That is true. However, we know that the leader of the party at the time of any election is going to be PM if that party has a majority or support on the floor to form a government. If bills were law once they passed both houses and did not need royal assent then really the head of state is just ceremonial. A vote of no confidence will also remove a government. Amend the constitution to require an election if that occurs and there you go.
there is nothing to say the person who is the leader of party at the time of the election will stay as the leader of the party. the party chooses the leader(PM) not us
Gundog said
02:21 PM May 6, 2023
Cuppa wrote:
Why do we need a head of state at all?
The term president usually refers to the head of state of a country that is a republic. A prime minister is usually the leader of the government of a country that is a constitutional monarchy (Australia), republic (France) or another system of government.
Prime Minister ( First Minister, Chief Minister or Premier) are on in the same.
A Head of State should be bipartisan above party politics.
Aussie1 said
02:21 PM May 6, 2023
Cuppa wrote:
Why do we need a head of state at all?
Same reason we have "forums" like this so members can make clowns of themselves, just like the heads of state, politicians and the monarchy
DMaxer said
02:29 PM May 6, 2023
That is true Dogbox. However, if the guy (or girl) who is PM is deposed because they are a dud or the party has lost confidence then the newly elected one takes over.
Let's face it. The head of state doesn't do anything that requires any great cerebral horsepower.
dogbox said
04:13 PM May 6, 2023
DMaxer wrote:
That is true Dogbox. However, if the guy (or girl) who is PM is deposed because they are a dud or the party has lost confidence then the newly elected one takes over.
Let's face it. The head of state doesn't do anything that requires any great cerebral horsepower.
so if our PM was the head of state what would that make him/her
Gundog said
04:44 PM May 6, 2023
There is no if the PM being the head of state, it wont and cannot happen, so the question is whats are the options
Izabarack said
06:52 PM May 6, 2023
Gundog wrote:
A Head of State should be bipartisan above party politics.
Of course. It's the position that's important, in a functional sense. The current process requires the GG to ask for assent from the Royal to pass completed legislation into Law. It's a formal process only and no more than getting the completed legislation rubber stamped. Dump the rubber stamp procees with one that stops in country and Robert is your mother's brother. Appointing a HoS in an Australian Republic could be as simple and efficient as requiring a 2/3 majority of elected reps to agree to a nominee. Removing or replacing a HoS could use the same process, even it the existing HoS was naughty and needed to go. Requiring a 2/3 majority is pretty close to Consensus and removes politics from the appointment.
A HoS is also needed for things like swearing in elected officials and for somone to live in that house on the shores of Sydney Harbour. There's a whole lot of other things but the list could start with a look at what the current GG does.
Gaylehere said
07:15 PM May 6, 2023
I am currently watching the coronation. Cheers.
RickJ said
07:38 PM May 6, 2023
Gaylehere wrote:
I am currently watching the coronation. Cheers.
+1
RickJ said
07:39 PM May 6, 2023
DMaxer wrote:
That is true Dogbox. However, if the guy (or girl) who is PM is deposed because they are a dud or the party has lost confidence then the newly elected one takes over.
Let's face it. The head of state doesn't do anything that requires any great cerebral horsepower.
Then the reason for changing is???
RickJ said
07:41 PM May 6, 2023
Izabarack wrote:
Gundog wrote:
A Head of State should be bipartisan above party politics.
Of course. It's the position that's important, in a functional sense. The current process requires the GG to ask for assent from the Royal to pass completed legislation into Law. It's a formal process only and no more than getting the completed legislation rubber stamped. Dump the rubber stamp procees with one that stops in country and Robert is your mother's brother. Appointing a HoS in an Australian Republic could be as simple and efficient as requiring a 2/3 majority of elected reps to agree to a nominee. Removing or replacing a HoS could use the same process, even it the existing HoS was naughty and needed to go. Requiring a 2/3 majority is pretty close to Consensus and removes politics from the appointment.
A HoS is also needed for things like swearing in elected officials and for somone to live in that house on the shores of Sydney Harbour. There's a whole lot of other things but the list could start with a look at what the current GG does.
Then the reason for changing is????
DMaxer said
07:56 PM May 6, 2023
Because we are Australia, not some colony of a nation on the other side of the world. We are the owners of our own destiny.
Did you spend your whole life living with your parents or did you venture out into the world by yourself.
Whenarewethere said
08:09 PM May 6, 2023
Putting the monarchy or republic issue aside.
