Talk:Republicanism in Australia

Current status

Apparently the Australian Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says he won't be pursuing republicanism as a priority and it is his political party which has committed itself to republicanism as a matter of policy.

Shouldn't the article be saying something like the monarchy will be remaining for the forseeable future?

You don't have to go that far in the general comunity to find support for the point of view that this issue was brought to a head in 1999. Certainly referendums aren't held that often in Australia and - short of a civil war or military coup - only a popular vote can bring the Queen's rule over Australia to an end.

We could also mention that the mechanism for changing the Constituion Act requires the entire text of the amendment be forumlated BEFORE it is submitted for approval by the parliament, the voters and the Governor-General respectively. Somebody can feel free to correct me here if I am wrong but at this time the Australian Republican Movement's campaign does not include a draft amendment, which means they have not even taken the first step along the road to a republic and another hypothetical vote on breaking ties with the old country.

Steakknife 12:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right to say that there is no plans for a future referendum. However, the ALP is including the plebiscite option in its National conference policies to be put to the 2007 election. That should be mentioned.

As for your comment re the issue being "brought to a head" in 1999, I suspect that that is more POV than anything, it certainly wasn't so for the supporters of direct election, who hoped the defeat of the bi-partisan appointment model would mean another referendum where direct election was put, and it wasn't the case for the ARM either. As for the actual detail of proposals, try here. --Lholden 21:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the ALP has the plan, supported by the ARM, of putting a plebiscite first as reaffirmation of the broader Australian populace's support for a republic. That was policy last election, I see no indication that it will change this time around. Plebiscites are non-binding in a constitutional sense; but they act as a step-forward, a legimitisation of the republican cause, and an incentive for consensus-building about what a proposed amendment would look like. The ARM currently is canvassing support on a variety of different republican models, as a cursory check of their website will confirm. Slac speak up! 23:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but the ALP also has the socialist objective in their 2007 election platform do they not?

No. The 2007 platform will be endorsed at the National Conference shortly. You may be thinking of the Constitution, the relevant section of which of course nobody takes seriously. Slac speak up! 05:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As for the republican movement, I don't see the entire text of their proposed amendment on the ARM website. The reality is the non-binding plebicites - if they are ever held - can never bring the Queen's rule over Australia to an end. The exact way a direct election model would work is one hell of a thorny issue. The Australian constitution requires all the details to be worked out in advance of the bill being submitted to parliament is my point.

We might just mention somehow that the Australian people have no proposed amendment to scrutinse at this time and that the official republicans are divided over exactly what they want in any event.

Steakknife 02:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh? Socialist objective? Where's that exactly?

"non-binding plebicites... can never bring the Queen's rule over Australia to an end". That's not the point - the point is that there is a policy of holding such a plebiscite which will be indicative of the Australian public's support for a republic. The final proposals will be put to a binding referendum, that's where the actual amendments will come in. Obviously such amendments will be debated at that time, so it's not relevant to point out that no such drafts exist at the moment (although, there's plenty of material on the internet on this, as I've linked above). --Lholden 02:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Steakknife, I think we're arguing in parallel here - the reason for the plebiscite is the lack of support for a specific amendment at this time. It's a way of simultaneously grounding and moving forward the debate. I think the crucial point here is that lack of explicit support for a specifically-worded amendment is not equivalent to lack of support among the population for a republic per se. Slac speak up! 05:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This section is about the "current status" of republicanism in Australia. And the current status of the Australian Republican Movement is "near comatose" according to one well known supporter, ABC journalist David Marr. The Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says he won't be pursuing republicanism as a priority.

How do we let readers know that all the heat has gone out of the issue since it was brought to a head in 1999 and that in reality only parliamentarians and a very small % of the general public even thinks about the lawful ruler of their land from year to year? Been there done that is the attitude of most people in Australia about "the republic". This is relevant: a popular vote is one of the three stages in approving a bill to amend the Constitution Act.

The plebicites proposed by the ARM and supported by the ALP may never ever be held (for example, the coalition parties are not formally committed to the ARM's plan, if they where in power what's to stop the executive submitting a bill to abolish the monarchy to parliament at any time?).

So my point is this. Some lesser known republican leaders have categorically said parliamentary appointment is dead so what's to stop the ARM, say, letting members of the public examine their proposed model for an elected presidency? According to republicans this idea reasonates with the public. Why not let us all in on their plans as the mode of altering the federal constitution requires? Why not take the first step on the road to another attempt at making Australia a republic?

Could it be that those people advocating change in this ongoing debate are divided? Why not just say that?

If that's too POV why not just say that the present system is likely to endure for at least a long, long, long, long time and possibly until Christ returns?

Steakknife 09:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you have several points to make, for which this article isn't the right place. If you can verify the Marr quote that's fine; your complaint about republicans not publishing proposals can't be included in any meaningful way. I think showing the issue has dropped in importance is much more difficult also. --Lholden 10:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I just wouldn't like wikipedia giving foreign readers the impression that Australian republicans are way enthusiastic about the cause like say Irish republicans are, that's all.

I remember when the senate committee handed down its report into republicanism in 2004 John Howard was asked about it and he said "Look, you're the first person who has asked me about it this year". It was in like the middle of the year and he looked annoyed that a journalist would waste his valuable time asking about something so done and dusted and not of public concern. That's the impression he gave me.

The standard method of assessing the support for republicanism is the regular opinion poll which asks that particular question. The result of the latest polling is conveyed in the article. --Dlatimer 14:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

And I think it is a bit relevant to a section on the current status of republicanism in Australia that the Australian Republican Movement doesn't have the full text of their preferred amendment to show the public as part of their campaign, for reasons to do with s.128 of the Constitution Act.

I know monarchists keep raising this point, that republicans at the turn of the 21st century know what they don't want but don't know what they do.

Steakknife 22:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Ireland is already a republic, or at least most of it is. I don't think anyone's making the comparison. And John Howard has a vested interest in presenting the case as settled - he's firstly a monarchist, and secondly the architect of the 99 referendum, which was resolved to his satisfaction. But that's just his view, not everybody's.

It seems that you view the republican case as illegitimate, because they don't have a formatted referendum question ready to roll several years out from any potential referendum. Okay, fine, but this is just a matter of opinion - how many hoops does a case for change have to jump through before it becomes legitimate (this is a rhetorical question)? How long is a piece of string? It seems fairly clear that your high bar-setting in this regard has to do with a bias in favour of the status quo. This, I reiterate, is an opinion, not something the article needs to reflect. Slac speak up! 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"I know monarchists keep raising this point, that republicans at the turn of the 21st century know what they don't want but don't know what they do." I suspect that this, along with the "it's not an issue for anyone" points is what Steakknife is trying to insert here. I don't know why the POV labels were needed however. --Lholden 00:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hay slac. Yeah man, all I'm saying is the Australian monarchy has special protection compared to some of the monarchies in the other realms. In Australia the full text of the amendment needs to be produced before the vote takes place and not after. Nothwithstanding the fact that history tells us Royal families are mainly swept away in military coups and civil wars, other monarchies - including those outside the Commonwealth - might just hold a plebicite asking a simple yes/no question on the issue and let the parties thrash out the new constitution in parliament afterwards. It is relevant to the current status of republicanism if you think about it, the fact the movement doesn't know what they want.

John Howard and me both make no excuses for our support for the monarchy for sure, but isn't it interesting that Australia's head of government can go for such a long time without anyone even raising the issue of republicanism with him? He could have been lying of course ;) Now that Kevin Rudd has said he won't be pursuing republicanism as a priority I just think the article should make it quite clear republicanism is a low priority for most people. Even their former leader Malcolm Turnbull says he wants the Union Jack to stay on the Australian flag and that the next time for debating the future of the Australian monarchy is at the end of the Queen's reign. You could fairly say there is one faction of republicanism (which includes Gough Whitlam) who have given up on the cause while Elizabeth II lives.

