It's different to the UK, where the PM meets with the monarch every week, and laws regularly have exceptions in them for the royals. The upper house here is elected rather than appointed in the UK, with hereditary peers and religious representatives in it as well.
Over here the monarch is a figurehead, and the representative for them (governor general) is mostly ceremonial but performs some break-glass duties. You know how in the US when Congress is at loggerheads with itself and nothing gets done while all the politicians play chicken? Particularly with funding bills where almost the entire government stops while the pollies block funding? Doesn't happen here - if funding bills get blocked, all of parliament gets dissolved and we go to the elections again.
It also means that the PM is the leader of the largest faction in the house, so we don't end up in the stupid situation where the head of government (the prez) is of the opposite party to both the chambers.
The westminster system does have its quirks, but it doesn't have to deal with silly stuff like the electoral college. There's also a lot of power in the voting system - while it's not linked to westminster, we don't have FPTP voting like the US or UK, so we have better coverage of different interests. Yes, the US wouldn't deal with having a monarch because not having one is part of its founding story, but the way government actually works better represents the people.
We could get rid of the monarch, rename the G-G as 'president', and things would proceed without change. Well, the RAAF would become the FAAF, I guess.
Break glass duties - like dismiss the government?
Also, the PM does meet regularly with the monarch in Australia: as you say, the GG is the monarch’s representative. The King is Australia’s head of state.
Yes, the G-G is the monarch's representative... and they're appointed by the PM, not the monarch. This is unlike the UK, where the PM doesn't get to select the monarch's "representative", nor can that "representative" be jettisoned (without revolution, anyway).
Tony Abbott (think it was Abbott) dismissed a G-G early to replace with another he preferred, for example.
To be pedantic, Tony Abbott kept Quientin Bryce for her full term (she’s bill shorten’s mother in law, the then newly appointed opposition leader), it was only like 3 months left. She offered to resign but he rejected it.
Nah, the costs involved in changing branding would be pretty similar whether you add or remove a word. The instances of use of the acronym alone would be far lower than the full title in official stuff.
This one'll break your brain though, all three services will be going through the gradual change process of changing the image of the crown in everything that it's represented. Hat badges and rank slides for uniforms. Documentation. Building signage. EVERYTHING that has the Queen's crown on it will have to be updated because we now have a King, and the King's crown is different.
Can't imagine the cost that's going to involve without even changing words! Probably a few hundred thousand at the absolute bare minimum.
People are still crying about the cost of the voice (and will use it as ammunition at the next federal election). Imagine the political-weaponisation of the cost of becoming a Republic.
Australians are famously politically indifferent. The British influence has waned significantly despite keeping the British monarch as our head of state. In the modern day reality of it I don't see any problems no, historically however it has caused significant issues.
Has it waned significantly? All our political and legal systems, Urban planning philosophy, sports, the basis of lots of cuisine, humour, pub culture are all tied to british origins, arguable we also still view ourselves on some level as a colonial outpost rather than a seperate place near asia,possibly in ways that are so ingrained we dont notice them
I mean, from my perspective (non-English origin person who grew up in Australia and lives in England) it's waned significantly. Yes a lot of the things you've described started came with the British but it's all evolved into a very Australian version long ago. Our urban planning is thankfully not that bad, still have a lot of sports in common but our sports culture is very different in that a lot of us play, we're very active while British people tend to just watch gambling on the results or getting beligerently drunk which is increasingly rare in Australians, especially young ones. Humour is similar, perhaps we've lost our touch a bit though, the Brits are just that cut above in this respect. Thankfully our pubs have improved. I definitely don't view Australia as a colonial outpost, we're a lucky country that got out, we still have strong political ties, but I don't think anyone bears any real loyal to the U.K.
Australia’s government is a combination of a British constitutional monarchy and American federalism.
Personally I find it strange to have a foreign head of state and support becoming a republic but understand the average Aussie is indifferent and it would be difficult to agree on any changes.
But an apolitical foreign head of state kind of perfect. I'm not monarchist because I believe that monarchy is the most ethical or fair form of government, but you can't deny that having a head of state that is essentially not involved in domestic politics is good for general unity and political stability.
Edit: a combo of monarchy and representative government has been the most successful form of government in human history for both social progressiveness and industrial innovation.
The monarchy has been a relatively benign force in Australia (unlike Ireland for example) so many people don’t see the need to fix what ain’t broke.
Many other people think that the only alternative is something like an American President and no one wants that. Thanks to John Monarchist Howard rigging the 1999 referendum so it was a choice between one specific form of republic or the monarchy, the question of what type of republic hasn’t been discussed widely. A President like Ireland’s, which basically the same as our GG but the head of state rather than the head of states representative, would be perfect.
... and calling an election at which the people overwhelmingly endorsed the GG's action by giving the opposition a landslide win. Since the PM was proposing to govern without supply (relying on loans to fund govt) the GG protected a fundamental principle of representative democracy.
Its a bit rich blaming Howard for the 99 referendum result, i think the heads of the countless republican factions can take most of the credit for that
Meh.
Most of us simply don't care. It doesn't impact on us in an appreciable way in our day to day lives. That's the nice thing. We don't have people in general who're rabid supporters of the crown so much. There's a few massive royalists and generally they're older folks who just want something to obsess about.
But in general most people don't even have glancing contact with the concept beyond the fact that they're printed on our money.
Read about the Whitlam dismissal…that demonstrates the influence of a GG and the monarch in a way that kinda f*cked the direction Australia has subsequently moved in…
Yes, although to be fair, that was the last time the GG did anything meaningful, it was 50 years ago next year, and the consensus is that it could never happen again.
