Keating Making His Move

[redandblack]

Well, nowhere have I said that a majority didn't vote against it.

You're for an Australian HOS, but not on any terms, but you'll accept a foreigh HOS who has to be Church of England and be the eldest child of one particular family and not elected by one Australian person.

I don't quite follow the logic of that.

The model voted down would have required a 2/3rds majority of the Parliament for a President to be elected. That would have meant a candidate acceptable to both Labor and Liberal.

[Jimmy_041]

Well, nowhere have I said that a majority didn't vote against it.

You're for an Australian HOS, but not on any terms, but you'll accept a foreigh HOS who has to be Church of England and be the eldest child of one particular family and not elected by one Australian person.

I don't quite follow the logic of that.

The model voted down would have required a 2/3rds majority of the Parliament for a President to be elected. That would have meant a candidate acceptable to both Labor and Liberal.

I do not accept what you say (and that is typical of why you invite my attention. Who TF ever gave you the right to say what I accept?)

I do not accept a politically appointed HOS, and have consistently said why. I dont trust them to give what we need.

[redandblack]

Jimmy, how about a NY resolution to address the issues instead of again being personal?

I accept that you don't want a politically appointed HOS. That's why (unless you abstained from voting at the referendum) ou accepted a foreign HOS, which is all I've said.

As for 'verballing' you, pot, etc.....

[Psyber]

If anyone needs to look at themselves, it should be Hawke who appointed Hayden

and you guessed it, Hayden was a republican ...

Who later changed his tune, publicly, after he'd been GG for a while..
Mind you he was on record in Hansard in the 70s cautioning ALP MPs not to say anything on record that may come back to them later.

[Psyber]

Well, nowhere have I said that a majority didn't vote against it.
You're for an Australian HOS, but not on any terms, but you'll accept a foreigh HOS who has to be Church of England and be the eldest child of one particular family and not elected by one Australian person.
I don't quite follow the logic of that.
The model voted down would have required a 2/3rds majority of the Parliament for a President to be elected.
That would have meant a candidate acceptable to both Labor and Liberal.

That's right, one who would not have opposed the will of the Cabinet whichever party was in power..
(A candidate carefully chosen by the power brokers of our elected oligarchy.)

[DOC]

I guess you mean a figurehead?

[redandblack]

Whatever is said, the opponents of a republic, who are aghast at the 'wrong' model being chosen, are presumably happy to have the following:

A foreign head of State.

That HOS must be from one particular family.

He/she must be the eldest of that family.

He/she must be C of E (I think the Labor Govt here might have changed that recently. If so, hooray)

That HOS isn't voted in (and if he/she was), Australians wouldn't have a vote.

A Governor-General of Australia appointed by the Prime Minister alone (in other words, by just one of the politicians you don't trust).

[Sojourner]

Problem is R&B, the Governor-General is an Australian Citizen and is our Head of State. - Hence why when Paul Keating wanted to have a plebiscite on whether or not we should have an Australina as our Head of State that the Monarchy Movement agreed and encouraged their members to vote yes accordingly. Hence the Plebiscite was dropped like a lead balloon!

Hence the Governor General is our Head of State,

Is not "Foreign",

Is not from "one particular family"

Is not the eldest of that family,

Is not Anglican, although I suspect a number have been or affiliate to it soon after!

Is appointed by the democratically elected Government - Conceded though not the model that Australians want in a Republic.

The issue with the Republic is suppose they do have another Referendum, any model other than a directly elected president has been rejected. What do the republican movement do to change it? Do they either go with the directly elected model and add a fourth layer and cost of a directly elected layer of Government which the Monarchists will likely argue against convincingly, or do they have a go at convincing people to change the model and to allow the Government to appoint the President?

[Jimmy_041]

Jimmy, how about a NY resolution to address the issues instead of again being personal?

I accept that you don't want a politically appointed HOS. That's why (unless you abstained from voting at the referendum) ou accepted a foreign HOS, which is all I've said.

As for 'verballing' you, pot, etc.....

Very simple R&B - as I have always said - you play the ball and I will. You play the man and I will.
You are quite happy to say - "but you'll accept a foreigh HOS who has to be Church of England and be the eldest child of one particular family and not elected by one Australian person."
No wonder you cannot understand why Foley keeps getting himself in trouble

[redandblack]

Sojourner, the GG is not our HOS.

I'm happy to agree to that, Jimmy, from here let's both keep to the issues and not play the man and we'll all be happy.

With respectt, can you then explain why you think voting against the republic (if you did?), which then keeps a foreigner as our HOS, isn't accepting what I said? I really don't understand your point, but I'm happy to try.

[redandblack]

Soj, some references, if it assists:

From the official DFAT site:

15.1 Head of State and Governor-General
Australia's Head of State is the Queen of Australia, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Under the Australian Constitution, the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercised by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative. The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia. The Prime Minister is Head of Government.

Others:

These pages have been written to help you discover the background and structure of government in Australia.

Australia’s formal name is the Commonwealth of Australia. The form of government used in Australia is a constitutional monarchy – ‘constitutional’ because the powers and procedures of the Australian Government are defined by a written constitution, and ‘monarchy’ because Australia’s head of state is Queen Elizabeth

There are plenty of others. The confusion comes about, IMO, because the Monarchists tried to confuse the argument during the referendum lead-up.

[Jimmy_041]

Whatever is said, the opponents of a republic, who are aghast at the 'wrong' model being chosen, are presumably happy to have the following:

A foreign head of State.

That HOS must be from one particular family.

He/she must be the eldest of that family.

He/she must be C of E (I think the Labor Govt here might have changed that recently. If so, hooray)

That HOS isn't voted in (and if he/she was), Australians wouldn't have a vote.

A Governor-General of Australia appointed by the Prime Minister alone (in other words, by just one of the politicians you don't trust).

You keep saying "opponents of a republic" - I support a republic and our own HOS, but I did not support the only model offered to us, and I suspect the majority of the people agree with me. It is very simple - why can you not understand that?
If we did agree to it and the position was politicised, they would never, ever, change it, so I will never agree to it.
There is no doubt in my mind that Keating has his eyes on the position to try to legitimise himself as a leader.

[redandblack]

I understand that, mate and I'll accept that you support a republic and our own HOS.

However, it is just as easy to understand that the consequences of rejecting the model offered at the referendum is to maintain the status quo: ie: The Queen as HOS, which is all I'm saying.

As for the Keating bit, it won't ever happen and I think your dislike of Keating might be clouding your judgement.

Fair enough?

[Jimmy_041]

The confusion comes about, IMO, because the Monarchists tried to confuse the argument during the referendum lead-up.

I'm not sure what the confusion was - I understood what the monarchists wanted and rejected it. I understood the only option offered to us and rejected it. I respectfully suggest that most Australians did the same. I really am sick of hearing that we Australians are stupid just because we rejected a model that gave away our right to elect our own Head of State. I'm not saying you said we are stupid, but PJK is certainly saying that.
Give us a model that allows the people to elect our HOS and it would sail through, otherwise, stiff $hit, we stay with what we've got.

Why does my dislike of Keating cloud my judgement? I have stated my position that NO politician should be allowed to take the position.
One of the reasons the politicians didn't want a popular vote is that it may undermine the position of Prime Minister, so it is very simple - no (ex) politician is able to be voted in.

We seem to be able to elect good non-political Governors here in SA yet the federal politicians have used the position for political purposes

[redandblack]

We differ in that I don't want the HOS to undermine the position of PM.

I thought that was the whole point of an Australian Head of State.

I would have thought that once you have an election for President, it then automatically becomes political and the winner is a politician by definition.

I want our current system, with as little tinkering as possible, but with an Australian President.

If you want an elected President, perhaps the method put up last time, but changed as follows:

Candidates are put up for election if 2/3rds of the Parliament agree.

Other candidates are put up following some sort of vetting process agreed by the voters.

The reason I oppose an elected President is that it would then cause all sorts of political and constitutional difficulties and would change our Westminster style of governemnt totally. I think there have been 3 'political' GG's, Richard Casey and Paul Hasluck (both Liberal) and Bill Hayden (Labor). All acted appropriately as GG, IMO and served the country well, so I'm not fussed about it being a politician, because under my preferred model, both parties would have to agree.

That would mean the appointee would have to be someone who both sides trusted to act properly. The people making that decision are elected by us already, so if you don't trust them, why would you trust someone else we elect?

(That question is asked with respect, not aggression. I'm all in favour of the new resolution to keep to the debate).

[dedja]

That settles it ... Peter Slipper to be the 1st Head of State

[Jimmy_041]

We differ in that I don't want the HOS to undermine the position of PM.

I thought that was the whole point of an Australian Head of State.

I would have thought that once you have an election for President, it then automatically becomes political and the winner is a politician by definition.

I want our current system, with as little tinkering as possible, but with an Australian President.

If you want an elected President, perhaps the method put up last time, but changed as follows:

Candidates are put up for election if 2/3rds of the Parliament agree.

Other candidates are put up following some sort of vetting process agreed by the voters.

The reason I oppose an elected President is that it would then cause all sorts of political and constitutional difficulties and would change our Westminster style of governemnt totally. I think there have been 3 'political' GG's, Richard Casey and Paul Hasluck (both Liberal) and Bill Hayden (Labor). All acted appropriately as GG, IMO and served the country well, so I'm not fussed about it being a politician, because under my preferred model, both parties would have to agree.

That would mean the appointee would have to be someone who both sides trusted to act properly. The people making that decision are elected by us already, so if you don't trust them, why would you trust someone else we elect?

(That question is asked with respect, not aggression. I'm all in favour of the new resolution to keep to the debate).

We only vote because it is illegal not to

The HOS is meant to represent the people of Australia, not just 2/3 of the politicians, most of whom only care about themselves

Peter Slipper - nah....
Paul Hogan - yep

[redandblack]

It's not illegal not to vote, only to not turn up.

Paul Hogan - precisely why I don't favour an open election.

[once_were_warriors]

Firstly, remove the queen.

Secondly remove the Governor General.

Thirdly remove all state governors.

Finally , install the Prime Minister as the head of state, effectively it is already.

No additional powers, running of Australia determined by parliament.

[Bat Pad]

I fail to see why we require a head of state at all.