Is it time for Australia to become a Republic?

[old man emu]

A bit obscure, I admit.

Macquarie ran head-long into the Rum Corps who controlled the currency and Rev. Samuel Marsden whose Puritan-like concept of good and evil saw only strict punishment as being fit for convicts. Rehabilitation was an impossibility according to him. 

 

So as Macquarie was putting the broom through the place, the members of the Rum Corp, and their retirees as well as those filled with Christian love for their fellow man, wrote back to England with tales of woe. They were the first whinging Poms. So the government sent out an inspector and the Rum Corps and Marsen got into his ear. As a result, the report back to England was damning of Macquarie. 

 

Further, by the time Macquarie arrived in 1813, the colony was 25 years old and developing steadily. However, the Napoleonic wars had ended and Britain was flooded with unemployed soldiers, and possibly French POWs who didn't want to go home. Attitudes to crime changed. Hundreds of Capital offences became punishable by prison sentences and New South Wales became a prime export location. But the colony was also populated with people who had done their time and were free of the shackles to run their own lives. It was these people that Macquarie assisted. But to the Old Guard, once a convict, always a convict, and a convict deserved no leeway.

 

Back in England, the Powers that Be adopted the same attitude based on having their pockets picked on Pall Mall. When the inspector's report was received, their opinion of offenders caused them to criticise anyone who sought to reform other than punish. So I equate Dutton's attacks on Labor's attempts to make things better for the common people with the English Parliament's criticism of Macquarie's approach. Don't forget that, when appropriate, Macquarie dished out the punishment.

 

4 hours ago, old man emu said:

But I can see that despite your sobriquet, on this particular  topic, you aren't.

Sobriquet - a nickname, or in this case your screen name/avatar.

 

"fact hunter", not. Because you keep repeating an incorrect tale which was created to denigrate all Anglo-Australians.

 

But note: I am restricting that criticism wholly and solely to the tale that the colony was a dumping ground.  In other threads, I believe that you are delivering what is correct.

[Bruce Tuncks]

As a South Australian, I have to say that there were never any convicts in SA. A pommy guy called Angas brought in lots of germans and the place ran great.

These germans were never supporters of german militarism, although they were badly treated in WW1 by bullies. Just look at all the german names in SA war cemetaries to see what really happened.

[spacesailor]

Australia has an island were the prisoners came in but never left And were Not buried on the island .

A book was written about a French island. But not Queensland's penal island. 

spacesailor

 

[willedoo]

23 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Australia has an island were the prisoners came in but never left And were Not buried on the island .

A book was written about a French island. But not Queensland's penal island. 

spacesailor

 

spacey, are you referring to St. Helena Island in Moreton Bay?

[spacesailor]

I knew, someone would know, about that ' shark  ' infested island.

In Morton Bay ! .

I had a look whilst passing, on the way to Cairns via the Whitsunday Islands. 

spacesailor

[facthunter]

Real Estate Agents live there, do they?   Nev

[willedoo]

3 hours ago, spacesailor said:

I knew, someone would know, about that ' shark  ' infested island.

In Morton Bay ! .

I had a look whilst passing, on the way to Cairns via the Whitsunday Islands. 

spacesailor

spacey, I've only been there once, but know it well through family stories, My auntie and her husband had a grazing lease on the island for a few years after WW2. They had a small piggery there and some cattle as well. I can remember my dad telling me that in those days there were still artifacts laying around in the grass from the old penal days.

 

It closed as a prison farm in 1932 and was then under local council control with public access until it was handed over to the lands department in 1939. They let it out under grazing leases until 1979 when it was gazetted as a national park. It started as a prison island in 1867. There's still a lot of old preserved ruins there.

[Bruce Tuncks]

OME, in the book " the fatal shore" it gives the youngest convict as a young boy and the oldest an 80 y/o woman. I prefer nev's interpretation. SA funded the colony with the income from land sales, what happened to this money elsewhere? I bet they gave nothing to the abos, and I bet they didn't sell it too cheaply.

McDowell Stuart found the way to Darwin in order to get rich enough to be a landowner ( he only got to be an alcoholic in reality.) He also got scurvy from knowing nothing about nutrition, despite being good with horses. He was quite a good surveyor in real life.

[willedoo]

If we ever do become a republic, I think one of the most important things is to make sure executive members of the government are publicly elected. In America, the president can appoint non elected family members. In the UK, David Cameron is back as foreign secretary. They gave him a peerage so he can sit in the house of lords to enable him to take the job without being elected. I can't see how that's democratic.

 

There's not many better systems in the world than the one we have now in Australia. Surely a minimalist model is the only one that would get approved here for a republic. Howard's so called minimalist model saw him having a bob each way. In his government's proposed constitution mailed out before the referendum, I noticed a handful of present Governor General powers that he had transferred to the PM. It also had the PM being able to sack the president at any time without having to give reason. After a certain time, the Parliament could vote whether to reinstate the President or make the sacking permanent. The only problem was that the PM had the power of veto over the Parliament's decision. Howard's government didn't want a republic, but was after a power grab for the PM in the event it did happen.

 

I don't think many people read through the entire proposed constitution word for word and compared it with the current constitution. I did and it wasn't good. I was a republican back in those days and the bad proposed model was why I voted no. I still think every government member should be elected by the public as a lower or upper house representative and the President elected by a 2/3 majority of both houses of Parliament. A publicly elected President can claim a mandate to wield power if allowed. The only way a publicly elected President would be acceptable would be if there were strong constitutional rules to determine the level of power. Otherwise we could end up like the U.S..

[old man emu]

At present, the PM (obviously acting on the advice of Cabinet) presents a list of nominees for Governor-General to the Monarch, who chooses someone and appoints them. The Constitution describes the powers of the G-G.

