Australia Day attended by growing controversy

[Astrophe (John)]

Originally Posted by PCH

What's wrong with a flag depicting a country's origins?

The present Australian flag is a colonial relic and is no longer relevant to many Australians (whose ancestry is non Anglo/Celtic) and to many of Anglo/Celtic ancestry, as well.

It sends the wrong signal to the world at large, that we are still a colonial appendage of Great Brittan. We are most definitely not that and further, it sends the wrong message to ourselves. We need a new flag to express the present realities of modern-day Australia, with its diverse ethnicity.

The same arguments apply to the Australian head of state. At present, we have a foreigner as our head of state. This sends the wrong message to ourselves and to others. Just think of this..... under the present arrangements, no Australian can ever hold the office of Australian head of state....that office will be held, in perpetuity, by a foreigner. No Australian can ever aspire to be our head of state. Surely, this cannot continue. I have nothing personal against Her Majesty the Queen, she is entirely an estimable person in every way. But this argument is not about the suitability of the Queen or the future King Charles lll, it's about the fundamental proposition that an Australian should be the Australian head of state.... President or Governor General, the title doesn't really matter that much.

[pmrid (Peter)]

The thing about history is that it is just that! It's gone. And the thing about the future is that we have yet to make it. We will not make any kind of future for our kids if we are constantly whining about things we cant change and holding out our hands at the same time. I don't remember who said it but there is an apt phrase in recent literature that describes those who crawl on their knees towards a handout while simultaneously shaking their fists instead of standing up and finding a place for themselves and their kids in the future of this country.

I want a day on which I can identify as an Australian. And so should everyone who enjoys our citizenship or protection.

I don't really care what day it falls on. Perhaps moving it to another date would serve to sever that link to the past and the connotations some see in it. Perhaps that would be a good thing. But whatever day it is on, it should be about how we move forward not trying to conjure up guilt about what we cannot change.


Peter

[PCH (Paul)]

Originally Posted by Astrophe

The present Australian flag is a colonial relic and is no longer relevant to many Australians (whose ancestry is non Anglo/Celtic) and to many of Anglo/Celtic ancestry, as well.

It sends the wrong signal to the world at large, that we are still a colonial appendage of Great Brittan. We are most definitely not that and further, it sends the wrong message to ourselves. We need a new flag to express the present realities of modern-day Australia, with its diverse ethnicity.

The same arguments apply to the Australian head of state. At present, we have a foreigner as our head of state. This sends the wrong message to ourselves and to others. Just think of this..... under the present arrangements, no Australian can ever hold the office of Australian head of state....that office will be held, in perpetuity, by a foreigner. No Australian can ever aspire to be our head of state. Surely, this cannot continue. I have nothing personal against Her Majesty the Queen, she is entirely an estimable person in every way. But this argument is not about the suitability of the Queen or the future King Charles lll, it's about the fundamental proposition that an Australian should be the Australian head of state.... President or Governor General, the title doesn't really matter that much.

Some good points well made John, thank you.

On the other hand, people born outside Australia can aspire to be Prime Minister, - which is something some other nations don't allow.

[Larryp (Laurie)]

Originally Posted by Astrophe

The present Australian flag is a colonial relic and is no longer relevant to many Australians (whose ancestry is non Anglo/Celtic) and to many of Anglo/Celtic ancestry, as well.

It sends the wrong signal to the world at large, that we are still a colonial appendage of Great Brittan. We are most definitely not that and further, it sends the wrong message to ourselves. We need a new flag to express the present realities of modern-day Australia, with its diverse ethnicity.

The same arguments apply to the Australian head of state. At present, we have a foreigner as our head of state. This sends the wrong message to ourselves and to others. Just think of this..... under the present arrangements, no Australian can ever hold the office of Australian head of state....that office will be held, in perpetuity, by a foreigner. No Australian can ever aspire to be our head of state. Surely, this cannot continue. I have nothing personal against Her Majesty the Queen, she is entirely an estimable person in every way. But this argument is not about the suitability of the Queen or the future King Charles lll, it's about the fundamental proposition that an Australian should be the Australian head of state.... President or Governor General, the title doesn't really matter that much.

