Hi peepz im doing a research on whether Australia should or should not maintain its constitutional monarchy. Please do share your views..thx..

I vote in the affirmative.

It must be better than what we have?
fluff

If all good people have faith and a belief in the Democratic system then they should not support the Monarchy and the House of Lords.
Royalty is expensive Hollywood for the Taxpayer.
Britain should abolish the Monarchy is has long gone past it's sell by date and to keep it is an insult to all peoples intelligence.

Most of you have read my thread:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=771

In summary, we are not ready to change the structure of power before we have a written Bill or Charter of Rights. So at this time, we should maintain our constitutional Monarchy, even under Charles III. He presents as an outdated oddity but he is at least is responsible and above politics for the time being.

After that, if we must move on, we should review our motives as to why we must change from Constitutional Monarchy, and further peel the next surface: "yes but why is this necessary"? How does this affirm our freedom with a balance of power? How is the country more secure? "Then what?”

The Howard era with the Cronulla riots, the new sedition laws, the abolition of rights, and the retrograde movement away from freedom and individual rights makes us more cautious of any Australian autocracy.

The flag-waving circus of nationalistically wanting "Australia to be under an Australian" is rhetoric to be cautious of.

It is seductive, but we need to be smarter than that and carefully go back to "how will this work?" to balance power and our rights, and "then what"?.

the level of poltical evolution in oz is still medieval, most have no notion of what democracy is, if they knew they wouldn't want it, so a monarchy is best.

an australian-born king might be a good idea, an ex-footy hero with proven breeding ability and not too bright would suit the national character. naturally, he would have to be married to a good sort, able to pass out trophies at races and cakebakes with international tele cameras on 'er.

Given the likely destabilising alternatives I would say we had no choice...imagine Australians having to compulsorily attend the ballot box to choose a President.

Hello All,
I believe the Founders of the Constitution left just enough room to get out of the ties to the 'motherland' in the future. They called us a 'social laboratory' around the world back then and i cannot imagine them thinking we would stay tied to the Monarchy forever. We were more or less left to fend for ourselves in the beginning, so the break-away factor was already in semi-swing. To change it would be a monumental task, but well worth it. Our President could also be elected non-compulsory voting, for all ministers. Why? To get them into gear and really earn our vote. If they get out there and became much more accountable then perhaps people will want to vote, instead of wasting time donkey voting. That serves no democratic pupose!
In 1891 barton said; "adhering to that which we individually have found to work as well as anything else can work in the present stage of political development", (Maddox,Power Parliament People, p70-1)
Does that not signal there could be change i the future? Without a Bill of Rights, which back then would have looked like too much of an American colony revolt to be included, needs to exist, we really have no safe guard, govn. put it there, gov. can take away. Thank goodness for hte High Courts capacity to intervene...
Perhaps start with non-compulsory voting?

Australia never wanted independence. Quite the opposite, Australia was pushed away from Europe when they formed the European Economic Union. If there was a referendum now, most Australian would prefer to be an EU country rather than being in APEC or ASEAN or at risk of being over-powered by the US. It is just confusing that we have our unique culture in such a unique geography.

Many in the EU are not European in culure, just European in geography. Just as most in Australia are not Asian in culture, just in geography.

Begs the question, is a European resident a resident of geography?

This confusion is a serious mind spinner for many Australians.

From some posters here: Could you tell us how much Australian taxpayers pays for being a Constitutional Monarchy? Please give Government statistics not retoric. Compare the costs with the maintenance of a President.

Please demonstrate how powers would be allotted under an alternate system! The current Monarch has very little administrative powers, and is there only as a peoples release from corrupt and opressive laws and government. They are the administrator to protect our constitution as agreed to by the people at Federation.