I mean, I see that the current status of republicanism in Australia is that the movement is stalled, without the text of their proposed amendment, and therefore without the hope of another referendum. The plebicites may never ever be held and all the details would have to be disclosed in the end anyway. Pro monarchist groups have said they won't go away even if the threshold question on the republic is passed.

With respect to the special democratic procedures outlined in s.128 of the Constitution Act, can't we find a way of saying Australian republicans know what they don't want but don't know what they do?

I'm in no hurry. What I will do is write a letter to the Australian Republican Movement asking to have a look at their draft bill for abolishing the monarchy and let you'all know what they say.

Steakknife 02:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The ARM has several models complete with draft amemndments to the constitution: http://www.republic.org.au/6models/6models.pdf --Dlatimer 14:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know the ARM's plans were so far advanced man. I haven't had time to look through that pdf document. Can you give me a link to where republicans have codified the reserve powers? Steakknife 10:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Try the 1993 Republic Advisory Committee report - it has a codification by Prof Winteron --Lholden 11:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A similar codification to what Winterton proposed is included in http://www.republic.org.au/6models/6models.pdf on pages 24-27. --Dlatimer 13:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The 1999 Republican referendum

There is some evidence to suggest that the NO vote was swelled by republican supporters who were dissatisfied with the text of the proposed amendment. What this section of the article doesn't discuss however are voters generally sympathetic to the existing constitution arrangements who voted YES because they bought into the argument that a federal republic is inevitable and the bill to alter the constitution put before them reflected the mimimum changes needed to excise the Queen from our affairs and establish a presidency.

Steakknife 22:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. What statistics do you have on this? Slac speak up! 23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a set of polls done at the 99' referendum showing the breakdowns by model. I just don't know where they are. --Lholden 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Low priority

The current status section of the article might say some like "the issue remains a low priority for most Australians".

Now, I have seen Newspoll surveys where issues are listed and people are asked to nominate them as being "important to them". I saw one in the relatively recent past which had republicanism listed as one of the issues. 1% of people said it was "important" to them.

I'm just testing the waters here, but if I could find a reference for this poll who would support such a re-write?

My concern is that we don't want to be giving foreign readers the impression there is a lot of enthusiasm for republicanism in Australia. Even republican leaders admit a lot of their supporters are lucky to think about the issue from year to year.

Steakknife 02:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can verify it, you can include it. However, I'm not sure that a re-write is what is needed. As I said above, any other comments about the importance or otherwise of the issue needs to be verified also. --Lholden 03:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on that Newspoll finding monarchists would have to be right in asserting that the main people who talk about republicanism post referendum are parliamentarians, journalists and a small % of politically aware people.

I reckon saying it remains a low priority for most Australians is fair and accurate if it was supported by a link to the poll.

Steakknife 03:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Which poll are you referring to? The Newspoll poll linked to shows a much greater percentage of support for a republic, moreover it also shows a greater percentage of support for a republic when Prince Charles accedes to the throne. You can't, by definition of the word "assert", base a POV claim on the poll linked to. --Lholden 03:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Some Newspolls ask people about their in principle support for a republic whilst the one I was referring to asked them if the issue was "important" to them. The republic consistently rates 1% on every one of these scale of importance type surveys I've seen.

What if we could link a Newspoll showing 1% of people think republicanism is important to the statement "the issue remains a low priority for most Australians?" is what I am saying.

Steakknife 05:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Provided that we provide figures on how many Australians think the monarchy is important :) Slac speak up! 05:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As I keep saying, if you can verify it, then it can be included. --Lholden 22:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of date opinion poll

Support for the republic has dropped 1% according to a 2007 opinion poll I found here: http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl

Wikipedia needs to stay up to date with these snapshots of public opinion taken from time to time, we don't want to make out support for Australian republicanism is greater then what it is.

Steakknife 03:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the poll with the 2007 one. --Lholden 03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II

In the section that discusses where Australian republicanism is at today maybe the article could mention the fact that people like John Howard, Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Turnbull to name a few have all conceeded there is no chance of Australia becomming a republic while Queen Elizabeth II reigns.

Steakknife 05:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Australia Act and other reforms

I see the following text in this section:

"Nevertheless, all Australian Senators and Members of the House of Representatives still swear to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty before taking their seats in Parliament. This is because this requirement is in the Constitution, and cannot be changed by legislation, but only by the people at a referendum."

I dunno, what's this "still swear" all about. To me this sorta implies federal parliamentarians would have by now scrapped the oath the the Queen is they could of their own accord. I don't know so much.

It's like saying we "still have a parliament" because it can't be abolished by legislation.

Steakknife 06:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just have a look at Section 42 of the Constitution, and you will see that members cannot take their seats without making the oath or affirmation. Section 46 provides that any member who does so could be sued for $200 by every person in the country for every day he sits in Parliament. These sections can only be modified by referendum.

Many people love to judge the politicians when they are swearing allegiance, to decide whether they are being truthful, honest and sincere, or whether they are lying in their teeth. If, in the 107 years since federation, there had been ONE member who announced that he would not be taking up his seat because he could not swear allegiance to the Queen, the status of politicians would have increased immensely.```` plerdsus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plerdsus (talk • contribs) 06:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

What is the NPOV dispute here exactly? --Lholden 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The section "current status" could say something like no one is pursuing republicanism as a priority.

58.168.31.16 13:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Good - I've removed the tag as that's exactly what Kevin Rudd has been quoted in the article as stating. --Lholden 09:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

1 republic or 7?

One thing this article doesn't make clear is whether or not a Commonwealth referendum abolishing the monarchy would also abolish it in all six states - would separate changes be needed as well? And could, say, Queensland retain the monarchy even if abolished at Commonwealth level? Timrollpickering 20:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think from memory the legal amendments to the Australian (federal) constitution also trickled down to the states, so technically it would be seven republics --Lholden 20:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Each state would have to agree to the changes to their own constitutions, however. The Commonwealth government couldn't force a republic, or any model thereof, on any state. --G2bambino 20:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It could actually, under the consistency provision (sect 104 I think). The Australian constitution is fairly unique for a federal system in that (much unlike Canada) the Commonwealth government can limit the states'. This is how John Howard forced the states to accept the GST cut-up in place of their own sales taxes (which wouldn't be possible under the US constitution). --Lholden 20:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely to be §104, which is concerned with the rates for carriage of goods by railway. (What a strange thing to include in a national constitution.) I expect you refer to §109, which says that if a state law and a Commonwealth law are inconsistent, the Commonwealth law shall prevail. However, the Commonwealth government cannot regulate the state governments, nor may the state governments regulate the Commonwealth government, except, of course, by tied grants. The GST only works because the states considered it more important to get that money that it was to have their powers, considering the GST was relatively free. This is no different to the situation in the US, where the drinking age is 21 y.o. in all states because it means they can get highway funds. In my view, a large part of Commonwealth governments' successful centralisation of Australia, when compared with the US Federal governments', has been because there's a lot more US States, so a much greater chance that one will stand up for their rights.

  However, I don't think any Commonwealth government would risk a tied grant requiring the state to become a republic—some states would require a referendum on the issue. This would essentially become a referendum on federal centralisation: If the people turn it down (like we have with almost every federal referendum on centralisation), it would make it very difficult politically to continue these tied grants, and could result in the state(s) concerned declaring independence.

