Society/Culture RIP Prince Philip

Remove this Banner Ad

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
May 3, 2009
20,416
16,405
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
The only way we become a Republic is via sweeping Constitutional reforms.

Seeing as it seems (terrifyingly) that people here are OK with the Legislature having Executive power as well (i.e. writing laws for themselves to execute) we might as well just abolish all references to the GG and not replace the position with anything, and just let the Legislature do what they want with impunity.

What use is a President, if they don't have any actual powers? Why even have one?
It can be done very easily. We just combine the GG and the Crown into one single office, and give it a new name. Not really sweeping reform at all.

The last two points cancel it other out. If you don't trust the Executive and the Legislature to act honestly then we need an office with reserve powers. The new Crown/GG office can hold the reserve powers. Simple.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
May 3, 2009
20,416
16,405
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
And how will this new Crown/GG be selected?
My preferred option would be something like this:

Each state gets to nominate one candidate for the position. How the states select this person is up to them, whether it is the permier and cabinet, the state parliament or a popular vote in that state. The territories miss out.

Then there is a postal preferential vote of the 6 candidates. Election advertising would be limited to each candidate having a leaflet of equal size in the postal voting pack, plus a government hosted website. No TV, radio, newspaper ads etc. Ideally the advertising would just be for the candidates to explain a bit about themselves, not seeking a mandate for any policy position.

It would need to be a long-ish term, say 8 or 10 years. Wouldn't want to do it too often.
 

eddiesmith

TheBrownDog
Jul 12, 2004
52,835
9,044
Junktion Oval
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
England
Yes. If we have a rewrite of the constitution then we would isolate the powers in the highest position and not in the imaginary one that we currently do.

There are costs that go along with that, obviously we need to elect the President/GG and we need a shift of culture where the house of representatives represents their constituents and not holding national ministerial positions - but that will lower the relevance of the politicians in that chamber and since they were the ones putting together the choice I don't find it surprising that they would propose a system that maintains both the power and relevance of the house of reps executive positions.

It would make for quite a large monster, but imagine an Australian election in which we are voting for President, local HoR member and our choice of all the ministerial positions. They would have to be clearly defined and locked in for each term, but we could have an outcome where the Red side win the Presidency and the ministerial positions are split between the blue and green sides.

A compromised government in the most full sense.

But then the question has to be asked, which you've detailed above, what would the benefits be of changing to that style over what we have now.
I’d think an American style system is more likely where we elected a PM/President, vote for HOR and Senate reps and then the PM chooses their ministers.

On the positive side, we’d actually get them able to appoint people with experience and knowledge in the area they are ministers of, rather than being hamstrung by who actually gets elected to the HOR.
 

eddiesmith

TheBrownDog
Jul 12, 2004
52,835
9,044
Junktion Oval
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
England
It’s off topic, but the more you want to change to accomodate a republic and Australian president, the harder it will be to succeed at referendum
That's why if you tell people they have to vote for every cabinet position or there is a need to go to different polls for different roles, it'll get knocked back.

I reckon a referendum that included 4 year set terms would be successful, most people would rather vote less often, not more.
 

Present Not Past

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 3, 2010
10,135
9,662
Sydney
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Chicago Cubs
An Australian man has come forward to say he is the son of Charles and Camilla, born in 1966.
If proven that would put him in line to the throne before William.
The LOLs just keep on coming with this joke of a family.


 

Gough

Moderator
Sep 29, 2006
53,928
94,861
AFL Club
Hawthorn
An Australian man has come forward to say he is the son of Charles and Camilla, born in 1966.
If proven that would put him in line to the throne before William.
The LOLs just keep on coming with this joke of a family.


The really sad thing about this is that after Scummo at his little prayer group, this isn't even the most stupid thing I've heard this week.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
15,309
12,090
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
An Australian man has come forward to say he is the son of Charles and Camilla, born in 1966.
Interesting.... considering Charles and Camilla first met in 1970. Charles was 17 in 1966 (turned 18 in November) and spent two terms (six months) at the Tinbertop campus of Geelong Grammar School from February to July 1966. Otherwise May 1962 to July 1967 he was at school in Gordonstoun, Scotland, while she was living in London.

