Should Australia be a Republic?

[Jaws]

A mate and I were talking the other day about this and I cant make up my mind. On one side I like the English connection, I enjoy the heritage and I find English dudes great to have a beer with :beer: :up:

But on the other side, I think Australia is big enough to stand up for itself and our constitution could be ammended - especially to have an Aussie as Head of State.

The Royal Family don't bug me (in fact I quite like reading about Harry and Wills out on the gas, getting pissed up and making knobs of themselves) , but they don't have any real relevance to me.

What do others think??

[LeonBrooke]

Yes but you elected John Howard. You're not fit to rule yourselves.

[Jaws]

Yes but you elected John Howard. You're not fit to rule yourselves.
Hahahahahah. Very good :up:

[Rollo]

As it stands, HM QE2 actually has no ability to introduce, amend, vote on or even approve legislation. Although she could in theory reject a candidate for the Governor-General in practice this has never happened.

To have the Queen as Head of State costs Australia the grand total of $0.00 a year. Although the Governor-General does assume a salary, the equivalent President would accrue something either equal or higher.

If you're proposing an American style republic, then this is a grave mistake because none of the executive of the country are elected but appointed by the President themself, whereas in Australia the Cabinet is selected from previously elected member in the Houses; therefore someone had to have voted for them. An American style republic in theory and as we have seen for nigh on 90 years encourages pork barelling.

If you're concerned about a sense of nationalism, then why are you ashamed of the fact that Australia was once a British colony? If that isn't the issue ten what is?
If you're suggesting removing some of the voice of the people by your proposed idea for a republic by handing powers to the "President", then quite frankly I hope your idea dies a silent death.

I can see no viable nor sensible reason to go through the expense of changing a system that has produced stable and sensible government. Australia is a country that has fought in wars proudly but never started any, and was started with a vote, not a war.

Australia stands on its own two feet as it is, and is the envy of a lot of the world - why else would people keep on wanting to come here?

[Jaws]

As it stands, HM QE2 actually has no ability to introduce, amend, vote on or even approve legislation. Although she could in theory reject a candidate for the Governor-General in practice this has never happened.

To have the Queen as Head of State costs Australia the grand total of $0.00 a year. Although the Governor-General does assume a salary, the equivalent President would accrue something either equal or higher.

If you're proposing an American style republic, then this is a grave mistake because none of the executive of the country are elected but appointed by the President themself, whereas in Australia the Cabinet is selected from previously elected member in the Houses; therefore someone had to have voted for them. An American style republic in theory and as we have seen for nigh on 90 years encourages pork barelling.

If you're concerned about a sense of nationalism, then why are you ashamed of the fact that Australia was once a British colony? If that isn't the issue ten what is?
If you're suggesting removing some of the voice of the people by your proposed idea for a republic by handing powers to the "President", then quite frankly I hope your idea dies a silent death.

I can see no viable nor sensible reason to go through the expense of changing a system that has produced stable and sensible government. Australia is a country that has fought in wars proudly but never started any, and was started with a vote, not a war.

Australia stands on its own two feet as it is, and is the envy of a lot of the world - why else would people keep on wanting to come here?


Rollo, for starters, we have had an elected Prime Minister dismissed by a Governor General that was vetoed by HM QE2. There still exists a theoretical argument that she could have prevented it, however, I don't see this as a major issue.

The Australian model that was proposed for a Republic was based on an Elected Head of State, so we would not be going down the US path.

I am definitely not ashamed of my British Heritage, I am proud to admit that my mother's decendants arrived on the Second Fleet and my father was born in none other than Bolton, Eng. I thought I made it clear in my initial post that I enjoy my English heritage and this is not about being a republic to cut ties with England, but more about us standing on our own feet as a proud nation with our own identity.

Our current system of voting and government is solid,but it is not to say that our government need not be overhauled. Our state governments are not co-ordinated with Federal eg. State of NSW borrowing money, Federal govt swimming in Surplus from GST and Company tax revenue. There are constitutional deficiencies - ironically, if Tasmania population 2 Mill did not want a republic, but the rest of Australia Population 20 Mill did, the motion would not pass (no jokes Oily).

[Hawkmoon]

The Australian model that was proposed for a Republic was based on an Elected Head of State, so we would not be going down the US path.

Why do we need to elect the Head of State? We already have a Prime Minister who leads the country. We don't need another costly election to pick another politician to sign off on laws and such. By all means, make the Govenor General the Head of State, but he should be appointed by the Government as he is now.


I am definitely not ashamed of my British Heritage, I am proud to admit that my mother's decendants arrived on the Second Fleet and my father was born in none other than Bolton, Eng. I thought I made it clear in my initial post that I enjoy my English heritage and this is not about being a republic to cut ties with England, but more about us standing on our own feet as a proud nation with our own identity.

We already have our own identity and stand on our own two feet. Moving to a republic wouldn't make a blessed bit of difference to anybody except those that have a problem with the Queen.


Our current system of voting and government is solid,but it is not to say that our government need not be overhauled. Our state governments are not co-ordinated with Federal eg. State of NSW borrowing money, Federal govt swimming in Surplus from GST and Company tax revenue.

A republic wouldn't change this situation unless the Constitution was ripped up and rewritten because we are a nation of federated states. The fact that we are a constitutional monarchy and not a republic has no bearing on this.

I agree that system of State governments needs to change because I think we are too small a nation to need three levels of government. This is a sperate issue to the republic though and could be sorted without the need to become a republic.

Oh, and the Federal Government gives every red cent of the GST to the States. As a result, the States have more money now than they have every had, regardless of what Iemma and Costa would have us believe.


There are constitutional deficiencies - ironically, if Tasmania population 2 Mill did not want a republic, but the rest of Australia Population 20 Mill did, the motion would not pass (no jokes Oily).

Yes, the motion would pass. Constitutional amendments need a majority to pass, not unanimity. So even if the every person in Tasmania voted against a referendum it would still be passed if the rest of us wanted it to pass.

I don't care whether we are a republic or not. It has exactly zero effect on my everyday life. Our system of government works, for the most part. So if all we do is exchange the Queen for the GG as Head of State and leave the rest alone then I'll support the move to a republic. If we start messing with a system that has served us well for over a century then I'll be against the move.

[Hawkmoon]

Yes but you elected John Howard. You're not fit to rule yourselves.

And Helen Clark is soooo much better. :rolleyes:

[LeonBrooke]

Yes, Helen Clark is so much better. Our prime minister could beat your prime minister while blindfolded and with one hand tied behind her back :p :

But seriously - yes she is. I voted for her :up:

[Rollo]

Yes, the motion would pass. Constitutional amendments need a majority to pass, not unanimity. So even if the every person in Tasmania voted against a referendum it would still be passed if the rest of us wanted it to pass.

Hear hear :up:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:XHbxRuS3aosJ:www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/comlaw.nsf/440c19285821b109ca256f3a001d59b7/57dea3835d797364ca256f9d0078c087/%24FILE/ConstitutionAct.pdf+Constitution+Australia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au



s.128 (bits of) of the Australian Constitution (UK 1900)

And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s assent.

You need a majority of voters in a majority of states. If only Tasmania didn't consent, then the referendum would still be passed 5 states to 1. This was done so that if you had a majority of people in two or three states (namely Vic, NSW & Qld) that the "little" states wouldn't be railroaded into something they didn't want.

[GridGirl]

If a majority want to be a vote for it if there was ever a referdum theres no reason why they shoudn't become a Republic.

You'd still be part of the commonwealth and you'd still kick our butt at every sport you try your hand at. Don't see that it would change anything really. :p

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Aussies, please don't vote to be a Republic. Britain and Australia can only be stronger together than we would be separated.

[luvracin]

On one side I like the English connection, I enjoy the heritage and I find English dudes great to have a beer with :beer: :up:



Becoming a republic does not delete our English heritage or prevent us from having beers with English dudes....

But at the end of the day, i don't see how becoming a republic will help any of the real issues facing the country. Therefore the time and resources should be applied there and not to becoming a republic.

[fandango]

I come from a republic, and I think it's better to have someone elected or chosen by my own country than someone from another country who is there by birthright.

