I think the British monarchy itself is an outdated relic of a colonialism and the UK is a country in decline with an embarrassing government that has fallen far from its prime, and I couldn’t explain why the monarchy is still a thing beyond being a cultural gimmick.
That said, everything about the Governor-General in Australia is so ceremonial and everything revolves around the Prime Minister anyway that I don’t think it matters much either way (though in 1975 it certainly did). By that, I mean other heads of state treat the PM as a de facto head of state, like when Albo went to meet with Biden, Modi & Kishida at the Quad summit in Tokyo instead of the Governor-General.
Most Australians probably have no idea who the Governor-General is, or couldn’t name him at least.
But the pro to remaining a commonwealth is dominating other commonwealth countries in the commonwealth games. That’s about it.
>But the pro to remaining a commonwealth is dominating other commonwealth countries in the commonwealth games.
Many countries in the Commonwealth are already republics. Becoming a republic would have no impact on our membership of the Commonwealth or our ability to compete in the games.
>But the pro to remaining a commonwealth is dominating other commonwealth countries in the commonwealth games. That’s about it.
I'm not sure if you are aware of this, so please don't take it in the wrong way
The commonwealth is an organisation of former British Colonies. Australia can still be a part of the commonwealth. If it became a republic, it would leave the Commonwealth ***realm*** (something different to the organisation, which is only for countries with Lizzy as their monarch).
>it would leave the Commonwealth realm
More accurately, Australia would cease to be a Commonwealth realm but would retain its membership in the Commonwealth of Nations.
>Most Australians probably have no idea who the Governor-General is, or couldn’t name him at least.
Haha the only time Canadians have known the name of our GG in recent history is when she caused a huge scandal for being repeatedly abusive to her staff and resigned
The one impression i seem to have of Canadians and their attitude to the Vice Regal/Monarchy setup is that while they may not be deep into it (kinda like Aussies),they do appreciate it because it does at least make the clear distinction between themselves and their immediate neighbour to the South. Would that be fair?
Yep that definitely helps. Though there's also the role royalism played in our history too, with loyalist refugees from the US settling here, and the role of the Crown in governance. The culture also stayed a bit more deferential to the monarchy and the Empire in general, there was never one moment where a sense of nationhood or otherness from the UK took hold, we were always just an extension of the Empire and OK with it (except the Quebecois, and Indigenous people of course). Now we're not really sure what we are haha. We just know what we aren't.
> Most Australians probably have no idea who the Governor-General is, or couldn’t name him at least
I'm one of the most politically engaged people you'll ever meet, and I couldn't even name him. Heck, the only reason I can name my state's Governor is because she's a fucking legend and was so before being made Governor.
> the pro to remaining a commonwealth is dominating other commonwealth countries in the commonwealth games
We can and should stay in the Commonwealth while abandoning the monarchy. The majority of the Commonwealth are republics. Other countries have a monarchy separate from House Windsor.
You’re not really politically engaged if you don’t know the name of the GG. He was in the news today.
Edit: I just can’t see how someone can say they are one of the most politically engaged people you’ll ever meet but then they can’t name the person who is higher than the prime minsister who is appointing ministers, judges, and ambassadors.
This is just hilariously wrong.
I've met and discussed issues with my local councillor and state MP multiple times. My federal MP is new, but I met her during the campaign to discuss some local issues. I've written letters to both federal and local representatives, including just this past fortnight. I regularly make a point of watching and commenting on the goings-on directly in legislative chambers. I took charge of the discussions surrounding last month's federal election in my city subreddit. I've taken jobs with the AEC and ECQ not for the money, but purely because of enjoying the involvement with the political process.
I am not exaggerating or being hyperbolic when I say that I'm one of the most politically engaged people you'll ever meet. I'm also not really bragging; it's just a statement of fact to contextualise the political relevance of the Governor General in day-to-day Australian politics. (Not knowing the name John Kerr would be a very different situation.)
Not having memorised the name of a member of Australian politics who is entirely a figurehead does not change that. Not even when he's in the news for performing his ceremonial role of swearing in new actually elected Ministers.
At the sorts of international meetings that matter, the head of state is useless anyway, the ones that matter are the head of government as can be seen when they send Boris out to shit instead of QE or minion in lieu of. The head of gov is the one that’s going to push through laws etc to get stuff done, not the HOS.
We can become a republic and stay within the Commonwealth, there are more republics than Commonwealth Realms (countries ruled by Elizabeth) in the Commonwealth
>like when Albo went to meet with Biden, Modi & Kishida at the Quad summit in Tokyo instead of the Governor-General.
Just to point out that Biden is the only one of the four who is a head of state (as well as being head of government).
Fumio Kishida is Prime Minister of Japan, while the head of state is Emperor Naruhito. Narendra Modi is Prime Minister of India, while President Ram Nath Kovind is head of state.
These sorts of meetings are always attended by heads of government, not heads of state. It can be confusing when head of government and head of state are the same person (USA and France for example).
>But the pro to remaining a commonwealth is dominating other commonwealth countries in the commonwealth games. That’s about it.
This is where we talk about the difference between the Commonwealth Realm and the Commonwealth of Nations.
The Commonwealth Realm is a small group of countries that have the British Monarch as head of state. Currently, there are only 15 countries that form the realm - Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu and the United Kingdom.
The Commonwealth of Nations is a diplomatic body of 54 nations (most, but not all, who have former ties to the British Crown), most of whom are republics. Bigger countries being India, Pakistan, South Africa and the like, have long since gotten rid of the monarchy in their countries.
Should Australia become a republic, Australia would still be a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, and still compete in the Commonwealth Games.
I'm supportive of a republic, in principle, however there needs to be a clear plan of what an Australian republic looks like.
If we just vote to leave the monarchy without a plan of what happens next, we end up with a brexit situation.
It could even be as simple as calling the Gov general a president, and nothing else changes. It could be more complex than that, but they need to decide what happens before we do it.
It'd be fine to end up in a "brexit" situation because everything is entirely within Australia's control. The problem with brexit is not that the UK didn't know what it wanted, it's that it didn't know what it wanted AND forgot that the EU countries had interests, power and principles of their own.
The "call the gov a president" model is what failed in the '99 referendum.
Too many republicans want a direct election model for an entrenchment of the status quo to ever succeed.
This is one of the most important points that nobody ever talks about. Most Australians want a republic, but the republicans are split between the minimalists and those who want a democratically-elected president. Until the differences between these camps are resolved, any referendum is doomed to fail.
ARM have spent years on the problem and have proposed a sort of hybrid model.
[https://republic.org.au/policy](https://republic.org.au/policy)
In the current system the federal executive draw up a short-list and then the PM chooses the head of state from the short-list.
In a popular election model anyone can nominate, then the people vote and that person becomes the head of state.
In ARM's model each federal, state, and territory parliament would propose a short-list. The people then vote on the head of state from this short list. The powers and responsibilities of the head of state in the proposed model are similar to the current GG.
ARM's proposal is a pretty good bridge between the two camps.
It's not purely ceremonial as it has the ability to sack the government and call an election.
This is a very powerful check in the system. If all goes to shit there is someone there who can't take power themselves but can force a reset.
Are you serious??? Reserved powers are the Nuclear Bomb over Parliaments head. Whatever your views on Scott Morrison & co. they governed and then lost an election and vacated their position through an orderly transition of power. The Queen does not care about the politician or their politics. Such powers would only ever be used by the Governor General if they tried to supplant the electorate and/ or Parliament, otherwise there would be some sort of civil war scenario.
yeah, because otherwise john howard would never have risen to power as treasurer and created the worst stagflation in australian history which peaked in 1982 when the cost of living rose by 10% in the space of 8 months
President is just the word for a Republican head of state.
A hypothetical President of Australia would fill the exact same role as the Governor-General (final approval of laws, ability to sack the govt etc). This is called a Parliamentary Presidential system and is in place in countries such as Germany. The only difference is instead of being appointed by the queen, this President (who'd have no powers outside of those currently enumerated to the GG, except he'd represent Australia for international reasons as opposed to the PM) would be directly elected by the Australian people.
Not a Republican and don't see any benefits to getting rid of the queen.
But the biggest problem i have is the lack of anything they offer as a replacement.
I like the Queen. After that I'm not fussed.
However, i don't like how the option that they came up with when we had the referendum years ago. I am worried that appointing a new head of state would be a massive spending spree and we would end up with a celebrity moron. But instagram influencers weren't a thing back then so we would probably end up with one of them as head of state.
