Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 47): I'm sorry, but you did. There was no caveat, you stressed blood shed as the reason the monarchy must be continued.

Really, I shrug. It is the starting point, not the end point, just as happened in this thread.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 47): That's something you're just speculating on. There are no facts in support of that.

Prince Andrew served in the Falkland because the direct line succession - as defined by Act of Parliament - was secure even if he had been killed. The Queen had other children. Moreover, Prince William was born in 1982 (the start of the war), dog-legging Prince Andrew even further away from the direct line

Prince Harry's removal from Afghanistan was not a personal decision by the family, it was a political decision made by those (military, police, security) who are sworn to uphold the law. They were not protecting the man - they were protecting the institution.

The day there is a new heir - Prince William's first born child - the need for the spare reduces and Prince Harry's place in the scheme of things considerably diminishes, as with Prince Andrew.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 47): As many times as it takes until the Australian people are presented with a referendum for a system of government to which they agree.

I assume that - eventually - Australia may become a republic, but your side needs to sort out the politics of it first. The will of the people was tested in 1999 and it wasn't even close.

What was interesting - to me - was the breakdown of the voting as provided by the WSWS, a Socialist organization that is scarcely a supporter of the monarchy:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/rep-n09.shtml

"The clear defeat of the “republican” referendum last Saturday demonstrates the immense class divide that dominates Australian society.

Virtually every newspaper in the country urged a yes vote, as did leading figures from all the parliamentary parties, along with a galaxy of “stars” and sporting personalities. But only 46 percent of voters supported the proposed switch to a republican form of rule. The referendum failed to win a majority in all six states. Of the 148 federal electorates, only 42 voted yes."

It reminds me of the time I was at a reception for Prince Charles and Princess Diana in Melbourne (I took the tram). The many illustrious Republican supporters there, the Melbourne glitterati, were practically knee-capping each other to get to meet the royals. LOL.

mariner

[Edited 2011-01-16 10:46:49]

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 49): It's bad enough having the royal family in the UK...but to have a bunch of former colonials argue about the vitues of being ruled absolutely by a monarch living on the other side of the world it frankly bizarre.

If you could give me a good reason why changing is necessary then I'd happily vote for it, the problem is pre republicans can never come up with a valid reason for change. In my mind it just appears to be change for the sake of change without any real benefit to NZ or it's people.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 51): If you could give me a good reason why changing is necessary then I'd happily vote for it, the problem is pre republicans can never come up with a valid reason for change. In my mind it just appears to be change for the sake of change without any real benefit to NZ or it's people.

It has nothing to do with me, you can be ruled by whoever you like. It's a bit odd that you like being ruled by a foreigner who lives in another hemisphere, two continents over, though.

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 49): It's bad enough having the royal family in the UK...but to have a bunch of former colonials argue about the vitues of being ruled absolutely by a monarch living on the other side of the world it frankly bizarre.

Bad enough having the royal family !
Come on, if you dislike it so much move to another country where no such system is in place.

It could be argued that we are still colonials, and not former ones as you "assert" in your post.

However, the debate has been had many times here in OZ, and each time its been put back in the box resoundingly.

The republican movement had the chance and failed to show us all a viable different alternative that they wanted.

Why cant we just leave it at that and move on.

We have a system here (as dose NZ and CAN) that works so well, it it the envy of many many countries all around the world. Lets leave it at that, and devote our energies to other more "urgent" issues can we.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 7): this is coming from the fiercest Australian republican you could ever meet

I wondered for a sec if QFF2 really was our dear QFF coming back to life...and I see in this thread that it is you! Did you steal Jafa39's Boeing hat while he was in Australia, QFF2? He suspects you did.  

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 48): Life in a goldfish bowl, that would be fun, no thanks I'll stick with my current life and mortgage.

Well, they have a choice as to whether they live that life or not. And you don't. Doesn't sound fair, does it?

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 48): There was a spare had Andrew died on active service in the Falklands, or had you forgotten about Edward?

No, nor had I forgotten about the literally hundreds of people behind him in the line of succession either. I think it's a moot point.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 48): I'm no royalist, but as it currently stands the system used in NZ, Canada and Australia works well, until someone can give me a reason why becoming a republic is going to make my country, better, richer and a more desirable place to live I'll stick with the system we have.

It's not about making a country richer, or in a standard of living sense - any 'better', a republic is an opportunity to make government more democratic, more accountable, and most importantly stable. To have at the centre of the constitution an unelected individual governed by convention (that can and has been broken) imperils democracy in my view. There will be another constitutional 'event', it's only a matter of time, and having a Governor-General is democratic lunacy. It's playing fast and loose with a country's government. Luckily your country has had relatively good eggs in Government House, but is that what you want to base the stability of your country on... if the GG is.....nice?

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 49): It's bad enough having the royal family in the UK...but to have a bunch of former colonials argue about the vitues of being ruled absolutely by a monarch living on the other side of the world it frankly bizarre.

I don't like the way you said 'colonials', as if that's what any of us here are. This is not a bizarre discussion at all, it's perfectly reasonable, trying to dismiss people as 'colonials' is bizarre. Unless you were talking about yourself? You're a Roman colony, n'est pas? Australian civilisation stretches back considerably further than British civilisation, so a bit of respect where it's due, please.

Quoting mariner (Reply 50): Prince Andrew served in the Falkland because the direct line succession - as defined by Act of Parliament - was secure even if he had been killed.

Again, I point to the hundreds of other people on the line of succession. I've never heard this argument put forward before, it's something you've created and, again, seem a moot point.

Quoting mariner (Reply 50): I assume that - eventually - Australia may become a republic, but your side needs to sort out the politics of it first. The will of the people was tested in 1999 and it wasn't even close.

The 'will' of the people wasn't tested, one specific model of republic was tested, and it actually wasn't close. Political parties have managed to form government based on the kind of support the republic received, ironically John Howard's 2004 election landslide was won on an almost identical percentage to the lost republican referendum. You're suggesting that his win 'wasn't even close'?
The founding fathers made constitutional reform extremely difficult, so what would have won a federal election and swept both houses of parliament, doesn't cut it in a referendum.

Quoting mariner (Reply 50): It reminds me of the time I was at a reception for Prince Charles and Princess Diana in Melbourne (I took the tram). The many illustrious Republican supporters there, the Melbourne glitterati, were practically knee-capping each other to get to meet the royals. LOL.

Ah, well that's Melbourne. Doesn't surprise me.  

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 53): Come on, if you dislike it so much move to another country where no such system is in place.

Gee, that's the act of a patriot. Honestly!

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 53): It could be argued that we are still colonials, and not former ones as you "assert" in your post.

No, we're not. Not unless you're at least 111 years old.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 53): However, the debate has been had many times here in OZ, and each time its been put back in the box resoundingly.

No, the debate started and it never stopped! It hasn't gone away, we have a federal government with an official republican platform - the Prime Minister is a republican, overwhelmingly the state premiers are republican, the Australian people themselves have been split almost down the middle on this issue for decades. It's nowhere NEAR close to being put 'back in the box', let alone 'resoundingly'. Henry Lawson would be spinning in his grave at such a suggestion.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 53): The republican movement had the chance and failed to show us all a viable different alternative that they wanted. Why cant we just leave it at that and move on.

You do realise that federation was lost on its first vote? The model wasn't acceptable to the Australian people, so the fathers went back and presented a re-worked and ultimately successful proposal to the Australian people. And it's not about republicans showing what 'they' wanted, this is about all of us questioning how our government works, and how our government *could* work. It's a civic duty, not a marriage proposal.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 53): We have a system here (as dose NZ and CAN) that works so well, it it the envy of many many countries all around the world. Lets leave it at that, and devote our energies to other more "urgent" issues can we.

Quoting ScarletHarlot (Reply 54): I wondered for a sec if QFF2 really was our dear QFF coming back to life...and I see in this thread that it is you! Did you steal Jafa39's Boeing hat while he was in Australia, QFF2? He suspects you did.

'Tis I.  

The board still packed with monarchists who adore a foreign royal family more than they care for their own country. Honestly! The house of Windsor's PR machine has certainly dazzled where it needed to. Doesn't help watching 'John Adams' and then reading all this royal tripe.

No, I didn't steal his Boeing hat, as fetching as it sounds.

QFF2

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 55): Again, I point to the hundreds of other people on the line of succession. I've never heard this argument put forward before, it's something you've created and, again, seem a moot point.

Why do you think Princess Diana called her sons "the heir and the spare"? LOL.

