I read an article in The Herald Sun recently on
the topic of having a debate in 2018 of Australia
becoming a Republic. I tried to access the article
again but couldn't - as it's a "subscriber only"
story.

However, from memory, it appears that our Prime Minister
wants to raise this issue now that the same-sex marriage
survey has passed in having another plebiscite on the
Republic. He says that it will cost much less than the
postal survey on same-sex marriage - and that he feels it's
time for us to have this debate.

What do posters on this forum think?
And do you think that it would succeed?
Your thoughts please?

Really good question bro.
Debates are always good, whether its about being a secular republic or, who knows, maybe the christian community have some ideas about living in a christian theocracy one day. Bottom line, debates are fun.

Malcolm probably sees himself as Australia's first President and spending public money to boost his ego as a justifiable expense, likewise, Bill has aspirations along the same lines.

We need a republic like an open road speed limit of 60 k/h.

The present system works well and at a considerably less cost than a Republic.

Given soaring power prices, unaffordable housing, Sudanese gangs, lowering education standards and the handing of assets to Communist China – to name a few – Malcolm Turnbull has demonstrated complete stupidity by raising republicanism again.

Apart from the billions of dollars a republic would cost us, there would not be a single benefit to the day to day living of Australian

Foxy, "However, from memory, it appears that our Prime Minister wants to raise this issue now that the same-sex marriage survey has passed in having another plebiscite on the Republic"

Your memory fails you unfortunately. It was actually Bill 'Whatever She Says' Shorten who was talking up the republic and what he was going to do.

Predictably, the 'meeja' bounced that off Turnbull to MAKE the news as the Oz meeja is inclined to do. Turnbull said it would have to wait until after the present QEII passes on. And she is very much alive of course.

".Speaking in Sydney on New Year's Day, Mr Turnbull reiterated his view that the issue would best be revived when the reign of the Queen, who is 91, ends.

Asked how he would handle the republic matter if the Queen died during his prime ministership, Mr Turnbull said "the first thing you would need to do is have an honest, open discussion about how a president would be elected".

"Whether the president would be chosen by Parliament ... in a bipartisan, two-thirds majority as proposed in '99 or directly elected. That is the rock on which the referendum floundered in '99.

"You've got to have that discussion and it may be that a plebiscite, maybe even a postal survey, given the success of the marriage postal survey, could be one way to deal with that."

He said moving from a monarchy to a republic would require an amendment to the constitution whereby a president would replace the Queen as head of state, which must be put to the Australian people at a referendum.

"This is not a change that Parliament can make. This is a question for the Australian people and Australians have shown themselves to be very conservative when it comes to constitutional change," he said.

"But there is no point pretending that there is an appetite for change when there isn't one at the moment."

http://www.nambuccaguardian.com.au/story/5147896/given-the-success-of-the-marriage-postal-survey-turnbull-flags-an-australian-republic-vote/

My question is. Why would a postal vote for this issue cost far less than the one for SSM?

Big Nana,

It wouldn't and it would be a complete waste of time and money as only a referendum can settle the matter, as Turnbull well knows, but wasting public money comes easily to the 'privileged'.

It was a slow news day and consequently the Oz 'meeja' had to make a few more headlines than usual.

It is going to be tough for some, thinking of the ABC especially, now that gay marriage is no longer the easy go to.

Dear Big Nana,

I would imagine that the cost of changing to a
Republic would cost conservatively between
2-3 billion dollars pending more precise calculations.
Think of all the costs involved such as the removal
of Royal symbols and a new flag - just to mention
a few. I think our Prime Minister must have got a
bit carried away - either that or he was misquoted.
As I stated earlier I was unable to access The Herald
Sun article because I'm not a subscriber. But here's
one I found:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/xx-20180104-h0dss1.html

And here's one on the costs:

http://www.australianconstitution.com.au/pdf/008.pdf

In another thread, angst is being expressed at the over-the-top pronouncements and behaviour of an American President.

Similar or more outrageous and 'dangerous' behaviour is alleged against his opponent and against past US Presidents. For example the Clintons, Bill and Hillary.

What arrogance would assert that Australia would not suffer similar dangerous fools as the US?

Bill Shorten and the Left want Australians to have a simple Yes or No vote without understanding the model and the ramifications. Shorten and his mates would take it from there.

