THR

11 years ago you people in Australia had a referendum on republic and you rejected it. Mainly because the proposal was about transforming the role of the GG into president and with little power.

Perhaps understandable that you rejected it at the time but was that a bit short-sighted? Is there any real possibility of asking the question again any time soon whether people want a republic or not?

If you people in Australia are happy with the current arrangement of things then fine by me but as for me the very idea of monarchy is so rotten to the core with people being born into positions of extreme privilege etc, I just can't fathom why should anyone want to keep up a system like that.

Of course, I'm not saying that in a republic there wouldn't be people born with a silver spoon in their mouths, of course not, but at least in theory in republics that does not exist even though there is always THE Elite in every country who call the shots.

Therefore, my anti-monarchist sentiments are purely based on principal rather than on some naive belief that in a republic everyone is equal etc blaablaablaa.

However, does the inequality need to be officially entrenched?

Sorry if I offended anyone, was not my intention. The way Australia handles its government is none of my business. The reason I post here is because I am very interested in both Australia and NZ and their societies.

Wendy

I couldn't give a monkey's about them, but my Aussie work mate is the biggest royalist I've ever met!

Sherlock Holmes

Referenda in Australia:

Aussies love to vote, "no".

The last time the question was asked it was put thus:

Do you want to be a republic?

Answer: No

Do you want to get rid of the monarchy?

Answer: No.

------

The question needs to be framed in such a way that "no" will bring about change.

Do you want things to stay the same?

Answer: No.

That's my wife's theory anyway and she's the Australian.

Most Aussies and Brits that I know are happy to keep the monarchy as they see most examples of republics (mainly the USA) to be complete rubbish.

THR

If there is one kind of republic Australia should avoid, it is that of the Irish whose president is next to useless in the time of severe crisis the country is going through.

Btw, I have heard that your property-markets in Australia are one big bubble waiting to be burst.

Sherlock Holmes

Give it a few years yet, until the "must have" culture here (the one that the UK went through in the 80s) has passed and then perhaps it will.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

If Australia ever does switch to a Republic then the role of 'President' or whatever else the Head of State gets called, would be purely ceremonial. The current elected officials would not want to see any power transferred away from them and realistically would probably like the current powers of the Governor General and State Governors transferred back to central government.

Personally I would not vote for a Republic. Not out of any Royalist tendencies, but because I think the present systems works fine and see no reason to change it.

Dreamy

We had to do an essay on this for a law assignment.

I'd say that the next real chance of it happening will be when the Queen croaks it.

The main problem, after phrasing a question that doesn't actually scare off those who WANT a republic, is that the requirements to change the Constitution are quite difficult to achieve - its only been managed 8 times ever.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Q. Would you like another set of thieving, corrupt, self-promoting group of politicians as the head of State or do you wish to retain the same system?

Works for me.

Dreamy

LOLOL!

fish.01

Are you saying those were the sort of questions asked at the referendum?

From wiki, the questions at the referendum were:

Main Republic Question:

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Preamble Question:

A second question was asked whether Australians wanted to alter the Constitution to insert a preamble.

With hope in God, the Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good.
We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution:
proud that our national unity has been forged by Australians from many ancestries;
never forgetting the sacrifices of all who defended our country and our liberty in time of war;
upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law;
honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people, for their deep kinship with their lands and for their ancient and continuing cultures which enrich the life of our country;
recognising the nation-building contribution of generations of immigrants;
mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment;
supportive of achievement as well as equality of opportunity for all;
and valuing independence as dearly as the national spirit which binds us together in both adversity and success.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Interpreted as "Would you like to remove the Queen as Head of State and replace her with a politician, elected by his cronies"

Recent events would probably have seen Kevin Rudd 'moved upstairs' to be President.

fish.01

Not it is not dead. The majority think it is inevitable.

Before the last referendum polls showed overwhelming public support for a republic.

The prime minister John Howard was vehemently against it though.

The referendum question thus linked the following two questions into one big question:

1. Do you want Australia to become a republic?
2. Do you want the president of the republic to be elected by the politicians?

So in simple terms it was offered as this one big double question:

1. Do you want Australia to become a republic AND do you want the president of the republic to be elected by the politicians?

Because it was presented this way it could never pass as it split the republic vote in two.

Republican groups were fractured and some campaigned for a No vote. They did not want the president elected by politicians but instead by the people.

The prime minister John Howard celebrated with a big party when the result came in.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Who would put the candidates forward to be 'elected by the people'?. The politicians?

fish.01

My mind was made up to vote yes for a republic when I had dinner with a guest from Malaysia before the referendum.

She questioned the viability of Australia becoming a republic given that the UK would stop sending money to Australia as we would no longer be a colony.

She said in discussions with her university friends and in the main daily Malaysian newspapers there was doubt that Australia could be a success as an independent nation.

She was in disbelief when I pointed out we had already been independent for 100 years.

I think the view of some in Asia (and possibly elsewhere) that we are a colony rather than a nation and not capable of standing alone can only damage their confidence in us as a country. They may not trust us to make independent decisions and it may affect trade decisions they take.

I also do not like that our head of state does not promote us but rather the UK when travelling abroad.

It also goes against the grain that my child can never be head of state of his country. It is not democratic and is not in line with the principles of this country.

I also think the symbolism of having an Australian head of state is the next step in our development as an independent nation. Could you imagine the USA or UK with a foreigner as head of state - would they be the places they are today? I am sure there were many happy with status quo prior to Australia becoming independent in 1901 but nations must move and grow.

fish.01

According to wiki, the 2004 senate inquiry recommended holding a series of plebiscites to allow the public to choose which model they preferred "before" a referendum is called. This seems the better way.