http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-23/republicans-welcome-governor-general-support-for-republic/5112658

For me the GG's comment, an Australian may one day be able to be head of state of our own country. For me its an amazing situation that an Australian could in theory move to some other country's, change their citizenship and potentially be a head of state there through legal means, but never in their birth country.

Actually reading this some more and the limited powers the Queen has in UK and I don't believe the Queen is allowed to make similar political based comments in reference to UK without first seeking approval from the UK PM.

To me, under our current system, eminent persons become Governor General, but the way most want the republic to run is for the public to vote for the president.   That just makes the position political, why not just have the PM as head of state and not bother with a president?   We are already sick of 3 levels of Government and the elections relating to them, do we want another?   Only once has the GG stepped in to remove a PM.   The GG assents to the bills passed by Parliament, provides other procedural matters and hands out VC and other awards.   The PM in reality could do the later, and for the former, a passed bill just becomes law.   Is a president really necessary?

Australia may become a republic one day, but the question is more commonly a political decoy, intended to cause an uproar big enough to hide whatever other embarrassing problem the asker of the question is responsible for.

M

I couldn't care less to be honest.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-23/republicans-welcome-governor-general-support-for-republic/5112658

For me the GG's comment, an Australian may one day be able to be head of state of our own country. For me its an amazing situation that an Australian could in theory move to some other country's, change their citizenship and potentially be a head of state there through legal means, but never in their birth country.

Actually reading this some more and the limited powers the Queen has in UK and I don't believe the Queen is allowed to make similar political based comments in reference to UK without first seeking approval from the UK PM.

1) Nothing stopping a true blue Aussie becoming head of state of Australia the way most head of state become heads of state: with a Coup d'état.

2) As I understand the UK "constitution", all power lies entirely with the sovereign, and government of the day governs at the benevolent discretion of the monarch.  The current queen could choose to veto legislation that has passed the houses of parliament thus not giving them Royal Ascent, or draft her own royal decrees should she choose.  The Queen's authority is all pervasive and absolute.

However, the absoluteness of the monarch's authority is only absolute because no-one ever challenges it.  And the reason her authority is never challenged is because it's never exercised.  The monarch *always* acts on the advice of their subjects, as expressed through an elected parliament.

If the queen started vetoing legislation or issuing death warrants I think we'd find out just what the limitation of her power actually is, because people would disagree and eventually take action.

But in theory the Queen's power is absolute, but in practice it's nothing.  The only reason her power is abolsolute is because it's completely unusable.  As 1975 showed, the Aussie GG has far more power in Australia than any English monarch ever has.

It's a paradox, but all the potential interest conflicts, power rivalries and inherent incongruities associated with government structures in the UK are resolved not by codified rules, but by shuffling them off into this paradox.  The ultimate benevolent dictatorship.

that said ...

3) It's nothing short of an absolute national disgrace our head of state is not an Aussie.

No!

To me, under our current system, eminent persons become Governor General, but the way most want the republic to run is for the public to vote for the president.   That just makes the position political, why not just have the PM as head of state and not bother with a president?   We are already sick of 3 levels of Government and the elections relating to them, do we want another?   Only once has the GG stepped in to remove a PM.   The GG assents to the bills passed by Parliament, provides other procedural matters and hands out VC and other awards.   The PM in reality could do the later, and for the former, a passed bill just becomes law.   Is a president really necessary?

I think the reason you have a PM and a Head of State is to have a check of the govt. For example, in most countries the police report to the Police Minister and hence the PM, but the military reports to the Head of State, in effect giving the ability for the Head of State to sack the govt by force. The electrol commision in my mind should also report to the Head of State.

To have it all in one seat enables the position to have absolute power over a country, often called a dictator.

dif01, I think you summed it (Queen's power) up better than I've seen it written.

Personally I think Australia hasn't gone a Republic because the Queen is popular and been around for so long and now people feel they cannot tell "Granny" to PO. Charles however is not popular and some feel his political and Environmental views are a bit off, so his impending take over helped the Republican movement. However now we have the younger modern Royal couple with baby taking the spotlight and making it popular again. However I still feel the Royals are like a B grade celebraty, famous for being, well famous. What has the likes of Paris Hilton actually done, same for Royal family? Paris became popular on the back of her well know father or is it grandfather money. The same could be said about the Royals. In days of old they actually led battles and had power, now days they are really a living museam of the past with no other function other than to maintain the act.