The president of Ireland used to be just some old politician no-one took any notice of, but there's a stronger connection to the person now, ever since Mary Robinson was president. It seems to make sense that Australia should have their own head of state, not someone on the other side of the world.

[Daniel]

I fail to see the point of becoming a republic and I'll always vote against Australia becoming a republic because there is no reason. Don't ask why not. Ask why the hell Australia should waste all that money for little or no benefit othere than to please morons who think that we're somehow under the yolk of the English.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

If the Queen ever stopped an act going through Parliament, I bet every country in the commonwealth would become a republic, even Britain. In theory she has the power of a dictator, but she can't use her power. It makes no different to the running of any country in the commonwealth if they were a republic or not.

[Drew]

Right, who's gonna mention the yogurt joke?

But seriously, didn't you guys have a referendum a few years back and decided not to become a republic? Surely that shows public opinion doesn't want it?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Right, who's gonna mention the yogurt joke?

But seriously, didn't you guys have a referendum a few years back and decided not to become a republic? Surely that shows public opinion doesn't want it?

I believe it was tight though.

About 54%/46%

[Rollo]

If the Queen ever stopped an act going through Parliament, I bet every country in the commonwealth would become a republic, even Britain. In theory she has the power of a dictator, but she can't use her power.

In Australia as a result of the Australia Act 1984 which itself was a futher limitation on the Statute of Wesminster Act of 1931, the Queen:

Can't sit in parliament.
Can't vote in parliament.
Can't introduce legislation.
Can't even give it assent - the Governor-General can as her representative but the Queen herslf can not.

The Governor-General has undefined powers under the constitution, and 1975 was as a result of him dissolving parliament after several budgetary bills were not able to be passed as a result of blocking ny the Senate.

The Australian parliament and judiciary can not refer cases to the privvy council, and the only recourse left is via the West Australian parliament on matter related to changing the laws of cricket.

Australia virtually has independance in everything but name already.

[Valve Bounce]

A mate and I were talking the other day about this and I cant make up my mind. On one side I like the English connection, I enjoy the heritage and I find English dudes great to have a beer with :beer: :up:

But on the other side, I think Australia is big enough to stand up for itself and our constitution could be ammended - especially to have an Aussie as Head of State.

The Royal Family don't bug me (in fact I quite like reading about Harry and Wills out on the gas, getting pissed up and making knobs of themselves) , but they don't have any real relevance to me.

What do others think??

Well, if this procedure costs money, then I vote No!! The last vote we had on this subject, John Howard rigged the conditions to the extent that those who favoured a rupublic didn't want it on Howard's terms. So we lost. :( I can only say : "Why Bother". :(

[Ian McC]

Do we own Australia? In which case can we sell it? Who would buy it though? Maybe we could put it on ebay? :D



:p :

[Daniel]

Do we own Australia? In which case can we sell it? Who would buy it though? Maybe we could put it on ebay? :D



:p :
I'm sure the Chinese would be happy to snipe in the last 5 seconds.

[Drew]

Do we own Australia? In which case can we sell it? Who would buy it though? Maybe we could put it on ebay? :D



:p :

Dear George Bush,

I have a substantial amount of land for sale, an area by the name of Australia. I feel this could solve the middle east problem. Simple take all Israelis to this island and ba da bing problem solved. All yours for £1m or nearest offer,

Hugs and kisses,
The Queen.

[millencolin]

i like australia the way it is. i do not see the point in becoming a republic because it will achieve very little and cause a whole lot of fuss and is a waste of the tax payers money. imagine everything we would have to change if we did become a republic. the money would hace to be amended etc etc.... all for what? so we can say "President Howard/Rudd"?

Its not like the royal family is meddling with any of our laws. Theyre like the Cool Parents your friend had when you were growing up that let him/her do whatever they wanted. So why spend all this tax money to get rid of them?

Plus if we became a republic... wouldnt our flag have to change? That is one thing I do not ever want to see changed! it means far too much to me and to many many australians.

I think that this is the best country in the world by far, this country is doing fine as a non-republic. So why mess with a formula thats already working?

[Daniel]

i like australia the way it is. i do not see the point in becoming a republic because it will achieve very little and cause a whole lot of fuss and is a waste of the tax payers money. imagine everything we would have to change if we did become a republic. the money would hace to be amended etc etc.... all for what? so we can say "President Howard/Rudd"?

Its not like the royal family is meddling with any of our laws. Theyre like the Cool Parents your friend had when you were growing up that let him/her do whatever they wanted. So why spend all this tax money to get rid of them?

Plus if we became a republic... wouldnt our flag have to change? That is one thing I do not ever want to see changed! it means far too much to me and to many many australians.

I think that this is the best country in the world by far, this country is doing fine as a non-republic. So why mess with a formula thats already working?
Well said :up:

Seriously if it's going to cost 5c to change to a republic that's too much!

[Rollo]

Dear Australia,

I want you to imagine just for a second about one change that might happen if Australia became a republic. If little Johnny Howard became President then it might be HIS on the back of the coins and that would be real horrorshow and doubleplusungood.

[Jaws]

Dear Australia,

I want you to imagine just for a second about one change that might happen if Australia became a republic. If little Johnny Howard became President then it might be HIS on the back of the coins and that would be real horrorshow and doubleplusungood.

Done - You've convinced me Rollo :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

PS - Thanks for the info in your post #9. :up: I wonder how many Aussies are like me and are ignorant of how our constitution operates

From the sounds of all of this, there is nothing really to be gained in a Republic.

[luvracin]

Plus if we became a republic... wouldnt our flag have to change? That is one thing I do not ever want to see changed! it means far too much to me and to many many australians.


I don't believe the flag would HAVE to change.

The US State of Hawaii has on their State flag the Union Jack - in the same position and size as it is on the Australian flag.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Interesting thread. In Canada, we have similar arguments all the same for the same reasons. The reality is that most nations do NOT have links through their head of state to another nation. The situation that is unique about NZ, Australia and Canada is that they are all prosperous nations that in many ways have surpassed the parent nation (not all ways, but have done well for themselves from a frontier society to leading nations in the world) and have done it all with the head of state being in London. It is a unique status, and Americans and others don't understand it and in theory, it sounds weird. In reality, it works very well, and yet it pays homage to our common ancestry. The Queen has been our "mother". She may not tell us how to live our anything like that, but she is a touchstone to our common histories.

One only has to know the disdain we hold all politicians to know an elected President would just be another punching bag in society. The Royal family, for all their warts seems to be above a lot of this (although Charles is a bit of a dork) and unless they say or do something stupid, will continue the tradition.

Does it make rational sense? No...but sometimes acknowledging where you come from keeps you grounded. You only have to watch the fawning the Yank's do over Queen Elizabeth when she shows up to know they have royalty envy. The Americans claim to not want royalty, but the way they go all stupid for royalty says to me that getting rid of the royalty to elect some twerp to do nothing on the public purse makes even less sense.

Seeing the visage of QE2 on my coins means I am home. When she is gone, and Charles comes along, maybe I change my mind, but I doubt it. If it aint broke, don't fix it...

[Rollo]

I don't believe the flag would HAVE to change.

The US State of Hawaii has on their State flag the Union Jack - in the same position and size as it is on the Australian flag.

More bizarrely with Hawaii is that it has never ever been a British territory and that the same flag has been flown over Hawaii as a kingdom, protectorate, republic, territory and a state; even against the USA no less.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Rollo, I was in Honolulu last March, and went to the Iolani Palace, which was the royal home of the monarchs of Hawaii when it was its own nation. I never was given a story of how the Union Jack ended up on the flag, but I do know that Queen Victoria was the first royal family anywhere to recognize Hawaii as a nation, and there was always some warm relations between the UK and Hawaii. Distrust of American interests on the islands probably drove this, but to no avail. The American plantation owners and business interests basically were running the economy towards the latter half of the 19th century, and eventually they just took over, and had sympathetic interests in Washington dispatch some Marines to "keep the peace" as they deposed the Queen.

