Time for a Republic

Society, politics, culture and everything and anything that doesn't fit on the other boards.
yeenar69
Seniors
Seniors
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 5:13 pm
Team:
Location:
Has thanked: 0
Been liked: 0

Post by yeenar69 »

Bet Gough Whitlam never has :wink:
TLPG
Coach
Coach
Posts: 3478
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 9:15 pm
Team: MYOB
Location: MYOB
Has thanked: 18 times
Been liked: 8 times

Post by TLPG »

Guys, the Queen does NOT have the power to do ANYTHING - and hasn't done since 1988. She is NOT our Head of State if the Australia Act is constitutional - the Governor General is.

That's my whole point.

And the Queen has NEVER (even since 1901) sacked a PM. The Governor General has - as Yeenar appeared to be alluding to;

"Well may we say God save the Queen - because nothing will save the Governor General!"
THIS FORUM IS RACIST
Willis 21
Captain
Captain
Posts: 528
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:20 am
Team:
Location:
Has thanked: 0
Been liked: 0

Post by Willis 21 »

Like your earlier call about Australia already being a republic, you are wrong.

This is the ARM's position...

http://www.republic.org.au/arm-2001/q&a/qa_hos.htm

[quote]
Who is Australia's Head of State?

Elizabeth II, the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is Australia's Head of State because:

The Constitution of Australia defines the Parliament as "the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives" and vests the Federal legislative (law-making) power in the Parliament (section 1, Constitution).

The executive power (the governing and administrative power) of the Commonwealth of Australia is vested in the Queen (section 61, Constitution).

The Queen has the power to disallow any law within one year of it being made even after the Governor-General has given his assent (section 59, Constitution).

The Governor-General only holds office "during the Queen's pleasure" which means that the he can be dismissed by the Queen at any time (section 2, Constitution).

Lastly, but probably most importantly in a symbolic sense, is the Schedule to the Constitution that requires all Federal Parliamentarians to swear an oath or declare an affirmation of allegiance to the Queen. This oath of allegiance can only be changed by alteration of the Constitution â€â€
TLPG
Coach
Coach
Posts: 3478
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 9:15 pm
Team: MYOB
Location: MYOB
Has thanked: 18 times
Been liked: 8 times

Post by TLPG »

Willis, I am NOT WRONG!

The Australia Act, enacted in 1988, passed the powers claimed above from the Monarch to the Governor General.

Now - you tell me. Is the Australia Act unconstitutional? If it's not - then we are a republic!

Now do you understand?

ARM's position is inaccurate because it doesn't take these facts into account.
THIS FORUM IS RACIST
Willis 21
Captain
Captain
Posts: 528
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 1:20 am
Team:
Location:
Has thanked: 0
Been liked: 0

Post by Willis 21 »

Why don't you dispute the facts above rather than rely on your interpretation of the 1988 bill?

Any GG still has to be approved by the Queen, and she has the power to dismiss him at any time, and to repeal any bill that he accepts within 1 year.

How can this person with this power not still be the Head of State?

These things still exist in our constitution, and can only be repealed by referendum - not an act of parliament!!

Why do our MP's swear allegiances to the Queen and not the GG?

Why does Bill Clinton offer a toast to the Queen and not the GG??

Why does the Queen still refer to herself as the Head of State of Australia?
yeenar69
Seniors
Seniors
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 5:13 pm
Team:
Location:
Has thanked: 0
Been liked: 0

Post by yeenar69 »

It still does not make Australia a republic
User avatar
Beaussie
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 9890
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 6:38 pm
Team: Sydney Swans
Location: Sydney
Has thanked: 231 times
Been liked: 51 times

Post by Beaussie »

Whilst I can see the angle of TLPG with regards to the Australia Act, I still think the position put forward by ARM above thanks to Willis is correct. The quote from the Monarch's website above says it all.
yeenar69
Seniors
Seniors
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 5:13 pm
Team:
Location:
Has thanked: 0
Been liked: 0

Post by yeenar69 »

Do we have bush lawyers in here :P
LisaJ
Reserves
Reserves
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:07 am
Team:
Location: here
Has thanked: 0
Been liked: 0

Post by LisaJ »

hehehe...well I know a couple on here who have almost finished their law degrees..don't know if you can call them bush laywers though..
yeenar69
Seniors
Seniors
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 5:13 pm
Team:
Location:
Has thanked: 0
Been liked: 0

Post by yeenar69 »

but the Queen is still head of state eeven on the new Australian values citizenship questions the correct answer is the Queen
TLPG
Coach
Coach
Posts: 3478
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 9:15 pm
Team: MYOB
Location: MYOB
Has thanked: 18 times
Been liked: 8 times

Post by TLPG »

I can't understand how you all can't see the confusion that the Australia Act causes! The Monarch (under the constitution) must sign off all legislation agreed to in the Australian Parliament.

Does she? Not since 1988 she hasn't!

"These things still exist in our constitution, and can only be repealed by referendum - not an act of parliament!!"

Correct - and yet the Australia Act did precisely that! Now tell me - are we a republic? Or is the Australia Act unconstitutional?

Come on. We need to be serious here and not assume that the Queen has the same powers she always had. She's even said she can't convene a Privy Council at the request of an Australian citizen because the citizen is NOT a British subject! But under the constutition an Australian citizen IS! (Unless there is a mixed citizenship - ie dual passport for example and a reasonable claim to citizenship by borth to a non Commonwealth country).

Anyone remember Heather Hill of One Nation? She got kicked out of the Senate because she was a British Subject and NOT an Australian Citizen. But under law BEFORE the Australia Act - British Subject and Australian Citizen were one in the same!

Not any more!

So tell me again in the face of all this evidence to the contrary that we are still a monarchy!

(PS - the fact that the Queen is mentioned in the allegiance proves nothing, as does the notes about Clinton and so forth)
THIS FORUM IS RACIST
yeenar69
Seniors
Seniors
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 5:13 pm
Team:
Location:
Has thanked: 0
Been liked: 0

Post by yeenar69 »

I still say bring on a republic and get rid of the butchers apron they call our flag which is a continual reminder of the colonial history that did not include the Indigenous peoples of this land

and I dislike everything the royal family represent,,,,,,, class structures are just as much a concern in respect to alleviating discrimination in our communites today
LisaJ
Reserves
Reserves
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:07 am
Team:
Location: here
Has thanked: 0
Been liked: 0

Post by LisaJ »

Arent we like Canada, the Queen is the head of state their but they do their own thing, its only a ceremonial thing..
LisaJ
Reserves
Reserves
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:07 am
Team:
Location: here
Has thanked: 0
Been liked: 0

Post by LisaJ »

you will never get rid of class structure, every society has one. My family are known as "uptowns" because we have our own home and jobs and are educated, apparently we are better than everyone else..

Depsite the fact that we don't believe its true, its never going to change the community's perception of us, and that is part of class structure and it will never change.
TLPG
Coach
Coach
Posts: 3478
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 9:15 pm
Team: MYOB
Location: MYOB
Has thanked: 18 times
Been liked: 8 times

Post by TLPG »

I take your point, Lisa, but Yeenar has a point as well. I guess you could say it's a case of "heads you lose, tails you lose". The discrimination aspect is present, and in my view there should be less tolerance for it than what you're giving it. We're all human beings after all. We have many differences, but hey - it would be as boring as heck if we were all exactly the same!
THIS FORUM IS RACIST
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests