Talk:Republicanism in Australia/Archive 1

What with Australia being all over recent changes in the last couple days, I've got a question. This referendum repeatedly referred to is constantly described as being unattractive to non-committed voters and all -- why? My impression is that the queen's role is entirely ceremonial, and only barely that, so the referendum should logically have only abolished the paperwork surrounding her rule over Australia. What did who add into the question posed to Australians that made it unattractive, and is there any poll done which shows how many Australians would have been in favor of a simple and straightforward question about removing the essentially irrelevant queen? Tokerboy

Well, there really was more to it. While republicans did indeed claim that there was only a formality, it turned out that consequential changes were unavoidable (for instance, IMO the Queen's presence (reign, not rule) has a preventative effect - keeping things ceremonial and preventing them turning serious). Further, Tokerboy really is coming to all this like many of our Australian republicans, with a background that starts with the idea that republics are attractive and there has to be something to change that and make one unattractive, and also an assumption that the Queen is irrelevant. But of course the status quo is not a republic - so what uncommitted voters were asking themselves was what there was to make one attractive in the first place. Most republicans never truly appreciated that they had to justify all those places they were coming from.

Oh, and polls were done, but essentially to show positions not to explore them. Both sides did this when they could, but as the republicans had captured the media it was mostly theirs that happened. PML.

By the way, did you see the bizarre row on the Australia page about how Australia was 'already' a republic? Weird. JTD 05:38 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info (I did follow that nonsense at Talk:Australia, and was thoroughly amazed at whoever-it-was' silliness). Maybe it is my natural aversion to any sort of monarchy shining through.  Still, the exact text of the question would be interesting and useful for those of us who have that POV.  Thanks for your work on neutralizing this and John Howard (I think that was you). Tokerboy

In passing. But as you will have inferred, I have been too busy to contribute the things I had planned and have really only managed a watching brief. BTW, do you have anything that go towards an article on my maternal Great-Uncle, Leopold Kerney, the Minister to Madrid that was? PML.

The Queen's role is far more than ceremonial. Certain functions & powers reside in her and the Governor-General. They may not be currently used, but abolishing her raises the question, what do you do with those powers now? Undergo a major constitutional re-write (which is a problem for raising those questions raises what else in the constitution needs changing)? Or vest them in an elected president, in which case how do you know that an elected president, who believes s/he has a mandate, won't exercise them, just to make people take notice of his/her office? Abolishing old offices is the equivalent of cleaning out the presses; you never know what you'll find and then what to do about what you've found. That doesn't mean don't move to become a republic, it just means that becoming a republic isn't as easy as soon republicans think. One of the reasons some people didn't support a republic was they began to realise just how complicated making such a move is. Some at least had the reaction of 'maybe opening that press is just more bother than its worth. Lets close it and leave things things are.' (It is more straight-forward where all powers, functions, etc are in a single constitution and can be simply amended or repealed. But Australia has a written (quite old fashioned) constitution, plus conventions, traditions, etc. And all of those are impacted upon in creating a presidency to replace the monarch + governor-general. You have to undergo the mother of all re-writes of laws, the constitution, as well as adapting conventions. I don't think many Australian republicans realised that it isn't simply an idea of dropping the queen, creating a president and 'hey presto' a republic!!! JTD 05:51 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

'fraid not, PML.


 * Interesting, but I see the point. I'll let this marinate for a while. (I still would like to know exactly what the question was, though) Tokerboy


 * My simple answer: There is a large faction of anti-British sentiment in Australia, mostly due to the fact that most multi-generational Australian's believe they have Irish heritage primarily and there is a strong dissent in colonial history of the Irish towards the English government (see: early instance of 'da man'). Thus, it comes to reason that republicans would prefer a millionair boys club over our current constitutional model, which I might add (as anyone who has done const. law. would agree) is one of the best constitutions in the world, tried and tested.


 * Apart from the anti-British sentiment, you also have a large plebian portion of society who embrace Americanism without question, the word 'president' alone arouses this type. Further, there is also the belief amongst some of the upper middle to upper class in Australia that they can buy and popularise their way into power rather than doing the hard yards as a back bencher as a local member of parliment put forth by a major party before hand, a fast track to oligarchy.


 * The only benefit of a republic would be ubiquitous and unbridled control of Australia by politicians with no buffer zone or higher appeal than the 'president' or politician-head-of-state. Personally, the thought of that scares the hell out of me. Jachin 10:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well put. --gbambino 14:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

From the beginning of "A dodgy constitution" by Paul Robinson in the Spectator of 8.2.03: "I once heard of an Ivy League professor who had written 50 constitutions. All of them collapsed, including the one for the college boat club. If that gentleman is not now advising the Convention on the Future of Europe, someone very like him surely is." PML.