It's just another imposter with royal claims in a long line of royal imposters. Anna Anderson, Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck, Grigory Otrepyev, Yemelyan Pugachev, Karl Wilhelm Naundorff, Allan V. Evans and so on.

He can join the other claimed illegitimate children of Charles such as Jason Jenkins (the son of Janet Jenkins) who claimed she was Charles' lover for 16 years.

Then of course there was the US - based rumor that Charles and Diana had a secret daugter Sarah, Prince Harry had a secret love child after a night of passion in 2013.

Accountant Robert Brown claims he is the secret love child of Princess Margaret (the late younger sister of the Queen) and hence is the nephew of Queen Elizabeth.

And so on we go.

If proven that would put him in line to the throne before William.
Illegitimate children do not inherit the throne.

The LOLs just keep on coming with this joke of a family.
Keep reading 'New Idea' (where this story first surfaced) and 'Woman's Day' and you'll have plenty more.
 
Last edited:

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
17,447
17,620
AFL Club
Sydney
It's for this reason that legislation in Oz increasingly contains special provisions that shield the Minister from Judicial oversight for decisions made, or removes the Minister from the rules of Natural Justice or Procedural fairness in exercising those powers. Which is the reason why the Legislative and Executive branches are supposed to be separate.

There was a series of cases in the early 00's where the govt tried to remove Natural Justice/Procedural Fairness as a means of challenging Ministerial decisions.
First the High Court said NJ/PF exists in every piece of legislation unless that legislation expressly says NJ/PF doesn't apply.
In response the Howard govt went about rewriting a whole lotta legislation (mostly in relation to the Migration Act) specifically stating that NJ/PF doesn't apply.
This was again challenged in the High Court.
The High Court, bless its soul, said even if you expressly exclude NJ/PF in the legislation it still exists in some form.
Some people may not like this, but if you were aware of the manners and ways that the Immigration Dept (on direction from the Minister) has tried to F people over, you would quickly change your mind.
 

Geelong_Sicko

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 11, 2007
18,818
16,774
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Interesting.... considering Charles and Camilla first met in 1970. Charles was 17 in 1966 (turned 18 in November) and spent two terms (six months) at the Tinbertop campus of Geelong Grammar School from February to July 1966. Otherwise May 1962 to July 1967 he was at school in Gordonstoun, Scotland, while she was living in London.

It's just another imposter with royal claims in a long line of royal imposters. Anna Anderson, Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck, Grigory Otrepyev, Yemelyan Pugachev, Karl Wilhelm Naundorff, Allan V. Evans and so on.

He can join the other claimed illegitimate children of Charles such as Jason Jenkins (the son of Janet Jenkins) who claimed she was Charles' lover for 16 years.

Then of course there was the US - based rumor that Charles and Diana had a secret daugter Sarah, Prince Harry had a secret love child after a night of passion in 2013.

Accountant Robert Brown claims he is the secret love child of Princess Margaret (the late younger sister of the Queen) and hence is the nephew of Queen Elizabeth.
Can't all these claims be proved or disproved with a D.N.A-tracing paternity or maternity test to see if the biological lines thread through?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Present Not Past

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 3, 2010
10,135
9,662
Sydney
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Chicago Cubs
Can't all these claims be proved or disproved with a D.N.A-tracing paternity or maternity test to see if the biological lines thread through?
These people have to keep pretending that their right to rule is given to them by the Divine. They can’t deal with such mundane things such as DNA testing.
Funnily enough Hitler also refused to be DNA tested in case it showed that he had Jewish heritage.
It’s all just a charade.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
15,309
12,090
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
These people have to keep pretending that their right to rule is given to them by the Divine. They can’t deal with such mundane things such as DNA testing.
Which is more rubbish. It’s well known for example that the late Prince Philip provided his DNA so that the remains of his close relatives the Romanovs could be formally identified.
 