Trust Bill Shorten? Of course NOT! :(

David Marr sums things up rather well when he tells us

"So here are the hurdles they have to overcome: a
movement without a charismatic politician at its lead;
a nation with no great passion to become a Republic, a
Constitution that is extra-ordinarily difficult to change;
and history is showing few, if any, monarchies are ever
felled by a vote. It takes lost wars, and spectacular
bungling to unseat a royal house. Anything is possible,
of course, but no time soon."

http://www.smh.com.au/national-long-live-the-queen-20111022-1mdlh.html

I'm going to go a bit off topic here (somewhat).
Can anybody tell me how does one go about getting
a letter from the Queen for a person when they
celebrate their 100th Birthday?

I know of somebody who won't be 100 for another four
years, but I was wondering how does one go about this?
This person has been a staunch Monarchist for the
greater part of their lives and it would mean a great
deal to receive a Birthday Greeting from Buckingham
Palace.

Any one know what is involved? And what the correct
procedures to be followed are?

Now back to the topic.

I think it is important for us to at least debate -
the topic of "Should Australia become a Republic?"
There's so much to think about.

Here's a link that answers some of the questions:

http://www.republic.org.au/faq

Leoj,

Thank You so much. That is exactly what I
was looking forward.

Greatly appreciated.

I prefer to stay as we are. Even though there are many who believe the ol'e bucket is rusty and full of holes, that's just a cliche' to justify changing to a republic.

So long as we have a higher power to approach for help or assistance, I'm OK with that. I know some would say Britain could still come to our aid. But they will no longer help with govt related matters.

Look I'll put it as simply as I can. The bastards at the top have been systematically selling off the silver ware for their own gain and we can;t do anything but whinge about it on a forum.

Can you just imagine what it will be like if THEY took complete control without impunity or anyone looking over their shoulder.

I didn't tell them to sell the power generators, did you? They have sold off nearly ALL the public utilities to themselves and their mates whilst smiling and pissing in our pockets along the way.

But that's OK, as I am continually confronted with 'she'll be right mate, that's what we pay them for, oh get us another beer will ya, and while your at it turn up the footy'.

I don't want Australians to vote at all you are all too opinionated as if you all know what's going on and too stupid to realise you don't.

What's that word? Troglodytes? AH that'l do for now I know it's going to take time for most people to absorb all this. I know they'l never get it.

Malkon says. Amongst this sea of troubles let the peasants eat cake

As a supporter of a republic, being pragmatic as I am, I would leave things as they are until Ms Windsor turns up her toes, and then we can shoot Charlie and his horse down in flames.

The most useful purpose of the royal family is to supply gossip mags with trashy fodder for a readership with nothing better to do.
"I Am Prince Harry's 42 Year Old Love Child." Supplied by sauces close to the royal family, Tomato and BBQ!

Yeah ! Let's demand a plebiscite on the republic issue ! As soon as possible !

And let's have it in the weeks after the upcoming wedding.

You know it makes sense.

Joe

Can we become a Republic and still have the stability
that we've enjoyed all these decades? Would Australians
really want another corrupt politician yielding even
more pointless power as our country's leader?

If becoming a Republic we could somehow guarantee that
we will honour and respect our Indigenous heritage and
culture, our British heritage and culture, and our
immigrant heritage as part of our unique Australian
identity - And if becoming a Republic would be about
declaring our sovereignty as one Australian people,
and having a fully independent nation - then perhaps
the cost and all the difficult changes just may be worth it.

But at present, there is so much to still discuss and
weigh up. If we're going to make changes - we have to
somehow try to ensure that what we are changing to - is
better than what we've had. And at present I'm not so sure
of that.

I'm always reluctant to change anything unless there is a very good chance the replacement will be better for us.
So far I've never seen anything that comes close to that.

Dear Big Nana,

Exactly!

People don't realise how much President Trump has achieved, just in his first year. Clearly, there is something to being a republic that is missing in our system.

So let's have the sort of system in which someone like Trump could be OUR President, with his current checks and balances !

Plebiscite NOW !

Joe

"..there is so much to still discuss and weigh up"

Such as why bollards don't protect people on a pedestrian crossing in Melbourne?

