The problem I have with the 1999 referendum was not so much the fact that the President wasn't elected by the people (though that was a downside), but that it played to a more nationalist/patriotic attitude. It was almost entirely about how we should have an Australian head of state. Personally, I don't care what country our head of state is from, I just believe they should be democratically elected.
@CMFrenchEsq "Because of her absence as our head of state this puts limitations on head of state protections." That's fabricated nonsense. "Not for us the stretch limousine, first lady pressed into dutiful flag waving. With a republican head of state we would surely go down the road of pretension" We're already on it. They get a free house, staff, cars, all at our expense
@Redcarpet01 Its not fabricated nonsense the Queen has very rarely if ever used her powers over Australians. Imagine how much more expensive a Australian President would be to maintain. It only costs the average Briton 60p in maintenance of the Monarchy per day and no doubt much less for Australian's and other commonwealth nations who can share the very worthwhile burden.
@CMFrenchEsq It'd be more expensive if they got a pay rise, etc, compared to the GG's atm, etc. But no one's even addressed that issue so stop grasping at straws.
@Redcarpet01 Expenses arguments aside, lets look at some factors against a republic: republicans cannot decide on the model, come on they have had over 10 years since the last referendum to get their act together, migrants from non anglo backgrounds support our Cst monarchy, most Australia's do not want a republic check recent polling on this and most republicans wanted a US model in 1999 which would be disastrous.
What they were saying was nonsense. One main reason it failed was because we COULDN'T choose the new prez under the model they proposed. We would elect the government as always, then THEY would choose him or her.
@syncstation Whitlam and Fraser weren't MPs at the time this ad was published. The 1999 model was 2/3 of Parliament had to support one candidate, following public nomination.
England once used parts of Australia as a dumping ground for its lower class and some nuclear tests. It's now time to get rid of these people and move on. A new country.
Monarchy is brainwash to keep the lower orders bluffed and in place. In May 2008, a Morgan poll found 45% believe Australia should become a Republic with an elected President, while 42% support Australia remaining a Monarchy and 13% are undecided.
@jpx08 How can it be time when republicans still after 10 years have FAILED to come to consensus on the model of republic they want...Monarchy forever republic NEVER!!!
@CMFrenchEsq If you want to have a British head of state then why not move to Britain? Australia is not an out post of the British Empire anymore. It is a country in its own right. Your pro-British, pro-Monarchy voices are becoming fewer and fewer. By the time old Liz Windsor passes away, Australia will become a republic.
@jpx08 Pro-monarchy voices are not becoming fewer and fewer, I myself am a constitutional monarchist in my 20s and of there are many young monarchists in both the Australians For Constitutional Monarchy and the Australian Monarchist League. I am well aware Australia is no longer British to the bootstraps, or a British outpost in the south seas but in this globalized era having a foreign head of state can be a blessing. My comments are hardly pro-British or pro-imperial.
@CMFrenchEsq So in other words, you wouldn't mind having Obama or Hu Jintao as a Head of State instead of an Australian citizen? It's a hypothetical question but to me no different than asking if you would want Elizabeth II as the head of Australia. The point I am making is that Australia should be mature enough to have its own Head of State. I'm not saying we should leave the Commonwealth but why in God's name do we have to keep a British monarch at the head? Why not the Danish monarchy?
@terrythekittie Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy, Saudi Arabia is an Absolute Monarchy.
I prefer to live in a Constitutional Monarchy rather than an Absolute Monarchy or a republic.
There's no need for me to move anywhere, we are a Constitutional Monarchy and have been for over a century.
If you wish to inflict a republic upon the rest of us, please feel free to inform us of the real benefits it will bring - rather than the heartwarming schadenfreude felt by anglophobic racists.
What makes you thing I have a phobia about England?..I lived and worked there for a year..was brought up on British comedy (Python, Cook etc.) and British rock (Beatles, Clash etc.) and love the language..not the same as being opposed to the British monarchy. The benefits a republic brings is a self belief to a nation, an independent spirit if you will...if you are ashamed to have a fellow country man or woman being head of state that says a lot about you.
Kerr abused the convention ie the GG should be above politics. The event should have been solved the same way as the 1911 Budget Crisis in NSW, the 1910 Peoples' Budget in the UK, the 1904 Budget Crisis in SA was solved: let the politicans' solve it out themselves. After all, records show Fraser would have allowed supply within a few weeks because people were becoming agitated about not recieving their paychecks :-)
that bloody bastard Fraser, he conscripted people like me in 1965 and then told us later during recruit training that we were going to Vietnam because we were asked to by the Americans.... what a surprise when years later it was revealed it wasn't exactly the truth, he lied and simply wanted a part of the action!
70 young Nasho's died as a result!
Life wasn't meant to be easy" as he so aptly said, it wasn't the case for him!
that was amazingly out of sync. gough's mouth was moving and malfunction's words were coming out. and i thought trouserless speechifying was mal's only skill LOL
I sure hated this add. Whitlam took it up the ass when he was dismissed by the alcoholic Kerr. That, was the moment for the republic, the moment to say "fuck the Queen". So to put it. But I don't go along with anti-English sentiment, as English ancestry should be afforded the same respect as others. No foreign head of state most definitely. But I'd be pissed off if some dude with halting English, who came in through the NZ backdoor, got the job.
its amazing how much labor supporters hate sir John Kerr. he acted as he was supposed to according to the constitution. when the senate is blocking legislation, Kerr was MEANT to dismiss parliament. in fact whitlam had Kerr call an election the year before. the only reason that whitlam didnt want to call another election was because he had screwed the economy up so badly australia would never again vote for him.
in the end all sir john did was take it to the people, and they decided.
Kerr didn't know what the hell he was supposed to do. That's why he was busy taking advice to create options for himself. Gough was weak when it counted. For my generation, the overturning of conscription was most important, and associated with Jim Cairns - the only pollie who demonstrated against the Vietnam war with us. Whitlam was irrelevant. Any tips on a worthy head of state. Keating fancies his chances. So does the morally superior Rudd.
he seemed to act in accordance with the constitution so i guess he had a pretty good idea.
oh and mate by the time whitlam came to power the ALP only had to remove a TINY amount of troops from Vietnam because the coalition had already removed the bulk of them.
I refused to register. Would do it again. Loved those big demonstrations in the main streets of Melbourne. No wonder the coalition was backing away from the war.
oh and its a horrible thing to call him an alcoholic. do you know why he did? because you basards in the labor party treated him so horribly. you know he almost got killed several times by you yobs?
Kerr had more balls then any of you bastards and he did more for australia then you ever will
alcoholic is like diabetic - it names the person after the disease. With an all consuming disease it's acceptable - eg. Hitler might be called a psychopath because he had a disease which caused him to believe he needed to persecute particular people. P.S. I'm not, nor have ever been, a member of the Labor party. Kerr was pro-conscription for a war against people I didn't know- so fuck him I say.
you used the term alcoholic in a profoundly negative way.
he got so much shit from so many labor supporters but think about it - what else could he have done? the facts of the matter were the opposition had control of the senate and they were blocking supply for weeks. money needed to get through and the situation was absolutely unworkable. whitlam should have called a double dissolution like he did in 1974 but he refused this time because his popularity had declined
Kerr supported the senseless murder of people (both sides) in a dodgy war - calling him alcoholic is letting him off easy. What could he do you ask? He could do what unelected GG's are supposed to do - ponce around attending lunches, and leave government to the pollies and the people. The Queen knows her place, but our GG Kerr was a dill who didn't.
I was there - no one was talking about a role for the GG. It was politics - not legality. The GG totally disgraced his ponce role, and Whitlam was shown to be weak in the crisis. He could not mobilise supporters because he was not himself mobile at the street level. The son of a crown solicitor, Whitlam's election was Cairn's (former policeman)victory - Cairns had the youth mobilized, not Whitlam.
well legally when the senate is blocking crucial legislature the GG is supposed to call an election.
so what else was kerr supposed to do? just leave it with the liberals blocking supply for weeks. what happens when weeks stretch into months and the whole country gets screwed?
the situation had gotten to the stage where the only way to resolve the crisis was to take it to the people
its obvious to me that you do not understand constitutional law.
legally whitlam should have called the election. when legislation like that is rejected a number of times by the senate he is SUPPOSED to call a double dissolution. thats why the coalition were blocking him in the senate - they wanted an election because they knew they would probably win the election
days turned into weeks of deadlock and kerr kept asking whitlam to call an election
Neither did Kerr understand it. He read a book on it, acted on his understanding, and ended up hated. He forgot "the law is an ass". I refused to register - that was illegal. So what? That law was proven politically unpopular, and so dumped. But technically it was legal. Legal does not over ride other considerations. Especially not on YT.
