Cerberus1 Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 [img2=RIGHT]http://www.pomsinoz.com/images/monarchyrepublic.png[/img2] All but one of Australia's state premiers and chief ministers have signed a declaration calling for an Australian head of state, in a move the Australian Republican Movement says points to "the dawn of a new republican age". WA's Colin Barnett was the only state leader not to lend his name to the statement, which declares: "We, the undersigned premiers and chief ministers of Australia, believe that Australians should have an Australian as our head of state." Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, himself a staunch republican, has released a statement through his office saying his "commitment to Australia having an Australian as head of state is undiminished". Mr Turnbull has previously said that a fresh referendum would be unlikely before the end of the Queen's reign. Peter FitzSimons from the Australian Republican Movement said the declaration was timed for tomorrow's Australia Day, along with an online petition signed by nearly 4,000 people. "It is time to get moving, and I must say I was thrilled by how enthusiastic the premiers were," FitzSimons said. "All of Australia's political leaders now support an Australian head of state, including [Prime Minister] Malcolm Turnbull and [Opposition Leader] Bill Shorten. "Never before have the stars of the Southern Cross been so aligned in pointing to the dawn of a new republican age for Australia." South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill said he believed there was public support for becoming a republic, a move that would be "an important assertion of our national identity". "I think there was strong support for a republic in 1999, it's just that some clever politicians managed to manoeuvre the situation into a defeat for the republican cause," he told AM. "I think there is an underlying sense of support for a republic, always has been and it is just a question of rekindling that." In a statement Mr Barnett said he actively campaigned for a republic ahead of the 1999 referendum and accepted the result "as a democratic expression of the public will". "While I believe and hope that Australia will choose to become a republic in my lifetime, I do not think that the time is right, or that sufficient time has past since the referendum, to be again prosecuting the argument for constitutional change," he said. With political leaders backing a republic, Peter FitzSimons has called for another referendum or plebiscite on the issue. "It's got to be a movement of the people and that is happening — we have quadrupled our numbers," he said. "There's a euphoria there." FitzSimons urged republicans not to hold off on pushing for constitutional change until after the Queen dies. "Let's, while the Queen of England is young enough to come to Australia, not bow and curtsy but rise in a standing ovation and say, 'Thank you, your Majesty, for the sterling service you've given our nation'. "She will give us the key, we'll take it for a spin around the block and we'll be on our way." Mr Weatherill said it would be the "ultimate act of respect to Queen Elizabeth II if she presided over the transfer of Australia from a monarchy to a republic". The Australian Monarchists League has warned against changing the system. "The fact is, our constitution is based on the Crown which always represents the people," said the national chairman of the league Philip Benwell. "This petition is calling for a republic which will be based on the will of politicians which is evidenced by so many premiers and politicians supporting it." Do we really want a system in Australia where you can, because you are wealthy, run a campaign and become the president of a nation? Federal Liberal backbencher and monarchist Tony Pasin said the rise of American presidential candidate, Donald Trump, should serve as a warning to those campaigning for change. He maintains Australia's current political system has kept figures like Donald Trump out of high office. "[There is] a very clear risk, and I call it a risk, that Donald Trump might become the Republican nominee and subsequently leader of the free world," he said. "Do we really want a system in Australia where you can, because you are wealthy, run a campaign and become the president of a nation?" Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-25/monarchists-warn-republic-will-hand-more-power-to-politicians/7112052 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 I'm in favour of Australia having it's own elected head of state. But I'm opposed to Australia becoming a Republic. The word just has too many negative connotations (who would want to live in the Republic of North Korea for example) - in fact I can't think of any positive connotations of the word. Australia should remain a Commonwealth - the word was good enough for the English Commonwealth (1649-1660 if I remember my history lessons correctly) and is still used by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and four other US states none of which ever had a Monarch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishDigger Posted January 25, 2016 Share Posted January 25, 2016 At the last referendum on Australia becoming a republic the people voted NO, even those who wanted a republic voted NO; this was because the people did not want the politicians to elect the president, instead they wanted an elected president by the people. The Australian people do not trust politicians and I share the view of many that this country has far too many politicians and I believe that we should rid the country of State Governments and State Governors, expand the role of local councils and run the country federally from Canberra. In any case, Australia is destined to become a republic in not under the reign of HM Queen Elizabeth but definitely when Charles and Camila arrive on the scene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerberus1 Posted January 26, 2016 Author Share Posted January 26, 2016 Australian of the Year David Morrison has used his acceptance speech to throw his support behind the republican movement. The former Army chief used his first address in the role to call for an Australian head of state. General Morrison said he was proud to be a member of the republican movement, and it was time to "at least start to have the conversation". "With great respect to those who don't share my views and recognising our proud history of European settlement in this country and beyond, over 200 years and more, I will lend my voice to the Republican movement in this country," he said. "It is time, I think, to at least revisit the question so that we can stand both free and fully independent amongst the community of nations." Elsewhere, the Western Sydney University has been conducting a survey offering people a choice of six alternative flag designs. The Southern Horizon Flag (Top right) garnered 31 per cent of the vote, followed closely by the Reconciliation Flag (Middle Left), with 28 per cent. Of the respondents, 64 per cent said they believed the Australian flag should change, while 36 per cent said it should remain the same. Eighty-eight per cent of participants identified as having British, Irish or European heritage, while 3 per cent identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JockinTas Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Can't say that I like any of those flags but if I had to choose I'd go with the last one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diane Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Can I take this opportunity to campaign for my solution to the problem (again - apologies to those who have already been subjected to my campaign previously!)