The Republic of Australia?

[Dunstan]

Being a republic doesn't make you corrupt and every country has groups of people who end up dominating the government.

^This.

[Mostrov]

Being a republic doesn't make you corrupt and every country has groups of people who end up dominating the government.

Well I would argue that if you're aiming for a democratic system of governence along the Australian model, a non-heriditary Head of State has its problems, in this case the Governer General who has taken a poltical stance. In the case of a constitutional crisis this undesirable. As the monarchs representitive they should abide by this, as they are merely a servant in this capacity.
I would rather have someone who by their nature must be incorruptable or they lose their power.

The reason I pointed out the formation of a poltical class is that it is probably less just than a monarchs position. So you're not actually improving anything and may indeed make it worse.

As for geopolitical level, Australia sans nuclear weapons will always be tied to anothers destiny via demographics. If we had become a republic in the wake of the second world war, we'd likely be in America's sphere nonetheless; it isn't as though the period of diplomatic arbitration we were famed for lasted long.
At least in this case we're not entirely dominated by the United States. Better the devil we know than the Chinese.

[Geilinor]

Being a republic doesn't make you corrupt and every country has groups of people who end up dominating the government.

Well I would argue that if you're aiming for a democratic system of governence along the Australian model, a non-heriditary Head of State has its problems, in this case the Governer General who has taken a poltical stance. In the case of a constitutional crisis this undesirable. As the monarchs representitive they should abide by this, as they are merely a servant in this capacity.
I would rather have someone who by their nature must be incorruptable or they lose their power.

The reason I pointed out the formation of a poltical class is that it is probably less just than a monarchs position. So you're not actually improving anything and may indeed make it worse.

As for geopolitical level, Australia sans nuclear weapons will always be tied to anothers destiny via demographics. If we had become a republic in the wake of the second world war, we'd likely be in America's sphere nonetheless; it isn't as though the period of diplomatic arbitration we were famed for lasted long.
At least in this case we're not entirely dominated by the United States. Better the devil we know than the Chinese.

1. How can a human be incorruptible in nature? A monarch is not a God.
2. You've been in America's sphere for quite a while.
3. Iceland is a republic, they have very little corruption.

[Conservative Conservationists]

Quintin Bryce is completely unfit for her role.

You could have an IQ of 50 and still be fit for that role. The GG is a figurehead, the responsibilities they have are negligible.

The GG needs to remain above politics and when shit hits the fan, make an impartial decision in the interest of the whole nation. The GG has dismissed the government before. The GG may need to do so again, in a manner that make the impartiality above question.

I would prefer a person with an IQ of 50 in the post over a person with relation to a current politician.

[New Chalcedon]

I'm not fussed either way, aside from the possibility of paying a slightly lesser tax rate or maybe seeing that money going to more visible use in Australia.

Which itself is a furphy - the Queen doesn't cost Australia anything. A Budget head of state, if you will.

[New Chalcedon]

You could have an IQ of 50 and still be fit for that role. The GG is a figurehead, the responsibilities they have are negligible.

The GG needs to remain above politics and when shit hits the fan, make an impartial decision in the interest of the whole nation. The GG has dismissed the government before. The GG may need to do so again, in a manner that make the impartiality above question.

The last time certainly didn't involve impartiality, or even the appearance thereof.

[Zonolia]

So probably an dumb question but if Australia does indeed drop Her Majesty...will anything actually change apart from the Queen having absolutely no power? I mean the government system would remain the same minus a Queen right? or...

Basically. Unless, they change to a presidential system. Plus, there's the bonus of having a native head of state, not having the Jack on their flag. It's kinda like a "reaserting their sovereignty over themselves" thing.

Oh, that makes sense, like a nationalist pride kinda thing? Cool.

[Darwinish Brentsylvania]

Will it be republican and capitalist or democrat and liberal

[Libertarian California]

Will it be republican and capitalist or democrat and liberal

Republican, capitalist, democrat, and liberal are not mutually exclusive terms.

For example, the United States is a liberal democracy that is also a republic and is capitalist.

[Darwinish Brentsylvania]

Yay, should have use the words a bit differently

[Dazchan]

I'm not fussed either way, aside from the possibility of paying a slightly lesser tax rate or maybe seeing that money going to more visible use in Australia.

Which itself is a furphy - the Queen doesn't cost Australia anything. A Budget head of state, if you will.

That being said, we do pay for her representative, the Governor-General. Although I imagine the cost of keeping a president wouldn't be any smaller...

[Vitaphone Racing]

Which itself is a furphy - the Queen doesn't cost Australia anything. A Budget head of state, if you will.

That being said, we do pay for her representative, the Governor-General. Although I imagine the cost of keeping a president wouldn't be any smaller...

True, which I why I hope we never adopt a president and keep something like the GG instead.

[Darwinish Brentsylvania]

So would there be a president, or prime minister

[Ostroeuropa]

The GG needs to remain above politics and when shit hits the fan, make an impartial decision in the interest of the whole nation. The GG has dismissed the government before. The GG may need to do so again, in a manner that make the impartiality above question.

The last time certainly didn't involve impartiality, or even the appearance thereof.

It kind of did.
It's not the GG's fault that the PM of the time was incapable of running the government effectively.

[New Chalcedon]

The last time certainly didn't involve impartiality, or even the appearance thereof.

It kind of did.
It's not the GG's fault that the PM of the time was incapable of running the government effectively.

Actually, two things:

First, no it didn't. First, for Kerr to arbitrarily assign the PM's job to the minority party - while within his powers as written, since the Constitution does not specify that the majority party in the House gets to pick the PM - broke all precedent, far less Kerr's choice to consult with a former Liberal MP (I speak of Garfield Barwick, who before being named to the High Court had served as a Liberal Member of Parliament for eight years and as the Attorney-General for the Menzies [Liberal] Government for six of them), who was noted to have a strong personal antipathy to Whitlam specifically, in deciding what to do.