He was supposed to do nothing - just like the Queen whom he represents. You know, go to lunches with old ducks and farts, dress in pin stripe, wear a ponce hat, eat cucumber sangas, and accept his own irrelevance.
so the senate would have kept on blocking supply and the pig headed leaders of both parties would have screwed australia over as the weeks turned into months and the stalemate continued.
at the end of the day all kerr wanted to do was take it to the people was he was legally bound to do according to the constitution.
If your theory is right, then the queen would have made similar incursions into British politics during the many crises that have affected the British nation during her very long reign. But she doesn't do that, does she? Neither should Kerr have. Not up to him to decide. Should have eaten his lettuce sandwich, and shut the $%^& up.
thats because the british bicameral system of parliament is utterly different to ours
their upper house is extremely weak and holds next to none of the power of the australian upper house. kerr had to do something otherwise the senate was going to keep on blocking supply. but you dont seem to care about that. would you have preferred that the senate kept on blocking supply until the next scheduled election in 1977?
the situation was utterly unmanageable and kerr took it to the people to decide
The Australian upper house is powerful eh? Come off it mate. You have overlooked the premise I started with - this "crisis" was the moment for the republic, and Whitlam fucked it up because he was worried about a bit of civil unrest. A bullet for Kerr would have been a real cost saver.
i very much doubt australia was ready for a republic and would have voted for it in the 1970s, especially with the economy the way it was.
and you never do offer and solutions, all you say is that kerr would have done nothing. if kerr had done nothing then australia would have been absolutely fucked. and im not talking fucked as in the way whitlam left the economy, im talking fucked as in all supply being blocked.
Your starting make spelling errors. Australia will have no choice but republic. The UK Queen doesn't need OZ. OZ just can't cut the apron strings. I can tell you weren't there(as an adult anyway) because I recall vividly the talk among people, and it was not like your description. Your giving the "view in retrospect" version of things. You missed the real thing, and all you have is text.
"lessen" should read "lesson". "then calling" should read "than calling". It's a debate? No, it's YT.
GG role is irrelevant in elections. PM calls it. GG is rubber stamp. Kerr tried to say "I call it". Queen doesn't interfere, neither should GG. Q: What can be more democratic than calling an election? A: Letting the elected PM call it.
ok we've both established that neither of us can spell, well done.
NO, according to the laws of the land - ie. the constitution Kerr was meant to do that in that situation. what part of legally he was obliged to do it don't you understand? if he had ignored the constitution then a) we'd had another 2 years where the economy would have just gone horribly.
ok imagine kerr hadn't called an election. supply keeps on getting blocked, again and again. australia would have been fucked
its amazing how bitter people can be. the fact of the matter is that the situation was ridiculous - supply was being blocked and kerr was forced to act in accordance with the constitution. whitlam was such an arrogant bastard he thought those laws did not apply to him but in the end it was up to australia and they gave the liberals the greatest majority ever in parliament.
those are the plain and simple facts of the matter.
No that's just what your lib' cronies have drummed into your impressionable head. Whitlam wasn't arrogant. He was weak. Kerr was the arrogant one. But then again he was half pissed at the time.
The country was not fucked up at all. You're being dramatic. A crisis is an opportunity, when resolved. Kerr had no idea what he was doing. Fraser was much better a PM than many from that side of politics - have a look at William McMahon for eg. As PMs go, I thought Fraser was a good western district farmer, but I gradually warmed to him. Especially after he got a bad back. That's when everyone recalled his famous "life wasn't meant to be easy" comment. And he's lived a long time too.
kerr had no idea what he was doing? of course he did, according to the constitution he did everything exactly as he should. thats exactly why it was in the constitution - it was the way to break the deadlock if such a situation ever arose.
The libs' manipulated Kerr easily. They knew he was crazy enough to try to sack the PM, so they just kept driving him in that direction by doing their senate routine. A sane GG would have not interfered.
the liberals were blocking supply because they thought the pm would be forced to call an election as he is legally bound to do. to their surprise whitlam refused to do so. any other GG would have been bound under constitutional law to do the same as kerr.
who are you to think our pollies should just flout the constitution?
No they wouldn't. No one at the time was talking about a role for the GG. I was there. Kerr was a little time bomb waiting to go off. When the libs' saw that, they couldn't resist the temptation to adjust his fuse.
you seem to think kerr had it in for the labor government. you forget that kerr was deeply involved with the ALP and was appointed by whitlam.
it has nothing to do with what people were talking about, according to the constitution in that situtation kerr is legally bound to act as he did and any GG as i said would probably have done the same
My impression is that you are one of the current correctness generation. All rules. You're obviously lacking life experience, and lecturing those who were present about something you've only read about. Kerr was a nut case.
what would have been the effect on australia if supply had been blocked for an indefinite amount of time? it would have been catastrophic and you lecture me on life experience? what would have happened to australia.
i think a lot of people got so caught up in the politics that they stopped giving a shit about the real world and the economy.
the fact is that whitlam should have called an election. he was the one who was in the wrong and acted against the constitution.
No, if the libs' were worried about the country they would have passed supply. The country was running fine, contrary to your childish and dramatic assertions. Whitlam introduced too many changes too quickly which set a panic among the conservatives. But the ultimate change, independence from UK, your crowd aren't ready for even now.
the liberals believed that forcing the pm to call an election was justified by the whole loans affair scandal. they knew that if they focussed on the economy then they would thump whitlam at the election.
they never dreamed a pm would dare act illegally against the constitution.
They caused the scandal by blocking supply, wired up "crazy Kerr" to act out his grandiose delusions of placing himself above the Queen and sacking the PM, and then took the spoils. Pure politics. They won a political victory. But Whitlam was to blame, by taking it up the ass from Kerr. He retains his greatness in the eyes of his party on the basis of his reforms, not his handling of Kerr. Even EG Whitlam couldn't manage a psycho John. But EG picked him without researching him.
Newspoll recently asked if the NSW government should be allowed to serve out its full term 49 per cent said it should, which is less than the Whitlam government was getting in response to similar questions in late 1975.
Assuming the absence of sarcasm in your question, I have no party allegiance, due largely to being more family derived, than education derived. The conscription "issue" was the focal point of my generation's youth, and it was great to be involved.
can i just ask why didn't whitlam research his own GG? i mean even in the best of circumstances its such an important role that no pm should take it lightly.
its not as if whitlam's victory in 72 came as a huge surprise or anything - he came so close in 69 and he had 3 years to think about who was going to be his GG
That's an 'easy' question. EG saw himself as sacrificing a legal career in which he would typically have ended up a judge, for a career in doing big things which changed lives. In so doing, he aligned himself with the people's view of the GG, not the legal view. At the time, as now, no one really cares who is GG, or what they do in their job. G'sG are seen as ornaments.
Please point the section of the Constitution which says "he did, according to the constitution...everything exactly as he should". Because, if you mean, convention, then, the 1910 Peoples' Budget, the 1911 NSW Budget Crisis, the 1905 SA Budget Crisis were all solved the same way: politicans' had to agree amongst themselves and give in as paychecks weren't being paid, making them unpopular :-) On a state level the budget has been blocked dozens of times. The Governor never intervened.
No, Sir. Again, I challenge you to show me which part of the Constitution (written or unwritten) made Kerr "obligied" to act. Please SHOW me the section. I have shown you SIX PRECEDENTS (ie conventions) where the monarch or the Sate Governor have NOT intervened. Show me evidence. When people get annoyed because they ain't get paid, the pollies back off. Hence, 1905, 1910-11, 1954, 1994. Someone always blinks first.
oh i see you were just content to sit back and wait and hope that someone ended up breaking the stalemate right?
hindsight is always 20/20. put yourself in kerr's shoes - what was he to think? months had passed and the senate was still in a deadlock and supply had almost ran out. finally he decided the only one to completely resolve the problem was to call a double dissolution - something whitlam should have done when the hostile senate was blockign legislation.
Finally, several Republics were smart enough to codify the following convention:
Section 21 of the Irish Constitution says:
If such Money Bill is not returned by Seanad Éireann to Dáil Éireann within such twenty-one days or is returned within such twenty-one days with recommendations which Dáil Éireann does not accept, it shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses at the expiration of the said twenty-one days.