Just to be clear, "republican" shouldn't be capitalized because, unlike the US, it isn't a specific party, right? Tokerboy

Just so - unlike the Australian Republican Movement, which is of course not a party in itself because it is trying for "bipartisanship" so no matter who you vote for you get a republican. In ordinary writing I put "the Monarchy" or "the monarchy" but "a republic" to emphasise the difference between the actual and the hypothetical. And, of course, Orwellian tactics make that lot say "the republic" or even "the Republic". (N.B., this isn't precisely prejudice of mine showing thorugh - this is a view formed after seeing what was going on down the years in various places. I don't want to be shot at for being in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong ancestry again.) PML.

correct, Tokerboy. re- that Ivy League professor. I wrote 5 constitutions for college societies, a branch of a political party, etc. I'm proud to say ALL OF MINE ARE DOING FINE. ( come on, everyone, big cheer!) Granted, it is sometimes a shock to go back to the societies, hear how they are interpreting them, and find myself saying "that's not how I intended Article 14.3 to be understood!!!! What the hell do you mean - it means such and such???" Having studied de Valera's constitution for Ireland, and seeing how his one was interpreted, I had some sympathy for the guy, seeing his words interpreted in a way he never intended or imagined! As for the proposed EU constitution. It is a joke. I know people involved with it, and if its their work, that's enough to guarantee that I vote against it. Watch it go down in flames in Ireland, Britain, France, Germany, possibly Spain, probably Denmark (that's if they allow us to vote on it at all. The EU is one of the world's least democratic organisations. That's why they forced Ireland to have a second Nice referendum after we has said no the first time. It became the Who wants to be a Millionaire? referendum. Our prime minister, political elite and Brussels turning back to Ireland in the second referendum to say ' Is that your final answer? ' (If we'd said a second 'no', they'd probably have asked us a third time. ' Are you really sure?'. (Oh God, I'm turning into a Euro-sceptic in my tiredness!!!)JTD
 * I wholeheartedly encourage Euroscepticism and all forms of scepticism, especially as it relates towards political organizations. Say no as many times as it takes and, if necessary, burn down Brussels -- I certainly won't miss it (just kidding, I'm a pacifist -- evacuate the city first).  Your political elite will inevitably, invariably and incontrovertibally (if that's a word) lead you astray in Ireland, Australia, Virginia, Greenland, Lesotho, Nepal.... but this is no longer even tangentially related to Australian republicanism, so I'll stop. Tokerboy 06:34 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to try to find some form of words that puts "While opinion polls suggest a majority of Australians favour some form of republic, there is no agreement as to the form a republic should take" in context. That context is, that all these polls are commissioned, selected, interpreted and presented in accordance with a pro-republic media agenda. For instance, the Melbourne Age ran a Saulwick poll with three options (republic in Commonwealth, republic outside Commonwealth, and monarchy), then aggregated the two republic options to "show" 60% pro-republic; this was actually worse than random, so what it really meant was a monarchy preference. I'm going to try to find a form of words that doesn't mislead by suggesting that these polls are themselves NPOV. PML.

I've just read this article with some interest. It appears, to me at least, to be definately not NPOV, as some of the language used is very republican biassed. I also wonder how any debate on a country's constitution can take place when some people assert that the head of state's role is "purely ceremonial". This seems to me to show a real misunderstanding of the role of a head of state. Won't it be hard to discuss who should be head of state, and how they might be selected, if the role of that person is not fully understood? Julianp


 * Julianp, I don't know where you're coming from, so it's hard for me to respond. The first comment I'd make is that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing the merits or otherwise of Australia becoming a republic, or any other political issue.  As to your claim that some of the language in the article is republican biased, could you please be more specific?  I don't think the article is overly biased towards republicans.  In fact, the stuff about the "complexity" of Australian constitutional arrangements, which isn't qualified by attribution, reads like a sop to monarchist paranoia to me.


 * The only area I'd agree that there's some imbalance is that there isn't much about the arguments made for retaining the monarchy. Then again, the monarchists didn't advance such arguments publicly during the referendum campaign anyway.--Robert Merkel 00:43, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

The pro-monarchists include a small but worrying contingent of christian fundamentalists, who think that monarchy is God's plan for humanity (despite God's flat denial of this in the book of Samuel).

Moved from the article:
 * These monarchists have got it wrong, it's because they act like dictators, just like Saddam Hussein. A Republic is better than anything especially having self-control over affairs of National Interests not the Interests of Special Interests Groups such as the Queen, These monarchists, and etc... -- Anonymous editor.

