Should Australia Become A Republic?
RyoOhki
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Looking to the future or the past?</div> As some forumites may know, Australia is not an independant nation. Though we gained the right to elect our own government back in 1901, the head of state remains the Queen of England, and she exercises this authority through her representative here, the Governor General.
The powers of the Governor General are as follows: <a href='http://www.australianpolitics.com/constitution/gg/powers.shtml' target='_blank'>Click</a>
As you can see, they are fairly broad and powerful. The most disturbing ones though must be:
Section 28: May dissolve the House of Representatives.
Section 57: May dissolve both houses of parliament in the event of a deadlock between them.
These abilities lead, in 1975, to an event in Australian politics known as <a href='http://whitlamdismissal.com/' target='_blank'>The Whitlam dismissal</a> , in which the Governor General dismissed a democratically elected government from office. Please note that the Australian people have absolutly no say in who holds the office of GG; he is appointed by the Prime Minister.
Now a few years back, Australia had a referendum to decide if we wanted to become a republic. It failed. Not because Australians did not want a republic, but because the proposed model was no popular enough. The monarchist lobby for example did not even attempt to use the queen as a basis for their arguement; their slogan was "Say no to the politicians' republic". Recent polls show clearly that <a href='http://www.sundaytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,9353,8481658-28778,00.html' target='_blank'>Australians want a republic</a> , but with our current leader John Howard, who is a staunch monarchist, the issue will not come up again.
Turning to the news though we see that Mark Latham, the new head of the Federal opposition, has pledged to bring the republic issue up again. Whether or not Latham will win office, or if he will follow through with this promise, remains to be seen. Nonetheless, the issue of a republic is something that I believe needs to be discussed.
My opinion is that I want Australia to become a republic. I don't like having a non-Australian who couldn't care less about us ruling over our fine nation. I don't like that she can exercise so much power over our parlimentary system. But most of all I don't like that Australia is seen as a backwards British colony of convicts, still tied to a nation which frankly has done nothing for us. Look at our history. They started off by dumping criminals here and providing little support. In both WWI and WWII they called on us to fight, and fight we did, losing thousands of our young citizens in battles far away from home. Yet in 1942, when we needed help, Britian abandoned us, leaving us to call for aid from the US, who have been far better allies than the motherland.
Keeping us tied to England has, as far as I can see, one benefit: we get to participate in the Commenwealth Games and win just about everything <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> We don't trade much with Britian, nor do we rely upon them for military aid. Yet even if we did become a republic, the Queen is hardly going to cry for weeks on end because we don;t want her ruling us anymore. Any trade links will remain. More importantly however, Britian is not where Australia's eyes should be focused. We are a nation in an Asian region, surrounded by Asian nations. The time has come to recognise that people of Asian ansestry make up an increasingly large proportion of our population, and that our trade links are focused more and more on Asia, not Europe. It is to Asia that Australia must look for the future.
Your thoughts and discussions please.
The powers of the Governor General are as follows: <a href='http://www.australianpolitics.com/constitution/gg/powers.shtml' target='_blank'>Click</a>
As you can see, they are fairly broad and powerful. The most disturbing ones though must be:
Section 28: May dissolve the House of Representatives.
Section 57: May dissolve both houses of parliament in the event of a deadlock between them.
These abilities lead, in 1975, to an event in Australian politics known as <a href='http://whitlamdismissal.com/' target='_blank'>The Whitlam dismissal</a> , in which the Governor General dismissed a democratically elected government from office. Please note that the Australian people have absolutly no say in who holds the office of GG; he is appointed by the Prime Minister.
Now a few years back, Australia had a referendum to decide if we wanted to become a republic. It failed. Not because Australians did not want a republic, but because the proposed model was no popular enough. The monarchist lobby for example did not even attempt to use the queen as a basis for their arguement; their slogan was "Say no to the politicians' republic". Recent polls show clearly that <a href='http://www.sundaytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,9353,8481658-28778,00.html' target='_blank'>Australians want a republic</a> , but with our current leader John Howard, who is a staunch monarchist, the issue will not come up again.
Turning to the news though we see that Mark Latham, the new head of the Federal opposition, has pledged to bring the republic issue up again. Whether or not Latham will win office, or if he will follow through with this promise, remains to be seen. Nonetheless, the issue of a republic is something that I believe needs to be discussed.
My opinion is that I want Australia to become a republic. I don't like having a non-Australian who couldn't care less about us ruling over our fine nation. I don't like that she can exercise so much power over our parlimentary system. But most of all I don't like that Australia is seen as a backwards British colony of convicts, still tied to a nation which frankly has done nothing for us. Look at our history. They started off by dumping criminals here and providing little support. In both WWI and WWII they called on us to fight, and fight we did, losing thousands of our young citizens in battles far away from home. Yet in 1942, when we needed help, Britian abandoned us, leaving us to call for aid from the US, who have been far better allies than the motherland.
Keeping us tied to England has, as far as I can see, one benefit: we get to participate in the Commenwealth Games and win just about everything <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> We don't trade much with Britian, nor do we rely upon them for military aid. Yet even if we did become a republic, the Queen is hardly going to cry for weeks on end because we don;t want her ruling us anymore. Any trade links will remain. More importantly however, Britian is not where Australia's eyes should be focused. We are a nation in an Asian region, surrounded by Asian nations. The time has come to recognise that people of Asian ansestry make up an increasingly large proportion of our population, and that our trade links are focused more and more on Asia, not Europe. It is to Asia that Australia must look for the future.
