the minimalist camp :)

re :Section 51 (xxvi) I'd be very happy to see it removed. It was from another time and isn't really used these days - except to justify positive discrimination toward Aboriginals. And ending that would be very fine by me.

re: Section 25. This is often mistaken as being racist by those who don't understand its history. In fact it was the opposite of that. It was designed to encourage (force not being available) racist states to temper that racism. In detail its effect was to disadvantage those states which hadn't given their aboriginals the vote by reducing their popular representation.

Again its now superfluous to need and can go. But I'd hope it was done for the right reasons ie that the racism it was designed to oppose no longer occurs.

I'd like to see a business case put for it.

I notice everyone is staying away from the costs and where the money will be coming from, ie., what services will have to be cut to pay.

The 'Progressives': no 'Struggle Streets' or pesky age pensioners to be concerned about, that is for sure.

Is Mise and OTB,

I don't think we are going to get what we want. The last time I asked for good reasons to change to a republic, the only response was abuse. The whole republic thing is just another attempt at breaking up our society even more than it has been trashed by the Left already. SSM didn't go where they wanted, so they are back to 'the republic', so limited are their ideas and intelligence.

ttbn,

"I don't think we are going to get what we want. The last time I asked for good reasons to change to a republic, the only response was abuse..."

You see, what I find entertaining about your good self - is the hypocrisy.

In the very next sentence after complaining about "receiving abuse", you write:

"... The whole republic thing is just another attempt at breaking up our society even more than it has been trashed by the Left already..."

And follow it up with:

".... SSM didn't go where they wanted, so they are back to 'the republic', so limited are their ideas and intelligence."

You're so busy dishing out your own brand of generalised abuse - that you can't even see yourself doing it.

Now why would people continue to bother with your mini-posts of scarcely concealed vitriol, and at the same time listen to you whining about receiving abuse. The heated exchanges some us have with you are usually in direct response to your own belligerent posts.

Pfft...

Poirot,
Come on give us worth while reasons to become a Republic, rather than negative opposition. We want to know the advantages!

A hypocrite, eh? I can wear name-calling, but hypocrite! Let me tell you matey, l have no self-delusions - unlike some- and I freely admit that I can be a very nasty pasty when aroused; you are seeing the nice side of me. As I told one of the drones, 'ttbn' stands for try-to-be-nice, which believe me, is what I have been, even with an irritating character like you. You will do anything, including denigration of 'opponents' to avoid answering questions. You are all idealogy and no substance. When someone politely asks why you think something or other, you get stroppy. Posting opinions without being able to support them is really weird. If you can't defend your point of view, why post your opinion in the first place? I say that it is an opinion probably not worth having if it's not worth explaining. On the other hand, why bother to respond if don't wish to? There definitely 3 posters here that I will not respond to because Ithink that they are idiots. But you - you are so keen to put me 'back in my place' that you fire away even when I haven't said boo to you. Your current post
is just to call me a name, and ask why anyone would take notice of me. I don't know; why do you keep taking notice of me? Why have you bothered posting something that's all about me, and not the topic?

ttbn,

I usually respond in kind.

It's been obvious from the moment you landed here that you are prepared to fling around obnoxious posts as a matter of course.

Which is all fine with me...but don't go whining that you receive back as good as you give.

"...When someone politely asks why you think something or other, you get stroppy...."

I responded to a post of yours to me that included this:

"....seems to me to demonstrate a petulance born of malcontentedness and a desire to vent frustrations that have more to do with Left-wing, anarchy..."

That was before you told me to: "...Go "back up the coast" and do what ever bogan things you do up there." (which you then apologised for)

Remember your snide little prod when I wasn't around to reply?

Another gem in your most recent post:

"...As I told one of the drones, 'ttbn' stands for try-to-be-nice, which believe me, is what I have been, even with an irritating character like you...."

Here's what I wrote summing up my opinion on the republic:

"I have put my views across and given an example of one model. It's my opinion that Australia, as a self-governing nation with the Queen presiding as a mere formality, should consider the option of parliament appointing the GG in his ceremonial role as head of state."

That's my opinion. I'm not here to convince the likes of you.

The tone of my responses to you are couched in direct proportion to the tone of your posts to me.

And the reason you lost your bottle in your last post - in a "see here, " I can be a very nasty pasty when aroused" kind of way..is that you don't like it when someone stands up to you.

In the brief time you've been on OLO, you've made your mark as a not particularly polite poster - especially not to anyone with whom you hold opposing views. You go in boots and all, at the first opportunity.

Fair enough...but don't moan when it's returned in equal measure.

I'll also remind you, ttbn, that if anyone (including moi) gets too "nasty pasty" on this forum, they're likely to find themselves sin-binned by Graham in a short sharp suspension....so you might like to keep that in mind.

Grow up!

//Grow up!//

ROFLMAO.

.

Australia - republic or constitutional monarchy ?

.

Australia :

Australia's formal name is the Commonwealth of Australia. Australia is both a representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as Australia's head of state (http://www.australia.gov.au/about-government/how-government-works)

Republic:

A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch (OED)

Constitutional Monarchy/ Limited Monarchy/ Parliamentary Monarchy/ Crowned Republic :

System of government in which a monarch (see monarchy) shares power with a constitutionally organized government. The monarch may be the de facto head of state or a purely ceremonial leader. The constitution allocates the rest of the government’s power to the legislature and judiciary (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

Monarchy :

Political system based upon the undivided sovereignty or rule of a single person. The term applies to states in which supreme authority is vested in the monarch, an individual ruler who functions as the head of state and who achieves his position through heredity. Succession usually passes from father to son or follows other arrangements within the family or the monarchical dynasty (Encyclopaedia Britannica)
.

The principal if not the only difference between a republic and a monarchy is that the former is a democracy and the latter, a dictatorship (more or less absolute, more or less authoritarian and tyrannical, or more or less enlightened and benevolent.

A constitutional monarchy is a mixture of both, in proportions that vary from one country to another. In Australia, I should put it at roughly 95% republic and 5% monarchy.

We almost already have a republic, ipso facto. The debate is just about the residual 5%.

If Keating had won the election in 1996 he would have finished the job but Howard won by 53.63% to 46.37%. The no vote on the republic referendum in 1999 was roughly the same: 54.87% to 45.13%.

People voted as follows :

http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Australian%20republic%20referendum,%201999/en-en/
.

Constitutional monarchy has been a good transition but I think we should not just stop there but emancipate ourselves completely and become a full democracy.

.

Very enlightening, Banjo, but what are the advantages?

What would the operation cost?

Could the money be better spent?