I haven't created it, I'm not that clever. Nor am I the only poster to mention it. It isn't moot. It's critical.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 55): The founding fathers made constitutional reform extremely difficult, so what would have won a federal election and swept both houses of parliament, doesn't cut it in a referendum.

Forming a government isn't the same thing as voting yes or no. The Australian electoral system is not First Past the Post. Look at the structure of the present Australian government.

It's always going to be difficult to change anything in Australia by way of referendum and it has little to do with the way the Constitution was framed. The Australian people have shown, time and again, that they are not keen on Constitutional changes.

There has been no (or very little) attempt to change the Constitutional "reserve powers" of the Governor General, which give the GG more actual political power (in Australia) than the Queen has in the UK.

So - ever helpful - I think your side should go about it another way, incrementally, and first recognize that the crown of Australia is a quite separate institution, if with no gold hat. "Crown land" in Australia is not owned by the British crown, it is owned by the Australian state/states - the crown of Australia.

If you're not sure why I - a constitutional monarchist - am giving constructive advice to a republican, I have some interest in some changes to the Australian system, starting with those reserve powers of the GG.

 

mariner

Quoting mariner (Reply 56): I haven't created it, I'm not that clever. Nor am I the only poster to mention it. It isn't moot. It's critical.

Making the point that Prince Andrew could serve in the Falklands because he had other younger siblings is not something I've heard of outside of this thread. And it's not a matter of ignorance on my part, if I can be so bold. It's a theory you've created. Could well be true, but it's still a theory. And I think it is moot. No matter how many siblings may exist within one direct royal family, the wider line of succession is several hundred names long.

Quoting mariner (Reply 56): It's always going to be difficult to change anything in Australia by way of referendum and it has little to do with the way the Constitution was framed. The Australian people have shown, time and again, that they are not keen on Constitutional changes.

Untrue. The Australian constitution was drafted in such a way that changes to it had to be extremely hard to make. It's a fact of constitutional history. But is that the way that monarchists really want to cling on to it all? By hiding behind the difficulty inherent in changing the constitution? There's a better system out there, waiting to be codified. A system where the people can elect a President to act as we expect a Governor-General to act, but who is ultimately accountable to the people. No repeats of 1975, no races to the palace. Codified, democratic, accountable, with sovereign power vested in the people. You could just read the declaration of independence and it would make my point.

Quoting mariner (Reply 56): There has been no (or very little) attempt to change the Constitutional "reserve powers" of the Governor General

I think you mean, there's been little attempt to even codify them, let alone change them. It's a process of making it up as they go along when it comes to sticky constitutional questions in both our countries. Do you really trust a system like that to ensure democratic stability for the next 100 years? The next 500 years? I don't. I have no faith in the long term viability of the current system, because it relies too heavily on unwritten laws, and good-will. Add to that the principle that a foreign royal house shouldn't assume the position of my country's head of state - and here I am.

Quoting mariner (Reply 56): So - ever helpful - I think your side should go about it another way, incrementally, and first recognize that the crown of Australia is a quite separate institution

That's not a matter of recognition, it's a matter of fact. I've said above to another, that the head of state is the Queen of Australia. And the Queen of Australia doesn't live in Australia, has merely visited, and does not represent our interests internationally. It's disgraceful. I appreciate your readiness to volunteer advice (I think), but I'm fine without it. The republican argument in my country will not go away, it's the policy of the ruling political party in this country.

All well and good to codify the powers of the GG, but you can't escape the inherent anti-democratic nature of the office, nor the undeniable principle that sovereign power should be vested with the people, and not with a foreign Queen through her unelected representative. It's madness.

QFF

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 57): Making the point that Prince Andrew could serve in the Falklands because he had other younger siblings is not something I've heard of outside of this thread. And it's not a matter of ignorance on my part, if I can be so bold. It's a theory you've created.

Why is this so difficult for you?

It doesn't just apply to Prince Andrew. Prince Henry and Prince George, brothers of Prince Albert (King of George VI), were allowed to serve on active duty in WW2 because they were no longer spares. Princess Elizabeth had become the Heiress Presumptive and there was a new spare.

Prince Henry was wounded and Prince George was killed in WW2.

