Elites cling to the monarchy, real people want a republic

LeftRightOut says:

07:14am | 27/04/11

Indeed you’re correct, Eric.
Like most causes popular with leftists, they tend to feel it is ok to lie to get their way. Problem is (for them), that people can smell BS a mile off. Take this article for example…

John A Neve says:

07:25am | 27/04/11

Erick,
Is correct, monarchy or republic,it will make little difference to the people in the street. What is required is a review of our election system and a few changes to our constitution.

A change to a republic will do nothing to correct the party political scene..

Damian Parkhill says:

07:54am | 27/04/11

@LeftRightOut

Last I checked it wasn’t just the left that lies to get its own way.

Seano says:

08:10am | 27/04/11

“The monarchy has zero, zip, zilch power in Australia. “

That’s not what they thought in the early 70’s when Kerr sacked Whitlam.

Of course the power will be in the hands of the people when they choose their head of state rather than have one forced upon them.

baal says:

08:12am | 27/04/11

Any change to the executive is potentially dangerous.
We have one the worlds most stable systems of government why change it?
However it is interesting to note some predict that England will become a republic before us, then maybe the Queen and her inbred hiers (not an insult a fact) may need to seek refuge on our shores. I mean as long as they come by boat they have a 99% of staying.

Chris L says:

08:24am | 27/04/11

So, remind me again please, how did Gough Witlam get dismissed? Was it a popular rebellion or did some representative of the Queen of Australia step in and change things for us?

How does it feel to be caught in a lie while accusing others of lying?

acotrel says:

08:38am | 27/04/11

Love for the monarchy begins with privilege and social climbing, and ends with eugenics and euthanasia.

Mensur Cehic says:

08:40am | 27/04/11

“majority of Australian”?? Only according to ‘The Australian’ .. and that’s when you hide the real stats in the body of a lengthy (f)article.

I think you are right, though. The people may not become more powerful - at least not immediately. But, that doesn’t mean that some FOREIGN elitist scum should have that power. You know, many in this country think that national pride comes from hanging shit on minorities. It actually comes from sovereignty. And sovereignty means: not being anyone’s bitch. Not the royals’, not Uncle Sam’s.
When you begin to understand that, there will perhaps be more unity and distinct national identity in this country.

marley says:

08:42am | 27/04/11

@Chris L. - the monarch had nothing to do with the dismissal.  The GG did that off his own bat.  And, in most models of a republic I’ve seen mooted for Australia, the GG or President would still have that reserve power, whether or not he’s directly elected by the people or put into place by Parliament or some sort of electoral college.  With or without a monarchy, that’s unlikely to change (unless of course we remove the office of GG entirely, which is not a model I’ve seen suggested).

Joan says:

08:43am | 27/04/11

Yep to everything Erik says however even a King Charles and Queen Camilla looks better and better than a President backstabber Ranga Juliar with her defacto hairdresser in tow carrying her crates of red dye.

Erick says:

08:45am | 27/04/11

@Chris L - How quaint, we have a student of ancient history among us!

The fact that even in 1974, the Governor-General was an Australian, appointed by the Australian Parliament, would be sufficient to dismiss your argument.

However, just to bury it completely, the Hawke Labor government subsequently removed all real powers of the monarchy with the Australia Act (1986) and other reforms.

It’s always good to do a bit of research before shooting your mouth off.

Adam Diver says:

08:46am | 27/04/11

The problem wit the republic and many causes of the left is that the propositions do not come with any conditions.

Do you want to be a republic? Yes sure.

Do you want to pollute less? Of course.

Do you want to lock up refugees who have done nothing wrong (as far as we know)? Of course not.

The left then use these results as evidence of a crushing desire by the majority of the population for whatever action the “elites” of the left desire. Then when ultimately the movement fails due largely to the realities of the actions proposed (i.e real consequences) the elites then begin to make superfluous and irrelevent articles about class elitism or some other BS.

People like the idea of being their own nation, but apart from insecure symbolism, becoming a republic achieves very little particularly in improving our democratic system. Its easy to pick sides when one side who demand massive changes propose very little real benefits from such change.

Because a change to our democratic processes better occur for reasons beyond

“we want to be able to look every other nation in the world in the eye and say, mate, we’re just as good as you.”

That line is a disgrace.

Tubesteak says:

08:48am | 27/04/11

Actually, Erick, the monarchy is our Head of State and can dissolve parliament at it’s whim. The fact that the Queen currently doesn’t care what we do doesn’t matter. The Governor-General is merely her representative.

Also, have a look who heads up many British trade envoys. It’s a member of the monarchy. They never help us Aussies out with any of those things. A President could do these thigns for us and be recognised as our Head of State (unlike John Howard who wasn’t recognised as our HoS when he was in the US once). Also, we wouldn’t be seeing Julia Gillard trip the light fantastic on the world stage.

John A Neve is also right in that we could thoroughly review our political, constitutional and federal system. No more States. Bigger electorates. Bigger local councils. Updated taxation and grants powers. Federated education, health and infrastructure systems. The list is endless.

Our federal system is broken and significantly contributes to many of the problems we have in this country (alongside inept politicians that are only there for money).

DJ says:

08:49am | 27/04/11

Chris
Whitlam was sacked by the Gov. General, Queens representative but in a republic he would simply be replaced by a President who would be empowered to do the same thing in the event of blocked supply.

Nic says:

08:55am | 27/04/11

@Chris

That was a long long time ago, and infact the times have changed so much since then it would be impossibe for it to happen again.

Good argument though. Damn the Queen and the Crown’s daily intrusion into our lives! They hold so much power over us!

Rick says:

08:57am | 27/04/11

So why do the armed forces answer to the GG?

Rosie says:

09:05am | 27/04/11

Correct again Erick!

Friday the mother country will be on show with the grandeur pomp of the royal wedding to millions and the envy of the world because no other nation does it better than the British.

I am proud to be part of the Commonwealth and you republicans should at least wait until we get over the good feel factor this royal wedding has brought upon the millions around the world before mentioning the word “republic”

Our PM wouldn’t be able to show off her over dyed red hair in London if we were a republic. I dislike the fact that as a republican she is there in person and me, a royalist will be there in spirit only. Bloody hypocrite!

Nosthow & Co if you reading this - out with the republican Malcolm Turnbull and in with Tony Abbott like John Howard does not favour Australia becoming a republic. Long live the Queen!

Dash says:

09:07am | 27/04/11

Chris L, Whitlam was dismissed by the people in the General Election held during December 1975. Democracy in action I’d say. The GG called an election to break the stalemate. If the people wanted Gough, he would have been returned. You’ll find the election was not even close!

The people changed things not the GG. Time for ALP hacks to stop trying to rewrite history over this one. Why do people seem to forget we had a democratic election in 1975?????

Peter says:

09:12am | 27/04/11

Seano about the Whitlam sacking - that is just exactly it - It was believe Whitlam was acting outside of his constutional powers - the Queen had no say in the matter - the then GG was compeled by the constitution to act on information presented to him and under the constitution he had to act and he was also compelled by the Constitution to put that decision into the hands of the people within six weeks. The people had the choice and they the electors of Australia concurred with the GG and voted Whitlam out. The people choose - not the Queen. Will a Republic have the same safe guards?

TimB says:

09:13am | 27/04/11

@ Chris L, so what?

Did he do it at the Queen’s behest? Did Lizzie wake up on the wrong side of the bed that morning? Perhaps she was angrily reading her morning paper over mug of cold tea thinking to herself, “You know what? Those bloody colonials need a good kick up the backside. I’m going to tell Johnny to sack Gough. “

The answer of course is no. The fact is Whitlam could not secure supply. & Kerr was well within his rights to sack him. One can argue that the situation was handled badly, but it cannot be denied that it was legally sound.

And it’s very unlikely that having a republican arrangement would have changed this drastically. I’d assume we’d still have someone in the equivalent of the GG position who could wield similar powers against the republican PM equivalent.

And of course in our Alternate Republican 1975, Whitlam and the ALP would simply spend the rest of their days bitching at President John Kerr or something similar.

Dash says:

09:16am | 27/04/11

Seano, Whitlam was sacked by the people! There was a general election called in December 1975. I think you’ll find the result speaks for itself. Whitlam could have been returned if the people wanted him. The GG did nothing more than call an election to try to solve the deadlock in the parliament! The power to sack or return Whitlam was with the people who went to the polling booth in 1975! The GG asked Whitlam to call an election. He refused. In order to solve the supply issue, an election was called. Because Whitlam refused to do so himself, Frazer was nominated as CARETAKER until the election was held. Whitlam could have been returned with the majority he needed to have a fully functional government. However, due to the performance of his government, the Khemlani Affair and issues with Rex Connor, Al Grazby and Jim Cairns, the people had lost faith in him and the ALP and kicked them out in a massive landslide. That’s what happened. Stop trying to rewrite history!

Erick says:

09:27am | 27/04/11

Sorry, Tubesteak, but you’re absolutely and completely wrong on that one. The monarchy has no power to do anything to the Australian government. The only right the Queen has is the right to sit in a fancy chair when she visits the Australian Parliament.

The republican PM, Bob Hawke, eliminated the last vestiges of British power in 1986 with the Australia Act. We have been completely independent since then.

It’s sad that republicans have lied to you and me about their own achievements.

john says:

09:33am | 27/04/11

@Erik, even though what you say is indeed true, I believe that the republicans & the monarchists have both got it wrong. The issue is really about our identity as seen through domestic and international eyes.

Independence would be viewed by all as a nation that has matured, from where a future will be forged with an identity respecting the past whilst morphing a new identity utilising the past as its foundation.
The uniqueness of our own identity as it is currently would forge the new identity in the future. I would imagine it would be similar to the journey Canada took.

I think the issue isn’t power, its about identity, who and what we are now.

duk dog says:

09:34am | 27/04/11

If we are to have a Republic , make it a dead set copy of the USA .
If not, retain the Monarchy , for the ‘Laws under the Crown” should , or should do , keep the BS artists on a leash.
The US Constitution has many checks and balances , though many try to white ant it .  Read the US Constitution .
The USA should not be judged on greedy US bankers . Australia has the Yanks to thank for not having war declared on it in 1999 , over East Timor , for example . On the Jim Lehrer hour some obscure US official said ” Indonesia must behave itself , or bad things are going to happen to it “. Some months later , the former leader of Indonesia said on the SBS tv that Indonesia was within a couple of days from declaring war on Australia .

acotrel says:

09:37am | 27/04/11

@Pete Whitlam wasn’t acting outside his constitutional powers.  What he did was ignore the convention of running all prospective loans past the loans council.  This was blown up out of proportion by Fraser.  That lead to Whitlams downfall at the election which was held after the dismissal by Kerr.  The feeling was that if Whitlam hadn’t done the wrong thing he wouldn’t have been sacked, so why would you vote him in again? It’s interesting to note that the Liberal Party doesn’t get flack over it’s dubious friends in Dubai.  Yet Khemlani was painted as a villain.

dobbieb says:

09:45am | 27/04/11

While ever our system gives us the leadership we don’t really deserve, then I am all for a British Monarch being our titular head of state. Our current GG is a Labor stoolie, and our current PM an embarassing disgrace.

Dash says:

10:02am | 27/04/11

acotrel, my understanding is that Whitlam used Kehmlani as a way of funding his policies without the approval of the parliament. That is unconstitutional! The loans council was there for a reason, and the ALP government knew what the process was and ignored it. All that did was make the whole thing look very very dodgy. It’s laughable to suggest it was an oversite. It was a huge amount of money in 1975. I also think with Jim Cairns, the state of the economy, the sex scandal, and Rex Connors behaviour, there was more to the election result in December 1975 than just the Khemlani Affair. In many ways, Khemlani was the icing on the cake.

The LNP (as with the ALP) may well have “dubious” friends all over the world, but they are not trying to circumvent the democratic parliamentary process like Whitlam and his government did in 1975. You may be an apologist for that kind of behaviour but the Australian people held him accountable.

Tubesteak says:

10:06am | 27/04/11

Erick: the Queen of England is our Head of State. This is a FACT. Read the Constitution. As Head of State she can dissolve our parliament - this is what happens when an election is called and the PM tells the GG (the Queen’s representative in Oz) to dissolve parliament.

If the Queen is so ineffectual then why not just become a Republic? Seems like it wouldn’t hurt, but it could benefit us in many ways (some of which I spoke about in my first comment).

Contrary to Rosie’s ignorant belief we could even remain part of the Commonwealth (many Cth members are Republics) and we can still be subjected to hours of boring Royals talk on the TV and women’s mags.

timB says:

10:08am | 27/04/11

@ john:

“The uniqueness of our own identity as it is currently would forge the new identity in the future. I would imagine it would be similar to the journey Canada took.”

Similar to the journey Canada took? What?!

Sorry to burst your bubble of ignorance, but Canada has the *exact* same status we do. It’s a constitutional monarchy that has a Governor General & acknowledges Queen Liz as its Head of State.

If you’re able to view Canada as it’s own unique & independent country, surely you can train your republican-addled mind to view your own country in the same way . Because that’s what we are. Just like Canada, we’re an independent sovereign nation in the eyes of the world, beholden to no other.

Again, the shared inferiority complex inherent in republican advocates comes shining through in your post.

Bobster says:

10:18am | 27/04/11

Crap. It’s agree with Erick time again.

Republicans have to use falsehoods in their arguments, Erick, because
there is absolutely nothing of substance to their arguments.

They want a republic because it sounds like a good idea, so let’s re-write one of the world’s most stable constitutions because of a pathetic point of nationalistic pride.

Their argument consists of this: Australia is awesome. Australians should be in charge. Who gives a $%^ about the queen. WOoooo. Aussie Aussie Aussie.

And that’s about all.

Nationalistic, superficial nonsense from a mob of dickheads who seek to rip down a fantastic political system and risk years of constitutional upheaval because it sounds like a good idea.

TimB says:

10:37am | 27/04/11

@ Bobster,

You forgot the bit where apparently we’re a complete joke in the eyes of the world (like a 40 year old man who lives in his mum’s basement), and that by doing this everyone else will automatically think we’re grown up and awesome now too.

