Talk:Republicanism in Australia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Monarchists against plebiscites

I removed the words "though these are not to include the existing model of constitutional monarchy as an option for Australians to choose, causing monarchists to question the democratic nature of these plebiscites." 1 The footnoted article does not say whether monarchists think the plebiscites are democratic or not. All the plebiscite proposals have the option of voting for the current system and not all process models have a separate models plebiscite. Let's stick to the main points. If someone wants to write a long article on process models, some argument may be appropriate for that. --Lawe 13:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right that the referenced article doesn't specifically mention anything about the democratic nature of the plebiscites, but it does say: "In this second plebiscite, we won't be able to express a preference for the system which has worked so well since federation, and before that, in the states," and calls this duplicitous. I suppose my insert about a questioning of the democratic nature of the plebiscites was somewhat of a creative interpretation of Flint's 'duplicitous' comment -- which, admittedly, wasn't very encyclopaedic.

I've edited the paragraph to include the following:

As well, a number of people question the validity of the plebiscites. Australians for Constitutional Monarchy Convenor David Flint claims that the questions to be asked, as outlined in the Senate report The Road to a Republic, are misleading and the second one does not present the existing model of constitutional monarchy as an option for Australians to choose, calling this move "duplicitous". Professor Gregory Craven, Professor of Government and Constitutional Law at Curtin University of Technology, and a republican, in his submission to the Senate Inquiry into an Australian Republic said "The plebiscite proposal should not be seen as a genuine attempt to engage the Australian people in the republican debate... Rather it is an essentially cynical attempt to extract from the electorate a premature statement of preliminary opinion on the basis of a deliberately inadequate debate, and to use that statement as a gag with which to stifle republican criticism of the canonised model". Also, republican Tom Fischer stated in The Age in 2002 "A plebiscite would have no power to change anything and would be absolutely no guarantee of a successful Republican end process." 1 2 --gbambino 19:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an over-the-top contribution. There is one line which only says Labor supports a series of plebiscites - no detail, no comment. Then we get one paragraph explaining in detail, with quotes, the critical points from 3 people. Are you planning on adding any quotes which supports the plebiscite idea? Are you not prompting the introduction of pages and pages of quotes about every concept presented neutrally and briefly in this article? If you want to write in detail on the various plebiscite processes, then start a new article. --Lawe 1:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Do I have to add quotes that support the plebiscite idea? I'm contributing information I currently have. If I find words in support of the plebiscites, I'll add them. If others have words in supoprt of the plebiscites, they can add them. Wikipedia articles are a team effort, not individual, are they not?

As well, the section is titled "Current Status." Currently Labor is proposing plebiscites. Currently monarchists and some republicans oppose the idea. What precisely is the problem in acknowledging that? --gbambino 03:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you do have an obligation to provide a balanced view. If you are not prepared to explain why, then don't explain why not. The idea that you cannot uncover why Labor supports plebicites is absurd. The main problem is the undue weight you give to this proposal, when so many other proposals are not even mentioned. This is compounded by presenting the arguments against, when the proposal itself is not even explained. --Lawe 09:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Undue weight? What are you on about? Currently Labor is proposing plebiscites. Currently some monarchists and republicans oppose the idea. I inserted accurate information about those who oppose it. I found this information through casual browsing of the internet, not through dedicated research. I never said I cannot uncover pro-plebiscite Labor opinions, I said I do not have pro-plebiscite Labor opinions, and I am not going to spend time researching it right now. If, through casual browsing of the internet, I come across words in favour of plebiscites, I'll add them. If others already have said information, they can add it. If it's really such a big deal to you, you can add it. What I inserted is counter-plebiscite argument, but it is accurate and relevant. I don't know of any proposals other than the plebiscites recommended by the Senate committee.

Honestly, the only person giving this any weight is you. --gbambino 19:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

By your own admission, you have not provided a balanced or neutral point of view. I ask you conform to wikipedia policy. --Lawe 08:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've provided other people's points of view - views which relate to the topic. No more, no less. And, just to let you know, I did a quick search for pro-plebiscite argument, and what I inserted two days ago was all I could really find, at that time. I'm sure there's more, but as I said, if others come across it before I do, then they're free to insert it.

Still, by all means, carry on as though there's some kind of battle here. It's of little consequence to me. --gbambino 15:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I have marked the section as POV. The type of plebicite proposal that the quotes refer to is not specified. Which one? The quotes seem misrepresent the views of the people or parties concerned (except the Flint quote, which is more monarchists rallying each other than a contribution to broader public debate, which Flint has done.) And who is republican Tom Fischer? Does the writer mean Tim Fischer, who contrastingly has proposed a plebiscite process in 2001? How can this article talk in detail about the plebiscite process without mentioning Corowa?

