Talk:Proposed President of Australia

This should be merged with Australian republicanism. That's where a discussion of the 1999 referendum and the McGarvie model belongs. -- Tim Starling 23:19, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. We have similar pages elsewhere. This page should be devoted to the discussion on the different concepts for how the proposed presidency should be. It is a topic worthy of inclusion in its own right. FearÉIREANN 01:47, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Lots of problems with this article. Pls see below my suggestion for its removal --Dlatimer 16:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is evolving towards being more and more POV, in its phrasing that suggests that Australia is doing all these things, debating them, etc. It suggests a direction and general will. Actually, the debates and so on are just as much between that agenda and the opposite. The POV comes from underplaying the status quo. This last change added nothing of substance yet strengthened that pattern of omission. Is it warranted? I believe not.

Also, can anyone substantiate "all other former Commonwealth Realms have created presidencies upon becoming republics"? I have a feeling it isn't true, if only because they usually have other languages than English and "president" may merely be a free translation. PML.

Merge

Agree with Tim. Discussion of how a prsident would be elected is alreayd there. --Jia ng 07:29, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lots of problems with this article. Pls see below my suggestion for its removal --Dlatimer 16:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why a President?

If Australia were to sack the Queen, why not just make the Prime Minister Head of State as well as Head of Government? Nik42 06:31, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not unless he was made president. It is unworkable to make a head of government head of state. Much a head of state's time is spent carrying out ceremonial functions. A head of government spends all their time on governmment business. They simply don't have the time to carry out head of state functions. Even US presidents find it such a struggle doing both roles that they give some of the ceremonial stuff to the Vice-President. Every county in the world with a parliamentary system has a head of state. Making the head of government head of state is unworkable - for example, he'd have to decide whether to refuse himself a parliamentary dissolution!!! Or have to decide whether to refuse assent to a Bill he himself had pushed through parliament. Or deciding whether to sack himself as head of government. Australia has to have a separate head of state. The only question is whether to have a queen or a president. There is no alternative. FearÉIREANN 10:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But why? What point is there in creating a new ceremonial position? Or to put it another way, if the Prime Minister's title were changed to President, but nothing else about his duties or the manner in which he was elected was changed, what practical difference would there be? All those possibilities you mentioned are currently purely theoretical. When was the last time a Prime Minister was refused a parliamentary dissolution? When was the last time a monarch or Governor-General refused assent in a Commonwealth nation? It seems pointless to me to create a new powerless office. It's one thing if a new President was created with actual powers, which would involve a significant alteration to the political system (whether for good or ill I can't say), but to simply replace a hereditary figurehead with an elected figurehead seems rather silly Nik42 08:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Article about President, not republican debate

If there is any reason at all for this article not to be merged with Australian republicanism or Australian referendum 1999 (Establishment of Republic), then it is because it focuses on the issues surrounding the proposed office of President. I have tried to rearrange and rewrite the article so it less of a description of the 1999 debate and more about the different ideas of a president. Note that if the article really is about its title, it does not need to mention monarchists as much as an article about the referendum would in order to be NPOV, however I have tried to take into account the concerns about inaccuracies. I still feel it could be merged, but hopefully now the article give a bit more detail on the various options for the role of the president. JPD 14:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Queen as Head of State

Whether or not the Queen is Australia's Head of State is a point of contention in the circles that debate the current constitution vs. a republic. The republicans argue that she is, while most monarchists advocate she isn't (particularly ACM). As the Constitution doesn't define this and the Keating government referred to the Governor-General as Head of State, I've removed reference to the Queen as Head of State in this article. Simply referring to her as Sovereign is accurate and not a point of contention.

My version did not make any reference to the Queen as head of state. I was quite careful about that. I think you are going too far to avoid any wording that might sound republican, even if it is accurate. Since this is an article about republican proposals, it will include republican ideas. The argument that the GG is effective head of state is included, and that should be enough. JPD 11:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Impeach this article

Sorry about the title (couldn't resist), but this article should be removed. While a good attempt have been made to make it work, the problem is that this is a proposed position for which there are dozens of possibilities, all of which are likely to be proved wrong. In contrast the McGarvie Model article I wrote has a clear focus. It answers the questions: Who proposed it? What it involves? Positives, Negatives and Successes. The same could be done for the "Bi-partisan appointment model", the "Hayden Model" or the "ARM Six Models Process". But one cannot write a definitive "Elect the President Model" article as who's to say what that is. Consequently it cannot be NPOV. On the positive side, the article on Republic Advisory Committee is 80% pure opinion --Dlatimer 16:52, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand your objection. Is there something wrong with an article which describes dozens (or even a continuum) of possibilities? It is not possible to write an article on the "Elect the President Model", since it doesn't exist, but it is possible to write an article that states that many people have suggested that the president should be directly elected, which is completely NPOV. An article discussing the different properties people have suggested for a republican model can be completely NPOV, and as proposals, they can definitely not be proved wrong. IMHO the only question about this article is whether it deserves an article of it's own, or whether it is simply repeating material which should be covered elsewhere. At the moment, I feel it probably doesn't need to exist, but not strongly enough to do anything about it. If you do feel more strongly, then list it for deletion. JPD 15:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think this article should be up for deletion with its material merged into other articles. Most of what is covered here is also covered elsewhere (mainly Australian republicanism) and would be far more concise in the one location. Dpd 23:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my objection, allow me to use aspects of the article to show the difficulties of this article:

1st Para: "a possible move"

What's wrong with that?

2nd Para: entirely covered in other articles

Yes, but if this article exists, it needs context.

3rd Para: "argue" really should be "assume". Republicans don't really argue this. It's just an assumed transitional step.

Minor detail, which could be argued about, but isn't relevant to deltion/merging.

4th Para: About the bi-partisan appointment model, but that is not mentioned.

The model is meant to involve bi-partisanship, but doesn't explicitly require it. I'll add a bit to make it clearer.

5th Para: This is about the 1999 referendum

Yes, it mentions arguments from the 1999 referendum, but it is about the concept of having a directly elected president.

6th Para: About McGarvie Model, which does not advocate a president.
7th Para: ACM object to "republicanism". They wouldn't care if the position was a presidency or not.

These two paragraphs are included to show the different reasons why soem people do not advocate having a president.

8th Para: Covered in Australian Republicanism

Once again, some context is required. Although I wouldn't object to the last 3 paragraphs being missing, some people seem to think it gives the wrong impression. JPD 09:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If "Australian Republicanism" gets too large, I would like to see articles on proposed republican models, about republican concepts such as "minimalism", republican advocates eg Winterton, Turnbull. Perhaps an article about the "proposed threshold plebicite" perhaps.

Thanks for your comments. Time to take it to the next step - deletion. --Dlatimer 01:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Australian Republicanism

Checking the deletion guidelines, it's more appropriate that the article be merged than deleted outright. --Dlatimer 01:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)----[reply]

I tend to agree that merging is appropriate. However, until this is agreed on, I will continue to improve the article. JPD 09:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile I will put some thought into specific articles. An obvious candidate is the bi-partisan appointment model (Australia). As for other models and concepts a structure is preferred, by which I suggest we follow what is found in the 2004 Senate Inquiry Report, Road to a Republic. It may be too simplistic to just have a direct-election model. The six models process is under review by the ARM but that could also provide some basis for articles. What I am looking for in particular is to follow the history of these ideas and add to them as develop.

--Dlatimer 01:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is completed. The material can be found under "Proposals for Change" in Australian Republicanism