There are no concrete advantages to becoming a republic. Not one has been given by any of the proponents. There is, although, a huge disadvantage, and that is the massive cost of changing everything. Actually, there are two disadvantages: we would gain another bloody politician plus entourage.

.

Dear Is Mise,

.

You ask :

« …what are the advantages? »

The advantages are that from our beginnings as a convict colony of slave labour we shall have finally succeeded in becoming fully emancipated as free citizens of an independent democratic country and masters of our own destiny.

Naturally, there are advantages and inconveniences. It’s like asking children “what are the advantages of growing up and becoming adults ?” No doubt, some would prefer not to.
.

« What would the operation cost? »

I am not privy to the administrative costs of the 1999 referendum but I expect the budget for a new referendum would need to take inflation into account.

As for ongoing costs, retirement of the current head of state and her replacement by a domestic head of state of Australian nationality would produce an appreciable economy, - though, again, I am not privy to the numbers involved.

Also I am not aware of how the costs of the current state governors are financed. No doubt they should be maintained as at present. If there is any change, it should be an economy – no need for them to travel to London, even if it's only occasionally.

The only other additional cost that comes to mind is the establishment of a new constitution. In my view this is long overdue and should be done anyway, whether we decide to change our head of state or not.
.

« Could the money be better spent? »

If we could be sure that life goes on forever as it is today, yes, we could probably find many pleasant things to do with the money. We could build our house with straw. We could build our house with sticks. That would save a lot of time and effort and money …

But, let me ask you a question: do you think that is the wise thing to do ?

In my experience, the best (most effective) economies are often generated by timely investments.

.

I would very much prefer to see any 'idle'(sic) dollars invested in the development of Northern Queensland, getting rid of the single lane bridges on Highway 1 and more beds in hospitals to get rid of those ambulances queued outside hospital Emergency Departments.

I don't know how the federal politicians who are forever diverting the attention of the federal Parliament onto 'feel-good' exercises as gay marriage, republic and so on can sleep at night knowing (say) the time the sick and injured spend waiting for treatment in public hospital EDs. Or the messes of metal and human flesh being cleaned up from accidents that could have been prevented by providing better roads.

Maybe the view and priorities are different for the self-promoting wealthy and comfy inner urban 'progressives' who are shielded from such problems and the Trouble Streets,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCdFc-sCAEI

Banjo wrote "The principal if not the only difference between a republic and a monarchy is that the former is a democracy...."

I'm sure the people in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea will be thrilled (and not a little confused) to hear that.

No one has offered a Republic nation that has better services than Australia in its present form.
The costs are not just a single referendum, it involves all Government stationary, from "Commonwealth of Australia" to "Republic of Australia" removing an English word meaning the "shared wealth of its people" to a French word meaning "ruled by the people". It means renaming public buildings and anything that uses the term Royal in its title, e.g. Royal flying Dr. Service.

A whole makeover. For what?

.

Thank you, gentlemen (I presume). Those are all valid observations and objections which cannot be denied.

But nobody has yet, to my knowledge, found a way of making an omelette without breaking a few eggs. As the OED puts it: "it is not possible to accomplish something worthwhile without adverse effects elsewhere".

So far as the matter in hand is concerned, I believe it is worthwhile breaking a few eggs – because everybody, without exception, would get a fair share of the omelette.

There has always been support in Australia for a republican form of government. In the 1850’s the Rev. John Dunmore Lang, founder of the Presbyterian Church in Australia, was an avowed republican. At the Australian Convention in Sydney in 1891, which produced the first draft that was to become the Australian Constitution, a former Premier of New South Wales, Mr George Dibbs, described as the “inevitable destiny of the people of this great country” the establishment of “the Republic of Australia”.

We have been discussing it and debating it for the last 200 years. It has never been considered a priority. We have wisely spent our money on more urgent developments: roads, railways, hospitals, housing, social services, churches, agriculture, mining, defence ...

It has always been left at the bottom of the pile. But it is an important matter that should not be neglected. Our country has changed. We have come of age. We are now among some of the leading nations of the world. Our voice is heard and respected. We are no longer a monoculture. We have become increasingly cosmopolitan.

For the moment, all is calm on the Western front. We are not on the brink of any major social or political upheaval. The environment is right for us to finally emerge from the apron strings of our mother country. It is time we stood up on our own two feet and assumed our rightful place as fully fledged members of the world community.

That, I believe, is what our ancestors struggled to achieve, as their homeland had been denied to them forever.

.

Banjo Paterson,

You have successfully cracked the egg open on this matter and have written a magnificent piece, that is very well put together in terms of your last post.

I think what you have said explains this issue so well and your calm collective response, I would easily describe as the best response on this topic so far, as per this discussion.

You deserve an award of some type for that.

Well done.

The influence of royalty goes beyond the federal sphere with the necessity to maintain the office of Governor General, it also runs to the state level where state governors and their office have to be maintain at substantial public expense. In NSW alone it has been revealed that the cost of maintaining the former NSW governor, Marie Bashir, came in at a hefty $400,004 last financial year. Bashir's expenses easily outstripped the costs of maintaining former premiers Greiner and Carr at around $190,000 each.
The pro royalists point to the cost of change, I point to the cost of maintenance.

//The environment is right for us to finally emerge from the apron strings of our mother country.//

Why do we need a republic to do that? Couldn't it be achieved my establishing an Australian constitutional monarchy under the glorious leadership of King Leonard of Hutt (or whoever. It doesn't really matter as long as they're Australian and of good character.)? It's just when you look at democratic Western constitutional monarchies you see us and Canada and Norway and Scotland and lots of really awesome countries. And then when you look at democratic Western republics you see the cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys and the hamburger-eating-invasion-monkeys and other rubbish countries and you are forced to ask yourself: is it really worth it? What if, god forbid, becoming a republic takes one step closer to emulating the septics? No thanks.

I'm not sure why it is the case, but you can't argue with the evidence: democratic constitutional monarchy seems to be a better system of Government than democratic republicanism. I believe the Scots were planning to install their own royals if enough people had voted yes for independence, which is just more evidence that they are the most brilliant people on Earth. We should try and emulate them and not the septics. I might also add that countries who call themselves democratic constitutional monarchies typically are, whereas when you have a country calling itself The Democratic Republic of Wherever they are always brutal dictatorships.

.

Dear Nathan J,

.

Thank you for your kind words. OLO is an interesting melting pot. It is quite unique and I sincerely hope Graham Young will be around for many years to come and in excellent health. He really does a great job.

I get so much out of our exchanges on the forum and it’s normal that I do my best to offer the best I can in return.

Btw, I just noticed that 2010 “Drum” article you posted on the republic as “a worthwhile investment” and shall read it with interest.

.

Dear onthebeach,

.

