Australia to become a Republic when Queen's Reign Ends?

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Looking around the world it is hard to escape the conclusion that the characteristics needed to become a head of state are very different from the characteristics that make for a good head of state.

I imagine you want to compare the head of state to the head of government.

 

[TomCat84]

If Australia doesn't have a Queen it will need a president (or some other head of state). As well as election costs every few years there are all the costs of the presidential office and team, security costs, costs with added costs. The example of the USA or France show that a presidential system is NOT cheap. There are plenty of good reasons for not having a monarchy, but cost is not one of them. Any alternative system is likely to be much more expensive.

Looking around the world it is hard to escape the conclusion that the characteristics needed to become a head of state are very different from the characteristics that make for a good head of state. Random selection of a monarch by accident of birth does seem more likely to produce a decent person for the role. If Australia does go down the republican route you can all but guarantee they will end up with a washed up politician on an ego trip with the support of less than half of the nation and a good proportion of people thinking s/he is a disaster. Look right now at the friction in the USA between the fans and the foes of Obama. Contrast a monarchial system where there are quite a few fans, lots of people who have no strong view, and very few true foes.

Couldn't the functions of head of state just be transfered to the Prime Minister?

 

[798686]

Couldn't the functions of head of state just be transfered to the Prime Minister?

Hmm, dunno - wouldn't they basically be the President, then?

 

[Jason]

Couldn't the functions of head of state just be transfered to the Prime Minister?

All things are possible but that gives a mighty lot of power to one person. It would also need a big constitutional change - much easier to replace one head of state with another,

 

[midlifebear]

I'm a bit confused. It seems most are stuck upon having a President and a Prime Minister? What would be the benefit of having both?

As for all the frilly pomp and circumstance regarding Royals, I've found all of the title crap more than annoying. Liz and Phil are perfectly good assignations for the queen and her bed-warming paramour for England and all she [England] imagines she rules.

As for the completely loopy idea of Australia installing its own monarchy, I bet Canada would be happy to export Joe Clark to OZ where he could take over as Prince of New South Wales. As long as there are plenty of sheep, I'm certain Clark would be happy to have the job.

Edit: Oh, and kudos for the poster who noted what a grand waste of money is thrown about whenever Liz and her posse show up anywhere for a visit. This year the USA got off easy. She was in the US less than 48 hours. Nothing like budget travel.

 

[wallaboi]

I think it is inevitable and desirable that Australia become a republic, and the end of Queen Elizabeth II reign would be an appropriate time. The easiest, cheapest and least disruptive means to this end would be to keep the current parlimentary system and have an election for the head of state from a shortlist of bipartisan nominees.

We currently have an Govenor General who is appointed by the Brithish monarch to represent her in Australia. I am not sure of the process of how nominees for the selection for Govenor General is made, but we seem to have had quite a good run distinguished and honourable representitives.

It would be largely a symbolic change, but I think it is important that the head of state should live in the country and that Australians can aspire to Government and maybe also be rewarded for a lifetime of notable achievements by being elected as the head of state.

 

[wallaboi]

Can I be the first (please, please, please!) to say on LPSG that our small to average nation, after yesterday's erection, seems most likely to now have a hung parliment.

 

[cdarro]

I think it is inevitable and desirable that Australia become a republic, and the end of Queen Elizabeth II reign would be an appropriate time. The easiest, cheapest and least disruptive means to this end would be to keep the current parlimentary system and have an election for the head of state from a shortlist of bipartisan nominees.

We currently have an Govenor General who is appointed by the Brithish monarch to represent her in Australia. I am not sure of the process of how nominees for the selection for Govenor General is made, but we seem to have had quite a good run distinguished and honourable representitives.

It would be largely a symbolic change, but I think it is important that the head of state should live in the country and that Australians can aspire to Government and maybe also be rewarded for a lifetime of notable achievements by being elected as the head of state.