The current flag reflects our history and ancestry. Same thing with New Zealand. Even the U.S.A. did not find it necessary to remove the Union Jack from the Hawaiian flag-it's part of Hawaii's history.
Our history and where we came from, warts and all, is just as important as where we are going.
As for our political system, it seems to work well enough, and without the violence of many republics-even the U.S.A.

[astroron (Ron)]

Too those people who advocate changing the flag because it is not relevant to today's generation,working on that generalization,the flag should be changed about every fifty years or so, Australia has changed remarkably over the 100 years or so and is nothing like it was at even the start of federation.
We have to embrace our countries history good and bad and strive to do better.
Changing the flag will only please certain % of the people but will add very little or any to the well being of the country.
Without the people of the country that the union jack in the left hand corner of our flag, all of us would never be here.
Countries all over the world have been invaded, colonized throughout history
That's what makes countries what they are.
Britain was a a popular place to invade for hundreds to thousands of years.
How far should we go back and complain about being invaded?
I still think there should be a lot more done for the indigenous people
of this country,it is very difficult living in two so very different cultures.
Changing the date of Australia Day and also changing the flag will have no significant effect on them what so ever.
Cheers

[Astrophe (John)]

Originally Posted by Larryp

The current flag reflects our history and ancestry. Same thing with New Zealand. Even the U.S.A. did not find it necessary to remove the Union Jack from the Hawaiian flag-it's part of Hawaii's history.
Our history and where we came from, warts and all, is just as important as where we are going.
As for our political system, it seems to work well enough, and without the violence of many republics-even the U.S.A.

The old....if it ain't broke don't fix it....argument. Yes, no one is disputing that the present arrangements don't work....obviously they do. The violence of American society has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the USA is a republic. It is a cultural thing. That American society is more violent than Australian society is a product of American history and culture, not some inherent tendency towards violence, in a republican form of government. The two issues are not connected.

[torana68 (Roger)]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

Pemulwuy was an Aboriginal who resisted the initial British invasion fleet in 1788. In 1802 Pemulwuy was eventually caught, decapitated and his head was sent back on the next boat to London in pickle jar. (It's rumoured that ISIS is using similar terrorist tactics in Syria as we speak).
..............

Pemulwuy was an Aboriginal yes, he murdered an unarmed man, guess thats ok and I'm ignoring the probable reason as I'm not Aboriginal and killing an unarmed person runs against the grain (without trial), he then lead the Locals in a guerilla war against the people living in the area, this went on for many years till he was shot dead, not as you put it "caught, decapitated" I do believe his head was sent back to England to study as were a lot of "English" peoples heads, this was not part of some "terrorist Tactic" but , and Im not defending it , thats what they did back then. There are probably people on here who have had decendants heads studied around the same time, for scientific purposes.... to be blunt you post was .......

[Larryp (Laurie)]

[QUOTE=Astrophe;1293060]The old....if it ain't broke don't fix it....argument. Yes, no one is disputing that the present arrangements don't work....obviously they do. The violence of American society has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the USA is a republic. It is a cultural thing. That American society is more violent than Australian society is a product of American history and culture, not some inherent tendency towards violence, in a republican form of government. The two issues are not connected.[/QUOTE

I originally supported the idea of an Australian republic, hoping that our bloated forms of government at all levels would become streamlined and more efficient.
Unfortunately none of the pollies wanted to see their numbers reduced and their bureaucracies cut, and we were offered a president elected by parliament from a list of candidates supplied to parliament. You only have to look at most of the recent Australians of the Year to see what we might wind up with!
The Australian public saw it for exactly for what it is-just another job for the boys, and if the republican movement cannot come up something better than that, then they will be doomed to failure again.

[Astrophe (John)]

[QUOTE=Larryp;1293064]

Originally Posted by Astrophe

The old....if it ain't broke don't fix it....argument. Yes, no one is disputing that the present arrangements don't work....obviously they do. The violence of American society has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the USA is a republic. It is a cultural thing. That American society is more violent than Australian society is a product of American history and culture, not some inherent tendency towards violence, in a republican form of government. The two issues are not connected.[/QUOTE

I originally supported the idea of an Australian republic, hoping that our bloated forms of government at all levels would become streamlined and more efficient.
Unfortunately none of the pollies wanted to see their numbers reduced and their bureaucracies cut, and we were offered a president elected by parliament from a list of candidates supplied to parliament. You only have to look at most of the recent Australians of the Year to see what we might wind up with!
The Australian public saw it for exactly for what it is-just another job for the boys, and if the republican movement cannot come up something better than that, then they will be doomed to failure again.