Whilst no, i don't have the current figures, going by the Constitution, PartI-General, s2, states the salary to be paid out of the government coffers, ie the people, to the Queen for the G-G's wages.
This means we pay the Queen a salary to pay the G-G her rep, who don't forget has the Constitutional power to sack our elected PM.
However what crossed my mind was that, if there was a Pres instead of a PM, the Queen and GG would be gone, that logically saves money!
What is not logical is why, the Australian people's Government is not headed by the Government but is in fact stated as; Part I, s1: "shall consist of the Queen..."

Australia could have been part of the EU (and really should be) but Labor put a stop to all that when they started the "we have to be part of the Asian region" mantra which seems to have hypnotised the majority.
Now we seem to have politicians of all persuasions saying that we are some sort of leader in the region (nonsense) and that we all need to learn Asian languages (more nonsense).
If it is a choice between joining the EU or becoming another state of the USA or being part of the Asian region I would rather join the EU because the Asian region does not see us as part of it and we are making ourselves unpopular by demanding inclusion where we are not seen as part of the family rather as visitors. And I would rather a constitutional monarchy than the US presidential debacle anyday.

Well i believe in the end it should be removed but then again our government couldnt really care less about the constitution, and to that the people of australia wouldnt even know the true purpose off;

a senator

a house of reps member

Until the people get this right how can anything else they do be right.

We are told and dictated to, well its about time the people started to understand and learn what responsibility they really have and what these people in government are suposed to do.

Australia has never had a Constitution of it's own, instead we have a borrowed constitution, namely "the Australian constitutional 'ACT' of the British Parliament.

If Senators did their jobs as representatives of their states...
need I say more?

That said perhaps what we should aim for is membership of the EU?
We have members of foreign parliaments resident in Australia so perhaps they could do something to help.

Re our constitution, one would know that the Australian Constitution was written by Australians for Australians, voted on by referendum by the people.

With regards to the senate
yes if they did their job, and where not bound to obey party rules and regulations which in itself is an illegal and unconstitutional act.
Once people read the constitution debate at the parliament house website and understand the why then we will have real government for the people, and not just a claytons.

One should look at this blog.

http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_Q

This is an interesting idea Comunicat, one that I think would be popular with ordinary Australians.

Germany a few years ago lobbied for Uraguay to be a surrogate member of the EU as so many there have German ancestry.

The UK has never offered or called, or even asked Australia if we would like them to express interest for a similar status on the EU.

Maybe Ireland, Malta and Greece are more likely to lobby for Australia's inclusion to the EU than the UK, if we show an expression of interest.

What do we benefit? More trade to start with. More work visas and in some cases: no work visas needed at all. More cultural exchange and so on.

Australia would pass easily on economic grounds and social rights standards compared to other EU members. The only reason why we could end up being "surrogate" member is that geographically, we are not in Europe.

As we approach APEC, we could ask in another thread: would we prefer this in priority to the APEC and ASEAN memberships. If we go one direction, the other direction will, no doubt, close a few doors as the others open, or older doors re-open.

This could end up putting some free trade agreements like the ones with the US and India on review as the EU would put us in another category. To so many, that would be a relief.

Did we really want to be a part of Asia in the first place?

In trade, we have to join a trade block and we need to be smart in working out which one we belong to.

The question isn't really whether we should replace a foreign Queen as our figurehead with something more home grown, the real question is whether we should tamper with the fundamental's of our political system when so few people seem to understand them.

People have this idea that electing someone to the position can only be a good thing because, after all, elections are always a good thing. Freedom, democracy, all that.

Not so.

Our constitution deliberately splits power very carefully and cleverly between the executive, the judiciary and the monarchy. Part of that aportionment of power reflects the fact that only the executive is elected and therefore has a popular mandate to make policy. The other arms have powers that in theory over-ride the executive, but are restrained from action, except in the most compelling circumstances, because they have no popular mandate.

If you leave the powers as they are, but elect your head of state
you will find that head of state using its supreme powers far more often than they do at present, with dire consequences for real democracy.