Although, to be fair, what Morrison did with allocating himself all those ministries also shouldn’t have happened, and yet those were signed off by the GG. That not only undermined the process but his own political and Cabinet colleagues. So, who friggin knows what could happen…
That was scary, true, but shows how the role of the GG has moved on. The GG just rubber-stamps what the government does, no matter how dodgy, and is not an active political participant, which is the exact opposite of Kerr’s behaviour.
That is true - technically it is still possible. But what I have heard from people in government is that the fallout for everyone involved was so substantial that no one is likely to pay that price again.
Still, if the US republicans have taught us anything, it is that if someone is prepared to sacrifice every scrap of humanity and moral decency in their pursuit of power, then convention is a poor defense. Who know what might happen?
I always saw that as a feature not a bug - Govt couldn’t pass the budget, Fraser was being a dick, Whitlam refuses to call an election, funding was going to run out - GG hand’s are tied, hits the reset button and the system reboots
It’s amazing how few people have any idea what was going on then, or even now - both in terms of what happened with Whitlam and whose influencing what now.
Honestly it will take another referendum to change the constitution and become a republic. They never get up without bi-partisan support so realistically we're just going to have to be patient an wait until Dutton and his peers are pushing up daisies .
I have issues with it. The Governor General has often failed to do their duty, and the king/queen clearly don't pay much attention to what's going on over here either - so they've never been in a position to recognise when the Governor General should be fired.
For example, during Covid-19 our Prime Minister (not the current one) secretly gave himself far more power than he ever should have had. The Governor General signed off on that, and also assisted in keeping it secret. He never actually used that power to do anything, and claims it was a "just in case" move to handle the pandemic if had got completely out of control (we managed it fairly well here it turned out) but that's no excuse, the Governor General should have, in my opinion, kicked the Prime Minister out of government for even proposing a secret power grab.
That's the most recent scandal, but there have been far worse Australia's history. In general, the UK has never good at governance of a country on the other side of the world. It was so much worse when we didn't have our own government here and also in the early decades after we had one (Australia's government was founded 123 years ago).
That doesn't mean, however, I want to copy the US system. One of the Governor General's main duties is to kick the government out of office if they are incapable of passing important legislation (a continuous problem in the USA lately) - and I never want to see that here.
Even though the GG is the representative f the monarch the Queen/King doesn't "hire or fire" them. They get appointed by the PM whenever one of them quits.
ScoMo would have been worrying about polls and day-to-day stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing was the GG's idea (or some civil servant in the GG office). I don't think Scottie from Marketing would have been the source (KRudd might have come up with something like it though). They both signed off on it.
Its a little complicated.
Our current deal with the UK is that we stay a constitutional monarchy as long as they never, ever, ever tell us to do anything at all. If they try then we will be out within minutes and its been publicly stated that if they try and pull some sort of fucking about with it, there will be a finding out.
Your average citizen isnt actually happy about this, but we also dont trust our politicians to change the system in a way which is not going to fuck us over. So we mostly ignore it.
What can they do? Since The Australia Act (1986), Australia has been completely independent of the British parliament, and there is no longer the ability to appeal to the British Privy Council.
I guess the King could refuse to approve a governor general, or acknowledge his role as King of Australia, but no-one would care.
I’d prefer to be a republic in general but would vote no for the model proposed in 99. I would also vote no for the current plan that is going around, which is have the vote and then decide on the model.
In general, we don’t need a monarchy, but the point of changing the constitution is to make the system better, not worse, and the 99 referendum model would have all but guaranteed a constitutional crisis.
Issues? No - the actual monarch has very little influence or impact upon Australia these days.
We will likely become a republic one day - if we can be bothered - the main sticking point seems to be how we'd choose the head of state and what they'd be called.
Personally I'd call them the Governor-General and keep the current selection process and powers for that position as it would require the least amount of change in legislation and result in pretty much zero actual change apart from that we'd be a republic. No boats would be rocked, no feathers ruffled!
I don't like it as a concept, but in reality to our daily lives, it is meaningless.
If we became a republic, we would spend a lot of money just to change some logos and a flag I don't give a shit about.
I don't give a shit about flags. My flag, your flag, They are just fucking flags.
I can't eat flags.
I have strong opinions and firmly believe it's time to become a republic. My views are not held by the majority - most people probably fall in to the "I don't really care so why bother messing with a system that works" camp rather than being full-blown monarchists.
I think we should be a republic. I don’t understand the benefit we get from having the King as our head of state. Like, how much does he even know about us? His focus is on the UK so we’re pretty low on his list of priorities.
I certainly don’t want us to end up with the same political system as the US though. IMO it should stay the same, just without the monarchy.
“I don’t think the US would respond well if we were one” but if you were one, it would have started hundreds of years ago and you’d know no different just like us.
True. I thought when I wrote that that people would probably do protests in the street saying “this is dumb”
What are you not like about our political system? I feel like your politicians aren’t so nasty to each other and everything so polarized. Maybe I’m wrong.
The two party system leads to very clear divides in everything. We have 2 major parties as well, but also a bunch of minor ones so parliament isn’t just “either or” like in the US. A random person can’t decide to be PM, they have to actually be in politics and have some kind of experience (although some would argue that’s not ideal). I would like for us to have something similar to a primary vote in the US though instead of the parties choosing who we can vote for in the federal election.
Also, hard pass on the electoral college. The popular vote should be the only one that counts.
Vast majority of Aussies I'd say are indifferent. The British monarchy doesn't interfere with our affairs so recognising them as head of state is really a non issue in our everyday lives.
