Australia is a monarchy of the United Kingdom. It always has been, and yet this does not seem to have significantly and adversely affected our development and growth towards our country. Thus, there seems no legitimate purpose to change this; since a republican Australia displays a lack of conclusive benefits towards our economy and ‘way of life.’ An Australian republic would cost billions to undertake and is simply unnecessary as there are more important issues facing Australia; and if the Australian citizens are not calling for a referendum, then any serious discussions from politicians or other related public figures are irrelevant and meaningless.
A republic can be defined as “A state in which the head of government is not a monarch or
…show more content…
other head of state.” By Australia becoming a republic, many, many changes would be required to complete the strenuous transition, which would become overwhelmingly expensive. This would seriously jeopardise the economic state of the nation as the move would cost billions of dollars. The most notable changes required if Australia were to become a republic are changing the national flag and anthem to represent something uniquely ‘down under’, along with the currency forced to alter and a thorough overhaul of parliament, including a Prime Minister becoming a President. Furthermore, major organisations such as the Commonwealth Bank would be obligated to change its name and image, of which was the second largest bank by total asset size in Australia and largest in net interest income at 2014’s end. Therefore, an Australian republic would become too expensive in changing from a monarchy and the consequences of which could potentially be adverse. A republican Australia would require a vast array of changes across a wide variety of institutions and industries, as mentioned above.
However, for Australia to become a republic, the points stated alone would be insufficient to undertake the move from a monarchy. For these changes to be instigated we need to ask, “Why?” How would a republican Australia be of benefit to the country, if at all? It is apparent that the most logical and coherent argument against Australia becoming a republic is that our system of government in place currently is completely fine. Queen Elizabeth, as Head of State, does not interfere with policies or laws from being implemented, nor is the advancement and development in our country hindered by the Queen. Furthermore, there are many more serious issues which must be dealt with in Australia, such as better conditions for refugees, taking assertive action in combating domestic violence and treating all citizens here like they are proper human beings. If these matters cannot be dealt with first, then how can Australians be asked to address other comparatively minor issues such as electing who our Head of State becomes? Australia would also be stripped of certain aspects such as the Queen’s Birthday Long Weekend, which I would be correct in assuming that no one would want to lose a day off. Hence, unless the benefits of a republic conclusively determine that our country would be in an enhanced position to the current monarchy, there seems no fit …show more content…
into changing the system. The 1999 referendum to make Australia a republic resulted in a majority ‘no’ vote, with 54.9% of Australian citizens voting against the pledge.
Therefore, it is clear that a monarchy in Australia should remain. Even though he led the Republican Movement for the 1999 referendum at the time, it has been stated explicitly by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull that a republican Australia will only occur if there is widespread public momentum for the change. Thus, there is today not enough interest in changing our system of government, so why bother with it if the people do not want it? Becoming a republic requires constitutional change, and thus means two-thirds of people in a majority of states must be supportive for a monarch to be replaced by a republic. Traditionally, senior citizens have not been in support of topics such as a republican movement; thus, those who emigrated from England and the United Kingdom would predominantly reject a republic. Hence, the younger generations in society are the citizens in which usually are more divisive or willing to all options. “Many young Australians just don’t see the point of conducting a referendum.” These young Australians also hold the belief that by becoming a republic, the financial detriment will prove to be far too much of a burden and are not in favour of the switch to an untried system from one in which functions effectively now. Moreover, since Australia has always been with the Commonwealth, and having been required
to answer the call to support the United Kingdom on several occasions for war, this forms part of the essential fabric of our history and what makes us Australian. This point of view from the monarchists is a strong counter-argument against those who want a republic. Our tradition and heritage links with Britain should not be relinquished because of a political dilemma which many Australians today do not support; even those that do, are unclear of exactly what type of republican Australia they want. Therefore, Australia should not become a republic as the people are not calling for a referendum. In essence, Australia should not become a republic as the financial and economic state of our nation would be in jeopardy through unnecessary costs to changing what is required to complete the transition. Also, there would be a lack of benefits in which can undeniably prove that a republican Australia would be better off compared to now. Finally, if the people of Australia are not gaining momentum in calling for a referendum or a plebiscite, then there seems little matter in politicians and the public discussing the issue. That is why Australia should not become a republic.
The decision for Australia to adopt the Federal system was on the principle of which the State’s governments wanted to keep their power. For this reason there was the separation of powers between the newly formed Commonwealth government and the existing State governments. At a constitutional level, there are rulings in which the powers are separated, these rulings due to disputes have slightly changed since 1901. These changes all fell towards the one government, the Commonwealth (Federal) government. However this was not just a landslide event, the Constitution of Australia set up this imbalance of powers between the Commonwealth and State governments. We will explore this further in the points discussed later in this essay.
Australia's federation came about through a process of deliberation, consultation and debate. Before 1901 Australia did not exist as a nation. It was six British colonies, which were self-governed, but under the power of the British Parliament. The colonies were almost like six separate countries. In the 1880s there was so much disorganisation within this system, which caused a belief that a national government was, needed to deal with issues such as trade, defence and immigration saw popular support for federation grow.
This paper concludes with that Rowe is an important case for Australia representative democracy because it underlines the implied right to vote supported under sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution along with the previous case, Roach. It also defines the importance of the equal electorate to maintain the representative democracy as well.