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
May 3, 2009
20,416
16,405
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
These people have to keep pretending that their right to rule is given to them by the Divine. They can’t deal with such mundane things such as DNA testing.
Funnily enough Hitler also refused to be DNA tested in case it showed that he had Jewish heritage.
It’s all just a charade.

DNA testing was not invented till the 1980s...

The only part you got right is that the monarchy ultimately derives its authority from religion.

I find it hard to understand why people who post at length in other threads to debunk religion are so keen on defending the monarchy. For me, since I can't believe in the Christian God I can not believe in the legitimacy of the monarchy either.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
17,447
17,620
AFL Club
Sydney
DNA testing was not invented till the 1980s...

The only part you got right is that the monarchy ultimately derives its authority from religion.

I find it hard to understand why people who post at length in other threads to debunk religion are so keen on defending the monarchy. For me, since I can't believe in the Christian God I can not believe in the legitimacy of the monarchy either.
The monarchy derives its authority from God not religion.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
15,309
12,090
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
The only part you got right is that the monarchy ultimately derives its authority from religion.
A constitutional monarchy derives it's authority from the people. The monarch exercises authority in accordance with a written or unwritten constitution. Constitutional monarchies differ from absolute monarchies (in which a monarch holds absolute power) in that they are bound to exercise powers and authorities within limits prescribed by an established legal framework. The monarch acts as a non-party political head of state under the constitution. A monarch reigns but does not rule. Even descent of the Crown from one individual to the other is modified and modifiable by parliamentary action.

The political doctrine of the Divine Right Kings which existed in defense of monarchical absolutism (which I do not support) and asserted that monarchs derived their authority from God and could not therefore be held accountable for their actions by any earthly authority such as a parliament is no longer is used in defense of the monarchy.

I find it hard to understand why people who post at length in other threads to debunk religion are so keen on defending the monarchy.
They are different things.

One is a set of supernatural beliefs based on nothing more than faith. The other is a system of government.

Criticising one does not mean that criticism of the other is always implied.

For me, since I can't believe in the Christian God I can not believe in the legitimacy of the monarchy either.
The role and powers of the Sovereign is set by the Constitution of the country the constitutional monarch is head of.
 
Last edited:

Boston tiger

Norm Smith Medallist
May 10, 2010
6,380
4,595
Where it all began
AFL Club
Richmond
A constitutional monarchy derives it's authority from the people. The monarch exercises authority in accordance with a written or unwritten constitution. Constitutional monarchies differ from absolute monarchies (in which a monarch holds absolute power) in that they are bound to exercise powers and authorities within limits prescribed by an established legal framework. The monarch acts as a non-party political head of state under the constitution. A monarch reigns but does not rule. Even descent of the Crown from one individual to the other is modified and modifiable by parliamentary action.

The political doctrine of the Divine Right Kings which existed in defense of monarchical absolutism (which I do not support) and asserted that monarchs derived their authority from God and could not therefore be held accountable for their actions by any earthly authority such as a parliament is no longer is used in defense of the monarchy.



They are different things.

One is a set of supernatural beliefs based on nothing more than faith. The other is a system of government.

Criticising one does not mean that criticism of the other is always implied.



The role and powers of the Sovereign is set by the Constitution of the country the constitutional monarch is head of.
Yet she or he can only rule if she is a confirmed member of the Church of England.
 

ferball

Premium Platinum
Jul 24, 2015
23,554
44,682
AFL Club
North Melbourne
These people have to keep pretending that their right to rule is given to them by the Divine. They can’t deal with such mundane things such as DNA testing.
Funnily enough Hitler also refused to be DNA tested in case it showed that he had Jewish heritage.
It’s all just a charade.
Hitler refused a seat on the maiden flight of the Concorde for similar reasons.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
17,447
17,620
AFL Club
Sydney
The role and powers of the Sovereign is set by the Constitution of the country the constitutional monarch is head of.
We've been through this before bro.
The Constitution required ROYAL ASSENT in order for it to become law. ie The monarch comes before the Constitution. ie The Constitution gets its force in law from the monarch, like every other piece of legislation.
ONLY to the extent that the monarch follows CONVENTION, not law, does the Constitution govern what the monarch can and can't do.