Regarding political processes, what we have isn't great but given what we've seen recently, we're all glad it isn't the elaborate shitshow that is the US political system.
Id take our system over whatever the Americans use 110%.
Hell I'd prefer a arm growing out my arsehole rather then do anything like the seppos.
They are good tho - they are a shiney beacon for the rest of the world of what not to do.
Considering that a major portion of the Australian government was modeled on the US system, it’s going to be pretty hard to avoid doing “anything” like them.
Compulsory preferential voting for a Westminster parliament with an independent electoral commission makes us pretty far from the US.
It means we don’t suffer from gerrymandering or voter suppression. We don’t suffer from a two-party or wasted-vote dichotomy. We don’t suffer from inescapable gridlock when the three branches of government disagree. And most importantly, we don’t suffer from the extremes required to pander to either wing in order to “get out the vote”.
>We don’t suffer from a two-party or wasted-vote dichotomy.
Kinda. But the Libs and Labor have a pretty strong grip on the majority. It's been 80 years since a different party was in control.
>We don’t suffer from inescapable gridlock when the three branches of government disagree.
I'm not sure what you mean by this one.
In any case, you're talking about one facet (elections), which I think is much better here than in the US. But we could look at other facets of the government and policies that are similar, and some of which we we took from the US.
While Australia’s legal connection to the British monarchy exists, its practical impact on daily governance is minimal. Australia has its own distinct legal system and government, and the monarch’s role is largely symbolic.
We voted against a republic - it is bad enough having a dick head prime minister and a 2 party system that offers no choice. I don't think we could suffer a dick head president and a 2 party system like America and still have no choice.
America was founded by non conformist who fled Europe for the very reason that they didn't want to be told how to conduct their lives. They will always be at odds with authority. Its in their nature.
Save the next Republican referendum for after we fix the housing and homelessness crisis. Wasting money on it now would be a really bad PR move. Other than that I think we should do it eventually. I'm not impressed with what England has been doing to itself and I don't think we have anything to gain by staying in the Commonwealth.
By voting leave they lost all of their trading partners.
What do we lose by leaving the Commonwealth? We lose a mechanism by which foreigners can overthrow our governments, and we lose having to pay for Royal visits.
Corrected, been reading too much about the war.
I was against leaving in 99. I was in Russia for the 93 "division of state owned assets" and assume if we leave, there are going to be a few people making a killing, crown land going to mining companies and such.
Come to think of it, there may need to be a public discussion pointing out non obvious benefits we are getting from he present arrangement.
There might be some I'm not aware of.
I voted to become a republic and would again. I definitely have zero interest in being a constitutional monarchy and have never seen the monarch as being ours.
I couldn't give two shits whether we remain a constitutional monarchy or a republic. But the only reason why I object to becoming a republic is the money and cost. The transition will cost a shit ton of money. Money that could be better spent in other areas like hospitals, education, housing, etc.
Personally I don’t like our tax dollars going to pay for a Governor General and State Governors (seriously have you seen the types of places these guys live in?) who don’t really do much apart from ceremonial duties. But that’s it.
No issues at all. Some people want us to become a republic but it’s be so much hassle, which won’t really impact most people, that we’d hate the time/money spent on it.
Some people have issues with it, others don't, and lots don't care one way or the other.
If you look at some Commonwealth member countries that became republics and have a Prime Minister and a President, there is a lot of historical evidence of the two falling out over domestic issues, to the detriment of the country.
Some Australians are happy with the power having a foreign Monarch removes from our system
I'd rather be a republic, but I don't care enough to do anything about it. The royals are a bunch of wankers overall, but they don't actually have much to do with us most of the time
People generally don't give a shit because UK does not cause trouble for Australia.
Should UK start starving Australians like they did to the Irish then it would be another matter.
It has literally no effect on daily life or politics for that matter. It's purely symbolic, and any gripes are about what that symbolism means, not about any real power or authority.
Most Australians would like Australia to be a republic, like yourselves, with an elected head of state, a la president, however it would require a change to our constitution. We tried to do it back in 1999 but most did not want that format so that failed. I did. Lol.
Changing our constitution is actually quite hard as it requires a majority of voters and a majority of voters in a majority of states to agree.
So currently our Prime Minister solely picks the Governor General who is effectively our head of state. Traditionally the British monarch does not interfere in Australia. They leave that to the Governor General but they can still legally.
So we currently have the prime minister pick his boss. What a wonderful idea. /s
I don't think it's of any consequential importance. Most people will have varied opinions on why we haven't changed this arrangement; I think it's a case of '*better the devil you know*'. The good thing about having separate heads of government and state, in theory, is that the head of state can do some of the ceremonial shit that the head of government might have to do otherwise.
'*Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried*', and, I would add, having a separate head of state to do some of the diplomatic smarm and charm stuff and to allow the actual leader (the PM) to get on with the objectively important stuff of running government is better than having a combined head of state and government. At least, this seems like a slightly more pragmatic alternative to the extra theatre/fanfare/ego mania seen in the most famous republics/presidential systems.
Although the Governor General, AFAIK, doesn't actually do much of the diplomatic stuff for Australia (unlike the King does for the UK).
The push to be a republic parallels other movements that seem to believe symbolic value is a good argument for change. Rational people require step-by-step, objective, detailed reasoning to be persuaded that change is beneficial. Just because something exists from an era that people, with the benefit of modern-day ethics, now recognise as wrong in the 21st century doesn't mean spending money on changing to something with no objective benefit today is morally correct or in the best interest of our country.