If you are referring to the republic referendum held in 1999, it was set up by the then PM, John Howard, to fail....that's what he wanted and that's what he got.

The question as to how we should choose our head of state, is indeed relevant. A popularly elected head of state is not, IMO, desirable, for the simple reason that it will have the tendency to create two competing centres of political power....i.e. the PM and the President or GG. A head of state who is elected, will possibly believe that he/she has a mandate to exercise power, where, in reality, under our (Westminster) parliamentary system of government, the head of state is a largely ceremonial office and not in any way like the American executive presidential system, where the offices of head of state and head of government are held by the same individual. No one is proposing such a system for Australia. We would continue to have a parliamentary system of government with the PM as the head of government and the President or GG as head of state.

[torana68 (Roger)]

[QUOTE=Astrophe;1293070]

Originally Posted by Larryp

The question as to how we should choose our head of state, is indeed relevant. A popularly elected head of state is not, IMO, desirable, for the simple reason that it will have the tendency to create two competing centres of political power....i.

an example is who'd vote for someone from WA? fair chance no one would know of him/her, maybe , and not exactly the same cause obviously it doesn't work they way they have it, something like the USA, all political parties put someone up and we all vote. But whats the point they could or should not have any power to do anything over the elected reps so why? maybe just some tinkering and renaming of the GG's position? or are we suggesting they should be able to remove an elected government if thought to be useless by the opposition?

[Astrophe (John)]

I originally supported the idea of an Australian republic, hoping that our bloated forms of government at all levels would become streamlined and more efficient.
Unfortunately none of the pollies wanted to see their numbers reduced and their bureaucracies cut, and we were offered a president elected by parliament from a list of candidates supplied to parliament. You only have to look at most of the recent Australians of the Year to see what we might wind up with!
The Australian public saw it for exactly for what it is-just another job for the boys, and if the republican movement cannot come up something better than that, then they will be doomed to failure again.[/QUOTE]

Under the present arrangements, the PM, alone, selects the GG....that is, he sends a list of 3 names to the Queen with a clear indication as to which is the preferred candidate and the Queen duly appoints that person.

The simplest way to do this, is for the PM of the day appoint the head of state, but in consultation and in agreement with the leader of the opposition. That way, we are sure to get someone who is acceptable to both sides. Another method, would be for a council of eminent Australians to choose the head of state. The composition of such a council would need to be determined at a future date after sufficient community debate on the issue.

[Larryp (Laurie)]

[QUOTE=Astrophe;1293070]

Originally Posted by Larryp

If you are referring to the republic referendum held in 1999, it was set up by the then PM, John Howard, to fail....that's what he wanted and that's what he got.

The question as to how we should choose our head of state, is indeed relevant. A popularly elected head of state is not, IMO, desirable, for the simple reason that it will have the tendency to create two competing centres of political power....i.e. the PM and the President or GG. A head of state who is elected, will possibly believe that he/she has a mandate to exercise power, where, in reality, under our (Westminster) parliamentary system of government, the head of state is a largely ceremonial office and not in any way like the American executive presidential system, where the offices of head of state and head of government are held by the same individual. No one is proposing such a system for Australia. We would continue to have a parliamentary system of government with the PM as the head of government and the President or GG as head of state.

Set up to fail? That was the model agreed on at the time and the Australian people needed to know EXACTLY what they were voting for.
If you want to just replace the Governor General with a president without modernising our whole system of government, then you are advocating spending billions of dollars changing currency, stationary, dept names and everything else you can think of, for virtually no benefit-absolutely ridiculous!

[Astrophe (John)]

[QUOTE=torana68;1293074]

Originally Posted by Astrophe

an example is who'd vote for someone from WA? fair chance no one would know of him/her, maybe , and not exactly the same cause obviously it doesn't work they way they have it, something like the USA, all political parties put someone up and we all vote. But whats the point they could or should not have any power to do anything over the elected reps so why? maybe just some tinkering and renaming of the GG's position? or are we suggesting they should be able to remove an elected government if thought to be useless by the opposition?