 

I believe that the least revolutionary way to move from our present constitutional monarchy to a republic would be to amend the current Constitution be deleting "Governor-General" wherever it appears and replace it with "Head of State". Then amend the Section dealing with the appointment of a G-G, to have the Head of State elected by a 2/3 majority of both houses of Parliament. Quick and simple, as long the referendum on the proposal had bipartisan support. I can't see my idea not being accepted by all, but someone might like to play political point-scoring. 

 

I see our becoming a republic as being inevitable within 20 years. By that time the majority of Baby Boomers, who only lived under one monarch for most of their lives, will have passed on, and even their children will be in their late 50s or older. I don't see Kings Charles or William being held in the respect that Queen Elizabeth was in the future. Also the extent of Britishness is receding due to immigration from countries that were not British colonies.

[spacesailor]

'' Otherwise we could end up like the U.S.. ''

Which was much better than Englands ' Cromwell ' .  It took England's only revolution to end his rule, and reinstate the Monarchy .

AND , I am on my Third monarch , George V1 , Elizabeth 11 , now Charles 111 .

 

spacesailor

[onetrack]

Spacey - Well, you're a real danger to Monarchs, aren't you? - the way you go through them?

[nomadpete]

8 hours ago, spacesailor said:

AND , I am on my Third monarch , George V1 , Elizabeth 11 , now Charles 111 .

 

spacesailor

Spacey are you the one to blame for wearing out all those unfortunate monarchs?

[Bruce Tuncks]

Willedoo, I reckon that you are correct about the Prez being elected by the house of reps at 2/3. So that is why I voted "yes" all those years ago. But you voted "no" and I'm curious as to why. Of course the thing is all history now, but I was aghast at how an Irish-heritage guy I knew voted "no" because he aped an Abbott ad and said that he "didn't want a politicians republic."

And no, I didn't read the whole thing carefully.

[Marty_d]

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Spacey are you the one to blame for wearing out all those unfortunate monarchs?

That's what you get for buying cheap knockoff monarchs. 

[nomadpete]

This is what three REAL monarchs look like.

[old man emu]

Are they the ones that flap their wins in the Amazon rainforests and cause typhoons in Japan?

[spacesailor]

Yes !

But Lizy was peacefully good,  at keeping her kids in check .

spacesailor

[facthunter]

I thought she was Betty.  Nev

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, spacesailor said:

Yes !

But Lizy was peacefully good,  at keeping her kids in check .

spacesailor

Peacefully good, absolutely.

 

Keeping her kids in check, I'm not so sure.

 

And her grandkids? No wonder her hair went grey.

[Marty_d]

Her favourite was sweaty-hands Andrew - goes to show you can't trust mum's judgement when it comes to character!

[willedoo]

5 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Willedoo, I reckon that you are correct about the Prez being elected by the house of reps at 2/3. So that is why I voted "yes" all those years ago. But you voted "no" and I'm curious as to why. Of course the thing is all history now, but I was aghast at how an Irish-heritage guy I knew voted "no" because he aped an Abbott ad and said that he "didn't want a politicians republic."

And no, I didn't read the whole thing carefully.

Bruce, I voted no specifically because of the clauses in the proposed constitution where a handful of powers the existing GG now has would be transferred to the PM and not the President. They tried to sell the thing as minimalist whereby the word GG would be replaced by the word President, but it wasn't entirely true. I didn't like all of the examples of where they replaced the word GG with Prime Minister.

 

I don't know if I still have a copy of the mailed out constitution. If I find it, I'll reread it to refresh the memory. At the time, I thought some of the powers Howard was proposing to move from the GG to PM would be problematic down the line. I didn't think the proposed model was a good one overall. Most parts were ok, some not. 

 

I don't know if this is correct, but I was under the impression a lot voted no because they wanted to publicly elect the President and not have the President appointed by the vote of 2/3 majority in both houses. Bearing that in mind, a lot of people in this country have very little understanding of how our system works. It's scary how many think a Prime Minister is elected. The member for (insert electorate) is elected by the voters in that electorate only as their electorate's representative, and can only become PM by party appointment.

[spacesailor]

I like the wording!.

" Constitutional " Monachy ".

If you could get " Constitutional " into Republic. 

I wouldn't object to a " Constitutional Republic " .

Not quite as good as a " Constitutional Democracy " .

Something like ' the people vote their government ' into power. 

spacesailor

[Bruce Tuncks]

Thanks Willedoo. I didn't know about the transfer of extra powers to the PM of the day and I would not have liked it.

I like a true democracy and agree with the idea that " governments can only take freedoms away" and that this is only justified if the freedoms are going to be used to do harm. So our road laws are there to protect you from hoon drivers etc, and are permitted in a true democracy. In some ways, I reckon that laws to stop liars from getting into power are in this category.

Much more problematic are laws designed to protect people from themselves. A lot of our drug prohibitions come from this mindset and I don't like them, even if they are supported by the majority....  I wonder if the voters have not been influenced by liars.

[willedoo]

Jerry might know more about that David Cameron business. The way I read it, King Charlie gave Cameron a life peerage which allows him to be appointed to the House of Lords and be Foreign Secretary without having to run for and win a lower house seat. There's a big question here. Is it normal for the monarch of the U.K. to grant a peerage at the request of the PM so the recipient can take up a government minister's position. I thought the monarch was supposed to be politically neutral, but making someone a Lord to fit the agenda of one political party stinks in my opinion. If Charlie gets involved in dodgy business, the case for a Republic here can only strengthen.

 

Thankfully we don't have an upper house of titled twits and all our senators have to be elected by the people. For sure, there are some twits in our Senate, but they don't need a title for it.