Should Australia become a Republic?

[Exarch]

and if so what 'type' of republic?
d'ye reckon this'd affect our alliances with GB, since we are in effect breaking from the commonwealth?

Discuss

[Burnum]

and if so what 'type' of republic?
d'ye reckon this'd affect our alliances with GB, since we are in effect breaking from the commonwealth?

Discuss

I'm a republican.

I'll put it simply. I have no loyalty too a British Queen.

[Каие]

I'm a republican.

I'll put it simply. I have no loyalty too a British Queen.

Good because shes German.

[Yorkshireman]

Good because shes German.

No she is'nt. She's British. By that definition all the immigrants 2nd/3rd generation etc in Britain today are'nt British they're Pakistani/West Indian etc. Did'nt think you were such a racist.

[Каие]

No she is'nt. She's British. By that definition all the immigrants 2nd/3rd generation etc in Britain today are'nt British they're Pakistani/West Indian etc. Did'nt think you were such a racist.

Silence! ye who speaks truth, She is German! She is not a citizen or passport holder and has not been Naturalised.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

and if so what 'type' of republic?
d'ye reckon this'd affect our alliances with GB, since we are in effect breaking from the commonwealth?

Discuss

Short answer - yes. Not only will it reflect the kind of nation we are now rather than the one we were 107 years ago, but it also means we can fix some of the constitutional problems with the current system. Namely (i) definition and refinement of the "reserve powers" that caused so much trouble in the constitutional crisis of the 1975 dismissal of the Whitlam Government and (ii) definition of how and when the head of state could be dismissed, which caused the confusion surrounding the disasterous Governor-Generalship of Peter Hollingworth in 2003.

Monarchists have long tried to argue that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Except those two examples alone show it is "broke" and needs fixing. As does the fact that a foreign woman representing an alien and elitist institution is our current head of state.

What kind? - Either one where the President is selected by a two-thirds majority of Parliament after public nominations or one popularly elected but with severely limited powers in the manner of the Irish system.

Without that little rat Howard fixing things so that the wishes of the majority of Australia were thwarted, we should actually get the Republic we want this time.

[James Cook]

I'll put it simply. I have no loyalty too a British Queen

as an outsider a "Queen" dont hold any political power....
She is only there too rip you off

[The Bruce]

d'ye reckon this'd affect our alliances with GB, since we are in effect breaking from the commonwealth?

Australia could become a republic and remain in the Commonwealth. The majority of Commonwealth countries have someone other than the Queen as their head of state.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Australia could become a republic and remain in the Commonwealth. The majority of Commonwealth countries have someone other than the Queen as their head of state.

True. There's absolutely no reason we couldn't become a republic and stay in the Commonwealth - there are plenty of other republics in the Commonwealth. Not that the Commonwealth means too much, but it's a good way to maintain our colonial links without the silliness of maintaining a foreign aristocrat as our head of state. That just doesn't fit with our nation as it is today.

I suspect Rudd will have his hands full for his first term though. I doubt we'll see a referendum on this unless the ALP wins and second term. That means it won't be on the political agenda as a real issue until 2011-12 at least.

[jankren]

Yes, Republic of Indonesia.

[OG Grenadier]

All, as an ex pat Aussie who married a Yank and relocated to the North East U.S five years ago here's my take.
Originally I was die hard Monarchist, having served in the R.N.S.W.R 4th Battalion Army Reserve (out of the Sutherland Depot) back in the 80's. Family on my Dads side are from Britain and some are former members of everything from the "Old Deaths" (17th /21st Lancers) through to the Royal Scots the Royal Regiment (my Grand Dad) to a younger cousin who has just graduated from Sandhurst, so one might understand why I had been passionate about retaining the Monarchy.

My experience in the U.S is this, the British Monarchy means nothing outside of Britain. The Monarchy has no place outside of Britain. It's wonderful to see H.M Guards parade and all that carry on , but the world has moved on. My beloved Great South Land must do the same and embrace the future. If Oz became a Republic next year perceptibly nothing would change. The Flag could remain the same. Our Diggers, Sailors and Air Men would still march to the same tunes.....

[antaeus]

Our Diggers, Sailors and Air Men would still march to the same tunes.....

well thats not exactly true.

there's going to be a lot of new signage needed.. and a lot of new insignia... the word 'royal' will need to be removed from everywhere.

i think its fairly logical that australia will go its own way at some point in the future, probably sooner than later. any last hope of the commonwealth surviving as a 'british' block in the world order was destroyed in the 1960s-1980s with the removing of the preferential trade links with britain...

the deal was probably settled in all but paper when ANZUS gave formal recognition to the fact that britain had no influence over australias foreign or defence policy - thus was redundant and nothing more than a complicating factor in constitutional issues - but even then, its an australian appointed representative who acts in the queens name.

i guess also with more and more immigration from non british parts of the world, even the british history of australia will slowly lose relevance. a chinese immigrant in the 1980s does not have any connection with the men who landed at anzac cove.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

a chinese immigrant in the 1980s does not have any connection with the men who landed at anzac cove.