See, much more efficient than what Kerr done. 21 days, not 6 months.
No, first, again, you say he was "legally bound to do according to the constitution" - yet you cannot point me to a precedent which highlights this. I pointed to SIX which contradicted everything you said. Second, I also point to primary source data which showed Fraser would have blinked first and passed the budget in a fortnight (thats TWO weeks, not a FORTNIGHT), enough to pay public servants in the Dec quarter. Third, if I were Kerr, I would have dismissed the Senate (halfelection).
time to get rid of the queen, australia doesnt need her any longer to be our head of state, our european and british hisotory will be preserved but we dont need her on any member of the royal family to be our country's figurehead. we are a proud and independent nation
and 'saacson', u moron, ireland became a republic decades ago and thankfully got rid of the union jack, its experienced significant economic growth since and now is one of the europe's richest countries. so go fuck yourself
No reason at all. That's what Australians would have had if they'd have voted 'Yes' in 1999. India (the world's most populous democracy) has a President as head of state, but not head of government.
It's simple really all we would be doing is replacing the governor general with a president. i personally lould like to see the southern cross in there somewhere but thats my own views, i just consider it more australian because it was designed by an early australian for australians.
yea, i perfer a republick too, but the thing is , when paul keating was going through all this, they didnt have a "for sure" system of how they would do things. thats why it didint go through. if we have a referendum today, or in 10 years, yea ofcource we will become a republic, besides the queen doesent even care buout australia, rembember when a letter was sent to the queen bout the dismissal...who needs her
I agree, and who's goin to take over after she dies? charles, he's a total moron. do you remember when william said he'd like to be govenor general of australia? Screw that!
yea, its simple, we as australians should have a head of state that is australian and best reflects our views. at first the queen was symbolic becuase we held many british values. but post WW2, our main values and trade are tied with america. the queen holds little, if any significance in the minds and values of australian citizens. so whats the point of her there....
as for charles, he talks to inanimate objects for gods sake...and cudnt keep a hot wife...
There is no question that Australia will become a Republic at some point. The question is when. I think it will happen when HM the Queen bites the dust. The other thing to ask though is what type of Republic would Australia be. Would it merely replace the monarch with a figurehead president? Or would Australia become a presidential country a la my native USA.
Well I can guess?...visiting American Presidents?...the Bay City Rollers?...Arms Merchants?....various members of the Royal family?....am I getting warm?...if not, you better help me out here?
Well, under Gough Whitlam and Al Grasby, they helped Syria out when the Syrian Army were in control of the Lebanese gaols. The gaols were full and they said "let them come to Australia under our multiCULTuralism policy."
Yes, it was all about buying votes, give them welfare and community leaders and they will keep voting you in.
Australia never had a multiCULTuralism policy, it was all a fetish Whitlam had to impress the UN and his Arab buddies. Republicanism stinks of corruption and power.
thats a mighty racist thing to say...racism racism racism...gough did alot for the countries, and if you an australian youd know. the hex program, medicare, no fault divore and the list goes on....
hahah you don't know who you are talking to. for a start all that was set up by keating. i KNOW. i was WORKING FOR DEET! (centrelink's predecessor which merged with social security. i can tell you for a FACT those figures were doctored by changing the definitions. so don't give me this BULLSHIT about lower unemployment. they just moved the criteria to LOOK like that on paper!!
so were you the one responsible for the recession we had to have mate?
one of the major reasons keating lost was because australia was afraid of those interest rates which had a nasty habit of creeping up during his reign
no you fucking IDIOT! that was several years before. i said i WORKED for the department.. i didn't OWN the fucking thing. i love how you've now chosen to go RIGHT off topic to try and link lamely to another argument. we were talking about unemployment, NOT the recession statement of YEARS EARLIER on a completely different matter. on UNEMPLOYMENT you have been OWNED!!
nope, the FACT is (i told you i was working for DEET at the time) that the libs tweaked the figures on unemployment. spout all the ignorant bullshit you want but that's the way it was. and who (who's old enough, like ME) can forget FRASER'S little effort in 79-80. SHITFUL unemployment from the guy who pinched gough's job (and blocked nearly every fucking bill labor tried to put through from 72-75). the libs were BOLLOCKS and you are blinded by prejudice.
prove it. the way i see it, and most people do as well, hawke and keating were absolutely shit at managing the economy. high unemployment, interest rates (wow you arent denying that one too), debt debt debt
he pinched whitlam's job? lol actually whitlam got voted out. australia decided.
oh and you really need to learn about the senate. it is one of the most powerful upper houses in the world. you know why? because it is not intended to do everything the lower house tells it to
okay so how in FUCK am i supposed to do that 13 years after the fact based on internal documents it's ILLEGAL for me to disclose under commonwealth privacy laws??? you'll just have to take my word for it. but i can tell you they cooked the books by changing the definition of unemployment by shortening the hours required to be considered 'employed' for statistical reasons and 'surprise surprise' the hours kept getting shorter and shorter from 30 hours down to ONE in the end!! check hansard!
the hansard will have the opposition complaints about them doing that. the upper house AND the senate. also you FAIL to mention the global RECESSION that was occurring at the time (did keating do it to the whole world? no. he saw the recession coming...shall we mention treasurer HOWARD'S 22% interest rates under FRASER???)hmmm. no. whitlam got robbed! the LIBERALS BLOCKED anything and everything in BOTH HOUSES of parliament then BLOCKED SUPPLY. after 23 YEARS they couldn't let another have a go!
so it's amusing the way you have all this selective amnesia and present your 'argument' in isolation where anyone who was around remembers what REALLY went on. kerr's cur! then FRASER had shitful unemployment HIMSELF! i remember those days myself! 14 hour days and low pay and too scared to pipe up 'cause there were 100 people waiting to jump on your job. whitlam was set up to look like shit and australia just wanted stable govt after liberal SABOTAGE! (with help from uncle sam!)
kerr acted according to the constitution. its not his fault that whitlam was too afraid to call a dissolution because he knew he'd screwed up so bad he was facing a landslide.
i'm well aware he acted according to the constitution. but the power he used was an archaic reserve power. had that power not been available whitlam probably would have copped a bullet. no, whitlam was sticking to his guns after being white-anted by the libs in both houses for his entire prime-ministership. the libs had 23 years and were such babies they couldn't deal with a term in opposition.
australia has one of the strongest upper houses in the would, and you seem to forget that both houses are elected and supposed to independent and it is unfortunate that theyve just ended up voting along party lines instead of in the interest of their states. thats why barnaby joice is so popular in qld because he sticks up for us despite party policy.
and you seem to forget that most australians were clamouring for an election. *ctd)
haha now i really do you know're bullshitting. its funny because you swallow any labor spin hook, line and sinker.
i hate to break it to you but no-one has ever paid higher interest rates on a house then under labor. the bullshit about interest rates under howard. did you ever check what type of rates? it was CASH rates, not bank rates you idiot.
i say again, no-one has ever paid higher interest rates on a house then under the ALP, an no-one ever will
So all the primse ministers execpt for the little jew cock sucking howard told you aussies what to do and yet still you voted NO? You wanted to suck oligarchy cock for the rest of your lives? You fucking morons. THe best thing could happen to you now is to be invaded by China.
you are an idiot. wtf would we want to be invaded by a totalitarian state? australian is one of the most democratic countries in the world and our system of government is far superior to such republics and america and france. look up the democracy index
Didn't you see what just happened in Canada? Let me get this striaght with you you utter mental retard: You Australians voted to have that fat slut as the head of your country.
"i hate to break it to you but the queen doenst actually make us do anything. for all intents and purposes the pm is our head of state." - legally she does. And so you can wank off as much as you want that its all just "convention", but if you look at what happens in Parliament today you will see alot of things going on under the guise of "convention" - this means you don't have any concrete legal Constitution protecting this country. Look at what just happened in Canada with Harper.
(ctd) isnt that a reflection on the democratic process - having a person who can call an election when the people really want it? i mean i bet the people of NSW wish they had that power right now.
quite frankly all kerr did was a requirement of the constitution. crucial legislation had been blocked twice and the situtation was unworkable. if the people had supported whitlam he would have been returned with a sentete majority
British Columbia's flag is still contains the union jack and the queen is the head of state! Malta, India and Canada's offical lanuages are english along with others and they all model their government under the westminster system.
learn about the zionists control of the world and the new world order thats why i spoke of his jewish heritage. I know its more than just the flag i was just making a statement.
politicians are people who want power, and have proven themselves to be untrustworthy and deceptive at times.