Thank you for that video of Peter FitzSimons and his wife in the garden of their beautiful home. I vaguely remember seeing an article about his book “Eureka” a few months back but did not realise who he was.

I just looked him up on Wikipedia and was surprised to learn that he is an ex-rugby union international, played with Brive in the south of France for 4 years and is now the chairman of ARM.

Certainly seems an interesting guy.

.

Hi Banjo - nice to catch up with you...as usual you're posting such reasonable measured discourse. Hope life in France is still fabulous.

Peter Fitzsimons has reinvigorated the republic movement. He's quite an affable chap and that is helping the cause. As you would have recently discovered, he's the author of many books pertaining to Australian history - so he's not dissing our heritage at all...he's helped to collate it and turn the stories (about 27 book in all) into entertaining narratives enabling a whole generation to learn a lot that was previously only available in musty old books.

In fact he's got a new book out on Fromelles and Pozières...more history for us to jump into.

You might like this recent article he wrote - set in France and quite poignant:

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/the-fitz-files/a-tale-of-wallaby-legend-nick-farrjones-and-a-frenchwoman-20151014-gk9h4y.html

I wonder what would happen if Australia decided to become a republic but one or more of the Sovereign States that form the Commonwealth decided to remain monarchies?

Banjo Paterson, "Thank you for that video of Peter FitzSimons and his wife in the garden of their beautiful home"

No problems.

This article (linked below) has some photos of 'burbs that are out of sight of there and far from your pleasant seat in France. You will be surprised to learn of people and 'burbs where any 'stray dollars'(sic) could be spent, particularly on mental health assistance and counselling, along with interventions for booze, drugs and domestic violence.

Also of interest, in Far North Queensland alone, by the first week of September 2015, there were twenty-seven road fatalities in that low populated region.

Just sticking with North Qld, drought has forced de-stocking of farms and farmers off land,
http://www.qt.com.au/news/qld-farmers-dollar-drought-campaign-gains-momentum/2794300/

What about the ambulance ramping at major Brisbane hospitals?
http://tinyurl.com/px9pkj7

Plenty of other urgent needs not being met, but they too can always wait for later, one assumes.

Only the naive could imagine that there is always money available to blow millions on tweaking a system that isn't broken and is working satisfactorily. If only the pollies could get their act together.

-Which is why the public are not leaping onto that bandwagon with the poseur with the red nappy on his head.

Link to 'Struggle Streets' article,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3070425/Mount-Druitt-struggle-postcode-racism-SBS-gritty-look-area-grew-in.html

otb, who often pretends to be one who respects others on this forum and elsewhere, showing his true colours (again)

"....the poseur with the red nappy on his head."

Of course, otb's respect is limited to posters and public personalities with whom he shares a common opinion - everyone else is lambasted with disrespectful language.

Ho hum...that's what he does.

Regarding otb's litany of "urgent needs".

Perhaps otb could write to his heroes in the federal govt and suggest they cease spending money on their bombing of Syria...you know the bombing campaign with no actual strategy...that one.

And perhaps as an aside he could suggest that Malcolm the Great nix the multi billion purchase of the F-35 joint strike lemon...since Tones is no longer around to pump up his reputation as a Churchillian wartime PM.

All that money would go along way to addressing otb's examples.

otb,

Here's another saving now that Abbott has relocated to the backbench and world speaker's tour ($40,000 to have Tones was lyrical at your event!)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-23/taxpayers-pick-up-bill-for-empty-hotel-rooms-torres-strait-trip/6879716

"The Prime Minister's Department has charged taxpayers $37,000 for hotel beds in the Torres Strait Islands that were never slept in.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott visited Thursday Island as part of his trip to North Queensland in August, with a significant ministerial and departmental entourage.

Overall, the department has confirmed in Senate estimates it spent $180,000 relocating the "seat of government" for the week."

For a week!

Loads of ways to save waste...and we can still have a republic!

Poirot, 'It's Abbott, Abbott, Abbott'.

Where is the patient Shadow Minister to play Poirot's forum parlour game of 'tit-for-tat', where Poirot never makes fair exchange, continually changes the rules and every path leads to, 'It's Abbott, Abbott, Abbott'.

"Poirot, 'It's Abbott, Abbott, Abbott'.

Where is the patient Shadow Minister to play Poirot's forum parlour game of 'tit-for-tat', where Poirot never makes fair exchange, continually changes the rules and every path leads to, 'It's Abbott, Abbott, Abbott'."

Lol!...says the guy who posts ad nauseum on "leftists" and "feminists" and "progressives"

Why even in this thread, you've resorted to the "red nappy" put down more than once...but I suppose that's about as clever as it gets in otb land.

Pot - kettle

Hi Is Mise,

I suppose you would have another Hutt River Provence on the island, or in the worst case scenario, a replay of the American Civil War, I can see you cutting an impressive figure on your white horse, our very own General Robert E Lee.
Seriously, I don't think any state would even contemplate such a move, given such change would require a national referendum, Old Joh is long gone. The High Court would find in favour of the constitution and the Commonwealth.

.

Dear onthebeach,

.

Thank you for drawing my attention to :

• the drought-stricken farmers in Qld and Jack Neilson's campaign to help them out:

I must confess I had never heard of Boulia before, but having looked it up on the map I see it is west of Longreach, I’m not surprised they have droughts out there. It must be pretty rough, arid country I reckon. I don’t think I’d like to live there.

• Ambulances queuing-up on the ramps of emergency services of hospitals in north Brisbane:

I thought Talhia’s (a nurse) comments at the end of the article were interesting. As she says, there’s probably a lot better the Qld Govt. could do with public money instead of spending it on luxury cars (Audi, BMW and Mercedes) for public servants who use them as private vehicles on weekends to do their shopping.

• the “Struggle Street” documentary controversy on the (low income) Mt. Druitt suburb of Western Sydney:

Daniel Piotrowski, who says he has lived all his life in the area, indicates in the Mail Online article: “the outrage over Struggle Street, Wednesday night's SBS documentary, was really a load of rubbish. The stories of its subjects were sensitively told and shed light on confronting problems”.

I suspect he is right. The SBS reporters probably had good intentions and thought they were doing the local people a good turn in shedding light on their poor living conditions in the hope that the relevant public authorities might be prompted to do something to improve them.

Piotowski’s explanation, that the controversy was triggered by the mayor of Blacktown who saw the documentary as adverse publicity throwing oil on the fire of existing “postcode racism”, seems eminently plausible to me.

The good intentions of the SBS reporters apparently backfired on them. That, unfortunately, is a not so unusual phenomenon.

