Society/Culture Monarchy vs Republic for Australia, and what is your main reasoning?

Present Not Past

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Posts
6,091
Likes
3,985
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Chicago Cubs
I want someone who can, in extreme circumstances, sack the PM, or sack the parliament and call fresh elections. The PM should never be a law unto themselves, and should know they are not. Without that person in the GG (or President, or Queen or Galactic First Citizen-Emperor or whatever we call it) with the power to look over their shoulder they might start acting out of line.
We have elections every three years. In 2007 the Prime Minister was effectively sacked and his government sent to the back benches. Isn't that enough of a safety measure? Compulsory voting is a very effective democratic tool.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 3, 2009
Posts
18,404
Likes
13,968
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
I would rather not go for such drastic changes like abolishing the Senate or abolishing an office that functions like the current GG. Start with minimal change first and see hoe that goes for a while. Later generations can start abolishing things later if they prove themselves to be unnecessary.
 

Present Not Past

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Posts
6,091
Likes
3,985
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Chicago Cubs
While in reality there is no constitutional system where there is a complete separation of powers, the desire is, as far as possible, that separation. The doctrine of the separation of powers divides the institutions of government into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. The legislature makes the laws; the executive puts the laws into operation; and the judiciary interprets the laws. The Prime Minister of Australia is part of the the legislature and therefore as far as possible does not employ executive powers.

Under section 2 of the Constitution, the provision of executive power in Australian government is in the form of the monarchy. The Governor-General acts as the Queen's representative and exercises certain royal prerogative powers and functions. These are vested in the person of the monarch, not the Governor-Geenral, which provides further checks and balances. The Governor-General can refer legislation to the Queen, if he/she so desires, but is not compelled to do so..

The actual appointment to the office of Governor-General is made by the monarch on the Prime Minister's recommendation. After receiving his or her commission, the Governor-General takes an Oath of Allegiance to the Australian monarch, as well as an Oath of Office undertaking to serve Australia's monarch "according to law, in the office of Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia", and issues a proclamation assuming office.

The Governor-General is advised by the Federal Executive Council (all current and former Commonwealth Ministers and Assistant Ministers). Under this Chapter, the Governor-General is the commander in chief, and may appoint and dismiss the members of the Executive Council, ministers of state, and all officers of the executive government. These powers, along with the powers to dissolve (or refuse to dissolve) parliament (Section 5, Section 57), are termed "reserve powers" and their use is dictated by convention.
I do not have a good feeling about Charles or William Windsor having an understanding of the exercise of executive power in Australia. They will undoubtedly be advised by employees of the British Public Service. I'd rather have executive powers undertaken by Australians.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
12,965
Likes
8,450
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #357
Educate me. What monarch (as opposed to a emperor/empress) has ruled over more than one sovereign state?
King James VI of Scotland (King James I of England)
King Charles XIII of Sweden (King Charles II of Norway)
King Canute I, King of England, King of Denmark and King of Norway
King Henry VI of England (King Henry II of France)
King Charles IV of France (King Charles I of Navarre)
King Louis I of Hungary (King Louis I of Poland)
Emperor Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire (King Charles I of Spain)
King Coloman of Hungary (King Colomon of Croatia)

The President of France is a co-prince of Andorra with the Bishop of Urgell.

Luxembourg was in a personal monarchial union with the Netherlands from 1815 to 1890.

There are plenty of others.
 

Blue1980

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Posts
8,680
Likes
7,874
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
I’d like the current prime minister to be president in a future setup (not literally Scott Morrison), same system just remove the Governor General.

If you made a Governor General as president wouldn’t they just be basically a figurehead who doesn’t really do anything?
 

RegHickeyStand

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Posts
13,821
Likes
12,786
Location
Belgrave
AFL Club
Geelong
King James VI of Scotland (King James I of England)
King Charles XIII of Sweden (King Charles II of Norway)
King Canute I, King of England, King of Denmark and King of Norway
King Henry VI of England (King Henry II of France)
King Charles IV of France (King Charles I of Navarre)
King Louis I of Hungary (King Louis I of Poland)
Emperor Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire (King Charles I of Spain)
King Coloman of Hungary (King Colomon of Croatia)

The President of France is a co-prince of Andorra with the Bishop of Urgell.

Luxembourg was in a personal monarchial union with the Netherlands from 1815 to 1890.

There are plenty of others.
Only had time to look at two. James VI and Canute.

At the time Scotland and England were tied together to make it work. Could not go to war with each other, could not got to war with other countries except by agreement etc. Thats not very independently sovereign. They had seperate parliaments, sure. But it was the start of the United Kingdom. Which we are not part of.

Canute invaded England.

In our case, it is a matter of convenience and everyone (both sides) ignores the reality. You can only be the King of a Kingdom. And we aren't in the United Kingdom. If you are a King and you take over another country and rule that, you aren't a King any more, or at least you are an Emperor as well.

This is how I see it
 
Last edited:

Father Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Posts
17,415
Likes
9,696
Location
between hope and reality
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur FC
Only had time to look at two. James VI and Canute.

At the time Scotland and England were tied together to make it work. Could not go to war with each other, could not got to war with other countries except by agreement etc. Thats not very independently sovereign. They had seperate parliaments, sure. But it was the start of the United Kingdom. Which we are not part of.

