Republic

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Hello folks
Rather than derail Reality Rules' thread with further monarchy stuff, I would like to know if you think Australia should become a republic. While the thought of a possible President Eddie McGuire made me nauseous, I was disappointed that the referendum on whether or not we should become a republic plumped for the status quo.
Are we getting any advantage from our status in the Commonwealth? Is having the Anglican equivalent of the Pope as our head of state enough to ensure religion will always be offered a place at the table in our parliament?
Here in New Zealand, thinking on the matter is similar to that in Australia during my childhood - that being part of something larger offers a leg up in economic and cultural status. In my lifetime, this attitude has changed in Australia and I think we're big and ugly enough to go it on our own. Tossing out one more plank of religious self justification at the same time as recognising our national self worth would be double plus good.
Looking forward to seeing what others think.
WLB

[Xeno]

I recollect being involved in a discussion on this earlier this year on the forum. I took the position that Turnbull's model posed less governance risk than open election (although it depends also on circumscription of powers) and that was found contentious by some.

That we should abandon the monarchy goes without saying, for me.

[Fearless]

Go back ten years or so and I would have argued against it "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and for the cost involved etc.

These days I think I'm for it only on a political frustration cause. Our current political parties are just the bloody same really and the populace only really see two parties so it is just this your turn, my turn thing.

I'm over it.

Sure a republic system can have it's own set of concerns but I'm getting to the stage of believing that anything is better than what we have.

If this were a republic now and Gillard was at the head she would still be bowing down to religious influence. I think the religious influence will always haunt us until there is a shift in power enough to be able to make policy without it.

We will never mature from where we are until we do.

But then look at America. America's religious think they are oppressed all the time (even though they are in the majority) given the separation of church and state and are in some sort of eternal battle, to save their country to bring it back to its so claimed Christian foundations.

Australia is not tough enough to get past its religious governing. Until it is I am not expecting any major change.

Sorry for the mish mash post, I have been a bit sick all night. Zombie mode.

[Ce4or]

that being part of something larger offers a leg up in economic and cultural status

I doubt our cultural and economic ties would change a great deal if at all with the advent of a republic.
One thing that I find attractive about a republic is it is a good lead into discussion on a bill of rights .
We should just wait till Alan Jones kicks the bucket and can't wind up the truckies and pensioners. (seriously I think he is one of the most repugnant persons in the land)
Monarchist websites have already kicked back into gear with Gillard and Brown's rise in power.

[loubert]

Yes, I'm for a republic.

and a bill of rights.

[bruce1937]

Personally I am all for a republic as to which model, I will have to wait and see what is proposed next time it is put to the people. I am not sufficiently educated to propose a model myself but look forward to considering the options provided.
If at the same time some of religions grasp on power is reduced, all the better. If it is an overt attack on religion though, they would mobilize an attack against it and the opportunity would be lost once again.
I doubt that the opportunity will occur until the next monarch is to be installed.

[Rhys]

I'm definitely for a Republic but do not want a directed elected president. I think things would be sufficiently easier if we simply had a president elected by being the leader of his or her own party like we have now.

I don't really agree with Fearless above, because, for me when your two top political parties can't see a huge difference in their policies it means the country is running pretty smoothly.

Yes, it'd be nice to see Christians stop being one of the most important groups for political parties to want on their side but it'll take a while for the balance of power to shift away from them until more and more irreligious people start to realise the rotten deal we've been getting.

[Fearless]

Originally Posted by Rhys

I don't really agree with Fearless above, because, for me when your two top political parties can't see a huge difference in their policies it means the country is running pretty smoothly.

Fair enough, there is that argument, but we see so much heated debate from both sides and supporters come election time but at the end of the day there is little difference, what is all the hoo har about really? It comes down to who has the best train set or whatever it seems. Watching the two sides argue and bicker like they do is an absolute embarrassment.

I want someone, a party, who is going to go against the grain, take risks to try to make things better. Someone with charisma and guts to show people what can be done. Neither these two parties dare deviate too much or it might cost votes. So concerned with polls and popularity they start to forget what the point is. Australia could be so much better. Starting with our health system.

With the current system change is too slow and too reserved. Australia is pretty resilient, time to put it to the test.

But if they do stick to the current system then at least they could cut half the BS by cutting compulsory voting.

I read somewhere today that we are probably heading for a hung vote again. I know it is a bit of guesswork at this stage, but FFS it ain't bloody good enough!

[Rhys]

Originally Posted by Fearless

Fair enough, there is that argument, but we see so much heated debate from both sides and supporters come election time but at the end of the day there is little difference, what is all the hoo har about really? It comes down to who has the best train set or whatever it seems. Watching the two sides argue and bicker like they do is an absolute embarrassment.

I want someone, a party, who is going to go against the grain, take risks to try to make things better. Someone with charisma and guts to show people what can be done. Neither these two parties dare deviate too much or it might cost votes. So concerned with polls and popularity they start to forget what the point is. Australia could be so much better. Starting with our health system.

With the current system change is too slow and too reserved. Australia is pretty resilient, time to put it to the test.

But if they do stick to the current system then at least they could cut half the BS by cutting compulsory voting.

I read somewhere today that we are probably heading for a hung vote again. I know it is a bit of guesswork at this stage, but FFS it ain't bloody good enough!

In terms of the Economy at least, I think it's a good thing when the two major parties are so similar. Yes, unfortunately, this will mean they're not going to deviate on social issues for fear of losing votes, especially the Christian vote.

It'd be a massive breath of fresh air to have a few politicians actually stand up for something. A few Nick Xenophons and even Andrew Wilkies who are willing to go against the rest of them on a few major social issues.

In the Victorian election at least, hopefully seeing as there will be a few greens in the Assembly and several greens in the Council we will see the Victorian Parliament, almost powerless thought it may be, actually bring up a few social issues that actually matter. Even though, as I said they have basically no power to do anything about them.

[cyclist]

The poll that was held about 10 years ago is often mis used to state that the majority of Australian's are against a Republic. The poll was basically "Should Australia become a republic under this model", which wasn't a good or fair question.

If the question was "Should Australia become a Republic?" then I think it would have passed, and then there could have been further referendums at a later date to try and work out the model.

Personally, I am relatively indifferent to it, I don't feel that I have seen a decent argument in why we should become a republic. But on the same token, I am not aware of any compelling reason for why we should remain as part of the commonwealth.

I am happy to vote for a republic, but I want to see a decent model that allows the people a choice in selecting who is our president. I don't think that it can be a directly elected president, but the system proposed in 99 seemed very much like a "jobs for the boys" style system from memory.

James