Hawaii did get an apology for this at some point, and for whatever reason, it is the one state I have visited where there is an an undercurrent of rebelliousness to this day. One can imagine the native Hawaiians have never quite gotten over this state of affairs, and I suspect the flag hasn't changed to appease this part of the population....

[Rollo]

Rollo, I was in Honolulu last March, and went to the Iolani Palace, which was

the royal home of the monarchs of Hawaii when it was its own nation. I never was given a story of how the

Union Jack ended up on the flag.

Captain James Cook on his third voyage landed in Hawaii in 1778 and from there continued to the west coast of North America then returning in 1779. As it turned out he landed during a sacred period which annoyed the natives and Cook was killed and possibly eaten. Whether or not Hawaii adopted the Union Jack as a result of triumph or after a series of negotiations with Vancouver, the islands resisted US invasion in the War of 1812, when for one day it became a British Protectorate in a piece of legal fiction.

The flag was adopted in 1816 and later changed in 1845.
At least that's how I understand proceedings.

[oily oaf]

Blimey I'm surprised there was enough fair dinkum Aussies left to form a quorum during the referendum cos most of 'em are over 'ere.

Only last weekend I took Mrs Oaf out for a Tilley Lamp lit supper in Earls Court and as we were bowling down the Earls Court Road a Toyota Land Cruiser pickup with searchlights mounted on the roll bar came careering down the street at high speed whereupon a geezer with corks hanging off his titfer fired 3 shots from a high powered elephant gun into the wife's upper body and neck area.
Fortunately the old Bulldog Spirit prevailed and she valiantly refused to go down. Instead the game brute managed to stagger into Bruce & Sheilas Whelk Palace "For the more discerning Abbo" and necked a further 8 pints of Tooths KB fizzy lager drink before finally succumbing to her wounds and toppling face first into the spittoon and drowning while a gaggle of sheep shearers from Woolonmedigeridoo laughed and pointed pitilessly.
Aussies? I've got a lot of time for 'em personally.

O. Oaf
Rolf Harris Mews
London

[Mark]

I think opinions might change once the queen dies. Most of the posts here talk about how people have respect for her and her role, would they have the same for Charles, or even William? Perhaps not to the same extent, and Australia could decide that's a good time to make the final break.

[BDunnell]

Interesting thread. In Canada, we have similar arguments all the same for the same reasons. The reality is that most nations do NOT have links through their head of state to another nation. The situation that is unique about NZ, Australia and Canada is that they are all prosperous nations that in many ways have surpassed the parent nation (not all ways, but have done well for themselves from a frontier society to leading nations in the world) and have done it all with the head of state being in London. It is a unique status, and Americans and others don't understand it and in theory, it sounds weird. In reality, it works very well, and yet it pays homage to our common ancestry. The Queen has been our "mother". She may not tell us how to live our anything like that, but she is a touchstone to our common histories.

One only has to know the disdain we hold all politicians to know an elected President would just be another punching bag in society. The Royal family, for all their warts seems to be above a lot of this (although Charles is a bit of a dork) and unless they say or do something stupid, will continue the tradition.

Does it make rational sense? No...but sometimes acknowledging where you come from keeps you grounded. You only have to watch the fawning the Yank's do over Queen Elizabeth when she shows up to know they have royalty envy. The Americans claim to not want royalty, but the way they go all stupid for royalty says to me that getting rid of the royalty to elect some twerp to do nothing on the public purse makes even less sense.

Seeing the visage of QE2 on my coins means I am home. When she is gone, and Charles comes along, maybe I change my mind, but I doubt it. If it aint broke, don't fix it...

It is a very interesting debate. The last comment you made there — 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' — is one that gets made a lot in relation to the Royal Family. Personally, I believe there is something broke with any form of hereditary principle.

[Drew]

I think opinions might change once the queen dies. Most of the posts here talk about how people have respect for her and her role, would they have the same for Charles, or even William? Perhaps not to the same extent, and Australia could decide that's a good time to make the final break.

I think that if Charles becomes King, a lot of things will start to change...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, you are right....and wrong Ben. Hereditary principle is wrong....except that the UK has had it as the cornerstone of society since the Magna Carta. What is more, a healthy democracy with a constitution based on law has come about with this family business. Yes, there has been a few messy scandals, a few kings who went overboard, but for the most part, the nation that once ruled the world from 2 islands off Europe was run by a Constitutonal Monarchy that basically stood back and let people be free to pursue goals, rights and freedoms. It aint broke Ben. IT makes no sense, and in theory is all wrong, but when you start electing heads of state, the boobs you get just annoy you more. The Royal family, for all their warts are harmless, yet they give a touchstone of permancency and legitimacy that a figure head elected ruler does NOT give you.

I think personally that Charles will not be popular as King, and the whole damned thing will collapse, but unlike you, I don't know if that is a good thing. The Queen has been there longer than I have been alive, and the grace in which she has "reigned" has sort of added something undefinable to the public discourse. The Queen adds calm to the UK, to Canada, and yes, to Australia and NZ. Cant define how it happens, cant defend hereditary principles, but the fact remains our societies have managed just fine with a royal family, so why mess with it to suit a few hard heads who want to elect someone to hate?

[Tomi]

You only have to watch the fawning the Yank's do over Queen Elizabeth when she shows up to know they have royalty envy. The Americans claim to not want royalty, but the way they go all stupid for royalty says to me that getting rid of the royalty to elect some twerp to do nothing on the public purse makes even less sense.


Yes aussies, here is one of the best reasons sofar why not to be a republic, lol.

[BDunnell]

Well, you are right....and wrong Ben. Hereditary principle is wrong....except that the UK has had it as the cornerstone of society since the Magna Carta. What is more, a healthy democracy with a constitution based on law has come about with this family business. Yes, there has been a few messy scandals, a few kings who went overboard, but for the most part, the nation that once ruled the world from 2 islands off Europe was run by a Constitutonal Monarchy that basically stood back and let people be free to pursue goals, rights and freedoms. It aint broke Ben. IT makes no sense, and in theory is all wrong, but when you start electing heads of state, the boobs you get just annoy you more. The Royal family, for all their warts are harmless, yet they give a touchstone of permancency and legitimacy that a figure head elected ruler does NOT give you.

I think personally that Charles will not be popular as King, and the whole damned thing will collapse, but unlike you, I don't know if that is a good thing. The Queen has been there longer than I have been alive, and the grace in which she has "reigned" has sort of added something undefinable to the public discourse. The Queen adds calm to the UK, to Canada, and yes, to Australia and NZ. Cant define how it happens, cant defend hereditary principles, but the fact remains our societies have managed just fine with a royal family, so why mess with it to suit a few hard heads who want to elect someone to hate?

This is all very well, but I believe that the hereditary principles in elements of British society have had an extremely damaging effect. However, I must point out that I did not actually say that I know a republic would be better, merely that I have a fundamental problem with the hereditary principle.

Oh, and one other thing I forgot to mention. I have an even bigger problem with being categorised as a subject of the monarch, and do not believe that anyone in any job should be forced, as for example MPs are, to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown. I would never swear an oath of allegiance to anyone, elected or not.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ben, the oath means you are loyal to the concept of something higher than yourself. I can understand your reticence in this, and I also know that the hereditary principles have created a lot of incompetance in places it shouldn't, but I still am comfortable with the monarchy. It is a faith in something that is just there, and to replace it makes little sense because the replacement would NOT be an improvement.

[Rollo]

Well, you are right....and wrong Ben. Hereditary principle is wrong...

Oh I don't know. If suddenly and without warning, 58 million people were to take ill and die then Ainsley Harriott would become Queen. It's a simple democratic plan based on whose parents you have :D


I think personally that Charles will not be popular as King, and the whole damned thing will collapse, but unlike you, I don't know if that is a good thing. The Queen has been there longer than I have been alive, and the grace in which she has "reigned" has sort of added something undefinable to the public discourse.

Charles III (or possibly George VII if adopts it) I think would probably go the same way as Edward VII. An old king who didn't live long and was followed by a reasonably popular king.
Certainly the monarch (William V) who'd follow I think would be a very popular king indeed and I think it's worth waiting for him.

