Who would you like to be president?
So, the Oprah thing has Aussies debating the merits of a republic. The last time we asked you about this, the majority said they'd prefer Australia to remain a monarchy. Not so much out of a respect for the Royals, but more of a 'if it isn't broken don't fix it' attitude.
Say we were to become a republic, who woud you like to be President of Australia? And would you prefer a direct election or a bipartisan parliamentary vote?
Absolutely TOO TRUE PlanB, agree with your comment wholeheartedly.
I AM NOT INTERESTED IN ANYTHING THAT CHANGES THE POLITICAL SYSTEM WE ALREADY HAVE. IT IS MONARCHICAL, I think is the word to describe Australia's political running of this country.
It is also the safest political set up on earth because it gives the head of state a separate power that overrides anything the Government of the day can do that is detrimental to the people the nation and its security. That power is absolute and is used on very very few occasions, here in Australia because we are a good society in the main.
Mr Whitlam was the last PM whose government was sacked by our head of state Sir John Kerr, with advice from another high ranked law official Sir G. Barwick. Not exactly sure of his rank. But as an advisor I think!
The Queen was informed as a courtesy, she is NOT the head of state as such, it is a ceremonial position since federation.
We are a Sovereign State, the Queen could not have sacked our government it would mean that the UK interfered with another nation's internal affairs!
Republic ?? The only way to have that, is if our law does not change, our constitution does not change and our GG changes his name to President, and nothing else.
A huge waste of money and problems when the comments from some, about the UK and the Queen as ruling over us, is a nonsense. If you don't know about, who you are, then you are nobody.
Republic? Leaves it open for changes down the track maybe for the for the worst.
Over the decades that follow, unless you have an overriding power for the GG it is only about a name change, and the Union Jack is part of our history, so is the southern cross, as much as the Indigenous flag is part of our history and is the representative flag of our first nation Australians, which they are Australian , meaning the South land , the great southern continent. WE ARE ALL OF IT!!!!!!!
Unfortunately even some supposedly well-informed people have no clue about that facts of our system, the separation of one power given to the head of state, what ever you call him/her is vital to keep our system of monarchy (as its known as) for long term safety.
The childish idiotic rubbish about Elizabeth 2nd as our head of state, and that's why we need an Australian head of state, is nonsense, WE have a head of state, the Governor-General! Yes that's a fact.
Those who want a republic well republics become dangerous, ours if we got one may never, but it may!?
When you have that single head of state power, bad things can be stopped because the head of state has that ONE power, where he/she controls the military, in any emergency and therefore the laws, and then can sack a PM if they need to.
Like 1975 when a good man did not realize what his underlings were doing or borrowing???
Once we remove that situation and it might take 50 or 100 years (with Republics and the rules change anything can happen) but if somehow someway it is changed and more power or less power to the head of state occurs , then you begin to lose Australia, you get domination by few, total government control, Like China!
And the people have no more say if it goes the wrong way.
The odds against , maybe, but with a monarchical system that single power never changes, the law stays and no one can become a dictator or no government can become an over lord of everything. Small risk, but a risk, that's why we do not need a republic and why we are safer the way we are, now, all the people who don't understand or have never looked go and do yourselves a favor and get off your backsides and learn!
That goes for the donkey with pirate scarf too, can't think of his name!
No, we don't want a politician at all and the idea is for the position to be non-political just as the GG is now.
So that is also the reason that the president should be appointed and not elected. We should note that the name of the position of our head of state need not even be "president".
in fact, I think the push for a republic will be greatly aided but not using the term "president' for our HoS, as no doubt some people will think our "president" will be a position like the President of the US and therefore we would be open to getting a vile person like Trump as our HoS.
I'm a traditionalist - no thanks to the Republic!
Former NSW Rural Fire Service Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons would be my choice
Yes Shane is a great bloke, for sure
I'm sure Shane would not appreciate the headache of being the president of a nation but the salary would be good.
I don't think it would be a headache Arvo. Do you think the GGs consider being in the position a headache?