  In addition, the Australia Acts explicitly refer to Her Majesty as a component of the State governments. The Australia Acts can only be repealed or ammended with the concurrence of all states. So even if one single state felt it was getting a raw deal by being compelled to become a Republic against its will, it would have the power to refuse any change to the other states.

  A Federal referendum on the issue cannot on its own remove the Queen of Australia. If that was the end of the story, we would obtain an absurd situation wherein the states were constitutional monarchies, with the Queen of Australia reigning over them, but the Commonwealth was a republic, with a President (or Governor-General) as head of state. Although, admittedly, this is not horribly different to the situation that lasted until 1986, wherein the Queen of the United Kingdom reigned over the states, and the Queen of Australia reigned over the Commonwealth—we were just fortunate enough to only have a single person acting in two capacities.

  One republic and six monarchies.

—Felix the Cassowary 11:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

the Australia Acts explicitly refer to Her Majesty as a component of the State governments. That's precisely what I was thinking of, and I believe that's what the original poster was talking about at the top of this thread. --G2bambino 14:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This question was answered at the Gladstone Convention in June 1999. According to the communique "If Australia were to decide to become a republic, an individual State could retain its links with the Crown. If Australia were to decide to become a republic, then in the interests of national unity and subject to particular state constitutional requirements being satisfied, each State should seek to adopt for itself a republican model." [1] --Dlatimer 13:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Models without a distinct Head of State

There is a class of model which does not have a Head of State. Someone inserted something which was unsourced at the top of Proposals for Change, however I checked the Senate Report and did find a reference to abolishing the Governor-General and monarchy. The difference is that these submissions gave functions to the Speaker or President of the Senate. --Dlatimer 13:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Type of Republic

Does Australia want to become a full republic state or a commonwealth republic? 122.57.113.2 (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Under all proposals I have read Australia would be a commonwealth republic. I am not sure what full republic state means, if it means anything. Australia would be an independent republic like any other. --Dlatimer (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A 'full republic' (like United States) is a republic with a head of state with no connections to a mother country and do not recognise with another country what-so-ever.

A Commonwealth republic where they are not in a personal union relationship, do not have Elizabeth II as their respective Head of state, nor do they have another monarch as Head of State. Elizabeth II is still the titular Head of the Commonwealth, but does not have any political power within the Commonwealth republics. (♠Taifarious1♠) 07:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A full republic often refers to the component republics of the USSR and the former USSR - a tautology or euphemism perhaps? --Dlatimer (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call it Australians overwhelmingly wanted to remain in the commonwealth and keep our current system of government excepting severing ties to the queen and having a directly elected president. Even monarchists wanted this system if they had lost the referendum and true republicans (the common man in the street) believe the debate was hijacked by "elite" republicans in the ARM who ignored this by supporting the bi partisan model. It was a foregone conclusion that the referendum would be lost due to this despite having the numbers to pass it in pre polling. This was a very big issue during and after the referendum failed with the media blaming the ARM for the loss. Therefore... the system I described would be the only one to get enough support to win a referendum now or at any future time. Wayne (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

These distinctions don't really make sense. The US is part of many international organisations like NATO, the UN etc. Also, as you correctly point out Elizabeth II is the titular Head of the Commonwealth but does not have any special power but you neglected to mention that mat best is seen as an equal of their respective head of state in terms of stature. Many Commonwealth nations do not consider the UK the 'motherland' particularly former colonies like India, Malaysia, Nigeria. While the commonwealth connection is a part of their identity, it is not comparable to that seen in Australia, NZ or Canada. And as an aside, other connections often take greater importance then the commonwealth, for example ASEAN for Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. Nil Einne (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Split Question text removed from 'Republican Referendum'

I removed the following text from the sub-heading 'Republican Referendum'. I had done this before and the author re-inserted it:

Prior to the referendum there was also extensive media debate about splitting the first question into two parts, as combining a President elected by Parliament with the vote to become a Republic was thought by many to be an attempt to sabotage the vote. This resulted in a Republican lobby group campaigning for a no vote if the question was not split or modified to include a directly elected President.

Can anyone can find anything in the source articles which substantiate the claims about a media debate about spliting questions? A split question does not even make sense under the existing law. Real Republic members (Ted Mack, Clem Jones, Phil Cleary) were appointed to the NO committee to campaign against an appointed President. Their direct election model was defeated at the Constitutional Convention. --Dlatimer (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

There are a lot of unattributed statements in the article, such as "Repulicans claim" and "Monarchists claim". These phrases can also be distracting when trying to read the article, as they are in just about every paragraph. Strictly speaking, these all need to be attributed to some particular person or group, or else rephrased to eliminate that type of wording. I hope this can be addressed without an ugly weasel-word header at the top of the article, and fact tags at the end of every sentence. From viewing older versions of the page, a lot of improvements have been made, and I hope the good editors who have addressed those problems can make some headway with this one. - BillCJ (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. The unattributed statements applying to republicans in general are appropriate where there is agreement by republican groups as evidenced across the source material. I am sure editors would pick up on contentious material if it were there. --Dlatimer (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The various so-called "unattributed statements" have been attributed to The Road to a Republic and backed up by the major political speeches. Problem fixed! --Dlatimer (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"If at all"

Removed the following:

"if at all." Ref Kelley, Paul; Shanahan, Dennis; The Australian: Rudd to turn back boatpeople; November 23, 2007

The newspaper uses the words "if at all" to refer to a range of possible agenda items for a new Labor government. It is not a quote from Keven Rudd. On the republic, the article said:

"Mr Rudd said a referendum on Australia becoming a republic was "not a priority" and he could not see it happening in his first term. "The republic is not a priority," he said. "I doubt therefore we would see any action on a republic during the first term."

The PM consistently uses the same carefully constructed phrase. "No action" covers a great deal. He has not changed position or contradicted himself or Labor policy. --Dlatimer (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The source states that Rudd said there would not be a republican referendum in the life of this parliament, if at all; it means nothing that the referendum is mentioned along with two other issues. This is an acknowledgement on Rudd's part that he has no affirmative plan for a republic referendum to happen in the next parliament, or the one after that, which is an important point to consider in the current status of the debate.

Further, saying Rudd "acknowledged" the importance of becoming a republic infers that the importance is a given fact for everyone which Rudd is accepting, which exposes a bias. It is his opinion that a republic is important. --G2bambino (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This explanation confirms the problem. Wikipedians would prefer to read the PM's actual position and statements, not what G2bambino tells us what he/she thinks was said and what it means. Living in Canada, G2bambino just parrots what is written in a sensational fashion on the norepublic blog. This sort of spin doctoring helps nobody. --Dlatimer (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

G2bimbino's first revert edit summary: "Sorry, a direct quote is not a misquote". In the next summary: "I see now it's not a direct quote, but still valid and important". Why did this happen? The norepublic site presented it as a direct quote. --Dlatimer (talk) 13:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Attitude of Australians (moved from article to here)

1

Many Australians believe becoming a republic is imminent, some even installing themselves as the President of the future Republic of Australia. Most credible of these is the well respected Mr. President, who took power in a bloodless coup that went unreported by the media, and whos first term of faux-governance has been reigning supreme in the Republic since September 2006. To this day there is speculation that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is unaware his position does not exist in the new Republic, although Mr. President is a long-time Rudd admirer who has said Mr. Rudd would be welcomed into a position in his cabinet. The centrist Mr. President has enjoyed the overwhelming support of the population with soaring approval ratings since his inauguration as a result of policies rich in empathetic values and the principle of equity. A full strength cabinet has been installed to assist the President, who is often occupied with vigorously pursuing an expansion of the Republic's strategic US alliance with future President of the United States Barack Obama. The two men are said to share a strong bond that Mr. President says is one that "only a future President could understand".