It's also weird how some people present the issue as though the UK still has some jurisdiction over us and doesn't hold near identical democratic values to us anyway. I find it hard to get invested in something where the reasoning is somewhat disingenuous. If someone finds it stuffy and weird that we have a foreign head of state, then say that - don't make up BS additional reasons as if it's somehow consequential. Also, think very hard about how our republic would function to separate us from the republics that Aussies are most familiar with and likely don't feel enthusiastic about copying - the US, France, etc.
That’s not what I said. I don’t think that we would respond well if we were under a monarchy because I feel like people would be protesting that this is dumb.
Most people under 40 don’t care about the Royal Family or any of its symbolisms, positive or negative we don’t think about it. Except for the Kings Birthday because we get a public holiday.
Hopefully in the near future we become a republic purely for an identity sense, but it’s a 50/50 because most just don’t care about politics. We’re pretty chill about most things.
Do I personally think we should drop the 'royal'?
Yes, we should be a Republic.
Are there a heap of clingers who somehow think our country is connected to Britian despite us having migration from other countries since literally the first day of colonisation? Yes.
Will those people weaponise the cost of a Republican movement for political gain? Yes.
I would not support becoming a republic. The monarchy costs the tax payer absolutely nothing, has zero downsides, and presumably does…. Something. Like, whatever the monarchy actually does for Australia, they are doing it for free. Becoming a republic costs actual money and introduces new risks of political instability that only need mitigating because someone arbitrarily decided to change the constitution.
"I don’t think the U.S. would respond well if we were one"
History shows you are right on that score.
They said enough of that bullshit a couple of hundred years ago and haven't looked back since.
Completely eclipsing the former British Empire and other Old World European powers in the process.
Literally, the best thing they ever did.
We're told the Governer General is a figure head and isn't important in school, in reality they have the power to remove a POPULAR acting prime minister from office. Declassified CIA documents revealing it was on their behalf the GG removed Whitlam from office
The fact we didn't become a republic then and there speaks volumes.
Practically speaking, not at all, it's a decent system compared to all the alternatives around the world. We've only had the one CIA backed coup, which is pretty good by world standards. Otherwise it has been a good guarantee of stability, which is underrated by those who haven't lived in revolutionary times.
Symbolically, monarchy is an antique relic that should have been done away with centuries ago. I have no particular animus towards Charlie 3, considering his upbringing he seems relatively normal and caring. But the idea that some heavily inbred Saxe Coburg Gotha who has barely visited us gets political power through an accident of birth is pretty bloody stupid.
Of course, getting agreement on the alternative future in these fractured times would be impossible, so for now I'm resigned to letting it sit.
Imagine having your head of state being imposed on your country by another …. Say perhaps… Russia… and you no stay in it, and you cannot have an American as your head of state, but only a Russian…. So in Australia’s case you can be only a member of Parliament if you’re an Australian citizen but to be our ultimate head of state, you have to be an English citizen, because currently an Australian cannot be the head of state of Australia.
Fun fact: the USA had one of our former Prime Ministers removed from office for threatening to close Pine Gap, a CIA/NSA run intelligence installation on Australian soil. The CIA used its relationship with the acting Governor General to dismiss Geoff Whitlam from office in 1975.
Pine Gap, still operates today, and no government party leader has since spoken out against the installation, or its participation in foreign military operations and intelligence.
I used to be proud of the monarchy, but as I get older I feel more aligned to voting for a republic.
>Fun fact: the USA had one of our former Prime Ministers removed from office for threatening to close Pine Gap, a CIA/NSA run intelligence installation on Australian soil.
Thats not “fact”, thats a bullshit conspiracy theory with literally zero concrete (or even halfway compelling) evidence.
She’ll be right mate 🇦🇺🦘👍
Haha I don’t get it
That's Aussie speak for '...or are indifferent and just go about your day'.
Thank you
It's different to the UK, where the PM meets with the monarch every week, and laws regularly have exceptions in them for the royals. The upper house here is elected rather than appointed in the UK, with hereditary peers and religious representatives in it as well. Over here the monarch is a figurehead, and the representative for them (governor general) is mostly ceremonial but performs some break-glass duties. You know how in the US when Congress is at loggerheads with itself and nothing gets done while all the politicians play chicken? Particularly with funding bills where almost the entire government stops while the pollies block funding? Doesn't happen here - if funding bills get blocked, all of parliament gets dissolved and we go to the elections again. It also means that the PM is the leader of the largest faction in the house, so we don't end up in the stupid situation where the head of government (the prez) is of the opposite party to both the chambers. The westminster system does have its quirks, but it doesn't have to deal with silly stuff like the electoral college. There's also a lot of power in the voting system - while it's not linked to westminster, we don't have FPTP voting like the US or UK, so we have better coverage of different interests. Yes, the US wouldn't deal with having a monarch because not having one is part of its founding story, but the way government actually works better represents the people. We could get rid of the monarch, rename the G-G as 'president', and things would proceed without change. Well, the RAAF would become the FAAF, I guess.
Break glass duties - like dismiss the government? Also, the PM does meet regularly with the monarch in Australia: as you say, the GG is the monarch’s representative. The King is Australia’s head of state.
Yes, the G-G is the monarch's representative... and they're appointed by the PM, not the monarch. This is unlike the UK, where the PM doesn't get to select the monarch's "representative", nor can that "representative" be jettisoned (without revolution, anyway). Tony Abbott (think it was Abbott) dismissed a G-G early to replace with another he preferred, for example.
The GG is appointed by the monarch. But the PM recommends the candidate, and the monarch has agreed every time so far.
