This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Should the G-G be above criticism?

Jump to new


"Everybody, stop the revolution! Think of the cost of getting all the stationery reprinted!"

Let me ask: would be you be happy for the Chairman of a publically traded BOD to be an inherited post? What about the head of the Judiciary? What if the families in question had a reputation for conducting themselves like the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas?

Then why should our Head of State be different?

Yes, the role of head of state is largely symbolic. But symbols such as Head of State carries a phenomonal amount of weight and speak volumes about the people who chose to stand behind them. This influences how we are respected as a nation, how we are treated in international fora, and how readily we can get the trading terms and support from other nations we want.

A Countries head of state - the ultimate position of authority, the personification of what we as a country feel to be the epitome of our National Vision and Pride - carries considerable weight in the eyes of the world, and the fact we are saying to the world we are happy to remain with a head of state who gets the role by inheriting it from his mum along with the family silverware does not do us any favours. Especially when many of those countries thought so much of independence they were forced to engage in a long a bloody struggle to obtain (and retain) it. Their desire for independance and how good reckon they are is what they write their National Anthems about. They are fiercely proud of their independence. Australians, on the other hand, don't want to be independent, even though its there for the asking- what a bunch of weeds.

We're viewed by the rest of the world as a bit of an amusing sideline ("you're SURE you dont mean Austria, John?"). We have kangaroos, nice beaches, throw a good party and produce a good movie every 20 years or so and thats about it. Until we show the world we believe we can produce people from our own soil capable of representing us on the global stage and leading us into the future, how can we expect to exert any meaningful influence?

Essentially we are saying to ourselves and the world "We think we're too immature and irresponsible as a people to run our own country. We are, as a Nation, incapable of producing people of the calibre expected to represent us as our Head of State. We like to think the United Kingdom is holding the reins in case we do something stupid. Just look at what a model society they have produced in the UK! After all, we're largely just their offcasts and can't be expected to produce any really good people."

And I think that stinks. We are much, much better than that, and should show the world how REALLY proud we are of what WE have achieved, and how proud we are of the ideals we base our Great Nation on. And by "we", I mean all Australians - not just those who happen to be from British stock. Being Australian represents an ideal, not a racial heritage - something our present situation belies.

If we're not proud enough of ourselves to insist on having one of our own as our head, how can we expect anyone else to take us seriously?

We're talking about respect - from others, and for ourselves.
 
@Beenjammin

You're right, it's not just a matter of "reprinting the stationery", I think that would be selling it well short. I'm not a staunch monarchist but I guess the crux of my argument is that whilst our Head of State is largely symbolic so, too, are the reasons for changing it.

- I'm curious to know which trading partners have given us a raw deal for being part of the Commonwealth?

- Besides the odd Brit who gibes us, in good humour, for being "of colonial stock", I don't see many people ridiculing us for remaining part of the Commonwealth. That there might be other reasons for us being a laughing stock is another matter ...

- Perhaps, rather than saying we're incapable of cutting the apron strings (or something to that effect), we're actually saying we're damned proud of what those before us have achieved, sacrificed for, and believed in, even if our flag has a Union Jack on it. I know I am.

- We have our own Constitution, just like republics do. We're free to change that independently (not being a lawyer, I'm open to correction here, but I believe we have this autonomy).

As I said, it's not that I'm completely opposed to the idea of a republic, I just don't see the benefits outweighing the undertaking (I happened to mention monetary cost as one example).

Cheers!
CC
 
Calliope said:
That's right. There is certainly no respect at present, here nor abroad, when the GG is the Prime Minister's lackey.
Click to expand...

Like I said, not a big fan of the current GG myself either! But since when did calling a head of state "president" guarantee their worthiness either?
 
cashcow said:
Like I said, not a big fan of the current GG myself either! But since when did calling a head of state "president" guarantee their worthiness either?
Click to expand...

As I said in a previous post...abolish all symbolic figureheads.
 
As an australian I,am ashamed to know there are so called Aussies who dont mind our defence force and I think police and polititions who have to sware alligiance tothe queen, hiers and successers and not to the nation and people of Australia.

They allso dont seem to mind that some old English lady can overridelaws that have been passed by the Australian parliment. She may never do it but she can. I am ashamed that our navel ships are called her magisties australian ship when the freeloading complete waste of space has never payed a penny towards the building and maintanance of them.

