Australia to be a republic by 2010?

Question

If the ppl at the summit have there way.Will it make a difference in our day to day lives if we do?

Answer 1

I hope it doesnt (a bad difference that is), but we will see what happens i guess, i want to know what else they have in store for us.

Answer 2

We've had this before and not so long ago.  

1.  I don't give a toot whether Australia is a republic in law or not.  It is effectively a republic now.  

2.  If we have a republic then we might need a head of state.

3.  If the head of state is directly elected then he/she will be a politician.  There is no getting around this.

4.  If the politician elected as head of state has any disagreement with the parliament then the head of state will want to get her/his own way.

5.  The head of state will argue that he/she has a popular mandate and will do a power grab.  Eventually this will work to some extent and the head of state will gain powers that the present  governor-general does not have.

6.  The parliament is composed of dozens of people and is more representative of the country as a whole than any single person can be.  I would far rather the country be run by a parliament than a head of state.

7.  In my opinion the head of state of the USA (the president) has far too much power.  He is surrounded by secretaries of state and other advisers who are not elected.  Nobody outside the Republican Party ever voted for Condoleesa (spelling?) Rice, Henry Kissinger, Richard Perle or Paul  Wolfowitz.  These people have too much power and were never elected.   Same goes for the advisers of a Democratic Party president.

8.  If a directly elected president has been found to be up to no good, then it is extremely difficult to kick her/him out.  Look at how long it took to kick Nixon out of the White House.  Look at the mess Mugabe is making of Zimbabwe, he should have been kicked out by their parliament two or more years ago.  A parliament can change a prime minister in days or hours. France and Italy also have elected presidents and have been  known for relatively unstable governments.  

9.  If we have to have a republic to gratify certain sectors of the population, then the president has to be selected by the parliament and can only hold the job at their permission.  Maybe appointed from a short list by a 2/3rd majority of parliament in a SECRET ballot.  Since few parliaments ever have more than about 55% from a governing party this means that the appointee has to have the approval of some opposition members too.  

10.  I will never vote for a republic with a directly elected president.  The bad example of the USA looms too large.  Anybody who wants a directly elected president needs to be kicked in the head until they either learn some sense or die.

11.  A directly elected president can change our day to day lives.  The US president ordered the invasion of Iraq which started before their Congress approved it.  If it had been the decision of the Congress then it might not have happened as many Congress members would have demanded hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction and so forth.  There wasn't any then and next to nothing has been found since.

Answer 3

That whole summit was stacked with the self appointed elitists of this country.  Most of these guys are out and out republicans so of course they would unanimously agree that a Republic is the way to go forward.  

What I want to know is why they didn't just get a cross section of everyone from across the nation without favour to political leanings or economic status or any other kind of potential bias.  Just grab 1000 people from off the street all over Australia that would have done the trick.   I am sure most of the regular Aussies out there would have had just as many good ideas as the hand selected people that Labour let into their talkfest.

The real stinker idea that came out - getting rid of the states and replacing them with regional councils (ie local super councils).  I can really see West Australians loving the idea of handing even more  power over the "Eastern Staters".   Remember that this state came very close to seceding from the nation as recently as the 1980s.

Thankfully the Australian people have a very healthy distrust of Authority.  The constitution also has some good defenses against rampant stupidity of the ideological kind.   First the Government has to convince not  just a majority across the nation but also a majority within each state that this is a good idea.   With barely 8 referendums passed against more than 50 failed they don't have a chance.  This especially so if they don't have opposition party support.

Frankly the whole summit is a waste time - pretty much par for the course for this government so far.   Devoid of imagination and leadership,  we find them having to outsource to other people with a warped view of the world.

I think it is time Kevin Rudd quite tripping out and started getting on the with job of governing this country - this is what he was elected do after all.

Answer 4

I just hope we don't lose the Queens Birthday long public holiday!

Answer 5

Oh boy, the anti-replubicans have had a field day on this question haven't they?

The summit was a complete waste of time and totally unrepresentative of average Australians, but their endorsement of a republic was spot on. Their support of a republic should not come as a surprise to anyone as the desire for one encompasses people from every walk of life - elitist summit invitees and average Australians alike.

It won't happen by 2010 though. My guess would be for somewhere between 2012 and 2015 if, and only if, the proposed model has an elected President. If it doesn't, any new referendum will be scuttled like the last one.

Even though I'm an avid supporter of a republic, I believe it won't actually make any difference in our day to day lives at least in the short term, but we will never reach our full potential as a nation while we still have ties to a tired and irrelevant monarchy in a foreign country.