You are discussing the niceties of appointment while avoiding the elephant in the room…
To be pedantic, Tony Abbott kept Quientin Bryce for her full term (she’s bill shorten’s mother in law, the then newly appointed opposition leader), it was only like 3 months left. She offered to resign but he rejected it.
I prefer FAFO for the air force, but ours ain't so FO 🤷♂️
Change the royal to Republican Australian Air Force and call it a day.
I mean, Australian Air Force would be fine. We already have the Australian Army (no Royal on that) so it's not like we have to make it fancy.
I think most people don't care, I just wonder if keeping the R would help keep some costs down
Nah, the costs involved in changing branding would be pretty similar whether you add or remove a word. The instances of use of the acronym alone would be far lower than the full title in official stuff. This one'll break your brain though, all three services will be going through the gradual change process of changing the image of the crown in everything that it's represented. Hat badges and rank slides for uniforms. Documentation. Building signage. EVERYTHING that has the Queen's crown on it will have to be updated because we now have a King, and the King's crown is different. Can't imagine the cost that's going to involve without even changing words! Probably a few hundred thousand at the absolute bare minimum.
Fml (re the crown change). this is the bullshit
How about the Australian Republic Service of Earth - ARSE for short
ARSE already exists. [Australian Research & Space Exploration](https://spaceaustralia.com.au/) 🤣
How about Building Utilities That Tank Horrible Obsolete Losers Everwhere - BUTTHOLE The Royal flying BUTTHOLE Let’s see a flyover by BUTTHOLE
HAHAHAHA I appreciate this one, and will heartily support it's institution.
People are still crying about the cost of the voice (and will use it as ammunition at the next federal election). Imagine the political-weaponisation of the cost of becoming a Republic.
Australians are famously politically indifferent. The British influence has waned significantly despite keeping the British monarch as our head of state. In the modern day reality of it I don't see any problems no, historically however it has caused significant issues.
Has it waned significantly? All our political and legal systems, Urban planning philosophy, sports, the basis of lots of cuisine, humour, pub culture are all tied to british origins, arguable we also still view ourselves on some level as a colonial outpost rather than a seperate place near asia,possibly in ways that are so ingrained we dont notice them
I mean, from my perspective (non-English origin person who grew up in Australia and lives in England) it's waned significantly. Yes a lot of the things you've described started came with the British but it's all evolved into a very Australian version long ago. Our urban planning is thankfully not that bad, still have a lot of sports in common but our sports culture is very different in that a lot of us play, we're very active while British people tend to just watch gambling on the results or getting beligerently drunk which is increasingly rare in Australians, especially young ones. Humour is similar, perhaps we've lost our touch a bit though, the Brits are just that cut above in this respect. Thankfully our pubs have improved. I definitely don't view Australia as a colonial outpost, we're a lucky country that got out, we still have strong political ties, but I don't think anyone bears any real loyal to the U.K.
There’s no chance Australians view themself as a colonial outpost and not a seperate place.
Not literally but in our outlook geopoltically and for many xenophobic australians we certainly do
Australia’s government is a combination of a British constitutional monarchy and American federalism. Personally I find it strange to have a foreign head of state and support becoming a republic but understand the average Aussie is indifferent and it would be difficult to agree on any changes.
But an apolitical foreign head of state kind of perfect. I'm not monarchist because I believe that monarchy is the most ethical or fair form of government, but you can't deny that having a head of state that is essentially not involved in domestic politics is good for general unity and political stability. Edit: a combo of monarchy and representative government has been the most successful form of government in human history for both social progressiveness and industrial innovation.
I wouldn't say I have issues. I'm very slightly in favor of Australia becoming a republic, but it's not like it keeps me up at night.
The monarchy has been a relatively benign force in Australia (unlike Ireland for example) so many people don’t see the need to fix what ain’t broke. Many other people think that the only alternative is something like an American President and no one wants that. Thanks to John Monarchist Howard rigging the 1999 referendum so it was a choice between one specific form of republic or the monarchy, the question of what type of republic hasn’t been discussed widely. A President like Ireland’s, which basically the same as our GG but the head of state rather than the head of states representative, would be perfect.
Benign, aside from sacking an elected Prime Minister
... and calling an election at which the people overwhelmingly endorsed the GG's action by giving the opposition a landslide win. Since the PM was proposing to govern without supply (relying on loans to fund govt) the GG protected a fundamental principle of representative democracy.
Its a bit rich blaming Howard for the 99 referendum result, i think the heads of the countless republican factions can take most of the credit for that
Meh. Most of us simply don't care. It doesn't impact on us in an appreciable way in our day to day lives. That's the nice thing. We don't have people in general who're rabid supporters of the crown so much. There's a few massive royalists and generally they're older folks who just want something to obsess about. But in general most people don't even have glancing contact with the concept beyond the fact that they're printed on our money.
The English monarchy has little to no impact on our government They are mainly just a figurehead.
I'm fine with Australia being a constitutional monarchy.
Read about the Whitlam dismissal…that demonstrates the influence of a GG and the monarch in a way that kinda f*cked the direction Australia has subsequently moved in…
Yes, although to be fair, that was the last time the GG did anything meaningful, it was 50 years ago next year, and the consensus is that it could never happen again.
Although, to be fair, what Morrison did with allocating himself all those ministries also shouldn’t have happened, and yet those were signed off by the GG. That not only undermined the process but his own political and Cabinet colleagues. So, who friggin knows what could happen…
That was scary, true, but shows how the role of the GG has moved on. The GG just rubber-stamps what the government does, no matter how dodgy, and is not an active political participant, which is the exact opposite of Kerr’s behaviour.