In about 2007 I saw, at the time the possible state coach at Sydney, Manly, North Head in a fairly tired shed.
At the time I thought this a dead end for Australian craftsmanship regardless of the skills that went into building the new set of wheels. Thought it would just rot away.
I am surprised it is actually being used.
Would have been happy to see some solar panels on the roof, but obviously it has an undated battery to power the electric windows & air conditioning.
The coach has a Webasto heating system from Germany. Batteries in the footman's seat.
11 coats (sanded with 800 wet & dry between coats) of paint supplies by Glasurit paints, Germany that supies BMW & Mercedes.
The paneling is aluminium. The main under carriage is 22 layers of laminated spotted gum.
The steel spring, the ore was mined in Whyalla & rolled in Newcastle.
The wheel spokes are aluminium made in Maryborough.
The wheels were assembled by Terry Dainty, Australian top fuel dragsters, but the coach only has 6 horse power!
Izabarack said
09:00 PM May 6, 2023
RickJ wrote:
Then the reason for changing is????
Because a King who lives in England has no relevence in my life. Because the country is a Big Boy/Girl now and I have no need to be subservient to some foreign bloke. Because it's an opportunity for people to unite under a common narrative of how we got here, today. Because its time that the colonisation of Australia by the Brits is no longer the major defining event in Australia becaming a mature and independent nation.
RickJ said
09:09 PM May 6, 2023
This is about 26 million people. Not just one person
You arent required to be subservient.
You said this above
It's the position that's important, in a functional sense. The current process requires the GG to ask for assent from the Royal to pass completed legislation into Law. It's a formal process only and no more than getting the completed legislation rubber stamped. Dump the rubber stamp procees with one that stops in country and Robert is your mother's brother. Appointing a HoS in an Australian Republic could be as simple and efficient as requiring a 2/3 majority of elected reps to agree to a nominee. Removing or replacing a HoS could use the same process, even it the existing HoS was naughty and needed to go. Requiring a 2/3 majority is pretty close to Consensus and removes politics from the appointment.
A HoS is also needed for things like swearing in elected officials and for somone to live in that house on the shores of Sydney Harbour. There's a whole lot of other things but the list could start with a look at what the current GG does.
I said,
The reason for changing is???
Gundog said
09:53 PM May 6, 2023
Izabarack wrote:
RickJ wrote:
Then the reason for changing is????
Because a King who lives in England has no relevence in my life. Because the country is a Big Boy/Girl now and I have no need to be subservient to some foreign bloke. Because it's an opportunity for people to unite under a common narrative of how we got here, today. Because its time that the colonisation of Australia by the Brits is no longer the major defining event in Australia becaming a mature and independent nation.
Iza you are listening to wrong people to much BS, furfies and red herrings from the ARM. That King is the King of Australia we are already a free, mature and independent nation.
At her Coronation on 2 June 1953, The Queen swore an oath to govern the peoples of Australia and her other realms "according to their respective laws and customs."
In very general terms, British legislation no longer applies to Australia either federally or at state level.
After the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, Australia was independent from Britain but the states were still subject to some aspects of British law. Despite the changes that had taken place at the national level since Federation, certain state bills still required the monarchs approval and they could disallow any state law within 2 years. States gave advice to the monarch through the British Foreign Minister, not an Australian minister.
The Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth) was the final step in Australias constitutional independence from Britain. This Act and the 6 similar Acts passed by the state parliaments, made all Australian law independent of the British Parliament and legal system. It also stopped appeals from state courts to the British Privy Council. Together with the Australia Act 1986 (UK), the 7 Acts brought the states in line with the Australian Governments relationship with Britain.
There may be remnants of British legislation that have been adopted as Australian law, either federally or at state level; however, the British Parliament has no jurisdiction over law as it applies in Australia. You would need to undertake a substantial research project to identify these laws.
dorian said
03:17 AM May 7, 2023
RickJ wrote:
DMaxer wrote:
That is true Dogbox. However, if the guy (or girl) who is PM is deposed because they are a dud or the party has lost confidence then the newly elected one takes over.
Let's face it. The head of state doesn't do anything that requires any great cerebral horsepower.
Then the reason for changing is???
Then the reason for retaining one is?
dorian said
03:18 AM May 7, 2023
RickJ wrote:
Izabarack wrote:
Gundog wrote:
A Head of State should be bipartisan above party politics.