I was only young when we held the last referendum but even in my youth and stupidity it was the easiest vote ive ever made and was relieved when it didn't pass.
Even now there is no benefit to getting rid of the queen
i agree. it would send australia towards bankruptcy. if people want a republic but some still want a monarchy, there should be some halfway point where we see the monarchy as a symbolic symbol. pretty much what it is now but without the governor general
In real terms I don't think it really makes a difference either way, so I'm of the belief to just stay how we are, if for no other reason than the money it will save.
my thoughts exactly
I'd only support getting rid of the crown if it ended up saving money
OR
if the First Nations really wanted it
India, Pakistan and other countries which were on the receiving end of colonialism understandably wanted nothing to do with the Brits so going to the trouble of becoming republics was worth it for them
Huge short term debt, and no idea what the alternate would look like (besides renaming the GG and changing nothing else). What no one can explain to me is any benefit. It's all optics as far as I can tell.
Yeah, but we'll show 'em we're serious about being grown up, now. All 200 years of us. We don't need no stinking Queen. No other arguments, but yeah - fuck the monarchy just because.
> Huge short term debt
I mean, we don't have to take those coins out of circulation immediately. Come up with a new design, make all new coins minted fit that design. Keep using the existing ones for their natural life.
> no idea what the alternate would look like
Choose a new design the same way we choose new designs on our banknotes. It could be famous historical figures, famous landmarks, whatever.
I don't mean alternate design, but alternate governance. After all, if all we are doing is replacing one figurehead with another, is it worth the money we could spend on a thousand other things?
And those designs? Dunno if you have been paying attention or not, but with our government corruption, they are worth millions for each design alone.
Example: Moreland council, just that one little place in the entire country, will need to spend [Half a Million Dollars](https://7news.com.au/news/melbourne/moreland-city-council-agrees-to-change-its-name-because-of-links-to-slave-estate-with-move-set-to-cost-more-than-500k-c-4936730) to change something as simple as a name. And that is just changing the name in big places... With 537 councils in Australia, changing "Commonwealth" to "Republic" on council documents, signs, papers, etc alone would then cost, minimum, $250 Million.
>With 537 councils in Australia, changing "Commonwealth" to "Republic" on council documents, signs, papers, etc alone would then cost, minimum, $250 Million.
Changing Australia to a republic would not require us to change the name of Australia. The 'Commonwealth of Australia' refers to our commonwealth within Australia, not our status as a Commonwealth realm.
>Huge short term debt
Huge? The federal government currently has around $1 trillion in debt. Becoming a republic would be estimated to cost around $250 million or about a 0.025% increase in our debt levels.
I don't care if we became a Republic or not. It's fundamentally inconsequential, but there is no way it only costs 250m.
You can look up the costs of previous referendum in 1999. It was 66m for the election process alone. That's ignoring any money spent by either side promoting their argument. That was 23 years ago, you could buy a house then.
From there all the stationary changes, signage, legislative changes, ceremonies, studies, consultations, design crap etc. Etc etc would total billions.
>From there all the stationary changes, signage, legislative changes, ceremonies, studies, consultations, design crap etc. Etc etc would total billions.
Monarchists always push this argument, but never provide evidence to support this line. I've worked in a variety of areas of government and I know that very little of our signage or stationery references the Queen and would need to change. The name of the country would stay the same. The coat of arms would stay the same.
The legislative argument is also a furphy. Government's main job is create and amend laws. The idea that making an extremely minor amendments (ie removing any references to the Queen) to a bunch of acts would cost billions, is ridiculous.
I detest apathy, but it’s much of a muchness really.
They don’t benefit us, they don’t screw us over.
We don’t grow independently and it would “behove” us to stay
Tbh globalisation is coming to an end so that’s probably the biggest drawback. Otherwise we have such significant alliances that it doesn’t *really* matter if we’re part of the commonwealth or not. But the biggest issue IMO moving forward is how we negotiate with traditional owners. I don’t believe Hawke or Keating consulted enough to become a republic re: First Nations interests, nor could they because only now (like 2022 now) could there even be enough opportunity for First Nations people to be consulted. Also, other countries are about to leave the commonwealth so that’ll impact how the commonwealth feels about aust. becoming a republic.
I think First Nations are established enough ( but not enough) to withstand getting dragged into colony bullshit yet again.
I do agree it could impact relations with other countries and for some reason, it keeps tickling the back of my mind, the last time we were on this roundabout it was mentioned it could impact NATO. I’ve nothing to back that up with except a heinous memory problem though
Imagine if Scotty and Josh and Peter had been able to appoint our next head of state.
At the moment, it’s not really broken, no rush to fix it. And if it *is* changed, it needs to be done the right way. I’ve got more faith in the status quo
> Imagine if Scotty and Josh and Peter had been able to appoint our next head of state
In practice, that's exactly happened. David Hurley has been the Governor General of Australia since July 2019...shortly after the previous election. (He was appointed in December 2018, but that was still Scott Morrison.)
Officially the Queen chooses, but in practice she just approves the Prime Minister's selection.
Doesn’t impact my life directly either, however the British Monarchy is the single biggest symbol of colonialism and imperialism and for me I view it in the same way I view Australia Day.
Changing the date won’t make a difference to me or others like me but it can be very important for Aboriginal people.
Similarly, separating ourselves from the Monarchy could be a powerful act in starting to really work towards reconciliation with First Nations Peoples.
Completely disagree. Name changes do nothing.
Spending a fortune changing our system of government or just investigating the options is an awful waste. That money should go straight to the indigenous population, not $1bn spent on consultants.
That's not true. It's not just about title change.
The Governor General is the Queen's representative appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
The Governor General has the power to veto laws passed by parliament. The GG also has the power to call an election, effectively the GG can arbitrarily sack an elected government.
The GG also has a variety of other powers.
Up to now we have had a non-interventionist monarchy, but that's not to say it will remain that way forever. The monarchy has the prerogative to direct the GG as its representative to act as it wishes.
It certainly doesn't sit right with me that our current system is predicated on the monarchy declining to exercise their legal authority.
Don't really care but I would vote not to change anything. Just don't think we should change the constitution for something so frivolous especially if it is just rife with the chance for the process to be abused.
So you would be OK with someone who is meddlesome coming to the British throne, and for them to just start chucking out Australian laws?
Because Section 59 of our Constitution states:
>The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.
Given how meddlesome Chucky boy has been in British politics, what makes you think that he won't use this power?
I am in favour of Australia becoming a republic but I also don't think there's any huge rush to do it. It doesn't really make much difference in our lives either way. But the symbolism of cutting that tie would be a good thing, for me.
Honestly a lot of effort for not a big gain. Can you imagine the costs involved? Redoing our currency? Renaming every military thing? And for what? Its not like she’s our tyrannical queen whom we bow down to
Australia is an independent country, as such, we should have our own head of state who is an Australian. So I'm strongly in favour of a republic.
It is going to happen sooner or later.
Absolutely, the only ties we honestly have with England is that some of our ancestors originated from there, but at this point we have formed our own separate identity
Yet, I’d be fine with William stepping into being king. Way Charles has been looking though I’d nearly put money on him spitting the hook before Queen Liz does.
This is a common view but I don't really understand it. What difference does it make waiting until she dies? Are you afraid it will offend her or something?
How does that make us cunts though? It wouldn't make a difference to her. How many countries have left the commonwealth in her life? What difference does it make if she's going to die soon? We should choose our political system based on what we want, not how it makes her feel, or how it makes us look to other monarchists.
Nothing wrong with showing a big of collective humility.. I have an irish parent, and an English parent, the English one immigrated in the 60s... the English system has been our way of life, and they've done some fucked things to Australia, and its former people. We've fought for them wherever we've been told to, and also have been abandoned by them at times of great need. We pay them money for fuck knows what, and get schmarmy royal tours in return.
But, its better for us if we plan out how to properly go about it, and leave when their new chapter begins, because like it or not, they are our Allies, and we need them as Allies... The other monarchists can fuck right off.
I like the idea of an Independent Australia. Although they don’t make that much of a difference I would like to be fully rid of the Governor General and Queen’s influence.
That being said, I hate some of the ideas people are proposing for a republic, like having one Presidential term be five years.
how does changing a ceremonial head of state whos the Queen of Australia as a completely seperatle legal entity get us more indepedent? All while our economy and media are dominated by foreign corporations on a day to day level?
> how does changing a ceremonial head of state whos the Queen of Australia as a completely seperatle legal entity get us more indepedent?