[Jaws]

Land of Hope and Glory
Land of Dark Brown Ales
Aussies all around the World
Toast to the Prince of Wales

[ST205GT4]

I think I'm probably like a lot of Aussies. Apathetic to the whole thing. The fact that we have a "Queen" has zero impact on my life. She makes no decisions that affect me nor does she cost me any of my tax dollars. Truth be told I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be better if she did have some of my tax dollars. At least I could see something for it!

So why bother changing it? It's just change for changes sake if you ask me. Where's the gain?

[Camelopard]

I think I'm probably like a lot of Aussies. Apathetic to the whole thing. The fact that we have a "Queen" has zero impact on my life. She makes no decisions that affect me nor does she cost me any of my tax dollars. Truth be told I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be better if she did have some of my tax dollars. At least I could see something for it!

That isn't strickly true as we taxpayers contribute to the cost of the 'royals' coming to Australia.



http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/queens-trip-blows-14m-hole-in-pms-budget/2007/02/12/1171128888487.html

The Queen's visit to Australia last year blew a $1.4 million hole in Prime Minister John Howard's department's budget.
The royal visit cost taxpayers about $1.8 million, a Senate estimates committee heard today.
And Mr Howard's department was forced to ask for an extra $1.4 million grant to make up the shortfall, officials said.
The committee also heard that the Australian government had contributed $250,000 towards a new carriage being hand-built for the Queen by Australian Jim Frecklington.
The State Coach Britannia will be only the second new coach to join the royal mews in 100 years.
It is reported to have gold, sapphire and diamond encrusted door handles, gold painted aluminium wheels and is costing $1 million to build.

[Mark in Oshawa]

So Cossie, this is news to you that a government wastes money? Would a "Head of State" you elected not have all the pomp and ceremony of office? Does the Queen visit OZ every year? Questions you have to answer honestly.

The Canadian Government can piss away millions to the most inane causes and stupid ideas, and no one says a word. The Queen shows up once every 3 years and we get inches and inches of Bovine excrement in the press about how much money the government is spending on her visit. A visit where there are large crowds waiting for her at every opportunity. A visit where people are genuinely happy to see her in Canada. I guess there is no amount of hypocracy that is available in the minds of some (not you necessarily Cossie) where they can ignore the constant stupidity and waste of a government but then fuss when the Queen shows up to see part of her "empire" is still there...

[Camelopard]

I was making a reply to ST205GT4 as he stated that the queen didn't cost him any of his tax dollars, as usual you just twist things around. :(

It's typical of you to immediately make assumptions about peoples views on the strength of one comment. I was making a reply to something that ST205GT4 said. I have not stated my opinion on the question of whether or not Australia should be a Republic. How could you possibly know what I voted in the recent referendum?

[luvracin]

That isn't strickly true as we taxpayers contribute to the cost of the 'royals' coming to Australia.



http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/queens-trip-blows-14m-hole-in-pms-budget/2007/02/12/1171128888487.html

The Queen's visit to Australia last year blew a $1.4 million hole in Prime Minister John Howard's department's budget.
The royal visit cost taxpayers about $1.8 million, a Senate estimates committee heard today.
And Mr Howard's department was forced to ask for an extra $1.4 million grant to make up the shortfall, officials said.
The committee also heard that the Australian government had contributed $250,000 towards a new carriage being hand-built for the Queen by Australian Jim Frecklington.
The State Coach Britannia will be only the second new coach to join the royal mews in 100 years.
It is reported to have gold, sapphire and diamond encrusted door handles, gold painted aluminium wheels and is costing $1 million to build.

I assume we(well not me because I pay US taxes these days) also pay when other foreign dignitaries visit. Not to bring them here, but pay for security and events, etc..

[Rollo]

I assume we(well not me because I pay US taxes these days) also pay when other foreign dignitaries visit. Not to bring them here, but pay for security and events, etc..

Hear hear :up:


That isn't strickly true as we taxpayers contribute to the cost of the 'royals' coming to Australia.
...
The Queen's visit to Australia last year blew a $1.4 million hole in Prime Minister John Howard's department's budget.
The royal visit cost taxpayers about $1.8 million, a Senate estimates committee heard today

As stated this is true for any foreign dignatary coming to Australia. The simple fact of the matter is that:
- Australia doesn't pay the Queen's wage or allowances
- Nor does it pay tribute to the UK coffers
- Nor for the upkeep of her house and servants
- Nor for the maintenance of any of her vehicles or assets
- We pay nothing for security or upkeep of the public buildings which fall under her jurisdiction

In fact everything you've mentioned that Australia actually paid for is either part of the budget of DFAT or the Prime Minister's Office, so although she may the beneficiary of such expenditure, she isn't directly paid for by the taxpayer, in exact budgetary terms.

[Camelopard]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/queens-trip-blows-14m-hole-in-pms-budget/2007/02/12/1171128888487.html
The committee also heard that the Australian government had contributed $250,000 towards a new carriage being hand-built for the Queen by Australian Jim Frecklington.
The State Coach Britannia will be only the second new coach to join the royal mews in 100 years.
It is reported to have gold, sapphire and diamond encrusted door handles, gold painted aluminium wheels and is costing $1 million to build.

Why should us taxpayers, regardless of which government department the money comes from pay $250,000 towards a new royal coach. Again as I stated previously, the comment was that the Queen didn't cost us Australian taxpayers anything, I was just making a comment that this wasn't true!

The article wasn't about how much us taxpayers had to pay for Heads of State to visit us, it was about how much the Queen cost us!

[rubber4532]

i couldnt imagine paying a million bucks for a gold coach for a visiting dignitary! this is crazy.

the queen has got to go.

[Daniel]

i couldnt imagine paying a million bucks for a gold coach for a visiting dignitary! this is crazy.

the queen has got to go.
You're not paying a million dollars. You probably paid about 10c or something like that.

[rubber4532]

a visit from the queen of aus should never be compared to visits to from other dignitaries. eg the Finnish president was here recently. Did anyone know? I doubt it. It was low-key and cheap. The queens visits cost way more than most. Remember that.

[Daniel]

a visit from the queen of aus should never be compared to visits to from other dignitaries. eg the Finnish president was here recently. Did anyone know? I doubt it. It was low-key and cheap. The queens visits cost way more than most. Remember that.
And a Labrador is bigger than a Jack Russell. Point being? Just like your post mine doesn't have one!

[Rollo]

a visit from the queen of aus should never be compared to visits to from other dignitaries. eg the Finnish president was here recently. Did anyone know? I doubt it. It was low-key and cheap. The queens visits cost way more than most. Remember that.

Oh please. The Prime Minister spends more on frivolous parties for his own political party on the public purse than any visit from the Queen.
I think you'll find that a visit from the President of the USA would cost more than a visit from the Queen, but so what?

[rubber4532]

a visit from the Pres of the usa cost more than one of the queens visits? ha ha! how is that possible when the president would visit two states at most?? He never came to my state (WA), he never would. The queen has to visit every state and many towns. Think about the logisitics! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[millencolin]

a visit from the Pres of the usa cost more than one of the queens visits? ha ha! how is that possible when the president would visit two states at most?? He never came to my state (WA), he never would. The queen has to visit every state and many towns. Think about the logisitics! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

yeah, the security level for the president of the USA is much higher than the queen. think about how many terrorist groups would love to hurt him. we are having the opec summer here in australia soon, can you imagine that? makes the queen trip look like its from a $2 shop

[Daniel]

a visit from the Pres of the usa cost more than one of the queens visits? ha ha! how is that possible when the president would visit two states at most?? He never came to my state (WA), he never would. The queen has to visit every state and many towns. Think about the logisitics! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You make me sad to be born in WA :(

As Rollo says. Who cares?

[Rollo]

a visit from the Pres of the usa cost more than one of the queens visits? ha ha! how is that possible when the president would visit two states at most?? He never came to my state (WA), he never would. The queen has to visit every state and many towns. Think about the logisitics! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

From the 2005/06 Budgetary Review papers:
DFAT Special Expenses: Visit of Queen Elizabeth II - 12-16 March 2006
$19,593

From the 2003/04 Budgetary Review papers:
DFAT Special Expenses: Visit of U.S. President Bush - 23 October 2003
$67,596

I shan't link you to the documents because I had to sift through them to even find this, and the fact that they're both 200+ page documents.
How is it possible? Most of the expense I imagine is providing a security entourage. Not only that, but there'd be housing for Air Force One whereas The Queen would travel via charter flight on a regular airliner.

