The Royal Wedding - get your freak on

Seano says:

08:49am | 24/04/11

We can have parliamentary democracy with an elected president. Still a figure head but an Australian one, elected by Australians who represents and works for Australia.

marley says:

08:55am | 24/04/11

That’s a non sequiter.  It’s entirely possible to have parliamentary democracy without having a monarchy, and entirely possible to have fascism while having a monarchy.  Think modern day Germany, France, or India for the former; think 1920s and 1930s Italy for the latter.

Steve Putnam says:

09:55am | 24/04/11

No Seano an elected president would mean a fourth level of government which I am sure Punchers on both sides of the political divide would agree is the last thing the country needs. Besides the office of president, if an elected one, could with time emerge as a rival to the office of prime minister, with serious implications for constitutional stability. The line advocated by both Bob Carr and Malcolm Turnbull; namely a president elected by a two thirds majority of both houses of Federal Parliament is the way to go.

marley says:

12:01pm | 24/04/11

Or you could follow the German model, in which a special convention elects the president - the convention consisting of all the sitting MPs and an equal number of representatives of the states (who can be either state MPs or persons elected by them).  That gives a bit more buy-in to the process by the states, without going all the way to popular elections.  Italy has something similar.

Billy B says:

12:06pm | 24/04/11

acotrel - Well said!

Seano says:

06:12pm | 24/04/11

Sorry that’s not true at all Steve. The role of president would sit where the governor general does now and be entirely ceremonial and completely in line with what Turnbull and Carr proposed. The only difference would be who elects them, the parliament representing the people (the model I preferred as well but killed by Howard in his attempt to misdirect the issue) or the people themselves.

I would say that the compromise would be to allow the people to elect the president but have the parliament to put forward the candidates. Yes the role could be politicised but with a 2/3 majority of parliament supporting the candidates and the role being ceremonial it would be an act of bastardry that would be hard to justify.

Marley has a good idea regarding model as well.

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

06:49pm | 24/04/11

Sure seano a president is a great idea, NOT! ! ! Look at Obama, undoubtedly the worst ever president in a long line of clods sitting in the White House

Seano says:

09:43pm | 24/04/11

Whilst I disagree with your assessment of Obama you’re comparing apples an oranges.

Our president would be the same as the Governor General, a ceremonial role. But one elected from Australians, by Australians and working for Australia.

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

11:56pm | 24/04/11

Sorry Seano, what do you base your idea that an Ausralian president would be just ceremonial? ? ? What country has one? ? ? As for Obama can you name ONE thing that he has done right? ? ?He over promised & under delivered. Bush was at least honest, he was up front that he didn’t give a sh*t! !

acotrel says:

01:16am | 25/04/11

I believe that if we are ton have a president, there should be a nominated pre-presidentia l office.  And the incumbent autromatically promoted as the Prsident position becomes vacant.  I suggest either the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, or the Chief Justice.  Then we’d know who was to be next up!  Electing a President would be fraught with hazard, we could easily get a Dubya leading our country.

acotrel says:

01:47am | 25/04/11

I don’t like the monarchy, and in particular the hangers-on.  It has always represented privilege, and the way Menzies sucked up to Liz made me sick.  But I believe we should weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of the current constitutional arrangement.  Our system of government is currently working well, and it’s stable!  Do we really have a problem because the two kids are getting married?  The Poms might be spending a bit much on the bullshit, but it’ll come back to them through tourism and merchandising.

Seano says:

03:58pm | 25/04/11

@Robert - so you’re saying we cannot make what is a fairly simple change to our structure because no one else has done it, even though our situation is unique? By that logic we can never change anything ever regardless of circumstance, it’s a silly argument.

Re: Obama - health care.

TimB says:

06:06pm | 25/04/11

Our situation is unique Seano?

That’s news to Canada and New Zealand. And about a dozen other Commonwealth realms.

Although I notice they don’t seem to have the massive identity issues that the republican movement here claim Australia has.

