Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

[kickazz]

Parliament also decided who was to be the monarch by determining the law of succession and the conditions a prospective monarch must meet to be the monarch.

Parliament also decides the role and powers of the monarch.

And after parliament decides on this, who finally signs off on it/ (or doesn't sign off on it if they do not like it)

 

[Roylion]

And after parliament decides on this, who finally signs off on it/ (or doesn't sign off on it if they do not like it)

The monarch does. The monarch is duty bound to give royal assent to laws that do not contravene the Constitution. For example if the Australian Parliament passed a law declaring Australia a republic without a referendum, this would not be given Royal Assent by either the Governor-General or the monarch because it would contravene the Australian Constitution which states a referendum must he held. The monarch would be duty bound to give royal assent to the monarchy's abolishment if it was constitutional.

For example the King of Australia's role and succession is regulated by the Australian Parliament. In November 2011, the Perth Agreement amended the succession laws of the Crown, which came into effect in March 2015) with the Succession to the Crown Act 2015. Between 2013 and each of the states also passed Succession to the Crown Acts, as each of the six state governments and the federal government have a separate direct relationship with the monarch.

Each were given royal assent and that would have happened even if the monarch did not agree to the law.

 

[RogersResults]

I agree in one sense that it wouldn't improve our lives much compared to many other reforms.

It would give us more respect globally which is a bit intangible but still a good thing.

Changing the flag is probably more important in that regard though. Canada a good example.

99.999999% of Americans would still have no idea or interest in who or what was Australia's 'Head of State'.

 

[skipper kelly]

99.999999% of Americans would still have no idea or interest in who or what was Australia's 'Head of State'.

Or pin point us on a map.

 

[burge13]

99.999999% of Americans would still have no idea or interest in who or what was Australia's 'Head of State'.

Neither would most Australians

 

[peetoo]

I voted yes two decades ago, but I’m highly suspicious if our billionaires and Murdoch want it. Will they pull a fast one and make us more indentured serfs than we are now?

 

[Cmarsh]

Don't know how you can have a republic while keeping the Union Jack on the flag. Incompatible.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

The monarch does. The monarch is duty bound to give royal assent to laws that do not contravene the Constitution. For example if the Australian Parliament passed a law declaring Australia a republic without a referendum, this would not be given Royal Assent by either the Governor-General or the monarch because it would contravene the Australian Constitution which states a referendum must he held. The monarch would be duty bound to give royal assent to the monarchy's abolishment if it was constitutional.

For example the King of Australia's role and succession is regulated by the Australian Parliament. In November 2011, the Perth Agreement amended the succession laws of the Crown, which came into effect in March 2015) with the Succession to the Crown Act 2015. Between 2013 and each of the states also passed Succession to the Crown Acts, as each of the six state governments and the federal government have a separate direct relationship with the monarch.

Each were given royal assent and that would have happened even if the monarch did not agree to the law.

i admire your detailed knowledge of all this but thats actually the kind of crap we need to divulge ourselves of. It medieval mumbo jumbo.

 

[Roylion]

thats actually the kind of crap we need to divulge ourselves of.

Nah.

A constitutional hereditary monarch in whom reserve powers are vested in my view can remain outside politics far more readily than an elected head of state. One of the monarch's main roles is to act as a constitutional umpire who attempts to remain above/outside politics in order to apply their reserve powers that are vested in their office (and exercised personally or by an appointed representative).

A person elected as Head of State makes the office a more political one.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Nah.

A constitutional hereditary monarch in whom reserve powers are vested in my view can remain outside politics far more readily than an elected head of state. One of the monarch's main roles is to act as a constitutional umpire who attempts to remain above/outside politics in order to apply their reserve powers that are vested in their office (and exercised personally or by an appointed representative).

A person elected as Head of State makes the office a more political one.

You make it sound as if the monarchical system is some brilliant invention. Its just something thats evolved from people who beheaded their opposition and killed their siblings. Monarchists speak of it as if its some amazing piece of design. The fact that the word "hereditary" is in your description says it all. What possible rationale is their for using a family tree to identify heads of state?

 

[Roylion]

Its just something thats evolved from people who beheaded their opposition and killed their siblings.

The current constitutional monarchial system has evolved from an earlier absolute monarchy, where on occasions that did indeed happen. It wasn't very often though.

From 1066

• William the Conqueror took the throne of England by conquest
• Stephen's usurpation in 1154 was over his female first cousin Maud.
• Henry IV's usurpation in 1399 was over his male first cousin Richard II, after being exiled by said king.
• Edward IV's usurpation in 1461 over his third cousin once removed Henry VI was part of the dynastic wars between the Houses of Lancaster and York. Edward did execute his younger brother George.
• Richard III, it could be argued, usurped the throne from his nephew Edward V in 1483, but Parliament declared Edward illegitimate, meaning he was ineligible to inherit the throne.
• Henry VII the first of the House of Tudor in 1485 took the throne of England by conquest over his distant cousin Richard III.
• Henry VIII did execute two of his wives and some members of the previous Yorkist dynasty.
• Elizabeth I had her cousin Mary Queen of Scots executed.
• William III took the throne from his uncle/father-in-law James II in 1688, (over 330 years ago) in the Glorious Revolution and essentially agreed with parliament to limit the power of the monarchy, effectively turning Britain's system of government into a constitutional monarchy.

So?

Monarchists speak of it as if its some amazing piece of design.

Fortunate that it has evolved into what exists today.

The fact that the word "hereditary" is in your description says it all. What possible rationale is their for using a family tree to identify heads of state?

I've explained this to you in detail before. Must I really repeat it again?

 

[Number37]

The monarch is duty bound to give royal assent to laws that do not contravene the Constitution

Point us to the law that says the monarch is duty bound to give royal assent.

Better still, point us to a law that is in effect that didn't receive royal assent.

Each were given royal assent and that would have happened even if the monarch did not agree to the law.

So they would have got royal assent without royal assent?
Interesting. How the F would that happen?

 

[Reg Grundy35]

The current constitutional monarchial system has evolved from an earlier absolute monarchy, where on occasions that did indeed happen. It wasn't very often though.

From 1066

• William the Conqueror took the throne of England by conquest
• Stephen's usurpation in 1154 was over his female first cousin Maud.
• Henry IV's usurpation in 1399 was over his male first cousin Richard II, after being exiled by said king.
• Edward IV's usurpation in 1461 over his third cousin once removed Henry VI was part of the dynastic wars between the Houses of Lancaster and York. Edward did execute his younger brother George.
• Richard III, it could be argued, usurped the throne from his nephew Edward V in 1483, but Parliament declared Edward illegitimate, meaning he was ineligible to inherit the throne.
• Henry VII the first of the House of Tudor in 1485 took the throne of England by conquest over his distant cousin Richard III.
• Henry VIII did execute two of his wives and some members of the previous Yorkist dynasty.
• Elizabeth I had her cousin Mary Queen of Scots executed.
• William III took the throne from his uncle/father-in-law James II in 1688, (over 330 years ago) in the Glorious Revolution and essentially agreed with parliament to limit the power of the monarchy, effectively turning Britain's system of government into a constitutional monarchy.

So?


Fortunate that it has evolved into what exists today.

I've explained this to you in detail before. Must I really repeat it again?

please don't. i found it unconvincing the first time. Read like palace talking points to be blunt.

 

[Roylion]

please don't.

Then read what I said earlier.

i found it unconvincing the first time.

Whether you find it unconvincing or not, I've already answered "what possible rationale is their for using a family tree to identify heads of state". Yet you still ask.

 

[tandino]

Give us the vote and they'll get their republic.

 

[Roylion]

Point us to the law that says the monarch is duty bound to give royal assent.

If it's constitutional then by convention the monarch would give royal assent to bills passed by both houses, and which ministers advise should receive assent. For example, the Australian monarch would give royal assent to abolish the Australian monarchy which would be via an Act of Parliament, if a referendum on the matter was passed by the Australian people in accordance with the Australian Constitution.

Better still, point us to a law that is in effect that didn't receive royal assent.

Royal Assent has only been refused twice in the history of Victoria by Governor Sir Henry Barkly, on the advice of the government of the day.

Governors-general have only ever declined to grant royal assent when drafting errors have been detected.

In Britain the last refusal of Royal Assent was in 1708.

So they would have got royal assent without royal assent?

It's called "responsible government".

In Professor of Constitutional Law Anne Twomey's words.

"The principle of responsible government ordinarily requires the head of state to act on the advice of ministers who are responsible to parliament because they hold the confidence of the lower house.

The principle of responsible government serves that of representative government by ensuring that the executive government is responsible to, and derived from, the representatives of the people in parliament. Both principles require that parliament prevails over the executive, and the executive can only function as long as it holds the support of the lower (representative) house."

 

[Reg Grundy35]

please don't. i found it unconvincing the first time. Read like palace talking points to be blunt.

If it's constitutional then by convention the monarch would give royal assent to bills passed by both houses, and which ministers advise should receive assent. For example, the Australian monarch would give royal assent to abolish the Australian monarchy which would be via an Act of Parliament, if a referendum on the matter was passed by the Australian people in accordance with the Australian Constitution.



Royal Assent has only been refused twice in the history of Victoria by Governor Sir Henry Barkly, on the advice of the government of the day.

Governors-general have only ever declined to grant royal assent when drafting errors have been detected.

In Britain the last refusal of Royal Assent was in 1708.


It's called "responsible government".

In Professor of Constitutional Law Anne Twomey's words.

"The principle of responsible government ordinarily requires the head of state to act on the advice of ministers who are responsible to parliament because they hold the confidence of the lower house.

The principle of responsible government serves that of representative government by ensuring that the executive government is responsible to, and derived from, the representatives of the people in parliament. Both principles require that parliament prevails over the executive, and the executive can only function as long as it holds the support of the lower (representative) house."

so you're perfectly happy that the person awarded all this responsibility got there simply by an accident of birth? In other words only a minute sample of the population could ever be entrusted with the role and the only qual is DNA. That works for you?

 

[Number37]

If it's constitutional then by convention the monarch would give royal assent to bills passed by both houses, and which ministers advise should receive assent. For example, the Australian monarch would give royal assent to abolish the Australian monarchy which would be via an Act of Parliament, if a referendum on the matter was passed by the Australian people in accordance with the Australian Constitution.

Point us to the law that says the monarch is duty bound.
Simple question.

 

[Number37]

Royal Assent has only been refused twice in the history of Victoria by Governor Sir Henry Barkly, on the advice of the government of the day.

Governors-general have only ever declined to grant royal assent when drafting errors have been detected.

In Britain the last refusal of Royal Assent was in 1708.

Again, what's stopping a monarch from declining to give royal assent?
The answer is nothing.

 

[Number37]

It's called "responsible government".

In Professor of Constitutional Law Anne Twomey's words.

"The principle of responsible government ordinarily requires the head of state to act on the advice of ministers who are responsible to parliament because they hold the confidence of the lower house.

The principle of responsible government serves that of representative government by ensuring that the executive government is responsible to, and derived from, the representatives of the people in parliament. Both principles require that parliament prevails over the executive, and the executive can only function as long as it holds the support of the lower (representative) house."

The monarch isn't executive government.
The monarch isn't the govt.
The monarch grants the govt the power to govern.

FYI,
The "responsible" part of responsible government refers to the government being accountable to the people, through elections.
Nobody elects the monarch, or their representative.
ie the monarch isn't responsible to the people.
The monarch does NOT get their power to be the monarch from the people.
The monarch's power comes from God.

You are allegedly a history teacher.
You should know this.
We ended up with the Magna Carta and all the things that flowed from it because the people said to the King, you can have your "divine right of a King" as long as it doesn't unduly interfere with our lives. Should you choose not to accept our deal, we will instead chop your head off.

 

[Roylion]

The monarch isn't executive government.
The monarch isn't the govt.
The monarch grants the govt the power to govern.

The people grant the government the power to govern. Under the Australian Constitution, executive power is exercised by the Governor‑General as the King's representative.

In Australia, the executive is the part of government containing the prime minister, Cabinet, ministerial offices and the governor-general.

The "responsible" part of responsible government refers to the government being accountable to the people, through elections.

I've told you what responsible government is with the definition from a constitutional law expert.

Obstructing responsible goverment by arbitrarily exercising reserve powers such as witholding royal assent is unlikely to make the monarch popular. The whole point of reserve powers exercised by the monarch and his/her representatives is that those reserve powers mostly operate in the background and operate as an incentive to appropriate behaviour by politicians in delivering a responsible government. The people have the ultimate say. A referendum can remove the monarchy fkr example and as I have said the monarch would have no choice but to give the royal assent to do so, if the decision by the people was made in accordance with the Constitution..

It is for this reason that a monarch would not obstruct responsible goverment by arbitrarily exercising the reserve powers and will therefore act mostly by convention. Refusing royal assent has only happened in Australian history because of drafting mistakes and hasn't happened in Britain since 1708.

Robert Blackburn, Professor of Constitutional Law at King’s College in London suggested in his paper "Monarchy and the Personal Prerogatives" 2004 that the monarch's granting of royal assent is now limited to due process and is a certification that a bill has passed all established parliamentary procedures. The Royal Assent cannot act as a veto power.

The current system has a number of checks and balances.

Nobody elects the monarch, or their representative.

No they do not. The succession to the throne is regulated by various Acts of Parliament, which can be amended or repealed by an Act of Parliament. That last happened in 2015.

ie the monarch isn't responsible to the people.

The monarch and the institution of monarchy can be removed by the people so the monarch is responsible to the people via the parliament. Hence royal assent is not refused.