Or how did immigration and multicultural policies and lack of accountability of politicians to the people, conspire to make Melbourne world's number one mafia city outside of Italy?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-29/mafia-member-testifies-his-family-migrated-to-australia/8996618

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/behind-the-1960s-victoria-market-calabrian-mafia-wars/news-story/007e761afb2c8fb541221ada3cff72f7

Perhaps those Sudanese youth gangs in Melbourne, and the 'dirty little secret',

"Australia’s culture capital, an image vital to the state’s tourism, has been plagued for years by escalating and rampant street-gang violence, home invasions, carjackings and assaults on police.

Restaurants and community centres have been trashed and YouTube videos have racked up thousands of hits showing sprawling street brawls involving, at times, hundreds of violent offenders"[The Telegraph]

Or maybe talk about the number of young couples who are having to put off and abort the children they want and planned for, because they cannot get jobs?

A new year and the rush is on to give the public a diversion to bluff and occupy them. Sure makes one wonder what other social rejigging and nasties are going on behind closed doors that the diversion is so urgently needed.

Changing to a republic would require a referendum, to change the Constitution.

While we're at it, at the same time, let's also have a referendum about a separate State for Aboriginal people: and also have one about an Indigenous representative body overseeing any new proposed legislation, chosen only by Indigenous people (or their representatives).

We could have all of these three issues decided on the same day, and the up-coming royal marriage would be the ideal time, since it will focus everybody's attention on the relationship between the British Crown and Australia, i.e. between Britain and 'Australia'.

Having them all on the same day would save perhaps hundreds of millions too.

Joe

Dear Joe,

As I understand it, all the Prime Minister is suggesting
is for Australians to debate the issue of becoming a
Republic - he's not pushing for a plebiscite or a
Referendum. I think he's learned from his past experience
that the timing has to be right - hence his suggestion
of a debate first. As far as I can remember
it seems that more than 50% of Australians are against
changing to a Republic. So the timing is currently not
right.

However your "tongue-in-cheek" posts and sarcasm are
appreciated. Keep it up!

leoj,

I stopped reading your post after the second sentence.

Conspiracy theories don't really appeal.

Try again - this time with more substance and sticking
to the subject.

Thanks.

Foxy,

In your opening post you led readers to believe that PM Turnbull was seeking to start the debate on a republic. But obviously you were suffering from false memory syndrome or something, because it was very quickly proved he was responding to a media question and dismissed the suggestion - that didn't come from him but from Bill 'Whatever She Says' Shorten and months before. I did post a link and of course you had not. See here,

leoj, Tuesday, 9 January 2018 10:27:10 AM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8088&page=1

Unabashed by correction of your misleading first post (and on the same page), you are now claiming that, "all the Prime Minister is suggesting is for Australians to debate the issue of becoming a Republic". But all he ever did was respond to a question and pour water on the idea, indicating to the impertinent hack that at least while QE11 was still in her role (and performing it impeccably as usual) Australians strongly supported the status quo. Simply, 'Where things are not broke, why be fixing them?'.

What right do you have to be speaking for the PM, especially where you appear to be putting words into his mouth and motivations too?

That is false news.

Now, what about some attention from you and your Mr Bill Shorten to those 'Wicked Problems' that plague Australia? Mind you, all realise that it will be a very long wait before Bill Shorten ever demonstrates any interest in those 'Struggle Streets' and other problems.

leoj,

Try again.

This time sticking to the subject.

Paul, all those aspiring to become politicians and all those who are currently politicians have one thing in common. They are lying, scheming thieves.

The only reason they are there is to 'feather their own nest', and I'm not talking feathers or nests. The money that these bastards steal by way of hidden transactions are in the millions.

The idea of taking a moronic con-man and elevating him to the position of President is insane and totally un-acceptable.

Think of all the clowns we've had supposedly, running this place. What idiots, not one statesman between them. Menzies was the last that comes to mind. All the labour PM's were an obvious wrong choice and a bunch of morons.

You can't have a communist running a democratic country. Labour should have been destroyed years ago after their treasonous acts during world war II.

Hi Alt Rave,

Why don't you tell us what you really think ?

It's a bit harsh to call President Trump a moronic con-man, even if he certainly gives that entirely false impression - and then to condemn the notion of a Republic just on those grounds. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it IS dangerous to put the terms 'con-man', 'moron' and 'President' in the same sentence without the logical assumption that you are referring to Trump ?

