Mate for head of state

The latest newsletter from the Australian Republican Movement points out that 95% of Australians agree that “our Head of State should be an Australian”. But when asked “Are you in favour of or against Australia becoming a Republic?”, only 45% are in favour (36% against, 19% uncommitted).

Which raises the question: do respondents think our head of state is already an Australian? Or do they think that becoming a Republic is not the only way of getting an Aussie in the top job?

This entry was posted in Australian Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Mate for head of state

  1. Savvas Tzionis says:

    Thats because those who want an Australian Head of State but don’t want to ditch the monarchy believe that an ‘UnAustralian’ will get the job.

  2. It’s pretty unlikely people understand the term ‘Head of State’. If the pollster probed further, I suspect John Howard, the Governor-General and the Queen would all get a good share of the responses. Two of the three already are Australians.

    But the central problem the republicans face is disagreement on the alternatives. I’d prefer a republic, but I would vote for the status quo rather than have a directly elected president. The masses would probably vote for the status quo rather than not have a directly elected president.

  3. Yobbo says:

    Maybe the answer is to marry one of Charlie’s kids off to an Australian girl like that Tasmanian one?

  4. Thanks says:

    Andrew Norton – you and your ilk are the reason we dont currently have a republic (aside from the weasel who created a summit so he could wedge that issue as well..).

    THE PEOPLE, as in the only ones who matter in a real democracy, would rather have a direct say in the ceremonial head of our nation. Yoy say so yourself.. but you appear to have some attitude that if the people are unwilling to vote for the “correct” republic then sod them all they cant have one. And guess what? We dont. Thanks.

    The ‘appointed’ model, or the parliamentary elected model, or the panel of experts model are why those monarchist idiots could block us out to begin with. Face up to it – the ones who will get this thing across the line in a referendum are the ones who want to tick a box for Jack or Jill and your opinions on the merits of that system are irrelevant because it will remain the system THE VOTERS want.

    So again, thanks

  5. Fortunately, I don’t feel very strongly about this issue. We have long been a de facto republic so we may as well be a de jure one, if we can do so without harm to our machinery of government. But the current system works so there is no practical need to change.

  6. al loomis says:

    maybe we could start with a few basic questions: who should direct the activities of the australian state, and how should he/she/they be selected?

    unfortunately, these kinds of questions are only appropriate in a democracy, where the citizens decide things. in australia the people don’t have any say about anything, except occasionally they can express contempt for the rule of politicians by- accepting the rule of a different politician. slow learners, that mob.

    in short, talking about republics, presidents, etc, is pointless. it’s just mice talking about cat-belling. with no bell.

  7. Andrew Leigh says:

    T, I’m unsure what you mean by Norton’s ilk. The ARM recently listed 6 possible models for a republic. My guess is that a non-trivial share of Labor voters would vote No to models 4 and 6.

  8. Andrew Elder says:

    Those six models are an example of the pallid outcomes of committee work. It’s OK for Andrew Norton not to have a firm, well-researched and widely-accepted opinion on everything (in fact, it’s almost a relief!).

    It’s not clear why the Australian state needs a head at all. The government needs a head, there is a case to be made for a ceremonial post, but the people ought to be sovereign and a headless state would recognise that.

Comments are closed.