As the sacking of Gough Whitlam shows, our head of state has the power to remove the prime minister and all the ministers and replace them as he chooses. Kerr's decision to sack Gough Whitlam will remain very contraversial, but at least we can be sure he didn't do so lightly. Imagine how unstable our system would be if the governor general held his position by popular mandate. Such a head of state would likely feel it was his/her right/duty, to be involved in government decisions, and as presently drafted this single individual would have over-riding dictatorial powers over Parliament.

This would fundamentally change our system of government and should not be entertained lightly.

Yes, the separation of powers doctrine (while not perfect) is a very, very important part of our democracy and tampering with it is done at our peril. Monarchies under this doctrine also provide a head of state above politics and also provide a unifying function - it does not matter whether the person is a bit of a fool (although the current monarch happens to be anything but as HM is also considered to be an astute if untrained constitutional lawyer) it is the idea of the monarchy and what it stands for rather than the individual which is important. The power to advise and warn but not interfere is a very clever balance indeed.

The current understanding of the Australian Constitution is a sham unless you have read the Constitutional debates.

These can be found at http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/results.aspx

For those that believe in this then this is where one should get the reasons behind the constitution and how it was written.

Until such time when people get a handle on this then all we have is constitution ineptiveness in government.
Also what does not help is the australian electoral office and the govenor general.
We can then top this off with queens councel who do as they are told by corrupt and fraudulant party practices.

Under the American system there is a balance of power between the Presidency, the Congress and the Supreme Court.

In terms of the removal or impeachment of a PM or a GG, there does need to be a better process of impeachment.

Perhaps the High Court of Australia could be incumbent to charge more power asking a GG or a PM to to resign in serious circumstances. Not withstanding the request for impeachment of the hypothetical PM, the High Court could demand that Party in the Government at the time, replace the cabinet, if the PM refuses to resign on grounds of serious national security. This does not make it necessary for the balance to change the actual Government per se: just the cabinet leadership. This way, the democratically elected Party does not change, just the leaders who cause a serious mistake.

Similarly, the High court could be given the power to ask the GG to stand down if they are lowering the decorum of the position of GG to the point of endangering security. If the GG refuses to resign, the High Court could then demand that the Lower and Upper House of Parliament resolve the situation.

With a balance of power, there is no reason to bring the Crown into this matter even if the person representing the Crown needs to be impeached.

To clarify a balance of power, this does not need the change of the position of the Crown or Head of State at all. We just need to strengthen what we have with more clear balances protecting democracy and fairness.

No Government should be above the law and sometimes, the law could be of more use.

Saintfletcher's proposals (brief and lacking in details as they are, are an indication of the complexity of the issues which need to be dealt with before we can sensibly change the rules for selecting a head of state (which is what replacing our monarch with an elected head of state will require). Whilst it isn't brain surgery, it is way beyond the average punter's understanding. My enduring fear is that people will vote yes to a referrendum which promises a republic without sufficient regard for the detail. The details are crucial in this because it will fundamentally change the who and how of the nations political decisions from what we have today.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There's far too much at stake to mess with a system that has served us so well over some niave idea we would be a better country if we had a different head of state.

Most Australians have no idea what rights they have been given under the Australian Constitution or they would not be so easy to persuade into a republic.

Qld has removed the Aust Constitution from their government and installed the Qld Constitution 2001. As the Aust const states that it can only be changed via referendum and there was absolutely no referendum in QLD, it is up to the people of that state to bring the matter to question in the High Court. Which is currently being done.

Beattie removed all the entrenched provisions when making his own version. These provisions all relate to common law, so essentially there is now no common law in Qld, there is only civil or government law. Hence every public servant is now able to judge, adjudicate and punish on the spot.

The removal of the common law has also removed the law of equity, hence no one in QLD now owns their property, whether land, home, car, bank account or kids toys. Mr Beattie owns the lot depending on his latest law.

The judicial system has been brought under the state govt and must judge all under govt law, not criminal law. In essence, in every case, Mr Beattie wins, Qlder's lose.

And all because Australians don't know what rights they have and have lost the ability to protect them.