Republic vs. Monarchy

[Prospector]

The Queen is merely a figurehead. She has very little power and what power she has can only be exercised on request of Australian Ministers as far as I'm aware, I think we have been free to make our own laws since the start of WWII(you might want to check that out but I think that's how long we have been free from interference from the British).

Then that makes the role superfluous. Get rid of it. Premiers and Prime Ministers still have to go to their Governors/General to call an end to Parliament to dissolve Parliament and call an election; only the Governors/General can dissolve Parliament, or can open up the new year session. It is a mindset and we need to be free of it!

As you can see I am a staunch Republican. I love to see Monarchy, have visited the Palace in London, but for me the Monarchy has no relevance for Australia.

 

[Prospector]

do you honestly think kids will aspire to become the head of state? I don't think so. this change is merely symbolic like the head of state. they will just attend dinners etc like the governor general does now. also we are already independant. we are not influenced at all by the british. so who cares what we are. personally I dont mind I just know that it just costs millions each time we go to vote on this issue. also the changing of the flag and etc would be costly and a disruption to the australian economy.

My point is that they have no choice in the matter under the current system. Of course the average kid wouldnt want to, but just imagine, if we had someone with the vision of Nelson Mandela...or Luther King.....I have a dream.....well, tough luck kiddo, King Charles it is!

 

[anon]

Fifty years ago Britain was the "Mother Country". Nowdays Australian citizens have many different "Mother Countries". For the sake of the nation and of its people it would be best if the old and the new settlers considered Australia as THE nation that they belonged to, but without forgetting their original homelands.

This would be a lot easier to achieve if we became a completely independent new nation without having any notional ties to our past. We are completely independent but are we seen as such by our newcomers or for that matter by the rest of the world?

Personally I like Brits, love the English language, and I like the Union Jack. But it's about time we stood up and became ourselves!

anon

 

[Smurf1976]

As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see just the Federal Government and the Federal Opposition, wipe out the State governments, and expand the role of local councils.

Personally I would wipe out local councils. In Hobart at least, they can't even manage to come up with a long term plan for zoning areas residential, commerical etc and then actually enforce that plan. They simply bend over backwards when any big (or not so big) property developer waves some $ around and now we've got conflict between residents and everyone from the fire brigade (training the firefighters is making smoke in an industrial area near the airport) to Zinifex (plant makes a noise, there were NO houses anywhere near it when it was built) to the paper mill (also makes a noise) to hotels that have operated for decades (also making a noise).

Only when councils can sort out something relatively simple like keeping the property developers away from unsuitable areas should they be given any more responsibilty than they already have. It's a lot harder running a hospital etc than simply saying "sorry, this is a commercial area, you can't build a house here, go a few K's out to the suburbs".

At least I should finally get a new parking permit sticker from the council tomorrow (so they say). It was paid in June and was supposed to go on the windscreen by 1st July. What a fine example of efficiency.

Given that there are plenty of reports of similar things going on in other states, I really don't have too much confidence in councils. There are exceptions of course.

As for the republic issue, it's a long way down the list of national priorities IMO. It will become a big issue again whenever there's a need to divert public attention from something more serious.

 

[regatwests]

Then that makes the role superfluous. Get rid of it. Premiers and Prime Ministers still have to go to their Governors/General to call an end to Parliament to dissolve Parliament and call an election; only the Governors/General can dissolve Parliament, or can open up the new year session. It is a mindset and we need to be free of it!

As you can see I am a staunch Republican. I love to see Monarchy, have visited the Palace in London, but for me the Monarchy has no relevance for Australia.

A reason why the Premier or Prime Minister has to go to someone (who has the power to say `no`) to dissolve or suspend parliament is that it needs to be an appropriate action and not entirely an arbitrary decision of the Prime Minister or Premier.

It is not commonly known there is precedent where the Monarch has 'drawn on their experience and wisdom to advise and warn their ministers' which means the Monarch can say `no' to a request from their prime minister

The system works so well (stability wise) that these powers have been used only twice (that I am aware of) in the 20th century. Because they are seldom used it is believed they do not exist.

1975 shows that a political crisis involving a stonewalling Prime Minster, an Opposition leader ignoring Westminster convention and a weak Governors General still had the final decision returned to the electorate.


[speculation mode on]
As a possible alternative, I would like to see Prince William renounce the Australian throne and Prince Harry renounce claim to all titles except Australia.

Prince Harry could marry a nice girl from Tasmania and with a few Constitutional tweaks, we have our own Australian Monarchy in Australia.

