Progress toward a republic stalls | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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.

Progress toward a republic stalls

lefty said:
if it isn't such a big deal and it won't change things, why not just do it?

I don't follow that why not just do it seeing it won't change things reasoning. Changing it would take time and effort and money and probably upset a lot of Aussies into the bargain. I've got no issues with it being done or not but if it won't change things as you suggest in your post then there would be no advantage but plenty of cost. There's no point in change just for the sake of it. Enough is wasted on that anyway.
 
I'm bored by the discussion because we will never get a republic with Howard as PM. The next Liberal PM after Howard or Rudd will be Costello or Turnbull who both want a republic. At this time the republic issue will grow some legs and I'll become interested. ATM I can't see the point of discussing something that can't/won't happen.
 
poppa x said:
I'm bored by the discussion because we will never get a republic with Howard as PM. The next Liberal PM after Howard or Rudd will be Costello or Turnbull who both want a republic. At this time the republic issue will grow some legs and I'll become interested. ATM I can't see the point of discussing something that can't/won't happen.

agreed
 
ok, then, I'll change direction. What about getting rid of the state governments? Just have Federal and Local? What do you think about that?
 
Ditto poppa and ts. I'd probably be more enthused if it was a likely reality which I don't think it is in the forseeable future.

Will read your reply as soon as I get time to settle in with a cuppa and a packed lunch and absorb it all Remote. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
 
By the way Liverpool, I won't bother replying to most of your usual rehtorical incoherent argument, except one point made by Andy that seems to have you bewildered, a point that is very easy to understand and very difficult to refute. (I'm sure you'll have a stab though)

Re Andural point regarding decrimination, I think she is suggesting this:

Having a head of state that assumed that position due to hereditary privilege is against everything that our nation allegedly stands for. And that is leaving aside the issue that our head of state is also not Australian. Pretty basic stuff.
 
tigersnake said:
Re Andural point regarding decrimination, I think she is suggesting this:

Having a head of state that assumed that position due to hereditary privilege is against everything that our nation allegedly stands for. And that is leaving aside the issue that our head of state is also not Australian. Pretty basic stuff.

I'm not sure how
Anduril said:
Monarchy contravenes Australian laws of discrimination etc too.

translates to what you suggest above ts. I wouldn't have a clue though and that's why I asked. I thought Andy was referring to specific laws rather than alledgedlys and was interested to know what they were and how they were contravened. Not overly important but it's something I have no knowledge about and maybe another opportunity for me to learn something new on this wonderful site with so many varied opinions and areas of interest.
 
The Monarchy may have had its place in our History, but in 2007 it has become an irrelevance.
 
tigersnake said:
poppa x said:
I'm bored by the discussion because we will never get a republic with Howard as PM. The next Liberal PM after Howard or Rudd will be Costello or Turnbull who both want a republic. At this time the republic issue will grow some legs and I'll become interested. ATM I can't see the point of discussing something that can't/won't happen.

agreed

Also agree and you can add the Elizabeth/Charles situation to that as well.
Things will move faster towards a republic when there's a changing of the guard there too.
 
Monarchy:
Elizabeth Windsor- Mountbatten would not be queen if she had a brother. Illegal to discriminate on grounds of sex here in Australia.

She could not marry a catholic, again religious discrimination. Can't happen here. etc etc.

Liverpool the PM is NOT Head of State, so no every child cannot aspire to be H of S. You are continually posting about others not being Aussie enough or acting with Aus'n values yet you are quite happy to have an Englishwoman/man as Headof State.
As for telling me I'm not happy with my life here and life is unbearable for me. How on Earth would you know? Childish and churlish comment to say the least. ::)


• Why does our Head of State live overseas?
• Why is our Head of State not an Australian?
• Why is our Head of State decided by birth rather than merit?
• Why can our Head of State only be a woman if a man is unavailable?
• Why is our Head of State neither allowed to be a Catholic nor marry one?


http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/mediaroom/mr136.htm
 
I voted against a republic last time, mainly because of the model presented. I think that was a very politically savvy move by the PM to have the Republic Convention come up with a model to vote on, which the population decided they didn't want. It would have been entirely different if the question had simply been a yes/no, but then to decide on the model after that would have been tedious.

I don't think I would have objected if it was simply a matter of replacing the Monarch with a Governor General/ President, but apparently it couldn't be that simple. There is the matter of how to appoint the Head of State. Would we go the way of the USA for example?

As for 3 levels of Government - way too much duplication. The Federal Government has taken on more and more power since Federation, and still wants more eg. water resources. I would lean towards getting rid of State Government, but it's a whole new kettle of fish.
 
Jools said:
I voted against a republic last time, mainly because of the model presented. I think that was a very politically savvy move by the PM to have the Republic Convention come up with a model to vote on, which the population decided they didn't want. It would have been entirely different if the question had simply been a yes/no, but then to decide on the model after that would have been tedious.