It reminds me of the French in Indonesia who, in an attempt to eliminate an epidemic of rats, offered a generous bounty for every rat pelt brought in. But instead of eliminating rats, the locals started farming them !

.

Having a Republic is not going to change political corruption or mismanagement, as some of the Republics in existence are the most corrupt Government on the Earth. If we believe a Republic is going to change that it is fairy land. Perhaps Republicans dream of that believing it will solve all our problems.

Hi Josephus,

I am a republican, but I don't wake up every morning thinking about it, its not a top priority, there are indeed more pressing issues to deal with, that is not to say a republic debate cannot be on the agenda.
Changing to a republic is not a panacea for all of societies ills, far from it. I'll go as far as saying as a republic I would expect the crime rate to drop by 0%, homelessness by 0%, poverty by 0% etc.

Paul,

Robert E. Lee never had a white horse and if the people of a State decide to leave the Commonwealth there is very little that anyone can do, other than lament.

.

Dear Poirot,

.

It’s nice to hear from you too. Everything’s fine in Paris.

Poor old Charlie Hebdo seems to be on a slippery slope though. I’m afraid the aftermath of that terrorist attack is really beginning to pay its toll.

I’m not sure it’s going to be able to survive much longer unless some brave and brilliant young caricaturists miraculously step forward in the very near future to save what's left of its soul.

It’s not a problem of money. It’s a question of courage, talent and commitment to an ideal – at least, that’s what it used to be.

Gone with the wind ? … a bygone era ? or, should I say … simply blasted away !

.

Dear Josephus,

.

You wrote :

« Having a Republic is not going to change political corruption or mismanagement, as some of the Republics in existence are the most corrupt Government on the Earth. If we believe a Republic is going to change that it is fairy land. Perhaps Republicans dream of that believing it will solve all our problems. »
.

The World Audit classification tends to indicate that the degree of corruption of a country is inversely proportionate to its degree of democracy. The more democratic the country the less corruption and the less democratic the country the more corruption (irrespective of the type of government) :

http://www.worldaudit.org/statpage.htm
.

That, of course, does not prevent anybody from dreaming - whatever his or her preferred type of government may happen to be.

.

Banjo Paterson,

Struggle Streets? Let them eat cake and pretend they don't exist, eh?

Do try that out on the Parisiennes you waft by in the street.

You are frivolous, putting your 'progressive' idealism ahead of the very real and serious challenges (I listed a few) that confront Australia.

Quite obviously, the Australian public doesn't agree with you, or with that vain wealthy knob wearing that red nappy.

'If it ain't broke don't fix it' makes good sense where there are pressing priorities concerning the public good and the future of their children.

-Besides, who would allow the 'Progressives' -who steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge the unforeseen (by themselves!) negative consequences of their dabbling in social reengineering- anywhere near a system of government that has worked well for donkeys' years?

Hi Is Mise,

If that's not General Lee on that white horse then who is it?

http://smith-wessonforum.com/lounge/349851-general-robert-e-lee-gentlemans-gentleman.html

p/s Is that you behind the camera/canvas?

"if the people of a State decide to leave the (Union) there is very little that anyone can do, other than lament."
Yeah! try that one on President Lincoln. Seriously what state is going to sussed from the Commonwealth based on Australia becoming a republic? Queensland! I told you Old Joh is dead.

Hi Beach, if we have had a "system of government that has worked well for donkeys' years" why do we still have people on Struggle Street. There must be something wrong somewhere, nothing's perfect.

Paul1405, "why do we still have people on Struggle Street"

That is a question you might direct at your buddies in the Greens and Labor, but Mark Latham ventured this explanation,

<Former Labor leader Mark Latham slams Labor over gay marriage

FORMER Labor leader Mark Latham has slammed his party’s “obsession” with gay marriage saying it should focus on the nation’s “Struggle Streets” instead.

He told 3AW radio Bill Shorten’s private members bill to push for changes to the marriage act to allow same-sex couples to tie the knot, to be introduced into parliament on Monday, was nothing more than a symbolic gesture.

He said the biggest social issue facing Austalia was unemployment, drug use and homelessness in suburbs such as Mt Druitt which was the focus of the SBS documentary, Struggle Street.

“If you are interested in equality and social justice in Australia then what was the really big event in the month of May,” he said. “We had the Struggle Street documentary which revealed that in the nation’s public housing estate, most notably in Mt Druit people live in conditions that you wouldn’t wish upon your dogs. Absolute chaos, despair and hopelessness in their lives.

“And surely, you would have expected a serious national response from the party of social justice?

“We didn’t hear anything.

“They’re obsessed, instead, by gay marriage.”>

Now you can add stuffing around with the structure of government as a diversion.

Bend over Australia, the Greens and Labor are advancing from behind.

Paul,

That is indeed Gen. Robert E. Lee on his favourite horse 'Traveller'.

Traveller was a grey with a black mane and tail, you have become used to colour photography, they diden have it back then.

Beach, I do not think the Labor Party or The Greens are "obsessed" by gay marriage. In my opinion Mark Latham has an axe to grind with the ALP because of some perceived failure on their part to deliver what he thinks was an entitlement of his viz The prime ministership of Australia, something I believe he would have proven himself to be a complete failure at, given the opportunity.
Your linking of "Struggle Street" and its issues to gay marriage is irrational, just as it is to link it to the republic debate, Just like so many conservatives you don't want "Struggle Street" on the agenda, no more that you want gay marriage or the republic on the agenda, contented to leave things as they are.

//Traveller was a grey//

Gray horses are sometimes white in colour, see this photo:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_(horse)#/media/File:Andalusier_3_-_galoppierend.jpg

.

Dear onthebeach,

.

You wrote :

« Struggle Streets? Let them eat cake and pretend they don't exist, eh?
Do try that out on the Parisiennes you waft by in the street.
You are frivolous, putting your 'progressive' idealism ahead of the very real and serious challenges (I listed a few) that confront Australia. »
.

That assertion is a rather discourteous, peremptory and largely false projection you are making there, onthebeach.

I have no idea what prompted your scathing remarks and can only imagine that either you have misread my comments or completely misinterpreted them.

I wrote that Piotowski, the author of the article you posted, declared that the controversy over Struggle Street was “really a load of rubbish” because, he (Piotowski) considered that “the stories of its subjects were sensitively told and shed light on confronting problems”.

My comment on that was: “I suspect he (Piotowski) is right”.

I went on to observe that Piotowski’s ensuing explanation of what had probably triggered the controversy seemed “eminently plausible to me” because I understood it was not unusual for the best of intentions to sometimes backfire (unexpectedly) and produce exactly the opposite effect to that which one seeks to achieve. I cited, as an example, the attempt of the French to eliminate rats in Indochina.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to read my previous post once again - very carefully - and let me know if you maintain your position.

