The republic of Australia.

a reply to: khnum

the Queen isnt perfect

What you mean like WWI and WW2 where the cousins were squabbling over Europe and killing millions?

a reply to: stumason

the independent nation, was persecuting the aborigines as recently as the 1960's and 70'

Lol, pot calling the kettle black? We'll ignore India, Ireland, South Africa etc

www.independent.co.uk... se-their-rights-1370856.html

Apartheid: made in Britain: Richard Dowden explains how Churchill, Rhodes and Smuts caused black South Africans to lose their rights

IN THE days leading up to the South African election we will be told by journalists and commentators that democracy has finally arrived in South Africa and that black South Africans will be voting for the first time. Neither statement is quite true.

Democracy has a long, if contorted, history in South Africa. For nearly 100 years there was a non-racial franchise and the electoral role did not become exclusively white until 1956. The Coloured Vote Bill in that year was the final blow to a non-racial democracy which had been whittled away over the decades. Like many apartheid laws passed by the National Party government in the Fifties, it was not a radical departure from the past. The legislation which created apartheid was based on existing laws and in many cases simply tightened or tidied them.

The myth that there has never been democracy in South Africa is linked to a second myth. Most people think they know that apartheid was an invention of the Afrikaners and their belief that South Africa should be ruled exclusively by whites. Conversely, it is usually thought that the English tradition in South Africa was non-racial and democratic. In fact, the British tradition, as purveyed by both English-speaking South Africans and the parliament at Westminster, has played a less than glorious role in establishing democracy.

It was two renowned Englishmen, Cecil Rhodes and Winston Churchill, who at crucial moments planted the seeds that were to ripen into policies which deprived black people of democratic rights in South Africa.

a reply to: hellobruce

No law passed in Australia has to be approved by anyone else but Australians....

You're showing your ignorance again - ever heard of Royal Assent?

www.austlii.edu.au...

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 58
Royal assent to Bills

When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor‑General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure.

Recommendations by Governor‑General

The Governor‑General may return to the house in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation.

a reply to: hutch622

I am pretty sure every time we pass a new law we dont rip of a fax to England and say can you sign this and send it back

So why is it that our Government can be sacked by the Governor General ( The Queens representative ) and elections called.

A non-elected Military Officer ultimately controls the fate of Australia - Note Commander In Chief

The Governor-General is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Governor-General has formal presidency over the Federal Executive Council and is Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force, as well as viceregal representative in the Australian Capital Territory. The functions of the Governor-General include appointing ministers, judges and ambassadors, giving royal assent to legislation passed by Parliament, issuing writs for election, and bestowing Australian honours.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: stumason

The fact they have all this power but never use it speaks volumes about it really.

But they did in 75 to oust a Prime Minister who wanted to buy the back the Farm...that meant ousting US and British interests. The fact that you have blinkers on speaks volumes.

a reply to: hellobruce

No, he was r4emoved for gross incompetence - he could not get supply passed. When the election was held labor lost by a landslide, as the Australian people had enough of his incompetence.

He wasnt incompetent, he ended Aussies dying in Vietnam (blindly following the US). He provided free University Education. Supply was withheld as a strategy by the Libs top capitalize on the small majority of Labor seats.

Essentially they were patriotic, but the Americans and British were ignored by Whitlam as a source of funding for major infrastructure projects
whitlamdismissal.com...

Overseas Loans Affair

During 1975, the Government also endured the “Overseas Loans Affair”, the story of efforts by the Minister for Minerals and Energy, Rex Connor, Treasurer Dr. Jim Cairns, and others, to raise an overseas loan of $4 billion. The loan was to be used to fund a number of natural resources and energy projects, including the construction of a natural gas pipeline, the electrification of interstate railways and a uranium enrichment plant.

The loan was sought not from the traditional American and European sources, but from the Middle East, which was awash with “petrodollars”, following the quadrupling of oil prices in 1973 and 1974. A Pakistani broker, Tirath Khemlani, was used by Connor to secure the loan. In the end, no loan was ever obtained, no commissions were paid, but the government was made to look reckless and foolish.

A special one-day sitting of the House of Representatives was held on 9 July 1975, during which Whitlam tabled the loans documents and sought to defend the government’s position.

