Politics Should Australia become a Republic?

Should Australia become a Republic?

  • YES

    Votes: 95 64.6%
  • NO

    Votes: 52 35.4%

  • Total voters
    147

Remove this Banner Ad

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
16,970
14,075
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
The Queen's powers are delegated to the GG. She's HOS in name only.

But they aren't the Governor-General's powers. Those powers are vested in the person of the monarch but exercised by the Governor-General.

The Constitution provides that on the presentation of proposed laws for assent, the Governor-General declares, according to his discretion but subject to the Constitution, that he assents in the Queen’s name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves assent for the Queen’s pleasure.
 

sdfc

Club Legend
Feb 15, 2019
2,400
2,424
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Swans
But they aren't the Governor-General's powers. Those powers are vested in the person of the monarch but exercised by the Governor-General.

The Constitution provides that on the presentation of proposed laws for assent, the Governor-General declares, according to his discretion but subject to the Constitution, that he assents in the Queen’s name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves assent for the Queen’s pleasure.
Nonsense. The Queen's powers are delegated to the GG. Did John Kerr or the Queen sack Whitlam?
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
16,970
14,075
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Nonsense. The Queen's powers are delegated to the GG. Did John Kerr or the Queen sack Whitlam?

The Queen's powers are exercised by the Governor-General in her name as they are vested in the person of the monarch. When the Governor-General leaves office, the powers remain vested in the monarch and on occasion are exercised by her, as described earlier.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

sdfc

Club Legend
Feb 15, 2019
2,400
2,424
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Swans
The Queen's powers are exercised by the Governor-General in her name as they are vested in the person of the monarch. When the Governor-General leaves office, the powers remain vested in the monarch and on occasion are exercised by her, as described earlier.
Who sacked Whitlam? Kerr or Liz? Take your time.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
16,970
14,075
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Who sacked Whitlam? Kerr or Liz? Take your time.

The Governor-General exercised the Queen's powers, as laid out in the Constitution. As I clearly said.

Is this meant to prove anything?
 

BobbyMorri

Community Leader
May 4, 2009
10,151
8,689
Tasmania
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Scunny, Furth
You are both right and both wrong.

It is the Queen where the power lies. The GG is her representative. But the Queen's power has been reduced and reduced. She can not use any of that power and can only follow the advice of the GG. I dont think the Queen can actually do anything anymore.

So, in reality, the GG is the one who calls the shot. For example, it is the GG that the PM goes to call an election. It is the GG who keeps parliament in check. It was the GG who sacked Whitlam.
 

Geelong_Sicko

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 11, 2007
19,430
17,628
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
The Governor-General exercised the Queen's powers, as laid out in the Constitution. As I clearly said.

Is this meant to prove anything?

It proves that the course of Australian political sovereignty was altered, in that particular moment an at that particular time, by someone who wasn't a resident of Australia and who only came by the power she had by being born into the 'right' family.

It doesn't matter that the Whitlam Government would have been removed at the next election. At least the Australian people would have decided.

Our political sovereignty was violated by the GG of the time exercising the powers of the Monarch of the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland. I know part of her title is Queen of Australia as well but where's the personal connection to this land?

To me, this is unacceptable. IF I was Gough I would have insisted that the only power to remove me would have been the electoral power of the Australian People.

In this case the Constitution be damned!
 
Last edited:

Father Jack

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 23, 2006
21,015
17,423
between hope and reality
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur FC
It is a no for me. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. I don't care if it is not Australian, so it isn't broke.

I certainly don't want an elected President. I don't want any sort of campaigning for a role this important. I much prefer the current method. A G-G/President should be beyond party politics and politics altogether.
That's all the monarchists have got, the idea that we aren't capable of providing our own Head of State like nearly every other country in the world can. I say it very much is broken if someone like Prince Andrew was only a heartbeat away from being heir to the position
 

Osho

By God and the mauser.
Jul 9, 2021
1,678
1,514
AFL Club
GWS
It proves that the course of Australian political sovereignty was altered, in that particular moment an at that particular time, by someone who wasn't a resident of Australia and who only came by the power she had by being born into the 'right' family.

It doesn't matter that the Whitlam Government would have been removed at the next election. At least the Australian people would have decided.

Our political sovereignty was violated by the GG of the time exercising the powers of the Monarch of the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland. I know part of her title is Queen of Australia as well but where's the personal connection to this land?

To me, this is unacceptable. IF I was Gough I would have insisted that the only power to remove me would have been the electoral power of the Australian People.

