Bob Hawke - Yes ad

Bob Hawke "Yes" campaign ad from the 1999 republic referendum in Australia.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Republic
• Bob
• Hawke
• 1999
• referendum

[corpbs1]

Tosser drunk Kerr. Day of Shame. Dismissal of a democratically elected Government on Remembrance Day 1975. End of argument/shibboleth that the monarchy guaranteed fair play. End of reason for Australia to kiss HM's arse surely.

[irishgodfatherchris]

@Redcarpet01 our Constitution is fully written we don't use any of the conventions that the UK use. For example in the UK the PM after a hung parliament is declared gets the first go at forming government, whereas here in Australia both Labor and the Coalition of conservative parties try to simultaneously form goverment

[CMFrenchEsq]

Conventions or custom-based processes as you put it has not caused any major issues for Australia nor is it likely to. Our current constitution has served Australians well, just consider the fact it has only been changed in 8 out of 44 or so referenda by the people. I can just imagine all the disagreement amongst elites and academic and politicians if your "fully" written constitution were seriously considered and it would be constantly criticized from all sides of politics.

[Redcarpet01]

@CMFrenchEsq It won't be up for reinterpretation if it's specifically laid out. That's the core problem, in my view. Australia needs a FULLY writtenn constitution. Following the British way of a mainly custom-based process is just too dangerous IMHO.

[CMFrenchEsq]

@Redcarpet01 Your opinion has not been agreed upon by republicans yet so there is no guarantee of this point you make. Having specifics on the head of state's role may not necessarily be a good thing if they lead to contested interpretations by judges and parliamentarians. While there may not be specifics of the GG role atm there does not seem to be uproar amongst the community over this point. Q. Bryce seems to be doing a good job representing the Queen in Australia and Australia abroad IMO.

[Redcarpet01]

@CMFrenchEsq But with a Republic at least the constitution would have specifics on the head of state's role. That's not the case atm.

[CMFrenchEsq]

@murray2612 Yes you are RIGHT, RIGHT RIGHT in the British context but I was responding in an Australian context TO YOUR comments that were regarding the monarchy's presence in AUSTRALIA NOT BRITAIN AND YOU YOURSELF NOTE "Royals never pay Taxes in Ozz" You ignore my other comments and focus entirely on this uncontested point. I would love you to explain why you think the royals expensive boat people sounds like your the one doing the spewing of garbage.

[murray2612]

@corpbs1 WRONG WRONG WRONG. Royals DO pay tax, the queen pays both income and capital gains tax. Why would they pay tax here, since we don't pay the queen anything???? Britains pay their HEAD OF STATE 69 pence each, bet you didn't know that!! We have to pay for a head of state either way anyway (Queen's rep the GG, or a president), except we'd have to pay a president, ALL past presidents AND ALL past president's widows or widowers! Get your facts straight before spewing your incorrect garbage.

[murray2612]

@CMFrenchEsq Royals do pay taxes, the queen pays both income tax and capital gains tax.

[CMFrenchEsq]

@corpbs1 The fact the Queen as Head of State refused to involve herself directly in Australian politics during the 1975 Constitutional crisis illustrated democracy was alive and well in Australia. I cannot imagine a President being as neutral as the Queen was. Royals may not pay taxes but their ongoing presence pays massive dividends to Australians.