Kings cost less than Presidents. I'd rather have neither but if the only choice is between one and the other, I'll take the cheaper option. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:54, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)

Moved from the article:
 * - This type of comment is very dictator-like, especially coming from monarchists, they should off lived during the Great American Uprising in which Americans were wanting their whole entire Independent from the United Kingdom or should I say the Queen. Independent Nations part of the Commonwealth of Nations aren't all Independent only parts of the system are Independent and others being dictator-like -- Anonymous editor


 * Say What?!? If they should have lived during that uprising they would have been more concerned about a King, and I really don't know what you are tying to say in that last part Dainamo 10:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Two issues: The Queen/19th century republican movement
Just out of curiosity, why would an article on Australian Republicanism feature a photo of QEII? Also, it seems that the article ought to discuss the 19th Century republican movement in some depth. --Herschelkrustofsky 16:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Why would this article have a picci of the Queen? Mmmmm :) Who do you think the Australian republican movement is trying to replace as Australian head of state? Or alternatively, why is it called a 'republican' movement in the first place? :) And the picci is right next to the section on 'Current constitutional structures', where it clearly belongs. Of course, it would be better if it weren't the only picci in the article. But that should be dealt with by adding more piccis elsewhere, not by removing this very appropriate one. You're right about expanding the article back in time though. jguk 17:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

The Australian constitution is contained in 'clause 9' of an act of the British imperial parliament. The article says the British parliament could not change the Australian constitution from their end anymore but I have a letter from the Australian Attorney General that confirms this is still a theoretical possibility.

This erroroneous information in the article should be removed.


 * The UK Parliament could, theoretically, make amendments to the Constitution Act, but this would have no legal effect, as the Australia Act has established that the UK Parliament does not have the power to legislate for Australia. Furthermore, I can't conceive of even a theoretical situation in which it would take such an action. Lacrimosus 10:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Didn't the Australia Act merely end the STATES technical status as colonies?


 * s1 of the Australia Act states: No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or a Territory. Lacrimosus 10:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Australian Constitution is not an act of the Australian parliament, how would the British be legislating for Australia by amending the Commonwealth of Australia Constutition Act (UK)? The legislation which brought about Australia's Constitution was passed in the name of both houses of the British parliament and Queen Victoria.


 * It would be legislating for Australia in the sense that it was proclaiming that its legislative instruments have legal force in Australia, which is not the case. The Statute of Westminister and the Australia Act were assented to by both the Australian and United Kingdom parliaments, meaning that their spheres of sovreignty, both in law and in practice, are separate. Lacrimosus 10:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Even if we Wikipedians cannot forsee the possibility of the British parliament unilaterally amending the Australian Constitution we should not wrongly say it cannot happen if it can.


 * It cannot. The British parliament can amend the Constitution Act all its wants, but its legislative intent and effect was to bring into being the Constitution of the Commonwealth, which by virtue of its creation exists independently of that Act. Under its own terms, it can only be altered by referendum within Australia. Any act by the British parliament would be judged as legally void both within the UK and within Australia. The Parliament would no more amend this act then it would go about amending repealed or antiquated laws. Lacrimosus 10:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

The introduction says: "This would sever the historical ties with the British monarchy and remove the last lingering political ties between the two countries."

I have a bit of a problem with that. A great many people share British Prime Minister Tony Blair's view that Constitutional Monarchy is 'rationally a better system' than a republic, and don't see the issue as involving in any way Anglo-Australian relations. During the lead up to the republic referendum in 1999 a number of parliamentarians spoke in public warning that if Australia became a republic then a dictator might rise to power.


 * Nobody's talking about diplomatic ties, we're talking about political - ie. governmental and administrative - ties. Views on the propriety or otherwise of constitutional monarchy do not hold a a place in a dispassionate description of what the process of becoming a republic would involve. The entry on "capitalism" should certainly not be expected to read "capitalism is a system of slavery and expolitation designed to make the greedy and rapacious prosper at the expense of the masses", simply because some people think that it is. Lacrimosus 11:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Superior Courts in Australia have issued judgements which confirm that the crown is divisible and that Australia does in fact have her own Queen. The above statement does not acknowledge Australia's 'separate realities'.


