Reply #8: ok yanks lets set the record straight....

[rossmonster]

Gday,

1) We had a referendum on the republic in 2000. The turnout was massive as we have compulsory voting and most people wierdly think about how they vote due to this as they have to spend time doing it. I was in london at the time and 20000 austalians went to the embassy on that day to vote even though they didnt have to. It mattered to a lot of people.

2) The results were something like about 51 or 54% AGAINST the republican model proposed. It only just failed.

3) The model prosposed involved a president elected by a 2/3rds majority vote of both houses of parliment

4) Most people wanted a directly elected (as in by the people) president. This is why probably a majority of people voted against it. I personally disagree with this stance due to the fact that you will get a politician elected as the political parties will put up candidates. They would DEFINATELY be partisan and thus screw up the whole notion of a figure head, non-executive president.

5) I personally voted against it as the 2/3rds is not enough. Twice in our history one party has had more than that themselves and could essentially apoint their own partisan president. 3/4 or 4/5 would have been a lot better.

6) As well as the election model, "royal assent" was removed from the consitution and not replace with a "presidential assent". Our laws go house of reps->Sentate->Governor General->Queen->LAW. The governor general only notionally sends it to the queen who effectively rubber stamps it as law. HOWEVER. This is a final check and balance. No law would ever legally get through australia even if the government owned both houses if it was obviously nutty. The GG or Queen would stop it. Before you think this is wrong, think about how nice it would have been to have someone neutral beyond your senate to stop obviously nutty patriot acts. lets invade iran acts and the like. The republican model proposed removed this and just went REPS->SENATE->LAW. BAD BAD BAD. Most people missed this fact BTW.

7) Australia is changing. The number of people of british decent is becoming less and less percentage wise (now way below 50 probably). As such the number ofpeople with alegience to the Queen or historic attachment is becoming much less. It is just a matter of time before we are a republic. I think a poll showed in 2000 that only 5% of people really believed the queen should be head of state. Most voted against the model. It wasnt better than what we had so why break it.

8) Kevin Rudd said he would make it an issue again, but I doubt he would do it in a first term. Its just not that pressing and the last referendum was only 7 years ago, i personally think 10 years would be reasonable to try again at a minimum.

9) The person most likely to replace John Howard as opposition leader is, surprisingly, also a republican but he has said he would not hold a referendum on it again for a while, and definately not whilst the queen was still queen. Again, i personally think thats a decent approach, though she will probably last till 100 like her mum :)

10) There is some sentiment for the queen here. But most people probably think that charles has blotted his copybook and has shown little if any connection to australia for a long time. As for the next generations of royals they have even less relevance to us and personally i think need a good clip around the ears to understand why it not acceptable to behave like idiots. After the queen is gone a republic is a forgone conclusion, if it wasnt obviously already.

11) We need to get the model right and acceptable to an overwhelming majority. Why???

Personally I'd put up with the queen for another 100 years rather than 1 day of george w bush :)

bye