Should Australia become a republic?

[IQS.RLOW]

Well the US do big infrastructure projects that really transform the environment. Since the Snowy Mountain dams we have done fuck all.

LA was built by redirecting a river from over 200 miles away.

We just complain. Time to get smart and redirect all the water from the Blue Mountains west instead of letting them run into the Pacific.

While the Greens and environmental lobby exists, the western world (especially Australia) will never advance anything fantastically structurally, life or economically changing. The WA coastline is one of the longest in the world, with miles of desert in between, and there was nothing but derision when the use of tidal runoff from the north was mentioned as a pipeline down the coast to irrigate the middle of the state.

Its one of the best ideas to ever be raised but easily shot down by any weird arsed greeny phd who finds some rare frog or miniature spider that no one has ever seen to kill a million jobs, ensure a profitable future for the country to save a hundred frogs.

If the greens of today existed back when the snowy mountains scheme was done, it wouldn't have got out of the planning blocks because of these inhumanist cocksucksers.

[Rorschach]

Well the US do big infrastructure projects that really transform the environment. Since the Snowy Mountain dams we have done fuck all.

LA was built by redirecting a river from over 200 miles away.

We just complain. Time to get smart and redirect all the water from the Blue Mountains west instead of letting them run into the Pacific.

That's not quite true... there is Lake Argyle and the Ord River Scheme.
Personally I think we should flood lake Eyre and create an inland sea you could divert sea water from both the north and the South into it.

What good is sea water?

It's very good we used to have an Inland sea you know...

BTW what use is desalinisation? Of course it is good... for a start it would alter the micro-climate in the immediate vicinity, which would have a domino effect... also a free plentiful supply of water is always useful.

[Neferti]

Water is water? There are ways and means to make sea water drinkable? Engineers understand this.

Australia really needs to think ahead. Further ahead than 3-4 years to the next Election! Continually stating the obvious ... i.e. that nobody can live in Central Australia is short sighted. Isn't there a railway track from Adelaide to Darwin these days? Instead of the NBN we should be spending money on expanding so our population can grow and not just in the major cities.

Until we stop thinking you have to live by the beach to be an Aussie we will never, ever expand. Our ancestors came here and worked bloody hard to get Australia started. This Australia could, eventually, support 50+ million but not just country towns and major cities. We need to spread out ... like the USA did.

[Chard]

Just replacing the GG with a president has the problems raised. We would have to adopt a more US model to ensure we don't have a PM and a president as some of the other ex-pom empire states have done.

Were it up to me I'd go with keeping the PM around, only with a redefined role. Currently your PM is essentially whoever happens to be the head of the majority party in your House of Reps and acts as head of the Cabinet. Have the role of your Cabinet serve as advisers and executive branch heads reporting to your President like we do, have the PM serve as chief of the Cabinet (head adviser to the President), and as head of the Legislature (similar to our Speaker of the House position). This way the position remains viable and can act as a direct interface point between your executive and legislative branches of government.

Probably make selection to the cabinet something along the lines of the House sends the President a stack of approved candidates and the President selects from there. That would head off the problems our presidents sometime have with getting cabinet appointment past Congress. Just let the legislative pick the candidates and the president can approve or disapprove at will.

Bear in mind, I'm also a proponent of the US going back to our vice-president being the guy that loses the presidential election. I'm a huge fan of check and balance type stuff.

[Neferti]

Just replacing the GG with a president has the problems raised. We would have to adopt a more US model to ensure we don't have a PM and a president as some of the other ex-pom empire states have done.

Were it up to me I'd go with keeping the PM around, only with a redefined role. Currently your PM is essentially whoever happens to be the head of the majority party in your House of Reps and acts as head of the Cabinet. Have the role of your Cabinet serve as advisers and executive branch heads reporting to your President like we do, have the PM serve as chief of the Cabinet (head adviser to the President), and as head of the Legislature (similar to our Speaker of the House position). This way the position remains viable and can act as a direct interface point between your executive and legislative branches of government.