You're confusing an absolute monarchy with a constitututional monarchy. However we don’t live in feudal times now and the monarch derives its authority from the people.

The monarch does NOT get their power to be the monarch from the people.
The monarch's power comes from God.

There is no 'divine right of kings' and hasn't been since 1689. I've gone through this before.

The 'Declaration of Right' that was issued in February 1689 and the subsequent issuing of the Bill of Rights in 1689 stripped away a number of the powers of the monarch

The 'Declaration of Right' 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.

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.

Historian Tim Harris argues the most radical act of the 1688 Revolution was breaking the succession from this idea that it and the person of the monarch was derived from 'God' (you know - the Divine Right of Kings") and establishing the idea of a "contract" between ruler and people (as per John Locke for example). This idea was re-inforced later by the 1701 Act of Settlement which placed further restrictions on the activities of the monarch. For example, the monarch was not allowed to leave the United Kingdom without the consent of parliament, although this was later repealed by a further Act of Parliament.

You are allegedly a history teacher.

Both on here and elsewhere. I have to correct you repeatedly with your garbled, incoherent, inconsistent, skewed versions of history.

We ended up with the Magna Carta and all the things that flowed from it because the people said to the King, you can have your "divine right of a King" as long as it doesn't unduly interfere with our lives.

I now have to teach you - yet again - what the Magna Carta actually is.

The 'people' didn't say anything to the King as you claim.

The Magna Carta ("Great Charter") was a royal charter. "The Articles of the Barons" (of which the 'Magna Carta' was the formal document) was by a group of powerful barons who could no longer stand King John's failed leadership and despotic rule. It was written to protect baronial (i.e the nobles) and church rights. The "Great Charter" promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. So it was about the lord / vassal relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people. The barons and the church prelates consisted of less than 10% of the population in 1214.

The Magna Carta put in writing that the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. It was about the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people.

In fact many of the barons and prelates mentioned in the Magna Carta were themselves relatives of the King or married to close relatives of the king. For example Henry de Bohun was married to King John's cousin herself the sister of King John's first wife. Another Geoffrey de Mandeville was himself the second husband of John's first wife.

So for you to suggest that the Magna Carta was where "the people said to the King" is completely erroneous.

The Magna Carta wasn't even the first attempt either at a charter of rights. In 1100, after his coronation, Henry I, the son of William the Conqueror, issued a decree known as the 'Charter of Liberties', in which he promised to "abolish all the evil customs by which the Kingdom of England has been unjustly oppressed," a list of customs that appear, all over again, in Magna Carta.

 

[Roylion]

so you're perfectly happy that the person awarded all this responsibility got there simply by an accident of birth? In other words only a minute sample of the population could ever be entrusted with the role and the only qual is DNA. That works for you?

I've answered this already. See my previous comments and the argument for the hereditary principle.

 

[Roylion]

Again, what's stopping a monarch from declining to give royal assent?
The answer is nothing.

Robert Blackburn, Professor of Constitutional Law at King’s College in London suggested in his Monarchy and the Personal Prerogatives" 2004 that the monarch's granting of royal assent is now limited to due process and is a certification that a bill has passed all established parliamentary procedures.

A discretionary power of royal veto was described by Walter Bagehot in 1867 as "a fiction of the past" and by the Prime Minister Herbert Asquith in 1910 as "literally as dead as Queen Anne".

 

[Number37]

Robert Blackburn, Professor of Constitutional Law at King’s College in London suggested in his Monarchy and the Personal Prerogatives" 2004 that the monarch's granting of royal assent is now limited to due process and is a certification that a bill has passed all established parliamentary procedures.

1/
That is all theory.
The fact still remains, it has never been tested in real life.

2/
There is no constitutional power to force the monarch to assent to laws.
The only way for a govt to challenge a monarch if they chose to not assent to a law would be via a constitutional provision.
That is because ALL the power of a govt comes from the constitution. Any power that a govt tries to use that isn't in the constitution is unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

3/
Conventions don't mean shit and have no force of law.

A discretionary power of royal veto was described by Walter Bagehot in 1867 as "a fiction of the past" and by the Prime Minister Herbert Asquith in 1910 as "literally as dead as Queen Anne".

4/
What a load of complete trollop.
They still send a copy of proposed legislation to the GG for royal assent.
It is not a 'fiction of the past'.
It still f'ing happens.

 

[Number37]

The people grant the government the power to govern. Under the Australian Constitution, executive power is exercised by the Governor‑General as the King's representative.

No they don't.
The govt serves at the pleasure of the monarch.
The power of the govt comes from the Constitution, not the people.