In 20 odd years we might very well have an Australian Prince or Princess to marry off into one of the Royal families in Asia.

:bricks1:

 

[Julia]

Regatwests:

Oh Lord, you'd inflict Prince Harry on us????


Smurf:

The council where I live is excellent. I'm a very happy ratepayer.
Why did people in Hobart vote in such a hopeless bunch?


Julia

 

[regatwests]

Regatwests:

Oh Lord, you'd inflict Prince Harry on us????


Smurf:

The council where I live is excellent. I'm a very happy ratepayer.
Why did people in Hobart vote in such a hopeless bunch?


Julia

You missed the speculation advisory.


PH will settle down. The idea would allow a wide range of interesting `what ifs '.

what if Harry married a Tassie girl with Aboriginal Heritage?
what if a son of the union married a Princess of Japan or Saudi Arabia?
What if the Australian Royal Family chose to live in WA?

As for local councils: they are overwhelmed by special interest groups
why else would they be seeking 9 an 10 % rate rises every year.

We deal with 6 different councils, Our `value for money` is reduced
the closer to `developement` and `litigeous` coastal areas we get.
(nsw)

 

[visual]

I voted doesnt make a difference,
frankly going by the kind of people who got involved last time especially the people for the replubic,I`d much rather stick with the system we have already.
But I agree it would be good to get rid of at least some levels of government starting with the local councils.

 

[twojacks28]

as many of you are saying that we should abolish local councils I was just wondering what your solution is then if we remove them. are you saying that we should give states more power? or maybe make one local council for each state? or the power given to the federal government?

 

[twojacks28]

anybody care to give their opinion?

 

[Smurf1976]

Regarding councils, I see the problem as one of them being too small in geographic focus. Certainly in Tasmania and I suspect it's the same elsewhere.

Using the Hobart example and the issues I highlighted:

Every single late night entertainment venue in Southern Tasmania is in the Hobart City Council area. (This issue is front page news in the Mercury again today).

But the Zinifex plant, walking distance from the CBD, is in another council area.

And the paper mill, about 40km from the city, is in yet another council area.

And the fire training facility? Yep, it's in yet another council area.

And me? Well I'm 16km by road from the CBD and in a different council area to all of the above.

Spot the problem? Too many councils all focused on localised issues with no broad plan for the city as a whole. Consequently, they are easily swayed by small numbers of local residents on virtually any issue.

For example, it is no secret that most of the people who can be found on Hobart's Waterfront (the main nightlife precinct) on a Saturday night don't actually live in the City of Hobart council area. Likewise many who work for Zinifex don't live in Glenorchy, firefighters don't all live in Clarence and so on. Consequently, the (usually vested) interests of a few receive disproportionate attention compared to the legitimate needs for recreation, employment, emergency services etc of the population of greater Hobart.

So what needs to happen IMO is for council areas to be expanded such that they encompass a much wider range of activities. We've got 8 councils covering areas within 40km of the Hobart GPO. Only one of those 8 has an airport, nightclubs, zinc works, paper mill etc and yet residents in all 8 areas (and the rest of the state to some extent) derive benefits from their existance.

As it stands now, with much of the benefit from such activities being to those living outside the council area in which they are located, the objections of a minority of local residents are given undue weight. Most of those affected can not vote in the relevant council elections, due to living in another area perhaps only walking distance away. Hence councils tend to bend over backwards to accomodate the wishes of those actually living, and voting, in their area to the detriment of the city as a whole.

Realistically, we just don't need so many councils in Tasmania. For that matter, other Australian cities also generally have too many councils.

So I would have maybe 3 councils for all of Tasmania divided on the locally well known South, North and North-West telephone codes basis. In other states, Melbourne (all 3 million+ residents) needs only one council, likewise Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane and Sydney need one council each. Then have a few more in each state to cover the regional areas and smaller cities (eg Newcastle, Geelong etc).

If there is to be proper co-ordination of planning issues, traffic management (an incredibly complex field by the way), water supplies, waste disposal etc then there is a real need to have the SAME approach taken across entire urban areas. It's ridiculous when each council runs its own landfill or each tries to have a city centre, industrial zone etc. Plan those things from the perspective of the city as a whole, not repeating them across numerous council areas within that city. And consider the needs of ALL residents of the greater urban area, not only those living withing some artificial council boundary, when making decisions.

