Australian Republic

[CanbTiger]

IMO, the real villian (if there has to be one) of the "Sack Whitlam episode" was the Chief Justice of the High Court at the time, Garfield Barwick.

A former Liberal it was HE (the supposed chief legal mind in the country) that advised Kerr to sack Whitlam. Also, let's not forget that Fraser and co, in blocking supply, did something entirely contrary to parliamentary tradition.

John Kerr cops a lot of flak for the sacking and was plagued by protestors for the rest of his life after it occurred, possibly assisting his early death.

Yet Barwick and Fraser got away relatively unscathed, which I consider to be a bloody disgrace. I consider their actions during the affair to be scurrilous and have the lowest of low regard for Barwick.

 

[RFC4eva]

IMO, the real villian (if there has to be one) of the "Sack Whitlam episode" was the Chief Justice of the High Court at the time, Garfield Barwick.

A former Liberal it was HE (the supposed chief legal mind in the country) that advised Kerr to sack Whitlam. Also, let's not forget that Fraser and co, in blocking supply, did something entirely contrary to parliamentary tradition.

John Kerr cops a lot of flak for the sacking and was plagued by protestors for the rest of his life after it occurred, possibly assisting his early death.

Yet Barwick and Fraser got away relatively unscathed, which I consider to be a bloody disgrace. I consider their actions during the affair to be scurrilous and have the lowest of low regard for Barwick.

I am not aware of Barwick's role in the dismissal, but if you could fill me in Canb that would be appreciated.

Not only did the Liberal senate break with Parliamentary convention in blocking supply. It never would have gotten that far if Tom Lewis (NSW Premier) and Joh Bjelke-Peterson (Qld Premier) hadn't broken another Parliamentary convention by replacing two casual vacancies in the Senate with non-Labor politicians. (The two departing Senators were both Labor) Parliamentary convention required the appointment of members from the same party.

Two broken conventions led to Kerr (under duress) dismissing the Whitlam government.

Apparently Fraser contacted the Chief Electoral Officer to find out the latest possible time for a pre-Christmas election before the Government was dismissed .

Kerr was supposed to follow the advice of the Prime Minister (following the principles of responsible government), yet he didn't seek advice. He certainly shouldn't have accepted the advice of the opposition leader .

It was a fascinating event in our Political History, and there are so many contesting accounts of what actually happened. But it certainly points out that if we were to become a republic, the reserve powers of our head of state would have to be seriously reviewed and altered so that this could never happen again.

 

[CanbTiger]

.....

I am not aware of Barwick's role in the dismissal, but if you could fill me in Canb that would be appreciated.

....

Spewin RFC- I'm quite literally about to hop on a bus and head out of this joint for two weeks.

Very quickly, I have heard that Barwick's advice to sack Whitlam weighed very heavily with Kerr and was a strong influence on his decision.

By rights (in keeping with the separation of powers doctrine)- Barwick should have kept his trap shut. His intervention was very improper for mine

 

[Khan]

Yes walstar I was quite young when mister Whiutlam was in power however even if my memory of events is a little muddled I remeber living through a lot of very hard times. I would take it that you lived in the city or town, While I was growing up I remember eating rabbit (that we caught) at least three times a week, a roast chicken was a sepecial lunch maybe once a month on Sunday. I definatly remember selling cattle for around $1.50 per head. I have no misconceptions I have my preceptions of what occured during that time. The accuracy in purc hasing blue poles that is now worth millions doesn't change the fact that at the time the country was broke. It may not have seemed a big deal where you were living or in the history books you have read.

If the Whitlam Goverment was so great then at the next election why wasn't it voted straight back in. Other info which is readily forgotton was Goughs aborted trip to WA to talk to the farmers. He cancelled and they burnt an effigy of Gough. This country in 1975 came the closest ever to having an assination.

I am not quoting documentation or history books this is from personal experinence. That goverment is also one of the reasons that I am a swinging voter now. I wnat to know what an elected offical will do for me.

All I were originally trying to get across was that whether the GG/Prez is Australian doesn't mean that this would never happen again. The last referendum basically changed none of the powers just changed the name of the position.

I beleive that there is more important things to be discussed during the next election other than a vote grabbing republican issue which will take up Mark Latham full term, and nothing else will get done.


Lets Roar in 2004

Khan

 

[tigerman]

I beleive that there is more important things to be discussed during the next election other than a vote grabbing republican issue which will take up Mark Latham full term, and nothing else will get done.


Lets Roar in 2004

Khan

Your 100% right Khan.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if John Howard runs on Homeland security, like he did last election.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Bump

 

[spook]

Jesus Christ. What a read.

No president. Council of Elders. Change the flag.

 

[year of the tiger]

The beginning of the end for the monarchists in Aus.

This will be a major platform for a second term labor government and another referendum, and Morrisons dodgy actions of signing himself up to the other ministries in secret with the GG approval will help their cause.

 

[DavidSSS]

Yep, the Republic debate was always going to come back when Lizzie passed.

The model remains the issue. The idea that an elected President is "too much democracy" is laughable, I thought democracy was supposed to be a good thing.

Personally I would go for a 3 stage approach:

1. Referendum on whether we want to be a republic.
2. If yes, convention on various models and top 2 models to a referendum on preferred model.
3. Preferred model put to a referendum to change the constitution.

Likely that the republic will be well back on the agenda after a respectable period of deference to QEII.

DS

 

[The Big Richo]

Pick a good time of year to have the date we switch, new Australia Day, new flag, new national anthem and a chance to move forward as a country without the stains of the past.

 

[mrposhman]

Pick a good time of year to have the date we switch, new Australia Day, new flag, new national anthem and a chance to move forward as a country without the stains of the past.

Fair call, the date for Australia day would be moved to the date that Australia gains full independence. Could even be named Australia independence day. It sets the stage for changing all of what you say.

Having said that, it could take 3-5 years for all this to happen.

 

[TigerForce]

Pick a good time of year to have the date we switch, new Australia Day, new flag, new national anthem and a chance to move forward as a country without the stains of the past.

Probably won't happen until William becomes King. If ever.

 

[TigerFlag2017]

Viva la Republique!

 

[TT33]

Australia becoming a Republic is inevitable, it's just a matter of when.

 

[tigertim]

Australia becoming a Republic is inevitable, it's just a matter of when.

Probably, but when? It’s been nearly a quarter of a century now since the referendum.

 

[jb03]

Now is the worst time to be pushing for a republic.

 

[TT33]

Probably, but when? It’s been nearly a quarter of a century now since the referendum.

That referendum failed, I doubt the next one will.

Our country has changed a lot in the years since.

 

[Sintiger]

That referendum failed, I doubt the next one will.

Our country has changed a lot in the years since.

Hopefully we also won’t have a PM actively sabotaging it. We need to make sure the public get to vote on a very simple question on whether we want a republic or not. Then the decision on what method can be separate.

 

[year of the tiger]

Hopefully we also won’t have a PM actively sabotaging it. We need to make sure the public get to vote on a very simple question on whether we want a republic or not. Then the decision on what method can be separate.

Yep keep it simple - a whole generation have passed since the last referendum so I reckon the general population views have changed despite the profile of the young monarchists.

 

[Tenacious]

Now is the worst time to be pushing for a republic.

But it won’t be long till Charlie becomes our “beloved“ head state and we’ll be hearing of KC’s appearing in courts and probably even have King Doofus on coins or whatever - all totally cringeworthy. So maybe that’s when to go for it.

At the same time I do fear that with effwits like Abbott still likely to roll out the scare campaign - and the referendum needing minimum 4 States in support (I think that’s correct - along with overall majority) - it will be a close thing