-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Monarch Discussion
- Thread starter spook
- Start date
Wonder who managed to book himself an RDO for Mon 26th weeks ago n now has a seriously fat long weekend. Pity we're not playing in the Grannie, I could have really celebrated properly. Oh well, guess I'll just have to struggle through somehow.
Yeah, I'm a bit surprised Albo didn't nominate Mon 26th as the public holiday. Why that Thursday?
Victorians get the Friday and the rest of the country calls in sick, seems to work.
DS
Just like Halloween Day this year for all Australia. The day before Melb Cup.
"Yeah, my throat feels a bit rough.....I feel a bit dizzy....didn't sleep well last night.....see ya tomorrow boss"
Just like Halloween Day this year for all Australia. The day before Melb Cup.
"Yeah, my throat feels a bit rough.....I feel a bit dizzy....didn't sleep well last night.....see ya tomorrow boss"
Pity I don't get Cup Day
DS
I thought it was odd, too, but I think because it synchs with the timing of the memorial service.
Surely it's well time Australia grew up & became a Republic.
That said the thought of Scomo being our President gives me nightmares.
The model that replaces what we have has got to be better than what we now have.
It's not as simple as just saying let's become a Republic.
That said the thought of Scomo being our President gives me nightmares.
The model that replaces what we have has got to be better than what we now have.
It's not as simple as just saying let's become a Republic.
A bit nauseating how much coverage the Queen's death is getting along with the crowning of Charles.
Would think most people my age or younger see the Royal Family as largely an irrelevance in our country so it's mostly pandering to the older generation.
Fingers crossed it's the last hurrah for an out of date concept.
Would think most people my age or younger see the Royal Family as largely an irrelevance in our country so it's mostly pandering to the older generation.
Fingers crossed it's the last hurrah for an out of date concept.
Agree, it's everywhere and getting boring. But I guess she was Australia's Queen, our head of state, for 70 odd years and Charlie is now our King, so until we get a republic, this sort of coverage can easily be explained. My hatred of Howard stems mainly for the way he rigged the republic referendum to ensure it failed.
That's the confusion people have though. ScoMo wouldn't be President under a Republic model likely for Australia. He would have been Prime Minister. President doesn't replace a Prime Minister.
Having said that, a politician like him could possibly end up being President later down the track, after retiring as a member of Parliament, if we go for a direct election model of our head of state. Which would more likely produce politicians as head of state, instead an indirect model like Germany has. Plus another point, there is no rule saying that we must call our head of state, 'President'. I find the Australian populace actually gets really confused by the term President, as they can only imagine an American form of Presidency.
I favour taking some ideas from both Germany and Switzerland. Germany for their figurehead President, Switzerland for their collective head of state.
My idea. Keep the state governors plus one member to represent the ACT/NT and external territories. These 7 members become the 'Federal Council.' A collective head of state elected for a term of 7 years. During the 7 year term of the elected Federal Council, the Presidency (if that's want you want to call it - doesn't have to be) and Vice Presidency rotates around the table. So each member gets a go at it. The President and Vice-President hold no more power than anyone else around the table, as it's a collective head of state. They simply chair the meetings and cut a few more ribbons and undertake ceremonial and representative duties in their year as President. The Members also undertake duties as State Governor as they do now. So it's a dual role - State Governor and Federal Council Member.
Confine it to people only being eligible for one term. 7 years is plenty opportunity.
The debate then is how we elect each of the governors within each jurisdiction who will then form the federal council.
I'm in favour of making it minimalist too, inspired by Switzerland. No need to have the State Governors living in lavish colonial castles, nor the President in their year in that job. All of these properties are returned to the public to be accessible for public events. They are only used by the Governors for ceremonial occasions. The same goes for Govt House in Canberra. It is simply used for ceremonial occasions and a venue for the Federal Council to gather for their scheduled round table meetings - a board room type of facility would exist in Govt House for this. The rest of the time it is a public facility. The Governors/Federal Council Members maintain their own residence like any normal person.
Another idea for brainstorming, do you make it an 8 member council with one member elected to represent indigenous Australia? Having said that you preferably want an uneven number, for those instances where decisions within the council ever go to a vote around the table.
Last edited:
100% agree with your first paragraph
Unfortunately while the rest of your proposal might make good sense - it is too convoluted imho to be a realistic alternative. The naysayers (like Howard and Abbott last time) will blow everything out of proportion as part of their scare campaign.
We must have a simple - read uncontroversial - model.
Ideally we need the referendum process to commence with the simple Yes/No question - without the model needing to be included
but again the naysayers will try to frighten people with that (absence of detail) - so a fairly well understood prospective model must be “out there“ before the question is put.
I personally hate it - but supposedly the general public likes the idea of an elected (replacement of) the Governor General - so if that’s the only way the Yes vote is likely to get up - I’ll take it ahead of nothing.
Personally I’d be happy to continue with the bare minimalist current Gov General model - appointed by PM.
Better still I’d prefer the Turnbull model with the Gov General elected by 2/3rds majority of combined Reps and Senate.
But it has to be uncomplicated coz those wowsers will try and jump on anything and everything to promote fear and confusion.
You also forgot to mention, blame doesn't wholly fall on the naysayers (Abbott Howard etc) themselves. The naysayers are only effective because the average Aussie on the street is too dim to actually understand what it is they are voting for or against. Going back to my original comment that they hear the word President/Republic and can only imagine a US or French style of President/Republic. Hence cannot fathom not voting for the person directly.
I too quite like Turnbull's 2/3rds Parliament. Saw another option where there is a convention to decide the Head of State. 50% of the members of the convention are elected by the people, 50% of it come from the Parliament. So semi-directly elected. Germany elects their President via a form of convention. Personally I won't vote in favour of a republic unless it is some form of indirect (or semi-direct at the most) appointment method. Hence you could say I'm not Republic or bust. I'm in favour of a Republic on the proviso that I'm satisfied with the model.
I actually don't think my model is that convoluted. The idea was working within the existing Federation framework we have and making better use of it. Hence, essentially just making better use of the State Governors as collective head of state. I like the fact that is also acts as an extra safeguard - strength in numbers.
Last edited:
There is a positive to come out of Howard rigging the Republic referendum. If we had've became a republic, Morrison would never have been secretly sworn in to all those secret portfolios by the Governor General.
Morrison will forever be remembered with scorn and disdain, that is a great, great, great thing !!
Why would this have not happened under a republic model? What mechanisms would be in place beyond what a Governor-General has at their disposal to prevent a PM doing that?
No reason why it couldn't, but Morrison would not have been signed in to those secret portfolios by the Queens representative.
Whether the Head of State is a Queen's representative or the Republic's representative As a figurehead position, that Head of State essentially has the same powers the current Governor-General under the model proposed at the referendum. Makes no difference is what I am saying. He gets signed into those secret portfolios either way.
Last edited:
Could we simply replace the Head of State (Monarchy) with an independent political ombudsmen/Federal ICAC to keep these bastards accountable?