Of course. It's the position that's important, in a functional sense. The current process requires the GG to ask for assent from the Royal to pass completed legislation into Law. It's a formal process only and no more than getting the completed legislation rubber stamped. Dump the rubber stamp procees with one that stops in country and Robert is your mother's brother. Appointing a HoS in an Australian Republic could be as simple and efficient as requiring a 2/3 majority of elected reps to agree to a nominee. Removing or replacing a HoS could use the same process, even it the existing HoS was naughty and needed to go. Requiring a 2/3 majority is pretty close to Consensus and removes politics from the appointment.
A HoS is also needed for things like swearing in elected officials and for somone to live in that house on the shores of Sydney Harbour. There's a whole lot of other things but the list could start with a look at what the current GG does.
Then the reason for changing is????
Then the reason for retaining is????
dorian said
04:18 AM May 7, 2023
How can a person be a proud, independent Australian and a British subject at the same time? What sort of traffic passes between the neurons in a monarchist's brain? I just don't get it. Is it in their DNA, like the bees in a bee colony? You want to be free, but your primal, DNA driven, instincts are keeping you back. Is that it?
Would monarchists be satisfied if we had our own, local, home-grown hereditary ruler, say King Bruce from the House of Walgett? Or can they only be happy if our hereditary ruler is a foreign one? Please, I really want to understand.
-- Edited by dorian on Sunday 7th of May 2023 05:56:44 AM
Izabarack said
06:46 AM May 7, 2023
Gundog wrote:
Iza you are listening to wrong people to much BS, furfies and red herrings from the ARM.
And you are assuming things not in evidence. I am, actually, capable of independant thought.
Gundog said
08:32 AM May 7, 2023
dorian wrote:
How can a person be a proud, independent Australian and a British subject at the same time?
-- Edited by dorian on Sunday 7th of May 2023 05:56:44 AM
Look at your passport.......!
You can be an Australian and British subject if you have lineage that allows you to have a British passport, but you can renounce that British heritage, just like new Australians who become Australians.
Oh by the way King CHARLES III was proclaimed King of Australia by the GG on 10th September 2022, the proclamation was counter signed by the PM
Possum3 said
08:49 AM May 7, 2023
I for one, enjoyed all the Pomp and Pageantry - I had to change channel from ABC (due to an over tanned Stan and cohorts, discussing their leftist political views), to a commercial channel.
Long Live the King.
dorian said
09:08 AM May 7, 2023
Whenever one asks a monarchist why they want a monarchy, they nearly always respond with "why do you want to change?" This tells me that they themselves don't understand their position, which in turns leads me to believe that it's a basal instinct over which they have no control. Just like the societal structure of a bee colony or a wolf pack, it's in their DNA. It's in their nature to be subservient and dominated. In order to understand concepts such as freedom, independence, self esteem and self respect, one needs to reject one's DNA programming and elevate one's self to a higher intellectual plane.
-- Edited by dorian on Sunday 7th of May 2023 09:10:04 AM
Craig1 said
09:22 AM May 7, 2023
I was there watching at midnight, gone by 2 minutes past. A great show in many aspects.
Our coach also had lots of little relics, symbols etc incorporated into it.
Would you republicans have a bad tempered Keating or such as your President?
deverall11 said
09:36 AM May 7, 2023
Keating or someone else that is not the crux of becoming a republic. We become a republic first and foremost
to divorce ourselves from monarchs. Did not watch the ceremony, had to interest. One thing stood out though:
The poms are doing this 'Cost of Living' thing tougher then us. What pompous arrogance to expect the tax payer
to fork out the extra ordinary expense. We are the monarchs, I am the king, you pauper can get nicked if you
don't like it and here's the bill for up to $AUD180 million.
To all you monarch supporter: Long Live The King.
DMaxer said
10:07 AM May 7, 2023
I grew up in a time when we referred to ourselves as British subjects, there was a picture of the Queen and the Duke in virtually everyone's hall or lounge room. At school there was a similar photo in each classroom and all public halls, libraries, you name it, there was Liz. I thought the Queen was a very special person and an inspiration to all of us. Unfortunately, with her passing, I no longer hold those thoughts about the heir and his siblings.
I think there very sound reasons why the Queen did not abdicate or even step back to allow Charles to either assume the monarchy or have a more forward role. I reckon for those of us that support a Republic will not have to wait for too long until he and his family completely get the whole show off the rails to the point where we will be only too eager to rid ourselves of this lot.
