Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[The Punter]

Note that the 'Royal Style and Titles Act 1973' still has his mother as 'Queen of Australia'. It hasn't been amended to indicate that Charlie might have the title of 'King of Australia'.
www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00044/latest/text
Oz may be a de facto republic already!

There's no "or her heirs" provision in this or other legislation that allows for the entirely predictable event of the reigning monarch passing on?

 

[schneebly111]

Pauline Hanson

Mother of the republic

Right wingers loved the position of Governor General when the Libs were filling it with Army Generals and Archbishops. But an accomplished woman who’s done a lot of good in fields that don’t rely on public tax dollars or tax breaks gets a gong and suddenly it’s “wokeness”……

I for one at glad Albo hasn’t gone for another general, after all that’s been uncovered about the Australian military in the last few years (and I don’t just mean the war crimes, also the bullying, sexual harassment, culture of bastardry) it’s about time we stopped worshipping this institution known as the military. And acknowledge that just because you’re a former army general you’re some type of glorious hero who should be put up on a pedestal.

At the end of the day an Army general is no more than the head of a public service department in a funny uniform. We do not live in a military junta.

 

[The Punter]

Just for the record, since they stopped appointing actual Britons to the role:

Casey: politics/military
Hasluck: politics
Kerr: law
Cowen: law/academia
Stephen: law
Hayden: politics
Deane: law
Hollingsworth: religion (and a massive mistake)
Jeffrey: military
Bryce: law/governance (she has the CV most like Mostyn's, except Bryce had already been Governor of Queensland)
Cosgrove: military
Hurley: military

So the military thing in the "appointing Australians" period is a reasonably recent development. Casey is the only one with a distinguished military record (like many of his generation) however he was primarily appointed because of his political accomplishments. I don't have a problem with them moving away for this appointment, although I would think the law would have been the logical place to go.

 

[peetoo]

There's no "or her heirs" provision in this or other legislation that allows for the entirely predictable event of the reigning monarch passing on?

Shh pauline might hear you

 

[peetoo]

Its not about being a royal bum licker

Explain a single tangible improvement this offers as ive offered up some risks

I dont care yet somehow i want this to lose just to s**t nuffies off. After all this time and prompting you offer nothing. "Because i want it" lol. Good luck getting it through

So idiots on such as sky news see how stupid it is to call a republican a traitor disloyal or unaustralisn

 

[The Punter]

Shh pauline might hear you

As long as I can't hear her

 

[peetoo]

Assuming their king has signed off on this thenSTFU. The system they fought to preserve in action

Charlie probably shares many of the new GGs views anyway

Fossil Murdoch denounced his Australian citizenship. But his arse licking lackeys claim to know the national psyche
?

 

[JoondalupJ]

No!

 

[Gethelred]

No!

This is your best ever post.

 

[JoondalupJ]

This is your best ever post.

I love your comment, hahahahahahaha well said, but??? Was it too long?

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Your beloved King has ticked her appointment off. Surely God had a word in his ear and said "She's OK?"

 

[Roylion]

Your beloved King has ticked her appointment off. Surely God had a word in his ear and said "She's OK?"

What has "God" got to do with this?

 

[peetoo]

What has "God" got to do with this?

Legal jargon. Don’t rest till every last reference to god is moved out of statutes etc

 

[barreness]

What has "God" got to do with this?

Divine right of kings? The justification of the monarchy

 

[Roylion]

Divine right of kings? The justification of the monarchy

The modern constitutional monarchy gains its fundamental authority via various Acts of Parliament and not via the doctrine of the 'Divine Right of Kings'. The concept of the 'Divine Right of Kings' as the origin of monarchial authority does not currently exist and hasn't existed since at least the 17th century.

Tim Harris, who is a social historian of politics who specialises in Later Stuart Britain and is the author of several works dealing with this era, argues that the continued existance of the monarchy has been since 1689, a "social contract" between ruler and people that serves the needs and wants of the people and not some deference to a 'Divine Right of Kings' doctrine.

