Republic

[beebub]

Ideally, there needs to be a hybrid system, maybe something like a joint sitting of parliament to short list candidates and each party is given a veto on any candidates, that short list is then presented to the people for a popular elected president.

That still sounds like an appointed president to me. If it's largely a ceremonial role as the governor general currently is, then it wouldn't matter if the president was from a different party to the PM. Here in Ireland each political party puts forward a candidate and then there are a few other rules which can allow you to run i.e. the support of a certain number of memebers of parliament or the support of a number of local authorities. Once the list is drawn up the people decide. In the last election held there were 5 candidates. Three from the main parties and two who were nominated by 5 local authorities. The representatives from the two biggest parties were chosen democratically by the respective parties.

The current president, Mary McAleese was the representative of the main political party and the party in power at the time, but was not nor is now a member of that party.

[beebub]

Originally Posted by Threat

Two main reasons I guess. The idea that there's a different law in each state disturbs me (see Seinfeld finale) and all the politics around the transfer of federal money to state governments for their responsibilities just seems ridiculous to me. Better to just have a national law and nationally controlled money.

I'm not so sure about that. Although the population of Oz is not huge and the population of Western Oz and NT are relatively even smaller, when I was in Perth there was a feeling that the politicians based in the east were not in any way in touch with the needs of the people of Western Oz and in some ways they had a point. For example, while I was there Johnny Bumhole was discussing a higher tax on 'luxury goods'. Included in the list of luxury goods was 4 x 4 vehicles. Now young Renee in downtown Sydney bringing little Kylie & Bruce to school 3 miles away in her giant 4 x 4 could certainly be considered a luxury, but tell someone who lives in Exmouth or Broome that owning a 4 x 4 is a luxury! And I can see their point.

[Quake]

I remember reading an article in an Irish Newspaper when Ireland played the Wallabies in a Rugby Union international at Dublin in 2005. It reported on a smart alec (or so he thought) Irish guy who tried to slag off an Aussie who was wearing the Australian flag around his shoulders, by asking him how can he bear to have the British Union Jack in the corner of his countries flag, to which the Aussie brilliantly repiled:

I'd rather have them in the corner of my flag than the corner of my country mate!

Basically, I'm guessing that even though a lot of Australians would rather see the Union Jack removed, either way ye still take great pride in the flag.

[Spud Henley]

Originally Posted by Quake

I remember reading an article in an Irish Newspaper when Ireland played the Wallabies in a Rugby Union international at Dublin in 2005. It reported on a smart alec (or so he thought) Irish guy who tried to slag off an Aussie who was wearing the Australian flag around his shoulders, by asking him how can he bear to have the British Union Jack in the corner of his countries flag, to which the Aussie brilliantly repiled:



Basically, I'm guessing that even though a lot of Australians would rather see the Union Jack removed, either way ye still take great pride in the flag.

The original guidelines of the Australian flag design competition stated that the Union Flag had to be in the canton so there was no choice in the matter. As far as the flag goes I like but would be happy to see it go. There are some people that believe the Aboriginal Flag should be put in it's place and I think that's a good idea because having a flag that represents only indigenous Australians is excluding of the greater population and would be a symbolic gesture of union and the countries true heritage.

This wouldn't work I'm afraid to say for Mr. Harold Thomas, the designer and copyright holder of the Aboriginal flag believes "Our flag is not a secondary thing. It stands on its own, not to be placed as an adjunct to any other thing. It shouldn't be treated that way." I'm not too happy with his sentiments because I feel it separates me from the land that I call home by trivialising my belief simply because I am not an ancestor of the original inhabitants of the land. Prejudice works both ways and unfortunately not everyone shares my opinion that the land and people are one.

[DanDare]

Originally Posted by Loki

Not keen on a Bill of Rights.

They tend to set things in stone and don't allow for changing attitudes or "interpretation". What they obviously mean now might not be so obvious a century from now and ways they can be coopted to support vested interests may not be obvious to the authors.

s116 is a good example as is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

That is a problem for codified laws in general, and precedent law in particular. That is why regular review is required. Would you prefer to do without codified laws at all? If the answer is no, why should a bill of rights be an exception?

[loubert]

Perhaps a bill of rights that is only changeable with a referendum of 80%. just an idea.

Personally, I think it all comes down to the wording, and how you can interpret it.

[IVPITER]

https://theconversation.edu.au/vive-...upporters-4750

Originally Posted by The Conversation

The new Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, has made her intention clear to reignite the debate on Australia becoming a republic. On taking up the new position, she took the opportunity to stake out her position in stronger terms than any one else in the Labor government, including Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Originally Posted by The Conversation

More action needed

Isolated voices like these, no matter how prominent, cannot generate fresh momentum on their own. What is needed now is a new dynamic in which prominent individuals like Roxon, Ridout and Flood, work together in the political, private and public sectors to put the republic back high on the agenda of the nation.
They need to not just recognise the force of each other’s statements, but also to take comfort and inspiration from them. They each need to become champions within their sectors and to build networks across them.
Champions can help make it happen, but to do so, as in any campaign, they must be the tip of an iceberg. Other political, business and public sector leaders must take the opportunity to join them. Success will need other ingredients, including a stronger Australian Republican Movement, but the rise of more committed champions is a good first step.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-1226220370217

Originally Posted by The Australian

"I'm a strong advocate of a republic and many people, me included, are looking for the right opportunity to re-invigorate that debate," she told The Australian yesterday."The government has an ambitious program and I don't think the time has come yet, but it may well come during my tenure." She said she would take a keen interest in the outcome of a review of Australia's anti-discrimination legislation, which is likely to see the laws in this area "freshened up".

Some small hope for the future. It's refreshing to hear strong support for a republic. It's frustrating to hear all the variations of "why fix what isn't broken" or "we have other things worry about," as if we can only do one thing at a time.
Why isn't there more politicians like Nicola Roxon. She also supports gay marriage and happens to be an atheist.

[cyclist]

Personally, if the government wants to look at the republic path, then they need to first run a referendum with a question of simply

Should Australia become a Republic?

I strongly suspect that it would pass with flying colours, then the government needs to find the right way of doing it. The reason the 1998(?) referendum failed was because it asked

Should Australia become a Republic with this really crap system?

So some people who wanted a republic voted no, because they didn't like the model.

James

[Logic]

Originally Posted by cyclist

The reason the 1998(?) referendum failed was because it asked

Should Australia become a Republic with this really crap system?

So some people who wanted a republic voted no, because they didn't like the model.

James

Agree! How they go about finding the 'right' system or model though is a challenge.


i sent this from my iPad

[Iseeyouthere]

I'm half and half.

Don't know if we have the right people leading us to become a Republic. Nor do we have the right way. We'll have to have a major vote on that to even see what possible step we need to take.

At the same time... we have grown to a size and status that I can't help but want to move away from being tied to Britian. But thats more personal feeling.

-----
My personal changes that I'd like to see if we became a republic:
Replace the Queen's Birthday with 'Elder's Day' (respect for all elders, both Aboriginal and our own.)
Change the flag colours to green and gold, replacing the Union Jack with the Aboriginal flag.
Move Australia day to a day where we became a country rather than the "Invasion Day"

All this is respect for the Aboriginals, because of the fact we took the land from them for Britian... So as a Republic, we are giving it back... Small as it is for what they had been through. But it is their land.
Remember, all this ^ personal feelings for if we became a republic.