Not to mention the fact that Fraser couldn't govern either as the situation stood - had the House sat again, the first thing they'd have done would have been to pass a Vote of No Confidence in Fraser's (appointed) Government, requiring by convention that he resign the Queen's commission in turn. If he had to withdraw Whitlam's commission, he should have called an immediate election himself and name no caretaker until afterward. Against convention, perhaps - but less so than making the Leader of the Opposition the Prime Minister without any change in the House.

Second, Whitlam attempted to see Kerr to ask for a half-Senate election to get out of the deadlock (and one way or the other, it would have, most likely by forcing Whitlam to amend his Budget in partial accordance with Fraser's wishes to secure Senate passage) - Kerr refused to even give Whitlam a chance to salvage the situation, and instead simply handed The Lodge over to Fraser.

There's a reason that, despite promising to do so, Fraser refused to recommend a second five-year term as Governor-General for Kerr. And Paul Kelly's The Dismissal made it clear why: Kerr had refused to fulfill the duties of his post - Fraser cheerfully made use of him, but had no intention of rewarding him:

[Kerr] should have unflinchingly and courageously met his responsibility to the Crown and to the Constitution. He should have spoken frankly with his Prime Minister from the start. He should have warned wherever and whenever appropriate. He should have realised that, whatever his fears, there was no justification for any other behaviour.

[Estado Paulista]

So would there be a president, or prime minister

Both, probably.

[New Chalcedon]

So would there be a president, or prime minister

Both, probably.

If we went for a Parliamentary Republic (i.e., today's system, but replace the Governor-General and the Queen with a President), yes.

If we went for a Presidential Republic (a system closer to America's), then probably not.

The position of Prime Minister has two implications:

First, that they are the head of the day-to-day governance of the nation, under the (nominal or real) supervision of the Head of State; and
Second, that they are responsible to the legislature, rather than to the executive (most commonly, they are a member of the legislature, but it's not unheard of for Prime Ministers to be subject to Parliament although not part of it).

It's most uncommon for Presidential republics to have the post of Prime Minister.

Mind you, there's the third alternative - a semi-Presidential system in which the Cabinet is drawn from Parliament, but the President is independent of Parliament and retains at least some effective powers. But something tells me that when we change, it'll be a power-grab by Parliament....which is at least partly why we're still with the current system despite grumbling about it.

[Dunstan]

Both, probably.

If we went for a Parliamentary Republic (i.e., today's system, but replace the Governor-General and the Queen with a President), yes.

If we went for a Presidential Republic (a system closer to America's), then probably not.

The position of Prime Minister has two implications:

First, that they are the head of the day-to-day governance of the nation, under the (nominal or real) supervision of the Head of State; and
Second, that they are responsible to the legislature, rather than to the executive (most commonly, they are a member of the legislature, but it's not unheard of for Prime Ministers to be subject to Parliament although not part of it).

It's most uncommon for Presidential republics to have the post of Prime Minister.

Mind you, there's the third alternative - a semi-Presidential system in which the Cabinet is drawn from Parliament, but the President is independent of Parliament and retains at least some effective powers. But something tells me that when we change, it'll be a power-grab by Parliament....which is at least partly why we're still with the current system despite grumbling about it.

So you're saying a parliamentary republic is the way to go?

[Sanguinea]

I personally admire the British Commonwealth, and would like to see it persist with the monarchy intact, but eh, I'm not Australian.

[Dunstan]

I personally admire the British Commonwealth, and would like to see it persist with the monarchy intact, but eh, I'm not Australian.

As said before, it's an outdated system. I believe that the sooner Australia moves forward and becomes a republic, the better. I don't want it to still be part of the monarchy when it collapses.

[Baader-Meinhof Gruppe]

I don't see anything for Australia to lose from that, considering they stay in the Commonwealth, but I also don't see much to gain besides maybe a few cents in tax breaks from not supporting the royals(if even a cent).

[Jawyhria]

Give them cultural autonomy and integrate with the rest of society, but not independence.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Oi. Pipe down over there.

[Conservative Conservationists]

I don't see anything for Australia to lose from that, considering they stay in the Commonwealth, but I also don't see much to gain besides maybe a few cents in tax breaks from not supporting the royals(if even a cent).

What money does Australia send to the Royals? I dont think we give them a cent. We do the whole security measure thing for anyone of any publicity that comes to Australia, but that is about it.

[New Chalcedon]

If we went for a Parliamentary Republic (i.e., today's system, but replace the Governor-General and the Queen with a President), yes.

If we went for a Presidential Republic (a system closer to America's), then probably not.

The position of Prime Minister has two implications:

First, that they are the head of the day-to-day governance of the nation, under the (nominal or real) supervision of the Head of State; and
Second, that they are responsible to the legislature, rather than to the executive (most commonly, they are a member of the legislature, but it's not unheard of for Prime Ministers to be subject to Parliament although not part of it).

It's most uncommon for Presidential republics to have the post of Prime Minister.

Mind you, there's the third alternative - a semi-Presidential system in which the Cabinet is drawn from Parliament, but the President is independent of Parliament and retains at least some effective powers. But something tells me that when we change, it'll be a power-grab by Parliament....which is at least partly why we're still with the current system despite grumbling about it.

So you're saying a parliamentary republic is the way to go?

Lol no. I detest our Parliamentary dictatorship and would much prefer a semi-Presidential system....preferably with a non-partisan President. So yes, I'd prefer to keep the monarchy, with at least marginally more power than it has today, to act as a counterweight to the one-election-cycle dominated thinking of today's politics.