 

[Gough]

That social contract always appears ever so slightly slightly one sided to me, one party gets wealth and prestige beyond imagination while the other party keeps giving them more money.

 

[Father Jack]

The modern constitutional monarchy gains its fundamental authority via various Acts of Parliament and not via the doctrine of the 'Divine Right of Kings'. The concept of the 'Divine Right of Kings' as the origin of monarchial authority does not currently exist and hasn't existed since at least the 17th century.

Tim Harris, who is a social historian of politics who specialises in Later Stuart Britain and is the author of several works dealing with this era, argues that the continued existance of the monarchy has been since 1689, a "social contract" between ruler and people that serves the needs and wants of the people and not some deference to a 'Divine Right of Kings' doctrine.

Well that's ironic seeings as the events of 1689 were largely driven by religion. Plus the 'divine right of kings' had been a somewhat flexible arrangement since 1399 anyway.

Either way, the more you examine the concept of the Monarchy the less sense it makes, maybe it works for Britain as a historical relic, but for us it is just ridiculous.

I also don't think the needs and wants of the people have ever been in it either.

 

[Roylion]

That social contract always appears ever so slightly slightly one sided to me, one party gets wealth and prestige beyond imagination while the other party keeps giving them more money.

The monarchy has lost both wealth and political power since the 17th century. In terms of political power, I've outlined the 1689 arrangement elsewhere.

According to Bloom Billionaires Index in 2015 the monarch was worth £275 million, which is 3% of the wealth of the richest Briton, Gerald Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminster, who in September 2015 was worth £9.4 billion. In 2015 the monarch was the 302nd richest person in the United Kingdom.

By 2023 the Duke of Westminster had fallen to 11th with assets worth £9.9 billion. In 2023 the UK had 171 billionaires. King Charles III was not amongst them with the relatively low ranking of 263 on the 2023 British Rich List with a fortune of £600 million. Charles' wealth is about 1.7% of the wealth of the richest Briton Gopi Hinduja.

The assets of the British Crown (which are not privately owned by Charles but rather by the nation) are valued at £28 billion, which places them below the top tier of corporate financiers. There are extensive rules and regulations as to how they can and cannot use that wealth (the amount that is entirely at the monarch’s discretion is about half a billion). In 2020 the Crown Estate made £475 million in profits that year, and the royal family got 25 percent of those profits (or £86.3 million). The rest of that 75 percent wnet to the British treasury

The monarch of course used to have far more money and originally funded the activities of the British government through the 'Public Purse'. However as the role of the government increased, the Public Purse could not cope with the extra expense.

In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the Crown Estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return, the King would receive a fixed annual payment called the Civil List (which after 2012 was known as the 'Sovereign Grant')

 

[Roylion]

Well that's ironic seeings as the events of 1689 were largely driven by religion. Plus the 'divine right of kings' had been a somewhat flexible arrangement since 1399 anyway.

It was flexible before then. As a doctrine it didn't reach its culmination until the reign of James I. The Glorious Revolution was also a conflict of ideology especially after James II suspended Parliament in 1685 and sought to rule by decree.

Either way, the more you examine the concept of the Monarchy the less sense it makes,

That's not how I see it. I've already outlined why I prefer the system of consitutional monarchy to that of a republic.

I also don't think the needs and wants of the people have ever been in it either.

In Britain since 1994, having a monarchy has consistently been regarded as "very" or "quite" important by a majority. In 1994, two-thirds (66%) expressed that view and, in most years since, the result has often (albeit not always) been much the same. To that extent, the foundations of public consent for the monarchy have appeared to be remarkably solid and stable.

 

[Father Jack]

It was flexible before then. As a doctrine it didn't reach its culmination until the reign of James I. The Glorious Revolution was also a conflict of ideology especially after James II suspended Parliament in 1685 and sought to rule by decree.


That's not how I see it. I've already outlined why I prefer the system of consitutional monarchy to that of a republic.