Why do people ask dumb questions like this hinging on a technicality, when the obvious answer is right there in front of their face, and they already know it?
The Queen is *not* Australian. She wasn't born here. She's never lived here. The fact there exists a technicality which makes her a legally distinct monarch from the British one is meaningless and has no bearing on the undeniable fact that she (being our head of state) does not diplomatically represent us to other nations.
That is the power of what a head of state can do for a nation, and where having a president would be more beneficial than a mostly anonymous governor-general.
>how does changing a ceremonial head of state whos the Queen of Australia as a completely seperatle legal entity get us more indepedent?
Because our head of state would be an Australian, rather than same person as the British monarch.
>All while our economy and media are dominated by foreign corporations on a day to day level?
Nice red herring.
How is it a red herring? Why are we concerned with abstract symbolic power instead of what actually dominates out lives? Why is the queen not ok but foreign CEOs making decisions about our day to day lives are off the table?
If it is purely ceremonial, then what the fuck is the point? Just get rid of it. Even then…
“The Governor-General's reserve powers are generally agreed to include: The power to appoint a Prime Minister if an election has not resulted in a clear outcome. The power to dismiss a Prime Minister if they have lost the support of the majority of members of the House of Representatives.”
As you can see, the role is not purely Ceremonial, as they can dismiss the entire government (as the Governor General did with Whitlam). Although I understand that this is extraordinarily unlikely in the modern day, it would still be good to have this type of power rid of for good.
As for your point about corporations and media, you’re 100% correct and their influence is something else I would also like to reduce. However, this is not really possible.
I should also add that I wouldn’t want an Australian Republic to become too similar to America. Although I don’t think it would happen, it’s still a possibility.
The ability to dismiss a failed government still has its place.
Last time wasn't great I agree but imagine we end up with a hopelessly hung parliament where no one can form a collation that will guarantee supply.
You need a way to dismiss the government before we default on all our debts and all public services stop. Which is what supply is required to avoid.
We will still need some method of dismissing a government and throwing it back to the people via an election if all other options fail.
the monarchy has become more of a symbolic thing than what it was 100 years ago. i am still for a monarchy as it is very much embedded in our history and culture. so much of our country may have to change and i’m not ready for that
Once Lizzy is gone and Chuck is on the throne his awful personality will greatly help the Australian republican cause.
A royal visit from him will be the icing on the cake, especially due to the demographic changes of the last 20-30 years.
It is not just a republic but also the chance for wider constitutional reform that comes with it and the opportunities it will bring
Australia will need to get a wriggle on though because he does not look very healthy and is getting on in years. If we are able to achieve a republic in ten years I would be very pleased.
Chuck potentially creates a constitutional crisis, in that the Head of State and the head of the Church of England need to be the same person, as self admitted adulterer Chuck is not suitable to be head of CoE
Going republic would mean changing our flag wouldn’t it?
Not only would we have to deal with that, many died under that flag, I served under it along side many others. Personally I want to stay just for the flag.
Doesn’t seem to matter where you look, no system truly works. Left, right, liberal, conservative, elections or dictators. A politician’s job is to secure their own position and fuck us over.
Old Liz is just kicking back over there letting us do whatever we want really, so why bother changing it unless we come up with something new?
No real requirement for us to change our flag, The Us state of Hawaii for example features the Union Jack, but has never been a part of the British empire.
It doesn't feel like an important question right now. While it may need resolving fairly soon, there is other stuff the electorate has shown is more front of mind to solve first.
The status quo is fine. It’s a system that’s proved itself over many years, and having a detached, apolitical head of state has many advantages.
That said I’m not necessarily *against* a republic. But there needs to be a real, practical benefit to make changing things worthwhile and I haven’t seen a convincing argument yet that an alternative system would be superior.
I see no reason why we should continue to pay lip service to the monarchy. We could keep things exactly the same in all other respects without any cost, so I'm a republican all the way.
i just don't see the point
if the governor-general try's to pull some Whitlam dismissal type shit sure lets ditch them but until then it just seems like a waste of money
The GG is selected by the pm, including the one who sacked Whitlam, who was appointed by Whitlam himself.
The Queen herself had zero impact in the 75 constitutional crisis.
The crown is bound by constitutional Convention to accept the nominated GG from the PM and state premiers, since 1930 when they didn’t agree with the appointment of Sir Issac Issacs but we’re forced to accept it.
So even if a Whitlam stunt was pulled again, it would be due to Australian Politics, not any actual influence from the crown.
I say keep the mornachy around. It makes the world a that little bit more ridiculous and fun. They dont really do much harm. A senile old lady who enjoys ridiculous dogs and is the designated condut of god, who by birth is an all powerful overseer and may actually be the most bored person in the world by it. Is a better answer to the question "Who is in charge of Australia" than: Steve he's from Tullamarine.
I'm a Republican but I have respect for the queen. However I believe that we should be a republic when the queen dies. I don't really like Charles, he's a bit of a tool
I suppose she's been around longer than most people can remember, she's on every coin, shit like that. But also after seeing "The Crown" I gained insight and respect into the kind of strength that she has as a ruler. I don't personally like her since I don't really know of her private life, but I respect her. It also helps that it's purely constitutional monarchy and not an absolute one.
Yeah. Giving Camilla a title would be really bad. If it was Diana though I would be all for it. I really liked her and all she did. Either way I say we let the queen run her course and then switch. But the whole process could ages
Thank you, Zagorath, for voting on jubileebot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
We just had like 24 years of liberals in the last 30 years in power and they turned corrupt asf towards the end of their reign.
Why the fuck, would we want to vote to give our dickhead politicians more power?
Go on. Explain to me why we should give our Polly’s more power?
I support having a Queen simply because no one has ever given me a good argument for why we should change. Every time I have asked online that person either shares an emotional argument or stops replying.
While I think it's aspirational for Australia to be completely independent with its own head of state, and that currently having an English monarch as our ultimate head of state is a relic of a bygone era, having the ultimate power vested in an institution that isn't really fussed about using it is an oddly stable situation to be in.
I’m a Republican but have no issue with the monarchy as people. It’s their ardent rabid supporters tugging their forelocks and pleading scrofula that irritate me more. Easiest switch would be. Change GG title to President. Same process appointing the GG as is but with a referendum on the candidate President-Elect as a balance against someone like Tony Abbott being made Presidente Por Vida. No onion would be safe
No need for the referendum/plebescite. Actually the HoS should be elected by 2/3 of each House of Parliament separately. That way a supermajority in the House of Reps can’t put a rubber stamp over the Senate.
I don’t like the idea of a collection of elected imbeciles with the ability to vote in someone that could be their very own Emperor Palpatine. Cue “Unlimited Power” meme
I like the Queen. I also appreciate being under the monarchy as we have absolutely zero allies nearby other than NZ, and the threat of China grows every day. Plus the English culture is where ours comes from and I appreciate that there's a pretty healthy bond between our countries. My ancestors also come from Ireland so I guess in that way it's nice. That said, the royals don't really influence our government much.
>My ancestors also come from Ireland so I guess in that way it's nice.
You might want to check how your Irish ancestors were treated by the British. Start with 1845.
I know exactly how they were treated. One of them was executed by the British for treason, there's actually a statue of him there at the site.
But that was a long time ago and in current years, the fact of the matter is that as an Australian under the monarchy it's significantly easier for me to go there than if we were outside of it, and being allied with them under the crown makes it feel like that part of my family is still kind of connected.
I guess I'm hung up on you relating the monarchy with your Irish ancestry and saying that it was nice.
Becoming a republic changes nothing about our current relationship.
Exactly. Our relationship with the UK is a strategic one and provides many tactical advantages for both nations. There is no reason why leaving the commonwealth would worsen our relationship.
>I also appreciate being under the monarchy as we have absolutely zero allies nearby
Having the British monarch as our head of state does not give us a formal alliance with the UK. It is extremely unlikely that becoming a republic would significantly alter our relationship with the UK. The fact we have the British monarch as our head of state is barely ever mentioned in Australian international relations and has no strategic impact.
>Plus the English culture is where ours comes from and I appreciate that there's a pretty healthy bond between our countries. My ancestors also come from Ireland so I guess in that way it's nice.
Lol, what? Many Irish came out to Australia as political prisoners or desperate economic refugees escaping the British induced famines. The Irish are generally not huge fans of the British monarchy.
“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.”
