Monarchy V's Republic debate re aviation

[Blueyonda]

For the erudite amongst us, would a republic offer a clean slate and freedom in terms of aviation regulations for our GA industry to prosper or is it a side ways step from the current system?:8

[OZBUSDRIVER]

In plain english....Do you really think the bureacrats would do themselves out of a job?...exactly the opposite! The constitution as printed can reside in a small booklet....if the bureaucrats got hold of that the rewrite would be bigger than Ben Hur and take an epic length of time....The bureacrats killed China for millennia,,,I can see no difference here...best to leave what our fathers created alone...it has stood the test of time.

I wonder at the irony of nearly all our Australians of the year are republicans and cannot wait to express it on receiving their gong.....yet... a majority of people in a majority of states voted against it for pretty well the reasons stated above.

To bring this post relevent to aviation...Bureaucracy has continuously re-written the regs from something the size of the booklet that contains the constitution to something the size of the tax act...and needing a legal bent just to decifer it....would the regs be simplified by a constitution change to a republic? YA THINK? just refer to Creampuff's post on the rewrite of our regs that will bungle on forever...answer enough!:ugh:

[Super Cecil]

a majority of people in a majority of states voted against it for pretty well the reasons stated above.


Well no they didn't, a majority of people voted against a particular type of republic. Johnny the rat manipulated the constitutional convention so the question of yes or no was not put to the Australian peeble.
The vote should be yes/no. Lil Johnny the rat was a master at wedge politics and had repulicans against republicans.

[ad-astra]

Super Cecil,

I'm not sure I would like to vote for an open ended question of Yes or No.

The fanatics would say we need change but lets decide later what that change is going to be.

I am more than comfortable where we sit at the moment.

[Super Cecil]

I'm not sure I would like to vote for an open ended question of Yes or No.

How is that open ended, yes or no?
The fanatics would say we need change but lets decide later what that change is going to be.

I am more than comfortable where we sit at the moment.
Your statement should have been "Royal fanatics like it the way it's always been"
Looking forward to the royal wedding are we? I've reserved the royal mints mugs with chuck and Liz or whoever it's goanna be. :8

[Frank Arouet]

My one chance to agree with OZBUSDRIVER seems only to go into cyberspace not if, but when, this thread develops into a mudslinging political nonsense and is locked.

I give it about 12 hours.

[Skynews]

Dick Smith for president. :E

[ad-astra]

Super Cecil,

'Open ended' as in what are we actually voting for.

Yes to a "change" but in what form, what conditions, what rights, what time frame, who decides, what format of power, and the list goes on.

Any intelligent person will expect to be given the finer details for what he/she is voting for.

Very fortunately there was a significant percentage of the population who thought the same! Royal and Republican 'fanatics' alike.

I'm pleased you have the next few months to look forward to.

The mugs are a most appropriate collector's item.


(Sorry Frank I couldn't help myself)

[Super Cecil]

Frank and Ad, I'm sure yool change your minds. Especially as Mr Skynews (Affiliated with Murdoch?) suggests if we get Dick for President. That alone will change your minds I'm sure. Shortly you will take the painting of a young Liz with crown and adornments off your walls replacing it with an enlarged photograph of Dick. You can still worship Queenie of an afternoon when you go to the RSL.
As Mr Sky said, Dick for Presidend.:}

[Chimbu chuckles]

As it stands our armed forces pledge allegiance to the Queen/King NOT the President of Australia. Personally I would rather have our Fighter/Bomber (aviation content) crews showing allegiance to a Monarch that has the best interests of Australians at heart rather than someone like a Rudd/Gilliard/Chavez who has only their own best interests at heart.

The Republican elite are usually of the political left and often display a barely concealed hatred, or at least disdain, of all that Australia IS. Its history, culture and everything else that made Australia what it is.

A President would inevitably end up being a Political appointee - you only have to look at the political bias our current Gov General is displaying to recognise that danger inherent in that. If they suggested a directly elected President - well they didn't last time for obvious reasons - do YOU trust the average Australian voter to be across all the issues enough to vote for a President - we'd end up having a footballer or Reality TV star as Pres:ugh:

Australia needs MUCH smaller/less Govt NOT a Republic.

[Jack Ranga]

Australia is the most over governed country in the world.

You have an exact system of government duplicated at federal level.

A republic would be a perfect time to re-write a constitution but imagine how it would end up if the same philosophy that OLC at CASA has taken.

Never have we had such a distinct lack of talent in politics than we do at this time. Albanesse, Garret, Rudd and God help us Gillard and Abbott.

Abolish state governments. Absorb every state government into the senate at federal level. Pay the ar$eholes twice as much to then halve the numbers in the senate (yep, turn them against each other like a good ole pilot on pilot fight)

Done deal :ok:

[Andy_RR]

Noooo Jack! Not a complete solely federal government! We should scale back Federalism and make the States compete with each other for the revenues of business and wealth creation.

If the federation became a common-market treaty between States, you could form or relocate your air charter business in the most welcoming state, yet still do business throughout Australia.

It's the increasing grip of Federal Government on Australia that causes the ballooning of bureaucracy and it's getting worse, with healthcare, water resource management, mining taxes etc. It's completely the wrong way to go! Case in point is the EU - all the states strangling themselves equally with a monster bureacracy. Norway and Switzerland have the best of all worlds.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Super cecil...no republic has ever been born without a revolution!