Lawyers too have a well deserved reputation, as self serving and deceptive.
And it is Politicians and Lawyers seeking to increase there own perverted power whilst taking advantage of a People who are without knowledge; It comes in the form of a Republic
and it consumes liberties and denies responsibility. NO REPUBLIC!
Lawyers and Politicians know the implications of becoming a Republic. Most people don't know the legal effects, and will vote based on a sense of patriotism and pride in their nation's achievements. Because of that, there will be a Republic; because Lawyers and Politicians know how to manipulate the people's emotions in a way that will grant a Republic. Relax... It's not the end of the world; merely the inevitable next step in Australia's nationhood.
Australia won't become a Republic in our life time.And last time i checked our Federation was founded in 1901 and we fought all wars under our own and current constitutional system/flag and some Australian battles are written as the greatest victory's and battles ever! Israel would not exist if it wasn't for Australians.
What about all the Australian flag tattoos on our Olympians? I Know who I am, so im extreamly relaxed.Its the Republicans who have to come up with the$
Australia is independent for all intents and purposes. The Queen is a benign force, and custom means her power is not utilised. For many, however, custom as a safeguard against arbitrary interference with a democratically elected Government is no safeguard. This Queen has no interest in our politics. But the power IS there. Surely this is unacceptable in today's Australia?
the parliament was not fulfilling its purpose - its job is to pass laws - when it cant do that anymore its time to get rid of it and find one that can.
the fact is that supply to vital services was running out. months had passed and the deadlock continued. how much longer would you have preferred kerr to have waited and not ended the deadlock? when all the hospitals finally ran out of money and people were dying?
No, the purpose of Parliament is to keep the government into account. Your view would undermine responsible government and automatically call into question the legitimacy of any government without a Senate majority. As for your question, yes, when the hospitals did run out of money: like in 1905 (SA), 1910 (UK), 1911 (NSW), 1956 (VIC) or 1995 (US). As noted, Fraser told his advisor he would have allowed for supply in less than a fortnight, precisely because he was annoying people.
Moreover, the issue here is codification. There are more stable ways to deal with such a crisis. The Jamaican Constitution (s 67), the State Constitutions (NSW, SA) say the Senate must either amend OR pass, not simply block. The purpose of a Senate is to hold the government accountable. Blocking a budget is not amending a budget.
Uncodified convention only benefits politicans', not the people. Remember, Fraser PASSED EXACTLY THE SAME BUDGET Whitlam wanted to pass when appointed caretaker PM. Did the people benefit from blocking of supply? No, because the same budget was passed! It only benefited the politicans' under a politicans' monarchy.
This regurgitated republic idea stinks. FFS it was only 9 years ago people said NO. Thats NO! So if any half wit self interested Republicans would like one, PAY for it yourselves. Swipe your credit cards at the voting booths and if a yes vote gets up you will be charged for it.... So all of our hard earn't taxes will NOT be pissed into the wind yet again. Losers
Funny how a labor(american spelling lol)/republican biased 20/20 meet has all the republicans crowing again. you do not like the country the way it is go found another one somewhere else :)
2 wankers together lol
russ9356 2 months ago
The problem I have with the 1999 referendum was not so much the fact that the President wasn't elected by the people (though that was a downside), but that it played to a more nationalist/patriotic attitude. It was almost entirely about how we should have an Australian head of state. Personally, I don't care what country our head of state is from, I just believe they should be democratically elected.
Crosseyedpresident 6 months ago
@CMFrenchEsq "Because of her absence as our head of state this puts limitations on head of state protections." That's fabricated nonsense. "Not for us the stretch limousine, first lady pressed into dutiful flag waving. With a republican head of state we would surely go down the road of pretension" We're already on it. They get a free house, staff, cars, all at our expense
Redcarpet01 1 year ago
@Redcarpet01 Its not fabricated nonsense the Queen has very rarely if ever used her powers over Australians. Imagine how much more expensive a Australian President would be to maintain. It only costs the average Briton 60p in maintenance of the Monarchy per day and no doubt much less for Australian's and other commonwealth nations who can share the very worthwhile burden.
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
@CMFrenchEsq It'd be more expensive if they got a pay rise, etc, compared to the GG's atm, etc. But no one's even addressed that issue so stop grasping at straws.
Redcarpet01 1 year ago
@Redcarpet01 Expenses arguments aside, lets look at some factors against a republic: republicans cannot decide on the model, come on they have had over 10 years since the last referendum to get their act together, migrants from non anglo backgrounds support our Cst monarchy, most Australia's do not want a republic check recent polling on this and most republicans wanted a US model in 1999 which would be disastrous.
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago
@CMFrenchEsq "and most republicans wanted a US model in 1999" No, they wanted a elected President who'd still be ceremonial.
Redcarpet01 1 year ago
Out of synch..
BRm2008 1 year ago
What they were saying was nonsense. One main reason it failed was because we COULDN'T choose the new prez under the model they proposed. We would elect the government as always, then THEY would choose him or her.
syncstation 1 year ago
@syncstation Whitlam and Fraser weren't MPs at the time this ad was published. The 1999 model was 2/3 of Parliament had to support one candidate, following public nomination.
holdenrepublic 1 year ago
You know what?
I'd kill to have Malcolm Fraser as PM right now.
Bunch of neocon hacks in government and opposition...
imaginary28 1 year ago
Whitlam wishes he had been Supreme President of the People's Republic of Australia, so he wouldn't have been sacked, ha ha.
yourLoyalBaron 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
2 of Australia's worst prime ministers!
saacson 2 years ago
Have you got a reason behind saying that?
spoonkyz 2 years ago
Impeachment for one.... Not sure what's wrong with Fraser.
symons3569 2 years ago
Who were the good ones in your opinion saacson?
sarantakis 2 years ago
here here
ASHGROVE101 2 years ago
since you gave no reason to assert your opinion. I think I'm right to say you're one of Australia's worst YouTubers.
supercrevolution 1 year ago
England once used parts of Australia as a dumping ground for its lower class and some nuclear tests. It's now time to get rid of these people and move on. A new country.
truthgroove 2 years ago
Monarchy is brainwash to keep the lower orders bluffed and in place. In May 2008, a Morgan poll found 45% believe Australia should become a Republic with an elected President, while 42% support Australia remaining a Monarchy and 13% are undecided.
truthgroove 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The English dumped Australia in the bin when they joined the EU in 1974. Some "common" wealth!!! No more (or little) trade = no wealth!!
truthgroove 2 years ago
Interesting, I don't remember seeing that ad.
Keruaran 2 years ago
The Republic of Australia: It's Time!
jpx08 3 years ago 10
@jpx08 How can it be time when republicans still after 10 years have FAILED to come to consensus on the model of republic they want...Monarchy forever republic NEVER!!!
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago 2
@CMFrenchEsq If you want to have a British head of state then why not move to Britain? Australia is not an out post of the British Empire anymore. It is a country in its own right. Your pro-British, pro-Monarchy voices are becoming fewer and fewer. By the time old Liz Windsor passes away, Australia will become a republic.
jpx08 1 year ago
@jpx08 Pro-monarchy voices are not becoming fewer and fewer, I myself am a constitutional monarchist in my 20s and of there are many young monarchists in both the Australians For Constitutional Monarchy and the Australian Monarchist League. I am well aware Australia is no longer British to the bootstraps, or a British outpost in the south seas but in this globalized era having a foreign head of state can be a blessing. My comments are hardly pro-British or pro-imperial.
CMFrenchEsq 1 year ago 6
@CMFrenchEsq So in other words, you wouldn't mind having Obama or Hu Jintao as a Head of State instead of an Australian citizen? It's a hypothetical question but to me no different than asking if you would want Elizabeth II as the head of Australia. The point I am making is that Australia should be mature enough to have its own Head of State. I'm not saying we should leave the Commonwealth but why in God's name do we have to keep a British monarch at the head? Why not the Danish monarchy?
jpx08 1 year ago
@jpx08 Ah, if you want to live in a republic, why don't you move to North Korea, or China or your favourite republic.
