Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Rambi

Nothing wrong with the Irish model (which sounds no different to the Finnish model). It would make for an easy transition from here to there.

I also believe monarchy is a rotten system. However most people don't care. And then others love the whole fairytale.

My feeling is that there is a slight majority for a republic than not but most are also wary that the government can't be trusted to manage the transition or can't see the benefits of change.

The property bubble is due to burst on the 15 March 2015.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by roaringmouse

Interesting thing to note is that when the Queen of Australia is in Australia, she is considered to be neither an Australian citizen nor a foreigner as such. This doesn't go for anyone else in the Royal Family, including the Duke of Edinburgh.

Also, to address a different point she does act as Queen of Australia in some things outside of Australia - so she does occasionally represent Australia outside Australia.

Originally Posted by THR

It is not really important whether you call the head of state as president or king/queen/GG but it is important what kind of powers that head of state has. In 1975 the GG dismissed the Australian PM so the GG has large powers if need be.

I wonder how it has been described in law when the GG has the right to dismiss the government. Surely he can't do that at will, there must be some circumstances of deadlock where the only solution is to dismiss the government. If the Irish president had the power to dismiss the government she should have done just that some time ago.

Originally Posted by commonwealth

if the head of state (monarch/GG) is only ceremonial in practice and rarely do use their reserve powers, why not get rid of them altogether? it's less expensive for the taxpayers.

surely the high court can be given enough powers to solve constitutional deadlocks?

Originally Posted by THR

There are several aspects to the debate whether to have a president with purely a ceremonial role or a president with large powers. On one hand, presidents have their terms and can not be removed from office in the middle of the term unless they commit some crime against the constitution or are sentenced of some other serious crime. Incompetence at the job is no reason to remove the president in the middle of the term, only elections can remove the president and the next elections could be years away.

Prime Ministers can be sacked at a very short notice by Parliaments.

On the other hand, many presidents are elected by the people when as Prime MInisters become PM's because they lead the largest party in Parliament. Of course they also must win elections to lead their party as the largest party but PM's can be sacked by their parties if the party no longer elects him/her as the party-leader. Therefore it is the handful of party-activists at party-conferences which in effect elect the Prime Ministers of many countries.

Originally Posted by THR

Are you people in Australia, or in Canada, NZ or in any Commonwealth country for that matter, going to have a day off on April 29th when William and Kate get married? No? Well, I didn't think so myself either.

Originally Posted by THR

You know the exact date when the property bubble will burst?

Originally Posted by Rambi

Australia is a parliamentary democracy. I see no reason to change that.

Originally Posted by GarryP

Have you seen the incompetence of the average Australian politico ?

I say we outsource it, with performance bonuses and the right to terminate the contract for non-performance. Cheaper service delivery from specialists rather than amateurs.

Originally Posted by fish.01

It also goes against the grain that my child can never be head of state of his country.

Originally Posted by GarryP

Have you seen the incompetence of the average Australian politico ?

I say we outsource it, with performance bonuses and the right to terminate the contract for non-performance. Cheaper service delivery from specialists rather than amateurs.

Originally Posted by James516

But your grandchild could - assuming your child marries the right person

Originally Posted by GarryP

Have you seen the incompetence of the average Australian politico ?