I could go on and on but I wont you may think idont like the so called royalls if I do.
 
One important thing Ive just realized myself....Cashcow and I have been talking about symbolic heads of state. Calliope, thanks for throwing in the line about abolishing all figureheads, because I have come to realise that is one of the misunderstandings broadly held aboth our Head of State. We have been conditioned as a nation to believe that it is natural for our Head of State to be a ceremonial role only. Why should that be the case? Many other countries have heads of state who hold a practical role and wield real authority, supported by a Prime Minister (or equivalent) and cabinet. Why should we try to mirror a system that was specifically set up to provide a Monarchy with an "honorary" role? All working Heads of State are by nature professional politicians, and their job is to recruit the right experts to advise them on the options available for important decisions. So that's point number one, give the role a practical purpose - at the very least impressing on other heads of state and their ministers how good we are as a nation and swaying their favour toward us,plus developing an undestainding of what their concerns and desires are - and the picture starts to change somewhat from simply "just replacing one inefffectual figurehead with another".

New post to follow.....
 

Im not saying we get a raw deal for being part of the Commonwealth - and Im firmly in favour of remaining as part of the Commonwealth, however as a republic with our own Head of State - just like Bangladesh, Botswana, Brunei (who have their own ruling Monarch), Cameroon, Cyprus, Dominica, Gambia, Ghana, Gyana, India, Kenya, Kirabati, Lesotho (another Monarch as HOS), Malawi, Malaysia (An Islamic Kingdom not only a King, but Sultans ruling individual states as well ), the Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Nigeria, Pakistan (an Islamic Republic), Samoa (another King) Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka (a socialist republic), Swaziland (a Queen this time), Tanzania, Tonga (Kingdom of), Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Vanuatu and Zambia. Fiji is currently suspended, but they have a King too.

Thats 37 of the 53 Commonwealth Nations - 70% - who have their own Head of State without a word of complaint from Buck House, and can still compete in the Commonwealth Games as a warm up for the olympics. The HOS powers range from absolute power all the way down to ceremonial, so theres no reason we cant pick a model that's right for Australia. (Another interesting statistic is that there are only 3 nations of the remaining 16 with HM as HOS excluding the UK who feature the Union Jack on their flag - Aust, NZ and Tuvalu, population 10,000.).

Back to your question on the raw deal - Im not saying its our Commonwealth membership that is selling us short, Im saying its our lack of gravitas. I travel widely and am constantly amused by the impression many foreign nationals have about Australias relationship with GB - that they are responsible for everything ranging from running our schools to our defence forces and Parliament. Its viewed as a sign of dependance on Mother England - we are considered a nice place, nice people but a political non-entity (as evidenced by numerous foreign dignitaries confusing us with a pleasant but entirely different European nation of a similar name, in public fora - if it happens in front of the cameras, you can only imagine how often it happens behind the scenes).

Now, to extend this to your professional life - picture yourself in the situation where you are an Executive Director of a small subsidiary of a major company, and have to negotiate for a major deal. Your competition may be the same size or smaller, but they send over their Chairman regularly to wine and dine the prospects BOD. Your parents chairman is in another country with little or no interest in providing assistance as there is no material impact to the parent. Who as the easier job and better chance of getting the deal under more favourable terms?

Its not an effect you can quantify easily - but theres no denying there is significant influence that can be exerted. When is the last time HRH had a word in the ear of a fellow head of state over a drink on our behalf, on a matter of international commerce, territorial boundaries or support for an international event or appointment? Would you even want her or her successors to try and do so?
 

I hear you, Im damn proud as well, as are most Australians. However I don't believe that nominating our own Head of State and declaring ourselves capable of self-determination diminishes the great sacrifices and achievements that were achieved by Australians gone before. Quite the opposite in fact - I believe what really sells these great men and women short is the belief that they would not have perfomred the deeds they did if it was not for their love of Mother England and Monarch. I believe they achieved what they did motivated by:
  • a desire to excel, engendered and enabled by the country and its people that formed them
  • a love of ther families, friends, and the ideals that we share as a people, forged by common experience against the rest of the violent and unpredictable world - joys, hardships and desire for freedom and equality.

Im sure they didnt have visions of HRH and St George running through their minds at the critical point of their contribution - it would have been something much closer to home. Maybe something Australian, like their birthplace, mentors, familes......