A most difficult question. In the past we have had some wonderful, well respected State Governors and Governors General. A high number have come from the military and a reason for this could be that they are used to pomp and ceremony which, really, is exactly what a G-G does. I would vote for a military person. I would prefer that the people had the vote rather than politicians because politicians tend to give in to a compromise and what is needed is certainly not a compromised applicant who would be neither fish nor fowl.
In saying all of that I would prefer that the status quo remained as Her Majesty doesn't interfere in the running of Australia and just the cost of changing correspondence, currency, postage stamps and hundreds of other items that refer to the Commonwealth would not be cost effective. I know it's a trite saying but if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I reckon it is broke
Easy to make a statement PlanB, can you back that up with reasons why you think it is broke?
It ain't broke and Queen Elizabeth 2nd is not our head of state, and as for GG's being ceremonial Sue Ridge, the fact of that single power makes ceremony pale into insignificance but it keeps us safe, you never elect a head of state. Then you end up on a downward slope to dictatorships which we see in lots of places. You really must see the difference between what the Queen does and what the GG can do if necessary as was seen in 1975 , it was not NOT the Queen. Go find out.
I think it is broke,
Because there seems to be nothing done when a PM and his party are seen to be doing wrong things and not answering the questions when are asked and acting like an arrogant dictator and nothing is being done.
Kerr got Whitlam sacked -- because he was going down a track that was not liked by Kerr's side and I ask what good was the queen in that time. That was so darn wrong.
Yes I am very afraid of a republic and how and who would be in charge as President -- as john has stated, as it COULD turn VERY nasty
john the bloke you were thinking of is Peter FitzSimons
Best way to go but even not all GGs have been a good choice
I agree with PlanB, but as soon as someone is up for election, they become political. For better or worse, the GG or senior governor is my choice. Not direct election or bipartisan vote. The safest path is not to change, unless of course something catastrophic happens to the royal family.
Another important question is the powers of the president. Should the president be able to run the country directly by decree, or just be responsible for assenting to legislation proposed by parliament? Under what conditions could the president dissolve parliament or not assent to legislation?
What training would a president receive?
God save the Queen.
God will not save the Queen, the "use by" date is expiring soon. You'll be saying soon "God save the King"...while other will say, "Oh, No !...God save us all from this King"..
Daniel Andrews, currently Victorian Premier
Imagine Andrews with Presidential powers, it is why his Governor should have had the courage to settle him back where he belongs , a servant of the state.
John, you can't say "with presidential powers" because you don't know what they would be. In the models put forward they are a very few. Our "president" (the HoS may not even be called that) would be much like the GG today, mainly symbolic and ceremonial. However, the person would NOT be a representative of the British monarch as is currently the case.
The Queen is on the way out...I have very little confidence in Charles and I believe William is too weak to be king.
Unfortunately, I can see Australia heading towards being a Republic...I can't think of anyone who is capable of being President, no one stands out.
Invite Prince Harry to come to Australia to be our President
The royals are way out of it these days and what does she or the royals do in any case --half the time they would not have a clue what the hell was going on in Aussie.
But as I stated before it has to be someone beyond reproach
You, PlanB should get the facts in relation to what the Royal Family individuals know about Australia.
Many of them invest in businesses and don't keep all their money in banks
“Strong Ties, Growing Stronger” underscores Australia and the UK’s investment relationship, building on both countries’ shared history, common values and strong personal links."
Worth over A$815 billion in total two-way investment, this relationship spans decades and crosses all sectors of each economy. The report profiles 18 Australian and British firms, from small start-ups to international conglomerates, who have been successful in expanding to either country. These firms are across industries as diverse as defence, financial services, manufacturing, agriculture, infrastructure, technology and training.
Start a republic and you destroy Australia's economy and thousands of jobs by a selfish whim by a handful of individuals who have no idea what is involved in becoming a republic, and it is not simple like changing a home address.
That is not true, Mak. Business between Britain and Australia does not occur because we are a constitutional monarchy. We will still remain member of the Commonwealth.
You say, "“Strong Ties, Growing Stronger” underscores Australia and the UK’s investment relationship, building on both countries’ shared history, common values and strong personal links."
That's not going to change.
"Start a republic and you destroy Australia's economy and thousands of jobs " - how on earth would that happen? It would not effect our economy or change our economic relationships with any countries.
