Should Australia become a Republic?

[anglolawyer]

In practical terms, what would it mean for Australia to become a "republic?" What is it now? My impression is that the Australian system today is similar to the U.S.'s and Canada's, with a freely elected (in fact, voting is legally required in Australia, right?) national government and six states with their own governments. What role does the monarchy actually play? How would the daily life of the average Australian change?

No part of my daily life changed when we abolished hereditary peerages but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good thing to do. Is the 'change to daily life' test the right one?

 

[ravdin]

The UK royals are a bargain compared to the pomp and majesty required to maintain a US president. If you like your betters with their inherited titles, you might as well keep them.

 

[MikeG]

...... I like the Aussies too.

You should put a hat on before you go out into the midday sun........

On the substance of the thread: of course it should, as should Canada. However, choosing a benign alternative, without ending up with a power-crazed loon in charge, or worse, complete ungovernable stasis as 3 different branches of government fight with each other, is going to be a tough trick to get right.

 

[anglolawyer]

You should put a hat on before you go out into the midday sun........

On the substance of the thread: of course it should, as should Canada. However, choosing a benign alternative, without ending up with a power-crazed loon in charge, or worse, complete ungovernable stasis as 3 different branches of government fight with each other, is going to be a tough trick to get right.

The Irish elect a jolly old president who just shakes hands and seems to cause no great trouble. Germany has a president who also behaves him/herself most of the time. It can be done.

 

[MikeG]

Zimbabwe used to have Canaan Banana (no, really......) do exactly the same thing. Uncle Bob decided he preferred the President's residence and shoved benign Banana in gaol.

So, you want to set up a powerless benign Presidency from scratch. How do you prevent Tony Blair from getting the job?

 

[ravdin]

I'm reminded of my favorite of Aesop's fables, King Log. It goes something like this: once upon a time, a group of frogs in a swamp were happily living out their contented, froggy lives when one of them got the bright idea that they needed a king. So they asked Zeus to send them one. Zeus shrugged and threw a great big log into the middle of the swamp. It made a huge splash and the frogs were frightened for a time, but their awe quickly faded as they found that the log didn't do anything and they could hop all over it as they pleased. "This won't do!", they complained to Zeus. "Send us a proper king!" Zeus responded to their foolishness by putting a stork in the swamp, which promptly ate all the frogs. The end.

 

[anglolawyer]

Zimbabwe used to have Canaan Banana (no, really......) do exactly the same thing. Uncle Bob decided he preferred the President's residence and shoved benign Banana in gaol.

So, you want to set up a powerless benign Presidency from scratch. How do you prevent Tony Blair from getting the job?

By voting? How do you prevent some moronic rich person whom nobody likes getting it under the hereditary system? Oh, that's right. You can't.

 

[Foolmewunz]

You should put a hat on before you go out into the midday sun........

On the substance of the thread: of course it should, as should Canada. However, choosing a benign alternative, without ending up with a power-crazed loon in charge, or worse, complete ungovernable stasis as 3 different branches of government fight with each other, is going to be a tough trick to get right.

I don't understand why everyone always assumes (in most of these discussions) that the system requires a "Presidency", no doubt looking at the US model. Australia and Canada are republics. They are just parliamentary republics. They'd have to change nothing about the way they govern the countries other than picking some new faces for the money and postage stamps. The role of the monarchy and the named representative (the Governor General in Canada - I assume something similar for Australia and New Zealand) of same is almost purely ceremonial. Parliament could continue to be elected the way it is, the leader of the government would still be called the Prime Minister, and everything would continue as it is.

Does the upper house in Australia do anything? In Canada, it's pretty much where you put old party hacks out to pasture.

 

[anglolawyer]

I don't understand why everyone always assumes (in most of these discussions) that the system requires a "Presidency", no doubt looking at the US model. Australia and Canada are republics. They are just parliamentary republics. They'd have to change nothing about the way they govern the countries other than picking some new faces for the money and postage stamps. The role of the monarchy and the named representative (the Governor General in Canada - I assume something similar for Australia and New Zealand) of same is almost purely ceremonial. Parliament could continue to be elected the way it is, the leader of the government would still be called the Prime Minister, and everything would continue as it is.

Does the upper house in Australia do anything? In Canada, it's pretty much where you put old party hacks out to pasture.

That's why, because it isn't purely ceremonial. The GG has prorogued parliament before now, exercising the sovereign power. The queen is sovereign and sovereignty must reside somewhere as a matter of necessary political theory (As I understand it). Why do you think countries have otherwise pointless presidencies? Just for the fun of it?

Consider various scenarios:

1 a hung parliament - two competing candidates for PM each claim to have the right to govern. Who decides?

2 a vote of no confidence is passed but the government refuses to quit and call an election.

How do you make them do it? Or how might they legitimately continue in office despite the vote (as has occurred)?

It gets deeper than this and if forced to do so I will unearth the deeper principle but it's not just (nor even principally) a question of ceremonial.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Zimbabwe used to have Canaan Banana (no, really......) do exactly the same thing. Uncle Bob decided he preferred the President's residence and shoved benign Banana in gaol.

So, you want to set up a powerless benign Presidency from scratch. How do you prevent Tony Blair from getting the job?

So very full of win...

One internetz is on its way to you.

 

[Slowvehicle]

That's why, because it isn't purely ceremonial. The GG has prorogued parliament before now, exercising the sovereign power. The queen is sovereign and sovereignty must reside somewhere as a matter of necessary political theory (As I understand it). Why do you think countries have otherwise pointless presidencies? Just for the fun of it?

Consider various scenarios:

1 a hung parliament - two competing candidates for PM each claim to have the right to govern. Who decides?

Well, DUH!

THUNDERDOME^TM
Two Candidates enter...one Candidate lieaves!