Gbambino's has written extensively about Canadian monarchy, and perhaps he should stick to that as he shows little understanding of the Australian plebiscite concept or its current status (positive or negative) which is unsurprising because its a very esoteric aspect of republicanism, not something that can be grasped in a few hours from Toronto. I will write something appropriate in a new article in the next few weeks. --Lawe 06:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm so humbled in the shadow of your vast knowledge. Until you can provide evidence which proves what I've inserted wrong, perhaps you might tone down the demeaning rhetoric. A plebiscite is not esoteric; it is simply a plebiscite - no more, no less. Some people support it, and some don’t. Just because something doesn't support your republican ideologies doesn't make it wrong, and doesn't preclude it from being included in an encyclopaedic article about the subject. --gbambino 19:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is becoming circular. The information provided is wrong in places, as pointed out, it's not representative of the plebicsite debate in Australia, it is presented with undue weight and it is not presented in accordance with NPOV guidelines. Your position on plebiscites seems clear. Particular points I raised about what you wrote go unanswered.

Yesterday I drafted a page on process model (Australia) and will be extending it to write balanced cases for the various plebisite concepts. --Lawe 01:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

newspoll results

The newspoll question says "NOW THINKING ABOUT WHETHER AUSTRALIA SHOULD BECOME A REPUBLIC, ARE YOU PERSONALLY IN FAVOUR OR AGAINST AUSTRALIA BECOMING A REPUBLIC? IF IN FAVOUR - IS THAT STRONGLY IN FAVOUR OR PARTLY IN FAVOUR? IF AGAINST - IS THAT STRONGLY AGAINST OR PARTLY AGAINST?" (capitalisation from the pdf, sorry)

The values in article are 'total in favour' which includes those who are 'partly in favour'. The word staunchly does not fit and it those who are uncommitted are an important segement of the community. There are no fluctuations in opinion to which an unbiased person could come to a unambiguous interpretation in the past 10 years. --Lawe 02:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that Roy Morgan research shows: "51% Now Want Australia to be a Republic, But 61% Would Want a Republic if Prince Charles Were King" for Feb 2005 and "with 52% (up 3% since 2000) of electors Australia-wide saying Australia should become a Republic." [1] So the more conservative information has been presented. Morgan Data seems a bit of a mess. --Lawe 03:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The shift away?

Let's just state what happened instead of adding spin. Did the Prime Minister refuse to speculate? No, he just did not speculate. What he did not do is hardly something to report in the article. The words have been returned to what he did do.

Also, the additional point about the PM not, not "letting the people decide". What is that all about? The past position of the PM, is that the people have decided in 1999 (past-tense) and nothing has changed. Republicans see a shift away and it's reported in the article as a republican view, which makes sense in an article about Australian republicanism.

My view is that this whole paragraph about the change in the PM's position is minor, in the context of the article and its overall impact very unclear. --Lawe 02:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The wording of the paragraph was biased in favour of the republican interpretation of Howard's comments, and gave the implication that Howard had somehow denied Australians a say on their constitution, would continue to do so as long as the Queen was on the throne, and only once Charles was occupying the position would Howard maybe relent.

There was no such implication. --Lawe 15:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Saying the matter is up to Australians to decide shows that he is not speculating - and it says right in the cited article that the PM "refused to predict." --gbambino 04:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic. Then that is what shall be written. Not your opinion about the PM's reaction, but what the article said. BTW, you need to find a citation for your last bit, because it is not in the article. --Lawe 15:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Australian Republicanism:Republicanism in Australia?

I was just wondering, what is the difference between this article and Republicanism in Australia? --Draicone

None. That article redirects to this article. --Lawe 15:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Our own Monarch?

Has anyone ever seriously considered having our own monarch? I mean, it might be a good compromise solution. Ask one of the minor royals to come over, become an Australian citizen, crown him or her in the Opera House, and hey presto- monarchists are happy and we have our own Head of State!

GC 9-6-06

There was some idle talk about this in the 60s, it was suggested that Andrew or Edward might become King of Australia. But sentiment has moved past that now. The great majority of Australians want a republic - sadly, they just can't agree on what kind of republic. But it was striking to see Zelman Cowen say this week that he would accept a directly elected president if that was the only model that would get up at a referendum. It suggests that the two republican camps may be able to reach a consensus that would get the process back on track. Adam 12:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Eureka

Peter Lalor, the 'Commander in Chief' of the Eureka Stockade, went on to publicly repudiate republicanism. Like most of the demonstrators inside the Eureka Stockade when the clash with the authorities took place he was just a bloke who was peeved about the price of mining permits.

The Eureka Stockade was firstly and foremostly a GOLD MINERS UPRISING and to lose sight of this fact is a pretty strange interpretation of history indeed.

Republicanism wasn't central to the Eureka Stockade. Most accounts talk only about the miners flying the rebel ‘Eureka Flag’ and make no mention that many carried the flag of the United Kingdom as an expression of their loyalty to the Crown.

124.183.230.177 15:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you can verify the above claims you're more than welcome to add them to the article. IMHO the actual nature of the uprising - much like the Easter Rising of 1916 in Dublin - was lost to the aftermath; which is where the republican influence grew from. --Lholden 21:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the Easter Uprising in a major, major event in the Republic of Ireland which a lot of Irish people know about and celebrate as the event which led to the foundation of their state. In contrast the anniversary of the Eureka Stockade is neither a public holiday or an officially gazetted day of commemoration in the Conmmonwealth of Australia.