Regardless of the Monarchy, we *are* independent and have equal status to every other country in the world. I don’t care about the monarchy one way or the other, but neither you nor any other republican has managed to come up with a single practical advantage to becoming a republic.

We have bigger and more important thingsto worry about than image & identity issues that exist only in the minds of insecure republicans.

Seano says:

07:51pm | 25/04/11

@TimB

“Our situation is unique Seano?

That’s news to Canada and New Zealand. And about a dozen other Commonwealth realms.”

I clearly mean that we are stable enough, mature enough (despite your snide comments) and ready to move to a new model of government. The polls say consistently hat the majority of Australians want to move to a republic.

“Although I notice they don’t seem to have the massive identity issues that the republican movement here claim Australia has.”

So we can’t make a change because no one else has? How lacking in courage is that. We have a flag that does not stand out from dozens of others. We have an anthem that few know more than one verse to, that 3 verses had to be dropped because of how ridiculous they are and that is begrudingly sung. We have a head of state that is not Australian, not chosen by Australians, who does not represent or work for Australia and who doesn’t even live here.

“Regardless of the Monarchy, we *are* independent and have equal status to every other country in the world. “

Only by convention, not legally. Did you forget your history, Kerr sacked Whitlam.

“I don’t care about the monarchy one way or the other, but neither you nor any other republican has managed to come up with a single practical advantage to becoming a republic.”

Just because you disagree with the argument doesn’t mean it does not exist, pretend as you might.

“We have bigger and more important thingsto worry about than image & identity issues that exist only in the minds of insecure republicans. “

Again with this silly argument, Governments are not one dimensional entities that can only work on one issue at a time.

acotrel says:

01:23am | 25/04/11

@Stephen - read the constitutions of Australia and its states.!  It’s not as simple as just replacing the GG with a President!  Constitutional change would be politicised, the consequences could be very strange.

marley says:

12:16pm | 24/04/11

@Chris - I think there are some fallacies in your reasoning. 

First, the Queen is the head of the Commonwealth whether she’s here or not.  But, when she is here, she is also the head of state.  When she’s not, of course the GG is the head of state, but his or her constitutional power derives from the Crown.

The fact is that the monarchy is an antiquated institution which may have meaning to the British (or at least the English) but is simply not relevant to the other countries within the Commonwealth.

Structurally, there is no reason why the monarch cannot be replaced by a President with identical powers to the current GG - and I don’t see why it needs to be all that expensive to do so.  Other countries seem to manage with periodic electoral conventions to select a President;  why should it be so hard for us to do something similar?  Oh, and there’s no reason why, if we became a republic, we should leave the Commonwealth.  India hasn’t.

As for your argument that republicans all envisage themselves as the President of the Australian Republic - well, I don’t find that any more persuasive than the argument that monarchists all envisage themselves as Governor General.

Darragh Scully says:

01:04pm | 24/04/11

Not Quite!

Arguably the Singapore Incident in WW2 is the most significant turning point for UK Authority in the Pacific Region. That is they retreated from Singapore in the Face of Japanese Military Power. Ok so a recent review by the UK ministry of defencE stated that this is most likely going to remain a Status of UK power in our region for ever. There are two major powers. The USA and the Sanfrancisco Group and China and the Sino Memebers. Australia is caught in the Middle of all of that. Thats the reality here. Compared to the Japanese they are both fine with Australia’s Independence as long as it not at their expense.

As for the UK, it has Nuclear Weapons, and is a Formidable Adversary. They are friendly towards Australia and have accepted the Australia Act and the Assistance we give to all those UK expats including the pensioners whose pensions do not index up with inflation ($1.6 billion per annum). Then there is the CHOGM bill, which I cant seem to find a figure for. But we the Aussie Tax Payers are paying for Accomodation and Food and Service for $80 people and it doesnt come cheap, not to mention the bill for security and the loss of income for buisnesses and the loss of liberty including moving on homeless people and giving the police extra powers. But the Loayal and Currupt will tell you its worth it, for them Anyway. But will they stay with us through the Good and the Bad. Well they come and go as my Geography Teacher once told me, and you know they went at Singapore.

