That's how legislation works though.
Palace Letters.
- Thread starter Gough
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,223
- 24,271
- AFL Club
- Sydney
s.51 xxvi was specifically put into the Constitution to discriminate against people of particular "coloured" or "alien races".
At one of the Constitutional Conventions in the 1890's Isaac Isaacs stated that he couldn't ask his constituents to support Federation without such a power.
The first govt of Australia, formed by the "Protectionist Party" under the leadership of Deakin, Barton and Isaacs took to the election a "White Australia Policy".
- Sep 27, 2014
- 34,227
- 28,859
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Ethnonationalism. See conservative hatred for Sixth-In-Line's Black wife.
Just because you’re not old enough to remember how shitty the British tabloid press are to their princes’ wives doesn’t mean that it’s racism.
There are a few thorns in the bed of roses that is the British royal family, and it‘s unsurprising that an American TV actress didn’t fully appreciate what she was getting herself into.
Yeah I know. The only thing that protects us is legislation that disallows it. Nothing novel about that is there?
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,223
- 24,271
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Legislation that disallows it does not cover everything. There are still holes.
That was the point of Kartinyeri.
In Kartinyeri the HC had to decide if s.51 xxvi can be used to create laws that are disadvantageous to indigenous folk or whether it was limited to create laws that are advantageous to indigenous folk.
5:1 they decided that it wasn't limited to the advantageous.
Kartinyeri was a case about the Hindmarsh Island bridge.
Christopher Buttersnip
Beware of the Drop Bears
- Oct 28, 2020
- 4,020
- 10,243
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Piss off Lilibet!
johnmenadue.com
Why is the Queen still interfering in our history and why is the National Archives allowing this? - Pearls and Irritations
Thousands of pages of the Queen’s secret letters to governors-general from Lord Casey to Sir William Deane, from 1965-2001, will soon be open to the public in the most significant release of royal documents since Sir John Kerr’s explosive ‘Palace letters’. The Archives’ decision to release the...
johnmenadue.com
- Moderator
- #183
Piss off Lilibet!
Why is the Queen still interfering in our history and why is the National Archives allowing this? - Pearls and Irritations
Thousands of pages of the Queen’s secret letters to governors-general from Lord Casey to Sir William Deane, from 1965-2001, will soon be open to the public in the most significant release of royal documents since Sir John Kerr’s explosive ‘Palace letters’. The Archives’ decision to release the...
I hope they are released. No doubt they will prove just as underwhelming as the release of the correspondence between Kerr and the Palace in 1975 was.
If Jenny Hocking, who is of course on the national committee of the Australian Republican Movement, is hoping for a 'smoking gun' somewhere, she's likely to be sadly disappointed.
Christopher Buttersnip
Beware of the Drop Bears
- Oct 28, 2020
- 4,020
- 10,243
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
Not sure the Royals intervening in our political process is "underwhelming" Moreso that it was some time ago and the many are either uninterested or ambivalent. The very same reasons we have a corrupt government.
- Moderator
- #185
The so-called palace intervention in 1975 is underwhelming compared to the 'bombshell' that Hocking claimed it to be.
The Queen is the Australian Head of State and the reserve powers are vested in her person.
Anne Twomey - Professor of constitutional law at the University of Sydney.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/...nes-new-light-on-whitlam-20200713-p55bpw.html
Anne Twomey:
"Kerr had raised his concern with Charteris that, however, he acted it would affect the standing of the monarchy in Australia. Charteris sensibly replied that Kerr was in an unenviable position, but that if Kerr did what the constitution dictated, he could not possibly do the monarchy any avoidable harm. Throughout, the Palace placed stress on behaviour that was constitutional and measured, but without ever suggesting what action Kerr should actually take. Charteris rightly took the view that Kerr, as a former judge, had a better understanding of the Australian constitution than anyone at Buckingham Palace. Kerr considered he should not advise the Queen of his proposed actions, so stopped sending letters to the Queen in the days before he acted. The letters make it categorically clear that the Queen had no advance knowledge."
Indeed Whitlam himself sought Palace interference.
Anne Twomey.