I asked you this before and you dismissed it on the basis that it has never happened.
What can anyone do if the monarch says, yeah nah I'm not giving royal assent?

The short answer is bugger all.
You can't go to the High Court and say "this legislation meets all the criteria under the Constitution but the monarch won't give royal assent"...sorry, you can go to the High Court, but the HC will simply tell you that it cannot give advisory judgments. All Courts under the Constitution can only provide judgments by reference to actual legislation. There's been a few cases that set this precedent.
Do you really want a govt to write legislation, then get the HC to give it the all clear before it actually passes in parliament?
FYI, No you don't. There's many reasons you don't want this, but primarily for the sake of the Separation of Powers.
You can't pass legislation in Parliament to force the monarch to pass legislation, coz it would need the monarch to give Royal Assent.
The Executive has some scope via Executive Power, but that power is limited, BY THE CONSTITUTION and does not include any power to overrule the monarch. (Usually the biggest block on Executive Power is that all money bills have to originate in the House of Reps. So the govt might exercise Executive Power in some dodgy way but ultimately they will need $$$$ to pay for it, and they can only get $$$ by passing a money bill in the House of Reps.)
You don't want the Executive to hold power that overrules the monarch for very good reason.
Courts can only exercise judicial power...lots of precedent.
Parliament can only exercise legislative power...lots of precedent.

The monarch very clearly sits atop the pyramid of power, everything happens at her pleasure.

FYI, there is some precedent for the monarch refusing to give <royal> assent.
Happened in Germany where the President refused to give <royal> assent.
Massive shitshow ensued, but was dealt with because the Germans had already made allowances, to some degree, for the possibility of it happening.
No such allowances exist if the same issue was to raise itself here.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
15,309
12,090
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
We've been through this before bro.
The Constitution required ROYAL ASSENT in order for it to become law. ie The monarch comes before the Constitution. ie The Constitution gets its force in law from the monarch, like every other piece of legislation.
ONLY to the extent that the monarch follows CONVENTION, not law, does the Constitution govern what the monarch can and can't do.
Once again monarch and her representatives are bound by the Constitution and would almost have no reason to wthhold assent to laws passed by the legislature, unless the Bills were deemed unconstitutional. Under modern constitutional conventions, the monarch (in Australia the Givernor-Gebneral exercises her powers) generally acts on, and in accordance with, the advice of his or her ministers. Only in a dire political emergency or on advice of government would assent be withheld.

Before assenting to a Bill passed by both Hosues of Parliament, the Governor-General formally receives written advice from the Attorney-General as to whether there are any amendments that the Governor-General should recommend, and as to whether the Governor-General should, in the Attorney-General’s opinion, reserve the bill for the Queen’s pleasure. This advice is prepared by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.

For example a controversial bill passed against the will of the government (say if they had a parliamenary minority), that government could advise the monarch or governor-general that the bill be refused royal assent. However if it has been passed by both House of Parliament and was not in violation of the Constitution, there would be no reason for the monarch to refuse assent. Ministers might advise the Queen to refuse assent where a private member’s bill had passed both Houses, perhaps on a free vote but which ministers opposed.

The monarch could also disregard the government’s advice on a bill it disagreed with because the government is no longer responsible (in other words they cannot provide a responsible governmentO, due to its defeat on what must be regarded as an important legislative measure. The monarch is therefore not obliged to accept the advice of ministers who have ceased to be responsible.

A new government that has the confidence of the House (in other words can provide responsible government) and objects to a bill passed… by a defeated predecessor… then its advice to refuse assent to a bill is accepted.

