Good point. That's why I was careful with my wording in the post above ;) I said the government of the day, led by the PM, has executive power.

It's another one of the beautiful, unsaid (or rather not explicitly articulated) aspects of our political system that we've inherited from the British. The nuances, conventional aspects make it beautiful and interesting. That's what I hope stays (but I fear will not).

We have a PM, by convention, although not by constitutional requirement.

Point is we do not have have a Head of State by convention, there is no defined Head of State. And how do you define 'Head of State'?

It's intellectual laziness that leads people to think that just because somebody is a monarch, they're head of state. Sorry but no. They're just Queen of Australia. They need to exercise the kind of Royal Prerogative, which misinformation has led some to believe that she does exercise (as some posts on this thread prove). But it ain't the case. She has no Royal Prerogative and thus ain't the Head of State, both in theory and in practice.

Define Head of State? The Constitution does not. Unlike the role of PM, it's not defined by convention. Instead there's a series of checks and balances meaning we have no clearly-defined Head of State. As I say, the closest approximation is the G-G. But even he/she is not quite the Head of State.

Edited by quickflick: 20/11/2015 12:07:14 AM

Edited by quickflick: 20/11/2015 12:08:53 AM

:roll: And that's exactly the point... we don't have to change the system to become a republic. That's why the majority of republicans (myself included) prefer the minimalist model.

As I've already said, this is not a debate about practicalities or pragmatism. This debate isn't about changing the system.

It's purely about symbolism. And in a multicultural, egalitarian, democratic society having a royal family (one that isn't even Australian) is truly perverse.

Ok so you're going for an interesting slant on the australian "head of state" debate where some believe the G-G is the head of state and others think the monarch is except you're arguing there is no head of state at all. I'm not a constitutional lawyer but there has been a lot of debate about this amongst people a lot more in the know .

Either way, does the Queen have any power at all? If she doesn't then we have no need for her. Let's remove the monarch from the constitution and keep everything else the same. The Governer-General's title can even stay the same for all I care and there is no need for the words "Head of State" to appear in the constitution.

Yep. This needn't be about the 'Head of State' debate, the problem is that we have a Queen/King of Australia in the first place.

If I were a republican, I think I'd support that system.

Sweden, Denmark and Norway are the most egalitarian, multicultural societies in the world. All three have royal families.

Canada and NZ not a long way off. Same story except, like Australia, their royal family isn't Canadian or Kiwi. They couldn't care less about it. I don't get why we get our knickers in a knot about this.

I accept the principle of your argument. But when you look at actual republics, which are far less egalitarian and multicultural than the Nordic countries, it falls on its head in practice.

You're kidding, surely?

For the third time, this isn't about practicalities. The fact that some republics are shit places to live is utterly irrelevant, just as the fact that the Nordic constitutional monarchies happen to be great places to live is irrelevant.

Australia will not change practically when we become a republic. We won't suddenly become less equal, or whatever you're trying to imply with such ridiculous comparisons.

The only thing that changes is the principle. And principally, the monarchy is entirely contradictory to Australian values.

I'm not even on the fence in this debate, because I don't see the difference it makes either way, but JP, why do you say that having a monarch is principally contradictory to Australian values?

It's not merely an interesting slant. It's supported by reading the Constitution closely, thinking carefully about what powers the Queen has and then asking what powers a Head of State has. Conclusion: Australia has no clearly-defined Head of State.

Whether the Queen is necessary or not, I couldn't care less. Although I think the Queen likes the idea of Australia being a Commonwealth Realm, the word is that Prince Philip cannot understand for the life of him why Australia didn't become a republic. But frankly I couldn't care less what the British Royal Family think/do. They can run around Pall Mall wearing togas if they want. The system just works out perfectly. It's a great way of retaining diplomatic relations on a level that you simply cannot as a republic.

I like the quirkiness of the system. Life is dull enough in so many ways. The eccentricities of this system make it enjoyable

As well as being constitutionally the most stable system in the world.

Plus there are other constitutional problems to do with becoming a republic. Lots of British documents, writs, etc. are constitutional documents for the Australian states. I refer to obvious ones like Magna Carta and habeas corpus. As they emanate from the British monarch, they're rendered constitutionally valid by way of having the Queen as Queen of Australia (nothing more, nothing less). If Australia becomes a republic, it's a constitutional headache. It means that all those all-important documents (the cornerstones of civilisation, in many ways) are rendered documents of constitutional importance emanating from a foreign power. It destabilises the constitutions of the states and territories.

