I just mean that endless questions about the vague notion of “becoming a republic” aren’t really very helpful. The devil will be in the detail. And as 1999 showed, there’s a wide gulf between the “experts”, who want a president appointed by parliament, and the voters, who want a directly elected president. I’m certainly never going to vote for a blank cheque. All the details of the proposed model have to be clear up front.
Couldn’t care less.
Not on my priorites. It will happen though- and in my life time.
I strongly dislike the idea of monarchy. I think the current royal family are pretty loathsome. And I don’t much care if Australia becomes a republic.
What she said.
What he said too.
Just adding my plagiarised 2 bobs worth, for what it’s worth.
I’m a dual Australian/New Zealand citizen, and I’m strongly against the idea of Australia becoming a Republic for a number of reasons.
Firstly, as has been mentioned, there’s the whole tradition thing. Like it or not, we’re here because the Brits settled the country* and until about, oooh, 1942 we were basically Britain But With Better Weather And Strange Wildlife. Our history, our traditions, our background are all with Britain. Becoming a Republic strikes me a snub to our past, basically. (Of course, you should all know I’m an Imperialist/Colonialist Anglophile, hence the bias in my views… ;))
Secondly, I think there’s a LOT to be said for having an influential but largely powerless figurehead nominally in charge. It allows for a degree of oversight not present in the Republican system, IMHO. The real power here isn’t the The King/Queen via the Governor-General, it’s the Prime Minister (and that’s a position I’d like to see directly elected, along with State Premiers, but that’s a different thread entirely, methinks…) and should the Prime Minister get out of line (“Paging Mr. Gough Whitlam, will Mr. Whitlam please come to reception? Thank you…”), there’s someone above them (The Governor-General) with the Parliamentary/Governmental/Constitutional version of a Big Stick to bring them back into line.
Thirdly, there’s nothing really wrong with system as it is. Not broken, therefore not in need of repair, IMHO.
FWIW, I feel strongly enough about the Republic issue that if Australia did abolish the Monarchy, I’d be making serious enquiries into moving overseas.
Fortunately, after the “No” vote last time around, I think the whole thing’s a bit of a non-starter for the foreseeable future. Hopefully (IMHO) it stays that way.
*Let’s not get into the whole “Convict” thing, OK? There were plenty of free settlers as well.
That’s the heart of the problem. The Governor General of countries like Australia and Canada has very broad powers. However, precisely because the GovGen is appointed, the GovGen has little political legitimacy, and almost invariably exercises those powers solely on the advice of the Prime Minister, who is the person who commands a majority in the Commons/Representatives.
There are extensive constitutional conventions which govern the GovGen’s exercise of her powers, but they are all premised on the fact that the Prime Minister has political legitimacy through the democratic process, and the GovGen, being appointed, has very little. The GovGen therefore takes the PM’s advice, and the PM takes the political responsibility for the decision (hence the name for our system of government: “responsible government”.)
If you simply substitute an appointed (or indirectly elected) President for an appointed GovGen, presumably nothing much would change. An appointed President would similarly lack the political legitimacy that the PM has through the electoral process, so would likely continue to operate on the same system of taking the PM’s advice. It would operate much like the parliamentary systems in Germany and Italy, where the President is largely ceremonial.
But if you switch to a President directly elected by a straight popular vote, without making any other changes to the Constitution, suddenly you’ve got a head of state with tremendous political legitimacy, and also tremendous constitutional authority, such as the power to sack the PM, to refuse assent to a bill, and to dissolve Parliament. The constitutional conventions restricting the GovGen’s use of those powers would fall by the wayside. By switching to an elected President, you’d be changing the system to look something more like the French system - but with even more powers than the French President.
If you made that one change alone, without any other changes, you’re practically guaranteeing a decade or two of political and constitutional uncertainty, as the Presidents and Prime Ministers fight it out. Why would you do that?
You would also be concentrating a tremendous amount of power in one individual, without firmly entrenching a separation of powers doctrine. That runs contrary to a lot of political principles. In countries with an elected President, some care is taken in the Constitution to define the relationship between the President and the legislative branch, as in the U.S. Constitution and the French Constitution.
When you have a constitution that was drafted on the assumption that the GovGen would be a figurehead and act only on the advice of the PM, that careful delineation is lacking. It would be irresponsible, in my opinion, to simply switch to direct election without making extensive amendments to the Constitution to set out the limits of the President’s powers and the relationship to the legislative branch.
And that brings us back to the 1999 referendum, and Cunctator’s comment - parties advocating a major change to a system of government that is working well bear the onus of showing exactly what changes they would propose, with a clear explanation of how that new system would work. If the republicans are divided on this basic point and can’t give a clear answer, then they deserve to be defeated, in my opinion, and told not to come back until they’ve got better answers.
A Brit here,I’m another one who as a general principal believes that if aint broke…
But quite honestly I dont think that any of us Poms would care very much one way or the other if Oz became a republic as our ties go much deeper then mere politics.