TOPIC:

wrote:

Republic?  No way.  We’d end up like the corrupt and “greatest country in the worrrllld”.  Who in their right mind wants that?

There is no serious suggestion that an Australian Republic would be in any way similar to that of the USA.   The changes would be minimal by replacing the King or Queen and the GG with an Australian President whose powers would be that of the current GG.  It would also mean that it would be possible to have a Catholic Australian head of state.  

wrote:

5 minutes of Megan and Oprah was enough for me.
Charles asked if the baby would be coloured.Given 3/4 of the Commonwealth is not from white anglo appearance.Cant see how Charles' can be king after QEii.
​Megan and Harry go across the Atlantic to escape the Royals and Media.And pick up a few million for there time with Oprah.

It has been reported that they were not paid for the interview.  How is Charles different to his father?   

Australia should become a republic asap!
Who on earth wants anything to do with that god awful mob in the UK?

wrote:

Australia should become a republic asap!
Who on earth wants anything to do with that god awful mob in the UK?

Hey the Scots, Welsh and Paddy's are ok.

If asked the question then I would come down on the side of a republic but it's way way down on the list of things this country needs to do. Swan 42 mentioned it would allow a Catholic head of state, I know it's just to show a point of difference should we become a republic, but the last thing we need is for organised religions to have any connection at all to our parliamentary system. Personal beliefs are fine but should by law be separated from our parliament and its law makers.

We have been very well served by our "Westminster" system of government and that should never be changed, having a ceremonial President with no actual powers will be fine.

The separation from the Westminster system & formation of a republic probably won't happen - unless we have paid our debts to the UK / Windsor family that is
they are ruthless when it comes to coin owings and we could count on a swift invoice being despatched if by some remote chance a divorce was announced
Doubt as to whether we are flush enough to wipe that one out to be honest

wrote:

If asked the question then I would come down on the side of a republic but it's way way down on the list of things this country needs to do. Swan 42 mentioned it would allow a Catholic head of state, I know it's just to show a point of difference should we become a republic, but the last thing we need is for organised religions to have any connection at all to our parliamentary system. Personal beliefs are fine but should by law be separated from our parliament and its law makers.

We have been very well served by our "Westminster" system of government and that should never be changed, having a ceremonial President with no actual powers will be fine.

My point re a Catholic head of state was that around 20-25% of Australians identify as Catholic.  There is no reason why any person should be precluded from becoming our head of state based on their religious beliefs.  A further point of clarification, I believe that there should be a joint sitting of parliament to elect our head of state with a minimum requirement that a 60% affirmative vote.  This will ensure a bipartisan approach to who the head of state would be.  

PS with respect to divorcing religion from politics in Australia, we missed that boat with the formation of the DLP.

wrote:

If asked the question then I would come down on the side of a republic but it's way way down on the list of things this country needs to do. Swan 42 mentioned it would allow a Catholic head of state, I know it's just to show a point of difference should we become a republic, but the last thing we need is for organised religions to have any connection at all to our parliamentary system. Personal beliefs are fine but should by law be separated from our parliament and its law makers.

We have been very well served by our "Westminster" system of government and that should never be changed, having a ceremonial President with no actual powers will be fine.

Lol, our Westminster system has given us how many new Prime Ministers in how many years? Let me try to be accurate here. Kevin 07 became PM in 2007, knifed by Gillard in ? 2010 elected by her party to knife the PM elected by the voters. Was a dead heat between her and Abbott at the next election so it came down to who was prepared to do deals with the Greens and 2 independents who milked it to the enth degree.

Then Rudd gets his revenge when his party lose faith in Gillard and briefly regains the Prime Ministership before losing out to??? ohhhh another elected Prime Minister who also gets knifed in the back and loses it to Turnbull who, after winning by a narrow margin gets knifed in the back (karma) and ScoMo becomes new PM. All that happened in about 10 years (2007 - 2017). Kevin, Julie, Kevin, Tony, Malcolm, Scott. Yep, 6 Prime Ministers in 10 years and the Westminster system is serving us well.

Give me a Republic so we can see whoever thinks he or she should be the running candidate will go head to head with their own within their ranks and we get to see them perform and what they truly stand for. But I do like our parliamentary system which gives both sides a chance to scrutinize each other. I don't think they have such a sysem in the US which I find strange or maybe they do but we don't see it.

All good points DD. The one thing I like about the US system is that a President can appoint experts to the position of secretary whereas here it's from party hacks. For instance, Janet Yellen is Secretary of the Treasury who was previously Chairperson of the Federal Reserve. Here we appoint Treasurers with little or no experience who rely almost entirely on departmental advice. IMO it's much better to have subject matter experts as Ministers than someone from inside the governing party with little or no experience or expertise.

wrote:

All good points DD. The one thing I like about the US system is that a President can appoint experts to the position of secretary whereas here it's from party hacks. For instance, Janet Yellen is Secretary of the Treasury who was previously Chairperson of the Federal Reserve. Here we appoint Treasurers with little or no experience who rely almost entirely on departmental advice. IMO it's much better to have subject matter experts as Ministers than someone from inside the governing party with little or no experience or expertise.

Yes BC and I think that will attract business people and people with real life experience instead of career politicians. Just get the best people instead of corrupt bludgers who are in it for themselves.

Disclaimer: Malcolm Turnbull should not be used as an example.