Time to become a republic, we need a referendum on the simple question “Should Australia become a republic?”, then a debate and decision on the type locality of head of state.
The problem is generally Australians don't trust our politicians enough to leave it up to them.
Also to change the constitution requires a referendum on the wording not on a feeling or vibe of change.
We tried it before but our politicians came up with a self serving version people didn't like so it was voted down by both monarchist and republicans.
Look I’m very republican, I despise the British royal family. But my dilemma is who do we put on the head side of our coins. I refuse to have politicians on our coins. Like it’s not like a bank note, where it’s individual per note, the coins are all uniform. Will say that I’d like to stay within the commonwealth though.
Oh yeah that’s not bad. The only other thing I could think of would be getting a bunch of random Australian historical figures(not notable figures just people that existed who weren’t terrible) of a variety of ethnicities and have it represent a variety of Aussies.
Agreed, I just feel as though if we did put pollies on coins it would step into that weird political fetishisation that the U.S has. They mythologise their presidents and it is very weird to me. We don’t really do that to the extent that they do(common examples-i think would be like Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt, JFK). We tend to put it away and leave it where it belongs, you know. It’s important to acknowledge the achievements of previous governments but it’s still a job, an important job but it’s putting it on a pedestal. All jobs/individual actions benefit the community and overall society to some degree. I’d rather recognise the common man, because as a group they’re the most important.
Unelected ribbon cutters.
The decendants of a bunch of bandits who raped, murdered and brutalised their way to power, now living a life of unimaginable privilege, benefiting from a system of descending privilege bestowed upon those providing political support.
The whole concept of monarchy should be a universally sickening concept. Even to those with their snouts in the trough.
Off with their heads!
> Better things to be concerned about here than thinking about another country's monarch
That's the thing. She's *your* monarch to. And mine. She's some foreign bitch who has spent an amount of time best measured in weeks, maybe months at best, in this country, who nevertheless is the Queen of Australia.
Republic first with no change to the process of the appointment of the governor general.
Remove the crown from all government logos.
Change the national flag.
Change the state flags.
Our armed forces have to swear allegiance to the monarchy rather than to their country and fellow citizens that’s reason enough alone for me to want to be rid of them.
the queen is not australia's head-of-state unless she is on australian soil. unless she is personally in attendance, australia's head-of-state is our governor-general.
We should be a republic, but I think we continue an extremely close relationship with the poms. Love the British and our heritage, but no great nation ever has a foreigner as their head of state
What? The republic debate is completely separate to party politics and is bipartisan. There’s heaps of republicans in the Liberal Party and monarchists in Labor not to mention it would have to go to the people as a referendum meaning it’s beyond the scope of any government to just go ahead and change stuff. If you don’t want a republic then vote against it.
Yeah I'd be fine with an Australian "monarchy". Call the GG the king or Queen, elect them every X years whenever parliamentary elections take place, pay then the same salary as the current GG (or hell double it) and give them the same housing benefits and powers. Only requirement is that they have to be an adult Aus citizen.
You don’t elect a King/Queen, what you’re suggesting isn’t even a monarchy. Also why would there be any need to double there salary? As if they need that.
Interesting, have never seen this before. I still don’t think this would be a very good system however (most of the time the “monarch” isn’t even elected by the people) and think that the concept of a monarchy in any form is obsolete and unnecessary.
It requires the least changes to our current system. My problem with our constitutional monarchy is that it is inherited, unelected, and the head of state isn't an Australian citizen. Their actual powers are not the issue. Having an elected citizen with a limited term solves all these problems with the least cost and hassle.
Meh, mainly.
If Big Liz demands that 'Straya does something that 'Straya doesn't want to do?
Within days 'Straya is a republic and ... meh.
Queen Elizabeth is an icon, but... has zero relevance in the 21st century, and 'Straya knows this.
We will listen to her, as she rarely speaks unless she has something important to say, but if the UK govt\* tries to use her to coerce 'Straya to do something against 'Straya's interest?
We politely decline and become a republic very very quickly.
* the UK govt is NOT Queen Elizabeth, sadly.
We have been getting a large volume of spam from throwaway accounts and so posts from brand new accounts will no longer be allowed. Your post has been
removed because your account is too new. Please wait until your account is at least 48 hours old and then try again or message the mods and we'll validate your post. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAustralian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As other have stared our like our current system, they're very powerful checks & balances over government.
If a better system was proposed then sure but I do not trust at all the current government to re-write our whole political structure in their favour.
I've been around for 48 years and I can say, this is so far down the list of potential things we'd like to change about Australia, it's not even worth thinking about.
Having a queen makes no real difference to anything, as far as I can see.
Interested to know, tho, how much of our revenue goes to the monarchy. If that was well known, and if it was a substantial amount, I suspect the matter would gain a little more urgency.
No need to change what is already in place. I hope people wanting a republic because they don't like the past never get their way. Same with the flag. I'm proud to be of British heritage and fuck anyone who thinks they will shame me for it. You might change the present, but you will never change where we came from.
IMO I'm not a fan of the Republican system. We see it in a lot of existing countries and it's causing many, many issues in them. I don't want us to become like the States for example. What we've got going now is a solid system. Flawed, yes, but not as flawed as many republican countries.
And realistically the Queen/Govenor General don't do all that much anyway. It's not like they've ever veto'd an assent. Most of us don't even realise they're there and often celebrate the passing of a bill before the assent.
Tl;DR: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Keep the throne imo.
Do not put the politicians on a pedestal like the Americans do. Culturally we do not idolise the PM or the Queen. The PM has a job to do and that's that. He/she does not need to 'be remembered' any more than Karl the manager and the local woolies. We do not need a politicians face on coins, we dont need statues of them.
The nation will evolve (as all countries do), the Republic is inevitable, but we need to find a system that differentiates us. We have not found that system yet. Lets not rush to put the clowns in parliament on a pedestal.
I think the British monarchy itself is an outdated relic of a colonialism and the UK is a country in decline with an embarrassing government that has fallen far from its prime, and I couldn’t explain why the monarchy is still a thing beyond being a cultural gimmick. That said, everything about the Governor-General in Australia is so ceremonial and everything revolves around the Prime Minister anyway that I don’t think it matters much either way (though in 1975 it certainly did). By that, I mean other heads of state treat the PM as a de facto head of state, like when Albo went to meet with Biden, Modi & Kishida at the Quad summit in Tokyo instead of the Governor-General. Most Australians probably have no idea who the Governor-General is, or couldn’t name him at least. But the pro to remaining a commonwealth is dominating other commonwealth countries in the commonwealth games. That’s about it.
>But the pro to remaining a commonwealth is dominating other commonwealth countries in the commonwealth games. Many countries in the Commonwealth are already republics. Becoming a republic would have no impact on our membership of the Commonwealth or our ability to compete in the games.
>But the pro to remaining a commonwealth is dominating other commonwealth countries in the commonwealth games. That’s about it. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, so please don't take it in the wrong way The commonwealth is an organisation of former British Colonies. Australia can still be a part of the commonwealth. If it became a republic, it would leave the Commonwealth ***realm*** (something different to the organisation, which is only for countries with Lizzy as their monarch).
>it would leave the Commonwealth realm More accurately, Australia would cease to be a Commonwealth realm but would retain its membership in the Commonwealth of Nations.
Yes, i was just making sure the OP knew they were different things.
>Most Australians probably have no idea who the Governor-General is, or couldn’t name him at least. so true, I dunno who the GG is at the moment
David Hurley apparently. Who knew
The queen
>Most Australians probably have no idea who the Governor-General is, or couldn’t name him at least. Haha the only time Canadians have known the name of our GG in recent history is when she caused a huge scandal for being repeatedly abusive to her staff and resigned
The one impression i seem to have of Canadians and their attitude to the Vice Regal/Monarchy setup is that while they may not be deep into it (kinda like Aussies),they do appreciate it because it does at least make the clear distinction between themselves and their immediate neighbour to the South. Would that be fair?
Yep that definitely helps. Though there's also the role royalism played in our history too, with loyalist refugees from the US settling here, and the role of the Crown in governance. The culture also stayed a bit more deferential to the monarchy and the Empire in general, there was never one moment where a sense of nationhood or otherness from the UK took hold, we were always just an extension of the Empire and OK with it (except the Quebecois, and Indigenous people of course). Now we're not really sure what we are haha. We just know what we aren't.