Forget becoming a republic, and to to those who want it, "Beware your greatest wish comes true."
Why go for a republic? Israel PM on trial for corruption, the majority of the rest of the middle are controlled by despots, former French PM in jail for corruption, American President under investigation for corruption and worst, Italian government revolving door of previous leaders. some East European ex USSR republics Elected and non elected leaders are dictators, Russia leader leader was president then PM and now president for life, China head of state leader for life, what is the advantage of the republican system? who elects the president the people or the politicians? lets keep the system that works for us with political neutral head of state endorsed by the Queen who is also non political.
80 plus
The Queen is not in the equation at all, she is ceremonial and historical to those who settled this place after the first nations, she IS NOT THE HEAD OF STATE of Australia.
Our head of state has a power, rarely used but it's there.
Thats the safety net of Monarchical systems, and yes look at the world of despots and Presidents for life. They all end badly, even the giant power of America has an absolutely flawed electoral system that was not just 2020 but over many elections, it has been fraudulent in places , right back to JFK and the mob? That is not what we want here.
Good reasoning, I agree 80 plus
I agree really with all of you that say NO republic -- but I also think that the royals don't really give a hoot about much to do with us the people -- yes they invest here but that is not helping us -- as I have said before is there ANYONE that is honest and morally honest to have the job of GG.
When I hear of the likes of Turnbull wanting a republic it makes me wonder why -- as he is a former politician
All I am saying is the royals really are not doing anything for our best interests
Turnbull wants a republic for the same reason as about 65% of Australians - so we can have our own Australian HoS.
And you must have a very low opinion of your own country people if you don't think there is anyone in Australia who is "honest and morally honest" enough to head our country.
I used to think a Republic was the way to go but now I'm not so sure, given the antics of some elected leaders. Still, I think it is probably inevitable in the relatively near future.
I have to admit to being an admirer of the Queen. The lady is pure class, but I'm not sure the next generation can carry it off. I can't see Prince Charles, or William either for that matter, ever having the presence and status she has managed to maintain during her long reign. The times they are a-changing!
As for the GG, he or she may not be an elected politician but let's not forget that the appointment is made on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. So politics does play a part.
Yes, Leonie that is what worries me too that the GG 'president' will become 'A job for the boys' and that would be scary.
There would have to be a hell of a lot of thought going into it and not left up to one person or one team
Facts are required Leonie.
Charles, William, Bill the chauffeur could sit on the throne, but they do not make the decisions, this is a job for their various advisors, individuals who are the best in their position to report local and world affairs on a daily basis, then if a decision is required they advise the Queen or King which is the best outcome.
A king or queen isn't voted into the position, that starts at birth with strict rules of life, strict schooling and continued learning long after 'graduation' in all manners of respect, honour, joining a Defense Service and working damned hard every day performing the necessary tasks which are their DUTY, not a choice to sit home and watch TV, don't forget they are servants of the people, the people are The Crown, the king or queen are representatives of The Crown.
Understand that Queen Elizabeth, and every king or queen do not own Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle or any castle or palace, the jewellery, the vehicles, the horses even the swans on the river Thames belong to The Crown which are the citizens, the people, the 'subjects' which every king and queen in history have sworn to protect The Crown when being crowned, the crown on the head, the orb, the sceptre are objects which represent the various factors involving The People Of The Commonwealth..\
Very sad that some people want a republic, no matter who is the president, their background and abilities will not be a life-long preparation to rule our country, it will be someone elected to carry on producing the same mess-up that we are continually having to tolerate from our elected ning-nongs.
Mak - it need not, and shouldn't, be someone elected but appointed as the GG is now or a similar system.
One word against a republic TRUMP we have a better system now not some rich person having an ego trip.
Don't think our republic would be anywhere like the US one. Our HoS, whether he/she was called "president" or whatever, would be very different. Our HoS will be like the GG is now - non-political.
I would want an HONEST/person with a HIGH moral code -- so that lets out ALL politicians -- I also do not want sportspeople for the sake of them having played sport -- we would need to have a good talk and look into this before we choose anyone.
Also if it is put to a vote the vote can not be black and white -- there need to be MANY questions answered and asked