As well as Australian citizens, 'British subjects' (ie those from any Commonwealth country) who were on the electoral roll on 25 Jan 1984, are eligible to vote even if they have not taken Australian citizenship.

There was a lot of fuss before the 1999 referendum about whether non-Australian citizens should have a vote on the republic. As far as I know the usual rules were used for that referendum.

The full title of Australia is 'Commonwealth of Australia' and it's not clear whether Mr Latham wants to change that too.

Jeremy

Just chop Lizzy's 'ed off, and be done with it. :eek:

Scrapping the State governments would be a great start! The bureaucracy is amazing for just 20mn people. But, given all the work it generates for lawyers and the State-based parochialism, you have more hope of getting Howard and Latham to confess their undying love for each other :)

Australia didn't vote to keep the Queen as head of state. It was simply that the alternative wasn't worked out properly and the public felt they should vote for the head of state - President and not have him/her appointed.

Australia has done a lot of growing up since the 60's and 70's and severing the ties that bind will only further reinforce this.

A republic is the way to go without a doubt, but the political process needs to be democratic and transparrent.

As Paul Keating said (sort of) 'do we want a head of state who is overseas, or do we want to be governed by one of our own?':lecture:

By 2007 I should have citizenship and will vote for a republic.

There are just over 5 million people in Scotland and the WHOLE of the UK easily fits into Victoria. So do they have for example one education department, one police force, one fire brigade etc in Scotland let alone for the UK?

No, in Scotland they have one education department in Lothian, one in Glasgow, one in Dumfries and Galloway, one in East Ayrshire, one in South Ayrshire, one in North Ayrshire, one in Borders, one in Central, one in Fife, one in Grampian, one in Tayside ............. are you still awake? Then they have one police department in Lothian, one in ....., one fire service in ........ one housing department in ......... one environmental health department in ............ Dozens of Education Directors, dozens of chief constables, dozens of chief fire officers, dozens of HR managers blah blah. The same applies in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

There is one education department in Victoria for 5 million people and an area bigger than the UK. And bureaucracy is rife in Oz? State and Commonwealth seems much less bureaucratic than region, UK, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland to me. And from 1974 until recently they had a district tier below the region to add to the bureaucracy.

It is the size of the country and not its population as well as history that will dictate that you can't do away with state and territory governments.


OzTennis:)

I've not met one sane Australian who wants to keep the Queen.

The problem with the last referendum was that not enough people liked the model - they wanted to vote for their 'President' (or whatever he/she was to be called).

I voted for the referendum - I believed that having parliament elect the Head of State was the right way to go. The Head of State had to have a two-thirds majority of both sides of parliament, which would have avoided us having either Howard's choice or Lathem's choice.

If the population gets to vote on it we'll almost definitely get a Dawn Fraser/Dick Smith/Steve Waugh - or whoever Rupert or Kerry wants us to have....

I agree with your comment on Oz history being the reason for what exists now.

But, although there is a need for representation in different parts of Oz, with today's advanced communications and infrastructure, there is no longer a need for State governments.

All the different States' legislation acts as a tax on business (especially inter-state business) and distorts economic behaviour. Just look at what is likely to happen as a result of the new NSW property tax. I was involved with a project to unify the Stamp Duty taxes across the Oz States - what a joke!

Today, there is no logical reason to have these separate State laws. If the ATO operates at Federal level why not rationalise and include all of the current State laws? Of course this would be far too difficult and costly to achieve, because of the vested interests.

Remember the Tasmanian gun massacre? The one time I had respect for John Howard was when he tried to do something about the ridiculous Oz gun laws - which also operated at State level. But that was a huge uphill struggle.

Yes, bureaucracy is rife in Oz. No doubt the bureaucracy in UK is excessive, but with the 4th largest economy in the world, it can carry it more than Oz.

The problem with UK bureaucracy is it is so large that it has it the diseconomies of scale. They cannot put in a decent computer system and the costs increasing by a factor of 10 and finally it is so delayed the system is considered archaic.

Post Office, Inland Revenue, Benefits, Passports, Immigration are just a few examples.

Centralisation is not always what it is cracked up to be.

I do believe the states should be limited in tax raising power but the same parties that rule federally rule locally. There are some state taxes that vary across the nation that just shoot Australian business in the feet, pay roll tax being an example. It is not the money paid out it is the compliance costs in filling out the paperwork.

Re: Republic of Australia
 

I think Australians are far smarter than the politicians give them credit for...and Australia is nearly a republic so they will vote no.

:confused: Bondi? Did you word that last bit correctly, or am I a little slow this morning ? :D the same parties that rule federally rule locally ?

I was talking generally. Labour Liberal are the ones that could get in power both at state and federal level.At the moment (I think all) the states are labour and the federal government is liberal/national. Both parties have the same vested interests at both levels of politics.

Strangely enough the liberals and Labour are ganging up together in Marrickville to stop the greens getting power. This was despite a boundary change to guarantee a labour win. Just shows you what the 2 will do if their power bases are threatened. Power is what they want, not a system that refects the will of the people.

The Battle for the Republic
 

Hi Everyone!

I voted yes because Australia is on the other side of the world and it just isnt logical to have a germanic queen on the other side of the world be the ruler of a country on the far side of the world.

I think the UK will always be the Motherland for a lot of them. They desired independance before we gave it to them anyway and why not go the full way and let them have their own Head of State.

Australia will still be able to keep there Flag and they will still be able compete in the commonwealth games.

Apparently the voting question was worded awkwardly and unclearly so Australians who thought they were voting yes FOR a Republic were voting NO instead.(ive heard this from some Australians)

I'm not fussed.

It it ain't broke, don't fix it (or mess with it).

Keep the Queen. Better the devil you know and all that.

BM

The general reason I have heard is Australians wanted to vote for a president themselves and not to let the politicians decide who it should be.

I just read this comment on a web site:

"The most overwhelmingly common comment about the Republic Referendum was that everyone thought the proposed method of chosing the president, and their powers, was completely wrong"

I also liked the comment : "Perhaps we should suggest the covergirl from Penthouse as the head of state?" :)

Now that might have just swung the votes !! :D