Comments on: ARM Reignites the Republican Debate for Australia

By: wayne strickland

wayne strickland — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:21:51 +0000

Its well and truly time Australians finally step away from this old fashoned idea that has remained with us for far to long at a great expense.
In this ever changing world of competition and unrest we need to be seen as a strong and independent country proud of who we are and what we have achieved.No longer should we accept the thinking of many of the worlds nations that we are a state of the UK and are ruled by them.
If you take the time to do sum research ,you will find that the UK benefits far greater than we do from the present situation.Especially the Royals and their hanger ons.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 18:50:34 +0000

the system is fine as is, when has it stoped any of you from doing what you do in your aday to day lives ?

I’m sorry but any form of a republic is treason in my eyes.

I will never show loyalty to an australia that isn’t run by her Majasty

giveing compleat controle of australia to the politishions

Australia follows the Westminister system of government and so the Queen, or at least the Governor, is the final check on the power of the parliament. If you remove that check then you hit a constitutional problem if say a prime minister decides they won’t step down after losing a vote of no confidence, or decides general elections are a waste of time, or attempts to force a law through parliament against the will of the people. They also act as the decider of which party gets to form the government in the case of a hung parliament. It’s not really practical to hand those powers over to the politicians for much the same reason you don’t get a pedo to run a school.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:26:13 +0000

To Wess. You say that our head of state is the soverign of the UK, when it is not. The Queen is the head of the UK, but is also the Queen of Australia in her own right. Our Queen is not called the Queen of the UK, but is called Queen of Australia.

Also how could you say that a republic would be more stable than our current system? Our system is the best in the world, the most stable in the world, and you want to gamble that on the chance a republic would work only at well? I for one love Australia the way it is, and do not want to change it. No system republicans have put forward will offer the same stability as our current system. Their only real argument is a head of state who lives in Australia. Why then not chose one of the Princes or Princess to come be our head of state, that way we have a head of state in Australia, as well as ensuring the same stability our current system gives.

By: Wes

Wes — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:57:00 +0000

I’m sorry, but I am SO sick to death of hearing the expression ‘if it aint broke don’t fix it’.
It IS broke.. this is a modern vibrant democracy and one of the most stable (if not THE most stable), tolerant societies in the world. All of which has nothing to do with QEII. Where does this infantile idea that 1 person can magically have more influence on the quality and morality of a society by living in another country, when there are 22 million people living here who contribute to that stability??
In 1975 (and I don’t care who it was that was dismissed, nor about the party politics) but it needs to be analysed what happened. The Governor General, who, once appointed renders the Queen with no power at all (it’s in the Constitution, read it if you like) so basically, John Kerr was able to dismiss a duly elected government in the Queen’s Name, without her authority (because she has none, which is exactly what she told Whitlam when he asked her to intervene.. ‘Mr Whitlam, in accordance with your constitution I am not permitted nor do I have the authority to intervene..) therefore, the government was dismissed by a man elected by no-one AND WORSE, responsible to no-one!! Despite people’s views on the selection of the president, how could a 2/3rds majority of Parliament be anything but an improvement on that situation.
Aside from this, it is absolutely ludicrous and infantile to have a modern progressive nation have as its titular head a person who doesn’t live here and as my father observed once (a life long republican and now 74), it is most certainly a situation that would not be tolerated for one second by any self respecting British Citizen if the role was to be reversed. the other stupidity is that if Britain changes its system and becomes a republic, then we will have a constitutional crises with a constitution that says our head of state is founded in the ’soveriegnty of the UK, a sovereignty that no longer exists.
There’s an old saying from the American Revolution (sexist by today’s standards but the principle is the same) ‘Man was not made for the state, but the state for man’.
Therefore, two words compel us to be a republic ‘Popular Sovereignty’. The people are sovereign because all authority and power emanates from them choosing their government. This is why in United States Courts the action is always ‘the People versus..etc.’ and why their Constitution starts with the words ‘We, the People..’ i.e. they derive their legitimacy as a nation from the will of their people, not from a monarch or a foreign parliament.

By: Tony Adams

Tony Adams — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:27:36 +0000

Australia has been an independent country for nearly 109 years yet we still have a (nonelected) foreigner as our head of state. Only two other developed countries in the world (Canada and New Zealand) don’t have one of their own citizens in that position.
The situation is both shamefiul and ridiculous. Of course the system is “broken” and a republic will fix it!

By: Chris James

Chris James — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:09:39 +0000

if it aint broke don’t fix it. The current system is not perfect but works well .