Especially if you include Trump in your observation that '.... all those who are currently politicians have one thing in common. They are lying, scheming thieves' ?

Interesting point, Alt Rave: if Trump visited Australia to campaign for a republic, would support for it improve or decline ?

Joe

Loudmouth, I didn't call Trump anything, although now we know what you think about someone youv'e never met based on information you do not have.

Trump is just as dishonest as the rest of them, according to me and my reasoning. The difference with Trump is, he went for the job of POTUS, because he was pissed off with the 'king makers'. And the fact that that little half cast turd ragged him publicly. He was like a child in primary school who was going to teach the 'bullies' a lesson.

And I'm glad he got in. I'm angry he didn't grab Obummer and Clitorn by the throat and give them the biggest hiding they ever had. I was waiting for him to at least go after that maggot Clit after all the things she did.

I think his advisers suggested he not pursue them because by becoming the POTUS, he had succeeded in punching their arrogant lights out, and I'm glad he got the last laugh.

He's not president material and don't think otherwise. He will be ousted soon and then begins all the retributions and attacks from the Rothschilds and their scumbag mates.

I like the guy, not because he is a good President but because he is the cat amongst the pidgeons. He said he was going to drain the swamp. And he did. What he meant was he was going to get rid of all the Rothschilds people planted in the whitehouse to do the Rothschilds bidding.

They are of course pissed off and that's why they are financing the 'rent-a-crowd' who are the antagonists stirring up all this negativity on the guy.

Malcolm Turnbull has re-ignited the Republican
debate by responding to Paul Keating's
blasts over this issue. Malcolm Turnbull's suggestion
of a postal survey among other things on the issue
of a Republic has certainly stirred things up.
The January 1st, 2018 issue of The Herald Sun has more
on this topic. And why it is important to have this debate.

I believe this is a debate worth having and I welcome
the opportunity for all perspectives to respectfully
argue their views.

The following link is worth a read:

http://www.spectator.com.au/2018/01/whats-to-gain-from-an-australian-republic/

Malcolm Turnbull hasn't reignited the republic debate at all. That is false news.

Turnbull replied to a question and played it all down, reminding the mischievous journalist hack that QE11 is still Queen of Australia and long may she rule.

So, Foxy, why do leftists play rotten games like this? Are they unimaginative and gutless and not wanting to put forward an option and reasons? Or what is more likely, are they just stirring the possum?

And why the hell aren't you, an ardent fan of change for change's sake, coming clean on what model YOU want and why?

Foxy, I am buoyed by your link as it echoes all my sentiments and comments I have always spoken about the republic issue.

The idea of yet another scumbag pig at the trough is just too much to bare. Our problems are not from without, they are from within.

I can only imagine the free-for-all we would get out of Canberra.

No we do not need to debate anything, we need to leave things as they are. As I said, we are not suddenly going to get better pollies, better pay, better roads, safer communities and the list goes on.

Just think if they have sold off nearly all our public utilities under this type of govt, can you imagine the raping and pillaging that will go on when there is no-one looking over their shoulder?

So NO we must not even think about becoming a republic.

ALTRAV,

"You can't have a communist running a democratic country. Labour should have been destroyed years ago after their treasonous acts during world war II"

Care to give a reference for that?

I was always under the impression that Labor ran the country during the greater part of WWII and, apparently, successfully.

Ah Is Mise, the things they don't tell you.
OK here goes, we all know that labor follows the communist beliefs right? Well the unions are simply an extension of the labor/communist movement.

During WWII it was not unusual for the wharfies, to strike or stall or slow down loading of the supply ships to restock our soldiers with everything from food to bullets and so on. The unions were/are communists.

Consequently many died and many starved. My father-in-law was such a person. He developed problems, lost a lot of weight and came close to death.

They got him in time but they had to remove half his stomach, all because the supply ship did not get to him in time as planned because the scum unions/labor/commo pricks live by some sick set of rules that belong in the stone age as do they.

If you doubt my claim about these labor/union scum being commo's just listen to their speakers opening welcome. 'Welcome Comrades'.

I think I have explained the story well enough for you to understand.

What a great idea.

Let us all talk about something as unimportant as whether we become a republic. It will allow the politicians to avoid thinking about anything really important, now they have finished with SSM.

Issy, you are correct, with bipartisan agreement Labor governed successfully during WWII. Australian's were united in their support for the war effort. There was a degree of self interest of course, not wanting to be invaded by Japan.
The position of Communists was not as it become later during the Cold War. Remembering along with the United States, the Soviet Union was one of our stronest allies. Australian communists who led the wharfies were almost exclusively Stalinist, and as such were strong supporters of the war.

The strike issues in Australia during WWII were exclusively industrial. Ironically it was the wharfies who had made a political stand pre war against the Menzies government's selling of pig iron to the Japanese, who were using it in their war against the Chinese. Thus the tag given to Menzies 'Pig Iron' Bob. Menzies had Nazi sympathies, at least pre war, having made an official visit to Nazi Germany in 1938 and returning with glowing reports of Hitlers regime.

ALTRAV has a long discredited view of Labor and communists and what roll they each played during those times.

Paul1405, 'Altrav has a long discredited view of labor and communists and what roll each played during those times.'

You speak as an authority on labor and communism. I take then, from your comments, you are pro' labor and communism.

I must remind you that my disdain for both these anti-social groups is backed by the Australian population at the time. I would also suggest you not treat this matter with levity and indifference as a lot of Australians died and or suffered at the hands of the communist backed labor scum and for you to doubt these facts does not bode well for you and your credibility.

I and anyone alive during or after those times can quote you first hand what was going on. So don't you dare attempt to point score on this issue. If you want proof of the veracity of what I speak, for once I can respond with no doubt. I am living proof of these facts.

Where the hell were you when your father, your uncles and his friends were suffering or dying because these bastard labor/commo mongrels were backing the other side.

Your comments are not only offensive to the thousands of families who lost loved ones but they display your total lack knowledge on the subject.

Don't believe everything you read and hear, ask someone who survived that bloody war yes,'WAR'. Police action my arse!

"The strike issues in Australia during WWII were exclusively industrial. Ironically it was the wharfies who had made a political stand pre war against the Menzies government's selling of pig iron to the Japanese, who were using it in their war against the Chinese. Thus the tag given to Menzies 'Pig Iron' Bob."

1. It wasn't the Menzies govt. Menzies was the A-G. It was the Lyons Govt.
2. The government wasn't selling the iron. It was a private contract. The government got involved only to ensure that the contract was honoured. Trading with Japan wasn't illegal and the government had an obligation to ensure the law was followed. The strike was illegal.
3. The pig iron wasn't being used in Japan's war effort. It was unsuited for use in guns or bullets. It was to be used in Japan's construction industry...mainly for housing.

All of which makes no difference when the left gets into myth-making.

Menzies wasn't a Nazi sympathiser. But he was in favour of leaving the Germans to make their own decisions about themselves and he was, until late 1939, pro-appeasement.

"Australian communists who led the wharfies were almost exclusively Stalinist, and as such were strong supporters of the war."

Yes Stalinists and entirely under the control of the Comintern. As such, in the period 1939-1941 when Stalin and Hitler were allies and were, among other things, dismembering Poland (about 1 million Poles died at the hands of Stalin), the wharfies and other communist controlled unions opposed the war effort. They actively sabotaged the Australia's soldiers in Africa and delayed loading of supplies destined for that region. They showed that their loyalty was not to Australia but to far-away political masters.

Despite efforts to suppress details of this shameful period, even the myth-making efforts of the left have failed and the truth remains available for those who seek it.

Of coarse , after the war the communist controlled unions reverted to their roles as dupes of mother Russia in the cold war.

ALTRAV, To describe Labor as an anti social group shows you certainly are something from the rabid right of politics.
"I must remind you that my disdain for both these anti-social groups is backed by the Australian population at the time." Is that why the people returned the Labor Party at the 1946 election, and incidentally about 65,000 Australian's voted for the Communist Party at the same election.
The rest of your diatribe is a load of rubbish, with your totally distorted opinions, claimed to be facts.

mhaze, thank you for your input. It's nice to hear from a well versed source every now and then. There are few and far between though.

Some of the views, on the Forum, I find out of touch with the real world. I wonder if this is politically correct teaching at it's best.