Though if you really want change you need to run it past the USA and China and as far as I know they are both down with the Queen. lol
Im for Change. I dont think we need to be passed around like this between the US, China and the UK but that seems to be whats happening in order for us to enjoy ‘Prosperity’.

darragh scully says:

01:08pm | 24/04/11

“If conflict were to break out between the U.S. and China over Taiwan, the United States would demand Australian support, including military involvement if demanded. If such support were not forthcoming, ANZUS would be terminated (Hartcher, 1999a; Sheridan, 2000; and Sydney 2UE 1999). Two months later, a key aide to Chinese President Jiang Zimen intensified the pressure generated by Armitage even more by warning that Australia faced ‘very serious consequences’ if it sided with the U.S. in a future Taiwan conflict (Hartcher 1999b).”

Australia, the United States and a ‘China Growing Strong’:

 

Managing Conflict Avoidance

 

 

William T. Tow

 

Department of Government

 

The University of Queensland

 

Paper prepared for:

 

The annual Australasian Political Science Association Conference

 

Canberra ACT

 

4-6 October 2000

 

The U.S. perceives China as a possible strategic ‘peer competitor’ to itself and sees the need to organise its traditional security allies (including Australia) into a more cohesive, united entity for dealing with a possible ‘China threat’ in the region over the mid-to-long term.

 

   

 

diplomacyChina

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:a06Ipdxhi1sJ:apsa2000.anu.edu.au/confpapers/tow.rtf+united+states+and+australias+diplomacy+china&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&source=www.google.com.au

marley says:

01:43pm | 24/04/11

@Darragh - I don’t follow your line of reasoning at all.  As Chris pointed out, we’re not discussing Australia’s independence - because Australia is a fully independent country and has been for years.  We’re discussing the structure of government, and that’s all. 

Singapore was 70 years ago - there’s not a damn thing the UK could or would do about is should we decide to become a Republic.  And becoming a Republic doesn’t change our status in relation to either the UK or the US - we’d still be in the western bloc of countries, sharing similar interests but occasional differences. 

Yes, of course we’re going to come under pressure at different times from both the US and China, as they try to recruit us to support them on issues of contention.  None of that has anything at all to do with whether we remain a constitutional monarchy, or become a republic.  It only has to do with the fact that we’re a middling power with a vote in the UN.  And we’re not alone in being caught between two major powers trying to build their respective empires - most of the world is in the same boat.

David T says:

03:36pm | 24/04/11

@marley no, the Queen is not the head of state when she is here - the Governor General is. The Queen takes precedence because she is head of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth has precedence over Australia, over India (a republic) etc (ie any member state of the Commonwealth). If, and only if, we leave the Commonwealth does that situation change.  The situation has nothing whatsoever to do with our Head of State in Australia.
It is time “republicans” recognised the fact that Australia is a totally independent country, dependent on no other country, beholden to no other country.  All the arguments in the world (including those from dissenters like Warhurst will not change this). This is what the legislation says and this is what the High Court and the Privy Council have ruled.
All the arguments republicans try to make to the contrary are about greater power for some individuals dressed up as some sort of nonsensical argument about “democracy”.  Our system is not perfect but that has more to do with the way elections are held in this country than about any non-existent ties to Britain.
Quite frankly given the standard of politics in this country (on all sides) I sometimes wonder whether Australians are fit to govern themselves.
But please stop trying to suggest that we are in any way tied to Britain. We are not and suggestions that we are do far more harm than good.
I find “republicans” despicable in their attitude and thos who insist on raising the issue now lacking in any manners whatsoever.  There are much more serious issues to be dealt with - such as widespread electorai fraud.

marley says:

05:18pm | 24/04/11

@DavidT - well, if the Queen is not the Head of State, you’d better tell the Department of Foreign Affairs, which has on its website the statement: 

“Australia’s Head of State is the Queen of Australia, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Under the Australian Constitution, the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercised by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative. “

You might also want to check out Sect2 of the Constitution, which makes it clear that the GG is the Queen’s delegate and acts on her behalf. 