If a serious error is discovered in the bill then refusal of assent may also properly be advised and exercised.

In a majority government scenario, the monarch would rarely if ever refuse royal assent. In a minority government scenario, the role of the momarch becomes more important.

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.

I asked you this before and you dismissed it on the basis that it has never happened.
What can anyone do if the monarch says, yeah nah I'm not giving royal assent?
The Bill would not pass. And another Bill would have to be formulated.

Section 59 Disallowance by the Queen
The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor‑General’s assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor‑General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.

and:

Section 60 Signification of Queen’s pleasure on Bills reserved
A proposed law reserved for the Queen’s pleasure shall not have any force unless and until within two years from the day on which it was presented to the Governor‑General for the Queen’s assent the Governor‑General makes known, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, that it has received the Queen’s assent.

Section 59 has never been used and Section 60 has been used ten times. However, both sections effectively ceased to operate in the 1930’s when the UK Parliament introduced the Statute of Westminster.

You can't go to the High Court and say "this legislation meets all the criteria under the Constitution but the monarch won't give royal assent"...sorry, you can go to the High Court, but the HC will simply tell you that it cannot give advisory judgments. All Courts under the Constitution can only provide judgments by reference to actual legislation. There's been a few cases that set this precedent.
The functions of the High Court are to interpret and apply the law of Australia; to decide cases of special federal significance including challenges to the constitutional validity of laws and to hear appeals, by special leave, from Federal, State and Territory courts.

The Queen and by extension the Governor-General are another safeguard of the Constitution and can disallow a law before it is challenged by an interest group that would end up in the High Court.

Do you really want a govt to write legislation, then get the HC to give it the all clear before it actually passes in parliament?
FYI, No you don't. There's many reasons you don't want this, but primarily for the sake of the Separation of Powers.
You can't pass legislation in Parliament to force the monarch to pass legislation, coz it would need the monarch to give Royal Assent.
I'll give you an example.

The Republic Bill of 1999 approved by Cabinet (AND passed by both Houses of Parliament) was

"A Bill for an Act to alter the constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and the Governor General being replaced by a President, appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament."

The referendum question was

"To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament."

Had the referendum put to the Australian people been approved by the Australian people (it wasn't), the Governor-General would have likely invoked Section 60 of the existing Constitution and reserved the Bill for Queen's pleasure. As the Bill has met all legal requirements for its creation, it passing through both hosues of parliament and also has the approval of the Australian people, the Queen would have no choice but to give her Royal Assent to a Bill that would have removed her from the office of 'Queen of Australia'.


The monarch very clearly sits atop the pyramid of power, everything happens at her pleasure.

FYI, there is some precedent for the monarch refusing to give <royal> assent.
Happened in Germany where the President refused to give <royal> assent.
Massive shitshow ensued, but was dealt with because the Germans had already made allowances, to some degree, for the possibility of it happening.
No such allowances exist if the same issue was to raise itself here.
Obstructing responsible goverment by arbitrarily exercising a power of veto is unlikely to make the monarch popular. As I said, 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.
 
Last edited:

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
17,447
17,620
AFL Club
Sydney
Once again monarch and her representatives are bound by the Constitution and would almost have no reason to wthhold assent to laws passed by the legislature, unless the Bills were deemed unconstitutional. Under modern constitutional conventions, the monarch (in Australia the Givernor-Gebneral exercises her powers) generally acts on, and in accordance with, the advice of his or her ministers. Only in a dire political emergency or on advice of government would assent be withheld.

Before assenting to a Bill passed by both Hosues of Parliament, the Governor-General formally receives written advice from the Attorney-General as to whether there are any amendments that the Governor-General should recommend, and as to whether the Governor-General should, in the Attorney-General’s opinion, reserve the bill for the Queen’s pleasure. This advice is prepared by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.

