It’s not you it’s me: why we should ditch the royals

Josh says:

06:25am | 08/09/09

I wouldn’t mind if Australia was still part of the Monarchy if there were any actual advantages for us in it. It’s just entirely symbollic.

Although we’re part of the Commonwealth, we still have to line up forever when we get to Heathrow airport. If anything Australians should have automatic British citizenship if we’re still ruled by them!

Isabel says:

08:35am | 08/09/09

This is not a ‘young’ country, nor are we all immigrants. As the head of state is purely symbolic what harm would there be in having a representative from one of the First Nations as head of this new nation?

Eric says:

08:53am | 08/09/09

For one thing, Isabel, that would establish a racist tradition.

Peter says:

09:03am | 08/09/09

Once again, my fellow republican misses the whole point of what this debate should be about.

It is NOT about whether the Queen is nice, or whether her family are chumps.  It is not about Britain or Empire or anything like that.  That is just stupid, reductionist nationalism.

A republic must improve the body politic of Australia.  How do we do that?  Well, look at what is the real problem in Australian politics: monolithic parties, which represent themselves but whose MPs fail to represent the interests of their constituents.

Why do they do this?  Because under the Westminster system, the Executive (i.e. the Ministers) are drawn from the Legislature( i.e. the Parliament).  Also, if a Government party loses control of the Lower House, the Government falls.  This means that, however much they might hate what their own Ministry is doing, they are bound to support it.  The wishes of constituents rate a poor second to keeping one’s bum on the Government benches, and the possible of climbing the greasy pole into the Ministry.

So what is to be done?  Simple.  Decouple the Executive from the Legislature.  Have an elected President and a full separation between the Executive and the Legislature?

This would allow MPs and Senators to concentrate on rperesenting the interests of their constituents, even if they conflict with the the wishes of the government.

Your local MP would then be forced to actually represents YOUR interests, and would not have the ‘excuse’ that they are bound by party loyalty to support the Executive at all costs. 

Moreover, what could be more democratic than actually being able to elect your own head of state?  It would also mean that the ‘best and brightest’ would be able to be made Ministers, not just factional hacks and slightly more talented than average backbenchers that we currently have.

I wish the ARM would wake up to itself - this is all about bringing democracy and representation back to the people.  It is about breaking the power of thw Whips, the factional hacks and the Party bosses.

It’s Time.

Daniel says:

09:11am | 08/09/09

I’d love to see my children living in an Australian Republic, but the problem is, becoming a republic isn’t the most important issue on people’s minds.  For someone with a young family, issues like health care, education, the economy, and the environment are far more pressing.

As Josh said, the monarchy is symbolic.  But apart from the issues at Heathrow Airport, it doens’t affect people on a day to day basis.  You compare this to when the United States fought for their republic, or the African and Indian nations asserting their own independence, the issue of British control did affect how people lived their lives every day.

Perhaps the only way we’ll ever care enough to become a republic is if England does another bodyline, blatantly cheats at cricket, and a wave of Australian anger carries a referendum through.  It would be typically Australian for sport to be the catalyst, don’t you think?

Scott says:

09:15am | 08/09/09

Excellent article. Brett makes a good point about the importance and struggle of educating people about what changing to a republic actually means in constitutional terms - it’s one of the biggest challenges the movement faces.

Jake Zanoni says:

09:17am | 08/09/09

‘Derrr Aussie head of state derrrr ruled from aboard derrrr omfg the queen isn’t australian’.

The problem with this article is that it is just as fluffy and vacuous as yesterdays ‘pro monarchy’ article, YET this is the youth convenor of the ARM. 

So this is the big spiel from THE republican organisation in Australia?  This is all you have got?

I actually am in my heart of hearts a republican, but it isn’t apathy that keeps me from campaigning on this issue, it is relevance.  There are so many many more important issues that affect every single Australian (taxes, Govt spending, economics, education, health, community service, foreign policy, the seeming rise of a nanny state, poverty) that this issue is completely irrelevent.