Swung too far the other way…
[удалено]
That is true - technically it is still possible. But what I have heard from people in government is that the fallout for everyone involved was so substantial that no one is likely to pay that price again. Still, if the US republicans have taught us anything, it is that if someone is prepared to sacrifice every scrap of humanity and moral decency in their pursuit of power, then convention is a poor defense. Who know what might happen?
I always saw that as a feature not a bug - Govt couldn’t pass the budget, Fraser was being a dick, Whitlam refuses to call an election, funding was going to run out - GG hand’s are tied, hits the reset button and the system reboots
Interesting thing is it was the US that influenced the governor general.
It’s amazing how few people have any idea what was going on then, or even now - both in terms of what happened with Whitlam and whose influencing what now.
The electorate seemed to agree with the GG. Maybe reread those history books?
The system has worked well for us, why change it?
Yes I hate it. The only thing more annoying than being a constitutional monarchy is everyones indifference to being a constitutional monarchy.
It means literally nothing to me. We are long overdue to become a republic, but the usual suspects disagree on potential models.
Honestly it will take another referendum to change the constitution and become a republic. They never get up without bi-partisan support so realistically we're just going to have to be patient an wait until Dutton and his peers are pushing up daisies .
I have a vague recollection of Howard's offer being something like heads I win, tails you lose.
I have issues with it. The Governor General has often failed to do their duty, and the king/queen clearly don't pay much attention to what's going on over here either - so they've never been in a position to recognise when the Governor General should be fired. For example, during Covid-19 our Prime Minister (not the current one) secretly gave himself far more power than he ever should have had. The Governor General signed off on that, and also assisted in keeping it secret. He never actually used that power to do anything, and claims it was a "just in case" move to handle the pandemic if had got completely out of control (we managed it fairly well here it turned out) but that's no excuse, the Governor General should have, in my opinion, kicked the Prime Minister out of government for even proposing a secret power grab. That's the most recent scandal, but there have been far worse Australia's history. In general, the UK has never good at governance of a country on the other side of the world. It was so much worse when we didn't have our own government here and also in the early decades after we had one (Australia's government was founded 123 years ago). That doesn't mean, however, I want to copy the US system. One of the Governor General's main duties is to kick the government out of office if they are incapable of passing important legislation (a continuous problem in the USA lately) - and I never want to see that here.
It was dodgy by Scomo but within the law. So you want GG to ignore the law? Or maybe get parliament to change the law.
Even though the GG is the representative f the monarch the Queen/King doesn't "hire or fire" them. They get appointed by the PM whenever one of them quits.
ScoMo would have been worrying about polls and day-to-day stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing was the GG's idea (or some civil servant in the GG office). I don't think Scottie from Marketing would have been the source (KRudd might have come up with something like it though). They both signed off on it.
Its a little complicated. Our current deal with the UK is that we stay a constitutional monarchy as long as they never, ever, ever tell us to do anything at all. If they try then we will be out within minutes and its been publicly stated that if they try and pull some sort of fucking about with it, there will be a finding out. Your average citizen isnt actually happy about this, but we also dont trust our politicians to change the system in a way which is not going to fuck us over. So we mostly ignore it.
I mean, they did try to tell us we shouldn’t run out dozy batsmen that leave their crease while the ball is still in play.
Have you eber heard of the Australia Acts (1986) ?
What can they do? Since The Australia Act (1986), Australia has been completely independent of the British parliament, and there is no longer the ability to appeal to the British Privy Council. I guess the King could refuse to approve a governor general, or acknowledge his role as King of Australia, but no-one would care.
We like it and voted to stay in .
I’d prefer to be a republic in general but would vote no for the model proposed in 99. I would also vote no for the current plan that is going around, which is have the vote and then decide on the model. In general, we don’t need a monarchy, but the point of changing the constitution is to make the system better, not worse, and the 99 referendum model would have all but guaranteed a constitutional crisis.
No, the specific alternative provided was voted against.
And that was part of the government's plan - put up a model that they knew was going to fail
*1999
25 years ago when many of us couldn’t vote
Issues? No - the actual monarch has very little influence or impact upon Australia these days. We will likely become a republic one day - if we can be bothered - the main sticking point seems to be how we'd choose the head of state and what they'd be called. Personally I'd call them the Governor-General and keep the current selection process and powers for that position as it would require the least amount of change in legislation and result in pretty much zero actual change apart from that we'd be a republic. No boats would be rocked, no feathers ruffled!
I don't like it as a concept, but in reality to our daily lives, it is meaningless. If we became a republic, we would spend a lot of money just to change some logos and a flag I don't give a shit about. I don't give a shit about flags. My flag, your flag, They are just fucking flags. I can't eat flags.
I have strong opinions and firmly believe it's time to become a republic. My views are not held by the majority - most people probably fall in to the "I don't really care so why bother messing with a system that works" camp rather than being full-blown monarchists.
I think we should be a republic. I don’t understand the benefit we get from having the King as our head of state. Like, how much does he even know about us? His focus is on the UK so we’re pretty low on his list of priorities. I certainly don’t want us to end up with the same political system as the US though. IMO it should stay the same, just without the monarchy. “I don’t think the US would respond well if we were one” but if you were one, it would have started hundreds of years ago and you’d know no different just like us.
True. I thought when I wrote that that people would probably do protests in the street saying “this is dumb” What are you not like about our political system? I feel like your politicians aren’t so nasty to each other and everything so polarized. Maybe I’m wrong.