In Britain since 1994, having a monarchy has consistently been regarded as "very" or "quite" important by a majority. In 1994, two-thirds (66%) expressed that view and, in most years since, the result has often (albeit not always) been much the same. To that extent, the foundations of public consent for the monarchy have appeared to be remarkably solid and stable.

And yet the monarchy has never been put to a vote of the British public, which makes all the support purely theoretical. Same for us, if the monarchy is so good for us let's have a vote, or failing that pick a random Australian baby and raise them to be the monarch. If that sounds stupid it's because it is, even though it's the system we have now, except with a foreign baby being raised to be our monarch.

But I guess it's a warm and comfortable feeling for some, not taking responsibility for our own government and letting someone else do it.

 

[peetoo]

The monarchy has lost both wealth and political power since the 17th century. In terms of political power, I've outlined the 1689 arrangement elsewhere.

According to Bloom Billionaires Index in 2015 the monarch was worth £275 million, which is 3% of the wealth of the richest Briton, Gerald Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminster, who in September 2015 was worth £9.4 billion. In 2015 the monarch was the 302nd richest person in the United Kingdom.

By 2023 the Duke of Westminster had fallen to 11th with assets worth £9.9 billion. In 2023 the UK had 171 billionaires. King Charles III was not amongst them with the relatively low ranking of 263 on the 2023 British Rich List with a fortune of £600 million. Charles' wealth is about 1.7% of the wealth of the richest Briton Gopi Hinduja.

The assets of the British Crown (which are not privately owned by Charles but rather by the nation) are valued at £28 billion, which places them below the top tier of corporate financiers. There are extensive rules and regulations as to how they can and cannot use that wealth (the amount that is entirely at the monarch’s discretion is about half a billion). In 2020 the Crown Estate made £475 million in profits that year, and the royal family got 25 percent of those profits (or £86.3 million). The rest of that 75 percent wnet to the British treasury

The monarch of course used to have far more money and originally funded the activities of the British government through the 'Public Purse'. However as the role of the government increased, the Public Purse could not cope with the extra expense.

In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the Crown Estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return, the King would receive a fixed annual payment called the Civil List (which after 2012 was known as the 'Sovereign Grant')

Even medieval times the barons had more wealth and military power than the monarch
He/she had to keep them sweet

 

[Roylion]

And yet the monarchy has never been put to a vote of the British public, which makes all the support purely theoretical.

The monarchy basically exists by Acts of Parliament and has been so since 1689. For example The Bill of Rights 1689 is an Act of the English Parliament, specifically the "Convention Parliament' which consisted of 513 elected Members of Parliament.

The 'Declaration of Right' which is now part of the Bill of Rights had thirteen clauses limiting the powers of the monarch.

Some of the more important ones are as follows:

• The power of suspending and executing laws rests in the hands of Parliament.
• The Crown does not have the legal authority to dispense or execute laws.
• The imposition of any taxes by the Crown without the permission of Parliament is illegal.
• A standing army at peacetime without the consent of Parliament is illegal.
• Members of Parliament have freedom of speech and their proceedings should not be questioned in any place outside of Parliament.
• Parliament should be held frequently to uphold the laws.

This was essentially the end of absolute monarchy with the most important the vesting of control of the military in Parliament, not the monarch. This meant the monarch could not impose his or her will on the people by force. The monarch could no longer suspend laws, levy taxes or make royal appointments.


The coronation oath reflected the changes. Mary II and her husband William III swore to govern according to "the statutes in Parliament agreed on" instead of by "the laws and customs ... granted by the Kings of England".

Even the Royal succession was to be decided by Parliament as the representatives of the people.


For example the Australian monarchy could be abolished by a Bill changing the Constitution that is voted in the affirmative by the Australian people.

Same for us, if the monarchy is so good for us let's have a vote,

We did. 1999.

If that sounds stupid it's because it is, even though it's the system we have now, except with a foreign baby being raised to be our monarch.

Change the Laws of Succession to the Australian Crown. Last time we did that was the Succession to the Crown Act 2015 which commenced on 26th March 2015.