I haven't created primogeniture (favoring first born sons), it has existed for centuries. It is the basis of the various Acts of Settlement and Succession, although direct line is considered so crucial that provision is made for female ascendency in the absence of sons. Thus the present Queen.

And I didn't write post #48 which also refers to it.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 57): Untrue. The Australian constitution was drafted in such a way that changes to it had to be extremely hard to make.

Slice it any way you want, but the 1999 referendum didn't even achieve a simple majority.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 57): I think you mean, there's been little attempt to even codify them, let alone change them.

No, I don't mean that.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 57): That's not a matter of recognition, it's a matter of fact. I've said above to another, that the head of state is the Queen of Australia. And the Queen of Australia doesn't live in Australia, has merely visited, and does not represent our interests internationally.

Raging against the system again, rather than taking my hint on how to fix it. It would all be so much easier to make the GG the representative of the Crown of Australia and go from there.

mariner

Quoting mariner (Reply 58): I haven't created primogeniture (favoring first born sons)

I didn't say you had, I said that you created the motive behind allowing Prince Harry's deployment, and then for his removal. I still argue that he was not treated just like any other soldier, and that having royals on the battlefield presents an unacceptable risk - 'spare' or not. You think the enemy is going to turn down the opportunity to target a royal in warfare on the basis that they've moved down a few notches on the line of succession? I think not. The increased danger remains.

Quoting mariner (Reply 58): Slice it any way you want, but the 1999 referendum didn't even achieve a simple majority.

That's true, but don't read into that a rejection of the idea of the republic. The numbers move around a little, but for the most part - over the last few decades the country has been split down the middle by this. The monarchy is divisive in Australia. Imagine Britain in the same circumstances.

Quoting mariner (Reply 58): No, I don't mean that.

Well, the fact remains - these unchanged 'reserve powers' haven't even been written in the most part, let alone reformed.

Quoting mariner (Reply 58): Raging against the system again, rather than taking my hint on how to fix it.

Forgive me, I'm starting to feel a little patronised. As much as I appreciate your 'hints', I'd suggest you don't confuse passion and conviction with rage. There's no anger here, just an unwavering committment to my own country, it's symbols, and to a strengthened and more representative democracy.

Quoting mariner (Reply 58): It would all be so much easier to make the GG the representative of the Crown of Australia and go from there.

The Governor-General is the representative of the Australian Queen. Are you unaware of the Royal Styles and Titles Act of 1973? The republican cause is proceeding.

Can I also add that in spite of the fact that we've been going at it for a while, I'm enjoying this discussion, and hope you are too? Looking forward to your next reply...

QFF

P.S.

Quoting mariner (Reply 56): I have some interest in some changes to the Australian system, starting with those reserve powers of the GG.

I'm listening.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 55): Well, they have a choice as to whether they live that life or not. And you don't. Doesn't sound fair, does it?

Well two members did quit, the Diann and Fergie, both lived and one still does live her life in a goldfish bowl, King Edward abducated in favour of his George and his life was still tabloid fodder, once a member of that family always a member of that family, even if you decide to remove yourself from it.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 55): a republic is an opportunity to make government more democratic, more accountable, and most importantly stable.

That's a daft argument, how is being a republic going to make NZ any more democratic that it already is. There are loads of unstable republics in this world.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 57): Making the point that Prince Andrew could serve in the Falklands because he had other younger siblings is not something I've heard of outside of this thread. And it's not a matter of ignorance on my part, if I can be so bold. It's a theory you've created. Could well be true, but it's still a theory. And I think it is moot. No matter how many siblings may exist within one direct royal family, the wider line of succession is several hundred names long.

I've heard this many times before, it's not something Mariner made up.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 59): I didn't say you had, I said that you created the motive behind allowing Prince Harry's deployment, and then for his removal. I still argue that he was not treated just like any other soldier, and that having royals on the battlefield presents an unacceptable risk - 'spare' or not. You think the enemy is going to turn down the opportunity to target a royal in warfare on the basis that they've moved down a few notches on the line of succession? I think not. The increased danger remains.

I don't know how I can make the point any clearer than I have. As long as Prince Harry was anonymous the risk was manageable, he was just another soldier. When his cover was blown, he became a specific target. Why? Not because of what he was doing, just another soldier, but because of what he represents and is an integral part of - the institution of governance.

Thus, it was immediately political.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 59): That's true, but don't read into that a rejection of the idea of the republic.