2

One of the most important factors in this issue which needs to be recognised is the attitude of the Australian people to politicians as a group. Some years ago, when politicians were compared to used-car salesmen, the used-car salesmen complained at the invidious comparison. Many people delight in the thought that the Prime Minister holds his office during the pleasure of Her Majesty's Representative, and can therefore be dismissed at will. Again, many others love to watch the members of Federal Parliament at the opening of a new parliament, when they all, including the committed republicans, swear allegiance to Her Majesty. The persistent failure of the political elite over the last 107 years to achieve amendment of the Constitution through referenda makes it unlikely that this change will come about soon.

Perhaps the best comment that encapsulates this attitude came from a Broken Hill miner, a solid Labor supporter, in 1992. At the time Paul Keating was Prime Minister, and John Hewson was Leader of the Opposition.

His comment was: "I would have to vote NO. What an opportunity to stick it up Keating, without having to elect Hewson."

[moved the above from article to here. I did not write it] --Dlatimer (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledged

The sentence in question is not a quote; so it can't be a misquote. That Rudd "acknowledged" some value to becoming a republic is purely the pov of the journalist who wrote the article being used as a source. To acknowledge something means recognising that which was pre-existing; thus, saying Rudd "acknowledged" any importance to Australia's becomging a republic implies that making the move already was deemed important and Rudd was just saying he now recognises that. Obviously some people think it is important, but plenty of others don't; so, though not a misquote, it's misleading and supportive of a particular pov to say Rudd acknowledged the importance of the move to a republic. --G2bambino (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The above assumes a black-letter uberlogical polity, where existence itself is redefined. Your update (now undone) is the rationalisation of an single anti-republic wikipedia user who does not comprehend the reasons why these ALP policy explanations are carefully worded as such. The sentence is faithful to the source material with good reason. Your update begs the question as to where is the direct evidence that Kevin Rudd holds this as mere "opinion" as you say he does?

--Dlatimer (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for not addressing a single point I raised. As for your question: the article cited is the evidence that Rudd holds this as opinion. Surely you don't think his personal feelings on a matter are more than just opinion. --G2bambino (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your last comment was sarcastic and impolite. There is evidence now that blows apart your argument about personal opinion directly. Reported in SBS news: "Last week, when pressed on the issue by a former British MP at a forum in Brussels, the prime minister pledged Labor would not walk away from the issue because it was party policy, but had failed to make clear his personal opinion." [[2]]. This news story shows how ridiculous your change was. I could not have asked for a better a set of words to show that your reverts were just a case of either stuborness or the promotion of your political cause. Please leave this article alone and stick to something you know about. --Dlatimer (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My, my; is it your nap time?

What you present still does not undermine the point that the "importance" of becoming a republic (note: not the debate on, but the act of becoming a republic) that is supposedly being "acknowledged" by Rudd, seemingly emerges only from a journalist's personal feelings, and no one else's. As far as I can tell, the point of this article is not to outline what either Phillip Coorey or Peter Hartcher think, and certainly not to ascribe any of their feelings onto other people. If it's to be said here that Rudd "acknowledged" the "importance" of becoming a republic, then it will be necessary to have sources that support the theory that becoming a republic actually is already widely accepted as important. I'm certain there are many Australians who would say it is not. --G2bambino (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your latest edit was a vast improvement. --G2bambino (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

How would you know if it was an improvement or not? Since you insist making ad-hoc alterations that cannot be supported by evidence, the information is now quoted. It is a shame that you wish to play these tactics. --Dlatimer (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Any possible ad-hocs aside, your ad-homs are rather pathetic. Is this how you normally deal with situations where you can't get your own way? --G2bambino (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the establishment of the Republic is part of the Labor policy platform. So he is bound by his own Party to acknowledge the importance of the question. Then there are various statements of the Prime Minister. In his visit to Britain this April he publicly stated that the issue remains open and should continue to be considered by Australians. This was widely reported both at home and abroad. It was considered especially important as he made the statement at the same time he was in audience with the Queen. At home he has made a number of statements intimating his support for the Republic. He has however publicly stated it is nopt a priority for his first term.--Gazzster (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Rudd's republican leanings were never in question. It was more a matter of a composition of words that implied Australia's becoming a republic was regarded as important by everyone beyond Rudd, when, obviously, that isn't the case. I think that issue is resolved now, though I still think it's funny that Dlatimer insists on using the words "life long republican" in regards to Rudd; there are other ways to point out his beliefs other than implying he was born with them. --G2bambino (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Openly" was used as a weasel word. Life-long does not mean born with. --Dlatimer (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What else does "openly" mean? Does one's life not begin at birth? --G2bambino (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dlatimer and G2Gambino, perhaps you should be careful to avoid personal stabs at it each other. I realise the subjects on this page can elicit strong emotion. I have to agree that the word 'relationship' is ambiguous. What sort of relationship? I understand what G2 is saying: Australia would no longer be a member of the E2 club. OK, but is there is any reason to state that? I mean, isn't it self-evident? It's a little like saying, 'if George takes a bath, he'll be wet'. So perhaps the word is ambiguous because a reader might think, 'am I missing something here, what is the author trying to tell me'? --Gazzster (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation of the Statute of Westminster

According to Prof A. Twomey in 'The Chameleon Crown' p83 "In 1931 the British Government [as well as the states themselves] took the view that section 2 of the statute allowed the Commonwealth to repeal of amend British laws to the extent that the formed part of Commonwealth law, but not to the extent that they formed part of State law."

If there are any Canadaian monarchists wanting to add material to this page about Australia, perahps they could keep the basic constitutional facts in mind: Canada has provinces. Australia has independent states. --Dlatimer (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have made up a dispute that doesn't exist. The Statute of Westminster states quite explicitly that "no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion," and that's all the article currently outlines.

Though it's not relevant to the issue, of course the Commonwealth parliament cannot amend state laws; they're completely separate jurisdictions. --G2bambino (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You are quoting the preamble. The effective section is 9. Everyone knows that the Westminister Act was limited to matters with a Commonwealth head of power. --Dlatimer (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did quote the preamble. I have now corrected the footnote so that it quotes section 4. The states have nothing to do with this, unless you believe that UK law still has effect in the states but not the Commonwealth. Perhaps you haven't heard of the Australia Act? --G2bambino (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

And of course the Australia Act 1986 took care of the anomalies of the law relating to the states. Long live Australia, the greatest nation on earth!--Gazzster (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

'Scuse me. Came over all patriot then.--Gazzster (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

My goodness this misses the point. The Unlike Canada, Australian premiers are able to directly advise the Queen. Twomey A (The Chameleon Crown, 2006) rightly says that it is not clear what personalities exist across the Australian federation, so the absence of an external succession law would open a can of worms - and the Australia Act would have not been passed by the states, if it tried to address this issue. --Dlatimer (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What relevance does this have to the discussion? That the abolition of the monarchy in the UK may or may not open a can of worms is of no consequence to the point that such a move would not abolish the monarchy in Australia. --G2bambino (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

How about: Australia - the most constitutionally vague nation on Earth --Dlatimer (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not vague. Our constitution is one of the most thought out, clear, long-lasting and stable constitutions ever written. And without a drop of blood being shed. It survived the 1975 crisis. Not of course, that it could not or should not bear amendment. One of its strengths is that it doesn't need a monarch to function. The powers of head of state are vested not in a sovereign but in the Governor-general. Suppose the UK monarchy were abolished. It is unlikely it would continue in Australia. The nation would not collapse, because the government functions without a monarch anyway.--Gazzster (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not so, actually. Executive authority is vested in the Queen per section 61. Also, it is the Queen that is one of the three parts of the Australian parliament, not the Governor General, per section 1. Once that figure is removed, the power and role must be placed elsewhere; it could be with the Governor General - i.e. president - but then, what guarantees are in place that he or she is not a puppet of the prime minister? In other words, you need a secure appointment or electoral process, which then changes much of the system that you, rightly, say works so well. --G2bambino (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is purely academic but: it depends how the successor to the monarch is constituted in the UK. More than likely any future head of state of the UK would be declared regent over the Commonwealth realms by way of statute, enabling Britain to get around the Statute of Westminster 1931. Moreover because that person would be a regent, the Australian executive powers would be vested in the regent by virtue of them being a successor of the monarch.