The simple fact is that the ARM can’t even sell its product to its supporters.  Moronic jibber jabber about ‘an aussie head of state’ and simple untruths about how we are ‘ruled from overseas’.

Come up with a real story.  Sell me on how this will improve my freedom or prosperity.  Engage in the real constitutional issues (are you even aware of them?).  Then I may get up and campaign.

If you can’t do that though, then don’t waste my time and my taxpayer dollars.  I have freedom to fight for, real freedom, and a republic is way down the list.

http://www.pimpinforfreedom.wordpress.com

Liz says:

09:23am | 08/09/09

Australia is not ruled from abroad, another reason to become a Republic and achieve our majority instead of hanging on Britain’s petticoats.Royalty is expensive and a luxury maybe the British can afford but why are we still involved?
Many of the young generation are apathetic about politics anyway so how can you expect them to get excited about becoming a Republic when they don’t understand or care about the issues.
Sincerely hope I see a republic in my lifetime, it’s way overdue.

drmick says:

09:27am | 08/09/09

Keep up the good work brother. Your battleground is level, the numbers are farly even between generational attitiudes being expressed by the larvae of the living; you need to speak wth and help those who have no commitment and those who have not been brainwashed by parental, scholastical and ritual blind faith in the empah and all it stands for.

Andrew says:

09:30am | 08/09/09

@Daniel - It will either be Bodyline v.2, or maybe we just wait for Charles (and Camilla) to assume the throne - watch the clamour for change increase then.

Sherlock says:

09:34am | 08/09/09

I completely agree with Jake Zanoni. Show me how the expense and complexity of becoming a republic will improve my life and I’ll jump on board the bandwagon.

Keep crapping on about symbolism and I’ll simply nod off. Frankly I don’t see the Queen interfering in our parliament and accordingly I don’t really see why the status quo is so bad.

If you want a republic then you need to convince the electorate of the benefits. Until you can do that any referendum is destined to fail

ATH says:

09:36am | 08/09/09

Symbolic or not, what is more important than independence? I’m in my early twenties, and for me, Australia becoming a republic is something I’ve wanted ever since I was old enough to ask why an Australian wasn’t the leader of our country.

We’re mature enough, intelligent enough, strong enough and more than deserving. I don’t want a leader who considers my country as an afterthought. I don’t want someone who visits us - I want someone who lives here. I want someone who wakes up and thinks of matters concerning my country first and foremost. I think that’s reason enough.

Matt says:

09:37am | 08/09/09

the reason why, to be frank, the majority don’t really care about this issue is because neither side has put forward a half-decent arguement as to why we should or shouldn’t change. Just look at this article, and the monarchist one on this website. Neither give any reason at all why we should change or not apart from “i like/don’t like the monarchy”

the republican arguement, at least the one that’s coming across, is “she doesn’t do anything so why do we need her?” whilst he monarchist one seems to be “she doesn’t do anything but we’re doing just fine as it is so why change?” and this isn’t just from the articles, most people who support either side seem to have the same arguement in my experience.

The advantage here is with the monarchists as they don’t need a substantial arguement until the republicans themselves can come up with a decent reason (apart from a few minor structural and symbolic changes.) Until they can show: a) how our country will be dramatically different and b) why that’s a good thing, the old “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” arguement will win out everytime

Eric says:

09:42am | 08/09/09

“It’d be a right royal shame if in 50 years, when I am a crinkly old man, Australia is still ruled from abroad.”

Jake Zanoni is right. It is flat-out wrong to say that Australia is ruled from abroad because of the existence of a monarchy that has no real power.

When you can’t get basic facts straight, the credibility of your position suffers.

Jade says:

10:19am | 08/09/09

Haha and have the people that run the country now be in charge of it all! fat chance, what is the point of wasting all that money etc when everything is fine as it is.  Don’t fix it if it isnt broken!

