Just to let you know that, this month, I once again participated in the ‘Western Region Constitutional Convention’ (in Melbourne) where students from 3 schools get to hear 2 speakers (for and against a politicians’ republic).
There were also other speakers including from local government, the AEC etc.
Student groups are divided into ‘States’ and then vote on whether they want Australia to remain a Constitutional Monarchy or become a Presidential Republic
In a mirror result to last year, our Constitutional Monarchy was victorious with NO State voting for a politicians’ republic and the referendum question being massively defeated in a landslide.
The main arguments for rejecting a politicians’ republic by the students were:
1. Australia functions well at the moment and there is no reason to change; and
2. There are serious questions over whether a President be trusted.
I note that the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) conducted the formal vote (so republicans cannot complain about any ‘rigging’ etc etc etc)!!!
I attach some photos from my presentation.
God Save the Queen!
Interesting, no? Two questions (which I will put back to George also):
1) What precisely does he mean when he says that the students rejected “a politician’s republic”? I assume he means one where the politicians do the appointing. Were the students open to some other kind of republic?
2) Why was “trust” an issue with a proposed president? Surely whether or not any “president” can be trusted will depend on what powers the President is given?
Of course, in my own model (see sidebar), the Elected Monarch has only the power of appointing the person whom the Premier/Prime Minster chooses as Governor/Governor General, so the issue of “trust” doesn’t come into it. Also my model changes nothing at all about how Australia functions except to have a resident Australian Citizen as Head of State. (I remind readers as I have before, that my own preference is to retain the Monarch of Great Britain as the Monarch of Australia.)