Canute invaded England.
Are you suggesting that the only way a personal union of two proper sovereign nations could be properly separate is if the sovereign was prepared to go to war against him or herself? Of course there is going to be a level of unity present due to the fact that their respective heads of state are the same person, that doesn't mean that they are not both individual sovereign nations.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RegHickeyStand

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Posts
13,821
Likes
12,786
Location
Belgrave
AFL Club
Geelong
Are you suggesting that the only way a personal union of two proper sovereign nations could be properly separate is if the sovereign was prepared to go to war against him or herself? Of course there is going to be a level of unity present due to the fact that their respective heads of state are the same person, that doesn't mean that they are not both individual sovereign nations.
Well for starters, they can't be properly separate in a sovereign sense if they share the same King. Re-read your own post. The whole thing doesn't make sense to me. Like a fiction.
 

Father Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Posts
17,415
Likes
9,696
Location
between hope and reality
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur FC
Well for starters, they can't be properly separate in a sovereign sense if they share the same King. Re-read your own post. The whole thing doesn't make sense to me. Like a fiction.
Monarchs change, and sometimes they change differently for the two countries. This has sometimes happened when one country has different hereditary laws to the other and thus on the death of the monarch they end up with different ones. Hanover and the UK shared a monarch, for example, up until Queen Victoria when they split because Hanoverian law didn't allow for a female to inherit the crown.

In essence, the reasons for the unity can be very thin and easily disposed of, unlike a properly united country. I mean, look how much trouble the UK is having trying to split from the EU, and that's just one country trying to get out of collection of other countries. Think about how hard it is for Scotland to leave the UK. Personal unions are flimsy in comparison.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Posts
12,965
Likes
8,450
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Moderator #364
Only had time to look at two. James VI and Canute.
At the time Scotland and England were tied together to make it work. Could not go to war with each other, could not got to war with other countries except by agreement etc. Thats not very independently sovereign. They had seperate parliaments, sure. But it was the start of the United Kingdom. Which we are not part of. [/QUOTE]

They were separate sovereign countries with their own parliaments, customs and laws.

Canute invaded England.
Canute was elected king in England by the people of the Danelaw in 1016 and his elder brother Harald was King of Denmark until his death in 1018, when Canute succeded him. Following the death of King Edmund Ironsides in southern England the Witan chose Canute in preference to re-calling Edmund's father Ethelred the Unready.

Canute appointed his brother-in-law Ulf Thorgilsson as regent of Denmark in his extended absence.

In our case, it is a matter of convenience and everyone (both sides) ignores the reality. You can only be the King of a Kingdom. And we aren't in the United Kingdom. If you are a King and you take over another country and rule that, you aren't a King any more, or at least you are an Emperor as well.
James VI was King of England and King of Scotland. The English and Scottish Parliaments made it very clear to James that they were to be regarded as seperate sovereigh states and that James represented a personal union of the Crowns only.

Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom and the Queen of Australia.
 

telsor

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
29,735
Likes
25,845
Location
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
What was ultimate law of both countries and/or separately? If not the King, then the whole thing is ceremonial.

That is how I look at our setup. Especially since the 80's after the Whitlam sacking.
Whitlam was 70s (75 to be precise) and no matter how much angst it causes, and debate over how some of the details were handled, it's actually a good example of why a separate position is required.

Royal/GG/President/whatever might be nominally ceremonial in their powers, but the important bit is their 'reserve powers'...ie, their ability to step in during a crisis.

To use 75 as an example, the 2 houses of parliament were at a deadlock, and supply bills couldn't be passed. The apparatus of government was largely failing due to it's inability to pay for itself, but those in charge were insisting they could sort it out while those in power in the senate were adamant they couldn't.

Sooner or later, somebody has to step in and break the impasse...Which is where the need for a 'head of state' comes in.
 

RegHickeyStand

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Posts
13,821
Likes
12,786
Location
Belgrave
AFL Club
Geelong
Whitlam was 70s (75 to be precise) and no matter how much angst it causes, and debate over how some of the details were handled, it's actually a good example of why a separate position is required.

Royal/GG/President/whatever might be nominally ceremonial in their powers, but the important bit is their 'reserve powers'...ie, their ability to step in during a crisis.

To use 75 as an example, the 2 houses of parliament were at a deadlock, and supply bills couldn't be passed. The apparatus of government was largely failing due to it's inability to pay for itself, but those in charge were insisting they could sort it out while those in power in the senate were adamant they couldn't.

Sooner or later, somebody has to step in and break the impasse...Which is where the need for a 'head of state' comes in.
There was a deadlock WITH a head of state in America recently. What happens is the unpopular actor usually blinks first (in that case, Trump) and things continue.

I was also thinking the Australia Act, which was in the 80's and was in part a response to the Whitlam sacking.

But as well as reserve powers, the issue of foreign interference from the US is something too. I remember about that, Kerr and the CIA. Just googled it then. Very interesting:

The Americans and British worked together. In 1975, Whitlam discovered that Britain’s MI6 was operating against his government. “The Brits were actually decoding secret messages coming into my foreign affairs office,” he said later. One of his ministers, Clyde Cameron, told me, “We knew MI6 was bugging cabinet meetings for the Americans.” In the 1980s, senior CIA officers revealed that the “Whitlam problem” had been discussed “with urgency” by the CIA’s director, William Colby, and the head of MI6, Sir Maurice Oldfield. A deputy director of the CIA said: “Kerr did what he was told to do.”
On 10 November 1975, Whitlam was shown a top-secret telex message sourced to Theodore Shackley, the notorious head of the CIA’s East Asia division, who had helped run the coup against Salvador Allende in Chile two years earlier.
Shackley’s message was read to Whitlam. It said that the prime minister of Australia was a security risk in his own country. The day before, Kerr had visited the headquarters of the Defence Signals Directorate, Australia’s NSA, where he was briefed on the “security crisis”.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...itlam-1975-coup-ended-australian-independence
 
Top Bottom