A Bill of Rights

[spacesailor]

O M E

It seems you were lucky !, in your ancestors. 

The First white woman born in NSW, is buried in an Unmarked, unconsicrated, grave on a farm paddock. 

WHY.

She was born out of wedlock.

I had to ask quite a few people.  just to find that answer.

spacesailor

 

[Marty_d]

6 hours ago, spacesailor said:

The First white woman born in NSW, is buried in an Unmarked, unconsicrated, grave on a farm paddock. 

 

 

And I bet she doesn't care at all.

 

I hope that my ashes are buried, or scattered, on our little farmlet.  Unconsecrated definitely, unmarked - well that's up to whoever's planting me.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Frankly, they can use me for medical science - to try and work out where it all went wrong...

[nomadpete]

Can they do forensic psychology on a cadaver nowadays? Wow!

[facthunter]

There was a particular Pom  I never warmed to. Was he a Cad, ever. Nev

[old man emu]

Make no bones about it, that was him to the corpse.

[Bruce Tuncks]

They proposed a minimal change with the head of state appointed by 2/3 of the house of reps. This would have meant that the governor-general replacement was not just a party hack. Nothing else needed to change...  we would not have had an American system at all.

That this was rejected by the voters was terrible. The voters were sucked in by lies ( like "if you don't want the politician's head of state then vote pro monarchy") .

I once attended a Whitlam speech where he lamented his choice of Kerr for head of state, saying that a whole procession of senior labor people had told him that since the death of his first wife, Kerr was an enemy. Kerr never would have been made head of state under this setup. Yep, ONE politician determines the head of state in oz right now.

( Not all the voters were sucked in by lies....  apparently a lot of them determined that they could achieve more mischief by voting monarchy, so they did.)

[facthunter]

Look at the problem Thailand has with the current Royalty. Criticise one, and you end up in gaol. The US had "All men are born equal". And one man one vote. Corporations don't vote In the US some have more capital than whole countries. You can't get to be the President without a heap of capital put into it. That's clearly WRONG. Like "US" THEY end up with some doosies.. People should be careful who they give power to. 

    Australia is becoming the laughing stock of the whole world.   Nev

[Old Koreelah]

Monarchies are in trouble throughout the world. Japan’s royal line, perhaps the world’s oldest, is in grave danger of dieing out.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-14/japanese-princess-leaves-for-us/100619476a 

[onetrack]

Lizzie won't die for at least the next 15 years, she is virtually immortal. Her Mum made 102 and your mothers genes generally determines your lifespan, bar accidents.

 

Lizzie has very little chance of dying from an accident, so I reckon she will probably see 110. I can recall a famous clairvoyant stating emphatically that Charles will never become King.

 

Maybe Charles will keel over before Lizzie, or meet with an accident - or perhaps he'll get dementia, and be unable to take over the throne.

[spacesailor]

Perhaps gets Dementia. 

Lots of people, & I. Believe he had Dementia years agO !.

If his mother had not changed the Law, He wouldn't have married a devorced woman, And kept his title.

spacesailor

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

3 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

They proposed a minimal change with the head of state appointed by 2/3 of the house of reps. This would have meant that the governor-general replacement was not just a party hack. Nothing else needed to change...  we would not have had an American system at all.

Wasn't it Howard who proposed the method of electing the head of state for the referendum?

[spacesailor]

Great for the pollies !.

Choosing THEIR head of the country. 

' We gave you the job, Now we want a 100% pay rise '.

Who trusr,s politicians? .

spacesailor

[willedoo]

4 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

They proposed a minimal change with the head of state appointed by 2/3 of the house of reps. This would have meant that the governor-general replacement was not just a party hack. Nothing else needed to change...  we would not have had an American system at all.

That this was rejected by the voters was terrible. The voters were sucked in by lies ( like "if you don't want the politician's head of state then vote pro monarchy") .

I once attended a Whitlam speech where he lamented his choice of Kerr for head of state, saying that a whole procession of senior labor people had told him that since the death of his first wife, Kerr was an enemy. Kerr never would have been made head of state under this setup. Yep, ONE politician determines the head of state in oz right now.

( Not all the voters were sucked in by lies....  apparently a lot of them determined that they could achieve more mischief by voting monarchy, so they did.)

Bruce, did you read the copy of the proposed new constitution that they sent us before the referendum? Howard slipped some nasties into it, but most people didn't bother to read it right through.

[Yenn]

Anything Howard proposed I would be against.

I was for a Republic, but voted against their way of getting a head of state. So far the present system has worked well. and I can't see it changing if Charles becomes King. Why would he interfere any more than the Queen has done? It would not be in his best interests to do so.

The Queen also has her representatives as heads of each state and Qld governor said not a dicky bird when the Premier promised to have  referendum on amalgamating the shires, then put forward a law to do away with her promise. She went on to become Governor General and didn't make any mistakes. No matter who you have someone will screw up the system.

[old man emu]

20 minutes ago, Yenn said:

Why would he interfere any more than the Queen has done? It would not be in his best interests to do so.

It seems that, like God, the Queen moves in mysterious ways. The Queen can’t refuse assent to a bill just because she doesn’t like it. She exercises extensive soft power by influencing government policy and bills before they are introduced to parliament. And why not? Who else has been involved in Government on a daily basis for close on 70 years? 