If you're worried about puppets, perhaps a cursory glance at the office of Governor-General would help - they are, for all intents and purposes, a puppet of the Prime Minister. The only exceptions are Canada's King-Byng Affair and Australia's Whitlam-Kerr affair. Unless the puppet goes feral (usually under threat of dismissal, which was the case for Sir John Kerr) then they can't hold the Prime Minister to account. --Lholden (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the UK decides to do, it won't have any effect in Canada or NZ. Australia is a different case, where the succession is decreed to be governed by UK laws, not local ones. However, a regent is not a successor to a monarch, they are a stand-in. So, declaring a regent would not alter the line of succession in the least; the Act of Settlement would remain in effect until repealed, which the UK parliament cannot do without all the other realms' consent, meaning that the succession in Australia would still remain as always.

As for the GGs: they may appear to be puppets of the PM, but they're not. Nor is the monarch, who, as long as she remains a part of the constitution, stays ultimately responsible for ensuring governmental stability. I'm certain the Queen wouldn't want to get dragged into any constitutional crisis, but if there was a problem wherein the Governor General was legitimately contesting the Prime Minister's actions, yet the PM was advising the Queen to dismiss the GG, she would be bound to do whatever would ensure the continuity of government. Take that ultimate arbiter away, and, well... what happens in that hypothetical, but still possible, situation? --G2bambino (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That scenario almost happened in '75. But it was resolved within Australia, and in the aftermath the Queen said she would have been constitutionally powerless to act anyway.My point before: sure, the Queen is constitutionally part of Parliament, but her representative is, to all effects and purposes, constitutionally independent. There is only one odd, ill-defined and never tested constitutional power in which the Queen camn use her personal discretion. But all this talk about succession dopesn't really matter; for if the monarchy were abolished all we would have to do to ensure continuity of government was amend the Constitution slightly. Or make the GG some kind of regent until we did. But I don't think the UK would ever abolish unless they were advised all the realms were ready for it.--Gazzster (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

UK abolition was just a point I raised to illustrate that you could conceivably remove the monarch and hand constitutional legitimacy to a regent, which is exactly what would happen if Australia became a republic. In any case under the Regency Acts the UK Parliament could declare everyone in the line of succession incapacitated and remove Prince Charles as regent, replacing him with whoever the UK's new head of state is - do be doubly sure, they could also declare the throne vacant. Incidentally, this would affect New Zealand - see s4(1) of the Constitution Act 1986. As for Gavin's question, I think we all know the Queen will do what her Prime Minister tells her to do - to act otherwise would breach the basic conventions of constitutional monarchy - the convention of responsible government. --Lholden (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You said: Moreover because that person would be a regent, the Australian executive powers would be vested in the regent by virtue of them being a successor of the monarch. By the way I read that, you raised the hypothesis of a regent in the UK to show how Australia depended on the British monarch. However, to repeat myself, unless the UK repealed or altered the Act of Settlement, there would be no change in Australia at all. I'll take your word on it for NZ, though the situation would be the same as that in Oz.

Besides the question of whomever Gavin is, believe it or not, a PM can act out of his bounds. If he breaches the conventions of constitutional monarchy then the Queen may be forced to act against his advice; depends on the situation. Like I said, beyond the Governor General, the responsibility for maintaining the continual working of the constitution rests with the Queen. --G2bambino (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

<Apologies G2bambino, I'll use your user name instead... You said "Australia is a different case, where the succession is decreed to be governed by UK laws, not local ones." In that case (which is what I understood to be true), the UK Regency Acts apply. The Regency Acts can be amended independently of the Act of Settlement and Statute of Westminster - which is why I used the example. This is the argument Robert Blackburn puts forward in King and Country to argue Prince Charles could avert constitutional crises over legislation he doesn't like by having Parliament (in the UK) declare a Regency, with someone else appointed to grant Royal Assent. Amendments to the Regency Acts would affect Australia and New Zealand in that the monarch would be succeeded by the Regent. "Queen may be forced to act against his advice" - that only happens in cases where the Prime Minister has lost the confidence of Parliament, in which case the Queen is within her rights to Act. The convention holds that the Queen cannot act against the Prime Ministers' advice where he or she has the confidence of parliament. In any case, this is an academic discussion, because there's absolutely no precedent for the Queen to intervene in any of the Commonwealth realms - it's up to the Governors-General. I think the argument that the Queen would not act on her Prime Ministers advice - particularly in light of the Whitlam dismissal - is nonsense. First, the Queen would be bound by convention to implement the advice, secondly the Queen wouldn't want to risk appearing partisan by backing the Prime Minister over the Governor-General, and thirdly it would hardly be upholding the stability of government if the Queen allowed the Governor-General and Prime Minister to slug it out. --Lholden (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(To last post of G2)Not in Australia. The Constitution gives to the Queen only one personal power: to overturn a bill passed through both Houses of Parliament and signed by the GG. But, as I say, this power has never been tested, the constitutional limits of such a power have not been defined. Neither has it been settled under what circumstances she might be called upon to exercise such a power and upon whose advice. Beyond that, the powers of the executive are vested by the Constitution, not by the sovereign, in the Governor-General.In 1975 the Speaker of the House of Reps asked the Queen to overturn the dismissal of Whitlam. The Palace replied not that she would not intervene, but that she could not. The Australian GG is the sovereign's representative in the Commonwealth, but not her delegate.--Gazzster (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the constitution says otherwise, Gazzster. Besides, the Queen still retains the power to appoint or dismiss her Governor-General and Governors, which is specifically what I'm talking about; nobody else can do this for her.

But you're both right that such a situation has never arisen, and let's hope it never does. But, the possibility that it, or something dire like it, could happen is what an advocate for change has to take into consideration. In the absence of a relatively protected, non-partisan figure above the Governor-General, where would the paramount check against abuse of power sit? The monarch may exist one step more removed in the non-UK realms, but she's still there none-the-less, and remains responsible. --G2bambino (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's what the Queen's Private Secretary said:

As we understand the situation here, the Australian Constitution firmly places the prerogative powers of the Crown in the hands of the Governor-General as the representative of the Queen of Australia. The only person competent to commission an Australian Prime Minister is the Governor-General, and The Queen has no part in the decisions which the Governor-General must take in accordance with the Constitution. Her Majesty, as Queen of Australia, is watching events in Canberra with close interest and attention, but it would not be proper for her to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution Act.

I believe we could trust Australians to make the necessary constitutional precautions. It strikes me that monarchists have more faith in a foreign Queen than in themselves! Simply because a danger may exist, does not mean we should shie away from the challenge. It is not a matter of 'if its not broken, don't fix it', but rather, why get from A to B in a Cortina when you can get there in a Lamborghini. Her Majesty can hardly said to be 'responsible' when there is no occasion (save for the theoretical one I named) in which she could be called upon to exercise discretionary power.--Gazzster (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that response before. However, it pertains only the situation in 1975. I'm talking about something different.

It seems though, oddly enough, that you're almost complaining because the Queen has never had to act partisanly in any Australian affair. Do you wish for a head of state who would do so more often? It would seem to me that the litmus test of the system is that the reserve powers have rarely been called into use, and never has there been a scenario where it had to go all the way to the monarch. Regarless of what kind of car you're trying to get somewhere in, you won't get anywhere if it breaks down. --G2bambino (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is there's no way for the Queen to act in a non-partisan way. In the Whitlam example, had HM actually been able to restore the Prime Minister, that would've been seen as a partisan act. Had the Queen refused or agreed to remove the Governor-General, that would've been seen as partisan. So the monarch remains "above politics" and does not intervene... but this is a long way from where I started. Hmmm.--Lholden (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The Australian constitution makes a virtue out of being vague. --Dlatimer (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have the same Constitution we had in 75. So what applies then, applies now. The GG is not the Queen's representative in the sense that he or she (At last! Later this year) is the personal delegate of the Sovereign. Unlike in other constitutional monarchies, the GG's powers are established a popularly approvwed Constitution, not by letters patent. And indeed this is what a committee tyo review the Constitution concluded during the premiership of Bob Hawke (1988, I believe). Yes, I'm happy that Elizabeth does not intervene in Australian politics (though she has intervened in state affairs, although no more, thanks to the Australia Act). But our Constitution was not written by a monarch; it was composed, written and democratically approved by the Australian People. And it was remarkable for the time that it was done so. The Founding Fathers actually had to fight the British government so as not to have a subservient Constitution. So we owe our liberties not to a foreign monarch, but to the Australian People.While the mopnarchy may have served its role, for which it deserves the thanks of Australia, why should we not go forward on our own, without the extraordinary fear that the car of state will break down as soon as we let go of mother's hand? There are many successful, stable republics: Switzerland, Ireland, Germany, France, Austria (which, like Australia, is a federation), etc. Do you really imagine Australia should still swear allegiance to a monarch in a 1000 years time. The 'we'll go down the slippery slope' without her scenario is fear-mongering which shows a groundless lack of faith in the Australian People.--Gazzster (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Same constitution, sure. But, again, I'm talking about a different scenario.

I don't think anyone's showing a lack of faith in the Australian people; rather, it's a lack of faith in the goodness of individuals. If we could trust all leaders to always do what is right for us, and not just for themselves, then we wouldn't need laws and systems to constrain them. I'm just wondering what happens when one takes away or changes the constraints; will they be as effective? I don't think republics necessarily are as sound, and certainly not better. --G2bambino (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the rub. G2bambino altered the summary of Gerard Brennan's testimony at the 2004 Senate Inquiry. Then he added "however..." followed by some generalisation about the Westminister Act as through it was ipso facto a valid response. G2bambino expects Wikipedia readers to imagine that an Australian High Court Chief Justice would fail to consider the basics of the Statute of Westminster when presenting his opinion before Senators. If there is a reputable response, certainly include it. Otherwise, this is just another attempt to obfuscate the article. --Dlatimer (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You should maybe see someone about your paranoia. --G2bambino (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please limit comments to discussing the article. --Dlatimer (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Follow your own advice. --G2bambino (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly respect your right to an opinion, and I know we are straying from the discussion. That said I find it difficult at best to believe that it enhances the dignity and well-being of a nation to have a monarch in perpetuity. You intimate the danger of tyranny in a republic without constitutional restraint. I agree. However, consider that monarchy does not work either, except it be restrained. It requires a thousand years of restraint of monarchy, not freedom, to make it work. And at the core of monarchy there remains tyrannous concepts:

• hereditary right, regardless of talent or suitability, and, in the case of the British monarchy, prejudiced against females and Catholics.
• Fundamental inequality between the sovereign and subject
• The absolute immunity of a single person from the equality of the law.

You say monarchists exhibit lack of faith in the goodness of politicians. That's very much an ad hominem argument that assumes no political movement could be trusted to frame a workable republic. And in any case, they show a retroactive faith in politicians being able to restrain the monarch's power. So what is the difference? Is monarchy better in principle? I wonder if there would be the same attachment to monarchy if the head of state of the UK were not a crowned sovereign, but a hereditary president for life withe the same constitutional restraints as she has now? I suspect much of this aversion for republics is sentimental.--Gazzster (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You misconstrue my words, Gazzster. I did not single out politicians in any way; I said we all have a lack of faith in the goodness of individuals, and then went on to specifically speak of leaders, not just politicians. I also don't personally speak on behalf of all monarchists, and my comments went beyond one end of a spectrum. As I said, a system of government, to function well and democratically, must constrain the ability of any one individual to abuse power for their own gain; the necessity of these limits exists for all forms of government. The question is, though, if one is thinking of change: which, if any at all, of the many variants works better? You speak of a millennium of restraint on monarchy as though it were a sign of shame, when, in fact, you point to just how successful is a Westminster system of parliament under a constitutional monarchy. In fact, most republics, including the US, have tried to emulate this system in some form or another, and thus, republics attempt to place power in the hands of the talented and suitable, have fundamental inequality between president and people, and no immunity of any one individual from the law, just as it is in a constitutional monarchy. To try to argue otherwise is to throw out red herrings; the only way they could be valid is if we lived in a world where the Magna Carta and all that followed never happened, and presidents of republics were the paragon of goodness and wisdom who ate and slept in the same manner as all the people they presided over.