.

Banjo Paterson,

"I have no idea what prompted your scathing remarks and can only imagine that either you have misread my comments or completely misinterpreted them."

Unfortunately it's the case that onthebeach doesn't really need an overt prompt to respond with scathing remarks. It's often sufficient that he merely gleans that you hold an opposing view - (or display the tell-tale signs of holding one)

He appears to delight in deliberately misinterpretting them - after which he will go on to misrepresent them with glorious gay abandon.

But I look forward to his response - it'll give him a chance to employ his Shortenesque zinger - the red nappy line.

Hi Poirot and Banjo,

Beach displays a typical hard right conservative attitude, opposing all progressive ideas, never seeing any merit in change. Even our gay friends are not obsessed with gay marriage, no more than we progressives on the forum are obsessed with the concept of Australia becoming a republic. The obsessed ones are those like Beach who fear that today's ideas will become tomorrows reality.

I ask you Beach, what measures/actions has the conservative Baird in NSW and Abbott, and now Turnbull, at a federal level taken to tackle the problems of 'Struggle Street' after all Mount Druitt is in their back yard and they hold the political sway at the moment.I can only assume as a conservative voter you have as much concern for these people on 'Stuggle Street' as does the politicians you support. None!

@Paul1404,

'Struggle Street' in the Mount Druitt area is getting a new multi billion dollar international airport with capability of flights transporting 80 million passengers by 2030.

Things change.
I think otb is well up to date in DV debate.

.

Dear Poirot and Paul 1405,

.

Thank you for sharing your impressions of onthebeach with me.

I grew up in a bush town on the Darling Downs in Queensland and as long as I can remember, just about everybody always voted for the Country Party which later became the National Party and then The Nationals before joining in the Liberal National Party (LNP) coalition.

The president of the LNP is Bruce McIver, a truck driver from a small town called Bell not far from where I lived. Bruce has a reputation of being a pretty hard-nosed conservative and rules the LNP with an iron hand though I understand he is due to retire sometime this year.

I like Bruce. He doesn’t waste words but he is the sort of person who gets things done. You can count on him.

I never discussed politics with my mother and was a bit surprised when I realised, many years after I left home, just how hard right she was. She worked as a shop assistant, raised two sons on her own, taught ballet and did a lot of community work. She had an iron will, was extremely demanding on herself, took no nonsense from others, but had a soft heart and was always willing to help those in need. She was a gentle and loving mother to me.

I have no doubt that all my family and friends back home have always voted for what, in their mind, is still the Country Party. They are all good people.

Our local LNP representative used to be the family butcher, pretty straight forward and a really nice guy.

However, Leslie Diplock, the father of my primary school teacher, Miss Diplock, was headmaster of the school and later became the Minister for Education for Queensland. He was an exception - a member of the ALP. I was Miss Diplock’s favourite pupil and acted as a go-between for her and the local Church of England Bush Brotherhood minister before their marriage. I was his altar boy.

Whether conservatives or socialists, they are all good people.

.

@Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 25 October 2015 8:43:57 AM

Excepting for the 'Postcode racism' Hipster hyperbole and your odd rats reference I do agree with you that Struggle Streets presented real social problems and is reflective of many streets in many suburbs and country towns in Australia. That is after all why I linked to it.

Accordingly I am happy to withdraw if I did read you wrongly as you say.

However, the essential points remain as covered before. For instance, that many of the senior politicians who are now spruiking for the republic have served in Parliament since the first Rudd government (2007) at least. Would it were that they had showed anywhere near the same enthusiasm for the 'Struggle Streets' as they do for gay marriage and the republic. The same applies to the human headlines of the media.

Beach, you do make a good point, one I'll agree with, "they had showed anywhere near the same enthusiasm for the 'Struggle Streets' as they do for gay marriage and the republic. The same applies to the human headlines of the media."

How sincere is that comment, or are you simply using the issues related to 'Struggle Street' as a blind to negate the other debate.

Yes Banjo I understand, my maternal Grandfather was Country Party through and through, being a sheep farmer in the central west of NSW. My mother always voted for Mr Menzies, until he retired, and then she voted Labor. My father was a company boss, but as he had risen through the ranks he never lost his Labor affiliation, I spent many hours discussing politics with the old man, he was very conservative on lots of things, dare say he would not support gay marriage. He knew Jack Lang personally and always claimed Lang was the greatest politician Australia has ever produced, something I find hard to disagree with. Both my grandmothers were very much like your mum, conservative with a heart of gold. My paternal grandmother ran voluntary English classes for Chinese market gardeners (all men) in the front room of her home, a shocking thing to do in Sydney in the 1900's. Chinese were considered awful evil people, not to be trusted.

Paul1405, "How sincere is that comment, or are you simply using the issues related to 'Struggle Street' as a blind to negate the other debate"

That is preposterous.

It is about priorities. As per usual my concern is to get some accountability in government and value for taxpayers' money.

.

Dear onthebeach,

.

You wrote :

« … I am happy to withdraw if I did read you wrongly as you say. »
.

No need to add anything to that but, in future :

• look before you leap

• don’t make “ad hominem” attacks. Criticise ideas not the person who expresses them

• you have the right to love or hate whatever political ideology you wish but don’t let your emotions determine your intellectual judgements. Stick to the facts and logical arguments.

.

Banjo Paterson,

It is that is to be your pay-off then so be it I guess.

However you would have done better to try to dispel my argument about priorities for the Australian government and people. The republic pales into insignificance and is in fact a political diversion where the real needs are concerned.

Beach, I can't work you out. You appear time and time again to be hard right, with the corresponding attitude. I took it that you have little or no concern for the plight of people you refer to as being on 'Struggle Street'. As a conservative I would have though a disparaging attitude to such people would have been your line, but maybe you do have some concern for societies disadvantaged.
What I posted is not preposterous, it could well be a legitimate tactic of someone from the conservative right to divert attention from perceived disagreeable issues, like gay marriage and the republic.
I previously refereed to "multi tasking" a popular line these days, why can't you deal with the very important issues, like the ones you put up, whilst also dealing with other issues such as gay marriage, and the republic at the same time.
I don't think any one issue should be the all consuming concern, but all need to be dealt with in turn, sometimes more than the one issue at the same time. That is why we pay politicians a fat salary.

"It is about priorities. As per usual my concern is to get some accountability in government and value for taxpayers' money." I couldn't agree more.

.

Dear onthebeach,

.

You wrote :

« The republic pales into insignificance and is in fact a political diversion where the real needs are concerned. »
.

One does not exclude the other.

Becoming a republic is the final phase of a job that’s already 95% done. It’s neither insignificant nor a political “diversion”. We have to finish building our “house”, our nation.

