Question about Australia... [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Question about Australia...

dmit424
09-21-2005, 06:03 AM
I believe Australia is still not a republic, so it DOES officially recognize British rule? Although I have read that the movement to become a republic is, and has been since the early 1990's, underway.

Now, is this recognition of British rule merely a formality? Is Australia really a completely independent nation? Would there be any advantages to becoming a republic, or free of recognition of England as their sovereign?

Just a little help for a discussion in political science class. Thank you.

Kristen
09-21-2005, 06:50 AM
Ahh australia. The multicultural/convict nation. For me, it's nice to have the Queen and co. there in the background because...well, it's tradition and that's how it's always been. We are drifting away from them, IMO. I'm only 23 and have no interest in politics or the Royal family, and have no idea what the point of having them around is. What do they do, aside from visit every few years if we're lucky:tape: and/or come here to watch the Rugby world Cup and (possibly) get high. I'm not really going to answer your question, because I don't know the answer.

As a young person in Australia, I'm reasonably happy with things as they are. The Royal Family seem to do nothing at all really, but it's like having someone 'bigger' than us there, in case little Johnny steps out of line. I look at England sort of, as family. Now however, after the cricket... I may estrange myself :angel:

Fi-Fi
09-21-2005, 07:01 AM
i guess on an official level we do recognise the Britsh rule but the fact that the queen is our head of state doesnt actually mean that the British really have much of an impact in australian politics.

im actually studying this stuff for school so i can give u some info on what the 'yes' campaign was for the rejected referendum for us to become a republic in 1999

the idea was that:

dmit424
09-21-2005, 07:04 AM
Yeah, but I believe that someone "bigger" doesn't have the power to do anything even if little Johnny did step out line... Being in the U.S., with quite a different history here, it can certainly be difficult to understand/explain Australian politics.

I believe the story in the U.S. is that England, in the mid-1700's, was getting into a bunch of wars and suddenly started heavily taxing the American colonies in order to fund their wars abroad... THAT's what tipped the war, because before that, the majority of American colonists enjoyed the fact that England protected them and reguated their trade, etc. Even with this "glitch", I know from experience that Americans still put England and Australia a little closer to heart due to their linked ancestory.

In Australia, there was never such a problem of heavy taxation, I believe... especially since the Australian colonies were established around 1780, so basically right after the American Revolution ended.

BTW, being a convict nation, that's pretty cool to have a history like that, especially since your nation has become so successful, you can look back at that with pride now. knowing your nation overcame a rather unfavorable orignation like that to become one of the coolest places on Earth.

Ferrero Forever
09-21-2005, 07:04 AM
I wish I could help here but I can't. I know Australia became a federation in 1901, we're not under british rule, though we still follow the queen. I think we get some money from the queen but I'm not entirely sure about that. Apparently she thinks we'd be fine independently so we had a referendum not too long ago to see if he wanted to stay a republic, and it turned out that we did. Thats all I know and it might not be entirely correct, which is embarassing since I'm an aussie and should know about my country but I hope it was of some help to you.

Fi-Fi
09-21-2005, 07:09 AM
ok opps accidentally posted my last post without finishing it
anyway as i was saying the advantages of becoming a republic would be
- australias future would be best served by having an australian head of state
- it would affirm australias independence ad a nation
- the role of president would be the same as the current role of the governor general (different to the presidential role in the US)
- the system for appointing the president would be more democratic and open then the current system of appointing a Governor General (a president could only be appointed if they got the support of the primeminister, the leader of the opposition and two thirds of the two houses of parliament)
- this would therefore mean that the president would be appointed in the best interests of the australian public

those were basically the arguements FOR becoming a republic HOWEVER even though becoming a republic may be seen as important it doesnt actually make any major changes to australias system of government. i guess it would just make us feel more independent without bringing about too much change

hope thats useful :yeah:

dmit424
09-21-2005, 07:14 AM
i guess on an official level we do recognise the Britsh rule but the fact that the queen is our head of state doesnt actually mean that the British really have much of an impact in australian politics.

im actually studying this stuff for school so i can give u some info on what the 'yes' campaign was for the rejected referendum for us to become a republic in 1999

the idea was that:

Sure, I'll take more info. My goal is to do a presentation for my first-year college course here in the United States, and I want to try to draw some kind of comparison between Australia and U.S., in terms of their origins, and point out that even though the two both originated as colonies, the events were so different in the two countries, that common thinking towards being a "Commonwealth" nation is completely different. I know Australians don't seem bothered so much at all by having the Queen of England/Australia as their "head of state" but tell someone here in the U.S. to recognize the English queen, and you'll be shot probably. So here it's hard to grasp, but that's what I am up against.