As simple as that! Nobody wanted the discord that the ARM created within the convention. If they couldn't decide what model then how could the public ever decide...and Howard knew it in spades that if the public is presented a referendum that does not clearly state the benefit it will be rejected...and it was!

Don't feel bad about it...you will be the first against the wall come the revolution:E

[Andy_RR]

only 8 out of 44 referendums (sic) since 1906 have been carried - source: Wikipedia (yeah!)

[The Green Goblin]

Australians are too easy going.

It's about time we got a few more middle eastern types. When Gillard tries to launch a dirty new big tax, there will be riots in the streets!

Aussies are too happy to take it up the backsides while we are pooned......

[Howard Hughes]

I'm a Republican, but don't think it will happen in my lifetime. The Majority want a vote for President and the pollies want to keep that privilege to themselves!

I personally am not averse to a system where the President is decided by both Houses of Parliament. While it would be open to politicisation, it is not too far removed from the present system. Would much prefer this to some ex footy player/soapie star/lead singer that would be elected by the masses...;)

[Deaf]

Long history tells us that:

Parliament protects us against the Crown

The Crown protects us against Parliament

Parliament's should have NO say in a president. Awkward for vermin but them's the breaks

[Jack Ranga]

Andy, could you imagine 7 states with 7 separate parliaments, 7 separate CASA's, building regs, police forces ( extradition treaties ) great in theory mate to have them competing against each other but that in itself breeds new beauracracies! No thanks!

[PLovett]

The Crown protects us against Parliament

Deaf, actually it is the Crown in the form of the courts that protects us against Parliament. The Westminster form of government is 3 cornered - the legislature - the executive - the courts. The legislature (or parliament) is meant to be a control on the executive (cabinet for want of a better word or the law proposers), parliament makes the laws and the courts rule on the laws. Each is meant to be a check on the other.

Jack Ranga is quite right pointing out the horror of 7 competing governments. Just go and ask any corporation having to trade in separate states just how much it is complying with the varying legislation. That is why the Corporations Act was introduced where all states agreed to a common legislative model.

The Australian Constitution is a very legalese type document which reflects the Constitutional Conventions which led to its formation as it was primarily lawyers who attended. It primary purpose is to set out the Commonwealth powers and leaves the rest to the states. This is why company legislation was in the states area. There are numerous other areas where progress has been hindered by the state bias in the Constitution.

As an aside, the Australian Constitution is an Act passed by the UK Parliament. It took Australia a very long time to cut the links with the UK Parliament and an even longer time to cut the link to the UK courts.

Chuckles, I don't think the fact that the armed forces swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown makes the slightest bit of difference to how they act. The Crown's authority in Australia is through the government (the PM is known as the Queen's loyal Head of Government, the Leader of the Opposition has a similar title) so what the government orders the forces will do. To suggest otherwise is to raise the spectre of mutiny.

[Andy_RR]

Andy, could you imagine 7 states with 7 separate parliaments, 7 separate CASA's, building regs, police forces ( extradition treaties ) great in theory mate to have them competing against each other but that in itself breeds new beauracracies! No thanks!

Yes I can Jack! With the exception of CASA, what you've described is exactly what we have and pay for now, although we also have the overhead costs of an overreaching Federation as well.

[Erin Brockovich]

Actually "The Crown" is a privately run corporate entity situated in London's CBD and is also its own state answerable to no one. "The Crown" through various avenues appoints Presidents; and neither have our best interests at heart - just their own.

Wakey wakey

[Jack Ranga]

That's why I reckon turf the states, have one set of rules and regs for everything Australia wide. The house of reps represent national and international issues, the senate represents the states, local government looks after the local issues :ok:

It wont ever happen because the un-representative swill, to borrow a phrase (I'm talking all houses of parliament) will never legislate themselves out of a job, state or federally. That's why I say make them an offer they can't refuse and be done with them :yuk:

[psycho joe]

Actually "The Crown" is a privately run corporate entity situated in London's CBD and is also its own state answerable to no one.

Not since the Magna Carta.



As an Aside, it gives me the irits every time I see one of those info-tainment programs spruiking for a change of the Australian National Flag. Usually it involves some airhead reporter citing cultural relevance as an excuse to swap the Union Jack for a boomerang or a Kangaroo or some other pointless symbol. They also, without fail manage to get some uneducated idiot to come out with 'But we have another countries flag on our flag'. :ugh:


It's about time some of these people learnt some history. Starting off with the fact that the Union Jack is just that. A symbol of unity comprised of the national identity of several countries. The basis of the Union Jack is the Georges Cross. A symbol that originates from as far back as the end of the Roman Empire (and was once the national symbol of France until they swapped with England). The Symbol of the Georges cross is recognised in the national colours of every country that was once territory of the Roman Empire. i.e. the Whole of the known world at one time.

So let’s think about which symbol might be most relevant to multicultural Australian society. Is it a boomerang or some other Indigenous and/or Australiana symbol? Or is it the Georges Cross? A symbol recognised by, and representative of over 90% of the world’s population and their (our) collective history.