Margaret Gray says:

10:47am | 08/09/09

Monarchy Bash v2.0

Yawn.

“...Despite the pro-republican hopes held by the majority of young Australians…”

Evidence?

“...The lack of involvement by Australia’s youth in the debate…”
“...But engaging with young people and convincing them…”

It’s not always about the yoof, Brett.

“...Young Australians are the perfect group to hit the streets and set straight the republican message….”

Exactly how does being “young” make you better qualified?

“...My generation has an opportunity to peacefully fight for something that young people from other countries have died for…”

Young people from THIS COUNTRY died so you can enjoy the democratic freedom to pontificate about your generations eager longing to save the rest of us poor backward souls from this sustained colonial scourge.

Please!

Claud says:

11:25am | 08/09/09

NICE ONE BRETT!

Rob says:

11:54am | 08/09/09

Good to see the Young Liberals wheeling out yet again the ‘if it ain’t broke’ line.

The onus should be on them to prove why a foreign head of state should be retained, rather than the reasons for an Australian one.

Ben says:

12:40pm | 08/09/09

I used to agree whole heartedly with the argument that it’s not about the people fililng the roles but the about the bigger picture. While I still believe this I now think that it is a bit silly and naive to write personality issue off.
With William and Harry and the other host of young royals flitting about it’s foolilsh to deny many young people feel more able to relate to the royal family. Likewise when there is someone in the role of G.G who captures people’s imaginations and gives a bit colour and style and oomph to the role as the does the current one then the need for a republic seems less pressing.
PM’s don’t tend to select charismatic GGs for obvious reasons and are even less likely to do so with a President.

Margaret Gray says:

01:04pm | 08/09/09

“...Likewise when there is someone in the role of G.G who captures people’s imaginations and gives a bit colour and style and oomph to the role as the does the current one…”

By “oomph” do you mean the prissy and barking demands to her staff; the flagrant lobbying of UN countries for her appointers future aspiration as Head of International Rescue; the irony of being a former sex discrimination commissioner and accepting admission to the women-only Lyceum Club; her partisan activism or her continual need to comment on government policy well beyond her station or experience?

So many colours to choose from.

Gibbot says:

01:12pm | 08/09/09

Monarchists, like the monarchy itself have become irrelevant. An Australian republic is an inevitability. The debate should be focused on the model.

Wallaby says:

02:02pm | 08/09/09

Our constitution states that our head of state is the ruling British monarch. What happens to Australia, constitutionally, if Great Britain decides to dump the monarchy. They have no constitution as such. It is enshrined in legislation. As such they could drop the monarchy at any time they liked. The result would be that we would have no head of state. That would create a real mess for Australia.

Daniel says:

02:34pm | 08/09/09

@ Margaret Grey

“..Despite the pro-republican hopes held by the majority of young Australians…
Evidence?”

- Brett did provide a link to a survey.  Just click on the blue bit that says “UMR Research”

“Young people from THIS COUNTRY died so you can enjoy the democratic freedom to pontificate about your generations eager longing to save the rest of us poor backward souls from this sustained colonial scourge.”

- You’re missing Brett’s point here.  Why not achieve something without bloodshed?  Young people did sacrifice their lives (and in many cases, needlessly) for Australia and our democratic rights.  If the majority of Australians want a republic, then isn’t it better that we achieve that without spilling blood, as many other countries have had to do?  Whether we become a republic or remain a constitutional monarchy, making the decision without having to shed blood is a tribute to our maturity as a nation and the strength of our institutions.

James says:

03:03pm | 08/09/09

Australia sacrificed its youth in WW1 (and the Boer War) as part of the stupidity of the 19 Century arms race and the Imperial Dream. Nothing really “about” Australia. Australia once again send troops to fight “for Britain” in the first part of WW2. Our war - Australia’s war - was against Japan and who was there to help us when we needed it. The Americans. People dont die for flags - they die for ideas like freedom, decency and democracy. Stop bringing that one out. Ask the Vietnam vets if they did it for King and Country and the flag.

