PM Gillard advocates Australian republic in interview pre-royal wedding

[alp227]

In an interview with Ten News, Australian PM Julia Gillard said that she'd rather have an Australian as head of state in her country rather than a King William. I found this poll from 2009 posted on this forum, and some Aussie DUers criticized the American presidential election system because not all populist leaders are good (e.g. Reagan, GW Bush).

At first I as an American dismissed the royal wedding as trivial irrelevancy, but after hearing that interview with Gillard I looked up the government systems of the Commonwealth of Nations countries Australia and Canada vs. the sovereign United States and realize that the British monarch leads the state while those states have their own heads of government, while in America the president serves as head of both state and government. Do you agree with Gillard's contention?

[nostromo_au]

1. Republic

Not only do I think it's high time for Australia to have an Australian citizen as head of state I also think it's high time for the United Kingdom to relegate the royal family to the footnotes of history. I was born and lived in the U.K. until I was 28 and even from this distance the stench of inherited privilege is an offence to my nostrils. The sight of thousands upon thousands of my fellow brits turning out for this tawdry peep-show would be funny if it wasn't so sad. I suppose if someone had never lived in such a class conscious and inherently unfair society as the British one my vehemence would be hard to understand but there it is...

The rationale for having a form of government such as this 'constitutional monarchy' seems to be that it prevents a worse one from taking its place. IMO this seems to be setting the bar way too low. People are better than that.

[alp227]

2. thanks for your opinion, and welcome to du!

:hi:

[Matilda]

3. After watching the Q&A discussion on an Australian republic on Thursday night,

I now believe that we should have an Australian head of state appointed by the Parliament. This is against the wishes of the majority, but having heard the arguments against a popularly elected head of state, I agree with them.

Bob Carr's reason was that should a government be trying to introduce a piece of legislation (such as the carbon tax), claiming they had a mandate to do so, if the head of state were opposed, he could also claim to have a mandate. If elected by the Parliament, he could claim no mandate from the people.

Nick Minchin's reasoning was that in the case of say, a Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, any slur against the head of state was also a slur against the government which he headed. I think he also made a good point.

Keep our Westminster style of government, but make the head of state an office appointed by both sides of the parliament.

As for Julia's opinion – it's just an opinion and carries no legal weight. We won't have a republic until it's supported by both sides of politics; it would never get through otherwise.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. I don't think there's anything wrong with how our system works now...

I like it that our head of state isn't a political figure. And in reality our head of state is an Australian, as the Governor General is Australian. Plus I really don't like the American system at all...

[mackerel]

5. MY boyfriend is Australian and is not a monarchist

but proudly swears loyalty to the Queen. I don't get it at all. All his family and friends were just coming home from work and all tuned into watch the wedding.

I see know reason why the Queen should be considered the head of state in all these commonwealth countries. Is there some sort of monetary relationship?

[Matilda]

6. The monarch's status goes back to the days when Australia was a British colony.

Like all British colonies and dependencies, it was actually run from Westminster, with local governments simply carrying out the wishes of Britain. In the last century, many Commonwealth countries became republics, so the Queen is no longer head of state in those countries, but is still Head of the Commonwealth, an organisation of some 54 former British colonies who have social, political and economic ties to each other (Zimbabwe is currently suspended from membership)

Australia, although it now has government independence from Britain, has never declared itself a republic, so the Queen remains our Head of State. It's a quaint anachronism, and goodness knows when it will change. There was a strong republican movement in the 1990s, but it seems to have fizzled out.

Wikipaedia explains it all as well as any other site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations