Yenn Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 When I asked the question, I was meaning current pollies. I can't think of one. But our Governor General is one and previous Governors general also. I think most of the pollies are proffessional politicians. First requirement is to be able to talk for ages without saying anything meaningful, of course our media don't do anything to help.
old man emu Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 If you consider the protocols, a knight is ranked lower than a prince, so offering Prince Phillip a knighthood is actually an insult to him. Actually, although I support the concept of an Australian republic, I would like the republic to maintain an hereditary Head of State. You have to remember that Elizabeth has the title Queen of Australia, as well as being the Queen of Great Britain. Does it matter all that much that our Head of State resides elsewhere and is not a naturalised Australian? If we go down the path of having a Head of State selected from our own population, do you think that the selection process would ever be free from the taint of political and financial manipulation? There's a good chance that we could get another Sir John Kerr, of the Two Coats. OME
facthunter Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 I think it's only a matter of time before we remove this anomoly. The good thing is we (hopefully) won't have to go to war as the Americans did. You can stay in the commonwealth afterwards We have no appeal to the Privy Council any more to our legal processes. . IF you have an election of the President and a PM there will have to be a delineation of duties clearly spelled out. or there could appear to be a conflict possible. IF the new GG or president is for ceremonial duties only, it matters little, as long as they present well. Having the flag of the UK in the corner of ours may be a bit confusing to the rest of the world as to just what our status is. Nev
Old Koreelah Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 I think it's only a matter of time before we remove this anomoly...Having the flag of the UK in the corner of ours may be a bit confusing to the rest of the world as to just what our status is. Nevi If Adam Hill is to be believed, we're starting to hear the Poms tell us to "get your stars off our flag"
Marty_d Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Becoming a republic doesn't loom large as an important issue for me. The whole Prince Phillip knighthood is in itself relatively unimportant - all it shows up is that MisteRabbott is totally out of touch not only with the general population, but his own party too. In reality, unless we were prepared to change our entire political system, any Republican president would only be ceremonial - so why not just retain the GG?
Old Koreelah Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Becoming a republic doesn't loom large as an important issue for me. The whole Prince Phillip knighthood is in itself relatively unimportant - all it shows up is that MisteRabbott is totally out of touch not only with the general population, but his own party too.In reality, unless we were prepared to change our entire political system, any Republican president would only be ceremonial - so why not just retain the GG? ...and change his title. Resistance from monarchists is a major obstacle. Maybe we could overcome that hurdle the Aussie way. Institute our own Royal Family, based on sporting legends. They already get worshipped enough, why not go the whole hog and make them useful. No expertise required, beyond skills with bat and ball.
Yenn Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Years ago we had a referendum to decide on the republic issue. At that time I think most ussies were ready to become a republic, but the referendum was hi jacked by one of Abbots mates and we didn't like the method of providing a head of state that he proposed. Result the status stayed the same. It would be nice to get away from the Poms, but how do we choose a head of state. The one thing stopping us becoming a republic is that we are afraid of it becoming just another politicial junket. So lets stick with what we have. Possibly we could pinch a Danish Princess as our own home grown head of state. 1 1 1
Marty_d Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Years ago we had a referendum to decide on the republic issue. At that time I think most ussies were ready to become a republic, but the referendum was hi jacked by one of Abbots mates and we didn't like the method of providing a head of state that he proposed. Result the status stayed the same.It would be nice to get away from the Poms, but how do we choose a head of state. The one thing stopping us becoming a republic is that we are afraid of it becoming just another politicial junket. So lets stick with what we have. Possibly we could pinch a Danish Princess as our own home grown head of state. Why pinch one from Denmark when we have our own export-quality Tasmanian princesses right here? Actually I nominate Barry Humphries for King/Queen - he could switch depending on his mood.
facthunter Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 The idea of inheriting nobility wouldn't be generally accepted by the Australian people, as it appears to be by the Poms. Not all the House of Lords is elected. . Have you noticed the word CLASS being used more often here and it is usually to do with money? Money is NOT class as plenty with money demonstrate constantly. Democracy gives ONE vote to EACH person.. Abbott is completely out of touch on this, and it seriously questions his decision making ability, in relation to dealing with reality. The legal ties with England should be examined, as there is some uncertainty as to how far they go. There 's NO rush to a change but It will come. WE must do it right, as we will only get one chance. Nev 1
dsam Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 RE: Head of State (aka President) of an Australian republic: One danger is that the position of President can claim a mandate that rivals that of the Prime Minister, if the President is directly elected by the people of Australia. My suggested way to avoid this potential power conflict is: A: 5 proposed Presidential candidate names get put forward by a federal Senate committee (comprised of both opposition and govt. members). B: Presidential voting is done by Whole of House members (ie. Senate + Reps) including Whole of House voting by every State & Territory Government. This way, there is clear & national "democratic" input to the position of President, but the political mandate is "at arms length" to individual voting citizens, so power conflicts & political bias would be minimised. The powers of the President & would be strictly limited, so the day-to-day role would be mostly ceremonial, and the term of appointment should be fixed (to either 4 or 5 years). The issue of the flag could & should be left for much later, so as to not muddy the waters during a referendum campaign for a republic.
facthunter Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 You are on the right track but IF you have a republic, and I would suggest having NO Queen's representative is near there, How do you keep the Union Jack in the corner of the Flag? Nev 1
dsam Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 You are on the right track but IF you have a republic, and I would suggest having NO Queen's representative is near there, How do you keep the Union Jack in the corner of the Flag? Nev Interestingly, Canada still has the Queen as Head of State, but they changed their flag in 1967. Canada's constitution used to be a UK act of parliament (the British North America Act) up until the early 1990's (I think), when Canada established its own Act of Parliament as the national Constitution. At least Australia has had its own Constitution for quite some time now. The Australian flag is quite likely to change following the repatriation of our own Head of State/President. However, I feel it is best to leave the flag alone through the period of transition to a republic, so as to not conflate & confuse the separate issues involved. 1
turboplanner Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 That way would, most of the time, appoint the favourite of the Government of the day. At the present time we have been going through elections which have produced very close results, but at any time there can be a major swing, or a swing where the government gets a clear mandate. The Rudd/Gillard government and the Abbot government have been virtually stuck in treacle, unable to get big programmes up, but that will change the minute a big issue comes up.
dsam Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Even with a President that is a "favorite" of the government of the day, having a fixed term of 4 or 5 years, the president is likely to outlast the usual term of government, which is typically much less than 3 years these days. Regardless, with a mainly ceremonial role, the political persuasion of the President is unlikely to have much functional impact. But having an Australian that is our Head of State, is a very coherent "look" to our formal international affairs.
old man emu Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 dsam's suggestion is what we want to avoid - politicians wheeling and dealing to get a Head of State who is of their own political leaning. We have seen with John Kerr how a Head of State can be coerced into withdrawing the right to form a government of a political group chosen by the citizens. And it was the L-CP coalition that brought the downfall of the Labor government by laying dirty pool with the Budget. OME
dazza 38 Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 dsam's suggestion is what we want to avoid - politicians wheeling and dealing to get a Head of State who is of their own political leaning. We have seen with John Kerr how a Head of State can be coerced into withdrawing the right to form a government of a political group chosen by the citizens. And it was the L-CP coalition that brought the downfall of the Labor government by laying dirty pool with the Budget.OME So what you're saying is that the federal Labor government didn't have budget deficits and was the cause of most of Australia's debt ? Are you sure? I would do some research before answering my question if I was you. 1
fly_tornado Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Don't worry Daz the LNP have doubled the deficit. Fat Joe has 4 months to get his last budget through the senate before he has to think about how in hell he will get his 2015 budget through. The ALP looking pretty good now. I would say that Tony has been inoculated an entire generation against the LNP. 3
dazza 38 Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 The way Tony Abbott is going ATM, it is probably would be better for him to step aside for Julie or Malcolm. But I would take what Paul Keating says with a grain of salt. He wasn't exactly a shining star.
Old Koreelah Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 It all sounds pretty complicated. Big changes don't get much traction in Australia, so it won't happen. Why not short-circuit the whole process and just appoint a general manager. Save a whole bunch of arguments and controversy (how will Rupert sell any papers?) The way Tony Abbott is going ATM, it is probably would be better for him to step aside for Julie or Malcolm.But I would take what Paul Keating says with a grain of salt. He wasn't exactly a shining star. ...but this bloke is making he, Kevin and Julia look better every day. 1
Yenn Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Who mentioned the Constitution? They want to change it to put in mention of the Aborigines. I wonder how many of those wanting change have read the constitution. Where would it be relevant to mention aborigines? 2
facthunter Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 That's abbotts view. Nothing here before the Poms arrived. Of course there were Dutch, French, Indonesians and Japanese and possibly at times Russians and of course for about 60,000 years or so Guess what! The Aborigines lived here and walked everywhere and traded with each other and had names for every place. That's a remarkably LOOoooNNG time. England thought what a great place for FELONS to be transported to. That's how it was regarded. If Christ was here 2,000 years ago the aborigines were here 30 times further back. IF the earth was created 6,300 years ago the aborigines were here before anything was created. by a factor of over 5. Nev 2
Marty_d Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Don't worry Daz the LNP have doubled the deficit. Fat Joe has 4 months to get his last budget through the senate before he has to think about how in hell he will get his 2015 budget through.The ALP looking pretty good now. I would say that Tony has been inoculated an entire generation against the LNP. Never underestimate the stupidity of the voting public. 1
dazza 38 Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 Never underestimate the stupidity of the voting public. Do you mean like the Victorians voting in Labor a few months ago.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now