"Charteris states that Whitlam didn’t ask him to approach the Queen – just to speak to Kerr. Presumably he wanted the Palace to pressure Kerr to reinstate him as prime minister. So the Kerr-Palace letters, instead of showing that the Palace interfered in the dismissal of the Whitlam government, showed that Whitlam sought palace interference, but didn’t get it. We are an independent country after all."
Concur, but I've no doubt the media will find a few words or phrases to deliberately misinterpret from this correspondence in their endless pursuit of creating a controversial headline/narrative or two. I'd actually be pleasantly surprised if this does not occur.
I'll even preempt a few: "Queen calls Indigenous Australians 'Natives!'" or "Queen labels the Gay community as 'Others!".
Both, I suggest should satisfy those who wake up in the morning looking to be offended by anything...?
Last edited:
Christopher Buttersnip
Beware of the Drop Bears
- Oct 28, 2020
- 4,020
- 10,243
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
That's only a portion of the matters Hocking is pursuing which make it clear the office of Lilibet was not only aware of proceedings but were providing a commentary. And that they are continuing to place impediments on her getting all the information.
Latest deal is our merry monarch and widow of the past patron of the world wildlife fund has had it fixed so any climate change malarkey will not be foisted on her many residences
- Moderator
- #189
Hocking has fired her best shot in attempting to prove that the Palace acted inappropriately in 1975 and it has fallen woefully short.
A commentary on what?
Having just finished Paul Kelly and Troy Bramston's excellent "The Truth of the Palace Letters", it is clear that the Queen’s private secretary, Sir Martin Charteris didn’t know Kerr was definitely going to dismiss Whitlam and most definitely did not advise him to do so.
All Charteris knew from Kerr’s letters was that a resort to the reserve powers was an option.
And, acting on this knowledge, Charteris' letter of November 4th 1975 directly warned Kerr against a dismissal. Charteris very properly said that the reserve powers should be used only as a "last resort", said the threshold had not yet been passed to a “constitutional” crisis and finally said the reserve powers should be used only "at the very end when there is demonstrably no other course", the point being there is always another course - the warning role of a sovereign and governor-general.
Charteris also told Kerr the real "value" of the reserve powers was their non-use; that is, their role as a backup for a governor-general giving a prime minister a warning.
Kerr's final paragraph of the final letter on November 6th to the palace before the Dismissal says "an important decision one way or the other may have to be made by me this month". He was clearly keeping the Palace guessing and perhaps by the 6th hadn't even made any final decision himself.
45 years? No wonder the coalition don't respect convention
Pie eyed
Premium Platinum
- Jun 26, 2007
- 42,592
- 23,342
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Magpies
The whole affair was down to Kerr and Fraser.
Not sure what Liz would have to gain from interfering?
If Hawke was PM maybe, as he was much more amenable to losing the Monarchy than Whitlam.
Fraser took advantage of an idiot and a drunk in Kerr, simple as that.
If only we had an equally malleable GG now to kick the reeking pile of s**t Morrison out of the Lodge.
Maybe a couple of High Court judges amenable to a charge of treason and a lifetime in exhile on bare rock in the bass staright too
Not sure what Liz would have to gain from interfering?
If Hawke was PM maybe, as he was much more amenable to losing the Monarchy than Whitlam.
Fraser took advantage of an idiot and a drunk in Kerr, simple as that.
If only we had an equally malleable GG now to kick the reeking pile of s**t Morrison out of the Lodge.
Maybe a couple of High Court judges amenable to a charge of treason and a lifetime in exhile on bare rock in the bass staright too
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,390
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Bit rough on Tasmania
- Jul 13, 2015
- 36,521
- 40,719
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Or maybe Hockers is like a dog with a bone and wont accept anything other than a preconceived idea. 45 years spent believing something based on political leanings not being swayed by the actual evidence.
Is it too hard to believe that Kerr sought guidance from a few people but ultimately made up his own mind.
Pie eyed
Premium Platinum
- Jun 26, 2007
- 42,592
- 23,342
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Magpies
Apologies to Tassie residents, The Tassie Libs can get ****ed though.
I only suggested a bare rock because I thought drowning the dirty prick would be a bit OTT.