For example a controversial bill passed against the will of the government (say if they had a parliamenary minority), that government could advise the monarch or governor-general that the bill be refused royal assent. However if it has been passed by both House of Parliament and was not in violation of the Constitution, there would be no reason for the monarch to refuse assent. Ministers might advise the Queen to refuse assent where a private member’s bill had passed both Houses, perhaps on a free vote but which ministers opposed.

The monarch could also disregard the government’s advice on a bill it disagreed with because the government is no longer responsible (in other words they cannot provide a responsible governmentO, due to its defeat on what must be regarded as an important legislative measure. The monarch is therefore not obliged to accept the advice of ministers who have ceased to be responsible.

A new government that has the confidence of the House (in other words can provide responsible government) and objects to a bill passed… by a defeated predecessor… then its advice to refuse assent to a bill is accepted.

If a serious error is discovered in the bill then refusal of assent may also properly be advised and exercised.

In a majority government scenario, the monarch would rarely if ever refuse royal assent. In a minority government scenario, the role of the momarch becomes more important.

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.



The Bill would not pass. And another Bill would have to be formulated.

Section 59 Disallowance by the Queen
The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor‑General’s assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor‑General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.

and:

Section 60 Signification of Queen’s pleasure on Bills reserved
A proposed law reserved for the Queen’s pleasure shall not have any force unless and until within two years from the day on which it was presented to the Governor‑General for the Queen’s assent the Governor‑General makes known, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, that it has received the Queen’s assent.

Section 59 has never been used and Section 60 has been used ten times. However, both sections effectively ceased to operate in the 1930’s when the UK Parliament introduced the Statute of Westminster.



The functions of the High Court are to interpret and apply the law of Australia; to decide cases of special federal significance including challenges to the constitutional validity of laws and to hear appeals, by special leave, from Federal, State and Territory courts.

The Queen and by extension the Governor-General are another safeguard of the Constitution and can disallow a law before it is challenged by an interest group that would end up in the High Court.



I'll give you an example.

The Republic Bill of 1999 approved by Cabinet (AND passed by both Houses of Parliament) was

"A Bill for an Act to alter the constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and the Governor General being replaced by a President, appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament."

The referendum question was

"To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament."

Had the referendum put to the Australian people been approved by the Australian people (it wasn't), the Governor-General would have likely invoked Section 60 of the existing Constitution and reserved the Bill for Queen's pleasure. As the Bill has met all legal requirements for its creation, it passing through both hosues of parliament and also has the approval of the Australian people, the Queen would have no choice but to give her Royal Assent to a Bill that would have removed her from the office of 'Queen of Australia'.




Obstructing responsible goverment by arbitrarily exercising a power of veto is unlikely to make the monarch popular. As I said, 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.
Again with no reason to withold...and again with the strawman scenario that does not address the question...what if she witholds assent?
It is CONVENTION, not law, for her to follow advice.


Reserve Powers, like Executive Powers, are not very well defined. Very broad, could be anything, nobody knows until someone tries to push the boundaries.

To give an example: there is this Executive Power called the Nationhood Power. Gives the Executive kinda carte blanche to do things in the nations interest.
Go and read the Williams case and it will give you an idea of what the HC had to say about this power and what nationhood/national interest means.

Point is...it is not cut and dried, as you continually try to make out. Never been tested.
Totes irrelevant if witholding assent would be popular or not, quite obviously she wouldn't be doing it for the popularity.
The question is, can anyone stop her?

You seem to recognise that she does have the power, but refuse to accept that she would or could wield it in a way that would be unpopular.
History tells you....monarchs throughout the ages have been known for their arbitrary use of power.

Have you heard of the Domesday Book and the Danegeld?
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
15,309
12,090
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Again with no reason to withold...and again with the strawman scenario that does not address the question...what if she witholds assent?
I've said it twice. If the Queen withholds assent, the Bill does not come into force. The Governor-General is the same.

Under a President it would be exactly the same. If the President does not sign a bill into law it does not come into force.

What point are you trying to make?