The foundations are laid, the roof and walls are up, the plumbing and electricity are installed and now the painters are in. That doesn’t prevent us from occupying the “house” and going to work every day to attend to all those important matters that require our attention.

As you say, problems can’t wait. Solutions have to be found, consultations must be carried out, parliamentary procedures must be respected, decisions have to be made, finance has to be allocated, urgent matters have to be dealt with immediately and other important, but less urgent, measures must be implemented in the short, medium and long terms.

That is how democracies work. Unfortunately, they are not always as reactive as we would like them to be. Things happened much faster in dictatorships such as absolute monarchies but they fell out of fashion in the 18th century due to the French Revolution. The perspective of having their heads chopped off tampered the ambitions of many of those who subsequently became invested in the “divine right of kings”.

Our Constitutional Monarchy has been a good transition but transformation to a republic will be the final consecration of the emancipation of Australian citizens from the British Crown, affirming our independent national identity, eliminating the remnants of our colonial past and highlighting the multicultural diversity of our origins as a sovereign people.

.

(continued …)

.

.

(continued …)

.

It will also be the occasion to establish a new Constitution :

• recognizing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people as first inhabitants,

• eliminating the racist clauses in the existing Constitution,

• providing us with the protection of a Bill of Rights which we do not have at present, and

• establishing the absolute neutrality of the State on all matters relating to religion.

This would not affect the excellent relations we currently enjoy with the UK or any other country in the world. It would be in our best interests both at home and abroad.

Putting the final touch to our “house” should be a simple formality, but a long history of natural aversion to change, demonstrated by a significant portion of the population on previous referendums, has been causing complications.

Despite their pre-electoral promises, timorous political leaders have hesitated to take the initiative of launching a new referendum on a republic for fear of exposing themselves to political failure, thus putting their legislature in danger and prompting the wrath of party members who would not fail to oust them from the leadership.

It will require a strong and confident leader, of exceptional courage and vision, invested in the superior interest of the nation, in other words, a true statesman, to take Australia over the final hurdle.

.

Banjo Paterson,
I note you want a Bill of Rights, but more importantly is a Bill of responsibility, as people insist on rights while shirking responsibility to the State and other citizens.

What do you mean by "establishing the absolute neutrality of the State on all matters relating to religion'. Does that mean imposing an exclusive secular philosophy in all matters of State, similar to China or the former USSR?

"Does that mean imposing an exclusive secular philosophy in all matters of State"

In my opinion Josephus, yes.

Banjo your last post, I couldn't agree more.

Dear Josephus,

From what I know about Banjo, even while I disagree with him regarding the desirability of a "republic", he is an honest and straight-forward person and I think that when he says "neutrality" he means just that, "neutrality".

(as for myself, I want neither a bill of rights nor a bill of responsibility)

Banjo Paterson & Paul1405,

Thank you both for your civil explanations.

.

Dear Josephus,

.

You wrote :

« I note you want a Bill of Rights, but more importantly is a Bill of responsibility, as people insist on rights while shirking responsibility to the State and other citizens. »
.

As you are probably aware, the first Bill of Rights has its genetic origin in the Magna Carter of 1215 in the UK. It was established when a group of barons revolted against the abuse of power by the king.

Abuse of power by governments is still prevalent in the world today. The UN estimates that 60% of people in the world do not have access to justice.

In 2012, Amnesty International found that I0l of the l96 countries in the world repress their people's right to freedom of expression; 80 countries systematically conduct unfair trials denying their citizens justice and 112 countries torture their citizens.

By the end of 2013, according to the United Nations, 5l.2 million individuals were forcibly displaced worldwide as a result of persecution, conflict, generalised violence, or human rights violations.

Even democracy can be manipulated and subjugated, as was demonstrated by the rise to power of' Adolf Hitler in Germany. He won the approval of the Reichstag, on 23 March 1933, by 441 votes to 84, despite his party's lack of parliamentary majority, for it to "temporarily" delegate, (and subsequently renew), its powers to him, under what became known as the “Enabling Act”, granting him dictatorial rule, free from all legislative and constitutional constraints.

Also, the human rights war against the so-called Islamic State has caught Australia on the wrong foot as the only democratic country in the Western world without a bill of rights. Riding on a wave of revulsion for the atrocities committed, public support for human rights has never been so strong.

.

« What do you mean by "establishing the absolute neutrality of the State on all matters relating to religion'. Does that mean imposing an exclusive secular philosophy in all matters of State, … »
.

Paul1405 and Yuyutsu have replied for me on that.

.

Dear Banjo,

I think there is some misunderstanding here:

I replied to Josephus that I believe that you truly mean "neutrality" - rather than the kind of religious oppression similar to China and the USSR, as suggested by Josephus. I truly believe that such oppression would have been out-of-character for you.

But Paul replied with "Yes", meaning that he believes that you do actually envisage something like China and USSR.

How can we (myself and Paul) both be simultaneously correct?

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

No, Paul1405 did not include China and USSR in his reply.

Leave them out and it just reads : “ … imposing an exclusive secular philosophy in all matters of State” which is perfectly compatible with your reply that “…when he says "neutrality" he means just that, "neutrality".”

Thanks. You are both spot on !

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Perhaps I should add that I understand “secular” to mean, essentially, “neutral”.

In my mind, a secular society is one that observes strict separation of the State and religion. It is neither for nor against religion but recognizes that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes the freedom to change one’s religion or belief as well as the right not to follow any religion and to deny or doubt the existence of any deity.

The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is guaranteed by the secular State.

In my previous response, I overlooked the fact that there are some slight variations to this definition in different countries. The above definition is the French version of what the French call “laïcité” (the French equivalent of the English notion of “secularity”) which, to my way of thinking, is the most satisfactory definition.

As a general rule, the activities of the State concern the public sphere. Whereas religion is considered to belong to the private sphere.

The State refrains from intervening in religion and religion has no official role in State affairs.

A notable exception to that rule is the case of certain so-called religious sects that enroll gullible victims to extort money from them, turn them into slaves for the same purpose or force them into sexual servitude.

Naturally, the State intervenes in those exceptional cases.

I hope that is a clearer explanation.

.

Dear Banjo,

Thank you. As a religious person, I could not agree more.

While some advocate this approach in order to protect citizens from corrupt religious organisations, I find no better way than this to protect religion itself from being corrupted by the state and its powers.

Either way, we agree!