Wracked by economic difficulties and the political impact of the Loans Affair scandal, the Whitlam Government was vulnerable throughout 1975. Whitlam had been forced to sack Dr. Jim Cairns from the government and a by-election in Lance Barnard’s former seat of Bass in June 1975 saw a massive swing against the government and the election of the Liberal Party’s Kevin Newman in a seat that had been held by the ALP for 60 years.

Rex Connor’s authority to raise overseas loans was withdrawn in early 1975, but the minister continued to liaise with Khemlani. When the Melbourne “Herald” newspaper published documents supplied by Khemlani in October 1975, Connor was forced to resign from the Cabinet. He was replaced by a young Paul Keating.

After the resignation of Rex Connor in October 1975, the Opposition Leader, Malcolm Fraser, announced that the Senate would defer passage of the Supply Bills until Whitlam called an election. Whitlam refused. There followed three weeks of constitutional crisis as the parties confronted each other in Parliament and the country.

a reply to: hellobruce

we are not told when we have to go to war - so why lie and claim we do?

Like Powells fabricated lies about Nigerian Uranium, or Saddams WMDS...that is Iraq, Afghanistan. Using a wide interpretation of the ANZUS treaty - invasions - I mean self defence.

So why lie and claim we dont?

a reply to: Kapriti

And, by the way, the Queen should appoint Prince Harry as Governor General.

And by the way (if you're Aussie) you're another Fifth Columnist.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Australians are some of my most favorite people. Australia and the US have had each other's backs--all the time, every time--for over 100 years.

Except now that you're gonna rape us through the TPP, (not you, the Corporations)

a reply to: Kapriti

But I still like my idea of Prince Harry as a transitional Governor General. He knows to have fun

What like his Nazi fancy dress fiasco, or how about his Grandfathers Eugenics fun? I mean Princes Dianna came out of her relationship with the Royals unscathed....

www.infowars.com...

Nazi collaborator and racist advocate of mass genocide Prince Philip, a man who has often expressed his desire to return to the earth as a "deadly virus" to thin the human population,

originally posted by: HelenConway
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

you have the union flag on the Australian flag because the European element of the Australian nation was founded by the British mainly [ and Irish] - so the so called ' true blue Australians ' were until recent times mainly of British or British Isles descent - it is not Rocket Science and I am sure you are well aware of this.

That is why they called Britain - the ' mother country ' as you are aware .

However moving forward this is changing as that group become a minority - so you are right the affiliation with Britain is becoming less -

Hmmm, yes the mother country.

Its interesting to note that the phrase 'pome' (Prisoner Of Mother England) was originally appropriately used to refer us Aussies. But, I suppose as we developed our own identity, the phrase 'pome' became a phrase Aussies used when referring to the English, in a tongue and cheek manner.

I personally trip out when watching British tv shows (or whatever), on how that culture from this tiny island with awful weather and bad food gave birth to all these great Anglo nations (the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand).

I do personally respect and acknowledge the historic connection us Anglo countries have with great Britain. But imo, its time Australia was officially acknowledged as a country with its own separate & unique culture, who's capable of standing on its own two feet.

Plus, just to be totally honest, we got Pine Gap, so we know we can rely on the Americans. They already proved to be more reliable than the pome's anyway, when it comes to securing Australia's borders.

Australia needs to get rid of the Governor General and replace him with a president who's elected by the people. We also need to get rid of our current flag, then replace it with the Eureka stockade flag. Because its a symbol of the day when the Australian people told England to get f#ed and made it clear that we will no longer be taxed without representation.

IMO, no truly proud Aussie would vote 'no' to replacing the GG with a 'democratically' elected president.

a reply to: jmsbkr

when you can go back in time and change what flag our soldiers have fought with on their sleeves, what flag has been draped over their coffins when we get them back home, then we can talk about changing the flag.

Very good point that i had not considered before . I wonder if you were to ask current vets what part or all of the flag were they fighting for what the answer would be . I am pretty sure it wasnt that bit in the top left hand corner . Perhaps if we just removed the union jack and kept the stars it would be a good start . After all , be it indigenous or those that came later we all live under them .