I'm no political scientist or constitutional scholar, but, and though I will agree that tradition and heritage (which I take to be what you mean by "sentiment") plays another part in this discussion, it seems relatively easy to observe that constitutional monarchies are not perfect or indestructible, but do seem to strike a successful balance between the tyranny of the individual and the tyranny of the majority to the point where they cancel each other out. The apolitical nature of the sovereign, which can only exist due to their impartial selection process and position above the political arena, balanced against the inherently biased and self-interested exercise of power by the elected political representatives of the people, means that no one person can successfully covet and use absolute power to their personal advantage; at least, not without great difficulty. Replace the impartial monarch with a politicised president and the balance cannot help but shift; perhaps not much, but also, perhaps, enough to give one person an easier path to uncontested power, as has happened so many - too many - times in a number of countries over the past century. In these terms of the stability of the state, one system has proven itself to work, the others to be, well, either of a dubious track record or never tried at all. One then as to ask: for what reason would the move from the established to the lesser known be made other than to address idealistic and fashionable sentiment? --G2bambino (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry for misinterpreting you. However the example of the US constitution imitating a monarchy is not perhaps a good one. At the time it was written there were few models of a republic to draw upon. So it is understandable that they chose a system with a strong, single executive who was both head of state and head of government (if it was an imitation of a constitutional monarchy, it was an imitation of the administration of George III, not of the style of administration in the Uk today).Constitutional has had its role in the course of political evolution. And, in some European countries in which the monarch is identified with the nation, perhaps still has a role. But I do not understand the concept of the monarch being apolitical. The monarch is no such thing. He or she is obliged to follow the advice of the political party that controls Parliament. She has no choice. Even though she personally may not be involved in political ac ts she still executes them. And it is not even true that she ios not political in the personal sense. Consider the politics of the death of Diana, Princess of Wales? There is no such thing as an apolitical act. Every act every one of us do is politically motivated in some degree. And isn't the appointment of a GG a political act? The Queen plays no part; the appointment is entirely at the whim of the Prime Minister. And of course politics comes into consideration. So nom matter how a head of state is chosen, it cannot avoid becoming political. The fear of a political head of state is a red herring. Whether it be Queen or a viceroy, she and he already is. The question is, can the h of s be constitutionally restrained so that his or her powers are exercised justly, equitably, and at the service of the Constitution. --Gazzster (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The US constitution was brought up as it is a republic without a Westminster style of parliament or responsible government, yet still, in some ways, tried to emulate the system in the UK. Anyway, of course you are right that the sovereign in a constitutional monarchy normally follows the advice of his/her ministers, who are usually part of a political party and will thus tender advice that is tinged with their ideologies. But this fact doesn't make the monarch's political impartiality anything close to a red herring; the monarch does not appoint these ministers because he/she personally favours their political leanings. They are appointed because they have the support of the elected House of Commons (or Representatives, as it may be). This is done because the monarch's main duty is to ensure the smooth running of government, which also means that the ministers may be dismissed by the sovereign if they threaten that stable operation, regardless of what political leanings they may have. That is what makes the monarch in a constitutional monarchy an impartial figure: they do not affiliate themselves with, promote the tenets of, or depend on the support of, any political party. Thus, they carry out their functions of government - granting Royal Assent, issuing Orders-in-Council, making appointments, etc. - regardless of what party their ministers belong to, and, should the situation ever arise where their unilateral decision is required, they've no reason to act purely to favour one party over another. Of course, in republics the president is expected to do the same. But, as already pointed out, a president must be elected in some form or another, and an election means appealing to the sensibilities of one group of people over those of others, which, as far as I see it, and along with the fact that they must keep appealing to those who keep them in power in order to maintain their position, already tinges any executive decisions they may make with personal interest and party policy. That's not to say that I think this, amongst other problems, makes republics so fragile as to collapse into chaos after the first elections. But I do think the politicisation of the office of the head of state does create the potential for abuses that doesn't seem to exist, or exist as much, in constitutional monarchies, and history has given us illustrations that may support this belief. So, a republic may work, but does it work as well? If not, why move to the inferior system other than for the optics of it? --G2bambino (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a question of your own making, because it is still based on the assumption that a constitution with a non-hereditary, Australian head of state represents an 'inferior system'. I note your comments that a republic can work, yet you still seem to assume that it cannot work as well as a constitutional monarchy. The fear of politicising the head of state is, I maintain, a red herring. As I've noted, the appointment of the GG is, as I've stated, a political appointment. It's not supposed to be, but it is made by the PM alone (yes, I know technically it's a nomination). You cannot tell me that he has no political considerations in mind when he makes the appointment. And the GG is already our effective head of state. So what does it matter? The Constitution and constitutional convention does not give the GG, no matter what his or her political bent, any opportunity to exercise bias. If he is a Labor appointment, he is obliged to act upon the advice of the leader of Labor Party. If he is Liberal, he is obliged to act upon the advice of the leader of the Liberal Party.Having a Queen or no Queen would not change that. Neither need it necessarily change the manner of selection of the GG. The nominated might still by the PM. And indeed, that is one of the models put forward for a republic: simply ommit references to the Queen, who exercises no effective political authority in Australia anyway, from the Constitution. --Gazzster (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't make any assumptions, I asked questions and expressed some observations about partisanship that I think are important to the decision of whether or not it's worth any realm's time and money to stop being a realm. On the other hand, you, in order to maintain the belief that an elected president is no more partisan than a constitutional monarch, must continue to only see things through a limited scope. I'll repeat what I said above: the monarch need not act to favour themselves, any donors, or political party; when they follow the partisan advice of their ministers, they do so because it keeps government stable and working, and they may disregard their ministers' partisan advice for exactly the same reason. This applies equally to the appointment and dismissal of a Governor General, which means that as long as the sovereign exists as he/she does, there is a body above both the Prime Minister and viceroy where ultimate responsibility to ensure the working of government rests. I know that simply discarding that individual from the constitution was one of the proposals put out in the late '90s, but it was also one of the most inane. Having never needed to unilaterally exercise her constitutional authority is not the same as never being able to; the fact that it's not been done is a testament to the working of the system, not a reason to dismantle it. Thus, it's definitely no support for a system wherein a president could be put in and taken out at the Prime Minister's pleasure, with zero ability to do anything to control the abuse of executive power. I can't see how anyone could possibly argue that such a scenario would actually be better than what's there now. --G2bambino (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Why dispute over what's better monarchy or republic? GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, because, I imagine, one wants to make the best decisions possible. --G2bambino (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is continued at G2bambino's talk page if anyone wishes to participate.--Gazzster (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A zero importance relationship

There is no importance to QEII being Queen of multiple countries in any discussion related to the Australian republican debate. That is because these relationships are 100% through the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth itself is worth mentioning, but this zero-importance "relationship" is never referenced or yet alone debated. It is the inverse of claiming "we would join with the majority group of republican Commonwealth nations" (which is equally silly.) That is why it does not belong in this article, yet alone the introduction. --Dlatimer (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing the positions of Head of the Commonwealth and head of state. --G2bambino (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I appear not to be. Where is the ending of a relationship with certain countries. Where is the evidence that the relationship (eg between NZ and Australia) would alter at all? This is monarchist scare mongering. --Dlatimer (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, I don't even have to try and you get scared. The evidence that the relationship would change stands in the fact that there would be no more sharing of a head of state. Don't be frightened, it isn't rocket science. --G2bambino (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Aside from your own views and personal remarks, where is the evidence that the relationship would end? --Dlatimer (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term "relationship" implies that Australia's relations with the rest of the Commonwealth are based on the existence of a personal union (which exists in name only). There's no evidence to back such a proposition - indeed there's plenty to show that Australia's relationships with other Commonwealth members exist outside of the fact Australia is a monarchy (e.g. Closer Economic Relations with NZ, Closer Defence Relations with NZ, five powers agreement between NZ, Singapore, UK, and Malaysia...) --Lholden (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Australia has just as strong, if not stronger, ties, with members of the Commonwealth with republican Constitutions. And for that matter, with other states not in the Commonwedalth. The relationship with the USA, Japan, China or Indonesia, for example is more significant than that with the UK and Canada. Having the same monarch does not enhance Australia's relationship with nations such as Canada, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. The sharing of the same Westminster-style government probasbly does facilitate diplomatic understand and co-operation, but international relationships are built up on the basis of national and international interests.--Gazzster (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you all getting so confused? The sentence says the personal union(-like) relationship would end with the Commonwealth realms; not the Commonwealth of Nations. Anybody want to explain to me how any realm becoming a republic or instituting a separate monarchy would not alter the relationship between that realm and the others? Would the Statute of Westminster somehow continue to apply? I don't think so. --G2bambino (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not alter the relationship, because the organisation governing the relationship is the Commonwealth of Nations. Again, if you want to do original research do so in the appropriate scholarly journal. --Dlatimer (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And where's the verifiable evidence to support your wild claims? They don't even stand up to the duck test. So, I sill await some explanation of how any realm becoming a republic or instituting a separate monarchy would not alter the relationship between that realm and the others. --G2bambino (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And why not also wait for "some explanation" as to how this will not alter the relationship between Australia and Uranus? --Dlatimer (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, what you do with your own time is up to you. I'm starting to suspect, though, that you actually can't do what's been asked of you. --G2bambino (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is the use of the term "relationship". It implies that Australia's relationship with other Commonwealth realms would be compromised by becoming a republic. As for evidence, look at the evacuation of Lebanon by the Royal Navy in 2006: the Royal Navy evacuated "British and Commonwealth citizens" - Brits, Aussies, NZers from Commonwealth realms and South Africans, Cypriots and Maltese from Commonwealth republics. There's also plenty of evidence that having a "personal union relationship" doesn't mean good relations with fellow Commonwealth realms - the UK put import restrictions on Australian and New Zealand products following 1973, then restrictions on immigration access to the UK, and is about to remove ancestry visas into the UK for those of us of British decent. The relationship, as is noted above, is of zero importance. So I suggest the sentence should omit the term "relationship", and should state:

"...thus ending the shared monarch between Australia and the other Commonwealth realms though maintaining a position in the Commonwealth of Nations."