Apart from that, spot on. The whole republic “argument” is ridiculous.

acotrel says:

10:42am | 27/04/11

@Dash The loans affair was bullshit created by the Liberal Party.  And the pecadillos of Labor pollies were irrelevant except that they were used to add fuel to the fire.  The Liberal Party needed an excuse to reclaim their birth right.  The loans affair provided that.  The fact is that the loans were never executed. And if they ever had been, I challenge anyone to say where they would have been dubious, unfair, or in any way illegal! The Liberal Party forced the situation by blocking supply, and seized on Whitlam’s attempt to bypass the system, to depose the government. How could Whitlam have gone to the polls for a second time because the Libs again blocked supply?  It was dirty politics!

Dash says:

11:24am | 27/04/11

acotrel you say it yourself in your post “Whitlam attempted to bypass the system”! Enough said. Dodgy loans deal which was unconstitutional.

Politics is a dirty game! You only have to look at the bribes paid by the ALP to be returned at the last election or the backstabbing of Kevin Rudd to realise that! As I said, the Khemlani affair was merely icing on the cake.

The Whitlam government had failed the people. The election result wasn’t even close. In fact it was the greatest landslide in Australian political history! And every time the ALP are crap, it’s supporters shout “dirty politics” or “scare campaign” or “minority extremists”. Rather than accept responsibility, they blame everyone else but themselves. The NSW ALP is a classic example and the federal ALP is doing the same thing!

DragonLass says:

11:29am | 27/04/11

@Tubesteak - dude, as others have pointed out, the queen does not have any power over us so there’s no need to keep trying to argue that point.  She is only the titular head of state, which has NO power.  Just like she is also the titular head of the Church of England but she has no say over that either.

Chris L says:

11:32am | 27/04/11

Erick, one example of a representative of the monarch exercising power since the Australia Act:

In Queensland, 1987, during a tense period of leadership succession, the Governor of Queensland, Sir Walter Campbell, exercised reserve power in declining to exercise vice-regal authority on the advice of the Premier, Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Campbell initially refused to redistribute ministerial portfolios on the sole advice of the premier, who lacked the confidence of his cabinet. Subsequently, during a period when Queensland had a “Premier who is not leader” and the governing party had a “Leader who is not Premier”, there was speculation on the potential exercise of vice-regal reserve power by Campbell, in dismissing the premier in the absence of a parliamentary motion of no confidence.

Of course this is nit-picking, but if you are going to call people a liar, be prepared to be called out on your accusations.

Huey says:

12:04pm | 27/04/11

@ baal, mate- Neville Shute wrote a novel about that scenario. Think it was The Third Vote or similar.
@ all the lightweight,biased or obtuse posters, The Queens representative…i.e. the Governor General- is appointed by the Prime Minister of the day. Royal assent is purely nominal. The Dismissal of Whitlam was a political crisis not a constitutional crisis. My objection to a Republic is simply this..it ain’t broke! Why the hell would I want to let loose
the usual ravenning pack of elitist dickheads who know what’s best for us poor common folk?  It is the notional aspect of the Crown that gives us our constitutional robustness and integrity.
BTW..Kerr was appointed by Whitlam who; after the dismissal went on to the worst electoral defeat EVER. The Government was rotten, scandal ridden, dysfunctional, inept, imploding and woefully broke. The poor common folk voted accordingly. The above is not mentioned in the retelling of the DISMISSAL Myth. Strangely enough I believe Australia is a better place because of the Whitlam years..social initiatives we would never have seen from LNP for years… if ever.

marley says:

12:07pm | 27/04/11

@Tubesteak - actually, the monarch cannot dissolve our government at a whim.  She has extremely limited powers in regards to Australia, and unless she’s physically here, none at all beyond signing off on the appointment of the GG.

Erick says:

12:08pm | 27/04/11

@Chris L - Still not good enough. That was not the monarch exercising power - it was the Governor of Queensland, who is an Australian appointed by the Parliament of Queensland. As I have said, the monarchy has zero power in Australia. Any actual power is vested in its titular representatives, who are actually selected by Australian parliaments, not by the Queen.

Tombowler says:

12:42pm | 27/04/11

True that Erick!

I resent some buck-toothed, hayseed being given a platform (doubtlessly the first draft was done with that laid-back ‘brick-shithouse scrawl’ in crayon on the wall of an outhouse) with which to peddle misinformation, jingoistic crap and stupid tripe about a nation “staring other nations in the eyes”....

I mean, the writing style practically suggests that Australia looks these nations in the eyes, spits the chewing tabaccy into a brass pot while the hand hovers threateningly over the six-gun. What a knob.

We have a stable government that has had constitutional crisis few and far-between and I’m no more inlined to vote ‘yes’ to a republic having been subjected to the painfully retarded views of this clearly delusional bumpkin than I was in ‘99.

I’d like to further offer to the myriad of f@cktards that nauseatingly bleat ad nauseam about the ‘rigging’ of the first referendum: that in itself is elitist.

The argument these arseholes make is that the majority (or a substantial minority) of Australians are too stupid to vote ‘correctly’. This is the standard tack of mouth-breathing progressives when democracy isn’t sufficient to meet their ends: they would’ve won if everyone else in the democracy wasn’t so stupid they could be tricked by some clever wording.

God Save the Queem

Anne71 says:

12:50pm | 27/04/11

@Seano, the Queen knew nothing about Kerr sacking a democratically elected Government until the following morning when she read about it in the paper, so to speak.  She has never done that herself, and no doubt, had Kerr bothered to run it by her, would have strongly advised him not to do it either.
Actually,  from memory I think the last British monarch to dissolve Parliament was Charles I, and we all know what happened to him…

Chris L says:

12:54pm | 27/04/11

@Erick - the Governor nominally derives power directly from the monarch and has emergency reserve powers. Granted the appointment is made by the premier and the emergency powers are rarely used, I’m just pointing out that it is incorrect to say the monarch has no power over us and that this power has been exercised in recent history.

What this means is that calling these people liars (and your cheerleaders seem to be using your statement to cast this accusation against everyone on the left of politics) is a falshood.

john says:

01:00pm | 27/04/11

@timB, I probably should have made what I stated clearer. I was talking about identity, i.e the Canadians have embarked on a journey to identify themselves under a maple leaf flag. They are forging a new identity, and have successfully done so domestically and internationally.

It is not an issue of power as i stated earlier.

Unless you can establish a new identity, changing the constitution or head of state over time, if at all is another issue.

“who or what are we ?” needs to be addressed first, are we still a British colony?  probably not for over half a century now.

Knemon says:

01:38pm | 27/04/11

...is that right Erick? - What about the fact that not one Australian can become head of state, the highest any of us can ever achieve is being the governor general - the representative of the monarch of England. THis is the sole reason for myself being a republican - it is wrong that not one of us can ever become head of state of the country they are born in.

John says:

01:54pm | 27/04/11

You do realize the true abality of the GG. Sure Hawke took power from the GG but the GG still has the power to dismiss parliment specially if there is a double dissillusion in parliment (a bill is rejected twice). Also note the armed force are also under the GG not the govt. The govt is required to go to the GG when using the armed forces of Australia. Even the oath taken by ADF member is to the Queen not to the Aus govt.

In regards to our constitution it is only a small chapter in the British constitution and if the British choose to they can change it at a whim.

i would like for Aus to be a republic but do we really want labour trying tto do it, really want them to do it.

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

02:36pm | 27/04/11

Seano, thank God for Sir John Kerr, a man who knew his duty to his country & stopped Whitlam selling us off to the Arabs. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the current incumbent Bryce was as honorable as Kerr & sacked this incompetent Gillard government. The voters said he did the right thing when they tossed Whilam & his dilletante mates out on their collective ears. LONG LIVE THE QUEEN! ! ! !

marley says:

02:43pm | 27/04/11

@John - your point about Canada escapes me entirely.  The only difference between Canada and Australia is that Canada got itself a new flag 45 or so years ago.  And that, by the way, was the product of the determination of the PM of the day, and was met by some unrest amongst the population, many of whom were quite happy with the old flag.  But he went ahead and did it anyway.

Other than that, I don’t see that Canada has “forged” a new identity - it’s been an independent nation with only loose ties to Britain since WWII.  Pretty much like Australia, really.  And if Canada has an international identity, well so does Australia. Very much so.  Whether we remain a constitutional monarchy or become a republic won’t change that.

Roja says:

02:53pm | 27/04/11

Some factual corrections:

The Governor-General is appointed by The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister.  The Governor-General takes an Oath of Allegiance and an Oath of Office to The Queen.

The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General.

They have the powers to:
- appoint a Prime Minister if an election has resulted in a ‘hung parliament’
- The power to dismiss a Prime Minister where he or she has lost the confidence of the Parliament
- The power to dismiss a Prime Minister or Minister when he or she is acting unlawfully
- The power to refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives despite a request from the Prime Minister

the Governor-General is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force

GG receives and entertains visiting Heads of State, Heads of Government and other prominent visitors to Australia.

They also give royal assent to legislation, which they can refuse.

It wasn’t hard to find the facts, it’s on the governer generals website.  So just because the Queen (or her rep) doesn’t exercise all of these incredibly far reaching powers, doesn’t mean she can’t. 

On the other side if she won’t, shouldn’t we have the protection of someone who would when necessary?  What should be a vital position within Australia is now symbolic, making Gillard and Howard more powerful than they should be.  Thats why the republican model presented had politicians selecting the president, so they keep more power. 

That I don’t like, I would much rather elect a president that keeps the bastards honest.  Or at least a little more honest.

Tezza says:

04:11pm | 27/04/11

I pretty much agree with Erick - except in one situation.
imagine that we a replay of the 1975 constitutional crisis.
This time, the new Governor General,  Tim Flannery, sacks the Prime Minister (Tony Abbott, say) and instead of appointing a replacement P.M. Mr. Flannery decides that he could do a better job himself.
So he declares martial law (he’s the head of the military remember), abolishes Parliament, and decides to rule by Governor General’s decree.
Who will stop him?
Who will save us from this power crazed Governor General?
My guess is that this is the one situation where Queen Elizabeth would finally, after fifty odd years on the throne, earn her money.
She picks up the telephone, calls the Chief of Staff and orders him to go and arrest the G.G.
The Chief of Staff says: “But I can’t because he’s my Commander in Chief, and I have to take orders from him. Whereupon the Queen replies: “no, you don’t, because i have just sacked him”.
O.k. if you don’t like the implied slur against Tim Flannery, this mind experiment works equally well if you substitute a rabid right-winger as holding the office of G. G., and a nice left winger as the dismissed P. M. (say Andrew Bolt as G.G., and Bob Brown as the sacked P.M.)

marley says:

04:40pm | 27/04/11

@Roja - actually, the Queen cannot exercise those powers unless she’s physically in Australia.  When the Queen was scheduled to visit in 1953, Parliament suddenly realized she did not in fact have the authority to exercise the powers the GG has - so they had to pass a Royal Powers Act to give them to her, but only when she’s actually here.

Darragh Scully says:

04:41pm | 27/04/11

I wonder have any of you lovely Australian Monarchists considered joining the republicans. Why dont you try to get a Visa to work in the UK for example.  The UK is so broke and overpopulated that they have stopped issueing Tier 1 General Visas for non EU residents. They made no exception for you lot even though you love your Royal status.

Perhaps though your living in Australia for that very same reason. How sad. Thats loyalty for you. Yet we got taught in High School not to fall for the Honour system with special reference to the Maddness of the Japanese in WW2 and their Loyalty to Shintoism and its Emperor.
The people will rise up.

Well the beauty of our Republic position is that we have the Home Team advantage. All that is needed is to Charm the people good and proper and we will be set free.

The constitutional crisis of 1975 shows that a Prime Minister may be removed if seriously opposed in the Senate, even though he may have the support of the majority of the House. This however only applies if the Senate refuses to pass essential Government legislation, like the Budget. (See Loss of Supply). The Senate in recent years has frequently refused to pass major (though non-essential) government legislation.

The formal holder of executive power in the Commonwealth is the Governor-General. However, by convention the Governor-General can only act with the Prime Minister’s consent. The Governor-General appoints and can dismiss the Prime Minister and the other ministers, though his power to do so is heavily circumscribed by convention.
http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/pr/Prime_Minister_of_Australia

john says:

04:56pm | 27/04/11

@marley ” The only difference between Canada and Australia is that Canada got itself a new flag 45 or so years ago.”

I disagree completely, there is a huge difference since Canada forged itself a new identity under a new flag it has the most advanced society in the world.  Australia in comparison has fallen behind in many ways.

Pledges of allegiances to australia by immigrants over the last 50 years is just lip service for citizenship.  Cohesion of society of indigenous people,  immigrants and others is fragmented at best, mostly divisive and in disarray. Australia, socially speaking has an identity crisis and seems more like a ship that lost its identity rudder.

Take a country like greece for example that has many constitutional chances over thousands of years, but has never had identity issues.

Roja says:

05:21pm | 27/04/11

@Marley - the Queen could make a phone call.  She is represented by someone who has sworn allegiance to her after all.  That said, I don’t actually believe she ever would exercise these powers in anything other than the most exceptional circumstances. 

Still lots of people own guns that will never use them to kill other people, but that doesn’t mean we should be blase about guns.  This is a gun that in the wrong hands could be used to cripple this country.  In the words of Pauline… I don’t like it.

Venise Alstergren says:

06:22pm | 27/04/11

ERICK: ““This is a typically deceptive argument. The power is already in the hands of the people”” Really? And, ““The monarchy has zero, zip, zilch power in Australia. Becoming a republic will not add one iota of power to the people.””  Two fairly nauseous statements in which you completely ignore the real issue. It’s not about power per se, it’s about the Oz citizen’s grovelling towards a foreign head of state. It’s to do with pride, self-respect, egalitarianism, confidence in ourselves. It’s also to do with the insecure David Flints of Australia who crawl towards a past which existed only in theory.

It flies in the face of our efforts are being rewarded for our hard-earned careers, that you are as good as me, that I am as good as a prime minister. It makes a lie of our apparently ludicrous belief we are all equal.
How dare you assume that I am an inferior to an inherited at birth foreign king/queen and their dysfunctional progeny. How dare you believe the piddling house of Windsor is superior to this nation called Australia. How dare you be so craven and traitorous. You are a disgrace to this country.

marley says:

09:58pm | 27/04/11

@John - sorry, mate, have to disagree with you.  Being a dual Canadian-Australian national, I’ve got an interest in both countries.  They’re different in a lot of ways - but both are strong, independent countries with their own sense of nationhood and history and, if you like, national myth.  The only identity crisis I see here is the one amongst those people who either love or hate Britain, whereas in Canada no one thinks about it at all.  Australia has a strong image on the international stage, and more than holds its own there.  I don’t think it’s lost its way at all (I’d like to see a new flag, though).

