the REPUBLIC of Australia?
Written: Oct 07 '00
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: democratic, free
Cons: none
|
|
|
| SMITHSWOODSIDE's Full Review: Australia |
Review Topic: Overview
APOLOGIES READERS - THIS IS A COMPLETE CHANGE OF PACE -
THAT'S RIGHT- IT'S SERIOUS!
Recently a comment was made by an Americana asking why Australia seemed to hang on to Britain, especially as the November 1999 referendum had failed to declare the country a republic.
It had not occurred to me that Australia would be seen in that light, but on
reflection I guess its the only real conclusion that overseas citizens could draw.
However, the referendum last year was not about the "democratisation" of
Australia or the breaking of ties with Great Britain - it was really all about minor
change and description. A little history will help to clearly show why.
Australia has had its own constitution and government since Federation in 1901. It
could be said, and sometimes is, that ties were broken then. However, that would not be entirely correct as there was one, and only one remaining connection, that being the citizens right to appeal any legal decision in Australia to the Privy Council in London. The Privy Council could, if it saw fit, override any legal decision made in Australia, so most would say the events of 1901 were not a complete break with Britain.
In 1972 or 73 the High Court of Australia came into being and was and is the Highest Court in the land, thereby removing the option to appeal to the Privy Council. At about the same time, the Queen of England and total monarchy was removed and replaced by the Queen of Australia, who for the sake of expediency was to be the Queen (or King) at any given point reigning in Britain.
The Queen of Australia is a total figure head with absolutely no powers whatever, and is not entitled to even comment on Australian events. In the late 1970's a joint sitting of the Australian and British Parliaments took place formally breaking all ties whatsoever between the two countries.
Therefore there is a difference of view as to whether Australia became a self governing democracy in 1901 or the 1970's. This is really of no matter as there is absolutely no question we were by the 1970's, so it all becomes a bit historic.
Now for the November 1999 referendum. It was, and is, clear that the vast majority of Australians would prefer to remove not just the Queen but her position entirely. It is generally seen as superfluous, especially as it is powerless. Most people would prefer to see the Governor General as the figurehead and to retain his very limited powers, the most notable of which is to, in the case of total deadlock, call a new
election of the whole Parliament. This has happened twice in the last hundred years.
There are many different ways this small change could be achieved and operate, and that is the problem - and that is the reason the referendum failed. Nothing whatsoever to do with ties to Britain, being long gone. The referendum proposed that everything remain as is except that both the Queen of Australia and that role be abandoned. Further, the recommendation in the referendum was that the President be the existing Governor General and that that person be appointed by
the Parliament.
The last point was what brought the whole thing undone - most Australians want a separate election for the President and some want that positions powers to be enhanced while others want the powers curtailed.
So it was the method, not the fact, that was defeated last November.
Add to this the fact the vast majority of Australians consider that while perhaps not perfect, any change is more window dressing than meaningful since we are a Republic and a democracy in every sense of both words - therefore we can easily
afford to take time with any change and make sure it has not only a "tidier" result but that it meets with the approval of practically every citizen - it is certainly not seen as worthy of overly extended argument and derision.
The future will bring more referendums on this issue, hopefully each one being a further step towards the ultimate goal. The first referendum was always unlikely to succeed in terms of a final result, but it did clearly establish that the majority want a separate Presidential election.
Personally, I do not support that idea. Currently the Governor General is appointed by the Prime Minister from a shortlist that has to be agreed by both the Leader of the Opposition party and the Prime Minister himself. That system has worked for a hundred years without any problem. The new proposal is for the majority of all sitting members of Parliament to appoint the President. I see nothing wrong with either proposal - a separate election to me is only necessary if the President has
administrative powers, as in the U.S.A.
It is safe to say that will never happen here.
I hope by know any reader can see that the so called Republic question is actually a
misnomer - it is really just the removal of figurehead and replacement with a
President with very limited power.
This is seen as essentially a relatively minor, non-urgent matter that is likely to take
quite some time to resolve, particularly as we are a democracy and a republic in every sense of the words now.
A perfect example of the power of our ties with the "little island in the North Sea" was the fact the Queen was not invited to open the recent Olympics. Please see my soon to be published review "Sydney Olympics - the QUEEN is MISSING - another tradition gone!" for more on that subject.
Incidentally, it is extremely difficult to get a referendum proposal approved in Australia. Constitutionally, there has to not only be individual majority support but support by a majority of States. With only six States the vast majority of referendums fail on the first attempt.
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
SMITHSWOODSIDE
|
 - Top 500 |
|
Member: Peter Smith
Location: South Australia
Reviews written: 521
Trusted by: 401 members
About Me:
my FIRST BOOK is now at http://www.trafford.com/robots/03-2725.html
|
|
|
.jpg)
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.