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Its interesting to note that the phrase 'pome' (Prisoner Of Mother England) was originally appropriately used to refer us Aussies.

Just a myth

There are several folk etymologies for Pommy or Pom. The best-documented of these is that "Pommy" originated as a contraction of "pomegranate".[11][12] According to this explanation, "pomegranate" was Australian rhyming slang for "immigrant" ("Jimmy Grant").[13] Usage of "pomegranate" for English people may have been strengthened by a belief in Australia that sunburn occurred more frequently among English immigrants, turning those with fair skin the colour of pomegranates.[14] Another explanation – now generally considered to be a false etymology – was that "Pom" or "Pommy" were derived from an acronym such as POM ("Prisoner of Millbank"), POME ("Prisoner of Mother England") or POHMS ("Prisoner Of Her Majesty's Service").[15] However, there is no evidence that such terms, or their acronyms, were used in Australia when "Pom" and "Pommy" entered use there.

no truly proud Aussie would vote 'no' to replacing the GG with a 'democratically' elected president.

Actually no true proud Australian would think of replacing the GG with a popular elected "celebrity"!

a reply to: hellobruce

Actually no true proud Australian would think of replacing the GG with a popular elected person!

Care to elaborate on that statement?

Currently, the GG is elected by parliament then approved the queen, which is hardly a democratic process.

Considering every Aussie I've ever met has been proud of being a (supposed) democratic country, it only stands to reason (imo) that the majority of Australians would vote to make our political process 'more' democratic.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Isn't your affiliation with the Crown, largely symbolic?

Such as my home country of Canada?

If that's the case, I don't really see the need of officially becoming 'independent'.

And isn't Australia a Parliamentary Democracy? You'd have to change your entire way of doing things to be a republic.

~Tenth

In 1975,the Governor General, the resident representative of the English Monarchy, dismissed the democratically elected government of Australia. Do a little research on the Australian constitutional crisis.

The ultimate power and control over Australia does not reside with the people, or the parliament. Hardly a symbolic affiliation.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Currently, the GG is elected by parliament then approved the queen, which is hardly a democratic process.

Where do you get that garbage from?

Parliament does not elect the GG, the GG is selected and nominated by the PM, all the Queen does is approve the GG the PM selects.

It is sad that some of those who want to change the current good system have no clue at all how it works!

Considering every Aussie I've ever met has been proud of being a (supposed) democratic country, it only stands to reason (imo) that the majority of Australians would vote to make our political process 'more' democratic.

Having a popular "celebrity" as GG would not make it more democratic.

originally posted by: chr0naut
In 1975,the Governor General, the resident representative of the English Monarchy, dismissed the democratically elected government of Australia. Do a little research on the Australian constitutional crisis.

Yes, Kerr sacked a incompetent PM and government.

The people of Australia agreed with him, as the LNP was voted into government by a lanlslide. Remember Labor suffered a 30-seat loss and saw its caucus cut almost in half, to 36 seats—fewer than it had when Whitlam became leader in the aftermath of the Coalition landslide nearly 10 years earlier, in the 1966 election.

a reply to: hellobruce

Where do you get that garbage from?

From your own words for starters. The PM is a member of parliament, correct?

Having a popular "celebrity" as GG would not make it more democratic.

Exchanging the GG for a president who's elected by the people, would most definitely make our political process more democratic. How could you possibly argue against that logic, well holding a straight face?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: chr0naut
In 1975,the Governor General, the resident representative of the English Monarchy, dismissed the democratically elected government of Australia. Do a little research on the Australian constitutional crisis.

Yes, Kerr sacked a incompetent PM and government.

The people of Australia agreed with him, as the LNP was voted into government by a lanlslide. Remember Labor suffered a 30-seat loss and saw its caucus cut almost in half, to 36 seats—fewer than it had when Whitlam became leader in the aftermath of the Coalition landslide nearly 10 years earlier, in the 1966 election.

The competency of the government was no worse than other elected governments. The LNP had blocked supply forcing the sourcing of loans from a socialist government. In the long term, there were no actual issues with the viability or financial prudence of those loans.

None the less, a Governor General can still dismiss the Australian government and an opposition party can still block supply.