Bruce says:

12:13am | 28/04/11

Erick: Why is it that pro republicans come across as cranky and bitter people ? I wonder what terrible things Australia has done to them, or what experiences or beliefs have influenced their decisions making ?

Philip T says:

06:53pm | 28/04/11

What a lot of “Balony” from the usual hubris headed publicists who think they speak for everybody”  Another Referendum would only repeat the reaults of the last one ! Now that was the expression of the majority of public opinion !

colin_den_ronden@yahoo.com.au says:

09:10pm | 28/04/11

Get rid of the monarch and you create a power vacuum that the politicians will try and fill. Then they will be like the Philippines’ Marcos. The only thing that stopped Bjelke-Petersen being like him was the Queen. You cannot trust the politicians, even if the monarchy is a bastion of privilege. Keeping them on the other side of the planet means that some other mugs have to pay for their upkeep. Australia’s politicians are expensive enough as it is, imagine what they would be like without anyone restraining them, like pigs in the trough. The trouble is, sovereignty has moved from the monarch to the parliament, but parliament blocks the next step, investing it in the people. At least the Philippines Constitution states that sovereignty is held by the people, so why cannot Australia do something like that with its Constitution?

Libby Mitchell says:

07:40am | 29/04/11

I want an Australian Republic because I do not support the adulation of any human being, based simply upon an accident of birth…no matter how many checks and balances we might create to minimise the influence of these birthlings. I prefer to choose leaders on their merits for a shorter period than their lifetimes. Having said that, I also agree that we DO have the power to make good changes in Australia and much more we should address the real issue and that is that we have way too many politicians here that are costing way too much, in too many tiers of governments. Get rid of state governments and strengthen local regional govermnents and make that happen, using public education to change the constitution by referendum as required.

We could save many billions of $$$ a year (some expert estimates put that figure at between 30- 50 billion depending on the plan adopted) if we removed the obsolete tier of politicians who maintain a staus quo in our states to create a world to perpetuate their own uselessness.

The internet and improved communications have brought huge opportunities to redirect our taxes and the new potentials should be telling us to revise our business model for governments here. We can still create responsible checks and balances etc…we can still access good leadership and representation. We just need to work smarter…and state governments MUST be ditched….asap. We need to re-direct that money for more services to be provided to the people, instead of wasting it with silly duplication. I worked in WA with Aboriginal remote communities and I dealt with around seven local, state and federal government departments who were hard put to find justification for their own particular and supposedly unique spheres of business. They were all aiming in the same direction…just reporting to way too many chiefs!

Matt says:

07:42am | 27/04/11

Wavy,
What you are suggesting is essentially the model proposed in 1999 - and rejected after a Tony Abbott scare campaign. (Who would have thought?)

That is, a head of state appointed by Parliament, with the rider that under the Republican model Parliament actually got to vote.

Seano says:

08:12am | 27/04/11

It wont be a US style republic, it largely be the same system we have now with an Australian as the elected head of state.

marley says:

08:38am | 27/04/11

@WavyAllligator - I don’t follow your logic.  If you replace the Queen with a GG, presumably retitled as president or whatever, then you will still have an Australian republic.  Not all republics follow the American model, but quite a few follow the model you’re suggesting.

acotrel says:

08:48am | 27/04/11

@Seano Imagine the political manipulation we’d be subject to, if the President is ‘elected’?  The GG is appointed by the government, however can be removed by the Queen.  How do you change that without our whole social system being in danger of reverting to authoritarianism?

Deepthinker says:

09:02am | 27/04/11

Bob Hawke ,Paul Keating ,John Howard, Pleeease tell me who among the living would make a good president, pleease don’t tell me about our existing one as she is never here. Arch Bishop Hollingsworth , Jim Wallace or anyone else who has Christian leanings would be unacceptable to the ruling party that is the greens.

marley says:

09:07am | 27/04/11

@Acotrel - you create a system of Presidency which does not involve direct popular election, and make the position subject to recall by parliament in the event the president oversteps his authority.  I don’t believe for one minute you couldn’t build in safeguards which are analogous to those we now have.

Dash says:

09:34am | 27/04/11

Hold on everyone. The issue here is should the head of state be democratically elected or elected by the parliament. If it’s democratically elected, then you have presidential elections just like the US which cost millions and we end up with Shane Warne or Ray Martin as president. Seano, if it’s to be largely the same system, we need to have the president elected by the parliament. That would be the minimalist position. And I think that’s what Wavy suggests. And Matt, to my knowledge, that’s not what was presented to the people last time was it??? I was in London at the time so can’t remember. And to put down the defeat to a scare campaign is a bit silly!

Btw, I’m a conservative but also a republican. I don’t think the sweeping generalisations of class, political leanings, demographics, sex or religion should be used to create an argument on this one. That’s where David goes badly wrong with this piece. Not everyone who supports a republic is on struggle street and not everyone who supports the Monarchy is elitist! For mine that’s dumbing down the debate and just wrong!

dobbieb says:

09:59am | 27/04/11

Yes, buit WHO is going to appooint the GG and for what term? Nobody I know want any politicians near this procedure as none appear to be fully trustworthy. Who provides a list of possibles if the voters are to elect the new GG. Somewhere there has to be someone in authority to make these decisions and there is noone I trust sufficiently to do so in this country. So leave it alone with a Royal as is, but the appointment of the GG needs to be looked at hard after the last political favour was granted to the current GG

acotrel says:

10:27am | 27/04/11

@marley If the government could sack the GG, you’d have the inmates running the asylum.  I don’t doubt there is an answer to changing the constitution safely.  But imagine the kafoofle if it was attempted while Abbot is around.  The legal situation we now have , is probably a s good as ever it could be.  The look of Australians fawning, and subservient is not good, but who really cares? The Americans are envious along with a lot of others.

Bobster says:

10:51am | 27/04/11

Any elected president will eventually use his election to claim a mandate. That’s what happened in France, that’s what happens whenever you elect a head of state.

I’d be in favour of a republic if it simply retitled the GG as president, no worries.

My fear is that won’t happen, we’ll wind up with some tosser who thinks the people want him in charge and he’ll feel compelled to start representing his supporters.

Yeah, you may be able to build in safeguards but why mess with a perfectly functioning system just because it fits some pride-based. ill-considered nationalistic ideal?

marley says:

11:36am | 27/04/11

@Acotrel - but the government can sack the GG now, so I fail to see the difference.  True, they have to ask Liz to sign the dismissal notice, but you’d better believe she’d do it if the Australian PM told her to do it - it’s not different from Liz signing off on whoever the PM says is going to be the next GG.

Steve says:

12:26pm | 27/04/11

I agree with Wavy. The model at the last referendum was perfect. All the power was held in the elected houses. Those 2 houses appoint a GG (or President). We remove the Royal family but keep the stability.If the people directly elect the GG/President you introduce instablity. How long before it morphs to canidates having an electoral platform? Who will fund the bigger and bigger electoral campaigns and will it indeed become elitist because only the wealthy can afford to run? I was so disapointed that the republican vote was split at the last referendum because starry eyed republicans couldn’t see the benefits of the proposed model. I voted yes for the referendum model but will vote NO for a direct election model. I may be a republican but still love a good Royal wedding and will watch with interest.

Seano says:

03:52pm | 27/04/11

@Dash - even if the people vote on the president the nominees would be put up by the parliament.

@Acotrel - why politicise a ceremonial role when the nominees are those selected by parliament.

Seano says:

03:56pm | 27/04/11

@acotrel - How do we stop authoritarianism now? Largely by convention. The president would have no power, he/she would be merely the symbolic head of government. The power always rest with our democratically elected parliament not with the Queen of a foreign nation.

darragh scully says:

05:08pm | 27/04/11

The one thing I hate about democracy is that I have really been that popular. lol Ill never be presidentey.

Dont get me wrong, I dont despise the UK but its just a matter of Territory and Practically. We could really use the support if the UK could provide for us but they can not and we have eneough problems of our own.  Ill not let the UK whom competes with us on the Global Scene take the credit for our work. The Union Jack on my flag is just giving them that credit. We should make that history and move on.

Philip Trouchet says:

06:34pm | 14/05/11

I live in Perth. Later this year we have.40 independent countries attending CHOGOM a regular meeting of Heads og Govt with a common heritage & many legally having the Queen or Currant Monarch as it,s nominal Leader or actual Head of State as Queen of Australia or   New Zealand Caada etc. will be coming representing theCrown & I feel privileged to beva member of the Commonwealth. I will always remember entering Canada from USA & Immigration officer looking at my Passport & saying “welcome Cousin”
It gave me a sense of Pride as a member of The Commonwealth of Nations! It may only be a Talk Fest but any gathering of Nations @ Such high level can only be of benefit with direct Leader direct contact & cutting through enivitale red tape of usual inter country regulation. The Queen has one of the worst jobs in World living a public Fish Bowl with Media all over her for any slip.She has dutifully carried out an impossible job She did’nt want but by accident of birth dutifully if not happily has carried out magnificently. Any renegade member very quickly is put in it’s place.
  I don’t want a Political Head of State like the American mess. O ur Governor General is appointed by the Government of the day with set down Costitutional responsibilities to protect the people as was so well demonstrated by Justice Kerr who was appointed by Whitlam when his sacking of Witlam was confirmed by inevitable double dissolution of both Houses of Parliement with resultant. Election resault.
  That was our Constitutions finest hour when Public interest was put before Political convennience of a Prime Minister with a severe case of “Hubris” !

KH says:

08:15am | 27/04/11

Oh, that will work great for taxi drivers who are used to earning a pittance.  But why on earth would a doctor/lawyer give up their $‘000s salary for the wage you get as a government minister?  Attracting the truly talented and intelligent to parliament when they could be out earning a lot more money in the real world is the first problem.  The second problem is the parties themselves.  Pre selection in a seat is an internal power struggle, on both sides, and is won by the most popular (or the one with the least knives in their back).  The third problem is the voters - lets face it - politics is largely a popularity contest.  Smart people rarely come out victors, as they generally don’t tend to be popular.  Australians really can’t stand to see someone smarter than them be in power, and they punish those with intelligence in polls.  Combine this with the trend to negative campaigning, playing the lowest common denominator and religious nuts, and you get what we have - hardly the brains trust, now is it.

acotrel says:

08:43am | 27/04/11

@Ripa ‘end this bullshit where lawyers are put in charge of everything.’ You forgot to include accountants in your suggestion.  Otherwise it’s not a bad idea!

Adam says:

12:51pm | 27/04/11

Not a bad proposition, although I fundamentally disagree with measuring experience in time based increments (i.e. 20 years experience). Such a measure fails to reflect how many of those years are relevant or include contemporary experience. Using IT as an example, even if you’d worked in the industry for the last 20 years (1991-2011), at least the first 5 years of that would no longer be relevant. If you had worked in IT even longer ago (1950-1970) your “20 years experience” would be almost entirely irrelevant today. Furthermore, experience is gained through having experiences, not merely attending a workplace for a great length of time. As such, experience should be measured in a manner reflective of this (i.e. job competence or knowledge).

Unfortunately, as you have highlighted, politicians are not required to be experienced, knowledgeable or qualified for the portfolio they hold. This is the weakness of having elected officials without any job specific caveats/requirements attached to the positions they are elected to. Perhaps, as you suggest, a new form of Govt in Aus would be a good idea. I’d suggest one where the people voted on major policy decisions at elections. This would mean the will of the people always carried. Politicians would essentially be replaced by highly qualified, highly experienced public servants who would simply implement the peoples will. It would much more sense to simply remove the middle men/women (politicians) and have the peoples will conveyed directly to the those responsible for implementing their will (heads of Govt departments). It would almost be like running a company with shareholders, except the goals of Australia would be much more diverse than simply profit.

We have had this Govt for a long time and I think we’d be foolish if we didn’t try to figure out ways to make it better. That being said, I seriously doubt the expenditure associated with a move to a republic would do anything to improve our Govt for the Australian people.

KH says:

10:16am | 27/04/11

Wow, pointing to the high profile republicans definitely proves that they are elitist….........I mean seriously, what a ridiculous comment to make.

As for that referendum, Howard rigged it very cleverly to guarantee the answer he wanted, by putting in a design for the replacement and thus polarising the vote.  The only question a plebiscite should ask (not a referendum - lets find out what the real majority thinks, not just based on states) is do you want Australia to have an Australian head of state? Pure and simple.  The argument about how to achieve it is separate to the main question - once a definite opinion was known (i.e. by the whole voting population, not just the people that ‘The Australian’ picks out of a phone book), then you put in the time and effort to come up with a replacement system.  The two are separate questions.  On principle, I think Australia should have an Australian head of state.  No foreign powers should even be a ‘figurehead’.  I’m open to ideas about how to replace it - I don’t have any particular preference, having never seen a good model that was widely discussed and refined.

Bobster says:

12:52pm | 27/04/11

Because do you want Australia to have an Australian head of state doesn’t skew the response towards your prefered model doesn’t it? A leading question like that is even worse than what Howard did.

Should Australia become a republic? End of question. Don’t load it with nationalist tripe.

S.L says:

04:22pm | 27/04/11

The headline is “Elites cling to the monarchy etc.”
Where are the real people in the republican movement?
I repeat what idiot let this dope write for the punch?

Susan says:

07:44am | 27/04/11

Indeed. It’s about time we grew up and went our own way.

Rev says:

07:50am | 27/04/11

Just..LOL.

Dumping ground for their unwanted?  Have you been to Shepherd’s Bush lately?  Hell, we deported a criminal BACK to England the other day.  Hilarious!

And cannon fodder?  Err, we don’t do this for the Brits anymore.  Now we send our young boys off for Uncle Sam, which would continue merrily on if Australia was a republic.

And if you argue republicans are ‘real’ Australians (therefore consigning everyone else to some netherworld inhabited by the fake Julia and fake Tony), then it is destined to fail.  Australians are Australians, be they monarchists, republicans, or indifferent.  Thinking otherwise truly is elitist.

L. says:

08:14am | 27/04/11

“You may want to lorded over by the monarcy but most Australians and I mean real Australians want their own head of State.”

So, although I’m 6th generation Australian, have done military service for this country, I’m not a “real” Ozzie because I don’t wish to become a republic..?? What a crap argument.

“Why must we accept these aging and useless spongers on the public purse as our leaders. “

As opposed to the “useless spongers on the public purse” which is offered up every election..?

Seriously, what do you think will change by becoming a republic??