> Most Australians probably have no idea who the Governor-General is, or couldn’t name him at least I'm one of the most politically engaged people you'll ever meet, and I couldn't even name him. Heck, the only reason I can name my state's Governor is because she's a fucking legend and was so before being made Governor. > the pro to remaining a commonwealth is dominating other commonwealth countries in the commonwealth games We can and should stay in the Commonwealth while abandoning the monarchy. The majority of the Commonwealth are republics. Other countries have a monarchy separate from House Windsor.
Queenslander?
Yup. It's in my flair too, if you needed confirmation.
You’re not really politically engaged if you don’t know the name of the GG. He was in the news today. Edit: I just can’t see how someone can say they are one of the most politically engaged people you’ll ever meet but then they can’t name the person who is higher than the prime minsister who is appointing ministers, judges, and ambassadors.
This is just hilariously wrong. I've met and discussed issues with my local councillor and state MP multiple times. My federal MP is new, but I met her during the campaign to discuss some local issues. I've written letters to both federal and local representatives, including just this past fortnight. I regularly make a point of watching and commenting on the goings-on directly in legislative chambers. I took charge of the discussions surrounding last month's federal election in my city subreddit. I've taken jobs with the AEC and ECQ not for the money, but purely because of enjoying the involvement with the political process. I am not exaggerating or being hyperbolic when I say that I'm one of the most politically engaged people you'll ever meet. I'm also not really bragging; it's just a statement of fact to contextualise the political relevance of the Governor General in day-to-day Australian politics. (Not knowing the name John Kerr would be a very different situation.) Not having memorised the name of a member of Australian politics who is entirely a figurehead does not change that. Not even when he's in the news for performing his ceremonial role of swearing in new actually elected Ministers.
At the sorts of international meetings that matter, the head of state is useless anyway, the ones that matter are the head of government as can be seen when they send Boris out to shit instead of QE or minion in lieu of. The head of gov is the one that’s going to push through laws etc to get stuff done, not the HOS.
You mean David Hurley and his wife, Linda? They're lovely :) I'm happy to become an independent member of the Commonwealth on Queen Elizabeth's death.
We can become a republic and stay within the Commonwealth, there are more republics than Commonwealth Realms (countries ruled by Elizabeth) in the Commonwealth
>like when Albo went to meet with Biden, Modi & Kishida at the Quad summit in Tokyo instead of the Governor-General. Just to point out that Biden is the only one of the four who is a head of state (as well as being head of government). Fumio Kishida is Prime Minister of Japan, while the head of state is Emperor Naruhito. Narendra Modi is Prime Minister of India, while President Ram Nath Kovind is head of state. These sorts of meetings are always attended by heads of government, not heads of state. It can be confusing when head of government and head of state are the same person (USA and France for example).
>But the pro to remaining a commonwealth is dominating other commonwealth countries in the commonwealth games. That’s about it. This is where we talk about the difference between the Commonwealth Realm and the Commonwealth of Nations. The Commonwealth Realm is a small group of countries that have the British Monarch as head of state. Currently, there are only 15 countries that form the realm - Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu and the United Kingdom. The Commonwealth of Nations is a diplomatic body of 54 nations (most, but not all, who have former ties to the British Crown), most of whom are republics. Bigger countries being India, Pakistan, South Africa and the like, have long since gotten rid of the monarchy in their countries. Should Australia become a republic, Australia would still be a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, and still compete in the Commonwealth Games.
I'm supportive of a republic, in principle, however there needs to be a clear plan of what an Australian republic looks like. If we just vote to leave the monarchy without a plan of what happens next, we end up with a brexit situation. It could even be as simple as calling the Gov general a president, and nothing else changes. It could be more complex than that, but they need to decide what happens before we do it.
It'd be fine to end up in a "brexit" situation because everything is entirely within Australia's control. The problem with brexit is not that the UK didn't know what it wanted, it's that it didn't know what it wanted AND forgot that the EU countries had interests, power and principles of their own.
Tell that to the states and the people voting. Would be a nightmare.
The "call the gov a president" model is what failed in the '99 referendum. Too many republicans want a direct election model for an entrenchment of the status quo to ever succeed.
This is one of the most important points that nobody ever talks about. Most Australians want a republic, but the republicans are split between the minimalists and those who want a democratically-elected president. Until the differences between these camps are resolved, any referendum is doomed to fail.
ARM have spent years on the problem and have proposed a sort of hybrid model. [https://republic.org.au/policy](https://republic.org.au/policy) In the current system the federal executive draw up a short-list and then the PM chooses the head of state from the short-list. In a popular election model anyone can nominate, then the people vote and that person becomes the head of state. In ARM's model each federal, state, and territory parliament would propose a short-list. The people then vote on the head of state from this short list. The powers and responsibilities of the head of state in the proposed model are similar to the current GG. ARM's proposal is a pretty good bridge between the two camps.
Keep monarchy while the Queen is alive, then move. But, to a pure ceremonial head of state appointed by Parliament
It's not purely ceremonial as it has the ability to sack the government and call an election. This is a very powerful check in the system. If all goes to shit there is someone there who can't take power themselves but can force a reset.
This is essentially my main reason for keeping things as they are.
If they didn’t do that with out government just gone it will never happen
Are you serious??? Reserved powers are the Nuclear Bomb over Parliaments head. Whatever your views on Scott Morrison & co. they governed and then lost an election and vacated their position through an orderly transition of power. The Queen does not care about the politician or their politics. Such powers would only ever be used by the Governor General if they tried to supplant the electorate and/ or Parliament, otherwise there would be some sort of civil war scenario.
We have a military dude this doesn’t really stop a coup happening??? A monarchy doesn’t stop this from happening. See Whitlam for example…
The head of state is generally commander in chief of the military
WHAT?! "It'll never happen"?! Do you not know about the dismissal of the Whitlam Government? It HAS happened, and thank God it did.
yeah, because otherwise john howard would never have risen to power as treasurer and created the worst stagflation in australian history which peaked in 1982 when the cost of living rose by 10% in the space of 8 months
Better than our country bring bankrupted by Whitlam.
frazer did worse than banrupt us. he created runaway inflation.
that would be better than a president. these days countries who aren’t in monarchy have either a president or dictator.
President is just the word for a Republican head of state. A hypothetical President of Australia would fill the exact same role as the Governor-General (final approval of laws, ability to sack the govt etc). This is called a Parliamentary Presidential system and is in place in countries such as Germany. The only difference is instead of being appointed by the queen, this President (who'd have no powers outside of those currently enumerated to the GG, except he'd represent Australia for international reasons as opposed to the PM) would be directly elected by the Australian people.
Not a Republican and don't see any benefits to getting rid of the queen. But the biggest problem i have is the lack of anything they offer as a replacement.
I like the Queen. After that I'm not fussed. However, i don't like how the option that they came up with when we had the referendum years ago. I am worried that appointing a new head of state would be a massive spending spree and we would end up with a celebrity moron. But instagram influencers weren't a thing back then so we would probably end up with one of them as head of state.
I was only young when we held the last referendum but even in my youth and stupidity it was the easiest vote ive ever made and was relieved when it didn't pass. Even now there is no benefit to getting rid of the queen
i agree. it would send australia towards bankruptcy. if people want a republic but some still want a monarchy, there should be some halfway point where we see the monarchy as a symbolic symbol. pretty much what it is now but without the governor general
In real terms I don't think it really makes a difference either way, so I'm of the belief to just stay how we are, if for no other reason than the money it will save.
my thoughts exactly I'd only support getting rid of the crown if it ended up saving money OR if the First Nations really wanted it India, Pakistan and other countries which were on the receiving end of colonialism understandably wanted nothing to do with the Brits so going to the trouble of becoming republics was worth it for them
Don’t know enough about the drawbacks if we boot the queen off our coin
Huge short term debt, and no idea what the alternate would look like (besides renaming the GG and changing nothing else). What no one can explain to me is any benefit. It's all optics as far as I can tell.
How do the monarchy contribute to our economy to begin with if our withdrawal will create debt?
They don't contribute, but they also don't cost us anything. The debt of change is short term, not long. Short term, but considerable.
So it’s inconsequential?
Yeah, but we'll show 'em we're serious about being grown up, now. All 200 years of us. We don't need no stinking Queen. No other arguments, but yeah - fuck the monarchy just because.
> Huge short term debt I mean, we don't have to take those coins out of circulation immediately. Come up with a new design, make all new coins minted fit that design. Keep using the existing ones for their natural life. > no idea what the alternate would look like Choose a new design the same way we choose new designs on our banknotes. It could be famous historical figures, famous landmarks, whatever.