Of course it's obvious why she said this just before her term is up. She should be sacked for saying that we should be a republic, especially when she is representing the monarch, at the moment, a queen.

If she believes that, then why on earth (mind if I almost yell?) did she take the job?

But isn't it interesting, if this subject was reversed, and she said that Australia needs to remain a monarchist country, that it would NOT even make the news. And it would be ignored completely by the Australian Biased Channel.

And the title is incorrect. It should be say "Australia's Governor General is a hypocrite as she believes we should be a republic" or "Australia's GG stabs her boss in the back with republic comments"

To put it simply, Australia had a referendum and was asked the question, and the overwhelming majority voted NO (repeat NO) to a republic. And look at the strife being a republic causes. EG: Look what the republicans tried to do to the USA.

What has Paris Hilton actually done? Paris became popular on the back of her well know father or is it grandfather money.

There was a sex video!

To put it simply, Australia had a referendum and was asked the question, and the overwhelming majority voted NO (repeat NO) to a republic. And look at the strife being a republic causes. EG: Look what the republicans tried to do to the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999

I don't think Australian's at the time voted down the concept of a Republic, they (and me) voted down the way it was proposed in that planned to fail referendum. The inclusion of the Pre-amble Question just made the process more complicated and prone to failure. John Howard was also very clever in encouraging referendum because, getting a referendum approved is very difficult in Australia (8/44 attempts) but also historically impossible if the sitting govt opposes it.

A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

I think the Question should have simply been

Do you Support Australian becoming a Republic?

Then assuming overall yes (if No it ends there), go away and come back with series of models and if I recall at the time the discussions were along the lines of

1) President nominated like now by PM (Answer will be No)
2) President voted as overall majority of a joint sitting of both houses of Fed govt (answer will be No)
3) President voted as overall majority by the population (I believe most likely to be a Yes)

And just because there was a No, doesn't mean end of the story and I think with time many believe the population will shift in view due to immigration and dying out of the older more supportive people.

To put it simply, Australia had a referendum and was asked the question, and the overwhelming majority voted NO (repeat NO) to a republic. And look at the strife being a republic causes. EG: Look what the republicans tried to do to the USA.

No.  We collectively decided Malcolm Turnbull is a w anker.

I don't think Australian's at the time voted down the concept of a Republic, they (and me) voted down the way it was proposed in that planned to fail referendum. I think the Question should have simply been

Oh yes they did.

The question was asked whether or not Australia should become a republic, and was simple, and as stated before, the majority said NO.

We don't see why some people want Australia to become a republic.

but the question is more commonly a political decoy, intended to cause an uproar big enough to hide whatever other embarrassing problem the asker of the question is responsible for.

Maybe the governor general (deliberate non caps) is trying to hide a story on Seven's Sunday Night, after seeing a promo for the show, see the official promo: http://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/watch/19929974/preview-hostie-or-hitman

The question was asked whether or not Australia should become a republic ...

Maybe you should repeat this again.  Perhaps if you say it three times it'll be true.

Our media here, and some other media were saying that she said that Australia should become a republic directly, as if she said the word "republic".
Sure, while she may have suggested that, she never mentioned the word republic.

No matter what side you support, the real issue is whether or not she should have involved herself into commenting on political issues, while being a monarch's representative, as David Flint states, requires the Crown to be above politics.

The question was asked whether or not Australia should become a republic, and was simple, and as stated before, the majority said NO.

That is not the question that was asked. Please at least try and quote honestly.

Sometimes the wording is important if you want support from people who otherwise might not give it to you. Current politicians and supporters are not good at this!

The Latin term "Res Publica" means "Common Wealth". If the fierce Republic supporters offered the olive branch of wanting a self governed democratic government without the interference of a constitutional monarchy from overseas, and wanted to call it a "Commonwealth" and call the head of state a "Governor General" then they might have got more support. It would have got them what they want, calling it by names that don't frighten anyone. But no, they want nothing to do with "Common Wealth" and lose interest from potential supporters. They forget that "Republic" is a politically charged word that has been misused a great many times over the last couple of thousand years, and politically moderate Australian citizens (voters) don't like to be branded with politically charged terms.

Perhaps a perusal of a list of countries with the word "Republic" in their name will demonstrate the level of abuse the term has suffered...