Perhaps you monarchists might like Andrew to come out and be the next GG.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Sunday 7th of May 2023 10:07:52 AM
dogbox said
10:12 AM May 7, 2023
deverall11 wrote:
Keating or someone else that is not the crux of becoming a republic. We become a republic first and foremost
to divorce ourselves from monarchs. Did not watch the ceremony, had to interest. One thing stood out though:
The poms are doing this 'Cost of Living' thing tougher then us. What pompous arrogance to expect the tax payer
to fork out the extra ordinary expense. We are the monarchs, I am the king, you pauper can get nicked if you
don't like it and here's the bill for up to $AUD180 million.
To all you monarch supporter: Long Live The King.
it might have cost $180 million but it was also stated that it would inject $ i billion dollars into the British economy. (not my figures)
if events like this do not happen what will the poms do for entertainment sit home and watch reruns of Coronation Street or the Bill
deverall11 said
11:04 AM May 7, 2023
dogbox wrote:
...
if events like this do not happen what will the poms do for entertainment sit home and watch reruns of Coronation Street or the Bill
Probably suitably designed for their average intellect these days.
there is nothing to say the person who is the leader of party at the time of the election will stay as the leader of the party. the party chooses the leader(PM) not us
The term president usually refers to the head of state of a country that is a republic. A prime minister is usually the leader of the government of a country that is a constitutional monarchy (Australia), republic (France) or another system of government.
Prime Minister ( First Minister, Chief Minister or Premier) are on in the same.
A Head of State should be bipartisan above party politics.
Same reason we have "forums" like this so members can make clowns of themselves, just like the heads of state, politicians and the monarchy
That is true Dogbox. However, if the guy (or girl) who is PM is deposed because they are a dud or the party has lost confidence then the newly elected one takes over.
Let's face it. The head of state doesn't do anything that requires any great cerebral horsepower.
so if our PM was the head of state what would that make him/her
There is no if the PM being the head of state, it wont and cannot happen, so the question is whats are the options
Of course. It's the position that's important, in a functional sense. The current process requires the GG to ask for assent from the Royal to pass completed legislation into Law. It's a formal process only and no more than getting the completed legislation rubber stamped. Dump the rubber stamp procees with one that stops in country and Robert is your mother's brother. Appointing a HoS in an Australian Republic could be as simple and efficient as requiring a 2/3 majority of elected reps to agree to a nominee. Removing or replacing a HoS could use the same process, even it the existing HoS was naughty and needed to go. Requiring a 2/3 majority is pretty close to Consensus and removes politics from the appointment.
A HoS is also needed for things like swearing in elected officials and for somone to live in that house on the shores of Sydney Harbour. There's a whole lot of other things but the list could start with a look at what the current GG does.
+1
Then the reason for changing is???
Then the reason for changing is????
Putting the monarchy or republic issue aside.
In about 2007 I saw, at the time the possible state coach at Sydney, Manly, North Head in a fairly tired shed.
At the time I thought this a dead end for Australian craftsmanship regardless of the skills that went into building the new set of wheels. Thought it would just rot away.
I am surprised it is actually being used.
Would have been happy to see some solar panels on the roof, but obviously it has an undated battery to power the electric windows & air conditioning.
A few notes:
The coach has a Webasto heating system from Germany. Batteries in the footman's seat.
11 coats (sanded with 800 wet & dry between coats) of paint supplies by Glasurit paints, Germany that supies BMW & Mercedes.
The paneling is aluminium. The main under carriage is 22 layers of laminated spotted gum.
The steel spring, the ore was mined in Whyalla & rolled in Newcastle.
The wheel spokes are aluminium made in Maryborough.
The wheels were assembled by Terry Dainty, Australian top fuel dragsters, but the coach only has 6 horse power!
Because a King who lives in England has no relevence in my life. Because the country is a Big Boy/Girl now and I have no need to be subservient to some foreign bloke. Because it's an opportunity for people to unite under a common narrative of how we got here, today. Because its time that the colonisation of Australia by the Brits is no longer the major defining event in Australia becaming a mature and independent nation.
You arent required to be subservient.
You said this above
It's the position that's important, in a functional sense. The current process requires the GG to ask for assent from the Royal to pass completed legislation into Law. It's a formal process only and no more than getting the completed legislation rubber stamped. Dump the rubber stamp procees with one that stops in country and Robert is your mother's brother. Appointing a HoS in an Australian Republic could be as simple and efficient as requiring a 2/3 majority of elected reps to agree to a nominee. Removing or replacing a HoS could use the same process, even it the existing HoS was naughty and needed to go. Requiring a 2/3 majority is pretty close to Consensus and removes politics from the appointment.