Also, I was wondering... In the U.S., we have a president (i'd rather not go into specifics here :D lol), who can make a choice such as going to war (again, no specifics lol), and I believe he can go to war for 30 days without the approval of anyone, but after than, Congress must vote to approve the war. In Australia, who makes this decision? If you were attacked, for example, and had to defend, who takes that initiative? Prime minister? JW.

Also, what's Australian attitude towards the U.S.? I'm not a native American (but moved here when I was 6, and am now almost 18), and I resent the general attitude of the Americans ,that they are the greatest thing on Earth, but then I meet them, most are great people, so I don't try to generalize. But I definetely cannot like our current president. His approval rating here in the U.S. just dropped to an all-time low of 39%, I believe. When he began the Iraq war, it was near 80%. During the elections, it was near 50%. Anyways, I know Australia supports the U.S. in military, but what's the attitude of the people?

FanOfHewitt
09-21-2005, 07:15 AM
The state of the game is that the monarchy in effect do phark all for Australia and it's merely a symbolic union that remains between the monarchy and Australia.

A few years back there was a constitutional convention that took place between some politicians and wannabe politicians to discuss the very issue of whether we should become a republic. By and large it was a total waste of time and not many sensible views were put forward from what I read. (Had to do an essay on it as part of a constritutional law subject in my law studies)

Subsequently there was a referendum put forth to become a republic and all the states bar Victoria voted in favour of keeping the tie with England.

The prevailing view for keeping things as they were was the good old 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' mentality.

Kristen
09-21-2005, 07:15 AM
lol, yes. The convict history is quite cool and we are pretty good (and modest) to come so far from it. But this is why we need to win the Ashes and other sports...so we have a come back for when brits want to use the convict label :tape: :lol: Tangent, I know! :D Can't help it ;) Good luck with your class :)

dmit424
09-21-2005, 07:17 AM
Thanks for the info, everyone. Hey, these boards are so cool, I can talk to you guys in Australia! That's awesome! Our family might be visiting there during either New Year's or our Summer (June probably).

Ferrero Forever
09-21-2005, 07:19 AM
Well our prime minister John Howard seems to follow every move George Bush makes, though the war in Iraq divided the community because half the country thought we made the right decision to go and fight, and half disagreed. But I'd assume the ties between Australia and America are pretty close.

Kristen
09-21-2005, 07:25 AM
Also, I was wondering... In the U.S., we have a president (i'd rather not go into specifics here :D lol), who can make a choice such as going to war (again, no specifics lol), and I believe he can go to war for 30 days without the approval of anyone, but after than, Congress must vote to approve the war. In Australia, who makes this decision? If you were attacked, for example, and had to defend, who takes that initiative? Prime minister? JW.

Also, what's Australian attitude towards the U.S.? I'm not a native American (but moved here when I was 6, and am now almost 18), and I resent the general attitude of the Americans ,that they are the greatest thing on Earth, but then I meet them, most are great people, so I don't try to generalize. But I definetely cannot like our current president. His approval rating here in the U.S. just dropped to an all-time low of 39%, I believe. When he began the Iraq war, it was near 80%. During the elections, it was near 50%. Anyways, I know Australia supports the U.S. in military, but what's the attitude of the people?I am totally with you (with the bold text...and most of the other text, lol). When I think of the USA I think of George Bush, which is a shame. Also, every American I have met (either online or in person) has been very friendly, down-to-earth. It often seems like our Prime Minister has his head quite a long way up Bush's arse, and this can be a bit of a worry. However, to completely contradict myself, it is nice to have such a powerful 'big brother' type nation on side. Sheesh, I don't know that my posts are making sense... but at least I can give you one of 20 million views :)