Thought of the logistics, found the data.


The committee also heard that the Australian government had contributed $250,000 towards a new carriage being hand-built for the Queen by Australian Jim Frecklington.
The State Coach Britannia will be only the second new coach to join the royal mews in 100 years.
It is reported to have gold, sapphire and diamond encrusted door handles, gold painted aluminium wheels and is costing $1 million to build.

I did the research for this too. This article is a bald-faced LIE. This coach came out of the budget for the Sydney Olympics of 200 and was therefore under the budget of the AOC which itself was under the NSW State Government and NOT the Commonwealth.

[rubber4532]

how often does the president of the usa visit australia? once in a blue moon? I think George Bush Sr came here once. therefore the data on the cost of one rare visit is meaningless. The queen naturally visits more often as shes the queen of australia. Besides I dont believe your source is reliable

how is this relevant? who cares? I'm merely responding to that guy who said the queen doesnt cost us a penny. Hes obviously implying that a president WOULD cost us. But thats garbage.

[Daniel]

how often does the president of the usa visit australia? once in a blue moon? I think George Bush Sr came here once. therefore the data on the cost of one rare visit is meaningless. The queen naturally visits more often as shes the queen of australia. Besides I dont believe your source is reliable

how is this relevant? who cares? I'm merely responding to that guy who said the queen doesnt cost us a penny. Hes obviously implying that a president WOULD cost us. But thats garbage.
Stuff costs money. Geddit?

[Camelopard]

Stuff costs money. Geddit?

Exactly, that why I made my original reply to the comment about the queen (or royal family) not costing us anything, it doesn't matter which bucket the money comes from, it still costs!

[Rollo]

how is this relevant? who cares? I'm merely responding to that guy who said the queen doesnt cost us a penny. Hes obviously implying that a president WOULD cost us. But thats garbage.

It matters exactly which bucket the money comes from. I've shown which bucket which comes from and shown that this is the realm of the Dept of Foreign Affairs and Trade as opposed to having her on the Civil List which would imply a wage like she draws in the UK.
ERGO
The Queen costs us no more than any other foreign dignatory.

BUT

A president would be a wage earner on the public purse, that is, a direct cost. The president would be paid the same way as a regular Civil Servant, Parliamentarian, Prime Minister or Govenor-General is now - where as the Queen isn't.

How else do you propose to fund the position of the president? Would they work for free?

[Mark]

Do you need a president? Why not just have a prime minister like you do at the moment and that's it?

[Daniel]

Do you need a president? Why not just have a prime minister like you do at the moment and that's it?
Exactly my argument for not changing. Any change is only symbolic at best and people are intelligent enough to see through that these days.

[Mark in Oshawa]

It is funny, people who want to dump the Queen never have a good answer to what you would replace her with. When you point out she costs less than some boob you would elect to the job but would need a pay check, well then they have no argument on cost. What the Queen does is hard to define, except she is seen as a link to the past that a nation should hang onto if for no other reason than the heritage. It isn't a job that wields real power, although technically, if a PM went completely mad, she is the legal protection for the country. Just leave things alone. I find nations that are in the situation like Australia or Canada that debate endlessly on this stuff probably could be doing something useful with a debate, such as how to deal with their native peoples or help rejuvenate some part of the economy. Whether you keep the Queen or not is like arguing about what colour you want the icing on a birthday cake....

[rubber4532]

ah the tired, old predictable riposte that a president would cost more than the queen and G-G. This isn't necessaily the case, for a start at least in a republic we would only have one head of state instead of the two we have to support now. Furthermore the presidency doesnt have to be more grand & costly than that of G-G: in fact I envisage an Australianized, stripped-down presidency. The Rolls-Royce will have to go to for a start: the president should travel in a Holden (why not a secondhand one?). Just some suggestions.

[Rollo]

ah the tired, old predictable riposte that a president would cost more than the queen and G-G. This isn't necessaily the case, for a start at least in a republic we would only have one head of state instead of the two we have to support now.

Ergh!
The people do not pay the Queen's wage, nor for the upkeep of her house or property, nor any monetary tribute whatsoever. The running costs of the Queen from a day-to-day point of view are $0.



Furthermore the presidency doesnt have to be more grand & costly than that of G-G: in fact I envisage an Australianized, stripped-down presidency. The Rolls-Royce will have to go to for a start: the president should travel in a Holden (why not a secondhand one?). Just some suggestions.

The annual salary during Michael Jeffery's current term is A$365,000. The US President is currently paid A$469,780. I think that we already get out of it resonably well.
The car provided to the Governor-General currently is C-2 which is a Holden Caprice.

Hmm.

[rubber4532]

u totally missed the point of my post. I was merely pointing out that a president doesn't necessarily have to cost more than a queen & G-G. Which is a claim monarchists repeatedly make. My suggestion about the G-G driving a Holden instead of a Rolls was just that- a suggestion.

[Daniel]

u totally missed the point of my post. I was merely pointing out that a president doesn't necessarily have to cost more than a queen & G-G. Which is a claim monarchists repeatedly make. My suggestion about the G-G driving a Holden instead of a Rolls was just that- a suggestion.
What about having to remint all the coins?

[millencolin]

is this one still going? oh right IT NEVER ENDS

i stand by what i said earlier

If it ain't broke, then DON'T FIX IT!!!

[Schultz]

Seriously the running costs should not even be a consideration. It seriously should not even be on the radar. It is a symbolic gesture that would neither give us more independence nor change the functions of our political system in any major way. The only thing costly about the whole process would be conducting a referendum which would probably cost 10's or 100's of millions of dollars. But if we can't afford it now, we never will be able to.

[tinchote]

Oh, and one other thing I forgot to mention. I have an even bigger problem with being categorised as a subject of the monarch, and do not believe that anyone in any job should be forced, as for example MPs are, to swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown. I would never swear an oath of allegiance to anyone, elected or not.




Seeing the visage of QE2 on my coins means I am home. When she is gone, and Charles comes along, maybe I change my mind, but I doubt it. If it aint broke, don't fix it...

That's a big issue, man. I am still at least a year away from getting citizenship. I can probably tolerate the fact that I have to swear allegiance to the queen, but it will be a tough one if by then Charly-boy is replacing her :s ;) :D

[LotusElise]

This thread has opened my eyes, as an English person. If the media over here is to be believed sometimes, the majority of Australians are raging republicans baying for the Queen's blood.

I quite like it that our country is "ceremonially" linked with Australia, purely because it's one of the more interesting countries in the world and one I wouldn't mind living in.

[Daniel]

This thread has opened my eyes, as an English person. If the media over here is to be believed sometimes, the majority of Australians are raging republicans baying for the Queen's blood.

I quite like it that our country is "ceremonially" linked with Australia, purely because it's one of the more interesting countries in the world and one I wouldn't mind living in.