Since I've already said that I expect Australia may become a republic one day, I don't know how you can say that.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 59): Forgive me, I'm starting to feel a little patronised. As much as I appreciate your 'hints', I'd suggest you don't confuse passion and conviction with rage.

It reads like anger. There is a perfectly rationale case to be made for Australia as a republic. It does not require being personalized to the present incumbents.

It isn't about one person or one family or one "house". It is, or should be, about the institution of governance.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 59): The Governor-General is the representative of the Australian Queen. Are you unaware of the Royal Styles and Titles Act of 1973? The republican cause is proceeding.

No, I am not "unaware" of these things. It is because of these things that I suggest a change be made.

But I do not want the office of Head of State to become a political football. When the PM and the Leader of the Opposition visited flood ravaged Queensland, it was political because both have at least one eye on re-election.

When the GG visited flood ravaged Queensland, it was apolitical, she does not face re-election. She does not represent any political party or cause, only the office.

I prefer what we have to what you offer.

mariner

[Edited 2011-01-17 11:39:39]

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 47): There's nothing simple about changing the system of government, as you well know.

Exactly. Changing from the current system to a republican model is a major change in the system of government, and I have yet to be convinced that the republican system is the better one.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 47): 'Let alone Australia' - you say that as if the tyrrany of distance somehow dilutes constitutional power. She has MORE power in Australia than she does in the UK,

Oh really? What power does she personally have over Australia? And, of those powers that she has, how many have been exercised by the Queen herself? None that I can think of. Let's look at an example: Royal Assent to Bills, as per Section 58 of the Constitution.

Quote: When a proposed law passed by both Houses of Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure.

The Governor-General - an Australian citizen, mind you - is the one that has the discretion with regards to Royal Assent, not the Queen.

Next, let's look at the Australia Act 1986 (Cth).

Section 1

Quote: No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or to a Territory as part of the law of the Commonwealth, of the State or of the Territory.

Section 7

Quote: 1) Her Majesty's representative in each State shall be the Governor. (2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, all powers and functions of Her Majesty in respect of a State are exercisable only by the Governor of the State. (3) Subsection (2) above does not apply in relation to the power to appoint, and the power to terminate the appointment of, the Governor of a State. (4) While Her Majesty is personally present in a State, Her Majesty is not precluded from exercising any of Her powers and functions in respect of the State that are the subject of subsection (2) above. (5) The advice to Her Majesty in relation to the exercise of the powers and functions of Her Majesty in respect of a State shall be tendered by the Premier of the State.

Advice to be tendered by the Premier ... the democratically elected leader of a State. Her Majesty is not allowed to act on a whim.

Likewise, at the Federal level, most of the Governor-General's powers are exercised only on the advice of the Prime Minister. The day-to-day running of this country is left to its elected members of Parliament. So I say again, how is this not a democratic system? You make it sound as though the Queen or the Governor-General has absolute power in this country, and that is strictly not true. Her Majesty has hardly any power at all, and what power she has left, she acts on the advice of a democratically elected leader of the State or the Commonwealth.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 47): Then you're a tool of a foreign monarchy, and you've deserted your civic duty to your country by not even contemplating constitutional reform.

I have my own reasons for not supporting a republic, and that's none of your business. I happen to like the system of government the way it is now.

As a personal anecdote, as I was going to vote in the 1999 referendum, I declined a pamphlet from the 'yes' camp, as that person was handing it out, she said, 'vote yes for a republic?', and when she saw that I walked away, she said, 'no? You're not an Aussie!' ... well, excuse me? So if I don't vote for a republic, I'm not an Aussie?

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 57): There's a better system out there, waiting to be codified. A system where the people can elect a President to act as we expect a Governor-General to act, but who is ultimately accountable to the people.

There's a different system, yes, but better? When the President is one that is subject to being elected, his/her actions are going to be tainted by their desire for votes, and as such, even if they aren't a politician, it becomes a political office because the President will say and do anything to get elected. Whether it becomes true after his/her election is an entirely different matter.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 57): That's not a matter of recognition, it's a matter of fact. I've said above to another, that the head of state is the Queen of Australia. And the Queen of Australia doesn't live in Australia, has merely visited, and does not represent our interests internationally.

