Republican Movement

[Glasses]

So I did my oral presentation on this topic, and was wondering how the majority of AN users felt about becoming a republic

EDIT: I just wanted to clarify that my oral was in support of the movement, but if anyone has any rebuttal points, feels like adding anything or any arguments to the conversation, or feels like some healthy debate, feel free to post! 

[slothpomba]

The polling questions aren't very neutral :p . Political science and psychological research has shown the way you word a poll can play very large factor in how people vote.
 
I'm old enough (very just barely) to remember when we had this debate before. The republican movement fell apart because it was a two stage vote. First, we had to decide whether we wanted a republic. Second, we had to choose which particular republican model we wanted, this is where it splintered and fucked up. We couldn't all agree on one we liked well enough.

I think a lot of the pro-republican people, including some of the people who voted i this poll. aren't aware we'd also need to choose a model and it might be a model with repercussions they dont like or understand.

In almost all cases, it will be a "feel-good" change. It will produce very little measurable, beneficial increase in our lives. Everything will continue to work the same as before, the streets won't be paved with gold if we get rid of the Queen. Your life will be exactly the same. Thus, we have established, that beyond emotion, there are very few tangible positives.

Let us consider a few (of the many) negatives.

(1) It is extremely costly to have a single referendum, let alone multiple ones. Im talking hundreds of millions when every single cost and dollar spent in the process is considered. And for what? Very little benefit?

(2) It steals political oxygen away from the important issues. Again, i remember the last time this popped up. There were TV ads, debates, everything. Our society and the world as a whole is on the precipice, we are staring down into the abyss and its a long way down. We're teetering on the edge of another financial crisis, we're struggling with a generation that's going backwards compared to their parents in living standards, attacks on most public institutions like medicare and the social safety net and so on. Is now really the time to have an issue of little practical consequence steal so much political oxygen and public will away from politics when we need it most? I say no.

(3) The cost of a republic itself and the model. Coins, name plates, stationary, it'll all need to be changed, at a massive (albeit, one off) cost, again for very little benefit. Secondly, we very much struggle to pick an appropriate model. Some people want a total shake up, others just want a very minimal change. I think those who want large changes are playing with fire, our political structure works very well. Minimal changes like swapping the name of "governor general" to "president" wont cause any harm but points (1) and (2) still apply, especially considered this is a tiny change for all that effort.

[Glasses]

The polling questions aren't very neutral :p . Political science and psychological research has shown the way you word a poll can play very large factor in how people vote.
 
I'm old enough (very just barely) to remember when we had this debate before. The republican movement fell apart because it was a two stage vote. First, we had to decide whether we wanted a republic. Second, we had to choose which particular republican model we wanted, this is where it splintered and fucked up. We couldn't all agree on one we liked well enough.

I think a lot of the pro-republican people, including some of the people who voted i this poll. aren't aware we'd also need to choose a model and it might be a model with repercussions they dont like or understand.

In almost all cases, it will be a "feel-good" change. It will produce very little measurable, beneficial increase in our lives. Everything will continue to work the same as before, the streets won't be paved with gold if we get rid of the Queen. Your life will be exactly the same. Thus, we have established, that beyond emotion, there are very few tangible positives.

Let us consider a few (of the many) negatives.

(1) It is extremely costly to have a single referendum, let alone multiple ones. Im talking hundreds of millions when every single cost and dollar spent in the process is considered. And for what? Very little benefit?

(2) It steals political oxygen away from the important issues. Again, i remember the last time this popped up. There were TV ads, debates, everything. Our society and the world as a whole is on the precipice, we are staring down into the abyss and its a long way down. We're teetering on the edge of another financial crisis, we're struggling with a generation that's going backwards compared to their parents in living standards, attacks on most public institutions like medicare and the social safety net and so on. Is now really the time to have an issue of little practical consequence steal so much political oxygen and public will away from politics when we need it most? I say no.