Hi Banjo,

"The State refrains from intervening in religion and religion has no official role in State affairs"

Church leaders certainly have had a strong influence, and still do, in state affairs in Australia. From Archbishop Manxix leading the anti-conscription side in WWI, to the Catholic influence in the DLP in the 50's and 60's, to Cardinal Pell's, 'Don't Vote Green' circulars of recent years. The Rev Fred Nile heads up a overly religious party in NSW the Christian Democratic Party, now holding the balance of power in the upper house there.

Even in the US where there is a 'Bill of Rights' (not a particularly good one in my opinion) it clearly separates Religion and State, however churches have a huge amount of influence in politics in the US.

The part of the argument that draws me to support a 'Bill of Right' in Australia is;

"Putting rights above politics: It is necessary also to put some of the values of our society above the party political debate. That is what a bill of rights can do. It can express the enduring values of a good society. It can do so in the constitutional document which gives the cement to the social cohesion of a true Commonwealth. Without it, our constitution is mechanical. It lacks the expression of the aspiration of the people to live in a free and just society, where freedom and justice go beyond political slogans and shibboleths."

http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/app/&id=/a60da51d4c6b0a51ca2571a7002069a0

Beach, as a "Freedomists" I thought you would support a 'B of R' simply based on what I've put up on this comment.

Dear Paul,

I cannot speak for Beach, but as for myself, I oppose a Bill or Rights because it implies as if our freedom was granted by the state and therefore we should, like beggars, thank the state, most gracious and merciful for all that we have.

A Bill of Rights could say for example: "Every person may use the toilet whenever they wish" and then I would be obliged to say: "Oh Thank you, thank you, thank you million times, dear state - if not for you then I would have gone busting"...

My freedom - and yours too, are inherent, not man-given.

Had the state not been robbing away our freedoms to begin with, then it wouldn't need to hand us back some morsels of it as "rights".

Hi Yuyutsu,

I can certainly understand what you are saying there, that line could well be a legitimate argument. What if this 'B of R' was drawn up by non political eminent Australians and voted on through the democratic process, thus cutting the politicians out of the picture, not seen as being granted by the state, but by the citizens themselves, on themselves. is that acceptable?
Is it wrong to state the obvious? Or is the obvious not always that obvious to some? Could a 'B of R' act as a citizens "insurance policy" when a citizens rights are being infringed by the state.

In the link I posted both sides of the argument are put, and yes there is merit also in the anti argument, but on balance I think, done properly, a 'Bill of Rights' is a positive.

Dear Paul,

Thank you for the interesting link and I must commend your sincere attempt to sweeten the bitter pill.

Had this been a matter of personal comfort then I would probably be tempted. Why refuse such a superb insurance policy that would guarantee that I could freely graze in my paddock for the rest of my life?

Some members of this forum think of me as a lone-wolf who is uninterested in social interaction, but this is not so. I am more than happy to consider all sorts of social agreements and arrangements, including even to sacrifice some of my personal freedoms for the overall good, but there's a red line which I wouldn't cross: I will not accept, willingly participate in or support a body of people that forces itself on others against their will, not even if it forces itself only on just one other individual whom I don't even know.

So in order for me to support (and happily so) a Bill of Rights, I place just one condition: that it will include an exit-clause, whereby individuals have the freedom to opt out and disassociate themselves from the state (yet not be expelled from living on their land as a result).

An individual who opts out, will:
1. No longer be a citizen.
2. No longer be protected by the state (unless mutually agreed otherwise).
3. No longer receive any services from the state (unless mutually agreed otherwise).
4. No longer be subject to the state's laws (or taken to court if they do not follow these).
5. Not necessarily be allowed to enter or remain in public places/areas.
6. Be tolerated by the state so long as they do not harm or threaten any Australians (including visitors; but not including others who also opted out).
7. If they do harm or threaten Australians, then any measures can be applied by the state to remedy the situation (though not more than reasonably necessary), including even killing them if necessary as the last resort, but not including their subjection to the laws of Australia.

How about this?

Hi Yuyutsu,

I can see that possibly working in a few isolated cases, but how would it work out if say 2 million people in Sydney wanted to opt out?

Dear Paul,

If 2 million people are so unhappy that they are willing to forego that much, then surely something is very rotten and needs to be fixed. Hopefully it will.

It's a bit like an industrial strike: if that many workers are willing to forego their pay and lose their job-security, then it puts pressure on the work-place to change its ways.

Opting out within a city is very difficult. To begin with, it could mean that one cannot leave their home, being surrounded by public roads, or otherwise only by hopping over fences of friendly neighbours (who either opted out themselves or are sympathetic). It could also mean having no water and electricity, no access to banks and shops not honouring one's money, etc. etc.

Thinking what it would take me to make such a decision, it would have to be pretty bad, perhaps something like conscription; making religious worship illegal; or forcing people to have electronic implants or drink alcohol or eat meat (I am vegetarian and non-drinker). Things of that magnitude.

It is therefore much more likely that those city-dwellers who wish to severe their relation with the state will first recourse to exert their democratic pressure, possibly by running for local and state elections. Failing that they would rather move to the country, possibly as a group, then establish their autonomous region there - that is, in the most unlikely event where the state fails to listen to the painful plight of 2 million people, otherwise the incentive to leave will not be there.

Paul,
Could I point out that the people are the State, Politicians are just their representatives whom the majority want to represent them in governing the State.

Individual Rights cannot be clearly defined without violating another persons Right.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Are you advocating a system of self regulating communes like what existed around Nimbin NSW in the 1970's, which unfortunately seem to have gone legit to some degree over the last 40 years.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/where-have-all-the-hippies-gone-20130517-2jrvp.html

You seem to have put a number of escape clauses into your opt out plan with the "unless mutually agreed otherwise". Can it not be all or nothing?

One could become a non citizen yet still be protected by the state, receive services from the state, be allowed to enter or remain in public places/areas, be subjected to state punitive action because the state said they did harm. Not a lot of opting out there.
How does this apply to people in jail? Can they simply opt out? What happens to children of those who agree to opt out? Do they become state wards until the age of 18?

Dear Paul,

These are excellent questions, thank you.
I already gave much thought to some of them, but I am open to listen to and investigate the consistency of different ideas.

---

"communes like what existed around Nimbin NSW in the 1970's"

Not my personal cup of tea. Perhaps some Amish-style community could appeal to me more, but that's impractical because I'm not a Christian.

In any case, once the state no longer forces itself on others, I would have no compelling reason to leave its mainstream in the first place and could try improving it from within.

---

"Can it not be all or nothing?"

Certainly, I am all in favour of a system with multi-tiered levels of citizenship, so long of course as the outer-most tier is along the lines that I described under "opt-out".

---

"How does this apply to people in jail?"