Australia is already a Constitutional Monarchy, it has been for well over a century, and enjoys a better standard of living than most republics.
emucentral 1 year ago
@emucentral - if you want to live in a monarchy then move to Saudi Arabia.
Unlike you I am not ashamed to have a fellow citizen as a head of state but obviously you are.
terrythekittie 2 months ago
@terrythekittie Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy, Saudi Arabia is an Absolute Monarchy.
I prefer to live in a Constitutional Monarchy rather than an Absolute Monarchy or a republic.
There's no need for me to move anywhere, we are a Constitutional Monarchy and have been for over a century.
If you wish to inflict a republic upon the rest of us, please feel free to inform us of the real benefits it will bring - rather than the heartwarming schadenfreude felt by anglophobic racists.
emucentral 2 months ago
What makes you thing I have a phobia about England?..I lived and worked there for a year..was brought up on British comedy (Python, Cook etc.) and British rock (Beatles, Clash etc.) and love the language..not the same as being opposed to the British monarchy. The benefits a republic brings is a self belief to a nation, an independent spirit if you will...if you are ashamed to have a fellow country man or woman being head of state that says a lot about you.
terrythekittie 2 months ago
this ad makes me sad.
aardmark85 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
John Kerr was the best Governor-General Australia had!
AMnationwide 3 years ago
John Kerr? You mean that drunk old assbag? The one who was probably pissed out of his mind when he dismissed Whitlam.
jpx08 3 years ago
John Kerr's decision was in the best interests of the Australian people. Malcolm Fraser said so.
AMnationwide 3 years ago
Kerr abused the convention ie the GG should be above politics. The event should have been solved the same way as the 1911 Budget Crisis in NSW, the 1910 Peoples' Budget in the UK, the 1904 Budget Crisis in SA was solved: let the politicans' solve it out themselves. After all, records show Fraser would have allowed supply within a few weeks because people were becoming agitated about not recieving their paychecks :-)
heidegger89 2 years ago
that bloody bastard Fraser, he conscripted people like me in 1965 and then told us later during recruit training that we were going to Vietnam because we were asked to by the Americans.... what a surprise when years later it was revealed it wasn't exactly the truth, he lied and simply wanted a part of the action!
70 young Nasho's died as a result!
Life wasn't meant to be easy" as he so aptly said, it wasn't the case for him!
lffit 3 years ago
that was amazingly out of sync. gough's mouth was moving and malfunction's words were coming out. and i thought trouserless speechifying was mal's only skill LOL
WonderWombat8 3 years ago
I sure hated this add. Whitlam took it up the ass when he was dismissed by the alcoholic Kerr. That, was the moment for the republic, the moment to say "fuck the Queen". So to put it. But I don't go along with anti-English sentiment, as English ancestry should be afforded the same respect as others. No foreign head of state most definitely. But I'd be pissed off if some dude with halting English, who came in through the NZ backdoor, got the job.
philjquitt 3 years ago
its amazing how much labor supporters hate sir John Kerr. he acted as he was supposed to according to the constitution. when the senate is blocking legislation, Kerr was MEANT to dismiss parliament. in fact whitlam had Kerr call an election the year before. the only reason that whitlam didnt want to call another election was because he had screwed the economy up so badly australia would never again vote for him.
in the end all sir john did was take it to the people, and they decided.
liber8me 3 years ago
Kerr didn't know what the hell he was supposed to do. That's why he was busy taking advice to create options for himself. Gough was weak when it counted. For my generation, the overturning of conscription was most important, and associated with Jim Cairns - the only pollie who demonstrated against the Vietnam war with us. Whitlam was irrelevant. Any tips on a worthy head of state. Keating fancies his chances. So does the morally superior Rudd.
philjquitt 3 years ago
he seemed to act in accordance with the constitution so i guess he had a pretty good idea.
oh and mate by the time whitlam came to power the ALP only had to remove a TINY amount of troops from Vietnam because the coalition had already removed the bulk of them.
liber8me 3 years ago
I refused to register. Would do it again. Loved those big demonstrations in the main streets of Melbourne. No wonder the coalition was backing away from the war.
philjquitt 3 years ago
oh and its a horrible thing to call him an alcoholic. do you know why he did? because you basards in the labor party treated him so horribly. you know he almost got killed several times by you yobs?
Kerr had more balls then any of you bastards and he did more for australia then you ever will
liber8me 3 years ago
alcoholic is like diabetic - it names the person after the disease. With an all consuming disease it's acceptable - eg. Hitler might be called a psychopath because he had a disease which caused him to believe he needed to persecute particular people. P.S. I'm not, nor have ever been, a member of the Labor party. Kerr was pro-conscription for a war against people I didn't know- so fuck him I say.
philjquitt 3 years ago
you used the term alcoholic in a profoundly negative way.
he got so much shit from so many labor supporters but think about it - what else could he have done? the facts of the matter were the opposition had control of the senate and they were blocking supply for weeks. money needed to get through and the situation was absolutely unworkable. whitlam should have called a double dissolution like he did in 1974 but he refused this time because his popularity had declined
liber8me 3 years ago
Kerr supported the senseless murder of people (both sides) in a dodgy war - calling him alcoholic is letting him off easy. What could he do you ask? He could do what unelected GG's are supposed to do - ponce around attending lunches, and leave government to the pollies and the people. The Queen knows her place, but our GG Kerr was a dill who didn't.
philjquitt 3 years ago
Kerr knew that Whitlam legally had to call a dissolution and the situation was unmanageable
liber8me 3 years ago
I was there - no one was talking about a role for the GG. It was politics - not legality. The GG totally disgraced his ponce role, and Whitlam was shown to be weak in the crisis. He could not mobilise supporters because he was not himself mobile at the street level. The son of a crown solicitor, Whitlam's election was Cairn's (former policeman)victory - Cairns had the youth mobilized, not Whitlam.
philjquitt 3 years ago
well legally when the senate is blocking crucial legislature the GG is supposed to call an election.
so what else was kerr supposed to do? just leave it with the liberals blocking supply for weeks. what happens when weeks stretch into months and the whole country gets screwed?
the situation had gotten to the stage where the only way to resolve the crisis was to take it to the people
liber8me 3 years ago
Legally had nothing to do with it. It's obvious to me you weren't there.
philjquitt 3 years ago
its obvious to me that you do not understand constitutional law.
legally whitlam should have called the election. when legislation like that is rejected a number of times by the senate he is SUPPOSED to call a double dissolution. thats why the coalition were blocking him in the senate - they wanted an election because they knew they would probably win the election
days turned into weeks of deadlock and kerr kept asking whitlam to call an election
liber8me 3 years ago
Neither did Kerr understand it. He read a book on it, acted on his understanding, and ended up hated. He forgot "the law is an ass". I refused to register - that was illegal. So what? That law was proven politically unpopular, and so dumped. But technically it was legal. Legal does not over ride other considerations. Especially not on YT.
philjquitt 3 years ago
so then what was kerr supposed to do?
liber8me 3 years ago
He was supposed to do nothing - just like the Queen whom he represents. You know, go to lunches with old ducks and farts, dress in pin stripe, wear a ponce hat, eat cucumber sangas, and accept his own irrelevance.
philjquitt 3 years ago
you say he ended up hated - yes he did by the political left.
the australian people wanted an election and you'd have thought that the huge swing against the ALP would have validated kerr's actions.
liber8me 3 years ago
I'm not on the political left, and I managed to hate him. But not as much as Whitlam who took it up the ass.
philjquitt 3 years ago
so the senate would have kept on blocking supply and the pig headed leaders of both parties would have screwed australia over as the weeks turned into months and the stalemate continued.
at the end of the day all kerr wanted to do was take it to the people was he was legally bound to do according to the constitution.
liber8me 3 years ago
If your theory is right, then the queen would have made similar incursions into British politics during the many crises that have affected the British nation during her very long reign. But she doesn't do that, does she? Neither should Kerr have. Not up to him to decide. Should have eaten his lettuce sandwich, and shut the $%^& up.
philjquitt 3 years ago
thats because the british bicameral system of parliament is utterly different to ours
their upper house is extremely weak and holds next to none of the power of the australian upper house. kerr had to do something otherwise the senate was going to keep on blocking supply. but you dont seem to care about that. would you have preferred that the senate kept on blocking supply until the next scheduled election in 1977?