 

If Australians decided that retaining a system of constitutional monarchy with an hereditary Head of State living abroad, then the one thing that should be changed is the name of Her representative, the Governor General. That smacks of colonialism, and since Australia is not a colony, it should not be used. The problem is to find a suitable alternative word to use as the title.  "Queen's Executive Officer" is the closest I could come up with for a title that wasn't hinting at colonialism and more reflective of the role.

[facthunter]

There's been plenty of CRAP kings and queens throughout History. There has to be a bloodless way of getting rid of BAD Governments. It's called having an election with good facts and good processes.. NOT Propaganda, Corruption and LIES.. Nev

[willedoo]

On 15/11/2021 at 1:26 PM, old man emu said:

That smacks of colonialism, and since Australia is not a colony, it should not be used.

Problem is, it smacks of Federalism as well. The U.S. is a republic of federated states and they have state governors. They are the ultimate anti colonialism country and don't seem to have a problem with the term governor.

[old man emu]

Australia is a Federation. Federalism is a mode of government that combines a general government (the central or "federal" government) with regional governments (, state, territorial  governments) in a single political system, dividing the powers between the two. The two words have their roots in the Latin verb, foederare - to establish by treaty. This idea is expressed in the opening lines of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK):

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established

 

A commonwealth is a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good. The British Colonies that became our six States were not uniting into one country out of fear or after a war, but for the common good. According to the derivation of "commonwealth" from “common” and “weal,” or “wealth” it signified common well-being or common good. A commonwealth is a nation, state, or other political unit: such as

a) one founded on law and united by compact or tacit agreement of the people for the common good, or

b) one in which supreme authority is vested in the people, or

c) republic

 

So, is the "ism" of federalism a bad thing? To me it is simply a word to describe a system of bringing likeminded societies together to more efficiently operate the group for the benefit of all.

[willedoo]

34 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Australia is a Federation. Federalism is a mode of government that combines a general government (the central or "federal" government) with regional governments (, state, territorial  governments) in a single political system, dividing the powers between the two. The two words have their roots in the Latin verb, foederare - to establish by treaty. This idea is expressed in the opening lines of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK):

WHEREAS the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established

 

A commonwealth is a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good. The British Colonies that became our six States were not uniting into one country out of fear or after a war, but for the common good. According to the derivation of "commonwealth" from “common” and “weal,” or “wealth” it signified common well-being or common good. A commonwealth is a nation, state, or other political unit: such as

a) one founded on law and united by compact or tacit agreement of the people for the common good, or

b) one in which supreme authority is vested in the people, or

c) republic

 

So, is the "ism" of federalism a bad thing? To me it is simply a word to describe a system of bringing likeminded societies together to more efficiently operate the group for the benefit of all.

ome, I'm sure most of us know Australia is a Federation. Commonwealth, Confederation, it all means the same thing. The point I was making about America is that very few people would see the term Governor as something that smacks of colonialism. The term is used in many countries, some of which have never been colonies. It's just a name, not necessarily connected with a colonial past.

[Marty_d]

California had a Governator instead for a while, that seemed to work well.

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, Marty_d said:

California had a Governator instead for a while, that seemed to work well.

There is a record of  the  use of governator  in English from 1520s.

 

10 hours ago, willedoo said:

 very few people would see the term Governor as something that smacks of colonialism. ...... It's just a name, not necessarily connected with a colonial past.

That is true for countries without a colonial past, but it was only in 1973 that the Commonwealth of Australia became a separate monarchy after the passing of the amended Royal Titles and Styles Bill that removed specific reference to the monarch's role as Queen of the United Kingdom. 

 

In the present day and age, with the clamour to erase the wrongs of the 19th Century colonial attitudes to the indigenous peoples of the continent, I think that "governor" harkens back to those times. That's why I would seek to abandon its use.  As you can see from the selection of words below, "president" opens us up to the shenanigans we see in the USA which surround the choosing of a leader. "Executive Officer" sounds too much of Harvard School of Business.

 

President:  From the Latin praesidentum  "president, governor,"  a noun from the verb praesidere "to act as head or chief" usually as the chosen head of a meeting or group of persons.

Governor:  From Old French governeor "prince, ruler, administrator; helmsman" (11c.), and directly from Latin gubernatorem  "director, ruler, governor," originally "steersman, pilot" 

Executive:  From Latin executivus, "follow after; carry out, accomplish"  as applied to the branch of government that carries out the laws.

Viceroy:     An official who runs a polity in the name of and as the representative of the monarch

 

The term "Viceroy" has occasionally been applied to the governors-general of the Commonwealth realms, for example Gough Whitlam in 1973 told the Australian House of Representatives: 'The Governor-General is the viceroy of the Queen of Australia'. It seems that "viceroy" would be the best title for the Monarch's constitutional representative in Australia.

[Marty_d]

2 hours ago, old man emu said:

There is a record of  the  use of governator  in English from 1520s.

But Arnie didn't become Governator until 2003.

[facthunter]

Did a pretty good job of it too , in my view. . He's actually Qualified in many ways. (Unlike some other power aspirants unless you count draft avoidance as a qualification..).   Nev

[old man emu]

49 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

But Arnie didn't become Governator until 2003.

Arnie was THE GOVERNATOR