As far as I can tell, the call to become a republic is simply change for the sake of it..

Tom says:

08:31am | 27/04/11

“Why must we accept these ... useless spongers on the public purse as our leaders.” Sounds a bit like Kevin07’s “2020” (snouts in the trough) conference. Blathering inconsequential egos. The beautiful people, the ABC darlings. No thanks, they are bigger wankers than the royals.

Brian Taylor says:

08:35am | 27/04/11

when was the last time you were lorded over by the monarcy??
get a grip man,
we are run by the Australian Govt, no one else and their’re not do a great job of it are they?

jag says:

08:45am | 27/04/11

So let me get this straight, I am not ‘real’ person because I don’t want a republic.

And ‘not real’ obviously includes people who have been members of the Australian army and the Australian air force, like me?

Of course Mr Donavan, being a ‘real’ Australian, has laced up boots while in uniform? Surely?

I’m wondering who is really the elite here.

jag says:

08:46am | 27/04/11

So let me get this straight, I am not ‘real’ person because I don’t want a republic.

And ‘not real’ obviously includes people who have been members of the Australian army and the Australian air force, like me?

Of course Mr Donavan, being a ‘real’ Australian, has laced up boots while in uniform? Surely?

I’m wondering who is really the elite here.

Lapun Pinis says:

08:49am | 27/04/11

Oh Dear!  I take it all back!  I am definitely elite enough to want ‘thatmosis’ and ‘L.’ to spec monarchy correctly.

Joan says:

09:06am | 27/04/11

Nothing like a Ranga Juliar as President, to uselessly sponge off the workers, the ones that still have jobs….Juliar the PM the multibillion dollar spender with little to show for the money.  Meanwhile the useless spongers the monarchy , Royal Wedding will give UK $4.6 billion dollar boost and our Royal Flying Doctor Service has been named charity to gift money to… Australia has gifted $25,000.00 and the States look like gifting $10,000 to the RFDS.  No way can a Ranga Juliar beat a monarchy , for style, pomp and ceremony, no way can Juliar raise money unless it is straight from the tax payer paypacket.

L. says:

10:04am | 27/04/11

“I am definitely elite enough to want ‘thatmosis’ and ‘L.’ to spec monarchy correctly”

What does that mean..?

Bobster says:

11:24am | 27/04/11

@Joan

Has someone rang the unrelated,-pointless-Gillard-rant bell yet?

L. says:

08:16am | 27/04/11

“Well we already are our own nation and throwing out a proven system (witness one of the most stable democrcies in the world) just to have a new look is juvenile imho.”

Exactly..

John Smythe says:

09:00am | 27/04/11

I’m in total agreement with both Max and L.

We need to replace those currently in power with people who are, very simply, competent. We can work on the removing the lies later.

A turd in a new package is still a turd.

Bobster says:

12:01pm | 27/04/11

I agree with everything in the above post.

Mahhrat says:

08:07am | 27/04/11

+1, Timmy.

For me, the question is simple - if there’s a form of government better suited to Australia than a Constitutional Monarchy, then let’s discuss their comparative merits accordingly.

If all we’re doing is trying to prove to the world that we’re all grown up now - well, then we’re not really grown up enough yet, are we?

meh says:

09:35am | 27/04/11

Fair point, but the author became farcical in his attempt to make himself “one of the people”. Check out his bio about working in finance, living on the gold coast, etc.

Personally I am for becoming a republic for the simple reason of wanting an Australian as our head of state. I don’t believe the stability or culture of Australia will change, we will be exaclty the same with just an Australian rubber stamp signing laws into action.

themis says:

03:15pm | 27/04/11

I’d like to agree with Col of Blackburn and thank him for pointing out that the ARM has” failed to advance the debate.”
How true.
God save the Queen.

James1 says:

07:50am | 27/04/11

Why do you care though?  Is your attachment any more rational than this man’s lack of attachment?

I am a Republican because I hate the British crown.  They burned my family’s house, confiscated our property, and live rich off 700 years of Irish blood.  I have no problem with our system of government, just the figureheads at the top.

As such, I couldn’t care less about some unemployed woman’s wedding, any more than I care about the dozen weddings taking place in Mt Druitt today.

Mark says:

09:55am | 27/04/11

@James

Exactly how much money did the royal family make of Irish blood?

Please leave your xenophobic attitudes in your old country when you come to Australia. Typical racist republican.

James1 says:

10:46am | 27/04/11

Racist?  That’s laughable.  I wasn’t aware that the British royal family was a race.  I don’t hate the British, just the royal family.  That is not a xenophobic attitude, it is a healthy disdain derived from knowledge of my ancestors and what they suffered at the hands of the British.  My great-grandmother’s house was burned to the ground by the King’s (our current queen’s daddy) Black and Tans.  She died in 2001.  You may prefer to forget your heritage, but to some of us it means something.

On Irish history, look into some Irish history.  You can start with the Potato Famine if you want to learn about how the British crown got rich off dead Irish children.

Speaking of leaving things in the old country, why do you cling so desperately to a foreign tradition and royal family, now that you have left the old country?  Perhaps you should leave your own attitudes in the old country…

marley says:

12:21pm | 27/04/11

@James1- I’m a bit confused.  The Black and Tans did their thing in 1920 and 1921 - at that point, Britain was a pretty well established constitutional monarchy, so why blame the King for what was actually Parliament’s responsibility?  Why hate the royal family for something that the elected government did?  And what has that got to do with George VI anyway? I don’t think he was in Ireland, and he certainly wasn’t on the throne, at the time.

And the same holds true even during the potato famine - you’re still talking about a constitutional monarchy doing the behest of the elected government.  I’m not downplaying what the Irish went through, but I think some of your antipathy is slightly misplaced.

Dave-o says:

12:25pm | 27/04/11

So in the last week I’ve discovered not only am I an inner-city elitist but also a racist.

My god, when did I become this ugly stereo-type.

People cling to the monarch like Heston clung to his rifle. Tradition dies hard even though many cannot actually remember its roots.

James1 says:

12:43pm | 27/04/11

marley, does that mean my beef is actually with constitutional monarchies, rather than royal families?  So I should forget about the head of state, and focus on the system which caused such evil instead?  Kind of undermines the argument that constitutional monarchies are a better form of government than republics.

I guess you are right though - it doesn’t make much sense to blame a bunch of Germans (the House of Saxe-Coburg) for what Englishmen like Cromwell did.  However, as long as they sit at the top of that particular pile, they are responsible for the actions of the pile.

marley says:

06:55pm | 27/04/11

@James - no, your beef is with the people who made the decisions and who should be held accountable.  In an absolute monarchy, blame the monarch.  But in a constitutional monarchy, blame the decision-makers.  I don’t hold Lizzie responsible for mandatory detention, and I doubt that you do, so I don’t quite see the difference.

And think of the monarchy, as I do, as a bunch of captives held in their golden cage - would you really want to be William, or even more, Charles, constrained by a millennium of history and protocol, and never able to “fly free?”

Anyway, the whole point of democracy is that, when push comes to shove, it’s the people that are at the “top of the pile.”

Dash says:

10:24am | 27/04/11

Bloody hell nossy, you just made sense!

Ando says:

03:01pm | 27/04/11

John B,

Thats a pretty dopey protest considering money will continue to be wasted until Australia is a Republic.

AdamC says:

09:12am | 27/04/11

But Timmy, Davo’s point is that he’s, you know, a fair dinkum, true blue ‘Strayan. Just like you and I, mate. Eh? It’s them posh monarchists that don’t understand the typical Aussie battler.

Can’t you just feel the authenticity?

“I am so sick of republicans like you pushing their own inferiority complexes on everyone else.”

Spot on, TimB. I second that.

James1 says:

10:09am | 27/04/11

In the interests of discussion, can you show me a tangible benefit of having a foreign country’s royal family as our own?

Can you demonstrate why holding on to the crown is not also meaningless symbolism for insecure idiots, especially considering, as Erick points our above (and thank Christ for it, given what they did to Ireland), the British crown has no actual role to play in Australian government?

So, tangible benefits.  Go.

L. says:

10:19am | 27/04/11

“So, tangible benefits.  Go.”

One of the most stable governments on the planet..

Agree..?

James1 says:

10:35am | 27/04/11

Can you provide me with a causal link between our stability and the British crown, L?  The US has seen remarkable political stability since ditching the British crown 230-odd years ago.

Also, I don’t think you can honestly claim that our current government is stable…

Hamish says:

11:17am | 27/04/11

James1, it is the advantage of having a responsible, as opposed to representative, head of state. How long would it take for an elected head of state to start using their position for political purposes? What would happen if the elected president and the parliament disagreed? Who would have the executive power? If we are just going to get parliament to appoint a president in a jobs for the boys type scenario, how exactly is that any different from the current GG system?

If a system ain’t broke, indeed it functions extremely well, why change it? Just because some people get a bit cultural cringy about having a non-Aussie head of state?

Hamish says:

11:26am | 27/04/11

The US wasn’t that stable from 1862-1865. In fact, it was pretty bloody unstable I would have thought.

James1 says:

11:28am | 27/04/11

Those are not tangible benefits as such Hamish.  They are supposed benefits based on a comparison with proposed future models which do not currently exist.

While I agree that we would derive no benefit from change (despite the strong feelings of people like me), it is very hard to show how exactly the current system is superior, and what tangible benefits it currently provides.  The emotions behind both the republican and the monarchist positions are almost identical.

TimB says:

11:35am | 27/04/11

I agree James, I can’t give you an answer to that question. There are no tangible benefits we get from keeping the crown. But the thing is, we don’t actually have to *do* anything in order to keep it. Only if the situation was reversed, would your point be meaningful. Observe:

In our bizzarro world scenario, the Australian Republic is currently debating if we should become a constitutional monarchy, with all the meaningless symbolism that it entails.
And in that alternate universe, Bizarro-TimB is arguing that we should keep the Republic, because switching to a monarchy would be engaging in a pointless excersise that merely involves changing the stationary & giving people a crown to fawn over.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating that we keep the Monarchy out of any deep fondness for Queen Liz or anything like that. The fact of the matter is, I simply cannot see the point. That’s why I’m happy to leave the status quo as it is. I feel we can focus the nation’s attention on more pressing issues.

Hamish says:

11:44am | 27/04/11

James1, what sort of tangible benefits are you after? Constitutional monarchies have a much greater record of success than republics. What more do you want? The history of commonwealth states who have become republics does not make for happy reading. Sure we don’t get a direct benefit for remaining a monarchy, but in a risk versus reward sense we gain nothing from becoming a republc except a greater risk of political instability.

James1 says:

11:48am | 27/04/11

Point taken on the US Civil War, but they have still had a period of stability that has lasted longer than Australia has existed as a nation.  Also, it began in 1861.

James1 says:

12:10pm | 27/04/11

Hamish, all I want is the type of recognition that TimB undergoes.  That is, that it is no more logical to argue for a constitutional monarchy based on tangible benefits than it is to argue for a republic, or for Plato’s republic for that matter.  And furthermore, that having a royal family offers no tangible benefits at all, and is in no way superior to a republican system.

Both positions are emotive at base, and are not backed up by any empirical analysis.  Keeping what we have because changing it will offer no tangible benefit, and will likely cost a tonne of cash that we don’t have, is the only logical argument in favour of the current arrangement.

That is why I don’t support the British crown, and I hate the fact that its head is our nominal head of state, but I would still not do anything about it.

Hamish says:

12:33pm | 27/04/11

Well James 1, your conclusion is very similar to mine. However, I believe there is plenty of evidence to suggest constitutional monarchy is the most effective political system. As TimB argues, if we were a republic and that was working fine, I probably wouldn’t be in favour of changing to a constitutional monarchy, although I’d possibly be more likely to than I do in the current situation.

AdamC says:

02:21pm | 27/04/11

Actually, I am a bit of a royalist, and see virtue in having someone at the dizzy, relatively powerless peak of our constitutional pyramid who is a little more special than the rest of us. Now, it would probably be best if we could have an Australian monarchy but, for very good, very valid historical reasons, the British Crown has been the lynchpin of our constitution and, until recently, the focus of our national unity.

Royalty can help put the ambitions of common politicians in their place. For example, it is no surprise that the UK has avoided autocracy and tyranny since the restoration. A revered monarch is an effective check on the personality cult of charismatic and autocratically-mindec political leaders. (And was, quite literally, so in the case of Gough Whitlam.)

James1 says:

02:43pm | 27/04/11

Hamish, there have been enough constitutional monarchies, and indeed there are enough republics, to prove whatever you like about either.

In the real world, political theory rarely holds true in practice, and the underlying political conditions have far more impact on the functioning of political systems than do the structure they take.  As such, you can find incredibly stable constitutional monarchies, republics, autocracies and authoritarian states, and you can find non-functional versions of the same.

Furthermore, while some may be better in some circumstances than others, it is not possible to predict the behaviour or functioning of a state based simply on its political structures and constitutional status.

Ando says:

03:14pm | 27/04/11

Hamish,
“The history of commonwealth states who have become republics does not make for happy reading’  thats probably because those particular nations were not ready to go it alone and probably had many more issues than the changing of a figurehead. What do you honestly think would happen to Australia if we became a Republic.

L. says:

03:48pm | 27/04/11

“What do you honestly think would happen to Australia if we became a Republic. “

Nothing.. nothing at all. Which begs the question, why bother?

Ando says:

01:45pm | 28/04/11

L.
Then reply to Hamish, he’s the one comparing us to failed republics

Dash says:

09:50am | 27/04/11

Yes I agree this is the issue. But then again, this is a bigger departure from what we have! The GG is elected by the parliament. The minamilist position would be for the President to be elected in exactly the same way! To have presidential elections would be a gross waste of taxpayers money, and I’d hate to see Ray Martin or Shane Warne as president that’s crazy! And it has the potential to destablise the current position (this joke of a government and it’s green deals aside that is).

Tom says:

10:09am | 27/04/11

Thanks Hughie, Your url analysis is cogent and authoratitive. It completely contradicts the sad, vapid efforts of the author to re-write history. Even allowing for the fact that he is a a journo, this chatterer “over-reached” himself rather badly.

Dave-o says:

05:24pm | 27/04/11

Cogent and authoritative?  Hardly, applying the same analysis ever single Labor government elected is inner-city elite.

Tom says:

10:51am | 28/04/11

OK, Dave-o, how about “ubiquitous and authoritative”?

hughie says:

02:19pm | 28/04/11

Dave-o the article highlights the fact that a number of inner-metropolitan Liberal seats (Higgins, North Sydney) voted Yes, whereas safe Labor outer-metropolitan seats (Wakefield, Blaxland) voted No.