If we decide to elect our head of state, then we will end up with a Liberal and Labor candidate and that will (party) politicise the office....not a desirable outcome, I would have thought.

[Astrophe (John)]

[QUOTE=Larryp;1293076]

Originally Posted by Astrophe

Set up to fail? That was the model agreed on at the time and the Australian people needed to know EXACTLY what they were voting for.
If you want to just replace the Governor General with a president without modernising our whole system of government, then you are advocating spending billions of dollars changing currency, stationary, dept names and everything else you can think of, for virtually no benefit-absolutely ridiculous!

'Modernising the whole system' would be a bridge too far and would doom any constitutional change of that nature. Let's just inch forward and take one step at a time. An Australian head of state, first, and then other changes (as deemed necessary)to follow at a later stage.

[AndrewJ]

If we want a head of state that is Australian, we need to come up with a method that gives the population a vote.
Only problem is that leaves it open to corruption by those who have money or power.
Allowing the parliament to select a head of state will just be a debacle, as they cant even agree on how to have a sensible meeting on it, let alone make a decision.
Sorry, but until we get politicians that are interested in the country, rather than themselves, it will ( and should ) stay on the backburner.
Having a head of state that is the queen may be unacceptable to some, but at least the position cannot be "bought".

Andrew

[el_draco (Rom)]

[QUOTE=Larryp;1293064]

Originally Posted by Astrophe

The old....if it ain't broke don't fix it....argument. Yes, no one is disputing that the present arrangements don't work....obviously they do.

I'd rather suck on conc. Hydrofluoric acid than swear allegiance to ANY Aussie head of state; "it" would inevitably come from:

- One of the major polly parties.
- A sports moron
- Whoever paid the most for the gong
- The biggest liar

Australians have a habit of electing morons at all levels of government, with damn few exceptions I can recall and I think I'd migrate if it came to this country becoming a republic.

President Everage anyone ?

[Larryp (Laurie)]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

If we want a head of state that is Australian, we need to come up with a method that gives the population a vote.
Only problem is that leaves it open to corruption by those who have money or power.
Allowing the parliament to select a head of state will just be a debacle, as they cant even agree on how to have a sensible meeting on it, let alone make a decision.
Sorry, but until we get politicians that are interested in the country, rather than themselves, it will ( and should ) stay on the backburner.
Having a head of state that is the queen may be unacceptable to some, but at least the position cannot be "bought".

Andrew

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Eratosthenes

Chris Warren also argues that the first fleet's introduction of the smallpox virus, which killed thousands of Aborigines in 1789 was no accident. Biological warfare of this type was also used in South and Central America and in other regions of the world by the British and other colonising powers such as the Spanish, French and Dutch etc.

Apparently, Smallpox was also in Batavia at the time, and its an historical fact that trade between the two places occurred on a regular basis well before the English arrived. Sorry about that, I don't believe you cant pin that on the Poms.

Having said that, the argument as to whether we need to move Australia Day is a good one. It causes a lot of Angst amongst the Aboriginal community, for whom I have considerable respect, and there are a number of other days that could be used instead, Cooks landing date or Federation date, (when we actually became a united nation) are two perfect examples.

If we want peace and reconciliation, it aint gonna be a one way process so anyone who wants to get precious about the First Fleet needs to do a bit of putting ones self in the others shoes, me thinks...

[LewisM]

OMG, history conspiracies...for pity's sake!

I'd believe Dr. Fenner and Dr. Carmody over conspiracists like Warren any day. Academics like Warren are true pot-stirrers (or smokers - both fit). typical academic actually - transmogrify history to suit their outlandish hypothesis despite overwhelming and pre-existing evidence. They have little to no knowledge of disease (just as the colonists had no differentiation between smallpox and chickenpox despite Warrens assertions to the contrary).

History War indeed.

Why do people wish to hang onto these tenuous notions? Is there a need to blame? What does it achieve?

Australian aborigines are not native to Australia - they emigrated here too.

I suppose next we blame the first fleeters for introducing Chlamydia to the Aborigines so that they can thence infect the koala population - biological warfare after all.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by LewisM;

I suppose next we blame the first fleeters for introducing Chlamydia to the Aborigines so that they can thence infect the koala population - biological warfare after all.

Gad Sir, nearly fouled me brigs