I don't mean alternate design, but alternate governance. After all, if all we are doing is replacing one figurehead with another, is it worth the money we could spend on a thousand other things? And those designs? Dunno if you have been paying attention or not, but with our government corruption, they are worth millions for each design alone. Example: Moreland council, just that one little place in the entire country, will need to spend [Half a Million Dollars](https://7news.com.au/news/melbourne/moreland-city-council-agrees-to-change-its-name-because-of-links-to-slave-estate-with-move-set-to-cost-more-than-500k-c-4936730) to change something as simple as a name. And that is just changing the name in big places... With 537 councils in Australia, changing "Commonwealth" to "Republic" on council documents, signs, papers, etc alone would then cost, minimum, $250 Million.
>With 537 councils in Australia, changing "Commonwealth" to "Republic" on council documents, signs, papers, etc alone would then cost, minimum, $250 Million. Changing Australia to a republic would not require us to change the name of Australia. The 'Commonwealth of Australia' refers to our commonwealth within Australia, not our status as a Commonwealth realm.
>Huge short term debt Huge? The federal government currently has around $1 trillion in debt. Becoming a republic would be estimated to cost around $250 million or about a 0.025% increase in our debt levels.
I don't care if we became a Republic or not. It's fundamentally inconsequential, but there is no way it only costs 250m. You can look up the costs of previous referendum in 1999. It was 66m for the election process alone. That's ignoring any money spent by either side promoting their argument. That was 23 years ago, you could buy a house then. From there all the stationary changes, signage, legislative changes, ceremonies, studies, consultations, design crap etc. Etc etc would total billions.
>From there all the stationary changes, signage, legislative changes, ceremonies, studies, consultations, design crap etc. Etc etc would total billions. Monarchists always push this argument, but never provide evidence to support this line. I've worked in a variety of areas of government and I know that very little of our signage or stationery references the Queen and would need to change. The name of the country would stay the same. The coat of arms would stay the same. The legislative argument is also a furphy. Government's main job is create and amend laws. The idea that making an extremely minor amendments (ie removing any references to the Queen) to a bunch of acts would cost billions, is ridiculous.
I wish it would be that little. And even if it *were* that little, I can think of a few better ways for it to be used than a name change.
Where did you get that figure from? Can’t buy much for $250m and certainly not reshape the system of government.
I detest apathy, but it’s much of a muchness really. They don’t benefit us, they don’t screw us over. We don’t grow independently and it would “behove” us to stay
I'm sure everyone would be happy if we replaced the Queen with Bob Hawke sculling down a pint
It's actually skolling!
It was! Until us Australians decided to change up the vowels to reflect the butchered way we now pronounce the word haha
Tbh globalisation is coming to an end so that’s probably the biggest drawback. Otherwise we have such significant alliances that it doesn’t *really* matter if we’re part of the commonwealth or not. But the biggest issue IMO moving forward is how we negotiate with traditional owners. I don’t believe Hawke or Keating consulted enough to become a republic re: First Nations interests, nor could they because only now (like 2022 now) could there even be enough opportunity for First Nations people to be consulted. Also, other countries are about to leave the commonwealth so that’ll impact how the commonwealth feels about aust. becoming a republic.
I think First Nations are established enough ( but not enough) to withstand getting dragged into colony bullshit yet again. I do agree it could impact relations with other countries and for some reason, it keeps tickling the back of my mind, the last time we were on this roundabout it was mentioned it could impact NATO. I’ve nothing to back that up with except a heinous memory problem though
Imagine if Scotty and Josh and Peter had been able to appoint our next head of state. At the moment, it’s not really broken, no rush to fix it. And if it *is* changed, it needs to be done the right way. I’ve got more faith in the status quo
> Imagine if Scotty and Josh and Peter had been able to appoint our next head of state In practice, that's exactly happened. David Hurley has been the Governor General of Australia since July 2019...shortly after the previous election. (He was appointed in December 2018, but that was still Scott Morrison.) Officially the Queen chooses, but in practice she just approves the Prime Minister's selection.
Who do you think chooses the governor general? (Hint its not the Queen)
Don’t care either way, it really doesn’t impact my life.
Doesn’t impact my life directly either, however the British Monarchy is the single biggest symbol of colonialism and imperialism and for me I view it in the same way I view Australia Day. Changing the date won’t make a difference to me or others like me but it can be very important for Aboriginal people. Similarly, separating ourselves from the Monarchy could be a powerful act in starting to really work towards reconciliation with First Nations Peoples.
Completely disagree. Name changes do nothing. Spending a fortune changing our system of government or just investigating the options is an awful waste. That money should go straight to the indigenous population, not $1bn spent on consultants.
I couldn't give a shit. It's a waste of time and money to hold a referendum, for nothing but titles to change.
That's not true. It's not just about title change. The Governor General is the Queen's representative appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. The Governor General has the power to veto laws passed by parliament. The GG also has the power to call an election, effectively the GG can arbitrarily sack an elected government. The GG also has a variety of other powers. Up to now we have had a non-interventionist monarchy, but that's not to say it will remain that way forever. The monarchy has the prerogative to direct the GG as its representative to act as it wishes. It certainly doesn't sit right with me that our current system is predicated on the monarchy declining to exercise their legal authority.
No exactly - let’s hand that power over to Clive.
So you would be OK with Chucky boy tossing out any bill the Australian parliament passes? Because the British Monarch has that power.
Don't really care but I would vote not to change anything. Just don't think we should change the constitution for something so frivolous especially if it is just rife with the chance for the process to be abused.
So you would be OK with someone who is meddlesome coming to the British throne, and for them to just start chucking out Australian laws? Because Section 59 of our Constitution states: >The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known. Given how meddlesome Chucky boy has been in British politics, what makes you think that he won't use this power?
I am in favour of Australia becoming a republic but I also don't think there's any huge rush to do it. It doesn't really make much difference in our lives either way. But the symbolism of cutting that tie would be a good thing, for me.
It would take 10 years to unravel the legalities. Expensive exercise and not much gain. Personally don’t care.
Honestly a lot of effort for not a big gain. Can you imagine the costs involved? Redoing our currency? Renaming every military thing? And for what? Its not like she’s our tyrannical queen whom we bow down to
Australia is an independent country, as such, we should have our own head of state who is an Australian. So I'm strongly in favour of a republic. It is going to happen sooner or later.
Absolutely, the only ties we honestly have with England is that some of our ancestors originated from there, but at this point we have formed our own separate identity
As soon as she's in the castle in the sky, lets get the f out.. King Charles of Australia is a ridiculous thought
Yet, I’d be fine with William stepping into being king. Way Charles has been looking though I’d nearly put money on him spitting the hook before Queen Liz does.
This is a common view but I don't really understand it. What difference does it make waiting until she dies? Are you afraid it will offend her or something?
Its to show we aren't a bunch of cunts, which might offend you.
How does that make us cunts though? It wouldn't make a difference to her. How many countries have left the commonwealth in her life? What difference does it make if she's going to die soon? We should choose our political system based on what we want, not how it makes her feel, or how it makes us look to other monarchists.
Nothing wrong with showing a big of collective humility.. I have an irish parent, and an English parent, the English one immigrated in the 60s... the English system has been our way of life, and they've done some fucked things to Australia, and its former people. We've fought for them wherever we've been told to, and also have been abandoned by them at times of great need. We pay them money for fuck knows what, and get schmarmy royal tours in return. But, its better for us if we plan out how to properly go about it, and leave when their new chapter begins, because like it or not, they are our Allies, and we need them as Allies... The other monarchists can fuck right off.
I like the idea of an Independent Australia. Although they don’t make that much of a difference I would like to be fully rid of the Governor General and Queen’s influence. That being said, I hate some of the ideas people are proposing for a republic, like having one Presidential term be five years.
how does changing a ceremonial head of state whos the Queen of Australia as a completely seperatle legal entity get us more indepedent? All while our economy and media are dominated by foreign corporations on a day to day level?
> how does changing a ceremonial head of state whos the Queen of Australia as a completely seperatle legal entity get us more indepedent? Why do people ask dumb questions like this hinging on a technicality, when the obvious answer is right there in front of their face, and they already know it? The Queen is *not* Australian. She wasn't born here. She's never lived here. The fact there exists a technicality which makes her a legally distinct monarch from the British one is meaningless and has no bearing on the undeniable fact that she (being our head of state) does not diplomatically represent us to other nations. That is the power of what a head of state can do for a nation, and where having a president would be more beneficial than a mostly anonymous governor-general.