It is CONVENTION, not law, for her to follow advice.
That is correct. As are a number of ways of governing.

For example, the Australian Constitution, in its original form, makes no mention of the position of Prime Minister, the Cabinet, or political parties. There is no rule that says the Prime Minister must be a member of the House of Representatives. A literal reading of the Constitution suggests that the Governor-General runs the government.

Section 5 of the Constitution says: “The Governor-General may appoint such times for holding the sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit, and may also from time to time, by Proclamation or otherwise, prorogue the Parliament, and may in like manner dissolve the House of Representatives.

By convention the government of the day decides when Parliament will sit. These are political decisions made by the Prime Minister and the most senior members of the government and its advisers.

Section 64 states: “The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish. Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

By convention, the Prime Minister is the person who leads the party with a majority in the House of Representatives. The ministers are chosen by the Prime Minister who advises the Governor General of the names and portfolios to be allocated to them.

Reserve Powers, like Executive Powers, are not very well defined. Very broad, could be anything, nobody knows until someone tries to push the boundaries.
Why would the monarch push the boundaries? For what purpose? See below why he/she would not.

The question is, can anyone stop her?
As I've said, obstructing responsible goverment by arbitrarily exercising a power of veto is unlikely to make the monarch popular. As I said, 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.

You seem to recognise that she does have the power, but refuse to accept that she would or could wield it in a way that would be unpopular.
As I've said twice, obstructing responsible goverment by arbitrarily exercising a power of veto 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. It is for this reason that a monarch would not obstruct responsible goverment by arbitrarily exercising a power of veto. The current system has a number of checks and balances

History tells you....monarchs throughout the ages have been known for their arbitrary use of power.
Please. Monarchs through the ages for the most part have been absolute monarchs. Might makes right. That is not the case now.

Have you heard of the Domesday Book and the Danegeld?
What would you like to know about them?

William the Conqueror was not a constitutional monarch. Neither was Ethelred II the Unready.
 
Last edited:

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
17,447
17,620
AFL Club
Sydney
I've said it twice. If the Queen withholds assent, the Bill does not come into force. The Governor-General is the same.

Under a President it would be exactly the same. If the President does not sign a bill into law it does not come into force.

What point are you trying to make?



That is correct. As are a number of ways of governing.

For example, the Australian Constitution, in its original form, makes no mention of the position of Prime Minister, the Cabinet, or political parties. There is no rule that says the Prime Minister must be a member of the House of Representatives. A literal reading of the Constitution suggests that the Governor-General runs the government.

Section 5 of the Constitution says: “The Governor-General may appoint such times for holding the sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit, and may also from time to time, by Proclamation or otherwise, prorogue the Parliament, and may in like manner dissolve the House of Representatives.

By convention the government of the day decides when Parliament will sit. These are political decisions made by the Prime Minister and the most senior members of the government and its advisers.

Section 64 states: “The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish. Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen’s Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

By convention, the Prime Minister is the person who leads the party with a majority in the House of Representatives. The ministers are chosen by the Prime Minister who advises the Governor General of the names and portfolios to be allocated to them.



Why would the monarch push the boundaries? For what purpose? See below why he/she would not.



As I've said, obstructing responsible goverment by arbitrarily exercising a power of veto is unlikely to make the monarch popular. As I said, 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.



As I've said twice, obstructing responsible goverment by arbitrarily exercising a power of veto 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. It is for this reason that a monarch would not obstruct responsible goverment by arbitrarily exercising a power of veto. The current system has a number of checks and balances



Please. Monarchs through the ages for the most part have been absolute monarchs. Might makes right. That is not the case now.
Holy moly. Again with the strawman.
I'm not asking you why would she, or whether people will like it, or whether it interferes with responsible govt.
I am asking what happens when she does.

What would you like to know about them?

William the Conqueror was not a constitutional monarch. Neither was Ethelred II the Unready.
What was their purpose and what relevance does it have to a discussion about monarchic power?

Try to steer clear of the strawmen, if you can.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad