JCC HEY AUSTRALIA

Yes, because you can be 'illiterate' and go to university in the 70's

Abbott is borderline scientifically illiterate, only successful because he panders to right-wing populists and is a cunning opposition leader. Turnbull is leagues beyond Abbott intellectually. Abbott is only Prime Minister because of his absolutely gutter politics.

Well she was technically the second time, no matter the political jockeying. The fact that the conservative independents refused to support Abbott is actually far more telling.

I must say I agree with all of this, excluding the republican thing.

 

Philosopher, Gillard formed government by securing seats outside her party and to govern in coalition. She wasn't elected, she merely could forge an alliance to satisfy the constitutional test.

GrandAdmiralJello, Mr Turnbull speaks like a proper Australian ought to.

 

I can't see support for a Republic gaining ground though.

a) It makes us more like you lot, and
b) People quite like the way things are now.

 

If there is support for an Australian republic, I would say much of it may stem from those who dislike Tony Abbott and and their dislike of his recent Australia Day salute extended to Prince Philip rather than their critique or knowledge of procedural formalities associated with the intricate political system we have (such as Royal assent).

 

By that standard many western governments (especially in Europe) are never elected since they often rule through coalition.

Becoming a Republic (or at least the model most proposed) would change essentially nothing in the actual process or structure of our government.

 

Ok so who would appoint the President?

 

The President would just be the new name for the Governor-General, so the power would transfer to the Parliament, and probably a council appointed by the states.

 

OK, so now the capacity exists for the Crown to decline the Prime Minister's recommendation for Governor-General. In one circumstance that I can recall, the Crown appointed someone else entirely rather than what the Parliament recommended.

So you want to take a position which is non-partisan and politicise it?

 

They also dismissed a Prime Minister from a non-constitutionally recommended source.

 

It wouldn't be politicised or partisan if it required a 2/3 majority of both houses of parliament and the support of a state council. It would be even less partisan than it is now, since the monarch almost always accepts the appointment the Prime Minister suggests, only not doing once before (because of the British government I might add).

Something a President can also do.

 

By "can" do you mean "legally" or "mentally able"?

 

Pretty sure Sections 57 and 64 of the Constitution disagree.

 

I really don't see the benefit there is to the monarchy, since it performs no real practical function in our government apart from the appointing the Governor-General, something we can easily do ourselves without falling into partisanship.

I'm saying the situation would likely not change if the monarch was removed.

 

Possibly. But you could incorporate those changes into the same referendum for a republic. I think a change to that policy is worth considering

 

Please. Look at the clowns we have now and tell me we can be trusted.

Right now, we have extremely close cultural ties with Britain - which will not change - but the added advantage of remaining in the Commonwealth as well as having a theoretically impartial actor in state affairs.

Most analysts think the "washminster" system we have - a bicameral parliament with Washingtonian houses - is one of the best in the world. Any change would do nothing more than solidify an already concrete notion. It would be an exercise in futility the likes of which we've not seen before.

 

I'm not a monarchist at all but think the whole republican issue is a bit of a waste of time and money - why bother changing it? I just can't see that there is anything to be gained. I'm also not ashamed of our colonial past and so have no objection to the union jack on our flag. It's part of our history and I don't feel we are insecure as a nation that we have to take steps to separate ourselves from our past.

 

I'm for keeping the Monarchy because the Governor General helps to keep our government in check in addition to the minority in the House of Representatives. Additionally, the drive for a republic just seems to develop from the mentality that we somehow become more Australian by removing the Queen as Head of State. It does not. It merely clears a Constitutional formality and alters the top left hand side of our flag. As mentioned, there as worse systems than The Washminster hybrid.

 

Agreed.

Well we can remain in the Commonwealth without having a monarchy, nor would we necessarily abandon our current system of government, rather we would just transfer the power of selecting our Head of State. This notion that somehow the monarch is this impartial actor who actively keeps our political players in check is a false one since she wields no real power - in a system where the Governor-General with bi-partisan support the position would serve as an impartial actor. The shifting to a Republic would solidify our independence as a people.

I agree that it is probably a non-issue - still the principle stands. How you can't feel shame at our colonialism in at least some aspects is strange however. We said sorry for a reason.

 

But if Australia becomes a republic, the royals won't need to visit any more and that is sad.
#therealpriorities

 

How about a compromise; a People's Republic?

 

I'm sure Princess Mary will still drop by.

 

Yeah I was referring more to the fact that we were founded as a British colony rather than how we treated Aboriginal people. Clearly that is a shameful aspect of our past and continues to be to this day. I actually worked as a native title lawyer in Queensland so I am pretty familiar with the history.