I'm not sure how it's done in Australia, but here in Canada the Queen rubberstamps the appointment as Governor General of whomever the prime minister and cabinet recommend, and this person exercises "all the powers, authorities and functions of the Queen in right of Canada". The G/G has been a Canadian citizen since 1952 (previously it was usually a British noble, diplomat or ex-military man), and except for a few questionable appointments in the 1980s and 1990s, has been apolitical and generally well thought-of.

Though there have been calls for an affirming vote by the Senate and House of Commons, this has never been done.

 

[798686]

As for all the frilly pomp and circumstance regarding Royals, I've found all of the title crap more than annoying. Liz and Phil are perfectly good assignations for the queen and her bed-warming paramour for England and all she [England] imagines she rules.

Edit: Oh, and kudos for the poster who noted what a grand waste of money is thrown about whenever Liz and her posse show up anywhere for a visit. This year the USA got off easy. She was in the US less than 48 hours. Nothing like budget travel.

Hmmm, considering how often you claim to love the Brits, you seem to spend an awful lot of time criticising us and the way we do things. Just sayin'.

 

[798686]

I think it is inevitable and desirable that Australia become a republic, and the end of Queen Elizabeth II reign would be an appropriate time. The easiest, cheapest and least disruptive means to this end would be to keep the current parlimentary system and have an election for the head of state from a shortlist of bipartisan nominees.

We currently have an Govenor General who is appointed by the Brithish monarch to represent her in Australia. I am not sure of the process of how nominees for the selection for Govenor General is made, but we seem to have had quite a good run distinguished and honourable representitives.

It would be largely a symbolic change, but I think it is important that the head of state should live in the country and that Australians can aspire to Government and maybe also be rewarded for a lifetime of notable achievements by being elected as the head of state.

Good post dude!

I'm not sure how it's done in Australia, but here in Canada the Queen rubberstamps the appointment as Governor General of whomever the prime minister and cabinet recommend, and this person exercises "all the powers, authorities and functions of the Queen in right of Canada". The G/G has been a Canadian citizen since 1952 (previously it was usually a British noble, diplomat or ex-military man), and except for a few questionable appointments in the 1980s and 1990s, has been apolitical and generally well thought-of.

Though there have been calls for an affirming vote by the Senate and House of Commons, this has never been done.

Sounds like it's working fairly well, then?

 

[vxie]

The Queen is represented in Australia by a Governor General who has specific prescribed powers. (and in reference to Jason’s point, we already have the expense of running that office&#8230

Any change to a republic would likely see the powers of the Governor General vested in a President, who would preform a similar Constitutional duty.

The Governor General, appointed by the Queen on advice from the Prime Minister of Australia, gives assent to laws when they have been passed by the two Houses of Parliament, but more importantly has:

1. The power to appoint a Prime Minister if an election has resulted in a ‘hung parliament’;

2. The power to dismiss a Prime Minister where he or she has lost the confidence of the Parliament;

3. The power to dismiss a Prime Minister or Minister when he or she is acting unlawfully; and

4. The power to refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives despite a request from the Prime Minister.

We’ve already had one Prime Minister sacked and government dissolved by the Governor General, on advice from the Queen when the PM lost confidence of the Parliament. And with an election held this weekend which looks like it will result in a hung parliament, it will be interesting to see if the first power is invoked – although highly unlikely as I’m sure someone will be able to negotiate with the independents create a coalition government.

 

[Jason]

I'm a paid up member of the "if it's not broken don't mend it" school of thought. If the idea of a monarch for Australia becomes a problem in that large numbers of Australians are actively miserable about the situation then it becomes a problem that needs a solution. But if Australians really aren't all that bothered one way or another and the present situation seems to be jogging along then don't change it.

 

[willow78]

I'm a paid up member of the "if it's not broken don't mend it" school of thought. If the idea of a monarch for Australia becomes a problem in that large numbers of Australians are actively miserable about the situation then it becomes a problem that needs a solution. But if Australians really aren't all that bothered one way or another and the present situation seems to be jogging along then don't change it.