? Keeping the Monarchy as it is means Australia has a Head of State who lives half way around the world away - not ideal. Going the Republic route means we get someone who wants the Head of State position for their own personal gain - in the same way as most of the politicians in this country (and others) are. Would we really be happy to be represented by someone like that? No, what we need is someone who takes the role with a sense of duty - who doesn't need more money or more fame or more glory. Someone who wants to serve the country, not be served by it. Prince Harry is not needed in the line of succession in the UK any more - he has a father, a brother and a nephew all ahead of him now. And yet he has been raised to see the position as one of serving the people from duty. He's got the larrikin personality so adored by the average Aussie, he'd fit right in. Let's move him over here, get him to marry as Australian citizen so he can get a spouse visa - my choice is Bindi Irwin: her father was one of the few world-famous Australians so you don't get more Aussie than that, and her mother is American so it can only further our links with the US, plus she's well known over there since her Dancing with the Stars victory (or whatever it was). So Harry and Bindi can start a new Australian Royal Dynasty - based here, links to the Mother country for history's sake, links to the US so if China continues their Australian takeover we have a strong super power on our side.... all we need is a crowdfunding campaign to keep him well stocked with sun cream and the problem is solved! No-one yet has been able to come up with any real negatives to this plan - apart of course from the willingness of both main participants to go along with it. But I'm sure a good salesman could persuade them.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicF Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Providing the new Australian head of state has about as much input in to the politics of Australia as the queen does I'm all for it. It wouldn't really matter who it was as long as they were good at smiling, waving and small talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JockinTas Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Can I take this opportunity to campaign for my solution to the problem (again - apologies to those who have already been subjected to my campaign previously!)? Keeping the Monarchy as it is means Australia has a Head of State who lives half way around the world away - not ideal. Going the Republic route means we get someone who wants the Head of State position for their own personal gain - in the same way as most of the politicians in this country (and others) are. Would we really be happy to be represented by someone like that? No, what we need is someone who takes the role with a sense of duty - who doesn't need more money or more fame or more glory. Someone who wants to serve the country, not be served by it. Prince Harry is not needed in the line of succession in the UK any more - he has a father, a brother and a nephew all ahead of him now. And yet he has been raised to see the position as one of serving the people from duty. He's got the larrikin personality so adored by the average Aussie, he'd fit right in. Let's move him over here, get him to marry as Australian citizen so he can get a spouse visa - my choice is Bindi Irwin: her father was one of the few world-famous Australians so you don't get more Aussie than that, and her mother is American so it can only further our links with the US, plus she's well known over there since her Dancing with the Stars victory (or whatever it was). So Harry and Bindi can start a new Australian Royal Dynasty - based here, links to the Mother country for history's sake, links to the US so if China continues their Australian takeover we have a strong super power on our side.... all we need is a crowdfunding campaign to keep him well stocked with sun cream and the problem is solved! No-one yet has been able to come up with any real negatives to this plan - apart of course from the willingness of both main participants to go along with it. But I'm sure a good salesman could persuade them.... :laugh: Good stuff Diane! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Diane, Harry is not a paedophile. I think you first suggested this when Harry was about 28 and Bindi 14. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozee Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 It's like breeding a new dog line Sent from my SM-G901F using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Not a priority for the government. They have to focus on rejigging the tax system to get the budget under control and try to get us back to surplus. Malcolm Turnbull expects to be flat out trying to sell a rise in the GST and won't be able to do that and campaign for a republic at the same time. I expect it will happen though maybe not for another 20 years or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diane Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Diane, Harry is not a paedophile. I think you first suggested this when Harry was about 28 and Bindi 14. Well my daughter (at 21 so well beyond the age of consent!) has offered to throw her hat into the ring - she's got Australian citizenship and says she is prepared to overlook his hair colour in the service of her country.