So is the Governor-General a representative of the Queen or is she not? The fact is, the Governor-General has represented Australia on behalf of Her Majesty on many occasions.

Quoting mariner (Reply 62): When the GG visited flood ravaged Queensland, it was apolitical, she does not face re-election. She does not represent any political party or cause, only the office. I prefer what we have to what you offer.

  

Quoting mariner (Reply 62): I don't know how I can make the point any clearer than I have. As long as Prince Harry was anonymous the risk was manageable, he was just another soldier. When his cover was blown, he became a specific target. Why? Not because of what he was doing, just another soldier, but because of what he represents and is an integral part of - the institution of governance.

But it wasn't political - it was a security matter! You see, I absolutely agree with everything you say! But the point that kick-started all of this was my assertion that he wasn't treated like any other soldier due to his status as a royal, and you clearly agree. So let's just agree!

Quoting mariner (Reply 62): There is a perfectly rationale case to be made for Australia as a republic. It does not require being personalized to the present incumbents.

I don't believe I've done that. I've said that this is about a move toward a republic, not away from the monarchy. That doesn't mean I can't criticise the lunacy of the system, and its specific royal quirks. No mention of individual royal character here.

Quoting mariner (Reply 62): It isn't about one person or one family or one "house". It is, or should be, about the institution of governance.

Exactly, and on that basis a republic is clearly a superior form of government.

Quoting mariner (Reply 62): But I do not want the office of Head of State to become a political football.

Neither do I. I support having my elected President be tightly bound by codified constitutional law. It's the only way.

Quoting mariner (Reply 62): When the PM and the Leader of the Opposition visited flood ravaged Queensland, it was political because both have at least one eye on re-election.

It was political because they were the head of government (or its aspirant), something I propose the Australian President *not* be.

Quoting mariner (Reply 62): When the GG visited flood ravaged Queensland, it was apolitical, she does not face re-election.

I dislike having been put in a position of criticising anything to do with the Governor-General's visit to flood-ravaged Queensland. So I won't.

Quoting mariner (Reply 62): I prefer what we have to what you offer.

You don't know what I have to offer. You've never asked.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 63): Oh really? What power does she personally have over Australia? And, of those powers that she has, how many have been exercised by the Queen herself? None that I can think of. Let's look at an example: Royal Assent to Bills, as per Section 58 of the Constitution.

The powers are uncodified, and it's not about what she specifically has done, it's about what others could do to take advantage of that situation. It's constitutional anarchy in the event of a crisis. Governors-General simply have to take their best guess, as we saw in 1975. I'm not criticising the Queen personally at all, but where there's a Queen - there's a Governor-General, and its with the GG that I have real problems. It's an office that has incredible constitutional power, and zero accountability. It's a recipe for disaster, mark my words. And don't just say that because it hasn't happened (which is has) that it won't ever happen. We need to think about our system's long-term viability across centuries, not just the single full century our constitution has been in effect.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 63): The Governor-General - an Australian citizen, mind you - is the one that has the discretion with regards to Royal Assent, not the Queen.

Agreed. Worrisome, isn't it?

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 63): So I say again, how is this not a democratic system?

Because the figure in our constitution who has the ability to call elections, dismiss governments, be the commander in chief of the armed forces, and approve laws is not elected. You tell me how in the hell that's democratic?

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 63): As a personal anecdote, as I was going to vote in the 1999 referendum, I declined a pamphlet from the 'yes' camp, as that person was handing it out, she said, 'vote yes for a republic?', and when she saw that I walked away, she said, 'no? You're not an Aussie!' ... well, excuse me? So if I don't vote for a republic, I'm not an Aussie?

Well that proves it then, an anecdote.

I don't doubt your nationality, but after all the facts if you (and Mariner) so fervently believe that a foreigner should be Australia's head of state over any Australian, and that Australians do not have the ability or intelligence to create an accountable and stable democratic republic, then yes - your commitment to your civic duty must be called into question. I don't shy away from doing that.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 63): So is the Governor-General a representative of the Queen or is she not? The fact is, the Governor-General has represented Australia on behalf of Her Majesty on many occasions.

You've changed your tune. I thought you were saying Australia's Head of State was the Governor-General just a little while ago? The GG is the Queen's representative, but sending a representative just don't cut it. If you truly put your country first, then you won't accept someone using a proxy while they attend to the needs of a foreign country and a trade competitor. You should be outraged by the lack of attention shown by our head of state, but you seem content to accept it. You do realise....we can actually do much better?