In this case the Constitution be damned!
Poor old Gough, didn't see Frazer's car parked at GG's place. It was suggested at the time Gough should have not taken the letter, and carried on. Gough was a QC too. Poor chap, as green as cabbage.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
16,970
14,075
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
It proves that the course of Australian political sovereignty was altered, in that particular moment an at that particular time, by someone who wasn't a resident of Australia and who only came by the power she had by being born into the 'right' family.

And yet it was the Australian Governor-General who made that decision.
It doesn't matter that the Whitlam Government would have been removed at the next election. At least the Australian people would have decided.

They did decide.
Our political sovereignty was violated by the GG of the time exercising the powers of the Monarch of the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland. I know part of her title is Queen of Australia as well but where's the personal connection to this land?

Exercising the powers of the Queen of Australia as per the Australian Constitution.

To me, this is unacceptable. IF I was Gough I would have insisted that the only power to remove me would have been the electoral power of the Australian People.

That wasn't the case under the Australian Consititution. And remains the case. As it should. The ultimate decision still rests with the people of Australia.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
16,970
14,075
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
You are both right and both wrong.

I'm not wrong.

It is the Queen where the power lies.

That is correct. The reserve powers are vested in the Queen. As I said.

The GG is her representative. But the Queen's power has been reduced and reduced. She can not use any of that power and can only follow the advice of the GG.

Her powers remain as they always have.

The Constitution provides that on the presentation of proposed laws for assent, the Governor-General declares, according to his discretion but subject to the Constitution, that he assents in the Queen’s name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves assent for the Queen’s pleasure.

I dont think the Queen can actually do anything anymore.

So, in reality, the GG is the one who calls the shot. For example, it is the GG that the PM goes to call an election. It is the GG who keeps parliament in check. It was the GG who sacked Whitlam.

Using the Queen's powers that are vested in her.

The Constitution provides that on the presentation of proposed laws for assent, the Governor-General declares,

a) according to his discretion but subject to the Constitution, that he assents in the Queen’s name, or
b) that he withholds assent, or
c) that he reserves assent for the Queen’s pleasure.
 

Geelong_Sicko

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 11, 2007
19,430
17,628
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
They did decide

How? I mean the actual dismissal - how did the Australian people decide to remove Gough Whitlam in that particular moment? The answer is they didn't. The Governor-General John Kerr did.

The Australian people elected the ALP into power with Gough Whitlam at the helm. It would have been only right that the only way of removing him was by the will of the Australian people through the ballot box.

As an asideI never liked the idea of the ruling party knifing a sitting Prime Minister in the back, should that have been an option in the Whitlam era. The Rudd-Gillard-Rudd and Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison game of knifey-spooney tuned Australia into a bit of a laughing stock internationally. Not good.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
16,970
14,075
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
How? I mean the actual dismissal - how did the Australian people decide to remove Gough Whitlam in that particular moment? The answer is they didn't. The Governor-General John Kerr did.

And then the choice of new government went to the Australian people.
The Australian people elected the ALP into power with Gough Whitlam at the helm. It would have been only right that the only way of removing him was by the will of the Australian people through the ballot box.

If the people were dissatisfied with the decision of the governor-general, exercising the Queen's reserve powers, then they had the opportunity to reverse that decision at the ballot box. They did not.

The same scenario would also most likely happen under a republic as well. The President would have reserve powers to dismiss the government, if they violated the Constitution or could not provide responsible government.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

sdfc

Club Legend
Feb 15, 2019
2,400
2,424
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Swans
The Governor-General exercised the Queen's powers, as laid out in the Constitution. As I clearly said.

Is this meant to prove anything?
The Queen's powers have been delegated to the GG. That you haven't been able to refute my statement that the Queen is HOS in name only, which is what you objected to, suggests you should just give up.
 

sdfc

Club Legend
Feb 15, 2019
2,400
2,424
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Swans
It proves that the course of Australian political sovereignty was altered, in that particular moment an at that particular time, by someone who wasn't a resident of Australia and who only came by the power she had by being born into the 'right' family.

It doesn't matter that the Whitlam Government would have been removed at the next election. At least the Australian people would have decided.

Our political sovereignty was violated by the GG of the time exercising the powers of the Monarch of the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland. I know part of her title is Queen of Australia as well but where's the personal connection to this land?

To me, this is unacceptable. IF I was Gough I would have insisted that the only power to remove me would have been the electoral power of the Australian People.