Regardless of party, Mackerras makes the point the Yes vote was an inner-metropolitan phenomenon and that the genus republican voter was high income, tertiary educated living close to a CBD.

jag says:

08:50am | 27/04/11

“The referendum result, however, was one in which the ‘Yes’ vote was essentially an inner metropolitan phenomenon with a link to high socio-economic status.”

I guess they must be living on the same street then.

Seano says:

01:20pm | 27/04/11

Your comment makes no sense. The “yes” vote was deliberately split on model in a clever move to dilute the Republican vote on preference.

As for Jones you guess wrong, the only way that bloke would see struggle street would be if his driver slowed down and pointed to it in the distance.

marley says:

09:13am | 27/04/11

Bennymac - whether we become a republic or whether we don’t, we are still going to have to deal with the issues of India and China, and you can bet your boots that the British aren’t going to try to take on either on our behalf.  Britain is not security blanket.  Our only security blanket is the network of alliances we have with all western powers, of which Britain is by no means the most important.

JohnB says:

09:19am | 27/04/11

Agree entirely, during the republic debate all those years ago no one else was questioning this.

Imagine the quality of President, Australian voters would elect?

Steve says:

01:32pm | 27/04/11

We share the same person as head of state in the same way a person can be director of 2 companies. As a legal entity the Queen of Australia is seperate to Queen of England. It is the legal entity that is impotant not the individual.

John A Neve says:

04:50pm | 27/04/11

Max,

You talk of “supreme Executive power”, have you ever thought what would have happened if the Whitlam government had ignored the GG?

The only real power in a democracy is the people, the only other power is the army. Should the PM and the proposed President be opposed, any decision would fall back on the people and the army.
There is no need for a “Head of State”, other than James1’s “every one else has one”.

Peter says:

09:03am | 27/04/11

You sound unsure Seanr ‘I don’t think becoming a republic will make too much a difference’. Well if you are uncertain why stick your head in the noose. Symbolic you say - but what is hidden behind the symbol that is what should be the real substance of the discussion and as the article confirms - supporters do not want to discuss the real changest? Bit like politicians, muddy the water to hide what they are up to.

Seanr says:

09:57am | 27/04/11

I’m not uncertain Peter, I said I don’t think it will make much difference to the majority, it’s doesn’t seem to be a big issue.

Whilst I’m not a constitutional expert a change to a republic shouldn’t dramatically change the running of the country.

Also I was bitterly disappointed with the no vote at the referendum, when Howard muddied the waters terribly (one of my few critiscism of him).

John A Neve says:

11:32am | 27/04/11

Seanr,
There is much talk on this site about a “Head of State”, so please tell me why we need such a beast?

We have for all pratical purposes a “Head of State” in our PM, if not liked the position can be refilled every three years or so. Surely a duplicate “Head of State” (President) can do nothing the PM can’t do?

James1 says:

02:06pm | 27/04/11

John the PM is the head of government.  That is, in our system at least, different to the head of state.

John A Neve says:

02:29pm | 27/04/11

James1,
I know what the PM is, what I asked is why do we need a “Head of State”?

James1 says:

03:19pm | 27/04/11

John, a head of state is just like an iPhone.  You get one because everyone else has one.

John A Neve says:

03:36pm | 27/04/11

James1,

Thank you, you have made my day. Once again Australia does it because every one else does it. Like the Lemmings, we follow the leader over the cliff.
Now the question is; will we grow up as a nation before we die?

Max Redlands says:

04:03pm | 27/04/11

John Neve - you need a head of state because someone must hold supreme Executive power.

The PM is the head of the Legislative branch of government

James1 says:

04:23pm | 27/04/11

Max, in our Westminster system the executive is drawn from the legislature.  Our head of government is thus both the leader of the party which forms a majority in the lower house of the legislature and the head of the executive arm of government.  Our head of state (the Queen, and her representative the GG) actually does not exercise any power as such.

You are thinking of the US system, where the president is both head of government and head of state, and where the executive is not drawn from the legislature, and indeed sits above it. 

John, no worries at all.  Glad I could help.

Max Redlands says:

07:41pm | 27/04/11

Sorry James1 that’s wrong. GG is the of the holder of supreme executive the prime Minister is just that :merely a minister .

By giving the required assent the laws as promulgated by parliament are made into law by the GG. They are executed and it is by the executive branch of Government that(i.e. what was once referred to as the public service) they are administered.

It is another paradox of the system.While we talk of the separation of powers, through the Westminster concept of responsible government the Legislature and the Executive are, in fact and practice, connected by the Ministers of the Crown (of which the PM is one).

You should read some more or at least have a look at The Yes (Prime) Minister tapes

Hamish says:

11:32am | 27/04/11

Um Lucy, are you sure the bickering wasn’t caused by actual divisions between republicans as to how a president should be appointed? Do you favour direct election or parliament appointment or something else? It’s not just a choice between monarchy and republic, it’s a choice between our current system and a number of republican models.

TChong says:

10:43am | 27/04/11

MarK , what do I do for my fellow man?
Probaly no more , or less than you.
But I do read what you say, without putting the boot in as often as I could, so that should get me a few kudos somewhere. 
But you’re correct.
The royals are great novelties, tourist attraction.
Much the same as the Piltdown man, and considering their history - Murderous warfare between Tudors, Lancasters, Stewarts,William of Orange, Hanoverian George (56th in line!!!!) etc, the old Piltdown man is probaly the more authentic.

MarK says:

12:09pm | 27/04/11

Wrong Mark wrong thread but I agree and am interested in your answer.

What do Presidents do for their fellow man that Royals don’t?

The war thing is a bit off too. I am sure American presidents have declared a few. I seem to recall an American civil war for example.

Do tell. What do presidents or politburo leaders have over royalty and such.

Pray tell.

St. Michael says:

01:44pm | 27/04/11

@ MarK: Minor pedantic note, but the US Constitution says that the US Congress declares war, not the President.  And Congress has never actually declared war against a country since roughly 1945.  It’s a point glossed over by most US administrations.  Me, I think the US model of Presidency is as hilarious, if not moreso, than the monarchy.

MarK says:

03:01pm | 27/04/11

Pedantic is fine Michael

I just wish TC would answer the question….should be fun.

Also TC don’t hold back son. Put the boot in. Come on have a crack.

James1 says:

05:09pm | 27/04/11

I have one thing MarK.  Presidents are often elected, whereas monarchs are never elected.  In that sense, presidents (but not politburos) are 100% better democratically, given that no monarch has ever been elected, but quite a few (although far from all) presidents have been.

That’s something.

Buster says:

05:35pm | 27/04/11

Well smart ass how about this for a start.
A presidential veto is the rejection of a bill passed by the majority votes of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Presidents can veto bills that are presented to them to sign into law. Do Monarchs sign bills into law? Do Monarchs have the right to veto bills?

Mark says:

10:03am | 27/04/11

Our royal family raises millions for charity every year. The Queen alone is patron of some 400 charitys. Prince Williams wedding will result in millions going towards charitys.

Tell me what do you do for your fellow man?

Even better tell me what the worlds political Presidents do for their fellow man?

Sparky says:

01:27pm | 28/04/11

How many charities is Ronald McDonald patron of?

marley says:

09:21am | 27/04/11

Which republics work?  Switzerland, Austria, Germany to name but three.  All stable, prosperous, democratic countries.

And while I take your point about our current political leaders exercising final authority, is a system which allows the likes of John Kerr to do so, really any better?

AdamC says:

09:45am | 27/04/11

Germany? Is that a joke?

KH says:

11:19am | 27/04/11

A reminder that Germany didn’t exist before 1891.  There have been some issues - the monarch for one (now gone), the political climate of the early 20th century in Europe (there were a lot of big ideas around - facism and communism were rife on the Continent), but they have settled down into what is a very successful republic.  Show me a country that hasn’t had problems in its early years of existence?  I would consider being a dumping ground for convicts and issues around the native people here problems, by the way - before anyone jumps in to claim Australia has been problem free…..............

marley says:

11:28am | 27/04/11

@AdamC - you have a problem with the modern Germany and its modern constitution?  We’re not talking about the Weimar Constitution that allowed Hitler to subvert democracy, but a much more robust constitution with far better checks and balances.  Germany has had 60 plus years of parliamentary democracy under its terms, without a hitch.  The system allows for proportional representation, a parliament not too dissimilar to our own, and a president who has limited powers, rather like the GG, and who is elected by a combination of members of parliament and representatives of the German states.  So, what’s your issue with that model?

AdamC says:

01:02pm | 27/04/11

Marley, the current German system seems to operate reasonably well, but has only encompassed all of Germany since 1990. Australia’s system has persisted, consistently liberally and democratically, for over 100 years.

In that time, Germany has had a number of republics and one empire. It even had two different republics ruling it for many years. It is an uttrely absurd example of supposed republican stability.

Ando says:

03:34pm | 27/04/11

Adam C what is utterly absurd is that u think those countries failed simply because they were republics

AdamC says:

04:31pm | 27/04/11

Ando, wouldn’t you prefer having one system of democratic government over 110 years than five systems, of varying ideological colour and general effectiveness?

James1 says:

05:05pm | 27/04/11

Adam, I think Ando’s question was more about why you think that Germany being a republic at several points along that timeline in any way contributed to its periodic dysfunction.

I think it was more to do with German political culture than it was to do with the fact that after WWI they did without the Kaiser and opted for a republic rather than a constitutional monarchy.  Do you honestly think that Kaiser Wilhelm II would have opposed Hitler in a way that President Hindenburg didn’t?

marley says:

07:06pm | 27/04/11

AdamC - the current German constitution has been in place since 1949.  The absorption of the former East Germany didn’t change the principles that have governed the country in any major way.  And their current constitution addressed the failings of the Weimar model, which gave too much power to the President and to splinter groups.

So, I ask again, what is your issue with the German constitution and system of government?  It seems to me a model of effective, democratic government which gives voice to minorities without being subverted by them.  And I happen to like the way they choose their president.

fairsfair says:

09:22am | 27/04/11

Very true. I have no opinion until the model has been agreed on. There is no point asking people if they want a republic because most people have no idea what that actually means. How will it change things? Will we take on the Irish model? No thanks - what a waste of time and money. Will we take on the US model, no thanks - it is just sensationalised crap.

I am the type of person that the republicans should be trying to court - but when the author spends his opportunity telling me about the labels and the us vs them crap that goes on - no wonder people don’t want to replace the monarch. At least they are too far away to annoy with their pretentiousness.

AdamC says:

09:36am | 27/04/11

Exactly, Fairs. All this BS about who is less of an elitist grandee shows how empty the debate has become. Republicans need to develop a model that gets the people interested. Desperately hoping that the punters will warm to a republic generally when Bonnie Prince Charlie places his derriere on the throne is poinltess unless the republicans are ready to push the ‘Go’ button on a united campaign to convince the undecideds.

Seanr says:

10:20am | 27/04/11

I’m a republican and whilst I thought David had some good points around why republicans want a republic, the tone of the piece around elites v normal Aussies isn’t right.
In my mind the 1999 referendum should have had the following two questions:
1. Do you want Australia to be a republic or a monarchy?
2. What form of government would you prefer..(then list the options) incl:
- constitutional monarchy
- directly elected president
- popularly elected president etc etc

The ARM needs to do a better job of explaining these two questions.

Hamish says:

11:53am | 27/04/11

You know someone’s elitist when they try and argue they’re not. You never saw JWH or Hawke say ‘I’m not elitist’, did you? Republicanism is just one of the many irrelevant totems our cultural betters are obsessed with. For real people this is so much of a non-issue it’s not funny.

fairsfair says:

01:04pm | 27/04/11

Check out the Author’s backlogue on The Punch. Most replublic content is in response to the royals doing something. Visiting, getting engaged etc. I see no article presented as what it would mean for the Republic of Australia rather it is all those useless royals kind of thing.

I would love to see a Punch Counterpunch on this without criticism of either side. Simply a pros and cons presentation of both sides of the coin.

Seanr says:

01:44pm | 27/04/11

I hope I don’t have to wait 25 years Ian

fairsfair says:

10:40am | 27/04/11

Fair point Dash. Lets put ourselves in this situation with the President elect as per the 1999 model….......... actually lets not that is scary.

iansand says:

11:01am | 27/04/11

An elected President was not the 1999 model.  That was a scaremongering red herring promoted by the monarchists.  The 1999 model was an appointed President, in much the same way as the GG is currently appointed.  It was a minimalist change.

MarK says:

12:02pm | 27/04/11

“..scaremongering red herring…”

Yes yes. I see your point. Damn them elitists.

“It was a minimalist change. “

The whole thing?

If it is so minimalist why bother?

Hamsih says:

03:46pm | 27/04/11

Beacuse it’s ‘symbolic’ MarK. For someone who posts so often on The Punch, I’m surprised you haven’t realised that lefties prefer symbolism to, you know, results. I guess Perse is just waiting to see what the ALP media release says about a republic before commenting on this one.

MarK says:

05:00pm | 27/04/11

Oh thanks Hamish.

Gosh how silly of me.

Symbolism. Goddam it. It always gets me.

That makes all the difference then.

Shit lets have 2 republics. If 1 republic is good 2 must be super awesome and stuff.

Quick we can fit it in after we apologise to some ethnic minority or special interest group for something someone thinks we did to them at some point in the past or the future or in the now. As long as it has “the vibe” it must be a winner.

Susan says:

01:09pm | 27/04/11

You accuse republicans of being ignorant, yet you claim we have an Australian Head of State?