Nowadays, the Republic issue is used as a diversion tactic. I think in general, we're pretty blase about it but there was an election campaign on so the 'Republic' bomb was dropped to distract the public from the fact that neither party is doing a damn thing about the real issues. The last time the R-bomb was dropped was in 2007 - during the previous election...

 

[vxie]

Seems the Governor General might not be able to perform her duties with a hung parliament because her son-in-law is a Labor MP and there's a perceived conflict of interest....

Liz!!! We need you to come over and sort out this mess ;-)

 

[wallaboi]

I'm a paid up member of the "if it's not broken don't mend it" school of thought. If the idea of a monarch for Australia becomes a problem in that large numbers of Australians are actively miserable about the situation then it becomes a problem that needs a solution. But if Australians really aren't all that bothered one way or another and the present situation seems to be jogging along then don't change it.

Maintaining the status quo, is not in itself a bad thing, however I believe the concept of striving for excellence is a more admirable approach. We all want our children to grow to maturity as self sufficient, confident, independent thinking and successful individuals, respected by their peers and their community. The same is the case for our relatively young nation.

As i said in a previous post the change would be largely symbolic (as we are already reaching this level of maturity), but symbolism is an important part in the formation of any national identity. We are no longer a colony of the UK, but does the population of rest of the world understand this or perceive us as an independent nation?

I believe, an Australian republic "...is about our shared identity and place in the world. It will have a Constitution that reflects the sovereignty of the Australian people, so that any Australian citizen can aspire to the highest office in the land."

 

[wallaboi]

Seems the Governor General might not be able to perform her duties with a hung parliament because her son-in-law is a Labor MP and there's a perceived conflict of interest....

Liz!!! We need you to come over and sort out this mess ;-)

LOL ...but isn't the GG also related to Liz?

I think we should bring Joll over to sort things out...and have a nice holiday at the same time! :biggrin1:

 

[798686]

Seems the Governor General might not be able to perform her duties with a hung parliament because her son-in-law is a Labor MP and there's a perceived conflict of interest....

Liz!!! We need you to come over and sort out this mess ;-)

She's a bit blase about it, cos we've had the same situation ourselves, and now she's bored. :wink: She might come over if u promise a right royal barby tho, and some XXXX.

LOL ...but isn't the GG also related to Liz?

I think we should bring Joll over to sort things out...and have a nice holiday at the same time! :biggrin1:

Yes, I think so too. Do they have good grub on Qantas these days? :biggrin1:

 

[Jason]

Seems the Governor General might not be able to perform her duties with a hung parliament because her son-in-law is a Labor MP and there's a perceived conflict of interest....

Liz!!! We need you to come over and sort out this mess ;-)

That is a fascinating constitutional conundrum!

 

[Jason]

I'm sure some Australians will be ablle to help me. Surely just about the only power Queen Elizabeth actually retains in Australia is that the Governor General serves "at her majesty's pleasure". She does - I think - have the reserve power to dismiss the Governor General.

In the event of the Governor General being unable to demonstrate impartiality in forming a government she would presumably resign. If she doesn't my understanding is that the Queen could dismiss her.

 

[ColonialBoy]

I'm sure some Australians will be ablle to help me. Surely just about the only power Queen Elizabeth actually retains in Australia is that the Governor General serves "at her majesty's pleasure". She does - I think - have the reserve power to dismiss the Governor General.

In the event of the Governor General being unable to demonstrate impartiality in forming a government she would presumably resign. If she doesn't my understanding is that the Queen could dismiss her.

Yes, the Queen appoints the Govenor General, so it may be possible for the GG to be arbitrarily dismissed.

We've already had a constitutional crisis when the GG dismissed the Prime Minister. 1975 Australian constitutional crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The PM has regular talks with the Queen. One former PM says the talks were useful because the Queen knows everyone worth knowing!