M

DPRK?

So what happened to India, Pakistan, Fiji, South Africa, and the United States shortly after they became a republic?

Oh yes they did.

The question was asked whether or not Australia should become a republic, and was simple, and as stated before, the majority said NO.

We don't see why some people want Australia to become a republic.

Maybe the governor general (deliberate non caps) is trying to hide a story on Seven's Sunday Night, after seeing a promo for the show, see the official promo: http://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/watch/19929974/preview-hostie-or-hitman

"whether or not Australia should become a republic?"

No this was not the question that was asked, I even went to the trouble to look it up and posted above for you.

The question (listed below again for your benefit) was asked if we wanted a Republic based on this model where the President was selected by the joint sitting of the two houses.  If you wanted this referendum to fail, thats how you would ask the question (45-55 I believe).

A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

As I said before, Ask the question in a simple manner, such as;

"Should Australia become a Republic such that an Australian can become Head of State?"

Based on the outcome, if majority No, it ends there or a majority Yes, go away and come up with a final -3 models and put this to the people and let the people decide what they want. Don't ask such an important issue in a loaded complicated question.

Regards
Shane

So what happened to India, Pakistan, Fiji, South Africa, and the United States shortly after they became a republic?

Your very selective choosen historical examples is also flawed.

India/Paki, self rule after almost complete control from a foreign power that has a proven history of not putting alot of effort into border indentification and just drawing lines on a map (loosly at that). They have done the same in middle east.

Fiji, the reason they had a military coup and became a republic was due to the parailment being very heavily loaded with desendents of other countries on an small island nation.

In all of above, none of the local populations were in a position to properly manage their own affairs including dealing with different religious positions and other cultural issues and should have had a more progressive shift. None of these also compare to Australia at all and should be ignored from a common sense argument on the subject.

Sth Africa, Ok you want to compare Australia to the abolusion of apartide. Pls go ahead and demonstrate how this is relevent, note its civil lawless ness issues dated back before Nelson Mandela took over, it just was constrained more to the black areas where no one cared or reported.

USA, I believe the civil war was over their wish to have self rule and kick the British out! Australia already has this, it was done much later and more peacefully because the British knew they could not stop it and faced another USA style war if they tried but much further away and harder to support. The 2nd Civil war was about slavery, again please feel free to show me how allowing white people to own, control and whip black people taken from their home land aganist this will compares to this argument on Australia becoming a republic?

Most of the issues of failed/troubled conversions monachy to republic is usually due to internal battles for power after the withdrawl of a foreign/colonial govt and army in what is usually a developing country where long standing conflicts between different tribal and/or religious groups are often suppressed and/or the local population does not have the skills to run their country and own affairs despite beliving they do. The likes of Australia, NZ and Canada are not in this position mainly due to their respective finacial positions, small native populations and diverse immigrant population.

Regards
Shane

As I said before, Ask the question in a simple manner, such as;

"Should Australia become a Republic such that an Australian can become Head of State?"

Oh well, you know what to ask when you hold a referendum.

As I said before, Ask the question in a simple manner, such as;

"Should Australia become a Republic such that an Australian can become Head of State?"

Um, no, a referenda question COULD NOT be worded like that!

Um, no, a referenda question COULD NOT be worded like that!

Now, now. If it can't be worded like that then how will he get the right answer?

M

Will Australia ever become a Republic? A very open ended question. Perhaps "Will Australia become a Republic in the next 100 years?" might be a better question? The reality is that none of us will be around to find out if it happens after that!

Will Australia ever become a Republic? A very open ended question. Perhaps "Will Australia become a Republic in the next 100 years?" might be a better question? The reality is that none of us will be around to find out if it happens after that!

The GG said that a boy or girl may grow up to be Australia’s first home grown head of state. Seems pretty open ended.

The hostile responses were as to be expected from small minded, tightRsed reactionaries and pretty sad. Tony Abbott to his credit was much more level headed.  

For those who still don’t have enough faith in Australians to ever want to see one of us as the head of state perhaps England is where you really belong. If you want a nice climate, holiday in Spain

However assuming you believe in Australians but not so much government “of the people, by the people, for the people”, there is Princess Mary. Classy, intelligent, well respected and (heaven forbid) home grown. We could start an Australian Monarchy