Australia Day - Shifting the Date

[Roylion]

Yep, were totally free from Britain. Its just that the queen of England appoints the highest position in Australia's government.

The Queen of Australia does that.

The Crown of Australia is equal to, independent of, and legally distinct, from the Crown of the United Kingdom. Nothing the Crown of the United Kingdom agrees to in that country, has any effect in Australia. And vice-versa.

As I said if the UK became a republic tomorrow, Queen Elizabeth II would still be monarch of Australia, until either:
- her death,
- her abdication, or
- until the Australian people chose to end the Australian monarchy.

That is legally enshrined in the 1931 Statute of Westminster and later the Australia Acts 1986 which severed the last legal ties between the British Crown and Australia.

 

[Roylion]

A truly independent nation doesn't make its citizens swear allegiance to a foreign monarch and his/her heirs to take a seat in the nation's parliament.

See above. Citizens swear allegiance to the Queen of Australia.

 

[Roylion]

True we are an independent country. But a republic will mean we have a head of state that reflects that independence. It is a signifiant symbolic step, so having Australia Day on that date (should it occur) seems sensible.

The republic may not necessarily occur for sometime. And every year the same discussion over the existing date and significance of Australia Day on that day occurs.

Another possibility could be the 9th October

This was the date that the Statute of Westminster came into force in Australia. (1942).

The Statute recognised:
- the formal equalness and separateness of the British Crown and the Australian Crown.
- that any alteration to laws regarding the Succession to the Throne or the monarch's Royal Style and Titles needed the assent of the Australian parliament to be valid in that country. This includes the abdication of any monarch.
- that the Parliament of the United Kingdom no longer had any legislative authority over the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia
- laws made by the Parliament of Australia which were repugnant to British laws were no longer invalid.

 

[cartwright]

The Queen of Australia does that.

The Crown of Australia is equal to, independent of, and legally distinct, from the Crown of the United Kingdom. Nothing the Crown of the United Kingdom agrees to in that country, has any effect in Australia. And vice-versa.

As I said if the UK became a republic tomorrow, Queen Elizabeth II would still be monarch of Australia, until either:
- her death,
- her abdication, or
- until the Australian people chose to end the Australian monarchy.

That is legally enshrined in the 1931 Statute of Westminster and later the Australia Acts 1986 which severed the last legal ties between the British Crown and Australia.

Ughhh! How do people still not understand this?!?

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

It seems a no-brainer....

There are many reasons why Jan 26 is an inappropriate date for a celebration of nationhood.

The most obvious is the meaning the date carries for Indigenous Australians. It is absurd asking them to annually celebrate a date that signifies the moment a foreign aggressor took their land, disrupting a way of life that had been going on for 40 millennia. Asking Indigenous Australians to celebrate Jan. 26th is basically asking them celebrate their dispossession, or be 'un-australian' if they choose not celebrate the day at all. It's a no-win situation.

The second reason Jan 26 is problematic is that it's historically inaccurate. Jan 26th is the day the first fleet arrived and with that came the birth of the colony of New South Wales. Later colonies of Vic, SA, and WA did not celebrate the day as result - it was considered a NSW thing. It was not until well into the twentieth century that it became (erroneously, IMO) nationally recognised.

Thirdly, the day has at its heart a celebration of the first fleet narrative, and by extension British Colonisation. This is a narrative for Australian Monarchists with English heritage. It has a different meaning and/or less affinity for Australians with Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Serbian, Lebanese, Greek, Italian, Vietnamese, Sudanese, etc, heritage.

Now, I don't want to deprive all those historically ignorant nuff-nuffs from having a special day where they can drape themselves in the flag, show off their southern cross tattoo, and vomit on the 389 bus back from Bondi. But surely there is a date that could be set aside to celebrate Australia day that is more relevant and inclusive.

The most obvious event is Federation, when each of the six self governing colonies united to form 'Australia'. The three main dates involved with Federation are: 5th July 1900 (when the UK passed the constitution), 9th of July 1900 (when Queen Vic. stamped it), and Jan 1st 1901 (when Australia proclaimed it). Jan 1st is out for obvious reasons, and Queen Vic. giving her assent is pretty meaningless. July 5th might have legs...