QFF

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 64): But it wasn't political - it was a security matter!

I'll try again. Just as with Prince Harry, the removal of AC2 Shaw from Waziristan was a political act. If his cover had not been blown by the press, he would have stayed.

As with Prince Harry who, but for the press, would have stayed and perhaps been injured or died. "He" was not treated any differently by the army. It was his position that was protected, not the man.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 64): That doesn't mean I can't criticise the lunacy of the system, and its specific royal quirks. No mention of individual royal character here.

You personalize it to the House of Windsor. Yet it would be no different if it were the House of Orange or the House of Stuart or the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 64): Exactly, and on that basis a republic is clearly a superior form of government.

I disagree. I do not want an elected head of state. I do not believe it to be a better system.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 64): Governors-General simply have to take their best guess, as we saw in 1975.

No, sir. The Australian Constitution gives the GG specific powers - the reserve powers. There was no successful legal challenge to what Kerr did. There could not be a successful legal challenge.

But do not, for one moment, think I agree with or approve of what Kerr did.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 64): I don't doubt your nationality, but after all the facts if you (and Mariner) so fervently believe that a foreigner should be Australia's head of state over any Australian, and that Australians do not have the ability or intelligence to create an accountable and stable democratic republic, then yes - your commitment to your civic duty must be called into question. I don't shy away from doing that.

Since you mention me, and since this thread needs serious lightening up, I'll just say balderdash, poppycock and codswallop.

I do not want the form of government that you offer, but because I reject your solution does not mean I am not open to change. I thought I had indicated that.

However, since you wouldn't buy my solution, I don't bother. It would require some sense of humour.

mariner

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 64): It's an office that has incredible constitutional power, and zero accountability. It's a recipe for disaster, mark my words. And don't just say that because it hasn't happened (which is has) that it won't ever happen. We need to think about our system's long-term viability across centuries, not just the single full century our constitution has been in effect.

If you're referring to the Governor-General's power to dissolve parliament, then yes, it has happened - once, in the Constitution's 110 year history, and even then, it was under extraordinary circumstances. What would you rather have happened? Laws were not being enacted because the government controlled the House of Representatives, but the opposition blocked the Bill in the Senate. This is exactly the situation provided for in Section 57 of the Constitution in order to resolve the 'stalemate' in parliament. Yes, it has happened, but it needed to happen, and what the Governor-General did, he did only after seeking legal advice from the Attorney-General.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 64): Agreed. Worrisome, isn't it?

No, it isn't. While the Constitution provides for Royal Assent at the discretion of the Governor-General, it is a mere formality these days. To the best of my knowledge, Royal Assent has not been withheld for any Act except for the Australia Act 1986, which the Governor-General reserved for Her Majesty, who granted assent anyway.

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 64): Because the figure in our constitution who has the ability to call elections, dismiss governments, be the commander in chief of the armed forces, and approve laws is not elected.

The person who has the power to approve laws only does so when the law has passed both Houses of Parliament. It is the Parliament that create laws, not the Governor-General, and not the Queen. The running of this country is left to the elected members of Parliament. Whatever power the Governor-General has is constrained by the Constitution, and acted upon only under the advice of the Prime Minister. Do you really think that the Governor-General will act on a whim because he/she feels like it?

Quoting QANTASFOREVER2 (Reply 64): You've changed your tune. I thought you were saying Australia's Head of State was the Governor-General just a little while ago? The GG is the Queen's representative, but sending a representative just don't cut it.

That is precisely my point. For all intents and purposes, the Governor-General acts as the head of state in the absence of Her Majesty. It is the Governor-General that stands in and performs the duties of head of state while Her Majesty is absent. Her Majesty didn't send the Governor-General as such, but the Governor-General went as part of head of state duties (or "stand-in" head of state, if you like). She acts as head of state when the Queen is absent.

How many times has a Deputy Prime Minister stood in for the Prime Minister? If sending a representative 'doesn't cut it' then having the Deputy Prime Minister standing in for the Prime Minister amounts to the same thing. Or, heaven forbid, if Australia does become a republic, having a Vice President stand in for the President ...

[Edited 2011-01-19 20:52:56]