Probably make selection to the cabinet something along the lines of the House sends the President a stack of approved candidates and the President selects from there. That would head off the problems our presidents sometime have with getting cabinet appointment past Congress. Just let the legislative pick the candidates and the president can approve or disapprove at will.

Bear in mind, I'm also a proponent of the US going back to our vice-president being the guy that loses the presidential election. I'm a huge fan of check and balance type stuff.

Aussies do NOT want to be like the USA. End of.

[Rorschach]

Just replacing the GG with a president has the problems raised. We would have to adopt a more US model to ensure we don't have a PM and a president as some of the other ex-pom empire states have done.

Were it up to me I'd go with keeping the PM around, only with a redefined role. Currently your PM is essentially whoever happens to be the head of the majority party in your House of Reps and acts as head of the Cabinet. Have the role of your Cabinet serve as advisers and executive branch heads reporting to your President like we do, have the PM serve as chief of the Cabinet (head adviser to the President), and as head of the Legislature (similar to our Speaker of the House position). This way the position remains viable and can act as a direct interface point between your executive and legislative branches of government.

Probably make selection to the cabinet something along the lines of the House sends the President a stack of approved candidates and the President selects from there. That would head off the problems our presidents sometime have with getting cabinet appointment past Congress. Just let the legislative pick the candidates and the president can approve or disapprove at will.

Bear in mind, I'm also a proponent of the US going back to our vice-president being the guy that loses the presidential election. I'm a huge fan of check and balance type stuff.

So what do you actually think Cabinet and the PM do?

[Chard]

Aussies do NOT want to be like the USA. End of.

If I wanted to hear from a drippy fluffy bunny I'd go hang out in a gynecologists office. Now shut the fuck up and go make me a sammich.

[Chard]

Just replacing the GG with a president has the problems raised. We would have to adopt a more US model to ensure we don't have a PM and a president as some of the other ex-pom empire states have done.

Were it up to me I'd go with keeping the PM around, only with a redefined role. Currently your PM is essentially whoever happens to be the head of the majority party in your House of Reps and acts as head of the Cabinet. Have the role of your Cabinet serve as advisers and executive branch heads reporting to your President like we do, have the PM serve as chief of the Cabinet (head adviser to the President), and as head of the Legislature (similar to our Speaker of the House position). This way the position remains viable and can act as a direct interface point between your executive and legislative branches of government.

Probably make selection to the cabinet something along the lines of the House sends the President a stack of approved candidates and the President selects from there. That would head off the problems our presidents sometime have with getting cabinet appointment past Congress. Just let the legislative pick the candidates and the president can approve or disapprove at will.

Bear in mind, I'm also a proponent of the US going back to our vice-president being the guy that loses the presidential election. I'm a huge fan of check and balance type stuff.

So what do you actually think Cabinet and the PM do?

Pretty much exactly that I described, only the cabinet works for the legislative branch. Why the legislative needs a cabinet, not sure. Also means your executive department heads are part of the legislature, so again there's a lack of clear definition between the executive and legislative branches, again clouding up who is and should be doing what.

Now,define the terms "cabinet" and "PM" in relation to Australian politics. Let's see if it's another episode of an American knows more about your country than you do, Rorsch.

[Neferti]

Aussies do NOT want to be like the USA. End of.

If I wanted to hear from a drippy Chinese Student I'd go hang out in a gynecologists office. Now shut the fuck up and go make me a sammich.

Listen up you black bastard ... according to my American friends YOU will be polishing their shoes in Heaven. Slave!

PS. My heritage is Scottish not Chinese. Plus I never "do" for anyone. What's a sammich? Get me a coffee ... slave!

[Black Orchid]

Even though one could quite easily mistake the streets of Sydney for downtown Hong Kong .. I would rather be like the USA than China.