Astronomer

I'm starting a thread on this because I've been hearing about it on the news a lot recently... and chances are nobody will read or reply to this because there aren't a lot of Australians on here but I just wanted to pose these issues to everybody not just regarding Australia but other countries in the world as well. I don't think I have a lot of knowledge on the topic so it'd be good to hear what other people's opinions are.

Australia currently operates as a Constitutional Monarchy under the rule of the British Commonwealth. And what I want to know is why people think we should become a republic? Although we are a part of the monarchy, the Governor General (The Queen's representative) has no power whatsoever and The Queen of England has no rule in Australia anymore - we elect our own government.

The Prime Minister we elect cannot rule the nation in the same way as the president can rule America, for example. And I think we are operating fine this way, it ensures that not too much power is given to one particular person or party and well basically, why try to change something when it has been working fine for over one hundred years?

I like being part of the British Commonwealth as it keeps our ties, whether they be figurative or not, with the UK and our history and heritage with them. That is who we are. And I just don't get why people are so intent with wanting to change the constitution when it hasn't caused any major problems.

What do you guys think?

__________________

Janszoon

I have to admit I'm not all that well versed in the ins and outs of the Australian government but if your relationship to the UK is anything like Canada's I would find it disturbing that there was a person beholden to another government who could dissolve my government whenever they felt like it, even if their position was usually regarded as ceremonial. So I guess that means if I were Australian I'd want to become a republic.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Astronomer

Well, apparently:

I don't think another government can dissolve our government 'whenever they feel like it' in fact after all my research I don't think that has ever happened and doubt it would ever happen in such a way which would be dictatorial. Like I said, The Queen in her present state and in the state of how the government runs cannot speak for Australia or the people of Australia. We elect and run our own government which is not ruled by any other government.

Interesting input, though. Like you said, it is probably a reason why people would want to become a republic. Even though if they really look at how our government runs it is not the case. Hrm.

__________________

Fruitonica

I'm apathetic about the whole issue, but if it was put to a vote I'd probably side with the Republic. I guess, it just seems like an exercise in pointlessness to have a head of state which we don't really care about. I haven't really looked into how it would affect our government though.

It's not the same thing, but Governor Generals have some pretty absurd powers. Take the Whitlam affair, our elected Prime Minister was dismissed by someone whose position was not at all democratically decided.

Barnard17

An elected de facto monarch meant to be reined in by checks an balances but gradually increases their power, versus an unelected monarch with little by way of formal regulations but wouldn't dare put a foot out of line because there'd be so much backlash? You confusing legal power with real power.

Don't get me wrong, I think the monarchy should be abolished (from the point of view of a Brit talking about the legal and hereditary position of the monarch in the UK) and see the primary arguments of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and "but think of the tourism revenue!" as being cop outs that stand in the way of democratic progress but judging from the comment you made and the fact your location is in the US (by which I make the assumption that you've lived in a republic all or the vast majority of your life) I think you're somewhat blinkered as to the reality of the situation.

Generally speaking the person with the executive powers signs bills into law or vetoes them, declares war and (in the case of the monarchy) agrees to the creation of each new government and has the power to dissolve them at will. Functionally speaking in a monarchy the option to go against Government will almost never be used because of the furore it would create. A President, with claim to democratic mandate, will in modern times be much more active in what they do. Compare the last use of the executive veto in Britain (300 years ago) to the last use of the executive veto in the US (July 15 '08, March 8 '08 if you only want to count successful use of the veto). The power of the monarchic figure is simply not as supreme as you suggest.

Okay.

Gough Whitlam is democratically elected Prime Minister (in so much as you can be within the Westminster system, though that's another debate entirely). In 1974 the current Governor General (who Whitlam had himself selected) retires and Whitlam appoints a new Governor General (John Kerr).

In 1975 Whitlam wants to pass a budget, he has control of the House but not the Senate. The opposition in the Senate (a democratically elected body) do not want this bill passed. In doing so funding for the Australian Government is cut off, Whitlam's response is the unpopular idea of borrowing the necessary money from the banks until somebody in opposition crumbles and changes their vote to Aye. This is, understandably, quite undesirable.

Kerr (remember him, appointed by Whitlam) wants to avoid this situation. Appoints the opposition as Prime Minister with sole power to get the budget passed (and therefore allow fun stuff like pensions to be paid) and then immediately dissolves Government entirely and holds new elections, in which Whitlam loses a significant portion of the vote and loses the seats to become Prime Minister.

This was not such a massive failure of democracy. The democratically elected Prime Minister personally appoints someone as Governor General, does something really stupid, the Governor General he himself appointed says "hey man, that's not cool. Let the people decide what they think of you now" and then the public also says "hey man, that's not cool. Take the bench for a bit, you kinda suck."

Also, "someone whose position was not at all democratically decided" is a really poor assertion.

Hypothetical situation:

Canada uses the Westminster model and doesn't have a monarchic representative to act has the Head of State. The Prime Minister elect is therefore the Head of State and (by merit of the fact that he's in power and therefore holds a majority of seats and assuming he has an effective whip) can essentially pass whatever he wants.

Some guy, lets call him Reltih, manages to hold a majority of seats. Maybe his party was voted into majority or maybe there was no majority but through coalition he becomes Prime Minister and has a really effective whip. He starts passing laws to make it legal to beat up Muslims (because after 9/11 people are a little more blasé about Islamophobia) and declares that Alaska should be part of Canada (it looks nicer on a map, they speak the same language and hell they were bought of the Russians. BUYING LAND? What an outrage, it looks better on a map of Canada) and begins military proceedings to enact as much. People would act out against it, but Reltih was a smart old chap and created a secret police service that beats up anybody silly enough to do something like protest.

There is no external head of state (no singularly elected President from outside the legislature, no monarchic representative to say "no, that's not gonna happen buddy") to stop all this. Simply put without a monarchy the Westminster system is singularly broken and massively open to abuse.

__________________

Unknown Soldier

I really don`t know why anybody from AUS, NZ or Canada really wants to keep anything other than maybe some cultural ties with the UK anyway. If AUS became a republic it would be a positive step.

Given the amount of British immigration into these countries, the vast majority of recent immigrants as well as old immigrants are British anyway. Most go to these countries for ease of language, they can, and in most cases to give themselves a better life, only the most patriotic among them would probably want AUS to remain part of the British Commonwealth.

loveissucide

As someone who staunchly opposes monarchy under any circumstances,feeling it is completely incompatable with democracy, I think Australia should, as should Britain.

__________________
www.last.fm/user/p-mccusker
http://www.mixcloud.com/pmccusker
www.valjester.wordpress.com

right-track

Being from a republic your stance is understandable.
Why you staunchly oppose any form of monarchy from someone who comes from a republic is beyond me however.
The monarchy in Britain isn't incompatible with democracy as we have proved since the end of the English civil war. The monarchy transcends politics in Britain as the Queen is the head of the church here.
How would you feel if I told you that the pope was incompatible with the Republic of Ireland?

btw I'm no monarchist.
And what Australia, Canada and the like choose to do with their future, is their business and for them to choose, but I'd appreciate you not telling the British what they ought to do.
Ta very much.

loveissucide

Contrary to populat belief,Ireland is not a Catholic country in the means in which various Arab countries are Islamic ones.If it were,the Pope would be our head of state and we'd be a vassal to the Vatican.

__________________
www.last.fm/user/p-mccusker
http://www.mixcloud.com/pmccusker
www.valjester.wordpress.com

The Monkey

I have no real opinion on this matter, I just want to add that one can be a part of the Commonwealth without having the Queen as a monarch. Most of its members are republics.