People find it untrue that history is written and reported differently from the truth. Such is politics, (PC) and hidden agenda. The truth is not that far away; If you 'really' want it!

mhaze, correct, Pig Iron Bob was as you say AG and later Minister for Industry in the Lyons government, becoming PM in 1939. Your defence of the Liberal Party founder is rather touching. His admirers do their best to hide his true colours. For example as PM Menzies was gung-ho when it came to war, Korea, Vietnam, yet in 1914-18 as a 19 year old he failed to volunteer for military service. I would have thought as a ardent monarchists Menzies would have been the first in the queue to offer his services for king and country, be on the first boat to the front line. Not so, Menzies sat out WWI in the comparative safety of Australia, in the context of the times, deserving of a white feather for a display of cowardliness.

leoj,

More accusations instead of facts from you I see.
More attempts to try to discredit me.
And more attempts at manipulation and diversion.

This discussion is not about me. What
you think of me is of no interest. You're using
classic bullying and manipulation tactics.
Do try to contribute something to the discussion.

This discussion is about -
Should Australia debate becoming a Republic in
2018?

There are many sites on the web regarding Mr Turnbull's
comments concerning the debate of Australia becoming
a Republic.

The Prime Minister said - if the issue gained enough
public support, there would need to be a "honest,
open" debate on the model for electing a President.

"Whether the President would be chosen by Parliament,
you know, in a bipartisan, two-thirds majority as
proposed in '99 or directly elected, that is the rock
on which the Referendum floundered in '99."

And the PM stressed that -

"You've got to have that discussion and it may be that
a plebiscite, maybe even a postal survey, given the
success of the marriage postal survey, could be one way to
deal with that."

The Prime Minister reiterated his belief that the
Australian people and not the Parliament, must drive the
change.

"It's very important to recognise this is not a change
that Parliament can make. This is a question for the
Australian people and Australians have shown themselves to be
very conservative when it comes to constitutional change.
...there is no point in pretending that there is an
appetite for change when there isn't one at the moment."

Since Federation in 1901 only 8 out of 44 proposals for
Constitutional change have been supported by voters.

There's more in the January 1st 2018 issue of The Herald Sun.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/barely-coherent-turnbull-hits-out-at-keating-criticism-over-australian-republic

Show me the determined masses, full of resolve, and I'll show you a Republic in the making....'till then back to your cooking shows

ALTRAV,

"..., all those aspiring to become politicians and all those who are currently politicians have one thing in common. They are lying, scheming thieves."

That is a somewhat naive opinion.
The current and past MPs of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmer's Party are without exception dedicated to helping their constituents and representing their constituent's interests.

No one can say a word against them as MPs.

There have been other MPs who were totally honest and in no way feathered their own nests Ben Chifley and Arthur Caldwell of Labor come to mind, Bob Menzies and Artie Fadden on the other side.
One should not forget that epitome of honest politics Edward St John
who fought fearlessly for what he considered to be right.
"Lance" Sharkey, a dedicated Communist, should also be included in a list of honest politicians who never sought monetary gain from their position.

Paul1405, SOOO you are a communist sympathiser. Why didn't you say so in the beginning, it would have saved a lot of inferences.

I could not care less how many commo's voted. 'incidentally 65,000 voted for the commo party'. Big deal, the other many millios, did not!
I'll bet probably most of them were wharfies.

It only means these were union stooges who knew no better. Do I have to insult you before you open your eyes to the politics of the day. These actions on the wharf and the like were not something they wanted publicised or you would have seen some form of public revolt.

It was promoted as simple strike actions and well within the wharfies rights. So the public at large did not pick up on the ramifications of a seemingly justified action such as striking.

And besides in those days there was a wharfie strike every second day, it seemed.

Did you forget that I am quoting actual people who were there and affected by these scumbags. So don't you dare be-little me or my arguments in a futile and irrelevant attempt to make yourself look like an authority on such things.

You are being belligerent and petulant if you even think about justifying what that scum did back then. Anyway where were you when this all went off? Of course you would have been one of the wharfies/communists.

If you cannot see that what I say was at least feasible/possible then your input in any forum is in serious doubt.

Do you not understand this topic is not open for discussion, but merely one to report the facts of the day. So if you weren't around at the time, your comments are moot.

I forgot to add in my last post that I personally
like things as they are regarding Australia becoming
a Republic. I like the stability we currently have
and I would hate to see American style US Presidential
elections here. As Big Nana stated in an earlier post -
if we're going to replace what we have it has to be for
something better. And I agreed with her - that so far
I also have not seen any evidence of that. Hence the
importance of having this debate - giving people a
chance to argue their points of view.