Declaring ourselves truly independant is not only the greatest compliment we can pay to those people - they gave us the pride and confidence to go forward in the same direction they chose, not some family of the mega-rich elite raised in cotton wool who havent had to do a days honest work for umpteen generations on the other side of the planet. It also encourages new generations to follow their example to be the best they can be.
 
cashcow said:
  • - We have our own Constitution, just like republics do. We're free to change that independently (not being a lawyer, I'm open to correction here, but I believe we have this autonomy).
Click to expand...

No, sorry, the Australian constitution is nothing like the constitution of a Republic. Our constitution places final authority in the hands of "the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" and her/his chosen Govenor, who may in turn appoint as many Govenors as they see fit with no need to seek approval from the Australian people, with whatever powers they feel are appropriate. Our elected representatives must be approved by the Crown, and the GG can call elections and subsequently dissolve parliament at will. In short, our right to self determination is wholly in the hands of the Corwn, not the people.

We cannot change the constitution without approval from the Queen- "if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor-General for the Queen’s assent." (Chapter VIII, section 128 - Just after section the now defunct section 127 that formerly stated "In reckoning the numbers of people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted.". At least they took it out ...Chapter III section 25 reads to this day: "if by the law of any State all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections then, in reckoning the number of the people of the State or of the Commonwealth, persons of that race resident in that State shall not be counted." What the #$@% is that still doing there?

Compare that to another constitution, written 115 years earlier, that states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

We have the ability to establish laws, but we still have a foreign family (or their chosen representative), with no connection with our people, holding uncontestable power to dismiss or dissallow an elected leader or entire parliament, or have full control of our armed forces? Keep in mind the official oath of allegiance for an Australian Serviceman (I used to be one) is "I, <name>, do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her heirs and successors according to law." Something missing there? Hint - its a country beginning with the letters A-u-s......

Thanks for following this through to the end. Im very interested in your feedback......
 
Final thought: why does our Head Of State have a title that refers to Great Britain and Ireland......but no mention of Australia? We're not worthy??????
 
@Beenjammin

You make a pretty robust argument (I'm impressed that you bothered to cite examples, and references within the Act). You have muddied the waters somewhat for me (a good thing, and one of the reasons I've missed visiting ASF more regularly). Perhaps it comes down to selecting the right model of republic so as to acknowledge our forebears, but otherwise proclaim our autonomy and national pride. I hope that, if/when a referendum on the matter comes around, people vote based on its substance, not on some token bird-flipping gesture to the UK. And before anyone asks, no, I'm not a Brit and neither are my parents

I was pondering something else, the need for State Governors. I presume they only exist so as to assent to State legislation on behalf of HMQE2? If so, what (if anything) would replace them in the event of Australia becoming a republic?

Again thanks for the learned posting
 
Thanks CC,

I really enjoy being able to engage in a mature discussion on this, as It gets me thinking as well
It can sometimes be tricky to discuss this without others devolving into emotive argument (or, as seen on our media some years ago, fighting....embarassing, childish and unproductive...)

I agree, its much more than a "bird flipping exercise". The real benefits I can identify at present are:


  • A Head of State representing Australians to the World, as opposed to a GG representing the Queen to Australians
  • A Head of State with an active role, building national pride, promoting our cause on the international stage, helping develop relationships and ties in government, business, culture, academia, science, defence and law enforcement
  • A Head of State with an active role, smoothing the way for greater exports, bringing in investment, cultural events and tourism, promoting our exports to the rest of the world,
  • Increased respect from other nations when we show them we want to be considered a Nation rather than a European Outpost
  • A role for Australians to aspire to, resulting in Increased interest and focus on what represents Australian ideals and what is important to us as a nation
  • Armed forces whose ultimate declared loyalty is to the Australian people
  • It is the ultimate way to pay tribute to those who have helped promote and defend our values and way of life through great achievement or great sacrifice - we are saying to them "we value what you have done so much we want our Nation to continue in the path you have made - not a path chosen by a foreign power"
  • It removes the ability for a foreign power to dissolve our elected parliament, decline the appointment of our elected representaitves, and veto majority voted changes to our constitution without reason
  • It allows us to construct a constitution that rids us of the spectre of colonial racism and oppression that remains in the document to this day.

cashcow said:
I was pondering something else, the need for State Governors. I presume they only exist so as to assent to State legislation on behalf of HMQE2? If so, what (if anything) would replace them in the event of Australia becoming a republic?
Click to expand...