In this case the Constitution be damned!
The Queen had nothing to do with Whitlam's sacking. Liz doesn't exercise any power. We are not governed by the UK. Queen of Australia is a title, nothing more.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
16,970
14,075
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
The Queen's powers have been delegated to the GG.

As I have said repeatedly, the reserve powers are vested in the person of the monarch and are exercised by the Governor-General. You certainly haven't been able to refute that.

Section 58 of the Constitution provides that on the presentation of proposed laws for assent, the Governor-General declares,

a) according to his discretion but subject to the Constitution, that he assents in the Queen’s name, or
b) that he withholds assent, or
c) that he reserves assent for the Queen’s pleasure.

All laid out in the Australian Constitution.

"The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament, or The Parliament of the Commonwealth."

And of course Section 59 of the Constitution states

"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."
 

sdfc

Club Legend
Feb 15, 2019
2,400
2,424
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Swans
As I have said repeatedly, the reserve powers are vested in the person of the monarch and are exercised by the Governor-General. You certainly haven't been able to refute that.

Section 58 of the Constitution provides that on the presentation of proposed laws for assent, the Governor-General declares,

a) according to his discretion but subject to the Constitution, that he assents in the Queen’s name, or
b) that he withholds assent, or
c) that he reserves assent for the Queen’s pleasure.

All laid out in the Australian Constitution.

"The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament, or The Parliament of the Commonwealth."

And of course Section 59 of the Constitution states

"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."
No, you objected to my statement that the Queen is HOS in name only and exercises no power in Australia. Seeing as you still haven't refuted it, it's time to give up. If you had anything to back up your argument you would have posted it by now.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
16,970
14,075
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
No, you objected to my statement that the Queen is HOS in name only and exercises no power in Australia.

I suggest you go back and read carefully what I said to your responses instead of making up what I supposedly said.

On May 20th I said the following.

"The Head of State wouldn't be just a "ceremonial" position. The whole point of a Head of State is that reserve powers would be vested in the office. Just like the present Head of State."

Then on May 21st I said

"Reserve powers are vested in the Queen, not the Governor-General. The Governor-General exercises these powers as the Queen’s representative."

Then on May 22nd

"But they are the Queen's powers. Not the Governor-General's."

Then in response to your comment that "The Queen's powers are delegated to the GG. She's HOS in name only." I said the following

"But they aren't the Governor-General's powers. Those powers are vested in the person of the monarch but exercised by the Governor-General.

The Constitution provides that on the presentation of proposed laws for assent, the Governor-General declares, according to his discretion but subject to the Constitution, that he assents in the Queen’s name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves assent for the Queen’s pleasure."


and so we go.

None of what I have said above is incorrect and you definitely haven't refuted any of that.


Seeing as you still haven't refuted it, it's time to give up. If you had anything to back up your argument you would have posted it by now.

I've made it quite clear what my stance is and I've said it consistently the whole time in replying to you. I've quoted the relevant parts from the Constitution as well.

Once again.

Section 58

"The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament, or The Parliament of the Commonwealth."


Section 59 states

"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."
 
Last edited:

sdfc

Club Legend
Feb 15, 2019
2,400
2,424
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Swans
I suggest you go back and read carefully what I said to your responses instead of making up what I supposedly said.

On May 20th I said the following.

"The Head of State wouldn't be just a "ceremonial" position. The whole point of a Head of State is that reserve powers would be vested in the office. Just like the present Head of State."

Then on May 21st I said

"Reserve powers are vested in the Queen, not the Governor-General. The Governor-General exercises these powers as the Queen’s representative."
My comment that the GG is largely a ceremonial position and that's the way it should be kept is because that is what largely it is. How many bills has the GG rejected over the years? The HOS should always be apolitical.

The Queen's powers are delegated to the GG. She is a nonentity when it comes to exercising political power in Australia. The one time the GG exercised real political power it had nothing to do with the Queen.

Why you people think we should have an elected HOS is beyond me. Sucked into the glitz of US politics I suppose. The current system is too boring?
Then on May 22nd

"But they are the Queen's powers. Not the Governor-General's."

Then in response to your comment that "The Queen's powers are delegated to the GG. She's HOS in name only." I said the following

"But they aren't the Governor-General's powers. Those powers are vested in the person of the monarch but exercised by the Governor-General.

The Constitution provides that on the presentation of proposed laws for assent, the Governor-General declares, according to his discretion but subject to the Constitution, that he assents in the Queen’s name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves assent for the Queen’s pleasure."


and so we go.