2 a vote of no confidence is passed but the government refuses to quit and call an election.

How do you make them do it? Or how might they legitimately continue in office despite the vote (as has occurred)?

Crud. That one's harder.

Hmmm...

Full Contact TiddlyWinks?

It gets deeper than this and if forced to do so I will unearth the deeper principle but it's not just (nor even principally) a question of ceremonial.

 

[Sideroxylon]

That's why, because it isn't purely ceremonial. The GG has prorogued parliament before now, exercising the sovereign power. The queen is sovereign and sovereignty must reside somewhere as a matter of necessary political theory (As I understand it). Why do you think countries have otherwise pointless presidencies? Just for the fun of it?

Consider various scenarios:

1 a hung parliament - two competing candidates for PM each claim to have the right to govern. Who decides?

2 a vote of no confidence is passed but the government refuses to quit and call an election.

How do you make them do it? Or how might they legitimately continue in office despite the vote (as has occurred)?

It gets deeper than this and if forced to do so I will unearth the deeper principle but it's not just (nor even principally) a question of ceremonial.

This seems to be one way in which the system works as a solution to political crises. The one time this switch was pulled was rather controversial:

The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis (often known simply as "the Dismissal") has been described as the greatest political and constitutional crisis in Australian history. It culminated on 11 November 1975 with the removal of the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), by Governor-General Sir John Kerr, who then appointed the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Fraser, as caretaker Prime Minister.​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

 

[MikeG]

By voting?

But as soon as you vote, you give that person a democratic legitimacy, which is power. We're trying to set up a powerless office, remember?

How do you prevent some moronic rich person whom nobody likes getting it under the hereditary system? Oh, that's right. You can't.

So what? You get a rich moron with no power. He / she gets to open a few bridges and supermarkets, and draws in a load of tourists. Can't see the problem, so long as it is OUR rich moron, and not some foreign rich moron. Oh, hang on a minute.........

 

[anglolawyer]

But as soon as you vote, you give that person a democratic legitimacy, which is power. We're trying to set up a powerless office, remember?

Not really. You give them exactly the amount of power conferred by the constitution on the president. The German president does not chuck his weight around nor does the mainly titular Irish pres. Both are elected.

So what? You get a rich moron with no power. He / she gets to open a few bridges and supermarkets, and draws in a load of tourists. Can't see the problem, so long as it is OUR rich moron, and not some foreign rich moron. Oh, hang on a minute.........

'So what' is actually the hardest argument to crack. Look, I don't really care that much. I live in a country in which the mass of the people and the media all think the monarchy is wunnerful. It's like being in a mild form of Nazi Germany or a religious society but it impinges hardly at all - except now and then when some slobbering journo breathlessly tells me on the evening news what somebody wore at Chamonix or that The Duke of Ed has a bad chest on the implicit assumption that I actually care or when the New Years Honours come out and all the nameless civil servants, captains of industry, party donors, hangers-on, filthy rich do-gooders, purveyors of influence, party hacks and other shady types who have been manoeuvring for their gongs finally get them under cover of the few sports stars, lollypop and dinner ladies and sundry celebs who take our eyes off the recurring trick that keeps a self-serving, cosy elite high above the clouds

There are things that just grate and, if given the choice, I would place an X in favour of getting rid of those things. No chance of that here as everybody is in the aforesaid stupor but the Aussies are a different case.

 

[MikeG]

......No chance of that here as everybody is in the aforesaid stupor.........

Not everyone. I loath the buggers. But I dread the alternative far more.

 

[Bob001]

No part of my daily life changed when we abolished hereditary peerages but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good thing to do. Is the 'change to daily life' test the right one?

Let me rephrase the question. What role does the British monarchy play in the Australian government today that it would not play if Australia became a republic? What would change in the way the government functions? (And as an aside, I would say that changing the way people become members of a House of Parliament is a pretty significant change that could affect the laws and policies that affect everyone).

 

[Lensman]

Not really. You give them exactly the amount of power conferred by the constitution on the president. The German president does not chuck his weight around nor does the mainly titular Irish pres. Both are elected.


'So what' is actually the hardest argument to crack. Look, I don't really care that much. I live in a country in which the mass of the people and the media all think the monarchy is wunnerful. It's like being in a mild form of Nazi Germany or a religious society but it impinges hardly at all - except now and then when some slobbering journo breathlessly tells me on the evening news what somebody wore at Chamonix or that The Duke of Ed has a bad chest on the implicit assumption that I actually care or when the New Years Honours come out and all the nameless civil servants, captains of industry, party donors, hangers-on, filthy rich do-gooders, purveyors of influence, party hacks and other shady types who have been manoeuvring for their gongs finally get them under cover of the few sports stars, lollypop and dinner ladies and sundry celebs who take our eyes off the recurring trick that keeps a self-serving, cosy elite high above the clouds

There are things that just grate and, if given the choice, I would place an X in favour of getting rid of those things. No chance of that here as everybody is in the aforesaid stupor but the Aussies are a different case.

If you don't like hearing these things, do as I do - ignore them.

 

[MikeG]

Not everyone. I loath the buggers......

And that from someone who has met most of them (the older generation, at least). One of them is the most obnoxious human I have ever spent an afternoon with.

 

[MontagK505]

The crazy thing is, the Republicans, (that is, not Monarchists), had the numbers till Diana's son got married to a looker and had a baby. This is no different to supporting a pop group. Embarassing.

Well, a pop-group does have the potential of being entertaining.
I've always been mystified at the amount of attention given to the British Royalty in the US.

 

[MontagK505]

You lot could become a territory of the US. I don't think you have enough people to apply for statehood.

Getting them to drive on the proper side of the road might be a major problem.

BTW Hawaii has a much lower population.