Foxy,

It is fake news.

1st January 2018 and before the smoke from the fireworks has cleared, the serial nuisances are already *bleep*stirring.

It is typical of 'master blaster' Paul Keating to be giving his mouth a workout, among sundry others who have never worked for a living and have those pale white fingers and a clammy unconvincing handshake.

What hack journalists do to feed and fire up the commentariat, the frivolous Twitterati, is to try to whip up controversy by putting their target on the spot and by misquoting him as the source later. Does that sound familiar to you? Their tools are obvious.

It is also obvious that Shorten and others are desperately avoiding discussion of the 'Wicked Problems', such as the problems from decades of over-enthusiastic immigration and are casting about for a diversion now that they cannot bareback Gays over SSM. They certainly rode that nag into the ground, wouldn't you say?

Paul1405,

Paul wrote :" mhaze, correct, "
Well done Paul...first time I've ever seen you write an accurate sentence!

"Your defence of the Liberal Party founder is rather touching."
I wasn't defending Menzies. I was defending the truth...some of us think its rather important. You should try it one day.

After I've basically demolished the rubbish you wrote about the unions in WW2, you don't even bother to offer a half-hearted defence of your errors. Just move on to more regurgitation of myths.

We'll never know why Menzies didn't enlist in WW1. I've always had a suspicion it was because he opposed that war but, in his later political career, saying such would have been political death.

What guarantee will there be that the current puppeteers behind the Constitutional Monarchy crews (variously painted in the Teams ALP/LNP/Greens colours) won't corrupt and manipulate under a 'republic' constitution?

mhaze,

You might be interested in this article,

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/home-front-pressures-a-major-problem-for-those-who-did-not-serve-20141102-11fok7.html

Possibly Menzies didn't enlist because his elder brothers may have already decided to enlist and in keeping with the feeling that all sons should not go to war and thus imperil the continuation of the family.

Is Mise, No I can categorically say I am nowhere near naive. That title belongs completely to you after your last post.

Do you realise the big pho par you just let loose. They can smell it all the way to Canberra, and wait a minute, I can hear the laughter from here.

You poor deluded soul, YOU are in NO position to comment on ANY pollies.
Why, because you are not in their heads or privy to their day-to-day actions and thoughts.

The people you speak of so affectionately about, simply don't give cause for speculation and criticism. Thereby leaving no evidence of foul play.

I can assure you having had to do with politicians, even the ones who come across as angels, are absolutely and positively far from angels.

As the saying goes I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you. Believe me, don't believe me, it matters not. They are ALL bent in some way or another, even though there are people like you who refuse to believe it.

I'm sorry but that has been the staple for inclusion into 'the club'.

Albie, you're on the right track. The answer is, there are NO guarantees to what you ask. As you have eluded to, the only people wanting to change to a Republic are those who can't wait to change the rules to make it even easier to steal from us.

No one can categorically assure me that removing or changing our current constitution will not end up leaving us in worse or in a more vulnerable state than we already are.

Unless we get a better deal than we currently have, I for one will never submit to a Republic. We have learned over time this will not happen and in fact things get worse with time, even though we are told they will be better.

A republic is a BAD idea for us. Don't let them suck you in.

Here's a link that explains things a bit further:

http://www.tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/why-australia-should-not-become-a-republic

"After I've basically demolished the rubbish you wrote about the unions in WW2,"

mhaze, you might think you are so lucky, nothing of the sort.

Menzies and the Dalfram dispute 1938.

http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4009&context=lhapapers

While Menzies was giving tacit support to Fascism, and Japanese imperialism, all awhile throwing accolades Hitlers way, others were opposing those evils.

ALTRAV, just on a point you made;

"as a lot of Australians died and or suffered at the hands of the communist backed labor scum" There is no evidence to support such an outrageous claim.

What we did have in Australia post WWII were many so called refugees from Eastern Europe who claimed to be fleeing Communist persecution. To a degree that was true, but what many failed to admit was they had in fact been Nazi collaborators during the war. Some of those people found a political home in the far right of the Liberal Party. Those people are the scum you should be referring to.

Paul1405, OK so now we know your political bent. I'm not talking about a few or post war anything. If you have a problem with 'a few' of these and a 'few of that', that's not relevant in this point.

