Labor leader wants Australians to vote on dumping queen

[dArKeR]

AP , SYDNEY
Wednesday, Apr 21, 2004,Page 5

Republicans yesterday welcomed a pledge by the Australian opposition Labor Party leader to allow Australia to vote again on whether to dump the British queen as its head of state if he wins office in federal elections.

A Labor government would hold a plebiscite -- a nonbinding, national vote -- to test the nation's readiness to become a republic within 12 months of taking office, said opposition leader Mark Latham, in comments to a forum due to be broadcast later yesterday.

"We'd want to get that done in our first term, so have the first plebiscite, then the second, and then by the time of the following election would be good timing for a constitutional referendum," Latham told the voters' forum late Monday in Sydney.

National elections are expected to take place later this year.

His timetable would allow Australia to become a republic by 2007, something that has delighted republicans still licking their wounds after losing a referendum on the same issue in 1999.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/04/21/2003137510

Why not 'Australia the Republic of China' or 'Australia the Republic of Bush Crime Family''?

[soaky]

1. it's about time

we had a *real* referendum on the issue, not the designed-to-fail question we faced from Howard.

[demoman123]

2. How did they put the question then?

I heard that people in the cities supported independence, but people in the country opposed it. Is that right?

[alittlelark]

3. Geez, sounds like our problem

[soaky]

4. sort of...

The question was whether we wanted a head of state appointed by a two-thirds majority vote by both houses of parliament. It wasn't a simple 'do you want Australia to become a republic' (or similar) which should have then started the process of deciding and voting on an appropriate model. This is what Latham is now proposing.

There is a lot of support for becoming a republic (IMO) - but one where the people appoint the head of state, not parliament. Bearing in mind the head of state role isn't a presidential role in the US style, we'd still have the prime minister in an actual governing role.

[demoman123]

6. That's a huge difference

Latham's proposal is much better, and addresses the real issue, without fog.

Knowing that Gough Whitlam was dismissed by Governor-General John Kerr in 1975, I never understood how Australians could vote to continue British rule when given the opportunity to get rid of it.

Your post helps to explain this.

[Eureka]

7. Hmmm, thats contentious

But I guess not too far off.

The last referendum was rigged because we had to choose between the status quo and one model for a republic. The lying little piece of shit howard effectively rigged the outcome by making the public choose a model (which in itself was chosen by a somewhat elite group, including people who didn't want a republic anyway)

The current idea is to have a plebescite on wheter to look into models, then one to choose a model, then a runoff.

Most polls show that a majority want a republic, but if you break the voting down into "model groups" the monarchists win.

The bit I was referring to as contentious was the role of head of state. The ARM (Aust Republican Movement) still hasn't proposed a single model, they openly discuss at least 6 different models. Choosing the model will be the biggest problem in the entire process.

Hi Soaky! Oh, and Demoman123, the whole Dismissal thing with John Kerr is super relevant now, because (tinfoil hat on) the CIA helped John depose Gough, ironically this was partly because he wanted to pull troops out of Vietnam. Hey Mr Latham, what's your ideas about troops in Iraq, and how is the US admistration reacting to it? Just asking! :-)


On edit: forgot to display my biases... Eureka, ARM Member 168185

[soaky]

8. point taken on the HOS role

in my eagerness to put the head of state role in some kind of perspective i was a bit simplistic :)

[Eureka]

11. Its tough isn't it :-)

Trying to explain the complexities of the whole concept is really tough.

Personally, I haven't decided on a model that I prefer, I just want to get over the first hump and get the discussion happening.

I think the complexity of the choices is enough to keep the regular people confused enough to run with the status quo.

[demoman123]

9. I've learned a lot on this thread. n/t

n/t

[Djinn]

10. sort of

but only one territory, the ACT, recorded a "yes" majority. Roughly 55% of the nation voted "no"

As expected, traditionally conservative states and rural areas were strongholds for the monarchy; but wealthy city electorates mostly voted "yes", and blue-ribbon Labor seats in working-class suburbs voted "no".

The main debate was really about whether the new head of state should be elected or chosen by parliamentarians. If they gone with an elected president (or whatever they decided to call him/her) it probably would have passed - although it'd most likely mean that our current head of state would be President Eddie McGuire or President Kerry Packer.

The problem was it was too complicated a question/process - they should have asked simply - Do you wish to see Australia become a republic. THEN they could have thrashed out the details

[Matilda]

12. Sort of .....

There were many who voted against a republic simply because the only
choice they had was a monarchy or a republic with a Head of State
chosen by the Parliament. Howard deliberately set it up that way
knowing it was doomed.

Personally, I hope the ARM butts out this time around - they are a
bunch of elitists who made sure the riff-raff were kept out of their
little movement. Malcolm Turnbull was only using it to advance his
own agenda - get a high public profile, then run for political
office. Now, he says he's not fussed about the Republic any more,
sure proof he was only using it. That whole family are an
arrogant and self-serving bunch.

And Djinn - I know there's a bit of a worry about who might be
elected President if it's thrown open, but if that's what a majority
want, then that's how it should be. If it were now, I'd take a
bet on Sir William Deane getting the gong, which would be good.
Packer's universally feared and disliked, but we could end up with
President Alan Jones - God forbid!

[newyawker99]

13. Hi soaky!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[soaky]

14. Thanks!

eom

[dArKeR]

5. Poodle referendum, Poodle Poop Scoop referendum. A distraction and

The Sheeple fall for it!