The media are very irresponsible if that be the case :) Most of us in Australia either like the Queen or are not particularly fussed and feel that it would merely be a costly change just for the sake of change :)

Tbh Whether it's Charles, Lizzy or William I doubt that they will ever interfere in the running of Australia so I don't see why Charles is any different to anyone else who could be our head of state :)

[tinchote]

Tbh Whether it's Charles, Lizzy or William I doubt that they will ever interfere in the running of Australia so I don't see why Charles is any different to anyone else who could be our head of state :)

To me, it does make a difference. The Queen is someone who I can respect; and I cannot say the same of her son :mark:

[Daniel]

To me, it does make a difference. The Queen is someone who I can respect; and I cannot say the same of her son :mark:
But are you fearful that he's going to interfere? :)

[Mark]

Tbh Whether it's Charles, Lizzy or William I doubt that they will ever interfere in the running of Australia

You are somewhat implying there that they are able to interfere in the running of Australia? As far as I knew the monarch could give Australia a direct proclamation or whatever the highest command is but Australia doesn't have to take any notice whatsoever. (Same with the UK government for that matter)

[tinchote]

But are you fearful that he's going to interfere? :)

For sure not. Unless "ashaming someone" is considered interference ;) :p :

[Daniel]

You are somewhat implying there that they are able to interfere in the running of Australia? As far as I knew the monarch could give Australia a direct proclamation or whatever the highest command is but Australia doesn't have to take any notice whatsoever. (Same with the UK government for that matter)
Which is my point :) The Queen's representative in Australia (the Governor General) has the right to interfere on behalf of the Queen and country. But as I've said I don't think it ever really happens and if it did it would probably be for a very good reason :)

Tinchote :p what you whinging about then? :p

[Rollo]

You are somewhat implying there that they are able to interfere in the running of Australia? As far as I knew the monarch could give Australia a direct proclamation or whatever the highest command is but Australia doesn't have to take any notice whatsoever. (Same with the UK government for that matter)

The Queen is not an elected member of parliament and as such can not and may not introduce legislation to the House. Part III details how legislation and Bills are to be brought before the Parliament for tabulation.

These details are in Sections 24-90
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/

The Queen herself is represented but can not sit, or sign off on legislation because Sections 1-6 do not specify that she has the power to do so. The Queen can not enact, pass, vote on, introduce or approve legislation.
Therefore the person with the final say is the Governor-General.

Since the Constitution is the instrument on which parliament is run, then this is where the argument should be held. The only reason I can suggest that people want to replace the Queen as Head of State (despite her actually having no direct power unlike the UK) is purely emotive.

[millencolin]

The media are very irresponsible if that be the case :) Most of us in Australia either like the Queen or are not particularly fussed and feel that it would merely be a costly change just for the sake of change :)




from my point of view... i just simply dont care. the royal family does nothing anyways. so why should we fork out all this money to become a republc when we practically are already. that money could be better spent, like building a proper racetrack out in the south-east queensland region, replacing that sh!thole we know as Queensland Raceway

[Schultz]

The Queen herself is represented but can not sit, or sign off on legislation because Sections 1-6 do not specify that she has the power to do so. The Queen can not enact, pass, vote on, introduce or approve legislation.
Therefore the person with the final say is the Governor-General.

Since the Constitution is the instrument on which parliament is run, then this is where the argument should be held. The only reason I can suggest that people want to replace the Queen as Head of State (despite her actually having no direct power unlike the UK) is purely emotive.

But surely as the Queens representative, the Governor General is obliged to do whatever the Queen suggests within her powers. A president of course would have no obligation to seek directions from the Queen, and then, he would be the at the top of the hierachy. The last port of call so to speak.

On the point of costs. As far as I know, Australian taxpayers pay the wage of both the Governor General, and would do the same if his name was changed to the president. I can't see the Brits paying out 300,000k a year for or GG.

[Rollo]

I suppose technically the Govenor-General might be obliged to listen to the Queen but the flaw in this is that a) the Queen has never suggested and anything and b) is powerless to do so because she isn't a sitting member of either house.

Specifically when he could have:
If you actually look at the circumstances surrounding the 1975 Constitutional Crisis, it is actually the very fact that things were so ambiguous that led to a sensible resolution in December with a double dissolution of Parliament and subsequent election.
Even through this the Queen didn't do anything.

"The Brits" don't need a Govenor-General, the Queen gives Royal Assent personally. Added to this there is no constitution in the UK, so the division of power is even more ambiguous than Australia. The Queen's wages are probably something in the order of £500k a year??

This still doesn't convince me that the Queen has any real control over the country at all. Again, the arguments for a republic seem to be emotive.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Rollo the arguments for the Republic usually come out of envy of the wealth the crown has, and the fact that some of the members of the Royal family are twits. That said, the money is there through generations, and the Queen has invested a lot of it, so even if the public purse was cut off, the Royal family wouldn't disappear from the tabloids anyhow.

The argument for getting rid of the monarchy is not based in anything else than a mean desire to bring down the monarchy.....and for what purpose? Really...there is none. If it aint broke, dont' fix it.......and the UK, NZ, Australia and Canada all share the monarchy and have created thriving, responsible governments that are based in a Constitutional Monarchy. Nothing really will change, but the history, tradition and roots of the nations would be damaged by dumping what has been there. Of course, that is all the reason some pig headed idiots want to create the change...for many, like the Quebecois in Canada have been bent on tearing down what made their nations unique in the first place.....

[rubber4532]

the fact that the queen has no power over australia is no argument for the status quo. The queen has no real power in britain only symbolic power based more on tradition than need. But does that make her any less the ruler of britain? or any less our ruler? Being ruled ny a foreign monarch is not a situation Im prepared to tolerate.

[tinchote]

the fact that the queen has no power over australia is no argument for the status quo. The queen has no real power in britain only symbolic power based more on tradition than need. But does that make her any less the ruler of britain? or any less our ruler? Being ruled ny a foreign monarch is not a situation Im prepared to tolerate.

Of course it makes her less of a ruler. I live in Canada, she cannot rule anything in my life, so she is not a ruler here. And I guess it's the same in Australia and NZ.

I wouldn't want any of my tax money spent in changing something like that.

[Rollo]

But does that make her any less the ruler of britain? or any less our ruler? Being ruled by a foreign monarch is not a situation I'm prepared to tolerate.

So it is an emotive argument then eh?

The perception of the nation of Australia in the rest of the world is actually kind of strange. Although a member of the British Commonwealth, it's seen overseas as a sensible country. I fear that changing the nation to a republic will be seen as a symbolic gesture to split from its own history and even further continue the slide to aligning with the USA.

Since America is almost universally seen as either the most arrogant nation on the planet (with the possible exception of the French), then a symbolic change to line Australia up with that would be either seen as a) weak and b) unfriendly.

Australia and New Zealand are the Asia-Pacific's half way house bewteen Europe, Asia and the USA. We're generally seen as a friendly lot. I'm sure that if Australia actually were to become a republic, then the neutral status other nations show to it would blacken and Australians would be more intensely scruitinised when passing through border checks etc.

I don't think that the benefits outweigh the costs.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Rollo, you brought up the best argument for keeping the status quo. Australia is always conscious of NOT being just another country sucking up to the US. In Canada, anti-American feeling is always bubbling under the surface, yet the one thing that defines us as having a different history than our neighbour is the Queen and our system of government. Australia has the same issues and while they have a greater independent identity, they still think they shouldn't be connected to the UK in any way. It is wrong. You never forget your past or roots, and if it means you have a monarch you share with 4 or 5 other nations, well, that isn't a bad thing when you consider the quality of those nations and what they stand for.

[rubber4532]

So it is an emotive argument then eh?

The perception of the nation of Australia in the rest of the world is actually kind of strange. Although a member of the British Commonwealth, it's seen overseas as a sensible country. I fear that changing the nation to a republic will be seen as a symbolic gesture to split from its own history and even further continue the slide to aligning with the USA.

Since America is almost universally seen as either the most arrogant nation on the planet (with the possible exception of the French), then a symbolic change to line Australia up with that would be either seen as a) weak and b) unfriendly.

Australia and New Zealand are the Asia-Pacific's half way house bewteen Europe, Asia and the USA. We're generally seen as a friendly lot. I'm sure that if Australia actually were to become a republic, then the neutral status other nations show to it would blacken and Australians would be more intensely scruitinised when passing through border checks etc.

I don't think that the benefits outweigh the costs.


Hysterical nonsense! A number of countries have made the switch. Malta did it in 1974, Trinidad & Tobago in 1976 and mauritius in 1992. None of these countries are perceived as weak and unfriendly. And what about the Republic of Ireland? I've been there and the people are a friendly, peaceful bunch.
Are u suggesting if we become a republic we'll become North Korea? Ha! You're really grasping at straws now.

[Rollo]

Are u suggesting if we become a republic we'll become North Korea? Ha! You're really grasping at straws now.

No I do believe I suggested that:

I fear that changing the nation to a republic will be seen as a symbolic gesture to split from its own history and even further continue the slide to aligning with the USA.