What I am referring to is a major policy initiative set out by the communists and enacted through to, and by, the union movement. In particular the maritime workers union.

These actions of sabotage were not 'post war', as you are suggesting, they were an integral part of the communist war machine in that they were actively engaged in the fight against us as enemies.

So it was that the labor party, by it's own admission was part of the communist party and therefore our enemy.

Because of this we should banish the labor party if only because of the death and destruction they unleashed against the Australian war effort and therefore on the Australian people.

"Lest We Forget"

Paul1405, a quick follow up. It was mentioned that labor was in power at some point during WWII, with the implication that labor could not have done these atrocities.

You cannot be that naive. What a perfect scenario to attack from within so people like you would think it not possible.

Well it was possible and it really happened. Surely someone in your family is old enough to remember the strikes and actions of the unions on our supply ships during the war.

If you or you family lost any friends or loved ones during WWII I can only hope it had nothing to do with sabotaging the supply ships and the actions of the unions.

ALTRAV, I clearly see your political bent, that of a far right ideologue, who sees reds under every bed, creating you own loose interpretation of history based on your clouded opinions. Credit is due to the Labor Party for the leadership it provided Australia during WWII. You tried to admonish me on the subject saying I was treating the matter with levity and indifference, when I did no such thing. In your weakness you then went on the personal attack with rubbish comment "Where the hell were you" nonsense, a poor line of argument indeed. You have no evidence of what you claim, other than your own mindless gross distortions. If you have anything better, please put it up

So, in today's day and age, what is it that defines this enemy that some in Australian society seem to be preoccupied with?
Someone who doesn't agree with you?
Someone who doesn't share your philosophy?
Someone who doesn't share your religious beliefs?
Someone who doesn't share your cultural norms?....
or is it someone who wants to place the masses into a subservient position so as to do their bidding, like going off to wars of opportunity whist claiming security concerns?
deny natural justice so as to hide incompetence?
complain about hard working individuals whilst claiming the non existent moral high ground?

A republic, I think not !
The parties leadership wants an elected president. I wonder why ?
President Malcom, President Bill, President Kevin, President Julia anyone ?
If you elect a president you get a politician.
If you elect a politician as president you get a new power centre.

A new power centre can lead to power creep and finally dictatorship.
It is bad enough now why let it get a whole lot worse ?

P1405, it's not my political bent wer'e talking about, it's your's. You refuse to admit what you clearly know as the truth, if you really were a member of the labor party and therefore the unions/communists.

What I describe is from people alive at the time and clearly suffered because of the treason unleashed by your lot. You can deny it all you like because you have no basis to refute these facts.

BTW if your unions are such wonderful things where are all the jobs that have gone offshore because you and your lot squeezed the life and viability out of the Australian worker by forcing wages beyond reason.

The greed and averace of the unions and unionists, backed by labor, have caused this current exodus of businesses.

Don't you think these businessmen would rather be still in business here in Australia? Instead of some foreign, sometimes hostile country.

No ultimately the hammer falls squarely on you and your union/labor loving mates heads.

You may be retired by now, but that's OK because you obviously did not have a thought for your children or the next generation. The mantra of your lot at the time was, 'f@rk you Jack, as long as I'm OK'.

The actions of those I speak of say a lot more than the obvious. I hope you enjoy your retirement.

I also hope you sometimes reflect on the absolute disaster that the labor/union/communist movement did to this country and it's future generations.

Our children thank you. FOR NOTHING!

The question must be answered by more than a one-shot referendum.

First referendum question is "Do you wish to replace the English monarch with an Australian citizen as Australian Head of State?" YES/NO

If the answer is YES then there are all sorts of supplementary questions. What process should govern the appointment of a Head of State? Should it be by Parliament or by election? What powers if any should the Head of State have? What should be the Head of State's length of tenure?

Certainly we'd be idiots to give a Head of State the sort of powers that were so abused by Governor-General Sir John Kerr in cahoots with the Palace freeloaders in 1975. As long as the powers are no more than symbolic there is no serious risk of abuse.

One important proviso: The Head of State's correspondence in that role should be accessible by any Australian who sought it. Not locked away from scrutiny for half a century by an embargo enforced by governments of both Tweedledum and Tweedledee parties as at present.