Margaret Gray says:

03:06pm | 08/09/09

“...- Brett did provide a link to a survey…”

An online survey.  With 1000 ‘respondents’.

As evidence?  You must be joking.

Margaret Gray says:

03:14pm | 08/09/09

“...Our constitution states that our head of state is the ruling British monarch…”

The Australian constitution also does not confer the right of freedom of speech on its citzenry.

That is despite many in this country believing we have such a constitutional right.

Let’s get our priorities right first.

Who our head of state is is a matter of the utmost irrelevancy as to be almost invisible to the naked eye.

No-one cares.

Move on.

RT says:

03:30pm | 08/09/09

@Margaret Gray: ‘Who our head of state is is a matter of the utmost irrelevancy as to be almost invisible to the naked eye. No-one cares.
Move on. ‘

With four posts here to your name here, it seems as though someone indeed does care, Margaret. But then if you think it’s an utmost irrelevancy, then surely you won’t object to our ties to the British Monarchy being severed.  Either it matters, or it doesn’t. You can’t say it doesn’t matter but you still object anyway.

GarryM says:

03:32pm | 08/09/09

I am a born Englishman yet an Australian by citizenship, I would vote to leave as is but I would accept a republican vote if the majority of my fellow country people vote so. I would not cry, I would not leave, I would not even take up arms against Australia I would accept the rule.

Now, having said that, I will ask this of the republicans out there…

1. What is it you fear about the current system.. another ‘God the save the queen for nothing will save…?’
or
2. Do we want change to bring on our own sense of nationalism and without a republic we are identified as Great Britain.. Shame if this is what you think I do not believe it is far from it, but I have heard this call.
Or
3. We don’t want Prince Charles.
With seriousness, how important is it? Our kids have apathy over it, if we went to war (as many of our men and women have and still do) and pay the ultimate sacrifice they did not die for a queen but for their country. A country whose political leaders sent them there and those same leaders would be around if we was a republic.

I think the debate has to have emotion out of it, the debate needs those who want change to explain why and how and not those who want a monarchy to explain why we should stay the same.  People would be swayed by a debate that says ‘We should because it will improve, give us, provide our lives, our people, our kids with a greater……’
Take it from there.

Oh… and to an earlier poster who said ‘as Australians under the Queen we should get English passports’ I will add this in the mix… I still had to apply for the right to come to Australia, I had to have a medical I had to complete the citizenship ceremony to be an Australian so it works both ways.  Although, by marrying me my wife immediately became eligible for an English passport – yet that does not work vice versa….

Daniel says:

03:35pm | 08/09/09

In reply to Magaret Gray’s comment

“An online survey.  With 1000 ‘respondents’.

As evidence?  You must be joking. “

Did you read the survey’s parameters and sampling methods?  It seems that the methodology they used was reasonably sound.

GarryM says:

03:39pm | 08/09/09

I am a born Englishman yet an Australian by citizenship, I would vote to leave as is but I would accept a republican vote if the majority of my fellow country people vote so. I would not cry, I would not leave, I would not even take up arms against Australia I would accept the rule.

Now, having said that, I will ask this of the republicans out there…

1. What is it you fear about the current system.. another ‘God save the queen for nothing will save…?’
or
2. Do we want change to bring on our own sense of nationalism and without a republic we are identified as Great Britain.. Shame if this is what you think I do not believe it is far from it, but I have heard this call.
Or
3. We don’t want Prince Charles.
With seriousness, how important is it? Our kids have apathy over it, if we went to war (as many of our men and women have and still do) and pay the ultimate sacrifice they did not die for a queen but for their country. A country whose political leaders sent them there and those same leaders would be around if we was a republic.

I think the debate has to have emotion out of it, the debate needs those who want change to explain why and how and not those who want a monarchy to explain why we should stay the same.  People would be swayed by a debate that says ‘We should because it will improve, give us, provide our lives, our people, our kids with a greater……’
Take it from there.