“Australia’s formal name is the Commonwealth of Australia. The form of government used in Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy – ‘Constitutional’ because the powers and procedures of the Australian Government are defined by a written constitution, and ‘Monarchy’ because Australia’s Head of State is Queen Elizabeth II.” 

http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-government

michael j says:

12:07pm | 27/04/11

@john -sorry mate but nationalism is a dead horse it is not much different then what we have and will only contribute to more deaths in the Great Famine Wars to come,the sooner we get a One World Government based on a Socialist principle the sooner the earth will be saved for the future,,
Of course Nationalism, Capitalism,and CULTral-Heresy will be gone along with outdated Religion that will dwindle out,,,
I see it as the only possible outcome for The Great Famine Wars of 40/50   Although a One World Government installed by Marshall Law is the other side of the coin,,

John says:

01:53pm | 27/04/11

If you think the end of capitalism will lead to International socialism you have another thing coming. You might have National Socialism, But International Socialism will be despised in Europe. Just look at Multiculturalism which is International Socialism, is already failing in the WEST. The Far-Right are gaining ground already. The west will not integrate with the rest of the world(like the International Marxist want it to). Future for Europe is either Nationalist Christian Socialism or National Christian Capitalism. Nothing like Soviet Union or the NAZI’s. If the International Socialists want their way, it will lead to war with Nationalist Christian Socialists/capitalists who will launch a crusade at the International Socialists. I bet you these International Socialists would call in China to invade Europe for their cause! If this happens a call for a crusade against communism will have to be declared.

michael j says:

03:57pm | 27/04/11

@John-With 4 billion dead from the Great Famine and maybe another
1 billion dead from the various wars and skirmishes it will cause,,
i see the capitalist war machine putting the Planet under Marshall Law or the one world government based on social principles,,,indeed i see
Multiculturalism as rather divisive and no need for any CULTural-Heresy
or any organised Ancient Religion, that should just be left to dwindle out on its own,,you certainly have painted the right scenario for a Global
catastrophe , with the unrest in the middle east mainly over food ? A.T.M.
and Africa doing it’s usual kill for kill i’ll get you,, with 1 person dying from starvation every 3 1/2 seconds today, and the Great Famine expected to
hit in 2048 China and India will have rising unrest probably leading to Civil wars ,Chuck in that climate change thing and it looks like a system will have to rise from the ashes,,
Just for the record ,no more referendums on the REPUBLIC do it like
John Wayne did in the ALAMO no Lawyer’s,,,,,,,,,,

michael j says:

05:13pm | 27/04/11

@michael-1 dead every 3 1/2 seconds= 9,000,000 a year roughly
climate change deaths =200,000 a year 2005 figures
doesn’t seem to add up,,
REPUBLIC that sure sounds purdy,JOHN WAYNE,,,

James1 says:

10:58am | 27/04/11

Despite my ill-feelings towards the British crown, that is the reason I would actually support the current status quo.  There really is no strong argument for change, and despite the strong feelings of a minority like myself, there seems little that argues for such a change at present that is not emotive or personal at base.

See Mark?  One can hate the British crown as well as accepting that it is no more or less harmful than a republican system.

DragonLass says:

11:56am | 27/04/11

The royal wedding is not costing the british economy 7.6 billion.
The wedding is being paid for by the royal family, and even some by the Middletons themselves.
The only real thing being paid for by the public is the security around the event, which yes will run to some millions of pounds.
But in return the stimulus to the british economy will return the expenditure with interest.

Dieter Moeckel says:

12:55pm | 27/04/11

The British government declared aholiday for the 29th whohc will cost the British economy $190 billion ofset by about $2.3 billion in tourist and merchandising income.
The wedding breakfast will be split between the Windsors and the Middletons, but the military parade and the security will cost more than the securoity for the last G20 meeting.
Get a grip DragonLass and read a few newspapers.

Rob says:

01:33pm | 27/04/11

But it’s still a politician. This is why constitutional monarchy works—you have someone entirely out of the equation who can step in and stop the really bad and scary stuff—like Gough Whitlam—from flourishing. When it’s just another elected official in that role… it’s just another elected official.

jg says:

01:36pm | 27/04/11

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you exhibit A as to why Australia should remain a constitutional monarchy.

darragh scully says:

04:14pm | 27/04/11

But if we have it our way its you whom will be the exhibit.

BiG TeD says:

05:31pm | 27/04/11

Darrgah - are you still out of a job, son?
MacArthur was from Scottish stock, not squalid Eireans.  You need to be getting your facts right, son.  You’re out of your league.

Who needs a civil war - get back to Ireland and you can blow up a policeman for being, we ll a policeman.  You’d like that Darragh.

Darragh Scully says:

06:42pm | 27/04/11

Yep. Unemployed like a Mofo.
Got an interview though at the Concrete Factory.
You know personally I dont think blowing up police men is a great Idea. I am a qualified lab technician however and have considered moving to the Ukraine to make weapons of mass destruction for the Russian Maffia, NOT. lol.
I consider my self above Terrorism, its like fucking for virginity (murphys law of combat).

This debate about McArthur is contentious.
http://www.dalcassiansept.com/pedigrees/dalcassian.htm
A list of Dalcassian Tribes people. Note the McArthurs among other great names including my own. And he was of the 69th Infantry the same as was Wild Bill Donovan the Pioneer of the CIA from the OSS. The 69th infantry my friend. Sounds a bit rude doesnt it. Im a 69er to. He served in the 69th in France, so its no wonder they had the honor of taking Saipan with the Wind Talkers, right before we fried them bigtime hehe. And even if he was Scottish or Even Scots Irish he described us Fighting Irish as the greatest fighting force to ever live.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/69th_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)

General Douglas MacArthur gave the following address to members and veterans of the 69th at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City via short-wave radio from Manila in the Philippines, on January 24, 1940:

No greater fighting regiment has ever existed than the One Hundred and Sixty-fifth Infantry of the Rainbow Division, formed from the old Sixty-ninth Regiment of New York. I cannot tell you how real and how sincere a pleasure I feel tonight in once more addressing the members of that famous unit. You need no eulogy from me or from any other man. You have written your own history and written it in red on your enemies’ breast, but when I think of your patience under adversity, your courage under fire, and your modesty in victory, I am filled with an emotion of admiration I cannot express. You have carved your own statue upon the hearts of your people, you have built your own monument in the memory of your compatriots

Denial is Futile.

Are you seriously going to continue to support NINA after that you bastard.
Its probably the most strong comeback any irish person can bring in the face of the Monarchy and its Limey slimeballs.

there comming to take me away ha ha he he ha ha he

marley says:

11:31am | 27/04/11

I’m not arguing most of your points, but why do you think it will cost us zillions?  I hear that argument a lot, but I don’t see why there needs to be significantly more expense than we already have with the GG and occasional royal visits.  It would certainly cost us more if we insisted on direction, American style presidential elections every four years, but we don’t have to adopt that model.

Darragh Scully says:

11:56am | 27/04/11

Yeah if it wasnt for the bog Irish of the YD the Americal Division of Boston, the Irish General Douglas McArthur, or the 69th Infantry on Saipan and their Irish Republican Brotherhood traditions kept alive since Gettysburg, and the likes of John Barry youd be speaking Japanese and living on rashions. You ungratefull Inbreed.
Us Aussies are alot smarter than you think.
And Irish is the second largest ethnicity in Australia.
I guess turning this situation on the Irish is just typical of a Limey wannabe who cant even get a visa to work in his country of choice.
Believe me when the battle lines are drawn there will be alot of expats on our Republic side gunning for your Royal Ass, you can believe that.
Fuck the Queen, in the ass.

jeffb says:

12:27pm | 27/04/11

Wazza, why do we have to emulate anyone? The whole point of becoming a Republic is to set our own path, make our own future.

The Monarchy is irrelevant to modern Australia, it is a dead limb that needs to be cut off.

Dieter Moeckel says:

12:51pm | 27/04/11

Zimbabwe, Indonesia, Libya - eh what about France, Germany, Italy, Spain, USA etc.

Mugabe, Marcos, Gadhafi - eh what about Licoln, Clinton, Obama, Merkel etc.

Give us a break - there are more successful democratic republics than there are successful monarchies - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman,

Darragh Scully says:

05:03pm | 27/04/11

I guess some real thought is needed into the constitution etc. Copying of a model from the USA or any other said failed state (lol the USA is a failed state my ass lmao) would be a disaster. Its about Representation of the People and whats in the Best intrests of the People. Thats why we have the power to revoke citizenship of anyone though I am sure its not a restrospective act. More to the point its if its not in the intrests of Australia and this encompases certain offences against Australia (commonwealth of, being our states and territories), including Bribing a federal officer, or Defrauding the Commonwealth. Can we please issue a warrant then for these Monarchists whom insult sult us so, as the Monarchy is the Biggest Fruad in Australia. 

An Island can not rule a nation.

@Dieter why is that you didnt include Portugal and Ireland in that little speil? Is the USA a failed state? And believe it or not the UK is so over run with Illegal Immigrants whom are revolting that they may succeed where Hitler failed. Sad really.

Oh wait a minute, the theme is that all these Nations rebelled against the Empire and some of them are utterly fucked. (Id put a billion zimbabwe dollars on that to).

For the record. I think the fact that our USA economy is inveting 6.5 Trillion Bucks a year Internationally, is a really good starting point to leave them out of your equation. Trust me this Monarchy crap is front just like the Front the UK put up in ww2 prior to Churchill, (not the queen) getting on the blowwer to the US to beg for Destroyers (like he asked 50 times before he got them). Then came lendlease. Mind you the UK are still paying that off. Ok so they had the Great Depression and people were calling them a failed state back then. The power of the USA is much greater today, Militarally, Economically, and they have 6.5 trillion dollars a year to keep the Allies zer happy mein freund. Go Figure. Thats the reality here. What I love the most about them is that they have such power and dont use it to pick on defenceless women, and mop up all these other feeble nations that threaten them daily.

Ill never get sick of defending them either. I luv the USA.

St. Michael says:

05:41pm | 27/04/11

@ Darragh: speaking of World War 2, did you realise your country’s level of deficit spending is at World War 2 levels without a world war to fight?

What’s up with that?

Darragh Scully says:

06:26pm | 27/04/11

No, I wasnt aware of that. But last time I checked the boys are experiencing the quitest period in Afghanistan since arriving.
All of that could be subject to change with the start of Summer and the escape of 500 Taliban. Hoa, just imagine what the cost will be in 10 more years time. Then in a Hundred years which is what the Millitants are prommising.

Incidently there was a great show on tv just yesterday, ABC or SBS cant remember with another brilliant insight into the future of warfare. Robots. Forget women, Robots is the word.

Which country do you think I am from. Ill give you a hint. I am an Aussie.
I love Australia. Id be in Afghanistan now if it wasnt for ADHD. Mind you they said I can reapply if I stay of the Dexies for year and get proof of that from my Doc. Im an unemployed labortory technician with a crappy work history (lack of experience they call it), a certificate 4 of laboratory techniques and a BA of Arts. Thats why I have time to answer your question. I just happen to keep my appointments though and I am on seek every day looking. I was born in Ireland though. And I object to being refered to as Bog Irish. We (the Irish) endured the Absentee Landlords, the potatoe blight and the executions of our republican leaders such as O’Connell, by the UK . I am pretty sure that the Irish are having some financial trouble but I am not sure its related to defence. Im pretty sure my home country, Australia with our professional and small force.

Oh you must mean the USA. God damn it and adding Libya to the bill isint doing the States much good. Lets see though we may be about to add Syria to list. But last time I checked that they cant make eneough weapons by themselves and they have a military budget that is 10 times bigger than the UK’s and the other 9 next nations put together. Lets see 122 Raptors with AMRAMS. And a company my father used to work for down in Concorde has just successfully the EMALS system for the New Gerry Ford Aircraft Carrier and its awesome man. Its a pitty that the Chineese developed a Carrier Killer missile though because it means we now have to hope the USA gets more Submarines first, but yeah Ive got the full dvd set of Future Weapons, season 1 and 2. And I am very confident in the new range Smiths Detection is promoting including the sabre 4000 and the anti bio warfare technology such as the cephied. And the recent attempted shut down failed but believe it or not there are cuts to many other areas before the Millitary is going to get any Substantial weaknesses. So sleep easy mate. And its still raining in england.

I personally think its the end of the Lakers run and should things go well I am hoping to go see the Celtics win the NBL this year. I think east v west is going to be Celtics v Dallas. go Celtics. If they make the finals Im heading to Charles Town for the celebrations, Shaq and all baby.

St. Michael says:

12:20am | 28/04/11

@ Darragh Scully:

“Id be in Afghanistan now if it wasnt for ADHD. Mind you they said I can reapply if I stay of the Dexies for year and get proof of that from my Doc.”

I have never been so thankful for the exacting entry standards of the ADF.

Steve Putnam says:

02:44am | 28/04/11

@Darragh Scully McArthur was born in Little Rock Arkansas, the grandson of a Scottish immigrant so how is he “bog Irish” as you claim? Also the man most responsible for winning the war in the Pacific was Admiral Chester Nimitz—even a cursory glance at the history of the second world war would tell you that. By the time the battle of Saipan was fought the Japanese were on the run with no chance of invading Australia. Additionally McArthur’s role in New Guinea wasn’t an un-mitigated success; he was defeated at Buna Gona and though it was commendable that he sought to promote Australian generals his choice of Blamey was hardly an inspired one.
There are many important reasons why Australia should become a republic but ancient Irish grievances are not among them. Attempts at re-writing history and this splenetic airing of views such as yours is counter-productive to the cause as events proved at the last referendum (or didn’t you take part in it?).
Lastly mate could you make up your mind are you Irish, American or Australian?

Darragh Scully says:

11:03am | 28/04/11

Nimitz was a naval commander. I could really care less about the views of other people, such as the English or Canadians etc when it comes to Irish Achievements. As far as I am concerned McArthur is from the Irish Tribe of Cas. Lots of Irish people emigrate to Scotland.

As for your views on McArthur I am sure they are ethnocentrically geared towards the Myth that Great Britian beat the Japs. I would also like to point out that the Fighting Irish are a major contigent of the US military to me, however the Cavalry, Rangers, Navy, Marines, Special Forces and Airforce combined with the Signals and Logistics groups are overall the reason for the Success of WW2 but why would I need to mention that if all I am doing is using those Examples because the fact remains, the UK is shit with just 9 ships defending its coast where as the USA has a global expeditionary force which includes 250 Ships and thats just in the Japanese region and its getting bigger and better all the time and they are the reason Indonesia and China etc dont take such advantage of us, And may I just add England or anyone else in the Commonwealth of Nations could do such a good Job of defending your Intrests, and has a whole lot more to do with the Irish than you give us credit for and even though you now know that you still think the UK is better. Do the bloody Maths, credit where credit is due. Or perhaps you want to fight about it which if you ask me is Fine.

Darragh Scully says:

11:03am | 28/04/11

Nimitz was a naval commander. I could really care less about the views of other people, such as the English or Canadians etc when it comes to Irish Achievements. As far as I am concerned McArthur is from the Irish Tribe of Cas. Lots of Irish people emigrate to Scotland.