The two party system leads to very clear divides in everything. We have 2 major parties as well, but also a bunch of minor ones so parliament isn’t just “either or” like in the US. A random person can’t decide to be PM, they have to actually be in politics and have some kind of experience (although some would argue that’s not ideal). I would like for us to have something similar to a primary vote in the US though instead of the parties choosing who we can vote for in the federal election. Also, hard pass on the electoral college. The popular vote should be the only one that counts.
Well said
What's strange is that we seem to want to keep ties with the monarchy. But don't actually want it involved in any meaningful way.
Vast majority of Aussies I'd say are indifferent. The British monarchy doesn't interfere with our affairs so recognising them as head of state is really a non issue in our everyday lives. Regarding political processes, what we have isn't great but given what we've seen recently, we're all glad it isn't the elaborate shitshow that is the US political system.
Great comment
Fuck the British and their royal family
Id take our system over whatever the Americans use 110%. Hell I'd prefer a arm growing out my arsehole rather then do anything like the seppos. They are good tho - they are a shiney beacon for the rest of the world of what not to do.
Considering that a major portion of the Australian government was modeled on the US system, it’s going to be pretty hard to avoid doing “anything” like them.
Yeah, I keep an eye on US politics, knowing we're not that far behind.
Compulsory preferential voting for a Westminster parliament with an independent electoral commission makes us pretty far from the US. It means we don’t suffer from gerrymandering or voter suppression. We don’t suffer from a two-party or wasted-vote dichotomy. We don’t suffer from inescapable gridlock when the three branches of government disagree. And most importantly, we don’t suffer from the extremes required to pander to either wing in order to “get out the vote”.
>We don’t suffer from a two-party or wasted-vote dichotomy. Kinda. But the Libs and Labor have a pretty strong grip on the majority. It's been 80 years since a different party was in control. >We don’t suffer from inescapable gridlock when the three branches of government disagree. I'm not sure what you mean by this one. In any case, you're talking about one facet (elections), which I think is much better here than in the US. But we could look at other facets of the government and policies that are similar, and some of which we we took from the US.
That's fine, but how many of the top 500 Australian companies are paying less tax than I am?
While Australia’s legal connection to the British monarchy exists, its practical impact on daily governance is minimal. Australia has its own distinct legal system and government, and the monarch’s role is largely symbolic. We voted against a republic - it is bad enough having a dick head prime minister and a 2 party system that offers no choice. I don't think we could suffer a dick head president and a 2 party system like America and still have no choice. America was founded by non conformist who fled Europe for the very reason that they didn't want to be told how to conduct their lives. They will always be at odds with authority. Its in their nature.
I would prefer to have the final strap cut with the UK but I do not want the USA circus and expense instead
Save the next Republican referendum for after we fix the housing and homelessness crisis. Wasting money on it now would be a really bad PR move. Other than that I think we should do it eventually. I'm not impressed with what England has been doing to itself and I don't think we have anything to gain by staying in the Commonwealth.
Dropping the monarchy doesn’t mean leaving the commonwealth. Plenty of republic member states in the commonwealth.
That's what the Brits thought about the EU :)
By voting leave they lost all of their trading partners. What do we lose by leaving the Commonwealth? We lose a mechanism by which foreigners can overthrow our governments, and we lose having to pay for Royal visits.
Corrected, been reading too much about the war. I was against leaving in 99. I was in Russia for the 93 "division of state owned assets" and assume if we leave, there are going to be a few people making a killing, crown land going to mining companies and such.
Crown land is just public land, the monarchy doesn't own it
Come to think of it, there may need to be a public discussion pointing out non obvious benefits we are getting from he present arrangement. There might be some I'm not aware of.
What's with all these monarchy questions in this sub at the moment?
Yes. It’s weird.
I voted to become a republic and would again. I definitely have zero interest in being a constitutional monarchy and have never seen the monarch as being ours.
I hate having a king. It’s a bit like a hemorrhoid.
Don't like it and wish we weren't but can't see too much energy being spent on a republican movement
I couldn't give two shits whether we remain a constitutional monarchy or a republic. But the only reason why I object to becoming a republic is the money and cost. The transition will cost a shit ton of money. Money that could be better spent in other areas like hospitals, education, housing, etc.
I want to become a republic, we gave nothing holding us to the UK anymore.
Personally I don’t like our tax dollars going to pay for a Governor General and State Governors (seriously have you seen the types of places these guys live in?) who don’t really do much apart from ceremonial duties. But that’s it.
Makes sense. I haven’t. I’m sure it’s lavish
Nah Not really
No issues at all. Some people want us to become a republic but it’s be so much hassle, which won’t really impact most people, that we’d hate the time/money spent on it.
Some people have issues with it, others don't, and lots don't care one way or the other. If you look at some Commonwealth member countries that became republics and have a Prime Minister and a President, there is a lot of historical evidence of the two falling out over domestic issues, to the detriment of the country. Some Australians are happy with the power having a foreign Monarch removes from our system
I'd rather be a republic, but I don't care enough to do anything about it. The royals are a bunch of wankers overall, but they don't actually have much to do with us most of the time
People generally don't give a shit because UK does not cause trouble for Australia. Should UK start starving Australians like they did to the Irish then it would be another matter.
It has literally no effect on daily life or politics for that matter. It's purely symbolic, and any gripes are about what that symbolism means, not about any real power or authority.
Most Australians would like Australia to be a republic, like yourselves, with an elected head of state, a la president, however it would require a change to our constitution. We tried to do it back in 1999 but most did not want that format so that failed. I did. Lol. Changing our constitution is actually quite hard as it requires a majority of voters and a majority of voters in a majority of states to agree. So currently our Prime Minister solely picks the Governor General who is effectively our head of state. Traditionally the British monarch does not interfere in Australia. They leave that to the Governor General but they can still legally. So we currently have the prime minister pick his boss. What a wonderful idea. /s
I don't think it's of any consequential importance. Most people will have varied opinions on why we haven't changed this arrangement; I think it's a case of '*better the devil you know*'. The good thing about having separate heads of government and state, in theory, is that the head of state can do some of the ceremonial shit that the head of government might have to do otherwise. '*Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried*', and, I would add, having a separate head of state to do some of the diplomatic smarm and charm stuff and to allow the actual leader (the PM) to get on with the objectively important stuff of running government is better than having a combined head of state and government. At least, this seems like a slightly more pragmatic alternative to the extra theatre/fanfare/ego mania seen in the most famous republics/presidential systems. Although the Governor General, AFAIK, doesn't actually do much of the diplomatic stuff for Australia (unlike the King does for the UK). The push to be a republic parallels other movements that seem to believe symbolic value is a good argument for change. Rational people require step-by-step, objective, detailed reasoning to be persuaded that change is beneficial. Just because something exists from an era that people, with the benefit of modern-day ethics, now recognise as wrong in the 21st century doesn't mean spending money on changing to something with no objective benefit today is morally correct or in the best interest of our country. It's also weird how some people present the issue as though the UK still has some jurisdiction over us and doesn't hold near identical democratic values to us anyway. I find it hard to get invested in something where the reasoning is somewhat disingenuous. If someone finds it stuffy and weird that we have a foreign head of state, then say that - don't make up BS additional reasons as if it's somehow consequential. Also, think very hard about how our republic would function to separate us from the republics that Aussies are most familiar with and likely don't feel enthusiastic about copying - the US, France, etc.
[удалено]
That’s not what I said. I don’t think that we would respond well if we were under a monarchy because I feel like people would be protesting that this is dumb.
We'll have a Head of State regardless of out system. The choice is someone who is trained from childhood in Statecraft, or a self serving politician.
Honestly we don't give a shit.
Yes. Fuck the monarchy. You know the governor general sacked our prime minister as a part of keeping an American spy base on our soil?
Most people under 40 don’t care about the Royal Family or any of its symbolisms, positive or negative we don’t think about it. Except for the Kings Birthday because we get a public holiday. Hopefully in the near future we become a republic purely for an identity sense, but it’s a 50/50 because most just don’t care about politics. We’re pretty chill about most things.
I’m stridently against it and feel it’s holding us back as a nation but I feel most people are relatively indifferent to it.
Do I personally think we should drop the 'royal'? Yes, we should be a Republic. Are there a heap of clingers who somehow think our country is connected to Britian despite us having migration from other countries since literally the first day of colonisation? Yes. Will those people weaponise the cost of a Republican movement for political gain? Yes.
Lots of people don't like the monarchy and want a republic, making constitutional change via referendum is just quite difficult.
I would not support becoming a republic. The monarchy costs the tax payer absolutely nothing, has zero downsides, and presumably does…. Something. Like, whatever the monarchy actually does for Australia, they are doing it for free. Becoming a republic costs actual money and introduces new risks of political instability that only need mitigating because someone arbitrarily decided to change the constitution.
"I don’t think the U.S. would respond well if we were one" History shows you are right on that score. They said enough of that bullshit a couple of hundred years ago and haven't looked back since. Completely eclipsing the former British Empire and other Old World European powers in the process. Literally, the best thing they ever did.
biggest day to day annoyance is having some foreign flag on our flag and some foreigner on all our cash money.
We're told the Governer General is a figure head and isn't important in school, in reality they have the power to remove a POPULAR acting prime minister from office. Declassified CIA documents revealing it was on their behalf the GG removed Whitlam from office The fact we didn't become a republic then and there speaks volumes.
Yes. Massive issues
Practically speaking, not at all, it's a decent system compared to all the alternatives around the world. We've only had the one CIA backed coup, which is pretty good by world standards. Otherwise it has been a good guarantee of stability, which is underrated by those who haven't lived in revolutionary times. Symbolically, monarchy is an antique relic that should have been done away with centuries ago. I have no particular animus towards Charlie 3, considering his upbringing he seems relatively normal and caring. But the idea that some heavily inbred Saxe Coburg Gotha who has barely visited us gets political power through an accident of birth is pretty bloody stupid. Of course, getting agreement on the alternative future in these fractured times would be impossible, so for now I'm resigned to letting it sit.
Imagine having your head of state being imposed on your country by another …. Say perhaps… Russia… and you no stay in it, and you cannot have an American as your head of state, but only a Russian…. So in Australia’s case you can be only a member of Parliament if you’re an Australian citizen but to be our ultimate head of state, you have to be an English citizen, because currently an Australian cannot be the head of state of Australia.
Fun fact: the USA had one of our former Prime Ministers removed from office for threatening to close Pine Gap, a CIA/NSA run intelligence installation on Australian soil. The CIA used its relationship with the acting Governor General to dismiss Geoff Whitlam from office in 1975. Pine Gap, still operates today, and no government party leader has since spoken out against the installation, or its participation in foreign military operations and intelligence. I used to be proud of the monarchy, but as I get older I feel more aligned to voting for a republic.
>Fun fact: the USA had one of our former Prime Ministers removed from office for threatening to close Pine Gap, a CIA/NSA run intelligence installation on Australian soil. Thats not “fact”, thats a bullshit conspiracy theory with literally zero concrete (or even halfway compelling) evidence.