Anyway, with the cheap suit of Australia Day about to be taken out of the closet once again, I'm curious to see if anyone can find a good reason (counter the criticisms above) why the day should remain on Jan 26. I'm also curious if anyone has any bright ideas for alternative dates.

This nation wouldn't exist without British colonialism. Stop hating yourself and have a lamb chop.

 

[Whit3y]

A truly independent nation doesn't make its citizens swear allegiance to a foreign monarch and his/her heirs to take a seat in the nation's parliament.

a true independent nation doesnt blindly follow america either

 

[Admiral Byng]

The Queen of Australia is a nice and elegant solution from a legal point of view, but only from a legal point of view. There is no getting around the fact that she is also queen of about 15 other countries and we fall some considerable way down the list in terms of priority. She doesn't live here, and she does spend most of her time actively being queen of the UK. The Queen of Australia is a hat (crown?) rarely worn.

What the republic movement is about is having our own full time head of state. Someone who lives here. It becomes a republic by default because we no longer accept divine right or the hereditary principle as the basis of a system for choosing who gets to be it.

I suppose we could opt to ditch the Windsors and go with a new Australian royal family, but I think that would be less popular than a president.

 

[Pessimistic]

The Queen of Australia is a nice and elegant solution from a legal point of view, but only from a legal point of view. There is no getting around the fact that she is also queen of about 15 other countries and we fall some considerable way down the list in terms of priority. She doesn't live here, and she does spend most of her time actively being queen of the UK. The Queen of Australia is a hat (crown?) rarely worn.

What the republic movement is about is having our own full time head of state. Someone who lives here. It becomes a republic by default because we no longer accept divine right or the hereditary principle as the basis of a system for choosing who gets to be it.

I suppose we could opt to ditch the Windsors and go with a new Australian royal family, but I think that would be less popular than a president.

The House of Turnbull? Apparently we all love him

 

[Pessimistic]

This nation wouldn't exist without British colonialism. Stop hating yourself and have a lamb chop.

If eating lamb was so intrinsic, they wouldn't need a yearly advertising campaign to eat more. for some reason the "were full, damn off" brigade prefer pig as the meat of choice

 

[Gough]

The House of Turnbull? Apparently we all love him

No male direct heir, I for one welcome the House of Daddo.

 

[rodney hoo]

The Queen of Australia is a nice and elegant solution from a legal point of view, but only from a legal point of view. There is no getting around the fact that she is also queen of about 15 other countries and we fall some considerable way down the list in terms of priority. She doesn't live here, and she does spend most of her time actively being queen of the UK. The Queen of Australia is a hat (crown?) rarely worn.

What the republic movement is about is having our own full time head of state. Someone who lives here. It becomes a republic by default because we no longer accept divine right or the hereditary principle as the basis of a system for choosing who gets to be it.

I suppose we could opt to ditch the Windsors and go with a new Australian royal family, but I think that would be less popular than a president.

I'm a republican so I want n Australian head of state but would not like to see politicians only get to pick it and don't want the wealthy to buy the position through advertising etc , so maybe two thirds of parliament should agree on a few candidates and let people then vote who they want at general election time say every six years.
Can we also just have one for the whole country and get rid state governors at same time.

 

[Pessimistic]

I'm a republican so I want n Australian head of state but would not like to see politicians only get to pick it and don't want the wealthy to buy the position through advertising etc , so maybe two thirds of parliament should agree on a few candidates and let people then vote who they want at general election time say every six years.
Can we also just have one for the whole country and get rid state governors at same time.

tender out the position, the proceeds to go directly into the budget bottom line rather than lining the pockets of advertisers and spin doctors.

same with the senate votes, people should be able to sell their vote online. at least then we get some direct financial feedback.

Market politics

 

[Pessimistic]

No male direct heir, I for one welcome the House of Daddo.

I didn't think you were sexist, Gough

 

[Roylion]

The Queen of Australia is a nice and elegant solution from a legal point of view, but only from a legal point of view. There is no getting around the fact that she is also queen of about 15 other countries and we fall some considerable way down the list in terms of priority. She doesn't live here, and she does spend most of her time actively being queen of the UK. The Queen of Australia is a hat (crown?) rarely worn.