In other words, the GG is the head of state when the Queen isn’t around. 

And I am well aware that she’s the Head of State as Queen of Australia, not of Britain.  I’ve never suggested otherwise - I challenge you to find that I have.  Nor have I suggested that Australia is not a fully independent state (read my other comments).  What I have said is that I feel the current model is archaic, and could be replaced with minimal change or fuss, by a more suitable, totally Australian model in which the President retains the powers of the GG in his own right, rather than as the Queen’s delegate.  And I stand by that.  You may disagree with me, but don’t assume that I don’t understand the role of the monarch and the governor-general.

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

06:56pm | 24/04/11

The British Crown the most stable form of government in the world. My only question is why hasn’t Bryce followed Sir John Kerr’s excelent example & sacked this incompetent government. Is it tha her loyalty to the queen is false & she is just a stooge for first the Rudd & then the Gillard governments. If she can’t do the right & honorable thing maybe she should resign

Darragh Scully says:

12:14am | 25/04/11

Thats a tough question. Why doesnt the Queen resign?

I think Australias Political Position is rather unique in nature.
Its Unlike the situation in the United States in the 1770’s where so many of the Colonists and Convicts and Slaves could litterally taste Freedom.

Australia is also very unlike the Modern Republic situations that are forming now as we speak. Australia has alot of Infrastructure and Resources and has traded itself into a reasonably good position

It is a Mature Nation with alot of unique to Australia things.
Take Australian Rules football. Like other codes of football it is being taken up in Africa, America, England, Ireland, Denmark etc.
People here take their Soverign Sport very seriously.
Come to think of it I cant think off the top of my head if we have anything here more unique to us than Footy. A quick Google.

Search 1: Unique to Australia. Well its all about the One nation living on the single continent with the unique wildlife and range of climates. etc. Lifestyle that is stressfreeish, including sports, beers, barbys and dont forget the Accent even though that wasnt mentioned in any of the pages I looked at but there was few.

Search 2: Unique Australians. More of the same though a few things come up about the Unique Aboriginals. For example the rock art at Burrup Penninsula is the oldest known rock art in the World, 80000 years old.

Search 3: Weird Australia. Well this was interesting because it brought up a page title. “New Weird Australia, The Sound Of Young Canberra”. Ahh Australian Music. Aussie music is great. Ok we have the Immigrant Aussies like Barnsie then again we have a host of other Home Grown Tallent to. And some of it is unique.

Search 4: Music of Australia. Oh yeah now were talking. One of aussie cultures best points.

“Notable Australian musicians include: the opera Dames Nellie Melba and Joan Sutherland; country music stars Slim Dusty (Australia’s biggest selling domestic artist) and John Williamson; folk-rocker Paul Kelly; Dance group The Avalanches; jazz guitarist Tommy Emmanuel; pioneer rocker Johnny O’Keefe, global rock and pop bands the Bee Gees, AC/DC, INXS, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, Midnight Oil, Silverchair, Youth Group, You Am I and Powderfinger; the “pop princess” Kylie Minogue, Pendulum and alternative music stars John Butler Trio and Xavier Rudd.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Australia

Search 5: Australian Culture
http://www.aussieeducator.org.au/tertiary/subjects/history/australian/culture.html

Now there is a can of worms for you Monarchists. Suck it sweet Limey you know We deserve our own Head of State and our Own Flag and a more decent National Anthem.

And dont forget me. Unique to Australia. lol.
I guess to make it a Unique thing alltoghter we shall not call our new head of state PM, President, or King. The head of State shall be known as “The Great Aussie of Australia”.

