Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DemonOfWrath]

From my point of view being a republic or not is basically a non-issue to most Australians (well, at least absolutely noone I've ever known has made a peep about it ever). It'll most likely happen after Elizabeth goes but before then it's very unlikely since everyone tends to love her.

And from my personal point of view I don't see why changing to a republic would have to mean big, or rather any, changes to how anything's run. From the last time it was any sort of issue (2 elections ago?) I remember there was talk about turning the governer general into a US style elected president and such, and I just don't see why that's necessary (or desirable, our elections are already far too much about the individual leaders for my tastes). That's just the impression I've gotten about the movement over a long time without paying much attention to it though, so if I'm wrong please correct me. I'd certainly have no problems voting yes for it if it was just 'remove ties to the monarchy, rename the governer general, done'.

[Dutchling]

Wouldn't it be possible to get neither a president or a monarch, and stick with the prime minister? Why trivialize everyone other than the leaders of the two or three biggest parties?

[Max White]

In general the idea of a supreme overlord who doesn't actually do anything and has minimal allegiance to anything but keeping the law makers in check is generally seen as a good thing. Nobody wants a repeat of 1975, but we want checks to ensure that if it does happen it can be resolved.

[DemonOfWrath]

Yep, that. Basically the governer general practically serves as a double dissolution threat for any party who has a huge majority and starts to overstep their bounds (and also in the case that parliament gets completely deadlocked). For any non-Aussies, what that means is he can completely dissolve parliament and force call a full election (half of the elected senate in this case only serves half the normal term). The prime minister can also do it in the case of the senate repeatedly blocking legislation.

Generally the gov gen won't do it for the same reason the queen doesn't use any of her political powers (people would be pissed), and the prime minister won't because people don't like having to go through another election.

[Dutchling]

Ah, so you (as in, most Australians who want a republic) want more of a Germany-style president?

[Max White]

There is a bit of divide as to what kind of republic we want. The most common suggestion is to have the exact same system, cut out the queen and replace the governor general with either an elected president or an appointed position. There have also been calls to legislate various things. For example, the position of Prime Minister is never mentioned in the constitution. It simply formed because we have ministers, and the leader of the party appointed themselves as the minister of ministers, and gave themselves various powers over their party to enforce a type of presidential rule. It is still technically not a required part of a party, and should one choose so they could mitigate responsibilities around and not have a PM for that term. Unlikely due to the instability it would cause, but possible.

[Jimmy]

Perhaps Labor should have tried it, though doubtful it would float given the egos involved. Still, it might have worked out far more favorably this election for them to have been a leaderless party, than to engage in the shenanigans they played with the PM hotseat.

Too bad my favorite microparty didn't get into senate. Oh well, here's to the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party for the win!

[Max White]

Lets face it, had Labor decided that it would make decisions by betting on emu races they would have been more popular. 
Still, good luck to the Motoring Enthusiasts, I totally trust that they are ready to tackle the big issues facing the Australian public. Maybe after all these years we can settle who is better: Holden or Ford?

Anyway, who did you roll with Jimmykins?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm not going to be happy until Bullet Train for Australia has the PM.

Other interesting microparties:

Senator Online
Secular Party
Future Party

[Max White]

See that is the fun of Australian politics. We have all these micro parties with really cool policy.
I was thinking of voting Future party because I like their pro science stance, as opposed to my Greens who wouldn't know scientific method if it provided valuable data about climate change for them, but let me honest nobody in higher politics does so telling them about it won't help (Damn right I am going to ignore various members and senators in all three major parties that have scientific degrees! Truth is I'm not a fan of their avocation of research that is better suited to science fiction.)

Secular party really are just militant atheists. For example they want to ban clothing that could conceal your identity in various places, such as the burka. Also we have many sites of indigenous faiths scattered around that non-aboriginal people aren't allowed in, and they would like to change that. If you want to vote Secular Party, try Sex party instead, they are a little less aggressive about it and you also get a free pack of condoms.

Senator online I didn't know about, but I would totally vote for that! Just so I can spend all my time voting online for some douchebag to not have to read the policy himself and still get paid.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Science fiction is usually the precursor to science fact. (See: Everything in Star Trek that is not aliens, FTL, or time travel)

[Dutchling]

Didn't France ban Burqas a while ago? I remember that being quite a big issue for a while.

[Owlbread]

I have no problem with women wearing burqas if they want to. I think people should be able to wear masks in public.

[DG]

Speaking of science...

A man-made climate change sceptic has put his hand up for Science Minister because PM Abbott's first choice looks like she's going to lose her seat to an independent.

"In the climate area there is appeal to authority and appeal to consensus, neither of which is scientific at all," Dr Jensen told Fairfax Media on Thursday. "Scientific reality doesn't give a damn who said it and it doesn't give a damn how many say it."

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/climate-sceptic-mp-dennis-jensen-wants-to-be-science-minister-20130912-2tltt.html#ixzz2eeVsfhjY

[Max White]

To be fair he is correct, science doesn't give a damn about who or how many, it cares about empirical evidence. Evidence that we have a lot of.
I really don't like how people use the term 'skeptic' when they mean denier. Take Richard Muller, a professor of physics, for example, he was skeptical about many aspects of climate change. But instead of sitting there and saying we shouldn't do anything, he decided to do some real research of his own and started the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project with the aim of disproving various claims about climate change. Then he came back years later with the same data as everybody else and decided maybe we should do something after all. That is what a skeptic does, they honestly and intellectually question things, without dismissing anything that doesn't agree with them.


Anyway,  Dr Dennis Jensen was also one of the people who boycotted parliament when Rudd made the apology. He is a douchebag. Being a douchebag doesn't mean he is wrong on scientific matters, but it does mean his character should be drawn into question in regards to whether he can do the job with any level of honesty.