A Constitution is a set of rules put in place to govern a country, by which the parliament, executive and judiciary must abide by in law making and administering justice. In many countries, these laws are easily changed, while in Australia, a referendum process must take place to alter the wording of the Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia, date unknown, South Australian Schools Constitutional Convention Committee 2001). Since the introduction of the Australian Constitution in January 1901, there have been sufficient proposals to alter and insert sections within the body to reflect the societal values of the day, ensuring the Constitution remains relevant to the Australian people. Although Constitutional reform can be made on a arrangement of matters, the latest protests on Indigenous recognition and racial references within the body of the Constitution has called into question the validity of racial inclusion, and whether amendments should be made to allow for recognition. This essay will focus on the necessity of these amendments and evaluate the likelihood of change through the process of referenda.
Destiny of the Republic by Candice Millard is a non fiction book on the killing of James
I believe that Australia should not become a republic. I think that there would be no point in becoming a republic, because we live without the intervention of the Queen at the moment, so becoming a republic would achieve nothing. If we were to become a republic, we would lose the support of England in times of war, famine or other disaster. I think that becoming a republic would achieve nothing, lose our links with England and waste the parliament's time when they should be concerned with more important issues.If we were to become a republic, the governor general would be replaced by a president who would have the same powers and responsibilities as our Governor General, so only the name and the person holding the position would change, wasting important parliament time and achieving absolutely nothing.
"There is a reason for the country to embrace mandatory voting, and it may be the most compelling: democracy cannot be strong if citizenship is weak," _William A. Galtson_. Mandatory voting, or compulsory voting, is a law wherein citizens are required to vote, or suffer the consequence. Australia has had compulsory voting since putting it into effect in 1924. "The turnout of Australian elections has never fallen below 90 percent since the introduction of compulsory voting in 1924," _Australian Electoral Commission_. Achieving over 90 percent of the citizens voting for nearly a century shows that mandatory voting is working in regard to getting people to vote. Governments should have mandatory voting because the people will educate themselves
Australia has one of the oldest systems of compulsory voting, and arguably the most efficient (Hill, 2010). Compulsory enrolment at the federal level was introduced in 1911 this later became mandatory voting in 1924 (Hill, 2010). Mandatory voting was introduced in Australia to combat the problem of low voter turnout and it was successful in doing so; 59% turnout in 1922 surged to 91% in 1925 after the first federal election (Hill, 2010). “Australia never had a rights culture understood in the classical liberal sense of individualized rights” (Hill, 2010. Pg.428). Australia was unified in 1901 and shortly after compulsory voting became mandate. The citizen’s of Australia have never known a...
The issue for all Australians is that if there is a Bill of Rights, it will take some time getting use to new constitutional arrangements. However, by enacting a Bill of Rights, it will be a starting point of something great; providing basic constitutional principles, independence of judiciary, fundamental protection of human rights and the independence of judiciary.
What is defined as a global citizen? They’re considered to be people or countries who understand their obligations at a global level. Over the past 50 years the countries of the world have become increasingly interconnected. With this, there has been an increasing awareness that only global cooperation can solve problems including poverty and epidemics, stop wars, and reverse environmental degradation and climate change. As the globe battles with these underlying problems, Australia’s partake, even the smallest amount, is fundamentally important, especially with its stance currently as being the 15th richest country in the world. However, in recent years Australia hasn’t demonstrated, in a few of these global issues, the true values and morals of being a good global citizen.
There is a fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic as it concerned the political entitlement of the citizenry. The citizens of a republic do not participate directly with governmental affairs. The citizens of a republic can however have a say in who does participate. The Roman republic has two prefect systems to prevent dictatorship which didn’t work.
With an understanding of the theoretical links between economic structures, relations of production, and political systems that protect economic structures in society this case study examines media as a contributor to democracy in Australia as well as a business with economic objectives. This section will provide a short explanation of Fairfax media history and position in 2012 prior to explaining Gina Rinehart’s role in the company. The print sector in Australia has historically exhibited relatively high levels of concentration, dominated by News Corp Australia, Fairfax and APN. The Australian print news media have experienced a long-term trend of a decrease in titles and owners. According to Geoffrey Craig, ‘in 1923 there were as many as
As of late, the possibility of an Australian republic has been on the minds of many Australians. However, it’s clear that independence from the British will remain little more than a castle-in-the-air unless the republican movement refines their campaign. Mark Day, a writer for the Australian, positions Australian voters to believe that Malcolm Turnbull is the man with the power to make this change. In his rather convoluted article [“A republic? It’s all up to you, Malcolm,” 16/11/15], Day cautions that, whilst Turnbull may lead us to a beneficial republic, he will only be successful if he firstly makes constitutional amendments. Tim Mayfield, in “No easy road towards republic [The Australian, 23/9/15) also anticipates the rise of a republican
The main reason why the actions of the politicians are restricted is because their policies among the citizens are limited by the constitution which must be followed by every elected politician. To illustrate this, in the book called “Five Things To know About The Australian Constitution” Helen Irving argues that Australian constitution brought a responsible approach by the government to the Australian citizens because ‘the government can only do what the Constitution permits’ . Due to this, it ‘shapes the way in which policies are put into effect by government’ and ‘determines what sorts of laws can be made’ . Therefore, the outcome of this is the restriction of power by the government what allows citizens to feel safer beyond the
A referendum has been a relatively effective mechanism in facilitating the shift of power from the States to the Commonwealth. The referendum (section 128) is a concept that aimed to change the wording in the Australian Constitution to give the commonwealth more specific powers. This is done through the passing of the constitutional alteration bill through parliament. Since federation, all citizens have the right to vote in referendums with any proposed changes either being accepted or rejected by the people. The way this works is that the Governor general authorises a referendum and this referendum must meet dual criteria in order to be successful for instance, the federal criterion which is having a majority of states and democratic criterion; having a majority of voters. The Commonwealth has tried to use the process of the referendum to shift power. For example, the referendum for Constitutional Alternation (Aboriginals) in 1967 aiming to remove racial discrimination, such as including them in