 * I don't understand why it should have to. The whole point is that republicans feel that the current "separate realities" are not to their liking. And, whatever way you want to put it, sharing a head of state is, at some level, a "political tie" between the UK and Australia. Many monarchists of course argue that this is one of its strongest points. Lacrimosus 11:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In any event, it is more than an 'historical tie' - the Queen is the ruler of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is a known fact that she talks about Australia as 'her' country, and if you look at the Australian Constitution it is.
 * Again, how is the article expected to describe the republican movement at all, unless it conceives of Australia as belonging to someone other than the Queen? Lacrimosus 11:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

--For future reference: you can sign and date comments you make by typing four tildes: ~. I also encourage you to group your comments under headings, ===like so===, for ease of reference. Lacrimosus 11:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just a question... but is the Queen actually a foreigner? As head of state for Australia, wouldn't she be an Australian citizen? - jal14

She wasn't born here, she doesn't live here, she can't vote here, she doesn't pay Australian taxes. So no. Historically, it's not at all uncommon for people to be rulers of states they're not citizens of. Come to think of it, I'm not sure if technically she's a British citizen. . . Lacrimosus 03:24, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think she is a citizen in the technical sense of the word of any country. she is above the law. Xtra 04:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't see how she satisfies the Citizenship Act. Nor do I think that too many monarchists claim that she is an Australian citizen. Who claims this? Skyring 08:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Powers of the Queen
In point of fact, the Queen has very few constitutional or prerogative powers that she is able to exercise in respect of Australia, whether personally present or not. They are:
 * (s2) The power to appoint (and in theory, dismiss) the Governor-General. Since 1931 this has been exercised on the sole advice of the Australian Prime Minister.
 * (s58) The power to assent to legislation reserved for her pleasure. Again exercised on advice, and reserved for legislation affecting her or the monarchy, a very rare occurrence.
 * (s59) The power to disallow Australian legislation. This has never been used, and as it could only be exercised on advice, it is hard to imagine a situation where an Australian Prime Minister would advise the Queen to disallow his government's legislation.
 * Whatever residual prerogative powers that have not been explicitly assigned to the Governor-General. For example, s5 gives the Governor-General alone the power to dissolve Parliament. The Queen may not exercise this power in Australia, though it is one of the ancient powers of the monarch in the UK. The powers she has left to her are matters such as the awarding of honours and the accreditation of embassies, and in recent decades she has withdrawn herself of any but token involvement in these matters. It is unlikely that she or a future monarch would reverse this involvement.

When personally present in Australia, she may exercise the statutory powers of the Governor-General (i.e. those given to him by legislation), and it is through the Royal Powers Act 1953 that she may chair meetings of the Executive Council. Opening Parliament required an alteration in the Senate Standing Orders - she had no pre-existing ability to do so, no more than any other person.

I have altered the article to reflect this. Skyring 08:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Skyring seems to ignore the very important section 61, which states that executive powers are vested in the Queen. The Royal Powers Act 1953 (RPA) does nothing to alter this, as it refers to ordinary legislation and regulation. Skyring's additonal text implies that opening parliament is a power under the RPA, although he writes here that it's something else. Furthermore a pre-existing ablity to open parliament did exist as parliamentary rules were originally taken from the UK parliament under s49. Even if a procedure to opening parliament referred specifically to the GG, it is doubtful that the intent was to exclude the Queen. When the Queen came the orders were altered. They have not been altered back. --Lawe 00:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The constitution may say that the executive power is vested in the Queen and exercisable by the Governor-General, but from this blanket assignment we must subtract those powers which are specifically given to the Governor-General, such as the power to appoint and dismiss ministers, used by Sir John Kerr in 1975. The Queen does not "own" this power in Australia, even though it remains part of the royal prerogative in the UK (and other Commonwealth Realms). The statutory powers referred to by the RPA are not the prerogative powers referenced in s61. Pete 09:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Skyring's comments about the limited application of the Queen's powers has nothing at all to do with the broader statements made in the article. Republicanism is about the removal of the Queen, so to connect some legal dots (and to do so inaccurately) when discussing the Queen's role which is fundamentally symbolic and traditional seems very inappropriate. Any number of texts written for a general audience will approach the subject of the section without reference to the RPA. --Lawe 00:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Republicanism is about popular sovereignty, which Australia already has. See Republic for more on this. We have a republican form of government and the various Australian republican groups are not seeking to change this, so in that sense they are pursuing some other objective, which in Australia's case is the removal of the monarchy from our affairs. As the Queen's only effective role in our affairs is to appoint the Governor-General, a function which I feel that we Australians can and should perform for ourselves, I support the removal of the Queen from our affairs.


