an australian republic?

Just to add a couple of points. I will try and focus on the legal system and hope it make sense (and also hope that my speculation is correct).

Australia is a federation. That is to say it's not a singular political body such as the United Kingdom. Each of the states (leave out the territories for the moment because they're special cases) has its own legal system independent of the Commonwealth. I am in South Australia which is appropriate because I think David is studying his matric in the SA framework.

Anyway each state has its own legal system. The Queen is the nominal prosecutor for each state. This is because our legal systems are derived from England where the monarch is the ultimate legal authority. So where the state prefers an indictment against an indivdual it will always read R (that is Rex or Regina) versus (defendant's name). Now if Australia becomes a republic it will change the relationship between the states legal systems and the commonwealth. Who will be the nominal head of the legal system? If Australia is a republic then will the states prosecute in their own name as in the US? It's not a big point because it can be easily resolved but it's just another slant that might help.

0 Replies

Thanks for that, goodfielder.
We've gotta help David write this essay! Very Happy

0 Replies

Well he might get a few ideas msolga - I just hope they fall somewhat within the range expected Shocked

0 Replies

You have concerns, goodfielder, I sense that! :wink:

I'm hoping that David will return later with details of the topic he needs to address. Then a bit more "serious" help might come his way.

0 Replies

msolga wrote:

Ray wrote:
Don't Australia have its own head of state besides the queen?..

..Still having a queen in Britain might help to not strain relations between the two country...

No, we don't have our own head of state, Ray. Most Australians, in various polls, appear to want one.

Regarding our relationship with the UK, the monarchy: We (Australians) are increasing irrelevant to the British. The "Commonwealth" is of far less importance to the British these days than the EU. It's a very different world & I suspect the British EXPECT us to to become a republic. I fact, they're probably surprised that we aren't already!

On a more serious note, the way that Britain treated the Commonwealth when we joined the EU was deplorable, IMO. To suddenly cut off nearly all imports from the Commonwealth, in favour of European goods, must have caused some problems at the time.
Its a wonder you have anything to do with us nowadays.

0 Replies

Things seem to take a long time to fully sink in here, Ellpus! :wink: But yes, I know what you mean. But there are some (embarrassing) "monarchists" who, I reckon, simply don't want to face reality, or can't. Fact: Australia is well & truly a multicultural country. The Empire is long dead & the British have moved on. The Queen, I'm sure, is wondering why we're still hanging around! "Silly Australians!" she mutters to herself. Laughing

0 Replies

Anyone with a legal background?
Is there anyone with a legal background who can give an opinion on this australian republic issue? Anyone who is or has been involved in either the legislative, executive or judiciary bodies? Please give your views and comments.

0 Replies

An Australian head of state is more than just a symbolic figure. It is about national identity.The Queen represents British interest on the world stage not Australia's. In other countries, there are confusion about the Australian Head of state. The current system is against Australia's notion of democracy and equality.Australia's highest offie should be attained by merit not birthright. Also, since the WW2, alot of ppl have migrated to Australia.They dont have an affinity with british rule and its heritage. A republic will enable Australia to keep up with the changes in its society.So as you can see, a republic is more than just a symbolic change of the head of state.

0 Replies

Hey guys.....thanks for all your views and opinions so far.Really appreciate it! I've got different angles n new points ponder. As my assignment is under my legal studies subject, it will also be good if i could get professional legal opinions on the legal issues of this australian republic debate. Anyone who is part of the legislative,executive or judiciary bodies would be of help too. Keep em coming guys....

0 Replies

a (lone) voice from canada :
australia and canada should both become republics and join into some kind of economic/political union.
both countries have plenty of natural resources, plenty of open space and a relatively young population.
the two countries together could become an economic and political powerhouse. i'm afraid canadian politicians are too timid to cut canada's strings to the monarchy.
by not acting soon, i'm afraid canada will become "a colony" of the neighbour to the south before too long. hbg

0 Replies

david168 wrote:

An Australian head of state is more than just a symbolic figure. It is about national identity.The Queen represents British interest on the world stage not Australia's. In other countries, there are confusion about the Australian Head of state. The current system is against Australia's notion of democracy and equality.Australia's highest offie should be attained by merit not birthright. Also, since the WW2, alot of ppl have migrated to Australia.They dont have an affinity with british rule and its heritage. A republic will enable Australia to keep up with the changes in its society.So as you can see, a republic is more than just a symbolic change of the head of state.

I'm afraid that the issue of how the President gets the job is at the heart of the difficulties faced by the republican movement david. I suspect that most people in Australia want to elect the President themselves which would mean it would be meritorious but also that it would carry some moral if not legal authority as an office. The incumbent policitians wanted the Parliament to appoint the President. That would result in the President being a mere figurehead like the monarch while the real power would reside, as it does now, with the Prime Minister. Once that's sorted the movement can move on but for the moment it's paralysed and I believe that most politicians of all political hues prefer it that way.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

a (lone) voice from canada :
australia and canada should both become republics and join into some kind of economic/political union.
both countries have plenty of natural resources, plenty of open space and a relatively young population.
the two countries together could become an economic and political powerhouse. i'm afraid canadian politicians are too timid to cut canada's strings to the monarchy.
by not acting soon, i'm afraid canada will become "a colony" of the neighbour to the south before too long. hbg

As much as I would like that to happen hamburger (being rather enamoured of Canada) I think our current government would be horrified. They have made us the world's farm and quarry. Canada is a pretty big farm too and has much mineral resources but also you have a manufacturing sector something which is shrinking here. Therefore I think our country would see Canada as being a competitor. We're busy selling our natural resources as quickly as we can to China. When they run out we'll have nothing. Best to stay away from us.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote : " We're busy selling our natural resources as quickly as we can to China. "
same here in canada . selling raw materials to china (and oil and gas to the united states) is the big thing.
the manufacturing sector is dominated by car manufacturers and their output goes mainly to the u.s. i would think that if politicians and business want to preserve some of the natural resources and fire up the manufacturing/development sector, it could be done. unfortunately, politicians only think as far ahead as the next election ... and big business is looking ahead to the next shareholders' meeting (and bonuses for top management),. a sorry state of affairs. hbg

0 Replies

A constitutional republic is a good idea. Clearly stating the rights of the people and limiting the scope of government.

0 Replies

Justthefax wrote:

A constitutional republic is a good idea. Clearly stating the rights of the people and limiting the scope of government.

We already have those limitations in place, it's called Magna Carta (and a few other historical bits and pieces) :wink:

0 Replies

Quote:

a (lone) voice from canada :

You're not alone. I'm a Canadian too.

Our government is already independent of the British, thanks to the prime ministers of the past. Truth is, we are a republic in practice.

0 Replies

Of course we should be a republic - and the sooner the better.

Get rid of those Poms NOW, I say!

And give us the Ashes - we've earned them time and time again! Bah!

<ain't no use hinting at Sydney types, Olga - we's too dense to take a hint!>

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Don't Australia have its own head of state besides the queen? Here in Canada, the topmost position is supposedly the queen, but the Prime Minister is the actual head of state. The monarch has no control over the country except for picking a Governor General and that's on the "recommendation" of the Prime Minister (if I remember correctly). The Governor General does little except give out awards and spend taxpayers money on travel etc anyways.

Exactly the same situation in Australia but I beg to differ from msolga's negative answer - the governor general, as the legal representative of the queen is our head of state. Even if it is true he does absolutely nothing.

Ray wrote:

I think that not having the monarchy would mean that Australia would have moved on from the history of the Monarchy and the colony, but I agree with Einherjar that it's not a pressing issue, as the monarchy of today are different than back then anyhow and there are more important things to consider.

Agreed here as well - we all acknolwedge that the queen does not play a part in the Australian internal affairs so it shouldn't be a significant matter.

The only disadvantage I see in having her as our "queen" is that we have to pay unecessary taxes to her. If there wasn't that in the way, I would like to think that she is still queen of australia, so no, I don't think we should be a republic, as a conservative and a traditionalist in this area.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Anyway each state has its own legal system. The Queen is the nominal prosecutor for each state. This is because our legal systems are derived from England where the monarch is the ultimate legal authority. So where the state prefers an indictment against an indivdual it will always read R (that is Rex or Regina) versus (defendant's name). Now if Australia becomes a republic it will change the relationship between the states legal systems and the commonwealth. Who will be the nominal head of the legal system? If Australia is a republic then will the states prosecute in their own name as in the US? It's not a big point because it can be easily resolved but it's just another slant that might help.

Exactly what I was thinking when I saw the heading of this topic.

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Our government is already independent of the British, thanks to the prime ministers of the past. Truth is, we are a republic in practice.

Exactly the same situation in australia - techinally we must do everything (bring cases, pass legislation) with the consent and in the name of the queen - practically, everyone agrees that is just a "rubber stamp."

0 Replies

an australian republic?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know