With bigger councils, their performance could be more realistically measured. We would have unemployment stats for each council area, for example. Likewise a broad range of other indicators. The incentive to pass the responsibility onto someone else, so clearly evident in Hobart, would be reversed. If things don't get done then the buck stops with the council responsible since there's nobody else to blame - a much better system.

If councils were greatly expanded in this manner then the role of the states would greatly diminish although I'm not convinced that it would disappear altogether.

If we were to eliminate the states then I think a more radical reduction in the number of councils would be needed in order to give them the required scale. For example, maybe 2 councils for the whole of SA, one for Tasmania, 3 for Victoria etc. The reason being that councils would become responsible for some pretty massive decisions, for example backing major industrial developments or building $billion infrastructure, and would need scale to do so. We might end up with 25 or so councils in Australia - fewer than we have in Tasmania at the moment!

Alternatively, abolish councils altogether and hand everything over to the states. It achieves the same result with scale for planning issues etc but it would probably lead to too much pork-barreling and parohcialism. Hobart / Sydney etc has a new hospital / entertainment centre / swimming pool etc so Launceston / Newcastle etc wants one too. The federal government does just that already - incredibly good roads with hardly any traffic on them in Burnie (Tas, population about 18,000) whilst the main highway from the rest of the state into Hobart is only one lane each way and to a far lesser standard. Blatant pork-barreling - Burnie is in a marginal electorate.

Handing everything to the Federal Government would be even worse. We'll end up with everything in Sydney and Melbourne (where the votes are) whilst the smaller states and regional areas end up with practically nothing. We'll all end up flying to Sydney / Melbourne for practically anything that requires the use of a publicly owned facility.

So there's a need for something in the middle. Realistically, it would be easiest to do that on the basis of existing state boundaries (get rid of councils) although it would likely be preferable to split those areas (get rid of the states and expand councils). The latter is probably far too radical to have any chance of actually happening IMO.

It's the outcomes - sensible planning rather than pandering to minorities, a logical approach to major issues etc which matters rather than how it is achieved.

 

[mista200]

Why the hell do people want to change the flag as well? I mean ok so the queen is a loser.... but why should we change the flag, you can't re write history! And i dont think changing the union jack for the aboriginal flag is right.. i mean they make up less than 2% of the population. I mean seriously are we going to have to change the flag again when Australia's ethnic composition changes again?

 

[mista200]

green and gold do look a little gay!

 

[wayneL]

I voted doesnt make a difference,
frankly going by the kind of people who got involved last time especially the people for the replubic,I`d much rather stick with the system we have already.

This is the point I want to make too.

In principle, I think Australia probably should become a republic at some stage.

*BUT*

What sort of rebublic do we want? There are various rebublic systems out there. Do we follow the Evil Empir.... errr the USA? The French model? The old Soviet Model?

I really think Australia *needs* to be very clear on that point, because if we become a republic, purely to p!ss off the Pommy (ummm German actually) monarchy, we could end up with something we don't want.

I think that is the prime reason we dissed it last time.

I for one don't trust the collection of criminals, cabalists, spongers and moral bankrupts who currently infest "Canberra on High", to come up with a model that benefits anyone except themselves and their own meglomaniacal aspirations.

I would only support a rebublic if it handed the power back the the *real* (if only we would recognise and exercize it) power... "we the people"!

Cheers

 

[wayneL]

Oh... and I also agree it would be good to drop off a tier of governent.

 

[twojacks28]

the main reason i think that the last referendum failed was because people associated republic with america. they saw that if we had a head of state then they would be called a president which reminds them of the US president. people thought that the government would have more power than they used to have.

 

[insider]

No to Camilla and Charles... they're ugly

I made a flag that I think Australia would like (by that I mean I like) If we went republic.

What do yas think... It's everything the original flag has except a recognizable Union Jack

 

[insider]

maybe this one

 

[Glenhaven]

Clearly we should move on and become a rebublic. I think that if a poll was taken to-day would be carried.

 

[nvox]

The thing I didn't like for military service was you had to swear an oath to the Queen and her successors, not to Australia.

I did a search and it still looks like you still have to make the oath to the Queen. Not to Australia

Below from Defence (Personnel) Amendment Regs 2002

Oath and affirmation

I, (insert full name of person) swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors according to law, as a member of the

(insert Australian Navy, Australian Army, or Australian Air Force)

(insert for the period of (number of years), and any extensions of that period,

or until retiring age,)

and that I will resist her enemies and faithfully discharge my duty according to law.

SO HELP ME GOD!

(person's signature)