To be honest, I don't really care whether we're a monarchy or a republic.
The main problem with the proposed model was that the President, who would have the powers of both the Queen and the Governor General, would not be directly appointed by the electorate. He or she would be appointed by Parliament by a two thirds majority. So, that means that we're only replacing the monarchy with someone chosen by the people he's supposed to be acting independantly of, if that makes any sense. From memory, the President would be a member of a political party, and considering that one party often has majority in both houses, it'd be one of them and hardly likely to be impartial, like the GG is supposed to be. From that side, it's not really an improvement, or step forward.
The other thing is, if Aussies want to be a Republic, we'd more likely conform further to the Washington system, but without the stupid first past the post system and using the compulsory voting. Having a Prime Minister and a President? This will definately not aleviate the 'issue' of people not understanding the system of government, which the Republican movement said was an issue.
And we'd be removing another level of veto. Queen can veto the GG, who can veto the PM, who can veto Parliament. There's other rules which come into play, like the third strike thing, (where a bill that fails both houses can be forced through, or GG can call a double dissolution), and so forth.
A Republic wouldn't be so bad, but really, not that way. There's a reason the only state that passed it was where all the pollies live.
no subject
The main problem with the proposed model was that the President, who would have the powers of both the Queen and the Governor General, would not be directly appointed by the electorate. He or she would be appointed by Parliament by a two thirds majority.
So, that means that we're only replacing the monarchy with someone chosen by the people he's supposed to be acting independantly of, if that makes any sense. From memory, the President would be a member of a political party, and considering that one party often has majority in both houses, it'd be one of them and hardly likely to be impartial, like the GG is supposed to be.
From that side, it's not really an improvement, or step forward.
The other thing is, if Aussies want to be a Republic, we'd more likely conform further to the Washington system, but without the stupid first past the post system and using the compulsory voting. Having a Prime Minister and a President? This will definately not aleviate the 'issue' of people not understanding the system of government, which the Republican movement said was an issue.
And we'd be removing another level of veto. Queen can veto the GG, who can veto the PM, who can veto Parliament. There's other rules which come into play, like the third strike thing, (where a bill that fails both houses can be forced through, or GG can call a double dissolution), and so forth.
A Republic wouldn't be so bad, but really, not that way. There's a reason the only state that passed it was where all the pollies live.