I beg to differ - a Chinese immigrant in the 1980s is connected to the Australians who landed at Anzac Cove by merit of the fact that he is also an Australian citizen. He has a hell of a lot more in common with them than he has with someone who lives on the other side of the planet in Windsor Castle and is Australia's head of state by merit of the fact that they were born into the right family, practice the right sub-sect of Christianity and, preferably, aren't a woman (though women will do if no men are available).

And this is my major problem with the whole idea of retaining the Monarchy. If I were to place an advertisement in the Employment section of the paper saying "Only people from particular families may apply. Additionally, Catholics, Jews and members of all other faiths other than Anglican Protestant Christianity need not bother either. And we prefer men thanks", I'd actually get prosecuted under Australian law. And people would be outraged that I had placed such an elitist, racist, sexist and religiously bigoted ad.

It would not only be considered illegal and wrong, but also contrary to the ideals of equality and egalitarianism that we hold so dear in this country, where everyone is considered equal regardless of who your parents or grandparents were, what religion you do or don't practice or where you're from.

Yet the specifications in my elitist, racist, sexist and religiously bigoted job ad form the job description for our head of state under the current system.

What is this elitist, racist, sexist and religiously bigoted institution doing at the pinacle of our otherwise egalitarian democracy? This makes no sense.

Let the Brits keep their Queen. Republic now.

[Yorkshireman]

I think most of us Brits think it's quite strange that Oz still retains the Queen as head of state. I seem to remember the time you held the referendum, how close was the vote ?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I think most of us Brits think it's quite strange that Oz still retains the Queen as head of state. I seem to remember the time you held the referendum, how close was the vote ?

This is a bit complicated, but we’ve never actually had a referendum on whether we should become a republic.

We wanted to hold a referendum on whether we should become a republic, but the former Prime Minister, John "Rodent" Howard, was a dyed-in-the-wool Monarchist, so he rigged the process to get the result he wanted. He knew that over 70% of Australians wanted a republic and that if we had a referendum on whether we should get rid of the Monarchy, his side would lose. So instead he proposed a Constitutional Convention to decide what model of Republic would be voted on. He did this because he knew most of the Republican Movement favoured a President chosen by a two thirds majority of Parliament, while the average voter favoured a directly-elected President.

When the Convention settled on a Parliament-selected President, the Monarchists then ran scare campaigns leading up to the Referendum on the adoption of this model, saying that this would mean we’d have a President chosen by shifty and evil politicians. The fact that many of the Monarchists who were pointing this out were themselves politicians was slightly ironic. As was the fact that the alternative was sticking with the current system, where our Head of State is chosen by birth within a foreign family and her representative is chosen by … you guessed it … a politician (the Prime Minister of the day).

Despite this the scare campaign worked, the Monarchists convinced Republicans inclined towards the “direct-election” model to reject the "Parliament-selection” model and the Referendum didn’t pass.

So we’ve never had a referendum on whether we should become a republic. We should have that first and once that’s decided, then we can work out the details.

[antaeus]

if its anything like here, it tends to drift in and out of favour (republicanism) over time... pro monarchists pop their heads up with the queens visits, then go back into their holes afterwards.

out of curiosity, are the various treaties and settlements with aboriginal groupings negotiated in the name of the crown or the government of the time?... losing the crown could open the government up to all sorts of legal challenges.

I beg to differ - a Chinese immigrant in the 1980s is connected to the Australians who landed at Anzac Cove by merit of the fact that he is also an Australian citizen.

being an australian citizen does not necessarily connect you with all of australia's history. i am quite interested in how recent immigrants for example feel about the process of reconciliation with aborigines, and things such as land settlements.

over here (in NZ) have found, especially with regards to indigenous rights, recent immigrants such as chinese, or turks or somalis tend to be quite vocal in their opposition to the concept of 'traditional rights' and very vocal in their opposition to preferential treatment of maori in the legal system. the ranks of conservative political parties fill up quite quickly with recent immigrants who feel locked out of an integral part of this countries history... all negotiations with maori tribes in land disputes are carried out in the name of the crown... and thus maori tend to be pro-monarchy because removing that removes the legal connection between them and the group that took their land 150 years ago.

i would imagine there would be all sorts of strange technical ramifications with the removal of the crown in australia to be looked at, lots of little laws which refer specifically to the crown and not to the government of australia..

[boofhead]

I like the Monarchy. I want to keep it. In fact when we lose it (and I know we will, it's inevitable) I'll write a letter to the Queen requesting UK citizenship.

[Burnum]

I like the Monarchy. I want to keep it. In fact when we lose it (and I know we will, it's inevitable) I'll write a letter to the Queen requesting UK citizenship.

Why would anyone want to live in the UK is something I can't understand.

[Yorkshireman]

Why would anyone want to live in the UK is something I can't understand.

Well, 1 million Poles can't be wrong ! I think a few British people quite like it as well.

[Burnum]

Well, 1 million Poles can't be wrong ! I think a few British people quite like it as well.

Actually, I doubt the poles go too Britain for the weather.