Get a load of this analysis.
http://blogs.reuters.com/india-expertzone/2011/04/15/u-s-vs-china-which-economy-is-bigger-better/
Makes a good point for not messing up the ANZUS treaty if you ask me.

acotrel says:

01:35am | 25/04/11

@Chris I’ll bet they didn’t teach you about the conundrum of democracy and control in law school.  The signing of the Magna Carta represented a paradigm shift from authoritarianism to democracy.  Our system can easily revert to the old paradigm if the constitutional change is mishandled.  It only takes one oipportunistic idiot bent on wrecking the process.!

marley says:

08:22am | 25/04/11

@RobertSmissen - actually, the British crown is not the most stable form of government in the world.  One could make a decent argument that the British system of parliamentary democracy is the most stable form of government in the world, but the monarch is only a part of that form of government, not the totality of it. 

And one of the reasons that Britain does have such a stable form of government is that the monarch or her delegate, the GG, will not sack a government against the wishes of Parliament.  Until Gillard loses a major vote in Parliament, the GG will not sack her.

Stephen Putnam says:

05:09pm | 24/04/11

I too have just returned from the UK. You obviously missed the article in “The Times” which suggested that this royal wedding could be worth anything up to two billion sterling to a depressed economy.

Jai says:

07:32am | 25/04/11

Two billion for a depressed economy? How romantic.

stephen says:

10:58am | 25/04/11

By sterling, that’s a jove idea - er, whatever - but what’s a commoner’s wedding werf, heh ? A pint er guiness, two commemorative stamps and a public holiday ? (the last one, my arse, but the former, only as a shindig-stomp at the Pig’n Whistle)
You mean to say that the Happy Couple is doing more for the economy than it is for love ?
Now I know Willie’s had a good go around, and every girl in town will wisht is was them, but I got a gut feelin the gal here is a bit more complicated than a simple march down the aisle might suggest, and that this weddin is gonna COST 2 billion, even if she does hand back her dowry.
She’s a handsome woman, no doubt about it,
but something here just ain’t right.

Alice says:

09:22am | 26/04/11

Ryan - No different to your morals mate!

Ryan says:

12:02pm | 26/04/11

@Alice: really! You claim to know me and then accuse me of philandering, divorce. Do please enlighten me as to when I might have done these acts of immorality?
How about this then Alice, I challenge you to post your real name so as I may challenge your assertion in a court of law and clear my good name.

Haw Haw Haw says:

07:33pm | 26/04/11

Jeeze Ryan, get your hand off it before you go blind.

You’re just another anonymous poster, you dill.

What a joke. Like most of your posts mate.

Ryan says:

10:49pm | 26/04/11

@Haw Haw Haw: is that the best you have, infantile personal attacks with zero substance showing your total lack of intelligence let alone class.
Get some manners then come back and talk dropkick.

Darragh Scully says:

05:45pm | 24/04/11

Now that really set me on fire.
The Royal Federal Budget?
Did you know that the f136 engine was cancelled.
My Idea.
Go figure.
In response to the Petition to Revoke the Independance of the USA that is. Can you believe this shit. Im in town for a reality check which goes a little something like this. Well its like that and thats the way it is!
We didnt tolerate it in 1775 and we aint going to tolerate it now!

stephen says:

06:42pm | 24/04/11

And if your in red, pink and orange, I’ve got you nailed.

darragh scully says:

10:53am | 25/04/11

Well finnish it if you think you can you Filthy Fleebags

true blue says:

03:36pm | 25/04/11

My guess is that Gillard will have a ‘road to Damascus’ transformation. At least she said yes to the invitation. The ramifications had she said no would have been a sign for the mob to go into a frenzy for a constitutional change debate. What will be more interesting is if Gillard will go back for the Queens Jubilee 2012 celebrations despite doing dip     to commemorate it here.  All take and no give.

acotrel says:

08:55pm | 25/04/11

@Robert Missen I’m also an ‘avowed republican’ , I just cannot see how we can get from point A to point B without a revolution! Then the whole system could revert to a dictatorship. There’s a lot of risk in meddling with the current system.

Hamlyn says:

08:56pm | 25/04/11

I wouldnt like to look too far back in anyones family history!!!