Your thoughts and discussions please.
Comments
Most have to do with land claim disputes...
The British Empire is pretty much consigned to the history. It would have been nice to set the commonwealth up as a big trading bloc, but that won't happen now and I think Oz is big enough to stand on its own two feet.
I say: Fair Go! Good on yer mate!
In all seriousness, I think you'd slightly upset the queens feelings, and have a few right wingers foaming at the mouth, but over all, there'd be little objection to you wanting self determinism.
Oz and the UK have (I've always felt) had a special relationship. We'd still love you, even after you'd left home.
Paper money isn't even in circulation for more than a few years anyway. Currency is the least of all the problems facing a new nation.
So... the only effective (rather than emotional) changes that a republic would bring are x-ing out a few lines in your constitution (like those dissolve parilainment ones mentioned), and maybe adding a few more. It's not like there will be some huge power transer for vacuum.
It seems to me more like the same reason the US still has "In God We Trust" on our bills, despite being blatantly unconstitutional: it's not really worth the costs of fighting for it (lobbying, ad campaigns, and whatnot), so nobody really wants to foot the bill personally. Maybe we'll get around to it once we, I dunno, cut down on government corruption, the horrible tax code, fix the legal system, etc. It's not like the governor would get away with using a power like that: he'd either be impeached (or some equivalent) or deposed by force and having the constitution modernized that way.
For that matter, any actions that the governor takes to explcitly benefit the old empire would be considered treason.
o_O
__
I don't know what Taboo is on about, but yeah.
This is a news flash for me. I'm amazed that the Queen has any real influence at all in Australia. Does the Queen exude that much power in England today? And what is the political logic for the supporters of not changing to a Republic? ( I couldn't get much from the website you provided. It jumped around to much for my simple mind <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
One thing didn't make much sense to me though: This order in which Dissolution takes place
House passes bill
Senate rejects bill
3 months elapse
House passes bill again
Senate rejects bill again
Prime Minister may advise Governor-General to dissolve both houses
Assuming government is returned at election, House passes bill for the third time
Senate rejects bill for the third time
<b>Joint Sitting may be held to finally resolve the disagreement between the houses </b>
Why is the bold option last in the list? Isn't negotiation of higher importance than "hack and slash"? Who wrote the Australian Constitution anyway?
Looks like it's time for a modern day revolution. If you need any tips, let us know <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Everyone's happy and all.
The idea of being ruled by both not only your government, but another "higher" power on the other side of the world can be very unsavory I might imagine. That's one reason why Americans don't like the idea of an international court/more power to the UN. While that may only apply to certain people of great disctintion of being an international criminal, it's still turns alot of americans off, especially since, in our eyes, many people dislike us simply because that seems to be the trend. Therefore, i's to be expected that we don't wish to put ourselves in a situation where people who dislike us can control or punish us.
On the other hand, if we delve deep into it, we're really ruled by several sets of systems as it is. State government, Federal Government, and Religion (personal choice).
Along similar lines, say the situation was reversed. Say australia was a republic right now. What if Britain decides that they want to have control in australia, and set up a system much like the one that exists at the moment in the real world. Would it be such a terrible thing? It would certainly be tolerable (as it is now), but still, the idea of someone stepping in and wanting authority over you is not something most people would perfer.
I, too, didn't know that the queen still had rule in Australia. Is that power excercised actively, or is it more of a symbolic tradition thing? If the latter, then it shouldn't be too difficult to gain independance if enough people want it. But if she's actively taking part in Australian affairs through the governer general, then it may be more difficult.
In Australias case, I've got no place saying whether you "should" or "should not" become an independant republic. However the people of australia seem to want it, so more power to them <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The Queen doesnt rule over us, no matter how "pathetic" and "tragic" republicans try to make our situation to be. The Governor General very very rarely invokes his powers, because in practise he has all the power of a koala. These guys are figureheads, with the ability to do something that they simply wont. If the British "rule over us" - then why do we vote? Why do we elect people to office if its Britain doing everything? Because its not Britian doing anything. They rubber stamp things and look pretty and everyone knows it.
Its only ever happened once with the GG using his powers, and the Governer General was then pretty much abused out of his position after pulling that little stunt, and its never happened since.
No one rules over us, thats an illusion. Australia rules Australia - we just choose to involve the Brits in a figurative capacity for the sake of tradition.
And lets not be forgetting that although the PM chooses the GG, public opinion can certainly oust the GG. Think Anglicans....
I pretty much lost the last of my respect for republicans after reading an article in the paper about how Australia should become the 52 (first?) state of America. Half way through his little rant if became clear that he was a sore-loser republican that was accusing Australians of having no patriotism and might as well join another country.
I love my country, and I'm proud of our heritage. What we have works, and we rule ourselves. Why spend millions trying to blot some of that heritage out?
EDIT
Whats this about the two world wars? In both world wars Britian declared war and Australia followed. We weren't forced against our will, our country wanted to. And again in 1942, the British had nothing better to do than defend a massive Island thousands of kilometres away did it? Its not that they wouldnt help us, its that they couldnt, which is why we turned to the Americans for help.