Edited by quickflick: 20/11/2015 12:28:46 AM

Of course we won't become less equal. The point is that the most egalitarian systems have constitutional monarchies, so (in the real world, rather than as an abstract concept) it's hardly a slap in the face of egalitarian values to have a constitutional monarchy.

In the end it depends on what 'Australian values' mean to different people.

But in my mind, Australia is defined by our democracy, our multiculturalism and our egalitarianism. The monarchy is inherently undemocratic, obviously, because it's a hereditary position and not one that is elected (like the Prime Minister) or appointed based on merit (like the Governor-General). The monarchy's not multicultural, because our King/Queen is always going to be British, and represents just one aspect of our history while ignoring so much else - Indigenous Australians, Southern/Eastern European and Asian immigrants, etc. It's not egalitarian either - no person is better than anyone else; no Australian should be expected to bow or curtsy to anyone else.

You're right, of course - it's not going to make much difference, and it isn't a huge issue. But it's a debate worth having, and to that extent I don't think that the monarchy represent us at all.

The issue is we are in practice a sovereign nation with a democratically elected parliament (and government) by the people for the people of this nation. Yet we have a foreign monarch (who may or may not be our head of state :roll: ) but is still present any many symbolic places.

I think I remember you saying in the past, you're in favour of the status quo because of a british born parent or grandparent?

The most "egalitarian" societies have forms of government where either by constitution or by convention power is not concentrated too strongly in one person. It's got very little to do with having a monarch or not.

Cheers for that.

I agree that the monarch doesn't represent Australia at all. And I wouldn't call myself a monarchist, but it just doesn't bother me. I suppose my family are all English so there's a potential for a bit of bias there, but it just all seems so irrelevant (which is probably a good cause to say that they are irrelevant and therefore not needed).

Not in favour of it really, just indifferent. I would probably be a little saddened to see our links with the UK weakened, but I see that having a random and irrelevant head of state is useless. I just don't see why people call the monarchy irrelevant and then get so worked up about it... That's a contradiction in itself to me :lol:

Is that directed at me?

I have (or had) a British-born grandparent.

I was, apparently mistakenly, under the impression that UK ancestry visas apply only to citizens of Commonwealth Realms (not Commonwealth Countries but Commonwealth Realms). With that in mind, I saw how becoming a republic could be detrimental to Australian football. That was the purpose of the thread.

When I get the chance I'm going to speak to people versed in British immigration law to determine that that is not the case, as seems likely based on the useful contributions of others on this forum.

If it were the case, it would be extremely detrimental for me (and thousands and thousands of other Australians) because it would mean we couldn't get UK ancestry visas. God knows how bloody difficult it is to get lengthy working visas for Europe. It would mean that becoming a republic would have negative ramifications. Happily, it seems that is not the case.

Side-note, I might be able to get a Portuguese passport, if I can then no need for any UK Ancestry Visa (unless the UK leaves the EU).

But it seems likely that merely being from a Commonwealth Country, as opposed to a Commonwealth Realm, suffices.

Lots of things about the UK, I do not like. I've also been brought up in rather a Republican family (both parents want a Republic), although some in my family support the Constitutional Monarchy. I don't think I want to live in the UK. I've lots of British friends and have worked with Brits extensively overseas. I like parts of London. I suspect I'd like Edinburgh, and p'raps Manchester. I also like the Lake District. But in some respects, I find the UK a worse place to live in than Australia. I think I'd rather live in Sweden, Norway or France. And (without having even visited), I suspect I'd prefer Denmark, Belgium, Germany and Holland to the UK. But I do respect what the UK has done and continues to do. And, while we shouldn't give preference to people from the UK, I think it's good to maintain the kind of diplomatic relations which we do with them. We share a building for a high commission in, I reckon it's, India. That level of co-operation is basically not possible without the shared history we have and without having the Queen as Queen of Australia.

So irrespective of my family background or whether or not being a republic has any bearing on Ancestry Visas, I think it's better to be a Constitutional Monarch.

Edited by quickflick: 20/11/2015 01:03:45 AM

mcjules

Ahh. Directed at Eastern Glory. Apologies. Still now you've got my two cents (or tuppence)

Perhaps more appropriate given your stance ;) :lol:

Seriously though all good. I don't want to suggest that all of those against or apathetic towards a republic are doing so because they want us to stay british. Just remember EG making a comment roughly along those lines so I queried it.