the situation was utterly unmanageable and kerr took it to the people to decide
liber8me 3 years ago
The Australian upper house is powerful eh? Come off it mate. You have overlooked the premise I started with - this "crisis" was the moment for the republic, and Whitlam fucked it up because he was worried about a bit of civil unrest. A bullet for Kerr would have been a real cost saver.
philjquitt 3 years ago
i very much doubt australia was ready for a republic and would have voted for it in the 1970s, especially with the economy the way it was.
and you never do offer and solutions, all you say is that kerr would have done nothing. if kerr had done nothing then australia would have been absolutely fucked. and im not talking fucked as in the way whitlam left the economy, im talking fucked as in all supply being blocked.
liber8me 3 years ago
Your starting make spelling errors. Australia will have no choice but republic. The UK Queen doesn't need OZ. OZ just can't cut the apron strings. I can tell you weren't there(as an adult anyway) because I recall vividly the talk among people, and it was not like your description. Your giving the "view in retrospect" version of things. You missed the real thing, and all you have is text.
philjquitt 3 years ago
so have you: "your started" you've started. its a debate not a bloody grammar lessen.
what can be more democratic then calling an election? at the end of the day its the people who decided, not the governor general.
i very much doubt that the ALP would hate kerr if they had somehow won the election and achieved a majority in the senate.
liber8me 3 years ago
"lessen" should read "lesson". "then calling" should read "than calling". It's a debate? No, it's YT.
GG role is irrelevant in elections. PM calls it. GG is rubber stamp. Kerr tried to say "I call it". Queen doesn't interfere, neither should GG. Q: What can be more democratic than calling an election? A: Letting the elected PM call it.
philjquitt 3 years ago
ok we've both established that neither of us can spell, well done.
NO, according to the laws of the land - ie. the constitution Kerr was meant to do that in that situation. what part of legally he was obliged to do it don't you understand? if he had ignored the constitution then a) we'd had another 2 years where the economy would have just gone horribly.
ok imagine kerr hadn't called an election. supply keeps on getting blocked, again and again. australia would have been fucked
liber8me 3 years ago
You Tube has no such law.
philjquitt 3 years ago
its amazing how bitter people can be. the fact of the matter is that the situation was ridiculous - supply was being blocked and kerr was forced to act in accordance with the constitution. whitlam was such an arrogant bastard he thought those laws did not apply to him but in the end it was up to australia and they gave the liberals the greatest majority ever in parliament.
those are the plain and simple facts of the matter.
liber8me 3 years ago
No that's just what your lib' cronies have drummed into your impressionable head. Whitlam wasn't arrogant. He was weak. Kerr was the arrogant one. But then again he was half pissed at the time.
philjquitt 3 years ago
no actually i think that in the list of worst pms fraser was only second to whitlam so this is not about party politics.
this was about kerr having the balls to stand up for australia and realising how fucked up this country was going to be unless h edid something.
whitlam was legally bound to call an election. he flouted the laws laid down in the australian constitution and this was the result.
liber8me 3 years ago
The country was not fucked up at all. You're being dramatic. A crisis is an opportunity, when resolved. Kerr had no idea what he was doing. Fraser was much better a PM than many from that side of politics - have a look at William McMahon for eg. As PMs go, I thought Fraser was a good western district farmer, but I gradually warmed to him. Especially after he got a bad back. That's when everyone recalled his famous "life wasn't meant to be easy" comment. And he's lived a long time too.
philjquitt 3 years ago
kerr had no idea what he was doing? of course he did, according to the constitution he did everything exactly as he should. thats exactly why it was in the constitution - it was the way to break the deadlock if such a situation ever arose.
liber8me 3 years ago
The libs' manipulated Kerr easily. They knew he was crazy enough to try to sack the PM, so they just kept driving him in that direction by doing their senate routine. A sane GG would have not interfered.
philjquitt 3 years ago
the liberals were blocking supply because they thought the pm would be forced to call an election as he is legally bound to do. to their surprise whitlam refused to do so. any other GG would have been bound under constitutional law to do the same as kerr.
who are you to think our pollies should just flout the constitution?
liber8me 3 years ago
There is no precedent to support your claim about what a GG might do. Kerr is the precedent, because he was a nut case.
philjquitt 3 years ago
its in the constitution what you're supposed to do in that situation! any other GG would have been forced to do the same.
liber8me 3 years ago
No they wouldn't. No one at the time was talking about a role for the GG. I was there. Kerr was a little time bomb waiting to go off. When the libs' saw that, they couldn't resist the temptation to adjust his fuse.
philjquitt 3 years ago
you seem to think kerr had it in for the labor government. you forget that kerr was deeply involved with the ALP and was appointed by whitlam.
it has nothing to do with what people were talking about, according to the constitution in that situtation kerr is legally bound to act as he did and any GG as i said would probably have done the same
liber8me 3 years ago
My impression is that you are one of the current correctness generation. All rules. You're obviously lacking life experience, and lecturing those who were present about something you've only read about. Kerr was a nut case.
philjquitt 3 years ago
what would have been the effect on australia if supply had been blocked for an indefinite amount of time? it would have been catastrophic and you lecture me on life experience? what would have happened to australia.
i think a lot of people got so caught up in the politics that they stopped giving a shit about the real world and the economy.
the fact is that whitlam should have called an election. he was the one who was in the wrong and acted against the constitution.
liber8me 3 years ago
No, if the libs' were worried about the country they would have passed supply. The country was running fine, contrary to your childish and dramatic assertions. Whitlam introduced too many changes too quickly which set a panic among the conservatives. But the ultimate change, independence from UK, your crowd aren't ready for even now.
philjquitt 3 years ago
the liberals believed that forcing the pm to call an election was justified by the whole loans affair scandal. they knew that if they focussed on the economy then they would thump whitlam at the election.
they never dreamed a pm would dare act illegally against the constitution.
liber8me 3 years ago
They caused the scandal by blocking supply, wired up "crazy Kerr" to act out his grandiose delusions of placing himself above the Queen and sacking the PM, and then took the spoils. Pure politics. They won a political victory. But Whitlam was to blame, by taking it up the ass from Kerr. He retains his greatness in the eyes of his party on the basis of his reforms, not his handling of Kerr. Even EG Whitlam couldn't manage a psycho John. But EG picked him without researching him.
philjquitt 3 years ago
Newspoll recently asked if the NSW government should be allowed to serve out its full term 49 per cent said it should, which is less than the Whitlam government was getting in response to similar questions in late 1975.
liber8me 3 years ago
I hate the present Labor totalitarian(almost) regime.
philjquitt 3 years ago
yes ive noticed that you have a extremely astute understanding of politics without the bias that usually seems to come with it.
are you a swinging voter who votes purely on the issues?
liber8me 3 years ago
Assuming the absence of sarcasm in your question, I have no party allegiance, due largely to being more family derived, than education derived. The conscription "issue" was the focal point of my generation's youth, and it was great to be involved.
philjquitt 3 years ago
no i was actually genuinely interested. the vast majority of people either seem to have some really strong party allegiance or just dont give a shit.
liber8me 3 years ago
can i just ask why didn't whitlam research his own GG? i mean even in the best of circumstances its such an important role that no pm should take it lightly.
its not as if whitlam's victory in 72 came as a huge surprise or anything - he came so close in 69 and he had 3 years to think about who was going to be his GG
liber8me 3 years ago
That's an 'easy' question. EG saw himself as sacrificing a legal career in which he would typically have ended up a judge, for a career in doing big things which changed lives. In so doing, he aligned himself with the people's view of the GG, not the legal view. At the time, as now, no one really cares who is GG, or what they do in their job. G'sG are seen as ornaments.
philjquitt 3 years ago
EG Whitlam just passed a new milestone. He is the oldest ever former Prime Minister of OZ.
philjquitt 3 years ago
Kerr was a member of the ALP, and therefore, assumed he was loyal. Moreover, GGs have a term of roughly five years. Kerr's had not quite run out yet.
heidegger89 2 years ago
Please point the section of the Constitution which says "he did, according to the constitution...everything exactly as he should". Because, if you mean, convention, then, the 1910 Peoples' Budget, the 1911 NSW Budget Crisis, the 1905 SA Budget Crisis were all solved the same way: politicans' had to agree amongst themselves and give in as paychecks weren't being paid, making them unpopular :-) On a state level the budget has been blocked dozens of times. The Governor never intervened.
heidegger89 2 years ago
No, Sir. Again, I challenge you to show me which part of the Constitution (written or unwritten) made Kerr "obligied" to act. Please SHOW me the section. I have shown you SIX PRECEDENTS (ie conventions) where the monarch or the Sate Governor have NOT intervened. Show me evidence. When people get annoyed because they ain't get paid, the pollies back off. Hence, 1905, 1910-11, 1954, 1994. Someone always blinks first.
heidegger89 2 years ago
oh i see you were just content to sit back and wait and hope that someone ended up breaking the stalemate right?
hindsight is always 20/20. put yourself in kerr's shoes - what was he to think? months had passed and the senate was still in a deadlock and supply had almost ran out. finally he decided the only one to completely resolve the problem was to call a double dissolution - something whitlam should have done when the hostile senate was blockign legislation.
liber8me 2 years ago
Finally, several Republics were smart enough to codify the following convention:
Section 21 of the Irish Constitution says:
If such Money Bill is not returned by Seanad Éireann to Dáil Éireann within such twenty-one days or is returned within such twenty-one days with recommendations which Dáil Éireann does not accept, it shall be deemed to have been passed by both Houses at the expiration of the said twenty-one days.
See, much more efficient than what Kerr done. 21 days, not 6 months.
heidegger89 2 years ago
No, first, again, you say he was "legally bound to do according to the constitution" - yet you cannot point me to a precedent which highlights this. I pointed to SIX which contradicted everything you said. Second, I also point to primary source data which showed Fraser would have blinked first and passed the budget in a fortnight (thats TWO weeks, not a FORTNIGHT), enough to pay public servants in the Dec quarter. Third, if I were Kerr, I would have dismissed the Senate (halfelection).
heidegger89 2 years ago
time to get rid of the queen, australia doesnt need her any longer to be our head of state, our european and british hisotory will be preserved but we dont need her on any member of the royal family to be our country's figurehead. we are a proud and independent nation
and 'saacson', u moron, ireland became a republic decades ago and thankfully got rid of the union jack, its experienced significant economic growth since and now is one of the europe's richest countries. so go fuck yourself
life2lifele55 3 years ago
I don't know why we can't be a republic but keep the same political system and still have a Prime Minister.
Amunication 3 years ago
No reason at all. That's what Australians would have had if they'd have voted 'Yes' in 1999. India (the world's most populous democracy) has a President as head of state, but not head of government.
kmfw72 3 years ago 2
conflict of powers and juristictions
darkrenerd 3 years ago
It's simple really all we would be doing is replacing the governor general with a president. i personally lould like to see the southern cross in there somewhere but thats my own views, i just consider it more australian because it was designed by an early australian for australians.
InformationMinister 3 years ago
yea, i perfer a republick too, but the thing is , when paul keating was going through all this, they didnt have a "for sure" system of how they would do things. thats why it didint go through. if we have a referendum today, or in 10 years, yea ofcource we will become a republic, besides the queen doesent even care buout australia, rembember when a letter was sent to the queen bout the dismissal...who needs her
darkrenerd 3 years ago 2
I agree, and who's goin to take over after she dies? charles, he's a total moron. do you remember when william said he'd like to be govenor general of australia? Screw that!
InformationMinister 3 years ago
yea, its simple, we as australians should have a head of state that is australian and best reflects our views. at first the queen was symbolic becuase we held many british values. but post WW2, our main values and trade are tied with america. the queen holds little, if any significance in the minds and values of australian citizens. so whats the point of her there....
as for charles, he talks to inanimate objects for gods sake...and cudnt keep a hot wife...
darkrenerd 3 years ago
So true, what wnker would give up princess di for that ugly thing he's got now. lol
InformationMinister 3 years ago
There is no question that Australia will become a Republic at some point. The question is when. I think it will happen when HM the Queen bites the dust. The other thing to ask though is what type of Republic would Australia be. Would it merely replace the monarch with a figurehead president? Or would Australia become a presidential country a la my native USA.
masslib 3 years ago
NO REPUBLIC!
AMnationwide 3 years ago
LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC
lapalad 3 years ago
I am a republican,
But these two LEFT-WING Morons have alot to answer for with the scum they have let into our beutiful country
Steven2690 3 years ago
What 'scum' is that?...can you elaborate?
terrythekittie 3 years ago
Cant u work it out?
Steven2690 3 years ago
Well I can guess?...visiting American Presidents?...the Bay City Rollers?...Arms Merchants?....various members of the Royal family?....am I getting warm?...if not, you better help me out here?
terrythekittie 3 years ago
Well, under Gough Whitlam and Al Grasby, they helped Syria out when the Syrian Army were in control of the Lebanese gaols. The gaols were full and they said "let them come to Australia under our multiCULTuralism policy."
Yes, it was all about buying votes, give them welfare and community leaders and they will keep voting you in.
Australia never had a multiCULTuralism policy, it was all a fetish Whitlam had to impress the UN and his Arab buddies. Republicanism stinks of corruption and power.
GodBotherer1 3 years ago
thats a mighty racist thing to say...racism racism racism...gough did alot for the countries, and if you an australian youd know. the hex program, medicare, no fault divore and the list goes on....
darkrenerd 3 years ago
a pity he didnt pay more attention to the economy.
liber8me 3 years ago
yeah and a pity the libs never pay more attention to social policy. remember the past 12 years?
WonderWombat8 3 years ago
the past 12 years when unemployment went to record lows?
oh, thats right, labor's wonderful social policy doesnt include being employed
liber8me 3 years ago
hahah you don't know who you are talking to. for a start all that was set up by keating. i KNOW. i was WORKING FOR DEET! (centrelink's predecessor which merged with social security. i can tell you for a FACT those figures were doctored by changing the definitions. so don't give me this BULLSHIT about lower unemployment. they just moved the criteria to LOOK like that on paper!!
WonderWombat8 3 years ago
so were you the one responsible for the recession we had to have mate?
one of the major reasons keating lost was because australia was afraid of those interest rates which had a nasty habit of creeping up during his reign
liber8me 3 years ago
no you fucking IDIOT! that was several years before. i said i WORKED for the department.. i didn't OWN the fucking thing. i love how you've now chosen to go RIGHT off topic to try and link lamely to another argument. we were talking about unemployment, NOT the recession statement of YEARS EARLIER on a completely different matter. on UNEMPLOYMENT you have been OWNED!!
WonderWombat8 3 years ago
nope, the fact is that under keatings administration unemployment and interest rates were vastly higher then under the liberals
liber8me 3 years ago
nope, the FACT is (i told you i was working for DEET at the time) that the libs tweaked the figures on unemployment. spout all the ignorant bullshit you want but that's the way it was. and who (who's old enough, like ME) can forget FRASER'S little effort in 79-80. SHITFUL unemployment from the guy who pinched gough's job (and blocked nearly every fucking bill labor tried to put through from 72-75). the libs were BOLLOCKS and you are blinded by prejudice.
WonderWombat8 3 years ago
prove it. the way i see it, and most people do as well, hawke and keating were absolutely shit at managing the economy. high unemployment, interest rates (wow you arent denying that one too), debt debt debt
he pinched whitlam's job? lol actually whitlam got voted out. australia decided.
oh and you really need to learn about the senate. it is one of the most powerful upper houses in the world. you know why? because it is not intended to do everything the lower house tells it to
liber8me 3 years ago
okay so how in FUCK am i supposed to do that 13 years after the fact based on internal documents it's ILLEGAL for me to disclose under commonwealth privacy laws??? you'll just have to take my word for it. but i can tell you they cooked the books by changing the definition of unemployment by shortening the hours required to be considered 'employed' for statistical reasons and 'surprise surprise' the hours kept getting shorter and shorter from 30 hours down to ONE in the end!! check hansard!
WonderWombat8 3 years ago
the hansard will have the opposition complaints about them doing that. the upper house AND the senate. also you FAIL to mention the global RECESSION that was occurring at the time (did keating do it to the whole world? no. he saw the recession coming...shall we mention treasurer HOWARD'S 22% interest rates under FRASER???)hmmm. no. whitlam got robbed! the LIBERALS BLOCKED anything and everything in BOTH HOUSES of parliament then BLOCKED SUPPLY. after 23 YEARS they couldn't let another have a go!
WonderWombat8 3 years ago
so it's amusing the way you have all this selective amnesia and present your 'argument' in isolation where anyone who was around remembers what REALLY went on. kerr's cur! then FRASER had shitful unemployment HIMSELF! i remember those days myself! 14 hour days and low pay and too scared to pipe up 'cause there were 100 people waiting to jump on your job. whitlam was set up to look like shit and australia just wanted stable govt after liberal SABOTAGE! (with help from uncle sam!)
