Please look up the Australian constitution and the powers of the GG.

What relevance does the current Constitution have to a possible Australian republic? By definition, a republic cannot have a Governor General who is the Monarch's representative.
I thought the powers you listed, and upon which I commented, were for an all-new, theoretical republic.

Please look up the Australian constitution and the powers of the GG.

What relevance does the current Constitution have to a possible Australian republic? By definition, a republic cannot have a Governor General who is the Monarch's representative.
I thought the powers you listed, and upon which I commented, were for an all-new, theoretical republic.

You seem to switching sides quickly

You said ONLY ? ? ? He could lead us into a war and dismiss the Government if it disagrees with him. That's a pretty big amount of power.

I said I was just replicating what exists now so it remains constant if Australia was to become a Republic. So no change and hence the concerns about too much power was null and void unless you disagree with the current Constitution.

For example what if Goff Whitlam simply said No?

Perhaps you meant "Gough Whitlam"!

Yup! thanks for correction

Wow this thread has drifted of the original topic a Tad hasn't it?

Amanda Vanstone tells us why she thinks Tony Abbott (and Bronnie Bishop... and Philip Rudd) should resign their seats for the good of their constituents (Fairfax).

Obviously she's no fan of any of them. Meanwhile Tony tells us that we shouldn't change the 'traditional institution' of marriage (The Australian: pay-wall).

You seem to switching sides quickly
You said ONLY ? ? ? He could lead us into a war and dismiss the Government if it disagrees with him. That's a pretty big amount of power.
I said I was just replicating what exists now so it remains constant if Australia was to become a Republic. So no change and hence the concerns about too much power was null and void unless you disagree with the current Constitution.

I'm so sorry; I failed Mind Reading 101 at Uni. I have read through considerable verbiage, and maybe I missed it, but I could find no reference to replicating the current rules until this one:-

So my context previously was to replicate the same and its also very standard practice world wide for the military to report to the Head of State, not the Head of the Government in democratically elected govts as this gives the Head of State the power to sack the govt.

This comment was made after my post "ONLY....etc.", which commented upon your proposed powers.
Now I know what you meant, but I read what you wrote and commented thereon. No change from this side Sonny Jim. The powers as you initially wrote them, are terrifying. If you want them similar to what we have now, OK - that's a horse of a different colour.

As Pressman correctly says; we have strayed well off topic, so I shall refrain from any further comment on a republic in this thread.

Amanda Vanstone tells us why she thinks Tony Abbott (and Bronnie Bishop... and Philip Rudd) should resign their seats for the good of their constituents (Fairfax).
Obviously she's no fan of any of them. Meanwhile Tony tells us that we shouldn't change the 'traditional institution' of marriage (The Australian: pay-wall).

Somebody should tell Abbott, Abetz, Andrews (K), Bernardi and other far-right loonies, that they are there to serve the people of Australia. That's why they're elected. If a plebiscite says we want gay marriage, these idiots should recognize the will of the people and vote for it. Unfortunately, three of the above pollies are crackers, and Bernardi is just barking mad. How they get preselected is one of life's great mysteries.

Somebody should tell Abbott, Abetz, Andrews (K), Bernardi and other far-right loonies, that they are there to serve the people of Australia. That's why they're elected. If a plebiscite says we want gay marriage, these idiots should recognize the will of the people and vote for it. Unfortunately, three of the above pollies are crackers, and Bernardi is just barking mad. How they get preselected is one of life's great mysteries.

Because they're actually fairly powerful individuals within the Liberal party I guess; and there's factional deals to keep them in place the same as the Labor party. I don't understand how Bernardi in particular managed to retain his extremely safe spot on the SA Liberal ticket last election given his performance as a senator and consistent sniping about official Liberal policy... he's certainly not a team player.

Amanda Vanstone's article was spot on though - Tony will end up leaving parliament in a few years (or perhaps a few terms?) without having achieved anything else and by then everyone would have forgotten him.

There are fears in the UK that he might be too politically active and interfere a little too much, fears that absolutely do not apply with either Liz or Will. We don't know for sure though, not until he ascends to the throne.

One thing that we can be certain of is that Charles will definitely not be the reigning monarch for as long as his mum!

I give him 15 years tops. Another issue with any sort of hereditary succession in 21st century, if you were born within a few decades of your parent who is the Monarch, its quite possible you won't ascend to the throne until your 70's, at which point is this the right age to be taking on the role as Head of State.

The other European monarchies have all adapted to this already, with a string of abdications over the last few years.

In addition, despite generally having more progressive politics than Australia, those other European monarchies also have a much higher level of support for their monarchy than the 55% we had last time it went to a proper poll.

Maybe we are simply aligned to the wrong monarchy? There is precedent for a country choosing to join the Commonwealth for its stabilising influence despite having no history of British Colonialism, so the concept could surely be extended to Australia electing to switch to (for example) the Norwegian monarchy.

Amanda Vanstone's article was spot on though - Tony will end up leaving parliament in a few years (or perhaps a few terms?) without having achieved anything else and by then everyone would have forgotten him.

If he declines to stand in this year's election, I expect Prime Minister Turnbull to promote Tony safely out of harm's way some time in 2017.

Even if it ruins our relations with some banana republic without any direct flights to/from Australia.

Amanda Vanstone's article was spot on though - Tony will end up leaving parliament in a few years (or perhaps a few terms?) without having achieved anything else and by then everyone would have forgotten him.

If he declines to stand in this year's election, I expect Prime Minister Turnbull to promote Tony safely out of harm's way some time in 2017.

Even if it ruins our relations with some banana republic without any direct flights to/from Australia.

He's already said that he is a definite starter this year so he will be around for a while yet. Unless he suddenly realises the futility of it eighteen months or so after being re-elected and throws in the towel causing a by-election. Sadly he wouldn't be the first politician to go out that way...

The other European monarchies have all adapted to this already, with a string of abdications over the last few years.

In addition, despite generally having more progressive politics than Australia, those other European monarchies also have a much higher level of support for their monarchy than the 55% we had last time it went to a proper poll.

Maybe we are simply aligned to the wrong monarchy? There is precedent for a country choosing to join the Commonwealth for its stabilising influence despite having no history of British Colonialism, so the concept could surely be extended to Australia electing to switch to (for example) the Norwegian monarchy.

Look at all the Scandinavian Monarchs, close, approachable, down to earth, hands on. Walk to shops to get their own newspapers. I was told by Norwegians that during the oil crisis in 1975, the country's king caught the tram to go skiing. The Dutch King flys regular passenger flights to retain is certification.

While we mentioned further back less than 0.01% of Aussies have the capacity to be king, I'd say even less have ever have had a conversation with our Queen and I don't count the quick hellos in a crowd.

Some say security, things have changed in Norway but a number of years ago while the King was on his walks with his solo body guard the foreign TV station asked did he feel safe. He said "why not, I have 7m?) people who love me"  

Lichtenstein King even said if he didn't get his own way on a few things (cannot remember what), he would sell up and leave the country and the people supported him.  

The Dutch Queen transferred power to her son recently, as did Qatar (note he stole it off his father).

I tend to agree, if the country had its own King, maybe the Monarchy would be more popular. But who gets the job for generations? Norway offered the role to a Swede when they were looking? What would also help the Royals is if there was a retirement age or at least be humble enough to know when its time. I just hope QE2 knows when its time and not follow the Pope. For Pope Paul 2, the longer he stayed on the more pathetic and out dated it looked. Unfortunately however I doubt it and the Prince's health isn't looking any better.

General Pete is the first one in a fair while, at least as far back as Abp Hollingworth. To date, I still don't know who Quentin Bryce is/was other than that she got the job for being an ALP frontbencher's mother-in-law.

I agree that an electoral system will fail. If you're going to eliminate the 99.99% who don't have the finances and insider clout to win a national publicity contest, you may as well also eliminate the remaining 0.01% and just have a monarch.

I think you'll find that Quentin Bryce was appointed GG (2008) before Shorten married Bryce's daughter (2009) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Shorten.

Bryce also has an impressive CV and clearly got the job on merit -> https://www.gg.gov.au/bryce

Checking facts before publication is always a good idea (and not that hard to do)

At the risk of incurring everyone's wrath for re-activating a relatively old and long thread:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-26/tony-abbott-lashes-china-for-not-sharing-australia-values/7204258

This makes me furious, if that's how he really felt then why didn't he actually say something when he was Prime Minister - is he frightened of China? Was he intimidated out of speaking his mind while he had the top job? Why the buggery did they sign that 'free trade' agreement with them if they don't respect our laws or share our values? What's the explanation?

The sheer dishonesty of the people we elect to run our country - it makes my blood boil.

The sheer dishonesty of the people we elect to run our country - it makes my blood boil.

What do you expect from politicians? It goes with the territory...

As if to prove just how out-of-touch he is, Tones repeats his earlier claim that he would have won the coming election in a long essay he penned for "Quandrant" magazine.

Johnny Howard tells Sky News tonight that he pleaded with Tones to sack Peta Credlin, telling him that she was a liability. But Tony doesn't listen to anyone, does he.

Johnny Howard tells Sky News tonight that he pleaded with Tones to sack Peta Credlin, telling him that she was a liability. But Tony doesn't listen to anyone, does he.

I think you'll find Tones listens to Peta ............. after all he does as she says!

Johnny Howard tells Sky News tonight that he pleaded with Tones to sack Peta Credlin, telling him that she was a liability. But Tony doesn't listen to anyone, does he.

Sounds like they're meant for each other. I don't think you'd want to cross either!

Wow, had to go back a long way to find this.

Tony's done a back flip on the Paris climate agreement.
Now we should remain, utter desperation.
Go Zali, you good thing.
Sky news forum in Waringah. Hosted by David Spears.