None of what I have said above is incorrect and you definitely haven't refuted any of that.
See above.
I've made it quite clear what my stance is and I've said it consistently the whole time in replying to you. I've quoted the relevant parts from the Constitution as well.
You've quoted the constitution but it has done nothing for your argument. See above above.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
16,970
14,075
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
My comment that the GG is largely a ceremonial position and that's the way it should be kept is because that is what largely it is.

The Governor-General exercises the Queen's reserve powers. They're reserve powers. Only to be used is exceptional circumstances. Whether they are used rarely is beside the point. They are there. They can be used under the Constitution. The powers are vested in the Queen. You do know what 'vested' means?

How many bills has the GG rejected over the years? The HOS should always be apolitical.

Of course the Head of State should be apolitical. One of the strengths of a hereditary constitutional monarchy in my view. Why would the Governor-General reject bills if they are in accordance with the Constitution? The whole point of reserve powers is that they are very rarely used.
The Queen's powers are delegated to the GG.

They are vested in the Queen and exercised by the Governor-General. The very fact that the Queen can have the final say as per Section 58 and 59 of the Constitution, (even if she chooses not to exercise them) means they are the Queen's powers.

The Constitution provides that on the presentation of proposed laws for assent, the Governor-General declares, according to his discretion but subject to the Constitution, that he assents in the Queen’s name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves assent for the Queen’s pleasure."

and

"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."

Just because the monarch does not use the power does not mean that she does not have those powers. It's laid out clearly in the Constitution. By convention the Governor-General exercises those powers, reserving only certain bills for the Queen's pleasure.

Section 61 confirms EXACTLY what I have said

"The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth."


She is a nonentity when it comes to exercising political power in Australia. The one time the GG exercised real political power it had nothing to do with the Queen.

But in that case the Governor-General was still exercising the Queen's reserve powers, which are vested in her. What's so difficult about understanding this?


Why you people think we should have an elected HOS is beyond me. Sucked into the glitz of US politics I suppose. The current system is too boring?

What? I'm not in favour of an elected by the people Head of State.
You've quoted the constitution but it has done nothing for your argument. See above above.

What I've quoted demonstrates very clearly that the Governor-General exercises the Queen's reserve powers. I've said this from the start. You're trying to suggest I've said something different, which is not the case.
 
Last edited:

Geelong_Sicko

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 11, 2007
19,430
17,628
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
And then the choice of new government went to the Australian people.

Maybe I'm an idiot but I think sitting Prime Ministers, thus elected, should see out their allotted terms, save for committing serious crime. I think Kerr's action was a political machination.
 

maroon and blue

Club Legend
Oct 5, 2004
2,974
705
melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
lions
These are my recollections of the event. Khemlani, the go between petro dollars and adequate cash funding seemed odd. The TWU had an active roll in destablelising, some say with CIA backing. After the Whitlam government dismissal the country was thrown in a new election. Labor tried to return to government but they were rejected on polling day. Then came the Fraser government. Years down the track Fraser joined the UN and became what many would call a leftist. I went to Goughs last rally at Moorabbin, home of the saints, it was sparsely attended, where was the rage? It was the end of Whitlam.
 

Roylion

Moderator
Oct 17, 2000
16,970
14,075
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fitzroy Football Club
Maybe I'm an idiot but I think sitting Prime Ministers, thus elected, should see out their allotted terms, save for committing serious crime.


Sir John Kerr sought advice from Chief Justice Chief Justice of the High Court Sir Garfield Barwick and asked for his views of a dismissal of Whitlam.

Barwick furnished Kerr with written advice containing his view that a Governor-General could and should dismiss a Prime Minister who was unable to obtain supply.
I think Kerr's action was a political machination.

How so?
 

maroon and blue

Club Legend
Oct 5, 2004
2,974
705
melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
lions
Sir John Kerr sought advice from Chief Justice Chief Justice of the High Court Sir Garfield Barwick and asked for his views of a dismissal of Whitlam.

Barwick furnished Kerr with written advice containing his view that a Governor-General could and should dismiss a Prime Minister who was unable to obtain supply.


How so?
I don't think Sir Garfield is squeaky clean in all this, but hey this is now long gone. Time to move on.
 

rye

Debutant
Apr 24, 2022
141
318
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
talking about justice's of the high court, i rather like former chief justice french's statement regarding this issue:

"It is unacceptable in contemporary Australia that the legal head of the Australian state... can never be chosen by the people or their representatives, cannot be other than a member of the Anglican Church, can never be other than British and can never be an indigenous person"