I don't think I would have objected if it was simply a matter of replacing the Monarch with a Governor General/ President, but apparently it couldn't be that simple. There is the matter of how to appoint the Head of State. Would we go the way of the USA for example?

As for 3 levels of Government - way too much duplication. The Federal Government has taken on more and more power since Federation, and still wants more eg. water resources. I would lean towards getting rid of State Government, but it's a whole new kettle of fish.

yep jools, JH played it superbly last time. He's a political master. Was never gunna get up, he snookered 'em.

I loved the campaign song for the NO side last time, sung by the super talented James Blundell. It was great;

'We'll vote no for Australia,
no no no no no
lets say no for Australia
No no no no no.'

They should have released it as a single, I would have bought it. Come to think of it, they could have done an extended disco mix too.

geez I wish the footy season would start.
 
Anduril said:
• Why does our Head of State live overseas?
• Why is our Head of State not an Australian?
• Why is our Head of State decided by birth rather than merit?
• Why can our Head of State only be a woman if a man is unavailable?
• Why is our Head of State neither allowed to be a Catholic nor marry one?


http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/mediaroom/mr136.htm

Nice work there Andy.
Pretty pertinant questions.

Over to you Liverpool.
Anduril's up 15-0. ;D
 
Bit like Sirena Williams v Wendy Turnbill if you ask me, that's Wendy Turnbill now I mean, not at her peak.
 
RemoteTiger said:
rosy23 said:
Anduril said:
As to $$$. When governments can spend billions on self promotion and name changes to govt depts, then a President and Republic is a drop in the ocean I think.

Monarchy contravenes Australian laws of discrimination etc too.

I wouldn't have a clue how much turfing the monarchy would cost but I'd prefer drops in the ocean to turn into drops in our water system. :hihi

I've gotta admit I'm apathetic about the topic really. Happy to go with the flow.

Out of general interest I'd be interested to know how the Monarchy contravenes discrimination laws Andy.

Remote excuse my ignorance, this isn't a topic I have much interest in usually, but how does the 3 tiers of Govt tie in with the Monarchy and the way our manufacturing sector is managed? :-[

The Monachy is the head of our Westminster Government System - The Queen's representative, The GG, has to sign and seal all acts of parliament as the final approval before it becomes law. If we are going to move away from the Monachy we need another system to create the final approval of an act of parliament - A Head of State. Hence we have to change the constitution.

If we are going to change our Constitution to enable us to become a Republic and move away from the Westminster Government System - why not take the opportunity to rewrite the whole consititution? Thus streamlining Government from a 3 tier (Federal, State and Local) system to possibly a two tier system. Federal and Local or Federal and State (where state looks after all the local council responsibilities).

Federalism would be responsible for National Security, Defence, Immigration, Health (Hospitals etc), Education (all levels - one curriculum), Social Security, Water, Conservation, One Australian Drivers Licence, Australian Birth Certificate etc. etc. This would stop the never ending bulldust about the Federal Government blaming the State Government for poor Education or Hospitals or bad water conservation. Or the State Governments blaming the Federal Government - and currently while they are pointing the stick at each other we the people continue to circle the gurgler!

To stop the claim that all control would be centered in Canberra - the Federal Departments could be relocated to other cities with just the parlaiment and major departments of the inner cabinet in Canberra.

How does the current 3 tier system impose itself on Manufacturing? My understanding is that a manufacurer has to pay Federal Taxes (Company Taxes, PAYE, Stevedoring etc.) State Taxes (Payroll Tax, Land Tax etc.) and Local Council Taxes (Water Rates and general Rates etc.) Add all these together and I have been advised by the Managing Director of a very large food manufacturer in NSW that 49% of his manufacturing company's costs relate to a government act. By changing our constitution and removing a tier of Government we could remove the taxes that Government has been imposing. E.G. if we got rid of State Governments we could remove Payroll Taxes and Land Taxes - who would then perfrom the public service a state government provides? - Those public services could be distributed to the Federal Government Departments (now distributed to the major capital cities) a number of regional governments which could be amalgamations of Local councils to create a local government for that area.

Currently around 28% of the Australian Workforce is on a Government Payroll - a vast majority of which do not produce GDP (some do) - which means that 72% of the workforce that do produce products and services that are calculated into our GDP are looking after the Government guys through taxes.

Reduce the Government size by removing a tier of government will decrease taxes increase GDP and remove a hell of a lot of red tape in this country.

Futher if you remove the state governments one could argue there is no need for a Federal Senate because that was set up to protect the individual smaller colonies from being over run by Victoria and NSW - no federal Senate - less taxes again.