Which is why we have a Governor-General, who exercises the power of the Queen when necessary but in whom the reserve powers are not vested in.

What the republic movement is about is having our own full time head of state. Someone who lives here. It becomes a republic by default because we no longer accept divine right or the hereditary principle as the basis of a system for choosing who gets to be it.

As I've said I prefer the system of constitutional monarchy because of the checks and balances that such a system provides.

The monarch in a constitutional monarchy personifies the continuity (through the hereditary aspect) and legitimacy of the state. In that role, the monarch acts as a constitutional umpire with the hereditary aspect reinforcing and complementing their impartiality and their ability to remain above/outside politics in order to apply the reserve powers vested in her (and exercised by either herself or her appointed representative). The monarch reigns but does not rule.

As such, they owe their position to no one political party or political individual, unlike an elected head of state in a republic who often come from a pool of candidates that have to jockey to be elected/selected...and hence by doing so the office can become political.

The Governor-General resides in the country and exercises the executive reserve powers in the Queen's name. However as I said earlier the reserve powers are vested in the person of the Queen, not the Governor-General. The choice of Governor-General is recommended by the incumbent Prime Minister, but needs to be ratified by the Queen.

I suppose we could opt to ditch the Windsors and go with a new Australian royal family, but I think that would be less popular than a president.

Possibly. The Australian Parliament could change the order of succession to the Australian crown and at some point we would have a separate monarch to the UK.

In the event of a republic, there is the matter of how the President is selected and what their reserve powers should be.

 

[mighty tiges]

See above. Citizens swear allegiance to the Queen of Australia.

That's wrong. You have to swear allegiance specifically to Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs to take a seat in our parliament.

The oath of allegiance is:

I, [insert name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God!

Or the affirmation is:

I, [insert name], do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law.


A truly independent nation doesn't demand allegiance to a foreign monarch .

Our parliamentarians should be swearing an oath of allegiance to Australia and only Australia and to faithfully serve the Australian people.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Which is why we have a Governor-General, who exercises the power of the Queen when necessary but in whom the reserve powers are not vested in.



As I've said I prefer the system of constitutional monarchy because of the checks and balances that such a system provides.

The monarch in a constitutional monarchy personifies the continuity (through the hereditary aspect) and legitimacy of the state. In that role, the monarch acts as a constitutional umpire with the hereditary aspect reinforcing and complementing their impartiality and their ability to remain above/outside politics in order to apply the reserve powers vested in her (and exercised by either herself or her appointed representative). The monarch reigns but does not rule.

As such, they owe their position to no one political party or political individual, unlike an elected head of state in a republic who often come from a pool of candidates that have to jockey to be elected/selected...and hence by doing so the office can become political.

The Governor-General resides in the country and exercises the executive reserve powers in the Queen's name. However as I said earlier the reserve powers are vested in the person of the Queen, not the Governor-General. The choice of Governor-General is recommended by the incumbent Prime Minister, but needs to be ratified by the Queen.



Possibly. The Australian Parliament could change the order of succession to the Australian crown and at some point we would have a separate monarch to the UK.

In the event of a republic, there is the matter of how the President is selected and what their reserve powers should be.

The question of how to choose the head of state is non-trivial, and is what sank the republic at the last referendum.

Personally I am ok with just making the GG the new Australian Head of State (official title rather than "President") and keeping the way that office works. The office of the GG seems to have worked well enough in the past, apart from one notable exception. I'd be happy just to redraw the org chart to remove the reporting line of an acting manager reporting to an absentee manager, and make the acting manager the official manager in their own right.

I don't buy the argument that a hereditary method of selection is superior. It depends upon the person, not on how they got there. As long as the person holding the office does a proper job of it then the system works. Personally I'd like the convention to be that the HOS is never an ex-politician but a former judge or military person of high rank and professional standing.

 

[Roylion]

That's wrong. You have to swear allegiance specifically to Queen Elizabeth II and her heirs to take a seat in our parliament.

Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Australia. Under the Australian constitution, her heirs are the future monarchs of Australia.

I, [insert name], do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God!

The Queen of Australia and future monarchs of Australia according to Australian law.