As for your views on McArthur I am sure they are ethnocentrically geared towards the Myth that Great Britian beat the Japs. I would also like to point out that the Fighting Irish are a major contigent of the US military to me, however the Cavalry, Rangers, Navy, Marines, Special Forces and Airforce combined with the Signals and Logistics groups are overall the reason for the Success of WW2 but why would I need to mention that if all I am doing is using those Examples because the fact remains, the UK is shit with just 9 ships defending its coast where as the USA has a global expeditionary force which includes 250 Ships and thats just in the Japanese region and its getting bigger and better all the time and they are the reason Indonesia and China etc dont take such advantage of us, And may I just add England or anyone else in the Commonwealth of Nations could do such a good Job of defending your Intrests, and has a whole lot more to do with the Irish than you give us credit for and even though you now know that you still think the UK is better. Do the bloody Maths, credit where credit is due. Or perhaps you want to fight about it which if you ask me is Fine.

Darragh Scully says:

11:06am | 28/04/11

Irish Born, Australian Citizen with a gread passion for the United States, and not much Interest in the UK.

And you before you were even imagined we were at Cremona.

Steve Putnam says:

06:56pm | 28/04/11

@Darragh Scully As I have said previously the war in the Pacific was won in the main by the US navy under the command of Admiral Nimitz; I didn’t mention the Brits so don’t put words in my mouth. Likewise Australia was saved from Japanese invasion by the US navy.  Why don’t you do yourself a favour and google” Coral Sea ” or “Midway”?
Somewhere in one of your incoherent rambles you object to being called “bog Irish”, yet you persist (inaccurately) in referring to McArthur in those terms. Don’t you you think that’s being a little inconsistent? All you’re doing is muddying the waters on this issue of the republic so just butt out yank. Keep your schitzophrenic nationalistic fantasies for your grandchildren.

Darragh Scully says:

09:23pm | 28/04/11

Yeah so Its good that I am acctually a living relative of John Barry isint it.
Pity I wasnt born there though and I definatley am not American. I have a feeling they wouldnt even let me in the country.

Though as it turns out my old lady told me about her uncle who was president of the IRB in 1916 and thats when I first learned about the 69ers whom are the original faction of the IRB in America whom begun their existence training to kill Limeys like you and that got me into studying history, and then I learned about Scully International in Boston http://www.scully.com/si_index.html who was the Inventor of the First Concrete truck revolutionzing Boston, as the built Logan Airport where the Twin Towers attack was launched from as it happens, through the Company Boston Sand and Gravel that featured in the recent film The Town with Ben Affleck in it whos character Doug McRay worked at, in Charles town where they do alot of bank robbers….(breath) and then I learned all about the 69th Infantry who not only took Lepzig in Germany but were Pivotal and crucial to the Sacking of Saipan while the turkey run was on with the navy which was awesome, though it wasnt just the 69ers who went up the middle and through the tough mountain terrain, it was also the second and fourth marine battalions whom went around the island beaches and thought we Irish were a bit slow so fuckem anyway, but I ended up joining Scully pages on face book and then I learned that even though John Barry never had kids he did have sisters and they married into the Scully Fammily which led to one of my Cousins over there bragging about the fact that he is directly descended from John Barrys Father and Mother which is cool.

So I feel shieled by your attempt to Humiliate Me psychologically wise for said above stated Facts, you fuckin tosser mug blood.
lol all of which however seems to have gone to my head and given me what that dumb ass canadian limey guy calls a Grandiose Sense of self worth which I can kind of identify with because I am unemployed and poor, but I got one hell of a culture, dont you think?

The navy certainly did not hold the Guadal Canal. The 1st Marines did at first and then the Americal Division, the 182nd Infantry of Boston Included (whom you should google Limey) fought probably the most fierce battle of WW2. They based that film a Thin Red Line on the C company of the 182nd. Boston yo. Boston. Where the shot was fired that was heard around the world, Where Limey got his first taste of the Fighting Irish, ok so they took a kicking at first but well look at how it turned out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UmtJ30Rl5o
Best song ever!

I should save it for my grandkids but I dont have any kids of my own and believe me I have tried.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db1s-eV-Bd0

Yeah. Yeah. And I love Australia to.

Please reply I cant wait to here your witty retorts. It motivates me to be a better man. moa xxxxxx

Steve says:

12:42pm | 27/04/11

You are right Rob. Our present situation is very stable and a direct election of a President will introduce the possibility of instability. You have forgotten the middle ground which is the model at the last referendum. APresident appointed by the elected parliament keeps the stability but gives us the President.

Dieter Moeckel says:

01:05pm | 27/04/11

Why the immediate attack on the Australian government. The PM is going to the wedding because we are part of the commonwealth of nations. To decline would be offensive to OUR queen. Even when we are a republic and the PM is invited to Harry’s wedding the PM will go to represent Australians - its called curtesy nothing to do with any other Australian policies.

MarK says:

01:52pm | 27/04/11

“Why the immediate attack on the Australian government.”

Oh I don’t know.

Just for the fun of it because the irony of an a poorly dressed (taking a punt there) atheist sitting with her de-facto at a wedding in the Abbey who is a member of the “non-elite” and thus the totally hip cool and awesome part of society - according to the author of this poorly argued class hating rationale masquerading as a piece of sensible opinion - is too juicy a target to miss?

Perhaps that is it.

Or just plain spite.

Or both.

I probably hate puppies and kittens too and that made me do it. Oh I want to be a shock jock when I grow up. Ummmm….you will have more reasons I am sure.

Best of luck with your Republic Dieter. I am sure you will have a blast with it.

Darragh Scully says:

05:20pm | 27/04/11

Doesnt she have anything better to do back here. I guess the smart arse planners realize that she does so they made a whole bunch of other stops along the way to make it look good for all sides.

I guess the Fact the Brian O’Driscoll turned down his Invitation because he had to go to Rugby Training and commenting that the Team comes first is the Moral of the Story. Clearly Gillard is on the Queens team though, which is rather sad since she cant get a visa to even work there at the moment.

Form up, we march on Government house.

Steve says:

01:16pm | 27/04/11

You are losing your touch nossy. You have posted without mentioning Tony Abbott. He is a monarchist you know!

MJB says:

01:17pm | 27/04/11

@ nossy “he asked one of our wonderful Aboriginal people if they still throw spears at each other”

Given some of the dreadful ways the outback Aboriginal people do treat each other (in particular the women and children)  it seems like a fair question, particularly coming from an outsider.

Darragh Scully says:

05:41pm | 27/04/11

@MJB, have you had the pleasure of reading the book title, “Bad Dreaming”.  http://www.plutoaustralia.com/p1/default.asp?pageId=378

“The sensitive issue of Aboriginal male violence against women and children has only recently surfaced with disturbing media reports of an epidemic of Aboriginal male violence by ABC TV’s Lateline program and the Australian newspaper.”

According to China this is our fault. I wont go so far as to assign all the blame on the Crown but its pretty embaressing. After the Chinnese read this I am sure they will aggree that Intervention is nescessary indeed. Thats the reality here. Its because we love them to.

Dieter Moeckel says:

01:10pm | 27/04/11

People did not reject a republic in 1999 - they rejected a Howard style Republic. And John Howard to give him credit worded the referendum in such a way that the Australian people had no other recourse than to reject the referendum.
Get it right Jacko - the style of the republic to suit Australia will need to develop not be imposed by a stupid Howardesque referendum.

Jacko says:

01:49pm | 27/04/11

No Dieter, the republic referendum question was decided by a democratically elected Constitutional Convention by delegates elected by postal ballot by the Australian people.

John Howard and the government did not decide the wording of the failed question.

You are showing your contempt for the Australian people twice by ignoring the democratic nature of the question and the democratic nature of the result.

Regardless of the republic question, it would likely have been rejected just as strongly because the Australian people recognise a Constitutional Monarchy as the least worst or the best system of government ever invented by man.

Dieter Moeckel says:

02:40pm | 27/04/11

No Jacko the convention was not democratically elected. “The first question asked whether Australia should become a republic with a President appointed by Parliament following a bi-partisan appointment model which had previously been decided at by a half-elected, half-appointed Constitutional Convention in Canberra.” An election for fifty percent of the members is not in my view a democratically elected convention.
The model was unacceptable and was the one supported by John Howard. I followed the process very carefully.
But then even I make mistakes

Lisa V says:

04:02pm | 27/04/11

Bomb chucking commie revolutionaries have never cared what the Australian people want, only what they as elitists want to impose on them.

They can all get on the next boat for the Republic of Fiji or the Peoples Republic of China.

You are not welcome in our country if you do not respect our constitution and our flag.

Steve says:

01:13pm | 27/04/11

The flag and republic are 2 seperate issues. I am man enough to not go down an unstable path just because an Englishman is goading me. The decision is to be made by Australians not the British. The opinion of the British is not relevant to the debate. We are are own nation but have been clever enough to keep the good things that came with our British past. You might as well argue that cricket was an english invention and we should give that up as well in order to achieve self respect. By the way, as legal entities the Queen of England and the Queen of Austrlai are 2 seperate entities.

Ben81 says:

02:15pm | 27/04/11

What a pompous douchebag.

Darragh Scully says:

07:43pm | 27/04/11

Ill supply the Transport yall.
http://supplychain.logistics-business-review.com/news/ryder-acquires-scully-companies-010211

Steve says:

12:50pm | 27/04/11

I certainly agree that a popularly elected President can claim a mandate to veto any legislation by withholding assent. One can also not deny that the present situation is very stable. However I believe that a President appointed by the parliment who can be dismiss3ed by the parliament can keep the stablity of the monarchy whilst giving us a republic.

St. Michael says:

01:34pm | 27/04/11

@ Steve: not a bad argument, but someone appointed by the Parliament is answerable to, and therefore controllable by, the Parliament.  Theoretically if not in practice, the monarch, or his cardboard cutout the Governor-General, is not.  What we’re aiming for here is a system that duplicates the highly improbable possibility of the head of government actually kicking out said government.  The Westminster system does that nicely via tradition, but you’d have a hard time getting to the same point from a blank slate since various vested interests would be determined that we *didn’t* wind up in the same place again.

Dieter Moeckel says:

01:54pm | 27/04/11

St Michael - you make too many presumptions about the power of the President. The Governor General can veto a bill by simply not signing it or by delaying signing the bill. What you refer to is a long tradition - England has no written constitution, Australia has and the constitution will need to reflect the powers and the rights of the President.
If the constitution is the will of the people the constitution will reflect the will of the people not what tradition might want it to be.
The Westminster system of government is a system of tradition and while Australia is a Westminster like democracy we have already get rid of permanent heads of departments and manny other institutions, for example the British parliament has an unelected upper house with hereditary members unlike the Australian Senate which is all elected.
The similarity of the Australian system of government is superficial only.
Yes the USA has a limited elected King in the President a relic of the 1700s whihc we in Australia need not follow.

St. Michael says:

02:29pm | 27/04/11

@ Dieter: actually, I make too many presumptions about lawyers and the High Court.  And they’re presumptions only born of long cynical experience.

“England has no written constitution, Australia has and the constitution will need to reflect the powers and the rights of the President.”

You could have a Constitution that details down to the last drop the powers and rights of a government and there will be a judge or panel of judges somewhere who can find a way to pervert its original intent eventually.

The original Australian Constitution, as written by Griffiths (who was also the first Chief Justice of the High Court and spent a lot of time snarling at counsel in the early 20th century that he knew what he meant when he wrote the damn thing), Barton, et. al. envisioned a weak Federal government with the majority of legislative power residing in the States.  That model has been more or less completely turned on its head in recent years by a series of High Court decisions, not the least of which was the Workchoices decision.  The Federal government’s power has been massively expanded on where it once was intended to be.  Consider that sort of judicial revisionism applied to the rights and powers of a titular President, especially when there’s literally no history to draw on for how those powers are to be restrained or framed.

And for a lack of an English constitution, the UK seems to have managed pretty well on Parliamentary tradition and practice.  They even have the rule of law over there, can you imagine?

“Yes the USA has a limited elected King in the President a relic of the 1700s whihc we in Australia need not follow.”

Except half the Australian republicans seem to want that model because they reckon the US model is superfreakin’ awesome and one to follow.  And let’s give the US model its due: whatever a relic it might be, their Constitution has lasted 300 years and they’ve only needed to amend it roughly 30-odd times in all that period.

“The Governor General can veto a bill by simply not signing it or by delaying signing the bill.”

Delaying signing is not a veto.  Veto means you refuse to sign it at all.  Could you indicate to me the last time, aside from 1975, when the Governor General refused to sign a bill presented by the Parliament? Or the last time an English monarch after they chopped Charles I’s head off did so?

Jon says:

02:50pm | 27/04/11

From my reading of history the founding fathers of the American republic had an enormous respect for the Westminster system. They keep many of the laws that they had got from that political system. Also their new republic was inspired and based on many of the attributes that they admired and had inherited from the British form of Government.

Dieter Moeckel says:

03:13pm | 27/04/11

St Michael - I’m too sketchy on the precision of our constitutional history to argue the finer points. The point i’m trying to make is that although a power has never been used it is still an extant power. The example is what led up to the sacking of Jack Lang (by a British martinet and the withholding of supply by Frazer (against traditional convention).
High Court interpretation of constitutional matters is generally okay be me - it keeps the constitution updated without tedious referenda. I’d hope that High Court Judges are Australia’s keenest judicial brains ie Michael Kirby. As I believe (or want to believe) that Australian politicians in the executive are among the finest in Australia and listen to Australia’s finest brains (advisors.) Otherwise I’d have to despair even more than I am now.

Dieter Moeckel says:

03:13pm | 27/04/11

St Michael - I’m too sketchy on the precision of our constitutional history to argue the finer points. The point i’m trying to make is that although a power has never been used it is still an extant power. The example is what led up to the sacking of Jack Lang (by a British martinet and the withholding of supply by Frazer (against traditional convention).
High Court interpretation of constitutional matters is generally okay be me - it keeps the constitution updated without tedious referenda. I’d hope that High Court Judges are Australia’s keenest judicial brains ie Michael Kirby. As I believe (or want to believe) that Australian politicians in the executive are among the finest in Australia and listen to Australia’s finest brains (advisors.) Otherwise I’d have to despair even more than I am now.

St. Michael says:

03:25pm | 27/04/11

@ Jon: did they realistically have any other model to work with?

They were founded from English settlers, after all.  And England was the most successful European (if not worldwide) democracy of the time.  It still remains one of the most longstanding democracies in the Western world.  It’s not as if they had much else in the way of governmental design to work with that they experienced or understood.  The main bee in their bonnet was taxation without representation, and the fact they had to rebel against England to free themselves of their monarch - not the same situation here.

I might be straw manning here, but If the suggestion is that Australia should take a leaf out of the US book and turn itself into a republic whilst observing many of the Westminster traditions: take a look at the way their system of government operates now before we do, because despite some of the most uplifting, beautiful statements of intent in literary history (“We hold these truths to be self-evident…”) in several ways they profoundly screwed up the drafting and they’re still paying the price 250 years down the line.  Also remember our Constitution was written in 1901.  The US Constitution and model had been around for roughly 150 years by that point. It’‘s accepted historically that Griffiths, Barton et. al. took a number of cues from the US Constitution as it was (see Greg Craven’s book “Conversations with the Constitution” for a fuller discussion on this point.)

St. Michael says:

04:29pm | 27/04/11

@ Dieter:

“I’d hope that High Court Judges are Australia’s keenest judicial brains ie Michael Kirby”

In terms of intellectual and reasoning ability, we’ve been pretty blessed in the past couple of decades: we probably hit a high point when Mason and Deane were on the High Court bench at the same time.  Those guys were powerhouses, and the others weren’t far behind.  And there’ve been other bright sparks up there—Owen Dixon was so damn good at being a judge the English actually adopted his reasoning on some matters, and Barwick CJ was the one who advised Kerr he had the constitutional power to sack Whitlam (cue the conspiracy theories since Barwick and Whitlam hated each other’s guts, but never mind…)

We are still decently served by the current crop.  In a way that’s part of the problem, because it’s this brilliant and intellectually creative High Court bench that’s been putting the Constitution through cartwheels and high kicks that its poor old Victorian dresses were never really intended for:  “An implied right to free speech on political matters? From a document written by a pack of English landowners who were still undecided about whether or not to shoot trade unionists on sight? Hell yeah, bros!” (Well, bros and hos counting Mary Gaudron.)

The ultimate irony of your example is that Kirby was on the bench that decided the Workchoices case.  That was a 6-1 decision, with Kirby being the voice of dissent (a role he occupied a lot, actually).  When you read the case (having drunk a couple of cups of coffee first; I fell asleep at least twice when I did) the comparison is amusing: the majority of 6 remorselessly bulldozering Griffiths’ and a good half century’s worth of Constitutional precedent, and Kirby, in about 40 pages or so, doing the genteel, polite equivalent of screaming at the top of his lungs: “You’re all idiots! This was not what the Constitution was designed to do, you fuckheads!”

James1 says:

02:04pm | 27/04/11

So your attachment is as emotional as those who feel no attachment.

That is the thing that fascinates me about this debate.

Jacko says:

02:11pm | 27/04/11

All naturalised Australian citizens swore this same oath or give this affirmation prior to 1993, as did all Australian armed forces servicemen and women.

An oath is an oath.

fairsfair says:

02:17pm | 27/04/11

James you have said one of the most emotional things on this entire thread, what with your tales of house burning and your Grandma.

I am of Irish decent also. I think of some of the things those people did in the same way Gwynneth Paltrow thinks of her nanna, but it does not factor in on my decision to be a monarchist or a republican.

I totally see where both sides of the debate are coming from, but it is a bit weird to hear of your statement and fascination in the very thing you are doing yourself.

Col. of Blackburn says:

02:21pm | 27/04/11

@James!
Perhaps you would care to enlighten us all as to the form and substance of any form of Australian Republic that you propose? How will an Australian Head of State be put in place. What reserve powers will he /she be invested with?
Mr Donovan would have done more to advance his cause to do this rather than denigrate a large portion of the Australian public.

There was an article in The Australian recently that said that the government was elected by ‘mainstream Australia’ not by fringe groups. It also said that any government who called its constituency ‘idiots’, ‘elitists’, ‘deniers’ or ‘fools’ could not hope to be elected.

James1 says:

03:00pm | 27/04/11

It does fascinate me for that very reason fairs.  However, I am able to detach myself from those emotions and make a judgement call - that apart from mollifying my dislike of that British institution, a republic would change nothing, and as such I see little reason to change it.  That said, I would still prefer a republic, but given that we put this issue to a referendum and quite clearly lost, I am happy to accept that decision.  Maybe I find it interesting that others are incapable of seeing how emotive their arguments are, when it is plain as day to me how emotive my own are.  The extension of this is that for some others, they tend to see their emotive positions as being logical, whereas I see a need to put my emotions aside in order to come to a logical position on our country’s future.  I hope that clarifies my position and interest for you.

And my dislike of the British crown is not political, it is deeply personal, a result of both the actions carried out in their name in the past, and their distinct lack of any claim to their position apart from the fact they were born. 

Col, if you read what I say above, I have said I would not change it.  As I say to fairs, my emotions and feelings have no place in determining the future political structure of this country.  If pushed, I would probably go with a structure similar to what we have now, with a directly elected figurehead president as head of state and the PM continuing as head of government.  Either that or the American system, as I have a deep and abiding respect for our American cousins and their political system.

I would also like to note that I do not look down on your emotional attachment either.  It is just as valid as my own emotional dislike.

St. Michael says:

02:30pm | 27/04/11

What, so kick one Germanic royal family for another Germanic royal family?

They’re even related to one another.

Inbred monarchs says:

06:03pm | 27/04/11

They are related to each other
Most current European monarchs are descended from Christian IX (8 April 1818 – 29 January 1906) as his six children married into other royal houses. Christian IX was King of Denmark from 16 November 1863 to 29 January 1906.
His daughter Alexandra was Queen consort of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions and Empress of India from 1901 to 1910 as the wife of Edward VII. From Edward’s death in 1910 until her own death, she was the Queen Mother, being a queen and the mother of the reigning monarch, George V.  The second child of George the V married Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon who was the mother of Elizabeth II

As a side note, the members of the royal family belong to, either by birth or marriage, the House of Windsor, since 1917, when George V changed the name of the royal house from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.This decision was primarily taken because Britain and her Empire were at war with Germany and given the British Royal Family’s strong German ancestry, it was felt that its public image could be improved by choosing a more British house name

Dieter Moeckel says:

02:59pm | 27/04/11

Okay Tikombum, but what you miss in your examples is that each of the revolutions France, America, Russia, and China were ruled by monarchies where the ruling elite stood aloof of the proletariate ... Australia does not a ruling elite or even quasi ruling elite against which the proletariate can actual rebel. The revolution will be non-violent political change

Darragh Scully says:

08:10pm | 27/04/11

Yeah aint that the truth.
Yet why do so many people still believe in what I call a fairy tale.

Dieter Moeckel says:

03:16pm | 27/04/11

Would you like to read your submission and tell me its not offensive.
Free speech and all Gillard as head of state why not?

Allen W. Kniphfer says:

05:40pm | 27/04/11

You certainly are a miserable old codger.

Brenda says:

04:15pm | 27/04/11

I too was puzzled by Mr Donovan’s mention of his incessantly barking dog. Does he think that referring to his barking dog legitimises his views? I certainly hope that his barking dog doesn’t make miserable the lives of innocent others who have to suffer living near him.
But given Mr Donovan’s propensity to force the idea of a republic on those who do not want it, the pushy tenor of his column is a perfect fit with the profile of all barking dog owners. They can be properly described as narcissists who use their dog’s disturbing noise to bully innocent others.

Darragh Scully says:

05:23pm | 27/04/11

How do you live with the Irony of pushing a democratically elected Monarch on us repulicans. Its torture. Especially one as ridiculous as the Windsors.

steve says:

04:57pm | 27/04/11

nossy. The contrast is that one is PM and the other is leader of the opposition. In a few years at the most you will be in a rage when “Tones” is visiting overseas and backbencher Gillard will be taking calls from constituents whose rubbish bin was not emptied for the second time. Now thats a contrast1

jg says:

05:47pm | 27/04/11

There’s no way Nossy could have let a thread go by without mentioning his bum chum Abbott.

That’s okay Nossy, Abbott will be your PM in the very near future.

St. Michael says:

04:46pm | 27/04/11

The problem being that under most of the models presented, it’s not very democratic, and not much of a republic, either.

TimB says:

05:51pm | 27/04/11

‘Supremacist complex’?

Why? Because I don’t cringe and whine like the republicans who put their own (and my) country down? Because I don’t buy the claim that we are somehow a lesser nation because of our system of government? That I don’t consider my country to be inferior in the eyes of the world?

No. I consider us to be the equal of every other nation. I’m damn proud of my country. And I won’t stand by and watch the republicans insult us in order to push their own barrows.

If anyone has the “supremacist” complex, it’s you. Someone who’s perfect vision of Australia involves the absence of people you don’t like.  See I, (unlike you)  don’t begrudge you your right to live here & make a complete ass of yourself in the process.

Seriously, changing your name? WTF are you on about?

Darragh Scully says:

05:53pm | 27/04/11

@Menshur
Personally I prefer the offical version of what the Australia act is. Havent a clue what your talking about either matie. Please explain (queens best english to thanks!)
“History
The Prime Minister and the Premiers of the six States reached agreement at conferences held in 1982 and 1984 to introduce legislation in each of the parliaments for a uniform change. Each State, and the British Parliament, passed individual Acts before the Commonwealth enacted its own Australia Act. None of the eight Australia Acts give the date on which they will become operative. This had to be done simultaneously, once all the legislation was in place.

A Proclamation, signed by Queen Elizabeth II at Government House in Canberra on 2 March 1986, stated that the Act will come into effect at 5.00 am Greenwich Mean Time the next day. At this ceremony Queen Elizabeth presented Prime Minister Bob Hawke with the original Proclamation, and an Assent original of the Australia Act (UK), to which she had signed her assent on 7 February 1986.

Although this Act defines Australia as a ‘sovereign, independent and federal nation’, and the Australia Acts are often described as completing the process of constitutional development begun with the Federation movement, Australian still retains the Queen as head of state. A referendum to remove this final tie by replacing the Crown with a President was held in Australia on 6 November 1999. The required majority of voters and majority of States necessary to make an alteration to the Constitution was not achieved and this final tie remains in place.

The seven Australia Acts thus remain the most recent step towards Australian constitutional independence, in a path from the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act in 1900, to the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, the Balfour Declaration in 1926, the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act in 1942 and then the Australia Act in 1986.”

http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?sdID=103

Mensur Cehic says:

11:56pm | 27/04/11

@ Darrah Scully

Are you trying to prove to me that we are NOT a Republic? Because that is not what my statement was about. You just wasted 3 minutes of my life.

@TimB(it)

“Someone who’s perfect vision of Australia involves the absence of people you don’t like. “

—Dude, when did I ever give this impression. Are you under the influence? I am concerned about your wellbeing. Honestly.

TimB says:

07:51am | 28/04/11

Right here genius.

“I want a healthy, independent, Multicultural Republic of Australia where my nephews and future kids won’t have to deal with people like you and your “supremacist complex”.. “

Like I said, it’s lucky I don’t begrudge *you* the right to be a complete idiot in this country, eh?

Darragh Scully says:

09:32pm | 28/04/11

It took you 3 minutes to read that, and people say I am stupid, well its easy to cut and paste and claim that I can infact spell good, which I cant. lol.

No I was just pointing out the Published facts, we are but one final step from growing up arent we. Lets cut the Cord Australia.

Darragh Scully says:

05:10pm | 27/04/11

With that reason we should not worry about anything that is written in the Wikileaks documents.
Ok.
Have a good day.

Darragh Scully says:

07:30pm | 27/04/11

Your just Jealous that John Barry was Irish.
Your Just jealous that my uncle is the CEO of Bank of America.
Your Just jealous that my cousins in the States rule and they all came from Ireland.
John Scully, the ex Intercontinental Boxing Champion, is from Cork, dare you to say that to his face.
Not to mention Austrlias first Astronaut, Paul Scully Power, former CEO of TENNEX, not that I know him personlly or anything because the Order of Australia thing just doesnt do it for me for obvious reasons.

Ireland is fucked state the obvious why dont you. The Irish though we survive and we fight. I made a promise to myself to study up on our achievements and to keep them close. Have to make sure to remember them and not let people such as yourself take away what gives us the confidence to survive and fight. I must admitt I went through a time of not knowing about it all and had a belief that the things people like you say are true and they tried to beat the fight out of me, and I got to the stage where I stopped fighting back. Just the way Limey likes it eh. Then I learned about America, about the war of 1775, about the Battle of Gettysburg, about the Americal Division, about the YD, about the 10th Mountain Division, John Barry the first Commodore of the US Navy, through great comments made by McArthur and Kennedy.  Its quite a long list of Achievments eneough to hold your head up anyway.

And if that gives the boys the courage they need to keep their heads up and keep fighing on then so be it. Why should you lot get all the easy pickings after all.

Your side of the Story doesnt Interest me.

And I think youll find more Inbreeds in Yorkshire where your from than in Cork

So Fuck you Ted and the Horse you rode in on.

James1 says:

07:32pm | 27/04/11

So we’re talking historical stains, are we?  Okay, so Ireland has some shipments of rifles from Nazi Germany (but with nieghbours like England, can you blame them?), and their bad management of the financial boom of the 90s and the noughties.  Oh and their subordination to foreign powers, but lets face it, for 700-odd years they did everything they could to escape that.  But the English tyrants just kept killing so many Irish patriots that it was kind of difficult to escape.

How about England.  Well, for a start they have their penchant for constantly invading and sometimes subjugating their neighbours, and many others besides.  Remind me again who has been invaded by the Republic?

England also has the stain of the systematic starvation of 1 million plus Irish.  Last time I checked, Ireland didn’t starve innocent people as a matter of policy.

England also has the stain of the invention of the concentration camp - indeed, that is where the Nazis sourced the idea.  Ireland never did that either.

There is also the stain of the systematic attempts to destroy a particular religion.  That is something England has in common with Nazi Germany, but - take note - not Ireland.

As for your sad little racist insults, all that shows is that you are a sad little racist, who cannot get over the fact that your Black and Tans lost in 1921.  You have added yet another stain to those of your ancestors.  Why would the Irish not be proud, when England has so many more stains that it will never live down.

Éamon de Valera says:

09:17pm | 27/04/11

James1 - dontyabeforgetting I signed the Book of Condolence when Adolph died.

HLT says:

08:15am | 28/04/11

I agree with you here.  Though if we like it or not, the Republic debate will keep popping up as it is something a lot of us have a strong opinion about.