Lets be honest some of the Politicians in this country at Fedeal, State and Local Government Levels are oxygen thieves and you and I as producing Australians are supporting their oppulent lives. Lets get those out and into the producing workforce so they can support themselves!

Please note I consider that Teachers, Professors, Doctors, Nurses are all part of a producing workforce.

What I do not consider part of a producing workforce is those public servants who work in a Federal Department or a State Department that does exactly the same thing. eg. Federal Department of Education, State Departments of Education - Federal Tourism, State Tourism, - Federal Austrade, State Departments of Trade - Federal Department of Health, State Department's of Health, etc. etc. etc.

Duplication everywhere and the taxpayer is paying for it.

Strewth - sorry Rosy - I will get off my soap box now - but it is something that really irks me - is the miss appropriation of Taxpayers money into duplicate services for a pissy little population of 20+ million people. All because some Politician and some beauracrats want to hang onto their fifedoms their areas of power and importance - they need to be redirected into jobs that produce returns for Australia and for us all!

My opinion only......RT
fantastic post :clap :clap :clap
 
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I realise that I have missed the obvious.

We are part of a republic, we do have a president.

We are the 53rd state of the United States of America!
 
RemoteTiger said:
The Monachy is the head of our Westminster Government System - The Queen's representative, The GG, has to sign and seal all acts of parliament as the final approval before it becomes law. If we are going to move away from the Monachy we need another system to create the final approval of an act of parliament - A Head of State. Hence we have to change the constitution.

If we are going to change our Constitution to enable us to become a Republic and move away from the Westminster Government System - why not take the opportunity to rewrite the whole consititution? Thus streamlining Government from a 3 tier (Federal, State and Local) system to possibly a two tier system. Federal and Local or Federal and State (where state looks after all the local council responsibilities).

Federalism would be responsible for National Security, Defence, Immigration, Health (Hospitals etc), Education (all levels - one curriculum), Social Security, Water, Conservation, One Australian Drivers Licence, Australian Birth Certificate etc. etc. This would stop the never ending bulldust about the Federal Government blaming the State Government for poor Education or Hospitals or bad water conservation. Or the State Governments blaming the Federal Government - and currently while they are pointing the stick at each other we the people continue to circle the gurgler!

To stop the claim that all control would be centered in Canberra - the Federal Departments could be relocated to other cities with just the parlaiment and major departments of the inner cabinet in Canberra.

How does the current 3 tier system impose itself on Manufacturing? My understanding is that a manufacurer has to pay Federal Taxes (Company Taxes, PAYE, Stevedoring etc.) State Taxes (Payroll Tax, Land Tax etc.) and Local Council Taxes (Water Rates and general Rates etc.) Add all these together and I have been advised by the Managing Director of a very large food manufacturer in NSW that 49% of his manufacturing company's costs relate to a government act. By changing our constitution and removing a tier of Government we could remove the taxes that Government has been imposing. E.G. if we got rid of State Governments we could remove Payroll Taxes and Land Taxes - who would then perfrom the public service a state government provides? - Those public services could be distributed to the Federal Government Departments (now distributed to the major capital cities) a number of regional governments which could be amalgamations of Local councils to create a local government for that area.

Currently around 28% of the Australian Workforce is on a Government Payroll - a vast majority of which do not produce GDP (some do) - which means that 72% of the workforce that do produce products and services that are calculated into our GDP are looking after the Government guys through taxes.

Reduce the Government size by removing a tier of government will decrease taxes increase GDP and remove a hell of a lot of red tape in this country.

Futher if you remove the state governments one could argue there is no need for a Federal Senate because that was set up to protect the individual smaller colonies from being over run by Victoria and NSW - no federal Senate - less taxes again.

Lets be honest some of the Politicians in this country at Fedeal, State and Local Government Levels are oxygen thieves and you and I as producing Australians are supporting their oppulent lives. Lets get those out and into the producing workforce so they can support themselves!

Please note I consider that Teachers, Professors, Doctors, Nurses are all part of a producing workforce.

What I do not consider part of a producing workforce is those public servants who work in a Federal Department or a State Department that does exactly the same thing. eg. Federal Department of Education, State Departments of Education - Federal Tourism, State Tourism, - Federal Austrade, State Departments of Trade - Federal Department of Health, State Department's of Health, etc. etc. etc.

Duplication everywhere and the taxpayer is paying for it.

Strewth - sorry Rosy - I will get off my soap box now - but it is something that really irks me - is the miss appropriation of Taxpayers money into duplicate services for a pissy little population of 20+ million people. All because some Politician and some beauracrats want to hang onto their fifedoms their areas of power and importance - they need to be redirected into jobs that produce returns for Australia and for us all!

My opinion only......RT
Good post Remote. To sum it up in one word..........'bureaucracy'.

This 'lucky' country lives in the 19th century.