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 I'm in favour of Australia having it's own elected head of state. But I'm opposed to Australia becoming a Republic. The word just has too many negative connotations (who would want to live in the Republic of North Korea for example) - in fact I can't think of any positive connotations of the word. Australia should remain a Commonwealth - the word was good enough for the English Commonwealth (1649-1660 if I remember my history lessons correctly) and is still used by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and four other US states none of which ever had a Monarch. Correct me if I'm wrong ,but I fear you have the wrong connotations, with regards to the meaning of being a republic. Republic of Korea is a fully fledged democracy. I assume you are confused with the Peoples Republic of Korea, an entirely different kettle of fish. Other examples of a Republic are of course France, Italy , Greece. All countries without a monarch as head of state. It would have no impact on Commonwealth participation. Many Republics being members of that organisation. Namely India, South Africa, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Well my daughter (at 21 so well beyond the age of consent!) has offered to throw her hat into the ring - she's got Australian citizenship and says she is prepared to overlook his hair colour in the service of her country.... No one could ask for nor expect further sacrifice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlight7 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Especially a monarchy that is thousands of kms away and are not that interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dave53 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 The same old Republican debate rolled out again on Australia Day and no doubt will be rolled out again next year too . Dave C Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 The same old Republican debate rolled out again on Australia Day and no doubt will be rolled out again next year too .Dave C I feel a bit uncomfortable an Australian of the Year spruiking these types of views. I don't think that is what he is there for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Correct me if I'm wrong ,but I fear you have the wrong connotations, with regards to the meaning of being a republic. Republic of Korea is a fully fledged democracy. I assume you are confused with the Peoples Republic of Korea, an entirely different kettle of fish. Other examples of a Republic are of course France, Italy , Greece. All countries without a monarch as head of state. It would have no impact on Commonwealth participation. Many Republics being members of that organisation. Namely India, South Africa, etc. If by Commonwealth participation you mean the former British Commonwealth I didn't mention it as it is an irrelevance. I'm talking about the Commonwealth of Australia. There is no point in going to the expense of renaming it whether or not it has a monarch. I'm aware that both North and South Korea are Republics and that South Korea has a fairly well functioning democracy - and while that means South Korea isn't an example of a negative connotation I don't regard it as a positive either. The other examples you gave are countries which are currently democracies but all have histories that give a very negative spin to the word Republic (Guilotines; Musolini; Generals; Partition; Apartheid). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johndoe Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 I feel a bit uncomfortable an Australian of the Year spruiking these types of views. I don't think that is what he is there for. He's not the Governor. He's just a private individual entitled to his opinion, and entitled to express it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishDigger Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Can't say that I like any of those flags but if I had to choose I'd go with the last one. It's time we became a republic but I'm not so sure about changing the flag; what worries me in this day of political correctness and the satisfying of minorities is that we could end up with a flag that tries to satisfy every ones agenda. In regards to our current flag I am reminded of the following poem, Our Flag Author: Unknown Our Flag wears the stars that blaze at night, In our Southern skies of blue, And a little old flag in the corner, That’s part of our heritage too. It’s for the English, the Scots and the Irish, Who were sent to the ends of the earth, The rogues and schemers, the doers and dreamers, Who gave modern Australia its birth. And you, who are shouting to change it, You don’t seem to understand, It’s the flag of our laws and our language, Not the flag of a faraway land. Though there are plenty of people who'll tell you, How when Europe was plunged into night, That little old flag in the corner, Was their symbol of freedom and light. It doesn’t mean we owe allegiance, To a forgotten imperial dream, We’ve the stars to show where we’re going, And the old flag to show where we’ve been. It’s only an old piece of bunting, It’s only an old piece of rag, But there are thousands who’ve died for its honour, And shed of their blood for OUR FLAG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CNC FABS Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Speaking as an outside I guess. Surely it's only a matter of time before this happens and the flag is changed. What exactly does the UK for for AU anyway ?? I don't think even school children in the UK would really know much about the commonwealth or what it does / did / could do ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northshorepom Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 I would like Australia to be a republic (but then I'd like the UK to be a republic as well, so....) despite having a general mild dislike of the current leader of the Australian Republican Movement One thing the republican movement needs to do is stop getting tripped up with the flag question or the details of how the new set up might work. Establish the constitutional principle first, then sort that out. There's no need whatsoever that says a move to a republic has to be coincident with changing the flag, or vice-versa Flag debates are always divisive for a start, and I expect they will be especially divisive in Australia given the indigenous elephant in the room. Even in New Zealand, a country with a much more coherent sense of self across the racial divide, it's caused plenty of dramas and I think it would be a lot worse here. Spending loads of time on that would just derail the central question of whether or not Aus should be a republic IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I feel a bit uncomfortable an Australian of the Year spruiking these types of views. I don't think that is what he is there for. I think that is exactly what he is there for. Little point if just another totem, with nothing to contribute besides rubber stamping society as is. Good decision made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Especially a monarchy that is thousands of kms away and are not that interested. Mind boggling when thought about. Australia will IMO only truly come of age when shakes loose of the colonial in cumbrances of monarchy and embraces the confidence within its own political system to go it alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramot Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Remind me how many changes of PM's have we had recently? Have there been any suggestions of how a president would be selected? Not against the idea, but need convincing that it would be properly thought through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.