This would be more accurate than using the term "relationship" --Lholden (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Where ever is the term "compromised" used? That seems to be only your personal addition. All that's being communicated here is one simple fact: Australia becomes a republic, it is no longer in personal union with the Commonwealth realms. Ending the personal union means changing the relationship. That's all. No speculation of whether that's good or bad, just a statement of obvious fact, and one you seem to recognise, as your proposed alternative just says the exact same thing in more words. --G2bambino (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the problem is with the term "relationship" and what it implies (hence the reason why 'compromised' isn't actually mentioned anywhere). It's hardly plain English to use a term with certain additional connotations to what's being communicated, and given that the personal union exists only in technical constitutional legalese, removed from political reality, to use 'relationship' only adds to the confusion around Australia's status as a member of the Commonwealth. --Lholden (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever does "relationship" imply other than an interaction between two entities? But, besides that, we didn't even need the word "relationship" until Dlatimer contested the existence of the personal union. Saying "thus ending Australia's personal union with the other Commonwealth realms" worked perfectly fine. --G2bambino (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

We must be mindful that this is the introduction to an article about Republicanism in Australia. This is an invitation to include list of "thus ending X, Y, Z and so on." and anything else G2bambino thinks up to devalue the article. --Dlatimer (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So you're suggesting removing all references to "personal union relationship"? I'm ok with that. --Lholden (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what G2bambino recently wrote on User_talk:G2bambino:

I should also add that it is poor form to remove a citation tag; clearly there is a still open discussion about the matter. The tag lets others clearly identify what the debate is centered on, as well as drawing attention to it so that others may weigh in with opinions or help. I suggest that you don't remove it again until the problem is resolved. --G2bambino (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

But here, G2bambino had difficulty with his own advice.--Dlatimer (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not the use of the tag, it's how you've done it: poorly. --G2bambino (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Dlatimer and G2Gambino, perhaps you should be careful to avoid personal stabs at it each other. I realise the subjects on this page can elicit strong emotion. I have to agree that the word 'relationship' is ambiguous. What sort of relationship? I understand what G2 is saying: Australia would no longer be a member of the E2 club. OK, but is there is any reason to state that? I mean, isn't it self-evident? It's a little like saying, 'if George takes a bath, he'll be wet'. So perhaps the word is ambiguous because a reader might think, 'am I missing something here, what is the author trying to tell me'? --Gazzster (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That's why I think "shared monarch" is more accurate. --Lholden (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This is more like: 'If George takes a bath, he is a buoyancy regulator,' with a reference to The effect of buoyancy induced lung volume changes on respiratory frequency in a chelonian (1974)' [3] --Dlatimer (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Justiciablity - act on Ministerial Advice

Why do republicans want to avoid discussion of the proposed amendment in 1999 and in particular the: prescribed Presidential obligation to act on ministerial advice; the President being instantly dismissable by the Prime Minister; or the uncodified "Reserve Powers" becoming justiciable?

Even the ARM today does not beleive in some of those things!

The republic bill was amended right up until its final hours in parliament?

121.216.232.15 (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've not met any Australian republicans who have avoided discussion on any of those topics. The information added should probably be in the article on the model itself. I note one of the amendments to the Bill in 1999 was to ensure that the Reserve powers were not justiciable (section 45a I think - will have to look that up - but it was made after the Cane Toad Republic was published).--Lholden (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

There are several models republicans propose and thus an article called bi-partisan appointment republican model. It mentions the PM being able to dismiss the President, which was a major issue. Justicability was an esoteric issue, and was not in the NO case. I agree with that justicability should be added to the critique section of this article, but not sure how well I could write it NPOV, as I think this is an issue but most constitutional lawyers say it's nothing to worry about. Maybe Richard McGarvie (1999) could be quoted. --Dlatimer (talk) 23:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone has added to the article writing that the justicability issue was a reason that some republicans voted NO. The source Cane Toad Republic is a monarchist publication and was written before the election. I agree that justicability is an issue, but not in the NO case and not a vote changer for republicans. --Dlatimer (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Gerard Brennan

by section 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act ... so long as we retain the existing system our head of state is determined for us essentially by the parliament at Westminster. Gerard Brennan --Dlatimer (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And your point is? --G2bambino (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Prescribed presidential obligation to act on ministerial advice

Generally speaking "dont give more powers to the politicians" is the whole thrust of anti-republican argument in Australia. That was a main theme of the No case during the 1999 republic debate such as it was. I have therefore added this to the article:

"Many republicans voted no because they did not agree with provisions such as the prescribed Presidential obligation to act on ministerial advice [40] and the President being instantly dismissable by the Prime Minister.[41]"

134.148.5.119 (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that many republicans voted no for the first of these two reasons? --Dlatimer (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh....the winning no case went around telling people in 1999 the proposed amendment to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) would have given more power to politicians? Like the prescribed presidential obligation in s.59. And the President being removable with instant effect by an instrument signed by the Prime Minister. The proposed section 62 goes on to require that the Prime Minister seek the approval within 30 days of the House of Representatives for this action and there is no sanction should this requirement not be satisfied. The failure of the House of Representatives to approve the removal of the President does not operate to reinstate the President.

I think you could argue these provisions represent changes to the power structure of parliamentary executive government. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong but hasn't the High Court declared the Governor-General is not an automaton?

When Sir John Kerr asked Gough Whitlam what he was going to do when the money ran out in 1975 and Whitlam said "govern on bank credit" didn't His Excellency say he wasn't provide to sign the neccesary documents because the constitution says all money must be appropriated by act of parliament?

Im going to keep poking and prodding until the proposed s.59 is discussed in this article. Australia is the only country where history is written by the winners.

Thank God it is so hard to change the constitution!!!!

134.148.5.118 (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether supporters of a republic voted No on the basis of claims that politicians would be more powerful under the proposed model. I haven't yet seen any evidence of this. --Lholden (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In a telephone call with the executive director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy I was told "giving more power to the politicians is still generally the best way to approach the issue" in relation to anti-republicanism.

Weren't you alive in 1999?

Didn't you hear people saying "dont give more power to politicians"?

Australia is the only country I know of where history is written by the LOSERS. It's pathetic.

134.148.5.118 (talk) 10:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Impeachment

What was distinctive about the proposed "first Australian republic" in 1999 was the lack of an impeachment process like every other republic has.

Lets state this in the article.

134.148.5.119 (talk) 08:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is true. Is there evidence? Every constitution around the world has different provisions, so why is this important? --Dlatimer (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

During the referendum I remember the winning no case saying the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) Bill 1999 would have created the only republic in the world without an impeachment process. It was a big issue.

Gareth Evans said our President would have been the most miserable head of state in the world being instantly dismissable by the Prime Minister. As a safegaurd against arbtritrary dismissal the PM would have to seek the approval of the House of Reps within 30 days for his action. And here's the punchline. The President would have remained dismissed even if this resulted in a vote of no confidence.

This article is hopeless. Australia must be the only country in the world where history is written by the losers.

134.148.5.118 (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the direct opposite of what you said in the thread above. Rather than complaining about an article's quality, why don't you take a positive and constructive approach and actually improve it. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)