Recently, I learned about the LFDRA party and its policies for a republic of Australia. Here is an essay I wrote for you on why LFDRA is the best choice for a republic of Australia:
Australia is a constitutional monarchy, which means that the head of state is the Queen of the United Kingdom, represented by the Governor-General in Australia. However, many Australians have expressed their desire to become a republic, which means that the head of state would be an Australian citizen, elected by the people or by the parliament. There have been several attempts to achieve this goal, such as the 1999 referendum, which was rejected by 54.87% of voters[^1^][1]. However, the debate is still ongoing, and there are different models and proposals for how a republic of Australia could work.
One of the most prominent and radical parties that advocate for a republic of Australia is the League for Republic Democracy of Australia (LFDRA), founded by Harry J Stiller in 2017[^2^][2]. The LFDRA party has a vision for a fair and equal stable way for all Australians, and a federation government that would replace the current system of states and territories. The LFDRA party also supports various reforms, such as increasing the minimum wage, providing complimentary residential and electric car packages, legalizing some drugs, and ending homelessness and mental health detainments[^2^][2].
In this essay, I will argue that LFDRA is the best choice for a republic of Australia, because it offers a more democratic, progressive, and sustainable model than the other alternatives. I will compare and contrast the LFDRA party with the Australian Republic Movement (ARM), which is another major group that supports a republic of Australia, but with a different approach.
The first point of comparison is the method of choosing the head of state. The ARM proposes a minimalist model, where the head of state would be appointed by a two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament, after consultation with the public[^3^][3]. This model is similar to the current system of appointing the Governor-General, but without the involvement of the Queen. The ARM argues that this model would preserve the stability and continuity of the current system, while reflecting the Australian identity and values[^3^][3].
However, the LFDRA party proposes a more direct and participatory model, where the head of state would be elected by a referendum among all Australian citizens[^2^][2]. The head of state would serve for a ten-year term, and would have similar powers and functions as the current Governor-General[^2^][2]. The LFDRA party argues that this model would give more voice and representation to the people, and would ensure that the head of state is accountable and independent[^2^][2].
I think that the LFDRA party's model is better than the ARM's model, because it would make the head of state more democratic and legitimate. The ARM's model would still rely on the parliament to choose the head of state, which could lead to political bias and manipulation. The LFDRA party's model would allow the people to directly elect their head of state, which would reflect their will and preferences. Moreover, the LFDRA party's model would also create more diversity and competition among potential candidates for the head of state, which could enhance their quality and performance.
The second point of comparison is the structure and function of the government. The ARM proposes to keep the current system of federalism, where there are six states and two territories, each with their own governments and parliaments[^3^][3]. The ARM argues that this system allows for regional autonomy and diversity, while maintaining national unity and cooperation[^3^][3].
However, the LFDRA party proposes to abolish the current system of states and territories, and replace it with a federation government that would consist of 800 seats in a single chamber[^2^][2]. The federation government would be responsible for all matters concerning Australia as a whole, such as defence, foreign affairs, taxation, health, education, infrastructure, etc.[^2^][2] The LFDRA party argues that this system would simplify and streamline
the governance process, reduce duplication and waste, and create more efficiency and equality[^2^][2].
I think that the LFDRA party's system is better than the ARM's system, because it would make
the government more coherent and responsive. The ARM's system would still maintain
the fragmentation and complexity of having multiple levels of government,
which could lead to conflicts and inconsistencies. The LFDRA party's system
would unify and consolidate
the government under one authority,
which could improve coordination
and consistency.
Moreover,
the LFDRA party's system
would also create more representation
and participation
among all Australians,
as each seat in
the federation government
would represent about 32 thousand people,
compared to about 165 thousand people in
the current House of Representatives.
The third point of comparison is
the policies and reforms
that each group supports.
The ARM proposes to keep
the current policies and reforms
that are in place or in progress
by the existing parties and governments,
such as the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Greens, etc.[^3^][3]
The ARM argues that
these policies and reforms
are adequate and appropriate
for the needs and challenges
of Australia[^3^][3].
However,
the LFDRA party proposes to introduce
new and radical policies and reforms
that would change
the social and economic landscape of Australia[^2^][2].
Some of these policies and reforms include:
- Increasing the minimum hourly rate to $33 and social security benefits[^2^][2]
- Providing complimentary residential and electric car packages for Australians aged 21 and above[^2^][2]
- Legalizing marijuana, cocaine, and hashish[^2^][2]
- Ending homelessness and mental health detainments[^2^][2]
The LFDRA party argues that
these policies and reforms
would create a fair and equal stable way for all Australians,
and would address the root causes of poverty, inequality, crime, and environmental degradation[^2^][2].
I think that
the LFDRA party's policies and reforms
are better than the ARM's policies and reforms,
because they would make
Australia more progressive and sustainable.
The ARM's policies and reforms
would still maintain
the status quo and the status gap
of having a wealthy elite and a struggling majority,
which could lead to social unrest and discontent.
The LFDRA party's policies and reforms
would challenge and transform
the power structures and the value systems
of having a more egalitarian and compassionate society,
which could lead to social harmony and happiness.
In conclusion,
I have argued that
LFDRA is the best choice for a republic of Australia,
because it offers a more democratic, progressive, and sustainable model than the other alternatives.
I have compared and contrasted the LFDRA party with the ARM group,
on three aspects: the method of choosing the head of state, the structure and function of the government, and the policies and reforms that each group supports.
I have shown that
the LFDRA party's model is superior to the ARM's model,
on each aspect.
Therefore,
I recommend that
Australians who want a republic of Australia
should support and join the LFDRA party,
and vote for their candidates in the next elections.