I figured that somewhere along the line I'd probably mentioned having a British-born grandparent so I figured that might have been meant for me and was happy to respond anyway.

It's a weird situation. I certainly don't want us to stay British (not that we're British now) and I like the level of independence we have. But I also see the value of ties with Britain which only a constitutional monarchy can have. And, call me an idiot, but I just like the crazy nature of the system and yet the constitutional checks and balances.

But, in all honesty, if it was a choice between being a constitutional monarchy and having high levels of xenophobia exhibited in some quarters and being a republic and having a very enlightened and tolerant public, I'd say go with the republic. If it was such a choice.

Edited by quickflick: 20/11/2015 01:13:24 AM

Edited by quickflick: 20/11/2015 01:19:28 AM

I feel like I've come across way more pro-monarchy than I actually am :lol:
As an Australian of English heritage though, it's slightly harder for me to seperate my Australia from the UK I suppose. In my subconscious at least anyway.

And elected members of our Federal parliament swear allegiance to someone who isn't Australian:

I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria (now Elizabeth the Second), Her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God!

If it wasn't for Keating in 1994, all new Australian citizens would have to do the same.

Taken in the proper spirit of discussion.

- the monarchical concept is, in principle, ridiculous. Think of hereditary doctors, hereditary painters, hereditary generals, and you're driving at the point.
- unlike some others in the republican movement, I have no issue whatsoever with this country's British heritage. My issue is with the institution and more to the point, what it implies about human nature. To be brief;
* the cult of celebrity and fawning re. the Windsors seems quite a bit like the master/servant relationship. Degrading, absence of self respect, consciously elevating people no better than yourself (in Charles case quite a bit worse than the average person) - familiar to anyone who has studied the psychology of slavery and racial prejudice
*it is inherently elitist - reaffirms existing social order
*Charles is a cretin
*it is undemocratic and a holdover from the feudal era and before.

Would agree with this.

Same. Also agree with what JP has said 100%.

Obviously QF and others have a far deeper understanding of the constitution which I've enjoyed reading but if you want a common sense answer they say ask a 10 year old. (Or take "the pub test".)

If I asked a 10 year old (or went down the pub) would it make sense for someone who is the head of our country to be born overseas and be a citizen of another country the answer would be an unequivocal no.

It really is that simple.

Our own country deserves our own head of state.

Yep, good post. Personally I do think it's important to have an Australian as head of state, but the monarchy itself is the bigger problem, which you've summed up well.

For many many years I was all for the status quo until I actually saw what was proposed at the 99 referendum which was basically the status quo with the queen cut out. Our system of government works I believe and I respect the institutions the British have given us. But keeping the Governor General as is and simply removing any link to the Queen is more reflective of our status as a sovereign nation. It's not a radical revolution but a small reform that makes sense.

Then again I work as a miner that swears by the southern cross to stand truly by each other.

Microsoft Word's "find and replace" function could sort out any laws that needed changing in 5 minutes flat that's how minimal the required changes are.

Most of the more difficult legal and constitution changes were already done in 1986.

For those that defend the status quo, 2 points:

1) The "stable" system we have is all dependant on the whims of the G-G, and indirectly the british monarch. Elizabeth II won't be there forever and Charles is known for his far more "activist" approach.

2) Demonstration of the issues of the current system are clear from the recent revelations regarding the 1975 dismissal of the Whitlam govt, and the level of knowledge that the British monarch had of Kerr's manouvering.

We have a weird blend of a written constitution and a monarch/G-G with unwritten, uncodified 'reserve' powers.

It is not written as to where and when the G-G can sack the PM. The PM can also sack the G-G.

We have a stable system IN SPITE of our constitutional arrangements, not because of them.

We need a G-G (or whatever new name they get) voted in by a 2 /3rds vote of a joint sitting of parliament to ensure cross-party support.

We need clearly enunciated reserve powers outlining the circumstances in which a G-G can sack a PM and bring on an election.

The fact that some people think we are incapable of doing this without our system falling apart show a remarkable lack of confidence in our capabilities as a nation.

Sort of related.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/scouts-to-ditch-pledge-to-god-queen-and-australia-to-become-more-inclusive/story-fni0cx12-1227618143746

No. This is exceedingly misleading.