 * Perhaps Lawe is (words removed as per WP:RPA)? Pete 09:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought that Australia was a constitutional monarchy and this was an article about Australian Republicanism? According to previous criticism, Australia is a republic and this article is about what we "feel" and what we "should" do. --Lawe 15:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Problem solved
I have removed a large slab of text which descibes the current system at great length. That is not the topic of this article. That should terminate these tedious Skyringian arguments about who does what to whom under the present arrangements. Adam 6 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)

Suggestion of a relative to be Head of State
I am removing the revision made at 05:19, 18 August 2005, which "Suggests" Australia could have a relative of the Queen be our Head of State. This is unsourced or anonymous speculation and certainly not a compromise position. --Lawe 15:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge from Proposed President of Australia
I am pushing for the above to occur. There seems to be general support for it. --Lawe 01:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

New Articles
I would like people to think about candidates for detailed articles on aspects of republicanism. An obvious candidate is the bi-partisan appointment model (Australia). As for other models and concepts a structure is preferred, by which I suggest we follow what is found in the 2004 Senate Inquiry Report, Road to a Republic. It may be too simplistic to just have a direct-election model. The six models process is under review by the ARM but that could also provide some basis for articles. What I am looking for in particular is to follow the history of these ideas and add to them as develop. --Lawe 01:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge Complete
The merge is complete. See the new section "Proposals for Change" --Lawe 12:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

State Republics
I have read recently a book(let) published by the Constitutional Centre of WA pointing out that our state constitution makes the Queen our head of state, and that the commonwealth becoming a republic would have no effect on our state (pun intended) of Constitutional Monarchy(it does, however, question whether the Queen would wish to remain associated with us). It also talks about the reverse situation, of WA becoming a republic with Australia remaining a Monarchy. I'm sure that there are similar situations in other states with constitutions (A quick scan of austlii shows that all the states have A "Constitution Act", although many of them since federation), and I think this deserves some mention here. I am unable to find the book at the moment though, so I don't want to add anything. Bjmurph 08:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The simple answer to this is that the Australian people are sovereign within Australia, and if they vote at a referendum to make Australia a republic, that will be binding on the states under ss106 and 109 of the Constitution. The wishes of the Queen are irrelevant. As Queen of Australia she acts on the advice of her Australian ministers. If the Australian people voted to make Australia a republic, her Australian ministers would advise her to sign an instrument renouncing all her rights over all parts of Australia, and she would do so. Adam 11:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I read 106 as saying the exact opposite to what you just said - "[nothing changes about state constitutions] ... until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State." It means that the constitutions stay exactly as they are (the alteration bit means that the australian constitution doesn't freeze the state constitiutions), which says to me that unless the WA (for example) constitution is altered to remove the Queen as the head of state of WA(and remove references to "Her Majesty", and "the Crown" she remains the head of state. And section 73 of The Constitution Act of 1889 says that this requires the passing of a bill in both houses of the state and then passed by a majority of western australian electors(for an issue as major as this). As you said, the wishes of the queen are irrelevant (Although what happens to us if our head of state disowns us could be an interesting thing). Section 109 doesn't apply here, because section 106 explicitly says it doesn't. Another interesting thing, now you've forced me to dive into the constitution, is Section 110, which seems custom made for the other situation (Becoming a republic on our own), although section 7 of the australia acts could be tricky.

All of which is completley irrelevant to what I was saying, because a legal argument sounds to me like original research. I was simply proposing that someone add information from the paper "Implications of a Republic for Western Australia" by Greg Craven (yes I just found it), and extrapolate to the rest of the states. Bjmurph 16:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, on rereading the article, it probably doesn't belong here, but I haven't seen the article that it would belong in, something like An Australian Republic (not a good name), if it exists. Bjmurph 16:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a known issue. As I understand it, states retain their links to the monarchy until altered at the state level. Links could be changed in the federal constitution, provided it was done deliberately. This was the understanding at the 1998 convention and the very relevant Gladstone Convention (checkout ). Note the Queen is advised by state premiers. I dont believe Aust Act s7 stops state independently breaking its links with the crown - worse case: the Act is amended OR the links exist but become dead. State issues have not featured heavily in the republican debate sofar, so its perhaps premature to include it in wikipedia. --Lawe 01:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

In reply: The key phrase of s106 is "subject to this Constitution," which means that the Constitutions of the states cannot contain anything which contradicts the Constitution of the Commonwealth. Furthermore, the state Constitutions are only Acts of their legislatures, and therefore are bound by s109, which renders them invalid to the extent that they contradict the law of the Commonwealth. So Western Australian monarchists can huff and puff all they like: if Australia votes to become a republic, that will be binding on the states. Adam 02:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The 106 is about explicit inconsistances in the constitutional provisions. You are also assuming the content of a future constitution. If such future constitution said "No state governor can be appointed by the Queen", then, sure, 106 would apply. However most proposals, including the 1999 referendum proposal, don't contain any words which would prevent the Queen from appointing a state governor. --Lawe 13:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)