Ferrero Forever
09-21-2005, 11:31 AM
I am totally with you (with the bold text...and most of the other text, lol). When I think of the USA I think of George Bush, which is a shame. Also, every American I have met (either online or in person) has been very friendly, down-to-earth. It often seems like our Prime Minister has his head quite a long way up Bush's arse, and this can be a bit of a worry. However, to completely contradict myself, it is nice to have such a powerful 'big brother' type nation on side. Sheesh, I don't know that my posts are making sense... but at least I can give you one of 20 million views :)
When I think of an american person I think of my coordinator last year. He was this american patriot and he annoyed the hell out of me, he was so up himself and he used to tell stories of how great america is because they saved the australians and some crap like that. It got to the stage where we'd tell him, hey sir, we're in australia not america, and he'd kick us out of the room. Not that you needed to know that anyway :)

Kristen
09-21-2005, 01:20 PM
When I think of an american person I think of my coordinator last year. He was this american patriot and he annoyed the hell out of me, he was so up himself and he used to tell stories of how great america is because they saved the australians and some crap like that. It got to the stage where we'd tell him, hey sir, we're in australia not america, and he'd kick us out of the room. Not that you needed to know that anyway :)
OMG! :haha: Flashback to year 10 Computer class.
Mr Struthers: Whaaats thaaat?
Kristen/Joelle/Glee: It's just a note sir.
Mr Struthers :Get rid of it pleeease. (K/J/G try toconceal note)
Mr Struthers: In the waaaaste paaaaper baaaasket pleeeease.
K/J/G: Tsk. Ok.

OMG and now I realise noone is getting that but me.
Moral of the story: If you want to talk to me about a waste paperbasket, I'm probably not gonna know wtf you're talking about. Garbage bin/recycling bin ok. But, a 'basket' is made from woven (usually) natural materials. Not a cylinder of metal :rolleyes:

Kat!
09-21-2005, 01:22 PM
The prevailing view for keeping things as they were was the good old 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' mentality.


hmmm well, if they promised another holiday to replace "Queen's Birthday" that might've convinced more people ;) Did they? I can't remember!

FanOfHewitt
09-21-2005, 01:46 PM
hmmm well, if they promised another holiday to replace "Queen's Birthday" that might've convinced more people ;) Did they? I can't remember!

Hahaha! You're probably right, the day off was first consideration!

Lisbeth
09-24-2005, 03:06 PM
www.republic.org.au (Australian Republic Movement)

www.norepublic.com.au (Australians for Constitutional Monarchy)

I suggest you check out those sites as they represent the two "official" sides ;)

Now first up let me say that Australia has not been "under British rule" since federation (of the colonies) in 1901. We are an independent nation which recognises the Queen as our head of state. One of the Queen's titles is, in fact, "Queen of Australia". Most likely this odd situation arose because we had no war of independence. Our separation from Britain was extremely cordial and civilised - more like a child leaving home. Just as when you leave home, you will most likely still acknowledge your parents as such although you will no longer take orders from them :)

To all intents and purposes the Governor General - an Australian - carries out the Queen's duties as head of state vis a vis Australia. These are mostly ceremonial unless there is a crisis of parliament. The Queen's role is even more ceremonial. That could theoretically change but highly unlikely. For example the Queen delegated the Whitlam sacking to then GG John Kerr in 1975. Hence why most of don't care. However, in an emergency the GG CAN sack the PM and his/her government. It's been done twice in over 100 years.

My view at the time (and I was old enough to vote ;) ) was that the referendum was a joke as we only had the option to vote for a president appointed by parliament (not elected separately) who would have been exactly the same as the GG by a different name! There is probably more about the Aussie system if you're interested at www.australia.gov.au

We do not get any money from Britain/the Queen and we pay nothing either except when the royals visit (eg shuttling darling Prince Harry around so he can look like a complete jerk at England rugby matches :tape: )

Hope that helps :)

Lisbeth
09-24-2005, 03:12 PM
I think the Governor General has to formally declare war but in practice he/she would only do it on the say so of the Prime Minister and Parliament (ie elected representatives as the Prime Minister is always an elected member of parliament). Alll laws in Australia are passed by the parliament and then signed by the GG. (or by the governor in the case of state laws).