But I guess it's a warm and comfortable feeling for some, not taking responsibility for our own government and letting someone else do it.

We do take responsibility for our government.

Australian law provides for the Crown of Australia via a number of statutes including the The Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Royal Marriage Act of 1772 as well as the Succession to the Crown Act of 2015. All are Australian law and all are independent of Great Britain. Were Great Britain to alter any of these Acts under their own law, it would have no impact on the Acts in Australian law.

 

[Cap]

We did. 1999

We had a manipulated question

A straight yes or no question should suffice.

 

[Roylion]

We had a manipulated question

No we didn't.

The question was:

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) 1984 states quite clearly that the referendum question MUST set out the title of the proposed law to alter the Constitution, and then ask whether the voter approves of the proposed law. Hence the language used in the long title of a proposed law to alter the Constitution assumes great significance in the framing of the question.

The Australian Republican Movement and the Labor Party wanted a referendum question that mentioned the Queen, mentioned the role of the public consultation role, mentioned the fact that the President will have the same powers as the Governor General, mentioned that the appointment will have to have the support of both sides of politics and so on.

They mostly got what they wanted, except the public consultation...and that was in the legislative bill that accompanied the question anyway.

The ORIGINAL title received by the Joint Parliamentary Committee (and set out on page 9 of their final report) was:

"A Bill for an Act to alter the constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with a President chosen by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament. "

Please note: John Howard did NOT write this, nor did the Joint Parliamentary Committee. it was written by the Referendum Taskforce, headed by the attorney general Daryl Williams, whose department was directly responsible for framing the original Republic Bill and hence the long title from which the referendum question MUST come.

The recommendation from the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Long title of the republic bill (which frames the referendum question was as follows (as set out on page 12 of their final report.)

A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic, with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by an Australian President."

The final long title of the Republic Bill approved by Cabinet (AND passed by both Houses of Parliament) was:

A Bill for an Act to alter the constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and the Governor General being replaced by a President, appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Note the word 'Australian"was dropped, but the "appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament as framed in the original Republic Bill long title (the referendum question) was added.

A straight yes or no question should suffice.

A straight Yes or No question was presented to the Australian people.

 

[Cap]

No we didn't.

The question was:

To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

The Referendum (Machinery Provisions) 1984 states quite clearly that the referendum question MUST set out the title of the proposed law to alter the Constitution, and then ask whether the voter approves of the proposed law. Hence the language used in the long title of a proposed law to alter the Constitution assumes great significance in the framing of the question.

The Australian Republican Movement and the Labor Party wanted a referendum question that mentioned the Queen, mentioned the role of the public consultation role, mentioned the fact that the President will have the same powers as the Governor General, mentioned that the appointment will have to have the support of both sides of politics and so on.

They mostly got what they wanted, except the public consultation...and that was in the legislative bill that accompanied the question anyway.

The ORIGINAL title received by the Joint Parliamentary Committee (and set out on page 9 of their final report) was:

"A Bill for an Act to alter the constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with a President chosen by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament. "

Please note: John Howard did NOT write this, nor did the Joint Parliamentary Committee. it was written by the Referendum Taskforce, headed by the attorney general Daryl Williams, whose department was directly responsible for framing the original Republic Bill and hence the long title from which the referendum question MUST come.

The recommendation from the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Long title of the republic bill (which frames the referendum question was as follows (as set out on page 12 of their final report.)

A Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic, with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by an Australian President."

The final long title of the Republic Bill approved by Cabinet (AND passed by both Houses of Parliament) was:

A Bill for an Act to alter the constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and the Governor General being replaced by a President, appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Note the word 'Australian"was dropped, but the "appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament as framed in the original Republic Bill long title (the referendum question) was added.




A straight Yes or No question was presented to the Australian people.

That's not a yes/no question now is it.

I don't need a long convoluted post to point that out.

Should we become a Republic - yes/no

See how easy that is ?