Foreign policy suggests this as well.

By the way, thanks for the straw man argument. :D

[rubber4532]

So you don't think we'd become North Korea if we become a republic and we won't be perceived as weak and unfriendly. well good thats a load of my mind!

[tinchote]

So you don't think we'd become North Korea if we become a republic and we won't be perceived as weak and unfriendly. well good thats a load of my mind!


Most people in the World don't even know that Australia has the Queen has head of state. Personally, I learnt it only a few years ago, when I read news about the referendum in 99. And I remember it was a surprise for me. About Canada, I learned it even later than that, when I came to live here.

So, I don't think it makes any difference. Which is probably a good reason not to change it.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Tinchote, since you have been in Canada for a while, and yet came from a Republic, you can speak to what the difference is better than some. I take it your view of what Australia or Canada is/was at the time wasn't influenced by anything then what you had read about what the countries stood for or how they acted in the international arena. You came to Canada I would assume because you had your reasons, and while the Queen had NOTHING to do with that, would you agree that at least that link of tradition of passive royal rule that "guarntees" the stability of our democracy is a good thing?

[tinchote]

Tinchote, since you have been in Canada for a while, and yet came from a Republic, you can speak to what the difference is better than some. I take it your view of what Australia or Canada is/was at the time wasn't influenced by anything then what you had read about what the countries stood for or how they acted in the international arena. You came to Canada I would assume because you had your reasons, and while the Queen had NOTHING to do with that, would you agree that at least that link of tradition of passive royal rule that "guarntees" the stability of our democracy is a good thing?

Absolutely. As I have already said, you can imagine that for someone from Argentina, it's not the easiest thing to be (even formally) ruled by the Queen. I'll even have to pledge allegiance next year... I don't want to think about it ;) :D

I think that tradition is a good thing, and particularly good when referring to political stability. No one here really feels any influence from the Queen; it's even hard to relate the Governor General with the Queen: for starters, she's a native French speaker... But the Queen still has a place in Canada's tradition, and I cannot see anything good coming from changing that.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Absolutely. As I have already said, you can imagine that for someone from Argentina, it's not the easiest thing to be (even formally) ruled by the Queen. I'll even have to pledge allegiance next year... I don't want to think about it ;) :D

I think that tradition is a good thing, and particularly good when referring to political stability. No one here really feels any influence from the Queen; it's even hard to relate the Governor General with the Queen: for starters, she's a native French speaker... But the Queen still has a place in Canada's tradition, and I cannot see anything good coming from changing that.

Tinchote, we need more immigrants like yourself who see Canada for what it is, good and bad. Just remember that when you are pledging allegiance, what you are basically saying is you are standing with Canada, which isn't too much to ask considering how fortunate we are in this country to have opportunity and freedom. Whether it is here or Australia, the principle is the same. The allegiance to the Queen is more figurative than literal, but it is the ties to the mother country. Of course, you being from Argentina, probably see the UK and the Crown in a different light due to the Malvina's/Falkland's war, but I suspect if Thatcher had let the Falklands go, the Queen wouldn't have said anything either.....she just makes sure things don't go completely off the rail.

[tinchote]

Tinchote, we need more immigrants like yourself who see Canada for what it is, good and bad. Just remember that when you are pledging allegiance, what you are basically saying is you are standing with Canada, which isn't too much to ask considering how fortunate we are in this country to have opportunity and freedom. Whether it is here or Australia, the principle is the same. The allegiance to the Queen is more figurative than literal, but it is the ties to the mother country. Of course, you being from Argentina, probably see the UK and the Crown in a different light due to the Malvina's/Falkland's war, but I suspect if Thatcher had let the Falklands go, the Queen wouldn't have said anything either.....she just makes sure things don't go completely off the rail.


:up: :)

Living in Regina (=Queen, in latin) I have a constant remainder of these issues...

Just for the record, I have nothing really against the UK (most Argentineans don't, either, I would say). I've been there a couple times already, and hopefully I'll visit again sometime.

[millencolin]

Tis good to see some sense coming from the Canadian side of this forum.

Australia as a nation is travelling very smoothly. We have a strong economy, Unemployment rates are at an all time low. The Australian Dollar is strong. We won the cricket world cup (the only world cup that counts)! :p : A change to the system by becoming a republic could possibly fark all this up. so why bother? so we can have some other old codger as a president instead of that old codger called 'the Queen of Australia'. With all the hassle and money required to make the changes, it could mess with our current system somehow. IF IT AINT BROKE DONT FIX IT!!!

i feel like im 'beating a dead horse' by stating the same line over and over again but its just so simple! Australia is doing fine, our only problem is that John Howard is in charge (damn him, raising hecs fees!!!) but as far as a nation in general is concerned...

IF IT AINT BROKE THEN DON'T FIX IT

[raybak]

I'm with millencolin on this one. If it aint broke don't fix it.

Ray

[Mark in Oshawa]

Tis good to see some sense coming from the Canadian side of this forum.

Australia as a nation is travelling very smoothly. We have a strong economy, Unemployment rates are at an all time low. The Australian Dollar is strong. We won the cricket world cup (the only world cup that counts)! :p : A change to the system by becoming a republic could possibly fark all this up. so why bother? so we can have some other old codger as a president instead of that old codger called 'the Queen of Australia'. With all the hassle and money required to make the changes, it could mess with our current system somehow. IF IT AINT BROKE DONT FIX IT!!!

i feel like im 'beating a dead horse' by stating the same line over and over again but its just so simple! Australia is doing fine, our only problem is that John Howard is in charge (damn him, raising hecs fees!!!) but as far as a nation in general is concerned...

IF IT AINT BROKE THEN DON'T FIX IT

Well, as an Aussie friend of mine told me once, Canada and Australia (along with NZ) are brothers from a common mother. We share the same identity issues, have the same issues often in dealing with our cousins the Yanks (well meaning but often clueless in how the rest of the world perceives them)and a similar outlook on democracy. The second I saw the thread title and read what you Aussies thought about the debate to dump the royals, I could have been hearing Canadians speak on the subject.

[rubber4532]

Tis good to see some sense coming from the Canadian side of this forum.

Australia as a nation is travelling very smoothly. We have a strong economy, Unemployment rates are at an all time low. The Australian Dollar is strong. We won the cricket world cup (the only world cup that counts)! :p : A change to the system by becoming a republic could possibly fark all this up. so why bother? so we can have some other old codger as a president instead of that old codger called 'the Queen of Australia'. With all the hassle and money required to make the changes, it could mess with our current system somehow. IF IT AINT BROKE DONT FIX IT!!!

i feel like im 'beating a dead horse' by stating the same line over and over again but its just so simple! Australia is doing fine, our only problem is that John Howard is in charge (damn him, raising hecs fees!!!) but as far as a nation in general is concerned...

IF IT AINT BROKE THEN DON'T FIX IT


Oh brother, replacing the queen with an aussie will cause the Au$ to fall? we'll no longer win at cricket? unemployment will skyrocket? Becoming a republic will give us the self-confidence to realize our full potential as a nation. Many are afraid that ditching the queen, dropping the facade will reveal australia true essence: let the genie out the bottle, so to speak. Why is that a bad thing? Is our essence something evil? Wrong! The inner-nature of Australia is something positive, its benevolent. I have have faith in Australia's potential.

PS our president will not be old. our pres will be youthful. A young pres for a young nation.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Oh brother, replacing the queen with an aussie will cause the Au$ to fall? we'll no longer win at cricket? unemployment will skyrocket? Becoming a republic will give us the self-confidence to realize our full potential as a nation. Many are afraid that ditching the queen, dropping the facade will reveal australia true essence: let the genie out the bottle, so to speak. Why is that a bad thing? Is our essence something evil? Wrong! The inner-nature of Australia is something positive, its benevolent. I have have faith in Australia's potential.

PS our president will not be old. our pres will be youthful. A young pres for a young nation.

Ya Ok, whatever. Like Australia has been HELD back by Lizzie? She comes down once every 4 years to visit, look at the horses and meet some people with a smile and the country is in the dark ages? Cant reach its potential? Please, spare me the spoiled Vegemite.

This notion that Australia or any other Commonwealth nation is hurt by having the Queen as a head of state is bunk. It is a figurehead salute to tradition and the roots of the nation. That said, an elected president, no matter how ceremonial his duties are (or hers) is just another buffoon to make sport of. Not to mention that if you give the office any real power, than you have some yokel trying to make a name for himself doing something. Best part about the Royal Family, they are basically just doing their thing, promoting good works and charity, and any Governor General who is appointed to represent the monarch is basically told to do the same thing. The LAST thing you want is for THAT to change.

No one thinks less of Australia for having the Queen as its head of state. As Tinchote pointed out, when he was in Argentina, he had no idea Canada had the Queen until he emigrated here, but it didn't diminish what he thought of the nation at all. I think this movement is just a knee jerk movement of being just envious of people with money. The Royal Family is loaded and this visceral hatred for them comes out of the fact they are seen as leeches on the public purse; but the reality is they basically have taken very little from any nation in the last 50 years and have no need to. They promote and represent the best values of the Commonwealth, and the last time I looked, none of them were bad ones....

[fandango]

A lot of what you say, Mark In Oshawa, is true here. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference to Commonwealth countries to have Queen Elizabeth II as a figurehead of the nation or not.

In Ireland we have a President. For years, it was an office for a semi-anonymous retired politician. In the early nineties Mary Robinson changed that, by becoming President and doing things her own way. She permanently changed the idea of what the office means to the people. That's at least one possible good thing that can come from being a republic. It gives potential for positive change. Of course, potential isn't always realised, so there's a risk...

[rubber4532]

Was that a freudian slip? the royals have no need to leech off the public purse. You're right they don't need the money but they leech anyway. How much is the civil list? several million dollars a year? The queen has a $500million personal fortune and the income from the Duchy of Lancaster. Surely thats enough on its own to get by on. Where do all the millions of dollars from the Civil list end up? I'd suggest its 80% wasted.

[millencolin]

Oh brother, replacing the queen with an aussie will cause the Au$ to fall? we'll no longer win at cricket? unemployment will skyrocket? Becoming a republic will give us the self-confidence to realize our full potential as a nation. Many are afraid that ditching the queen, dropping the facade will reveal australia true essence: let the genie out the bottle, so to speak. Why is that a bad thing? Is our essence something evil? Wrong! The inner-nature of Australia is something positive, its benevolent. I have have faith in Australia's potential.

PS our president will not be old. our pres will be youthful. A young pres for a young nation.

Becoming a republic will give us confidence and make us reach our full potential? what the hell are you on about! That simply doesnt make sense. its like saying tomatos are blue and Mark Webber is a kiwi

obviously you didnt read my last post very throughly. Key word was possibly. If the nation diverts its attention from the important things such as the economy to trivial things like changing to a republic would not make us reach our 'full potential' as you stated. do you realise how much it takes to become a republic? its not as simple as kicking out the queen and having Richie Benaud taking her place. Our whole Parliamentary system would have to be alted. Our Money, Flag, Government services, everything has to be changed. and if our attention is on that, then where does that leave the economy on our priority list? It will cost Billions and take a lot of time, time and money better spent on bettering this already great country

We Live in the best country in the world (just ask all the tourists, they agree), so why change it? just so we can say 'President Ponting/Lockyer/Benaud/Howard etc'

[rubber4532]

becoming a republic will cost billions of dollars? Why? To take the queen's portait down in Government House? How much does it cost to take a picture off a wall for God's sake???????

[Mark in Oshawa]

becoming a republic will cost billions of dollars? Why? To take the queen's portait down in Government House? How much does it cost to take a picture off a wall for God's sake???????


Rubber, you still have to put someone in that office. Then you have to officially CHANGE the constitution. When you do that, you KNOW it wont be just a quick rubber stamp. Every poltitician with an ego and idea will be in there suggesting changes. The wrangling over how the new government will work and its safeguards will be beat to death.

You sir are naive if you really think it is just a phone call to the UK saying "don't bother coming back, we dont' need you anymore" and taking down some pictures. When you change your head of state and how that person will now have to be selected, you are re-opening the constitution. I know in Canada, that has only been done ONCE successfully, and we still have a province that wont actually agree to it. It may be simple to you, but even in Australia, when you open up a constitution, every clown in the country will have an opinion on how this is all going to go down. You could be wrangling over how it works for a long time, and quite frankly, nothing good could come of it.

This visceral dislike for the Royals is just not logical in the final scheme of things. First off, while everyone thinks the Royals should spend their own money, the reality is they are being PAID to be the figurehead for a nation, or in this case about 6 nations. They have no privacy, have their lives pretty much regimented and defined, and while one can argue they are overpaid by some terms for that, it also must be said they cant really quit the job and they are defined by it. So it isn't a simple case of she can afford it, she can pay the airfare. The fact they are rich means little to you or me. They are NOT taking your money, and what is more, if you dumped the royals, I can guarntee you wont get one more nickel in your pocket. The Royals are rich because they have centuries worth of wealth accumulating. They are NOT raping and pillaging in the public purse any more. Furthermore, it is the taxpayers of the UK that basically put the money in, not us out in the "Colonies". The only money we spend is on our local rep of the Queen, and when she shows up. That money will be spent on whomever replaces the Governor General and the money spent on dignataries visiting is just as much as any costs associated with a royal visit.

IN short, You wont be saving a thing....but that is ok, because you will feel better because that nasty old Queen wont be around...like THAT makes your country 100% better. No one thinks less of Australia for having the Queen or Canada for having the Queen except for a few miserable people who want to tear down any institution that isn't giving them something directly RIGHT now.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Becoming a republic will give us confidence and make us reach our full potential? what the hell are you on about! That simply doesnt make sense. its like saying tomatos are blue and Mark Webber is a kiwi

obviously you didnt read my last post very throughly. Key word was possibly. If the nation diverts its attention from the important things such as the economy to trivial things like changing to a republic would not make us reach our 'full potential' as you stated. do you realise how much it takes to become a republic? its not as simple as kicking out the queen and having Richie Benaud taking her place. Our whole Parliamentary system would have to be alted. Our Money, Flag, Government services, everything has to be changed. and if our attention is on that, then where does that leave the economy on our priority list? It will cost Billions and take a lot of time, time and money better spent on bettering this already great country

We Live in the best country in the world (just ask all the tourists, they agree), so why change it? just so we can say 'President Ponting/Lockyer/Benaud/Howard etc'

You and I seem to be on the same page in different nations.

All the money would be in demand to be replaced. Lets face it, if the Queen is gone, all the money would have to be recycled to reflect the change. It would be demanded by the same pinheads that want to drive the royalty out for no reason other than they cant see the point. Lets see, all the coats of arms would have to be cleansed.

Like I told Rubber, it isn't so simple, and it would involve basically erasing history. The history of Commonwealth nations that have their roots as Dominions of the old British Empire have a lot to be proud of, and the attachment to the Royals is the last link left that tells the story of how great nations evolved under a crown dedicated to the rule of law, democratic principles and negotiated sovereignity for the nations. Not blood soaked revolution. I think the people who want to dump on all of this obviously need to fill some empty space in their lives because they have a visceral hatred for people with money....

[rubber4532]

Obviously Im not the only one who thinks the royals are ridiculously overpaid. Is it any wonder the queen was shamed into giving up the royal yacht and paying income tax? the whole thing had gone beyond a joke.

[Rollo]

the last link left that tells the story of how great nations evolved under a crown dedicated to the rule of law, democratic principles and negotiated sovereignity for the nations. Not blood soaked revolution.

Hear hear.
Australia as a nation came into existance because of a vote on 1st January 1901. No shots were fired in anger to do that at all.

Although, isn't suggesting the idea of a Republic tehcnically treason and thus one of only three things left in Australia subject to the death penalty?

[rubber4532]

I don't have a hatred of people with money at all. I just dont think one wealthy family should have a monopoly on the nations highest office. In a democracy all representative offices should be open to those being represented. I'm not saying I necessarily want to be president, but I want that option. All Australians should have that option.