The Spoonman
Is the Republic still an issue?
Posted by spoonman Wednesday 24 October, 2007 05:32 PM
Do you think that the issue of Australia becoming a republic should be back on the agenda before this years federal election?
One issue not making an appearance so far during the Federal election campaign is the Republic.
Despite John Howard killing off the 1999 referendum by not offering the issue bipartisan support, opinion polls for years since indicate a majority of Australians would be prepared to make the shift away from the British monarchy if the referendum question was phrased properly.
Again, John Howard had the final say as to the question back in 1999, which pretty much guaranteed the death any Australian Republic for at least a decade.
So it was interesting to see former Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, put the issue back before the public this week, but with a new method of bringing it about.
Hawke claimed that inserting a "sleeper clause" into the Constitution, that would see Australia become a republic only after the death or abdication of the current Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, would remove perceptions of disloyalty to the Queen and make it easier for us all to swallow.
He may be right, but it seems to me the nature of the referendum question, the proposed model for electing or choosing a President and what kind of powers any future President of Australia might have would need to be nutted out first.
Personally, I have no loyalty to the British Monarchy. My loyalty remains firmly here in Australia and to Australians.
I would love to live in a proper, grown up country where we are the sole masters of our destiny, not clinging to ancient ties to Britain.
I would love to live in a country where an Australian is our Head of State, not a Pom, no matter how nice Her Royal Majesty is.
I would love to live in a country where my children, and yours, can aspire to the highest ceremonial office in the country.
I would love to live in country where proper democratic processes determine who has that office, not some dodgy British blood-line.
So my call today is for Labor Leader Kevin Rudd, a republican, to put the issue back on the agenda and argue the case for a republic vigorously.
In an election campaign where Rudd is struggling to find many points of difference from John Howard, surely passionately arguing for an Australian Republic is a no-brainer.
Doing so would fit with his pitch for the future; a future that should be solely determined here in Australia, by Australians, for Australians.
Let me put it this way; which Australian would think having a Pom as the captain of the Test Cricket team would be a good idea?
Over to you.......
Comments
Post a Comment | Comments (12)
Not really. But if labor promised a plebesite asking "should Australia become a republic", that would probably win them votes.
Posted by Bob Shipway Friday 26 October, 2007 08:21 AM
How droll. Boy, do you pull out all the old hoary arguments without in any way acknowledging the strengths of our Australian Crown. How about not having to look at Eddie McGuire's mug every time you pull a coin out of your pocket to start with? Being passionate about a republic is utopian, our Crown is a realistic engagement with the politics and aspirations of all Australians. Remember (did you bother to look) one of the strength of the Monarchy isn't what it has but what it denies others. Remember Malcolm's ambition. He only settled for a seat in Government once he realised a grateful public wasn't going to put his face on the $5 note. Imagine the chaos if in a couple of years Rudd gets up an Elected President and a frustrated public decide to get Johnnie out of retirement and give him the job. By popular election he would have a mandate. Give me some dodgy bloodline any day. Our constitutional arrangements serve us very well and apart from pampering to xenophobics like your own and uber political ambitions a Republic can offer us nothing. Move beyond Australia. Look at Sweden, Norway, Canada, Holland, Constitutional Monarchies are more adept at preserving pluralistic democratic societies than Republics. Instead of venting your obvious prejudices get of your back side and find out why.
Posted by John Wylie Sunday 28 October, 2007 06:45 PM
We are studying Australian federation and politics in History at school and it seems like a brillient idea. That way nothing like the sacking of Gough Whitlam would happen again. We don't let the English Cricket team choose and sack our Australian cricket players so why shouldn't the same happen in government!
Posted by Andrew Tuesday 30 October, 2007 07:32 PM
Does anyone even really care about it . Should we bother wasting more money on this debate?
Posted by Ben Wednesday 31 October, 2007 07:56 AM
RE: THE CANE
The show last nite moved me enough to finally make public comment.
Testing boundaries is part of growing up. I love hearing stories from my 80 y o neighbor of the cheeky things he did as a kid (let a snake out in church) and in my youth (40 now) we stole alcohol from parents cabinets to drink in the park. The big difference with todays youth is
1. We respected other peoples rights and property,
2. There were consequences if we didn't.
My neighbor also talks about getting "the cuts" at school for the times he crossed the boundary of acceptable behaviour. My Mum sure knew how to whack sense into me!
My 14 y o step daughter recently overstepped the mark and I warned her to stop. I told her she wasn't too big for a hiding and her instant reply was " You can't do that- I know my rights, I'll sue you".
Is it any wonder there is so much more violence and crime today when there is no consequence to peoples actions.
Bring back the cane, or the slammer and bring back accountability and hopefully a little respect for one another.
Posted by Audrey Wednesday 31 October, 2007 08:59 AM
John Howard stole the Australian Republic. see
http://evidencebasedonly.blogspot.com/2007/10/john-howard-stole-our-republic.html
Posted by Diego Luego Wednesday 31 October, 2007 01:43 PM
eddie maguire on our coins? Do poeple actually fear one of their own countrymen as head of state? How symptomatic of the cultural cringe! One we have a resident president in fact and it dawns on us that its actually a superior to having a foreigner the great cringe will be dead and buried.
Posted by peter Monday 5 November, 2007 05:31 PM
Personally, I don't care either way, so long as we still get to participate in the Commonwealth games.
Posted by Sobriquet Wednesday 14 November, 2007 02:33 PM
It's dissapointhing the article in the advertiser was correct last year Spooman only got 7percent of and audience in Adelaide last year. So thats obviously why his show was cancelled in Adelaide after tonights episode . RIP Spoonman in adelaide hopefully u come back after they realise its better playing a show thats national instead of local at weeknights on triple m in adelaide unless they are putting on Ugly Phil O'neil on weeknights
Posted by Declan Keelan Friday 16 November, 2007 12:15 AM
The republican debate has never been closed. Australians are looking for a republican model for our future. We want to elect our Head of State, but we don't want to destabilise our system of government or worse, unravel our constitutional safeguards.
The ideal would be a directly-elected, non-executive, apolitical and Australian Head of State. They would be an ambassador for Australian goodwill, above politics and independent of the Prime Minister. Being elected does not mean a celebrity or a politician. It does mean choosing the best person to represent us.
We could replace the Queen with a properly representative Head of State who the people elect and keep our appointed State Governors and Governor-General as impartial constitutional umpires.
Posted by David Latimer Sunday 2 March, 2008 07:49 AM
Australia and Britain have no real relationship other than sport, Pop stars and Television, other than this there is no interaction from the Queen nor does our supreme court consult Britian as there law is totally different to ours. Australia has already parted from the shores of Britian. All we need to do is drop the union jack, create a flag that symbolises Australia. If we keep the systems in place that we have, Prime minister etc, not adopting the American system, no president Rudd, just Prime minister, Change the name of the govoner general to something else, (as this is more colonial days) and let him keep similiar powers (may required to be review). The queen is never consulted and has no understanding how this country operates.
We are a country independate of Britian, we just think we are not.
Posted by Trevor Wednesday 2 April, 2008 10:49 PM
Hi Spoonman,
I am listening to you and I agree Australia should become a republic, we also should change our flag.
People who say we live and die for the flag, is rubbish. We live and die for the type of socially aware and inclusive democracy that Australia has been known for.
So lets do both Republic and a true Australian flag without the Union Jack.
Great show.
Posted by Ed Story Tuesday 16 September, 2008 10:55 PM