With regards to the 'influence' of the Eureka Stockade you can infer from this what you will. I don't see that it is a font of inspiration for Australian republicans. I've never heard, say, Malcolm Turnbull talk about it when he was the republican leader at the time of the historic vote on breaking ties with the old country in 1999.

PETER LALOR ON REPUBLICANISM

In a speech to the Victorian Legislative Council in 1856, the 'Commander in Chief' of the Eureka Stockade said:

"I would ask these gentlemen what they mean by the term 'democracy'. do they mean Chartism or Communism or Republicanism? If so, I never was, I am not now, nor do I ever intend to be a democrat. But if a democrat means opposition to a tyrannical press, a tyrannical people, or a tyrannical government, then I have been, I am still, and will ever remain a democrat."

(Yeah, he's a really important person in the pantheon of Australian republican heroes.)

UNION FLAG AT EUREKA

See the article:

Eureka

Be not misled! The Eureka Stockade has nothing to do with a republic or the Labor Party but everything to do with the Ultimate Supremacy of Law and Justice Under The Crown

http://www.monarchist.org.au/past_years_from_2000.htm#EUREKA

124.183.230.177 08:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's a POV source rather than something you could actually verify; your edits aren't in line with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --Lholden 10:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me, though I'm no expert on the topic, that the sources claiming that Eureka was some birthplace of Australian republicanism are themselves POV. It seems to be that both sides of the monarchist/republican debate have interpreted the rebellion in a way that favours their cause. --gbambino 15:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that maybe so, but the article is fairly carefully worded - "The actual significance of Eureka is uncertain; the use of the diggers' rebellion by labour orgainisations as an example of revolt against a privileged ruling class has led to its association with republicanism." That to me is a fairly NPOV statement; hardly putting a pro-republican slant on the events. Moreover, the problem I have with the edit in question is that it doesn't seem to be able to be verified anywhere except a POV source. --Lholden 21:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Peter Lalor, who was elected to lead the Eureka Stockade, was himself an opponent of republicanism who went on to become the speaker of the Victorian parliament. You should see the magnificent portrait of Lalor in his speaker's wig and gown. He looks like the conservative MP what he was.

The Eureka Stockade did precisely nothing to advance the cause of republicanism on the continent of Australia. It was as former NSW Premier Bob Carr said in 1999 a "protest without consequence".

Who exactly associates the Eureka Stockade with republicanism outside of academia? Who are they? What are their names? Where do they live?

I don't think that many ordinary people outside of central Victoria even know that much about the Eureka Stockade at all.

124.183.230.177 00:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing your actual edits, nor am I disputing the validity of your viewpoint. I'm simply asking that the edit made, which I have tagged, be verified. There is no question about popular perceptions of Eureka here, no statements made in the article relate to how much the people of Australia know (or don't know) about it. --Lholden 05:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this user is making a good point. According to [2] Lalor "denied that he was a democrat if that meant 'Chartism, Communism, or Republicanism', but asserted that 'if democracy means opposition to a tyrannical press, a tyrannical people or a tyrannical government, then I have ever been, I am still, and will ever remain, a democrat'." That is a NPOV source. The Eureka Stockade connection with republicanism is weak, not deserving more than one paragraph. And what is written lacks a citation too --Lawe 04:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, that's a much better source. The edit is a good toning down IMHO. --Lholden 09:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Delaying the inevitable?

I have removed "Many believe Howard has only delayed the inevitable" from the section on Party Political Positions. It is unsourced and meaningless. Who are the "many"? What is "the inevitable"? What has the connection with Party Political Positions on the republic? This comment also implies that it was Howard, not the voters, who rejected the republic in 1999. --Lawe 09:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh indeed. Although Howard did say he didn't think the monarchy would last beyond the reign of QEII. --Lholden 19:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, what he said was he didn't know what would happen after the end of EIIR's reign. --gbambino 20:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Semantics ;-). In any case, it should be noted. --Lholden 21:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmm... hardly. There's a big difference between declaring that there will be a republic after EIIR, and saying you don't know what will happen after EIIR. The article used to explicitly mention his comment, though someone removed it in a cleanup/condensing of the paragraph. His words are in the cited link. --gbambino 22:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's right. Anyway, the comment has been removed now. --Lholden 22:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sexism?

I remember hearing that the UK laws of succession were changed in recent years to favor the eldest child of the monarch, either male or female. If this is so, how would the British monarchy at all violate anti-sexism laws? Or am I remembering wrongly? Nyttend 17:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I can recall the Bill was never passed, in any case it only covered the sucession with respect to the United Kingdom, not Australia, which would have to amend the law itself - which was the main reason for dropping the UK Bill, because by convention all the other Commonwealth Realms have to agree to changes to the sucession. --Lholden 21:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, under the Statute of Westminster, in order to modify the order of succession, you would need the support of not only the UK and Australian parliaments, but also that of every single parliament of which the Queen is a part - i.e. 16 or 17 in total, I can't remember which. Slac speak up! 23:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)