All Members of Parliament swear allegiance to the Queen, as required by the constitution, when sworn-in by the Governor-General as newly elected parliamentarians. The High Court found in 2002 that allegiance to the Queen of Australia was the "fundamental criterion of membership" in the Australian parliament, from a constitutional point of view. The sovereign of Australia, along with the Senate and the House of Representatives, is one of the three components of the Australian parliament.

The Oath of Citizenship does not contain a statement of allegiance to the reigning monarch. It has a pledge of allegiance to "Australia" and its "values".

A truly independent nation wouldn't demand allegance to a foreign monarch .

Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Australia - a Crown which is legally distinct from that of the United Kingdom. The holder of the Crown of Australia personifies the state. (i.e Australia). By swearing allegiance to the Queen of Australia, you are swearing allegiance to Australia. Not to the UK or any of the other fourteen realms the Queen currently heads.

 

[Roylion]

The question of how to choose the head of state is non-trivial, and is what sank the republic at the last referendum.

Personally I am ok with just making the GG the new Australian Head of State (official title rather than "President") and keeping the way that office works. The office of the GG seems to have worked well enough in the past, apart from one notable exception.

That's because the Governor-General under the current system is a non-political office because his powers are vested in the monarch who stands outside politics, because of the hereditary aspect.

I don't buy the argument that a hereditary method of selection is superior. It depends upon the person, not on how they got there. As long as the person holding the office does a proper job of it then the system works.

As I've said, the hereditary aspect allows the monarch to remain outside of politics especially in a situation where the monarch reigns but does not rule.

The constitutional monarch or prospective monarch is usually trained from birth to fulfill the royal role and indeed often assists the existing monarch to carry out his/her royal duties, until they step into the full role themselves.

If on the odd occasion (and in most modern constitutional monarchies this tends to be rare) the monarch is a minor, not present or debilitated for whatever reason, a regent can be appointed. The Governor-General for example is virtually a regent for the Queen of Australia, because she is usually not present in the country, but normally a suitable adult candidate from the royal family is selected and powers are vested in that person for the duration of the regency. A situation where a regent could be appointed could be written into Australia's constitution.

Personally I'd like the convention to be that the HOS is never an ex-politician but a former judge or military person of high rank and professional standing.

John Kerr was a former judge wasn't he? Chief Justice of NSW? While Kerr wasn't an ex-politician Whitlam recommended Kerr as Governor-General because he thought that Kerr would be "politically reliable" as he had been a former member of the Labor Party.

And how would that person selected? By election? Or by the Prime Minister of the day?

 

[Pessimistic]

From its first use as a system of governance, the person and family enjoying being the monarch was not exempt from change, particularly in dominions.

War and inter marriage being the overt means, and some pretty dastardly operations behind the scenes.

Plenty of English monarchs have been monarch of bits of France too (their preferred hobby it seems) but it had to be constantly protected, and did not prevail for long

What I'm saying is challenge to monarchy and a particular monarch is the norm, not the exception. It s a political position, and though people say the monarchy is above politics, naturally they never support a political position which is pushing for their removal. Wasn't this exposed in the case of queen Elizabeth when a (Canadian) radio person prank called her?

Also some countries would be horrified at military figures, even ex military being enshrined as head of state in the constitution

 

[Bomberboyokay]

This nation wouldn't exist without British colonialism. Stop hating yourself and have a lamb chop.

It was here a long time before British imperialists.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

It would be a good thing if the eligibility for the head of state specifically excluded anyone who has served in any Parliament (State or Federal). You'd probably want to try to exclude the party back room boys too.

How about the Head of State must be a former Australian of the Year? That wouldn't cause many arguments!

 

[Pessimistic]

It was here a long time before British imperialists.

Reminds me when the Howard govt instituted a citizenship test, and the minister in charge was asked " Give us an example of a test question"

"oh, I dunno, something like how old is Australia ?"

Can I phone a friend? question has at least three correct answers

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

It was here a long time before British imperialists.

"Nation"

Please read a dictionary before correcting me.

 

[Pessimistic]

"Nation"

Please read a dictionary before correcting me.

Then Australia day must be Jan 1st, based on federation in 1901

 

[Gavin Excell]

There's something forced about celebrating Australia Day that doesnt ring true.

The best days that genuinely celebrate our culture and life are Melb Cup day and GF day