Prisoners too should be able to apply to opt-out, but if they still pose a danger to the community then the need could arise for some alternative preventative action, which though not being a punishment per-se, might be even less pleasant for them (perhaps chopping their arm so they can't steal again or deporting them to a remote area and informing them that if they return then they would be shot on the spot, or even killing them if they are still deemed prone to murder again).

---

"What happens to children of those who agree to opt out?"

First, bear in mind that the arbitrary age of '18' is a social construct that applies within a given society, but means nothing outside that society.

If the child can speak sensibly for themselves, then it's according to their own wish.

Otherwise, if both parents opt out, then the child goes with them (unless mutually agreed otherwise) and if only one parent opts out, then the other parent decides.

A child can also request to opt out on their own. If so and it's suspected that they might not fully understand what they are asking for, then they would need both their parents' consent.

.

Dear Paul1405,

.

« Church leaders certainly have had a strong influence, and still do, in state affairs in Australia … »
.

Not just in Australia. The two principal monotheistic religions, the Catholic Church and Islam, do not accept the separation of Church and State as a general principle. It is contrary to their religion. However, they usually try to avoid open confrontation with governments, preferring to circumvent the law in a more discreet and covert fashion. Only rarely do they take the initiative of launching publicity campaigns or protest rallies.

Their political activities are, nevertheless very real and subversive, in complete violation of the “sacrosanct” principle of secularity of modern democracies.

I am not aware that any government has ever sanctioned the non-respect of the principle of secularity of any sovereign State.

Any rule of law without legal sanction is a grave omission in my opinion because it renders the law null and void. It might as well not exist at all.

Granted that the problem is complex and delicate. I nevertheless consider that appropriate sanctions should be foreseen for the transgression of the rule of separation of Church and State, as for any other rule of law.

Naturally, the sanctions must be sufficiently dissuasive for them to be effective.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote to Paul :

« …in order for me to support … a Bill of Rights, I place just one condition: that it will include an exit-clause, whereby individuals have the freedom to opt out and disassociate themselves from the state …»
.

As I live in Paris, I guess I have “ipso facto” done just that … and I’m not alone. It seems we are roughly 1,000,000 Australians who have opted out :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_diaspora

I do like to feel, though, that it would be nice to have the benefit of a Bill of Rights whenever I return home to visit family and friends … just in case some zealous undercover agent mistakes me for a human bomb guided by some religious guru or other.

Do you take amendments ?

.

A Bill of rights might give one the right by removing the right of another. A Bill of responsibility as a citizen is more applicable. Take the issues of euthanasia, adoption, foster care or abortion and similar. All have very strong religious values and in current State laws violate someones right of life. Because a secular State is ruled by the majority.

Josephus,

"What do you mean by "establishing the absolute neutrality of the State on all matters relating to religion'. Does that mean imposing an exclusive secular philosophy in all matters of State, similar to China or the former USSR?"

Why did you leave out America?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/founding-fathers-we-are-n_b_6761840.html?ir=Australia

"Conservatives who so proudly tout their fealty to the Constitution want to trash our founding document by violating the First Amendment in hopes of establishing Christianity as the nation's religion. This is precisely what the Constitution prohibits:"

"Let us be perfectly clear: We are not now, nor have we ever been, a Christian nation. Our founding fathers explicitly and clearly excluded any reference to "God" or "the Almighty" or any euphemism for a higher power in the Constitution. Not one time is the word "god" mentioned in our founding document. Not one time."

Founding Fathers:

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
--John Adams

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. ... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding....
--Thomas Jefferson

First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Dear Banjo,

You are still a fully-fledged and undisputed Australian citizen, regardless where you live. Your wishes are fully respected.

On the other hand, had you chosen not to be subject to Australian laws, then there should have been no need for you to physically leave your home or to subject yourself instead to some alternate law, such as the French.

Should there be an Australian Bill of Rights, then surely it will have something to say about over-zealous undercover agents, but does it mean that without such a bill it is OK for such agents to do as they please?

As I explained, I will support a Bill of Rights on the one condition that among all the other freedoms it will protect, it will also secure the most basic freedom of all - the freedom from involuntary association.

Poirot,
In my world view you post a lot of nonsense. The matters of State are secular as envisaged by the Constitution, that does not mean atheism is the fundamental foundation of Government, which you believe it to be.

Your Quotes on views of religion do not reflect the true values of followers of Christ.

.

Dear Josephus,

.

You wrote :

« A Bill of rights might give one the right by removing the right of another. A Bill of responsibility as a citizen is more applicable. »

A Bill of Rights simply protects each citizen from abuse of power by the government. Each citizen receives exactly the same protection. Nobody’s right can be “removed” in order to “give” it to somebody else.

Every country in the world, including Australia, already has what you call a “Bill of Responsibility”. These are the existing laws of the country: both the common law (civil law and criminal law) and statute law.

We are all deemed to be “responsible” for our acts and omissions, unless we can prove otherwise, and are subject to sanctions if we fail to respect the law. If we are bad citizens and don’t pay our taxes, for example, we can be heavily fined.

Common law is an organic process, constantly evolving. If it were static perhaps we could assemble all our laws in a single bill and call it the “Bill of Responsibility”, but it’s not.
.

« Take the issues of euthanasia, adoption, foster care or abortion and similar. All have very strong religious values …»
.

That is a topic that dwarfs all others, in my view, Josephus: religious values.

Religious values served us well for over two thousand years but have now become largely obsolete - just as our understanding of how the earth and mankind were created, based on mythical narratives dating back to the Ancient Mesopotamian Religion of the 4th millennium BC, have become obsolete.

If there is one thing mankind has learned from nature it is that for anything to survive in this world, it has to adapt.

Adaptability is definitely not the forte of religion.

A good example is homosexuality which was considered to be “unnatural” behaviour. But, as Petter Boeckman, a zoologist at the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo, pointed out in 2006: “No animal species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist”.

.

Josephus,

"In my world view you post a lot of nonsense...."

Lol!....says the guy who believes that Mary mother of Jesus was impregnated by "God" - a non-human and nebulous imaginary being who employed "immaculate" means to have a human on this earth conceive of a fetus.

Who also believes that Jesus fed many thousands of people with a few fish and loaves of bread.

Who also believes that Jesus walked on water.

Who also believes that three days after Jesus died, he came to life again and interacted with others, after which he rose bodily to "Heaven".

"The matters of State are secular as envisaged by the Constitution, that does not mean atheism is the fundamental foundation of Government, which you believe it to be."

It also mans that religion/Christianity et al was deliberately excluded as a foundation to the Constitution...purposely given an extremely wide berth by the founding fathers.

"Your Quotes on views of religion do not reflect the true values of followers of Christ."

So none of which I espoused above reflect anything about Christian belief?

Pull the other one - it's got bells on it.