Like the GG, they represent the Queen - they don't represent the people. The cart is before the horse. Id like senior diplomatic roles to have an active purpose - set an example, bring in opportunities, furthering the interests of the people; rather than just be an expensive decoration and a rubber stamp representing the interests of a foreign power.

Once again, thanks for reading....do you see any value or problems with this line of thinking?
 
Beenjammin, looking at your list of 'benefits' above, why do we need a separate person to fulfil these roles? Don't many of these constitute functions which can be done by the government minister for that portfolio?

I've just never understood the need for either a governor-general or a president. We have a Prime Minister, a cabinet, plus the State premiers. Why do we need yet another layer of expensive figurehead?

Fine with me if we become a republic. I don't care either way. I don't believe it will make any appreciable difference to how Australians view themselves or carry out their lives.

Ironically, if you look at some of the 'benefits' you espouse in your post, it seems the present GG is indeed getting right into e.g. promoting the political cause of Australia overseas (notably in Africa given the number of UN votes existing there), and she is being widely criticised for so doing. Seems pretty funny to me.
 
Hi Julia, and thanks for the post.

The list of things that people consider would make no difference in the daily lives of Australians is huge - ranging from Art Galleries to National Parks, to Endangered Species, to Climate Change, to Foreign Aid to Academic Research grants. Yet very few would disagree they are vital activities and issues that will have major impact on us in the long term and help define us as a nation. Many use the same reason for not caring who wins an election and casting donkey votes -"won't make any difference to me, theyre all the same".

Having our independance and own head of state clearly wont make any immediate difference to housing affordability, the drought or traffic congestion. Independance, National Identity and International Capability go much deeper than the next four weeks on Ramsay Street.

It's long term and it effects the National machinery at a much deeper level, the end results of which are much more powerful.

Bryce is breaking the mould, and good on her, its about time someone used the position to further our cause. In this case she is gathering support for a seat on the UN security council when the position becomes available in a few years. However she is coming under criticism for doing so, largely by the opposition. Now the coalition have some fairly good contacts in th UK and one subtle word from the GG's Boss' office will send her back home.

Think about the implications of this - we do not have the guaranteed right to have a Head of State represent us on the world stage to campaign on issues that will benefit or protect us. Remember she represents the Crown first and foremost, NOT the Australian people. She has sworn an oath of Allegiance to the Queen, not to Australia and Australians. If Australia is competing in the international arena against the UK or another county with HRH as head of state (eg Canada - our main competitor for natural resources exports) we cannot rely on the GG to be free to represent us and gather support for our case.

Ministers with Portfolios are Senior Management, not the Boss. The majority of their time is spent on domestic issues and reviewing major questions on legislation raised from those impacted by the Act of Parliament relevant to their portfolio. After this they also have a local constituency to support. Their focus gets drawn by neccesity to domestic administration. However, If we need to swing influence with other Heads of State so they in turn influence their ministers, heads of industry, military, judiciary, and neighbours, we need a person with the gravitas to deal with other Heads of State on equal footing. One word - in person, by letter or by phone from a Head of State carries a lot more weight than a thousand communiques from a minister.

Im not for figureheads either, or introducing an additional layer of bureaucracy. I want the current figurehead system of Governors to be replaced with practical, active and influential senior officials working hard to further Australia's interests, and without the ability for a foreign power to prevent them from doing so.

The change in our daily lives will not be immediate, but in 10 years the picture could be very different indeed.
 
Beenjammin, thanks for explanation. You're very passionate about the matter. Hope it happens for you. I still honestly don't care and just hate all the wasted money these figurehead roles involve.

Btw where is Koonzbane? Sounds like a placename out of a Dean Koontz novel.
 
Hi Julia,

Thanks for the good wishes. I hate the waste as well, I want a return on our investment! Make it a real job, answerable to us, and make them work for it.

Koonzbane - near Brisbane. More a state of mind than a place, responsible for my trading style. . (Actually I should correct the spelling to "Koozebane". For a full review of the place please see here: http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Planet_Koozebane).

Cheers
B
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
2K
Investoradam
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...