A HoS is also needed for things like swearing in elected officials and for somone to live in that house on the shores of Sydney Harbour. There's a whole lot of other things but the list could start with a look at what the current GG does.
I said,
The reason for changing is???
Iza you are listening to wrong people to much BS, furfies and red herrings from the ARM. That King is the King of Australia we are already a free, mature and independent nation.
At her Coronation on 2 June 1953, The Queen swore an oath to govern the peoples of Australia and her other realms "according to their respective laws and customs."
In very general terms, British legislation no longer applies to Australia either federally or at state level.
After the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, Australia was independent from Britain but the states were still subject to some aspects of British law. Despite the changes that had taken place at the national level since Federation, certain state bills still required the monarchs approval and they could disallow any state law within 2 years. States gave advice to the monarch through the British Foreign Minister, not an Australian minister.
The Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth) was the final step in Australias constitutional independence from Britain. This Act and the 6 similar Acts passed by the state parliaments, made all Australian law independent of the British Parliament and legal system. It also stopped appeals from state courts to the British Privy Council. Together with the Australia Act 1986 (UK), the 7 Acts brought the states in line with the Australian Governments relationship with Britain.
There may be remnants of British legislation that have been adopted as Australian law, either federally or at state level; however, the British Parliament has no jurisdiction over law as it applies in Australia. You would need to undertake a substantial research project to identify these laws.
Then the reason for retaining one is?
Then the reason for retaining is????
How can a person be a proud, independent Australian and a British subject at the same time? What sort of traffic passes between the neurons in a monarchist's brain? I just don't get it. Is it in their DNA, like the bees in a bee colony? You want to be free, but your primal, DNA driven, instincts are keeping you back. Is that it?
Would monarchists be satisfied if we had our own, local, home-grown hereditary ruler, say King Bruce from the House of Walgett? Or can they only be happy if our hereditary ruler is a foreign one? Please, I really want to understand.
-- Edited by dorian on Sunday 7th of May 2023 05:56:44 AM
And you are assuming things not in evidence. I am, actually, capable of independant thought.
Look at your passport.......!
You can be an Australian and British subject if you have lineage that allows you to have a British passport, but you can renounce that British heritage, just like new Australians who become Australians.
Oh by the way King CHARLES III was proclaimed King of Australia by the GG on 10th September 2022, the proclamation was counter signed by the PM
Long Live the King.
Whenever one asks a monarchist why they want a monarchy, they nearly always respond with "why do you want to change?" This tells me that they themselves don't understand their position, which in turns leads me to believe that it's a basal instinct over which they have no control. Just like the societal structure of a bee colony or a wolf pack, it's in their DNA. It's in their nature to be subservient and dominated. In order to understand concepts such as freedom, independence, self esteem and self respect, one needs to reject one's DNA programming and elevate one's self to a higher intellectual plane.
-- Edited by dorian on Sunday 7th of May 2023 09:10:04 AM
Our coach also had lots of little relics, symbols etc incorporated into it.
Would you republicans have a bad tempered Keating or such as your President?
to divorce ourselves from monarchs. Did not watch the ceremony, had to interest. One thing stood out though:
The poms are doing this 'Cost of Living' thing tougher then us. What pompous arrogance to expect the tax payer
to fork out the extra ordinary expense. We are the monarchs, I am the king, you pauper can get nicked if you
don't like it and here's the bill for up to $AUD180 million.
To all you monarch supporter: Long Live The King.
I grew up in a time when we referred to ourselves as British subjects, there was a picture of the Queen and the Duke in virtually everyone's hall or lounge room. At school there was a similar photo in each classroom and all public halls, libraries, you name it, there was Liz. I thought the Queen was a very special person and an inspiration to all of us. Unfortunately, with her passing, I no longer hold those thoughts about the heir and his siblings.
I think there very sound reasons why the Queen did not abdicate or even step back to allow Charles to either assume the monarchy or have a more forward role. I reckon for those of us that support a Republic will not have to wait for too long until he and his family completely get the whole show off the rails to the point where we will be only too eager to rid ourselves of this lot.
Perhaps you monarchists might like Andrew to come out and be the next GG.
-- Edited by DMaxer on Sunday 7th of May 2023 10:07:52 AM
it might have cost $180 million but it was also stated that it would inject $ i billion dollars into the British economy. (not my figures)
if events like this do not happen what will the poms do for entertainment sit home and watch reruns of Coronation Street or the Bill
Probably suitably designed for their average intellect these days.