Should Australia become a Republic?

[DarthFishy]

What if you make the ceremonial President the previous Test Cricket Captain? It would only be for a limited amount of time (until the current captain gets replaced), and at least Cricket Captains are well versed (generally) in speaking to the media and performing other ceremonial duties?

 

[theprestige]

This thread is like watching a rugby player, a basketball Player, a football player, and a baseball player argue about changing the rules for field goals.

More seriously, I don't see much point in having a ceremonial head of state, nor much difference between the monarchic and republic variations on that theme. For practical purposes, the real head of state is whatever office in which the power of the state actually resides. Inventing nominal "head of state" roles just for the warm fuzzies you get from being able to say "technically the prime minister doesn't have ultimate authority" doesn't make any sense to me at all.

To me, arguing about which kind of ceremonial head of state to have misses the point entirely. Just get rid of the office altogether, and focus your attention on the people who are actually governing you.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

This thread is like watching a rugby player, a basketball Player, a football player, and a baseball player argue about changing the rules for field goals.

More seriously, I don't see much point in having a ceremonial head of state, nor much difference between the monarchic and republic variations on that theme. For practical purposes, the real head of state is whatever office in which the power of the state actually resides. Inventing nominal "head of state" roles just for the warm fuzzies you get from being able to say "technically the prime minister doesn't have ultimate authority" doesn't make any sense to me at all.

To me, arguing about which kind of ceremonial head of state to have misses the point entirely. Just get rid of the office altogether, and focus your attention on the people who are actually governing you.

I think the main reasons for having a ceremonial head of state in Australia is to minimise the changes required in the constitution when going to referendum. But ultimately I agree, I think the PM should be the head of state.

 

[psionl0]

I think the main reasons for having a ceremonial head of state in Australia is to minimise the changes required in the constitution when going to referendum.

Actually, the main reason is because no PM is going to support a republican model that transfers power to a directly elected head of state.

I believe that "elect the president" had the most support among the population. At the constitutional convention, there were 3 main factions: monarchists, those wanting an appointed president and those who wanted the president to be elected. Ultimately the appointed model went to referendum (even though it did not get an absolute majority support from the convention) because monarchists sided with this model in the hope that it would be voted down by the public.

But ultimately I agree, I think the PM should be the head of state.

I disagree for reasons I have given earlier.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Actually, the main reason is because no PM is going to support a republican model that transfers power to a directly elected head of state.

Sorry, I don't follow. Whether the head of state is directly elected or not has no bearing on whether any given model needs one or not.

I believe that "elect the president" had the most support among the population. At the constitutional convention, there were 3 main factions: monarchists, those wanting an appointed president and those who wanted the president to be elected. Ultimately the appointed model went to referendum (even though it did not get an absolute majority support from the convention) because monarchists sided with this model in the hope that it would be voted down by the public.

Yes, I remember it well. I still am unsure of the relevance though (ie, why the models discussed so closely resemble what we already have, except for the reason I posted earlier).

I disagree for reasons I have given earlier.

Sorry, I haven't been religiously following this thread.

 

[psionl0]

Sorry, I don't follow. Whether the head of state is directly elected or not has no bearing on whether any given model needs one or not.

That is the case only if the head of state is intended to be mainly ceremonial and the country is run by the prime minister.

OTOH if you have a country with a president but with no prime minister then you definitely want the president to be elected.

 

[anglolawyer]

If the prime minister is also the president what do you do when, as must sooner or later happen, a dispute arises about who is entitled to be prime minister? That may be rare but when it happens it can be very serious, with two (or more) claiming the right to govern.

I also think there is some political theory on signing bills into law or something. That is the sovereign's job, not a lowly PM. See the preceding paragraph re bills signed by someone whose right to the office is in dispute. Is the law a law or not?

 

[psionl0]

If the prime minister is also the president ..........

I have never heard of a republic like that. It is usually two different people - except in the US where there is no prime minister.

......... what do you do when, as must sooner or later happen, a dispute arises about who is entitled to be prime minister?

That is generally a "reserve power" of the head of state - whether it be the Governor General or the President. Normally he would appoint the choice of the majority party as PM. If this were not possible then he would appoint an MP of his own choice - primarily so that he could be advised to dissolve the house and call for an election.

This is what Sir John Kerr did in 1975.

 

[Aber]

If the prime minister is also the president what do you do when, as must sooner or later happen, a dispute arises about who is entitled to be prime minister? That may be rare but when it happens it can be very serious, with two (or more) claiming the right to govern.
?

Send it to the courts?



(But who gets to appoint the judges that will have to decide?)

 

[anglolawyer]

Send it to the courts?



(But who gets to appoint the judges that will have to decide?)

That confers what is essentially a political function on the supposedly apolitical judges and compromises their independence. I know the US Supreme Court got involved in a presidential election result but that was only concerning the nitty gritty of vote counting and was a purely factual matter. According to what set of legal principles is a judge supposed to decided between contending rivals for office neither of whom (say) commands a majority in parliament?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

I still don't get how the two positions become "rivals". If the President has no/little authority under our constitution, where do they get it exactly?