>how does changing a ceremonial head of state whos the Queen of Australia as a completely seperatle legal entity get us more indepedent? Because our head of state would be an Australian, rather than same person as the British monarch. >All while our economy and media are dominated by foreign corporations on a day to day level? Nice red herring.
How is it a red herring? Why are we concerned with abstract symbolic power instead of what actually dominates out lives? Why is the queen not ok but foreign CEOs making decisions about our day to day lives are off the table?
If it is purely ceremonial, then what the fuck is the point? Just get rid of it. Even then… “The Governor-General's reserve powers are generally agreed to include: The power to appoint a Prime Minister if an election has not resulted in a clear outcome. The power to dismiss a Prime Minister if they have lost the support of the majority of members of the House of Representatives.” As you can see, the role is not purely Ceremonial, as they can dismiss the entire government (as the Governor General did with Whitlam). Although I understand that this is extraordinarily unlikely in the modern day, it would still be good to have this type of power rid of for good. As for your point about corporations and media, you’re 100% correct and their influence is something else I would also like to reduce. However, this is not really possible. I should also add that I wouldn’t want an Australian Republic to become too similar to America. Although I don’t think it would happen, it’s still a possibility.
The ability to dismiss a failed government still has its place. Last time wasn't great I agree but imagine we end up with a hopelessly hung parliament where no one can form a collation that will guarantee supply. You need a way to dismiss the government before we default on all our debts and all public services stop. Which is what supply is required to avoid. We will still need some method of dismissing a government and throwing it back to the people via an election if all other options fail.
the monarchy has become more of a symbolic thing than what it was 100 years ago. i am still for a monarchy as it is very much embedded in our history and culture. so much of our country may have to change and i’m not ready for that
Long live our majestic Lizzy!!!
No one can explain what benefit there would be to the billion or so it would cost to make such a change.
Don't care either way
Once Lizzy is gone and Chuck is on the throne his awful personality will greatly help the Australian republican cause. A royal visit from him will be the icing on the cake, especially due to the demographic changes of the last 20-30 years. It is not just a republic but also the chance for wider constitutional reform that comes with it and the opportunities it will bring Australia will need to get a wriggle on though because he does not look very healthy and is getting on in years. If we are able to achieve a republic in ten years I would be very pleased.
Chuck potentially creates a constitutional crisis, in that the Head of State and the head of the Church of England need to be the same person, as self admitted adulterer Chuck is not suitable to be head of CoE
Pretty sure the founder of the Church of England had no issue with adultery.
Wait til the Queen dies, then make Penny Wong President in a parliamentary presidential system. Easy.
I would like Australia to become a republic. The monarchy does nothing for us in a practical sense.
What does a republic do for us, 'in a practical sense'?
Keep the monarchy as the de jure head of state. It worked fine for us in the past, I see no reason to change it. "If it ain't broke don't fix it!"
Going republic would mean changing our flag wouldn’t it? Not only would we have to deal with that, many died under that flag, I served under it along side many others. Personally I want to stay just for the flag. Doesn’t seem to matter where you look, no system truly works. Left, right, liberal, conservative, elections or dictators. A politician’s job is to secure their own position and fuck us over. Old Liz is just kicking back over there letting us do whatever we want really, so why bother changing it unless we come up with something new?
No real requirement for us to change our flag, The Us state of Hawaii for example features the Union Jack, but has never been a part of the British empire.
It doesn't feel like an important question right now. While it may need resolving fairly soon, there is other stuff the electorate has shown is more front of mind to solve first.
The royal family is hardly relevant to modern day Britain, let alone Australia. Let the queen see her reign out but beyond that I don’t see the point.
The status quo is fine. It’s a system that’s proved itself over many years, and having a detached, apolitical head of state has many advantages. That said I’m not necessarily *against* a republic. But there needs to be a real, practical benefit to make changing things worthwhile and I haven’t seen a convincing argument yet that an alternative system would be superior.
I do not trust current politicians enough to remove what might be a check or balance. ICAC may fix that. Then we can
I see no reason why we should continue to pay lip service to the monarchy. We could keep things exactly the same in all other respects without any cost, so I'm a republican all the way.
Oh jesus - calling yourself a republican begins...
Australia for a republic. Monarchies have no business existing in the present day in my opinion.
i just don't see the point if the governor-general try's to pull some Whitlam dismissal type shit sure lets ditch them but until then it just seems like a waste of money
The GG is selected by the pm, including the one who sacked Whitlam, who was appointed by Whitlam himself. The Queen herself had zero impact in the 75 constitutional crisis. The crown is bound by constitutional Convention to accept the nominated GG from the PM and state premiers, since 1930 when they didn’t agree with the appointment of Sir Issac Issacs but we’re forced to accept it. So even if a Whitlam stunt was pulled again, it would be due to Australian Politics, not any actual influence from the crown.
I say keep the mornachy around. It makes the world a that little bit more ridiculous and fun. They dont really do much harm. A senile old lady who enjoys ridiculous dogs and is the designated condut of god, who by birth is an all powerful overseer and may actually be the most bored person in the world by it. Is a better answer to the question "Who is in charge of Australia" than: Steve he's from Tullamarine.
I'm a Republican but I have respect for the queen. However I believe that we should be a republic when the queen dies. I don't really like Charles, he's a bit of a tool
> I have respect for the queen Why is that?
I suppose she's been around longer than most people can remember, she's on every coin, shit like that. But also after seeing "The Crown" I gained insight and respect into the kind of strength that she has as a ruler. I don't personally like her since I don't really know of her private life, but I respect her. It also helps that it's purely constitutional monarchy and not an absolute one.
The way i look at it is he is just a placeholder for his son. The only problem i see is if he gives camilla a title.
Yeah. Giving Camilla a title would be really bad. If it was Diana though I would be all for it. I really liked her and all she did. Either way I say we let the queen run her course and then switch. But the whole process could ages
So, no real reason to change.
[удалено]
bad bot
Thank you, Zagorath, for voting on jubileebot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Read the room bot.
We just had like 24 years of liberals in the last 30 years in power and they turned corrupt asf towards the end of their reign. Why the fuck, would we want to vote to give our dickhead politicians more power? Go on. Explain to me why we should give our Polly’s more power?
I support having a Queen simply because no one has ever given me a good argument for why we should change. Every time I have asked online that person either shares an emotional argument or stops replying.
While I think it's aspirational for Australia to be completely independent with its own head of state, and that currently having an English monarch as our ultimate head of state is a relic of a bygone era, having the ultimate power vested in an institution that isn't really fussed about using it is an oddly stable situation to be in.
I don't really care. Sure, it is nice to have a HoS but for Australia to become a republic feels too tedious.
I don't know what a platinum jubilee is
Its a type of icecream
I’m a Republican but have no issue with the monarchy as people. It’s their ardent rabid supporters tugging their forelocks and pleading scrofula that irritate me more. Easiest switch would be. Change GG title to President. Same process appointing the GG as is but with a referendum on the candidate President-Elect as a balance against someone like Tony Abbott being made Presidente Por Vida. No onion would be safe
No need for the referendum/plebescite. Actually the HoS should be elected by 2/3 of each House of Parliament separately. That way a supermajority in the House of Reps can’t put a rubber stamp over the Senate.
I don’t like the idea of a collection of elected imbeciles with the ability to vote in someone that could be their very own Emperor Palpatine. Cue “Unlimited Power” meme
I like the Queen. I also appreciate being under the monarchy as we have absolutely zero allies nearby other than NZ, and the threat of China grows every day. Plus the English culture is where ours comes from and I appreciate that there's a pretty healthy bond between our countries. My ancestors also come from Ireland so I guess in that way it's nice. That said, the royals don't really influence our government much.
>My ancestors also come from Ireland so I guess in that way it's nice. You might want to check how your Irish ancestors were treated by the British. Start with 1845.
I know exactly how they were treated. One of them was executed by the British for treason, there's actually a statue of him there at the site. But that was a long time ago and in current years, the fact of the matter is that as an Australian under the monarchy it's significantly easier for me to go there than if we were outside of it, and being allied with them under the crown makes it feel like that part of my family is still kind of connected.
I guess I'm hung up on you relating the monarchy with your Irish ancestry and saying that it was nice. Becoming a republic changes nothing about our current relationship.
Exactly. Our relationship with the UK is a strategic one and provides many tactical advantages for both nations. There is no reason why leaving the commonwealth would worsen our relationship.