WonderWombat8 3 years ago
kerr acted according to the constitution. its not his fault that whitlam was too afraid to call a dissolution because he knew he'd screwed up so bad he was facing a landslide.
liber8me 3 years ago
i'm well aware he acted according to the constitution. but the power he used was an archaic reserve power. had that power not been available whitlam probably would have copped a bullet. no, whitlam was sticking to his guns after being white-anted by the libs in both houses for his entire prime-ministership. the libs had 23 years and were such babies they couldn't deal with a term in opposition.
WonderWombat8 3 years ago
australia has one of the strongest upper houses in the would, and you seem to forget that both houses are elected and supposed to independent and it is unfortunate that theyve just ended up voting along party lines instead of in the interest of their states. thats why barnaby joice is so popular in qld because he sticks up for us despite party policy.
and you seem to forget that most australians were clamouring for an election. *ctd)
liber8me 3 years ago
haha now i really do you know're bullshitting. its funny because you swallow any labor spin hook, line and sinker.
i hate to break it to you but no-one has ever paid higher interest rates on a house then under labor. the bullshit about interest rates under howard. did you ever check what type of rates? it was CASH rates, not bank rates you idiot.
i say again, no-one has ever paid higher interest rates on a house then under the ALP, an no-one ever will
liber8me 3 years ago
oh, so its a giant conspiracy theory against the poor little labor party. lol
liber8me 3 years ago
So all the primse ministers execpt for the little jew cock sucking howard told you aussies what to do and yet still you voted NO? You wanted to suck oligarchy cock for the rest of your lives? You fucking morons. THe best thing could happen to you now is to be invaded by China.
Focoist911 3 years ago
you are an idiot. wtf would we want to be invaded by a totalitarian state? australian is one of the most democratic countries in the world and our system of government is far superior to such republics and america and france. look up the democracy index
liber8me 3 years ago
the guy's just a shit stirring jerk. just ignore him and continue fighting with me. (or i'll get jealous)
WonderWombat8 3 years ago
lol fair enough
liber8me 3 years ago
Yeh a democracy of oligracy slaves who love being ruled by a monarch. Fucking idiot. You're all convict slave menbtalities.
Focoist911 3 years ago
when was the last time a monarch told us what to do?
liber8me 3 years ago
Didn't you see what just happened in Canada? Let me get this striaght with you you utter mental retard: You Australians voted to have that fat slut as the head of your country.
Focoist911 3 years ago
i hate to break it to you but the queen doenst actually make us do anything. for all intents and purposes the pm is our head of state.
liber8me 3 years ago
"i hate to break it to you but the queen doenst actually make us do anything. for all intents and purposes the pm is our head of state." - legally she does. And so you can wank off as much as you want that its all just "convention", but if you look at what happens in Parliament today you will see alot of things going on under the guise of "convention" - this means you don't have any concrete legal Constitution protecting this country. Look at what just happened in Canada with Harper.
Focoist911 3 years ago
personally i would prefer the queen a whole lot fucking more then being ruled by china
liber8me 3 years ago
like china gives a flying feng shue about us.
WonderWombat8 3 years ago
until the GG jumps in and sacks the PM like he did in 75. he is the queen by proxy.
WonderWombat8 3 years ago
...until the GG sacks him (like in 75). the queen via proxy
WonderWombat8 3 years ago
1975
WonderWombat8 3 years ago
love the typing on this comment.
a warning kiddies: don't let big bird near the keyboard. XD
WonderWombat8 3 years ago
are you angry because i've still got the photos of your dad fucking you up the arse like a little bitch? good! suffer baby ROFL
WonderWombat8 3 years ago
(ctd) isnt that a reflection on the democratic process - having a person who can call an election when the people really want it? i mean i bet the people of NSW wish they had that power right now.
quite frankly all kerr did was a requirement of the constitution. crucial legislation had been blocked twice and the situtation was unworkable. if the people had supported whitlam he would have been returned with a sentete majority
liber8me 3 years ago
Fraser opened those gates
ihemflooy 3 years ago
British Columbia's flag is still contains the union jack and the queen is the head of state! Malta, India and Canada's offical lanuages are english along with others and they all model their government under the westminster system.
saacson 3 years ago
socialist and a wishy washy quater jew liberal, every country that took the union jack off their flag is now a shit heap.
saacson 3 years ago
Yeah! Like Canada, Malta and India...
holdenrepublic 3 years ago
'quarter jew liberal'... how is one of his grandparent's religion relevant.
a republic is much more than removing the union jack from the flag.
Finnymac84 3 years ago
learn about the zionists control of the world and the new world order thats why i spoke of his jewish heritage. I know its more than just the flag i was just making a statement.
saacson 3 years ago
politicians are people who want power, and have proven themselves to be untrustworthy and deceptive at times.
Lawyers too have a well deserved reputation, as self serving and deceptive.
And it is Politicians and Lawyers seeking to increase there own perverted power whilst taking advantage of a People who are without knowledge; It comes in the form of a Republic
and it consumes liberties and denies responsibility. NO REPUBLIC!
nrgben 3 years ago
Lawyers and Politicians know the implications of becoming a Republic. Most people don't know the legal effects, and will vote based on a sense of patriotism and pride in their nation's achievements. Because of that, there will be a Republic; because Lawyers and Politicians know how to manipulate the people's emotions in a way that will grant a Republic. Relax... It's not the end of the world; merely the inevitable next step in Australia's nationhood.
makwaa1 3 years ago
With Respect,
Australia won't become a Republic in our life time.And last time i checked our Federation was founded in 1901 and we fought all wars under our own and current constitutional system/flag and some Australian battles are written as the greatest victory's and battles ever! Israel would not exist if it wasn't for Australians.
What about all the Australian flag tattoos on our Olympians? I Know who I am, so im extreamly relaxed.Its the Republicans who have to come up with the$
nrgben 3 years ago 3
Australia is independent for all intents and purposes. The Queen is a benign force, and custom means her power is not utilised. For many, however, custom as a safeguard against arbitrary interference with a democratically elected Government is no safeguard. This Queen has no interest in our politics. But the power IS there. Surely this is unacceptable in today's Australia?
makwaa1 3 years ago
Sorry? You mean the GG's power? Because the Queen cannot excerise constitutional powers, only statutory ones.
heidegger89 2 years ago
the parliament was not fulfilling its purpose - its job is to pass laws - when it cant do that anymore its time to get rid of it and find one that can.
the fact is that supply to vital services was running out. months had passed and the deadlock continued. how much longer would you have preferred kerr to have waited and not ended the deadlock? when all the hospitals finally ran out of money and people were dying?
liber8me 2 years ago
No, the purpose of Parliament is to keep the government into account. Your view would undermine responsible government and automatically call into question the legitimacy of any government without a Senate majority. As for your question, yes, when the hospitals did run out of money: like in 1905 (SA), 1910 (UK), 1911 (NSW), 1956 (VIC) or 1995 (US). As noted, Fraser told his advisor he would have allowed for supply in less than a fortnight, precisely because he was annoying people.
heidegger89 2 years ago
Moreover, the issue here is codification. There are more stable ways to deal with such a crisis. The Jamaican Constitution (s 67), the State Constitutions (NSW, SA) say the Senate must either amend OR pass, not simply block. The purpose of a Senate is to hold the government accountable. Blocking a budget is not amending a budget.
heidegger89 2 years ago
Uncodified convention only benefits politicans', not the people. Remember, Fraser PASSED EXACTLY THE SAME BUDGET Whitlam wanted to pass when appointed caretaker PM. Did the people benefit from blocking of supply? No, because the same budget was passed! It only benefited the politicans' under a politicans' monarchy.
heidegger89 2 years ago
This regurgitated republic idea stinks. FFS it was only 9 years ago people said NO. Thats NO! So if any half wit self interested Republicans would like one, PAY for it yourselves. Swipe your credit cards at the voting booths and if a yes vote gets up you will be charged for it.... So all of our hard earn't taxes will NOT be pissed into the wind yet again. Losers
adenbike 3 years ago 2
Funny how a labor(american spelling lol)/republican biased 20/20 meet has all the republicans crowing again. you do not like the country the way it is go found another one somewhere else :)
tjcarr70 3 years ago 2
Republica