Oh… and to an earlier poster who said ‘as Australians under the Queen we should get English passports’ I will add this in the mix… I still had to apply for the right to come to Australia, I had to have a medical I had to complete the citizenship ceremony to be an Australian so it works both ways.  Although, by marrying me my wife immediately became eligible for an English passport – yet that does not work vice versa….

Andrew says:

04:13pm | 08/09/09

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Joe says:

04:41pm | 08/09/09

Going off on another tangent:  A lot of the world seems to be splitting up into smaller and smaller bits - eg. Yugoslavia, USSR, UK, etc. along with attempts in other parts, such as Sri Lanka.  The Australian republican movement seems to be working along the same line.

The UN is obviously a monumental failure in this regard, but what can we do to unite mankind instead of dividing all the time?  Surely that would have to be a worthwhile exercise!

Margaret Gray says:

05:10pm | 08/09/09

“...It seems that the methodology they used was reasonably sound…”

Hmmm, yes.  Much like using text messaging to decide the next Australian Idol.

Unless EVERYONE has access to the internet the survey is bogus.

Any result using this ‘technology’ will always be skewed to a younger demographic and at risk of statistical manipulation.

Real market research isn’t done “on-line”...and there’s a reason why that is.

Griffin says:

08:34pm | 08/09/09

I have to agree with the “it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” with regards to Australia becoming a republic.  I believe this country has much bigger problems than whether it should be a republic or not.  We already have an Australian as leader, the Queen really does not do very much to oversee the running of this country at all.  Quite frankly, you’ve got so much energy to put into this issue, how about diverting it to something a bit more immediate and serious?  Such as schools (and I don’t mean new buildings), sorting out how we’re going to pay back that debt the country now has, etc.  Margaret Gray, I like your thinking.

Daniel says:

09:14pm | 08/09/09

In reply to Margaret

“Any result using this ‘technology’ will always be skewed to a younger demographic and at risk of statistical manipulation”

But isn’t that Brett’s point?  He says the youth of Australia want a republic.  So, logically, isn’t using a polling system that appeals to the youth the best way to collect the statistical sample?

I assume that you didn’t read the sampling methodology because it makes your “SMS to decide Australian Idol” argument irrelevant.

Matty says:

09:57pm | 08/09/09

I’m with Brett. Becoming a Republic is the next iterative, logical step in the maturation of Australia.

Sure, it’s a risk. Sure, it’s a change. Sure, it’s not the status quo. Sure, it’s a devisive issue.

But, if countries DIDN’T take risks to develop their respective country, a man would have never walked on the moon. Someone like Barack Obama would never become the leader of the free world. Women would be unable to vote and apartheid would still reign.

Countries need to change to contemporise and to grow. Becoming a republic is integral to this aim.

vented spleen says:

10:46pm | 08/09/09

Phew! I take it we’ve fixed all the hospitals and gotten rid of those demountables from various schools and are now paying carers a decent amount. It must be time to move on to the republic debate then.

Dan says:

10:58pm | 08/09/09

WHAT A STORY! some honcho from the republican movement wants a republic!
Well Australians DONT, its clear, so why dont we ship off all the republicans to tasmania and they can have their own little paradise republic. And they’ll be shocked to discover that australia becoming a republic doesnt answer all the questions of life and solve the world’s problems.
How about they start actually doing something practical for once instead of sledging off at the queen who has loyally served this nation with absolute dignity for over half a century!

Matty says:

11:56am | 09/09/09

Dan, when you say the Queen has “loyally served this nation with absolute dignity for over half a century!”, I’d be keen to know what she has actually done apart from rock up to the Commonwealth games and have a $350,000 bejewelled carriage made up for her that has taken four years to build?

David says:

09:52am | 10/09/09

Good one Brett.  Let’s have a real democracy with a constitution of the people by the people for the people, rather than an unelected head of state from a foreign royal family.