The Queen (or King) has no meaningful Royal Prerogative in Australia. As I've explained in a post above. When you say 'indirectly', I suppose you are suggesting that the Queen could, theoretically, tell the G-G not to approve a bill or to sack the PM. I've linked the Constitution above, also. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision which enables the Queen/King to do this.

Then G-G is nominally the Queen's representative in Australia, but it's utterly meaningless.

The constitution explicitly draws the distinction between the entity and powers of the Queen/King and the G-G, respectively.

If/when Prince Charles gets to the throne, he won't be able to do jackshit. Leaving aside the point that convention dictates that the King/Queen does not intervene, there's no constitutional framework for the King/Queen to intervene.

As I've said before. A old man living in Broadmeadows, originally from Sudan and having attained Australian citizenship yesterday, has more political power in Australia than the Queen.

Decades ago, Malcolm Fraser (one of the best PMs ever and, incidentally, a republican) tried to get Prince Charles appointed G-G. I can see how this would rile most Australians and how it might be regarded as utterly inappropriate. But the status quo is entirely different.

As for this idea that the system is at the mercy of the G-G. I'm sorry but that's nonsense. It's called 'checks and balances of government'. This is one of the greatest aspects of our political system and would have had the likes of Polybius, Rousseau, Montesquieu and other applauding loudly. The G-G is there to check and balance the power of the government. We cannot have an all powerful government.

Thankfully we also have a strong, independent judiciary who check this power as well (think of the High Court's rejection of the Gillard Government's Malaysia Solution). We also have many courageous and principled ordinary citizens (I'm thinking of the doctors and nurses of the Royal Children's Hospital who refused to release their patients into detention centres on Manus Island).

It's not about the whims of the G-G. The G-G's role is clearly articulated and the G-G, him or herself, can hardly become some kind of despot. He/she cannot introduce bills in parliament, he/she cannot introduce proposals which fall under the category of the executive functions of government.

It's one thing for us to become a republic, if we become one and don't follow the minimalist proposal then we've fucked up big time.

It's all about checks and balances, my friend. And it's perfect.



Emotive nonsense. Kerr, it seems, informed Buckingham Palace of what he was about to do as, you know, the Queen's representative in Australia. Convention demands that (or would do, it was an unprecedented event). The Queen didn't say a thing as both convention and the constitution demand.

The people who paint this as a monarchist conspiracy are smoking something funny. It was procedurally correct and illustrates the strength of the system. The sad thing was that it got that far.



Some things need to be explicitly articulated but not everything. A sufficient amount is made crystal clear. You can't account for every possible scenario and a constitution would look stupid if it tried. A good degree of flexibility is required. I think the UK's constitutional documents are too uncodified (lacking a codified constitution) and too open to interpretation. But their system is infinitely more preferable to a number of other systems (such as that of the United States). Ours is better than all and has the correct balance of codified, explicitly articulated procedure and flexibility.

It's good that the G-G can dissolve parliament and the PM can sack the G-G. Checks and balances, my friend.[/quote]



Untrue. It's neither true that the constitution was horrifically designed (as you seem to be implying) nor that it was designed to be this brilliant. By fluke, we've wound up with the most stable, balanced political system of any in history. The fact that it's a fluke makes it interesting. First and foremost, I like the stability and accountability that define it. Secondly, I like the intrigue of it having evolved so wonderfully.



This is silly. The G-G's role here is, give or take, the role of the Queen with respect to the British Parliament and HM Government. Convention demands that, unless the government of the day is abusing their power (like in 1975), the G-G is entirely a figurehead position.

Too much change destabilises the constitution for one thing. For another thing, the idea is flawed generally.

If you have the entire parliament vote on who should be G-G, you dilute the intelligence of the appointment.

Too chaotic.

In this era of entirely Australian G-Gs, they've mostly been along the lines of former High Court judges and big noises in the Army. Precisely the type of people wanted in the role. Utterly no need to change that.



No we do not. If it's too explicitly stated, it can hamstring the G-G if they ever do need to take such measures.

At the end of the day, the G-G cannot become leader of the country nor can he introduce any bill in Parliament. That's a sufficient check and balance. All he can do is call elections. That's always going to lead to a democratic outcome.

Utterly no point in taking such extreme measures as empowering/limiting them explicitly any further in the constitution.

Edited by quickflick: 23/11/2015 02:14:57 AM