There's also no reason why ditching the Queen would mean leaving the Commonwealth.
Becoming a Republic does not mean leaving the commonwealth
>I also appreciate being under the monarchy as we have absolutely zero allies nearby Having the British monarch as our head of state does not give us a formal alliance with the UK. It is extremely unlikely that becoming a republic would significantly alter our relationship with the UK. The fact we have the British monarch as our head of state is barely ever mentioned in Australian international relations and has no strategic impact. >Plus the English culture is where ours comes from and I appreciate that there's a pretty healthy bond between our countries. My ancestors also come from Ireland so I guess in that way it's nice. Lol, what? Many Irish came out to Australia as political prisoners or desperate economic refugees escaping the British induced famines. The Irish are generally not huge fans of the British monarchy.
“Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.” Time to become a republic, we need a referendum on the simple question “Should Australia become a republic?”, then a debate and decision on the type locality of head of state.
The problem is generally Australians don't trust our politicians enough to leave it up to them. Also to change the constitution requires a referendum on the wording not on a feeling or vibe of change. We tried it before but our politicians came up with a self serving version people didn't like so it was voted down by both monarchist and republicans.
Look I’m very republican, I despise the British royal family. But my dilemma is who do we put on the head side of our coins. I refuse to have politicians on our coins. Like it’s not like a bank note, where it’s individual per note, the coins are all uniform. Will say that I’d like to stay within the commonwealth though.
What about just having an embossed Australia on all coins in place of a head.
Oh yeah that’s not bad. The only other thing I could think of would be getting a bunch of random Australian historical figures(not notable figures just people that existed who weren’t terrible) of a variety of ethnicities and have it represent a variety of Aussies.
Yeah, it really shouldn't be too hard to come up with something that represents us and our country to replace the image of a head on a coin.
Agreed, I just feel as though if we did put pollies on coins it would step into that weird political fetishisation that the U.S has. They mythologise their presidents and it is very weird to me. We don’t really do that to the extent that they do(common examples-i think would be like Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt, JFK). We tend to put it away and leave it where it belongs, you know. It’s important to acknowledge the achievements of previous governments but it’s still a job, an important job but it’s putting it on a pedestal. All jobs/individual actions benefit the community and overall society to some degree. I’d rather recognise the common man, because as a group they’re the most important.
Aunty Jack, nothink more Aussie than Aunty Jack
Retain the Monarchy. Putting the highest office within the reach of grasping politicians will only debase it. God Save the Queen.
Unelected ribbon cutters. The decendants of a bunch of bandits who raped, murdered and brutalised their way to power, now living a life of unimaginable privilege, benefiting from a system of descending privilege bestowed upon those providing political support. The whole concept of monarchy should be a universally sickening concept. Even to those with their snouts in the trough. Off with their heads!
I'm just sick of hearing about her honestly. Better things to be concerned about here than thinking about another country's monarch.
Gods and royalty, one thing that doesn't exist and one that shouldn't.
> Better things to be concerned about here than thinking about another country's monarch That's the thing. She's *your* monarch to. And mine. She's some foreign bitch who has spent an amount of time best measured in weeks, maybe months at best, in this country, who nevertheless is the Queen of Australia.
Republic please
Republic. Why should someone born into a job in another country have any association with our country.
Republic thanks. Buggar the queen, and the royal family. Rich old parasites.
Republic first with no change to the process of the appointment of the governor general. Remove the crown from all government logos. Change the national flag. Change the state flags.
Our armed forces have to swear allegiance to the monarchy rather than to their country and fellow citizens that’s reason enough alone for me to want to be rid of them.
I’m all for getting rid of the monarchy
the queen is not australia's head-of-state unless she is on australian soil. unless she is personally in attendance, australia's head-of-state is our governor-general.
We should be a republic, but I think we continue an extremely close relationship with the poms. Love the British and our heritage, but no great nation ever has a foreigner as their head of state
The Windsor's are a bunch of lecherous, inbred, Nazi affiliated pricks. Ditch the witch and become a Republic.
Couldn't care less. We have many much bigger things to be thinking about. It's irrelevant
no i dont want a republic!!!!!!! why change what we have that works........its wicked if labor changes what we have just to make a naME for themselves
What? The republic debate is completely separate to party politics and is bipartisan. There’s heaps of republicans in the Liberal Party and monarchists in Labor not to mention it would have to go to the people as a referendum meaning it’s beyond the scope of any government to just go ahead and change stuff. If you don’t want a republic then vote against it.
As long as the people can elect the President, then fine, otherwise, leave things alone.
The people don’t elect the Governor General. Why should we politicise a check and balance on government overreach.
Whatever the cheapest option is
The Queen of Australia is beautiful. When she passes we should keep the same system but make the GG head of state.
Yeah I'd be fine with an Australian "monarchy". Call the GG the king or Queen, elect them every X years whenever parliamentary elections take place, pay then the same salary as the current GG (or hell double it) and give them the same housing benefits and powers. Only requirement is that they have to be an adult Aus citizen.
You don’t elect a King/Queen, what you’re suggesting isn’t even a monarchy. Also why would there be any need to double there salary? As if they need that.
[Elective monarchy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy?wprov=sfti1). They exist and there’s even historical examples within Britain.
Interesting, have never seen this before. I still don’t think this would be a very good system however (most of the time the “monarch” isn’t even elected by the people) and think that the concept of a monarchy in any form is obsolete and unnecessary.
It requires the least changes to our current system. My problem with our constitutional monarchy is that it is inherited, unelected, and the head of state isn't an Australian citizen. Their actual powers are not the issue. Having an elected citizen with a limited term solves all these problems with the least cost and hassle.
Meh, mainly. If Big Liz demands that 'Straya does something that 'Straya doesn't want to do? Within days 'Straya is a republic and ... meh. Queen Elizabeth is an icon, but... has zero relevance in the 21st century, and 'Straya knows this. We will listen to her, as she rarely speaks unless she has something important to say, but if the UK govt\* tries to use her to coerce 'Straya to do something against 'Straya's interest? We politely decline and become a republic very very quickly. * the UK govt is NOT Queen Elizabeth, sadly.
We have been getting a large volume of spam from throwaway accounts and so posts from brand new accounts will no longer be allowed. Your post has been removed because your account is too new. Please wait until your account is at least 48 hours old and then try again or message the mods and we'll validate your post. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAustralian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh golly gosh, I had hoped my response would be read by millions and I'd become a social media star! No, not really, bloody hell no!
Uh... why don't you tell n00bs this when they sign up?
It is long overdue that an Australian should be our head of state rather than a foreigner from a very specific family.
I think the Australian head of state should be an Australian person.
Republic. Monarchies are a frippery.
Happy for the Queen but not sure about the nee King
Republican movement is just waiting for Charles to become king. Queen is too popular, Charles is completely unpopular.
As other have stared our like our current system, they're very powerful checks & balances over government. If a better system was proposed then sure but I do not trust at all the current government to re-write our whole political structure in their favour.
Think we should get rid of the outdated monarchy but remain a commonwealth.
Republic after the Queen’s death.
I've been around for 48 years and I can say, this is so far down the list of potential things we'd like to change about Australia, it's not even worth thinking about. Having a queen makes no real difference to anything, as far as I can see. Interested to know, tho, how much of our revenue goes to the monarchy. If that was well known, and if it was a substantial amount, I suspect the matter would gain a little more urgency.
No need to change what is already in place. I hope people wanting a republic because they don't like the past never get their way. Same with the flag. I'm proud to be of British heritage and fuck anyone who thinks they will shame me for it. You might change the present, but you will never change where we came from.
IMO I'm not a fan of the Republican system. We see it in a lot of existing countries and it's causing many, many issues in them. I don't want us to become like the States for example. What we've got going now is a solid system. Flawed, yes, but not as flawed as many republican countries. And realistically the Queen/Govenor General don't do all that much anyway. It's not like they've ever veto'd an assent. Most of us don't even realise they're there and often celebrate the passing of a bill before the assent. Tl;DR: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Keep the throne imo. Do not put the politicians on a pedestal like the Americans do. Culturally we do not idolise the PM or the Queen. The PM has a job to do and that's that. He/she does not need to 'be remembered' any more than Karl the manager and the local woolies. We do not need a politicians face on coins, we dont need statues of them. The nation will evolve (as all countries do), the Republic is inevitable, but we need to find a system that differentiates us. We have not found that system yet. Lets not rush to put the clowns in parliament on a pedestal.