(3) The cost of a republic itself and the model. Coins, name plates, stationary, it'll all need to be changed, at a massive (albeit, one off) cost, again for very little benefit. Secondly, we very much struggle to pick an appropriate model. Some people want a total shake up, others just want a very minimal change. I think those who want large changes are playing with fire, our political structure works very well. Minimal changes like swapping the name of "governor general" to "president" wont cause any harm but points (1) and (2) still apply, especially considered this is a tiny change for all that effort.

I understand what you're saying with regards to the proposed structure - but I didn't want to open that can of worms and was just curious with whether people supported it or not, period. (Although the structure we'd use is a very interesting topic). 
That being said, I'm 90% sure the proposed structure is why the movement failed in 99', so I think it would be important to have at least 2 referendums (despite the impractically and cost) - one to decide whether the people want it or not. And another to work out which structure the people are in favour of - although this would require a lot of pre-education and information given to members of the public.
But if we were to introduce a different system of government (where the people choose their head of state directly), that'd hopefully prevent or stop the leadership spills which somehow keep happening.

Nevertheless, I think the main driving force behind the movement is the principle of the matter.
I think everyone would agree that practically, it wouldn't be the easiest thing to do - but I think it's more of an 'ethical' topic. I.e. - I personally can't justify or get why our head of state is someone who purely gets their power due to birthright. I see it as kind of anti-democracy (particularly regarding the representative government principle) and super medieval-like.
In the midst of writing my oral, I also discussed [as a counter-rebuttal] how by becoming a republic (and therefore changing our national flag), we'd give greater recognition to our past and present soldiers who fought and fight for Australia, not the British Empire. (Although I believe the Monarch was used as a propaganda tool in WW1).

[chasej]

There needs to be a a republic or Australia will continue to remain a trifle state in world politics but the changes need to be a minimalist approach, just by changing the governor-general to a President. The way the role is chosen and its powers need not be different for the context of this debate. Reforms to government powers are another debate.

[extremeftw]

There needs to be a a republic or Australia will continue to remain a trifle state in world politics but the changes need to be a minimalist approach, just by changing the governor-general to a President. The way the role is chosen and its powers need not be different for the context of this debate. Reforms to government powers are another debate.

 Whilst I support the cause for a republic, I don't think Australia becoming a republic would in any way change its standing in global politics tbh.

 I also support changing the role of G-G to President, but I think they should be nominated by the PM and approved by Parliament.

[ShortBlackChick]

(2) It steals political oxygen away from the important issues. Again, i remember the last time this popped up. There were TV ads, debates, everything. Our society and the world as a whole is on the precipice, we are staring down into the abyss and its a long way down. We're teetering on the edge of another financial crisis, we're struggling with a generation that's going backwards compared to their parents in living standards, attacks on most public institutions like medicare and the social safety net and so on. Is now really the time to have an issue of little practical consequence steal so much political oxygen and public will away from politics when we need it most? I say no.

(3) The cost of a republic itself and the model. Coins, name plates, stationary, it'll all need to be changed, at a massive (albeit, one off) cost, again for very little benefit. Secondly, we very much struggle to pick an appropriate model. Some people want a total shake up, others just want a very minimal change. I think those who want large changes are playing with fire, our political structure works very well. Minimal changes like swapping the name of "governor general" to "president" wont cause any harm but points (1) and (2) still apply, especially considered this is a tiny change for all that effort.

^This

I just dont get it. What's so wrong with the system now that will be re-corrected by becoming a republic? What's wrong with being bound to the Commonwealth? What's the justification for all these cost and resources?

Just historically it's also fascinating. We've always been a country proud of our British Heritage and have always been keen to hang onto the UK's coattails but all of a sudden, like post 1970's there's this rhetoric about the Australian Republic like the people have realised we dont really fit in within Asia and need to develop our own identity as a separate group of white people idk.

#whitepeopleproblems idk