The Republic of Australia (maybe...)

[sysyphus]

As touched on in Margim's thread about Canada, I am interested to know what is going on in Aus as far as transformation of your government and removing the Queen as the Head of State.

Margim briefly outlined that since the referendum, Howard has avoided the issue (that's what I gather anyway).

Nonetheless, I have very little doubt that Republicanism is alive and well in Australia. My understanding is that the referendum failed not because of pro-monarchists, but rather the electorate didn't like the specifcs of the proposed reforms.

Perhaps our Aussie friends here could expand on that? What didn't they like? What's the next step do you think?

 

[newfangle]

I'm eager to hear Simon's reply.

 

[Constantine]

Was Howard a republican?

 

[sysyphus]

No, Howard is a monarchist from what I gather.

 

[Case]

Originally posted by Constantine
Was Howard a republican?

- no he's one of the most commited monarchists in the country. He zips over to London at least twice a year on dubious grounds, which normally involve meeting the Queen.

Sadly, the republic has been dead in the water since the 1999 referendum on the issue was defeated.* While the vast majority of Australians favour the establishment of a republic, divisions over the exact form the republic would take and continuing fondness for the Queen rules out a renewed push for now.

IMO, things will only change when Howard goes, and is replaced by a pro-republic PM (either the Liberal's [Howard's party] Peter Costello or any Labor Party leader). A new leader for the Australian Republican Movement wouldn't hurt either - I have it's current leader, Professor John Warhurst, as a lecturer at uni, and he's one of the shyest people I've ever met! (he's a very good academic and a genuinely nice bloke though)


*For the record, I really liked the model that was proposed in the referendum and enthusiastically voted for it. As all it involved was renaming the de-facto head of state from 'Governor General' to 'President' and making them the offical head of state, it was, despite what the bizare coelition of Monarchists and radical reformers claimed**, a moderate, simple and logical change.

** I loved their election posters which consisted of two messages - at the top was 'no republic' and at the bottom was 'no unelected head of state'. I greatly enjoyed the irony at their simultaneously pushing a highly conservative line and a line advocating radical change. If the republican campaign hadn't been run by idiots, they should have been able to tear the opposition to shreads over that contridiction.

 

[Margim]

Ok, basically what happened with the refurendum was this.

A refurendum has to be posed in a yes/no question. It requires a majority to vote yes in every state/territory, plus an overall majority to vote yes.

Howard did not want the Republic to go through, so

The republic question was put like this.

"Do you want Australia to become a Republic, with its head of state being a President elected by a two thirds majority of parliament?"

Basically, it was set up to fail. Aussies generally don't like giving politicians all the fun, and wanted more of a say in how the Pres. would be choosen. So even if you supported the idea of a Republic, but disagreed with the means of election, your no vote prevented the whole thing going through. Every state voted 'no'. The state of victoria unfortunately swung at the last minute with postal votes.

To further confuse the whole issue, a second question about recognising the custodianship of aborigines over the land in the constitution was added. Of course, that issue goes down well with all Australians (not). I think it set a pretty negative voting mood for the republic issue generally.

As for the future - only time will tell. There are a lot of prominent republicans in the country. I thnk they are waiting for howard to go, and then a new push will be made again.

 

[bobgote]

The Vote was set up to fail, as has been said.

If there was a genuine referendum, and the proposed system was actually explained adequately, and there was significant input by a variety of source, I believe that a large majority of people would vote for a Republic.

At the moment however, Howard reckons he has done enough by his farce of a referendum and so can dismiss the issue as long as he's PM. Like Case said, it won't go further til he's out of office. (and he'll probably get re-elected at the next election unless some major changes happen).

 

[Mrogreturns]

I voted against the proposal to become a republic. This is simply becasue I see no need to change. I see no benefits and even the least radical proposal (just remame the G-G as president) would, no doubt, end up costing X million dollars to impliment.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Isn't it a moot question?

You can hardly vote on revolution by referendum. Are you sure Britain wouldn't do anything to stop you from becoming "independent" - or at least more so than you are already.

 

[Mrogreturns]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Isn't it a moot question?

You can hardly vote on revolution by referendum.

Yes we can- it's one of the benefits of being nice about it, showing some patience and not starting a war


Are you sure Britain wouldn't do anything to stop you from becoming "independent" - or at least more so than you are already. [/QUOTE]

Does Britain realy care? I doubt it. If they did care, there isn't a lot they would or could do to stop it.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Mrogreturns
Does Britain realy care? I doubt it. If they did care, there isn't a lot they would or could do to stop it. [/B]

I could see the tanks rolling across the horizon.

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by Mrogreturns
Does Britain realy care? I doubt it. If they did care, there isn't a lot they would or could do to stop it.

I'm sure a few carefully aimed cruise missiles might change a few minds. Failing that we could always refuse to play you at cricket, though I'm not sure if anything would notice.

Originally posted by Case
He zips over to London at least twice a year on dubious grounds, which normally involve meeting the Queen.

Diplomatic protocol means the Queen has to meet him if he comes to Britain. His lastest visit was for the creation of an Australian war memorial in London, hardly a dubious reason for the trip.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by MrPresident

Diplomatic protocol means the Queen has to meet him if he comes to Britain. His lastest visit was for the creation of an Australian war memorial in London, hardly a dubious reason for the trip.

Couldnt they just sent a minor official for that?

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by archer_007
Couldnt they just sent a minor official for that?

They did send their Prime Minister.

 

[Mrogreturns]

Originally posted by archer_007


Couldnt they just sent a minor official for that?

No, this memorial has been planned for 85 years and it means a great deal to many Australians, hopefuly it does to some of the British as well.

Originally posted by Mr President


I'm sure a few carefully aimed cruise missiles might change a few minds.

I'm thinking that comes under "wouldn't"


Failing that we could always refuse to play you at cricket, though I'm not sure if anything would notice.


I thought you had! You mean to say your boys were actually playing cricket in those matches?!

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Mrogreturns
I thought you had! You mean to say your boys were actually playing cricket in those matches?!

hehe
funny cos it's true

 

[Mrogreturns]

Originally posted by newfangle
I'm eager to hear Simon's reply.

Me too- I can't imagine him wanting to do away with the monarchy, but how does it fit in with himself as the Supreme Leader of a fascist Australia?

Its important for we future toadies to get this straight.

 

[Margim]

"I thought you had! You mean to say your boys were actually playing cricket in those matches?!"

Over the last year or two, one could say the same thing about the Davis Cup, Soccer, etc. Ok, I've mentioned that before, but hey, we are having a good year!

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by Mrogreturns
I'm thinking that comes under "wouldn't"

So the plan to lull you into a false sense of security is working. Excellent.

Originally posted by Mrogreturns
I thought you had! You mean to say your boys were actually playing cricket in those matches?!

As a rule anything an Englishman says about the national cricket team is a joke about their poor ability.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by MrPresident

They did send their Prime Minister.

Isnt that the higher official in their government?