UK The Queen

[Gethelred]

This thread is actively moderated, let's behave like adults, shall we?

For conversation on an Australian Republic:

Who wants a Republic?

I am just curious in the figure as it has been over 10 years since we had a referendum for it. Personally, I think we should become a Republic.

www.bigfooty.com

 

[footyfan1978]

Wonder how long Charles will last as the King before William takes over.

Probably a dozen years or so.
Actually given how long his parents lasted he probably will live into his 90's too.
Make that 20 years.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Probably a dozen years or so.
Actually given how long his parents lasted he probably will live into his 90's too.
Make that 20 years.

Well Liz didn’t last as long as her mother.

 

[Roylion]

The opinion poll reference was in direct response to the claim that the dismissal of a democratically elected government by a non elected official was justified because of the electoral result that followed. A ludicrous suggestion for a democracy.

I didn’t make that claim. I'm not here to argue for or against whether the Dismissal was justified or not, other than Kerr had the Constitutional authority to exercise the Reserve powers which do exist.

Whether he was right to do is of course a matter for debate. That's another issue.

We have a system which allows the Federal elected government to choose the date of the election within a maximum 3 year timeframe - Whitlam faced 3 elections in 3 years due to the actions of a belligerent opposition and, finally, the interference of the Queen's representative in what was essentially a party political political dispute.

The 'interference' of the Queen’s representative, whose role was to exercise the Queen's reserve powers if he saw fit.

At least one High Court Justice and a Constitutional lawyer have stated that Kerr did have that right. Certainly in her 2018 book "The Veiled Sceptre" constitutional lawyer Anne Twomey stated that the reserve powers are to be used extremely rarely. "The fact that a power has not been exercised for a long time is merely evidence of its intended rare use - not that it has fallen into desuetude."

Kerr knew that they existed and if necessary could be used. Whitlam, according to Kelly and Bramston, on the other hand was of the view that the reserve powers had fallen into disuse and could not be used. Twomey also said that the belief the reserve powers existed was one shared by the Palace. That belief from the Palace is not encouraging Kerr to necessarily use them.

Twomey argued that that the real influence of the reserve powers lies in their existence, not their use. The Palace, according to Twomey gave Kerr a clear warning not to use the reserve powers, unless there was absolutely no other course.

The exact line used by the Palace to Kerr in regard to the use of the reserve powers was "It is only at the very end when there is demonstrately no other course that they should be used."

As for the blocking of supply, how did that come about given that in mid-1975, the Government and Opposition were evenly balanced in the Senate and the 2 independents were supportive of the government?

In 1972 Labor won a majority in the House of Representatives of 67 seats to the Coalition's 58 seats, but faced a hostile Senate, half of which had been elected in 1967 and half of which had been elected in 1970. The double dissolution of 1975 saw Labor win 67 seats and the Coalition win 61 in the House of Representatives. In the Senate Labor and the Coalition had 29 seats each and 2 independents.

That has little to do with the reserve powers or the Australian Constitution.

As history tells us, on June 30, Queensland Labor Senator Bert Milliner died suddenly and everything changed. The blatantly corrupt National Party Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen replaced that Labor Senator with a nobody called Albert Patrick Field.
Although Field was a member of the Labor Party, Field was openly hostile toward Whitlam and his Government and his appointment would give the Opposition an outright majority in the Senate - forcing yet another election.

Field was forced to take leave of absence after his right to sit in the Senate was challenged by the Labor Party in the High Court. But even without Field in the Senate, the Government could only secure a maximum of 29 votes, while the Opposition was guaranteed 30.

History also tells us that independent Senator Michael Townley joined the Liberal Party in February 1975. This gave the Coalition 30 out of 60 Senators, with 29 Labor and 1 independent Steele Hall.

Section 15 of the Australian Constitution requires the parliament of the relevant state to choose a replacement when a casual vacancy of the Senate occurs. This is done in a joint sitting of the upper and lower houses of the state government (except for Queensland which only has a lower house in the state parliament.) If the state parliament is not in session, then the governor of the state (acting on the advice of the state's executive council) may appoint the replacement, but such an appointment lapses if it is not confirmed by a joint sitting within 14 days after the beginning of the next session of the state parliament.

When Milliner died the Labor Party nominated only one person, Mal Colston to replace Milliner. Bjelke-Peterson asked for a list of three names from which he would choose the replacement possibly relying on a 1962 precedent, when his predecessor, Frank Nicklin had also required such a list of names. Bjelke-Petersen nominated Field in the Parliament of Queensland as the new senator and that was approved by the Queensland Parliament as per the Australian Consititution 50 votes to 26. The Labor Party challenged his appointment in the High Court and Field had to go on leave from the Senate after 1 October 1975, unable to exercise a vote. The opposition parties did not provide a “pair” to maintain the relative positions of the government and the opposition. This gave the opposition an effective majority in the Senate of 30-29 in the Senate, allowing it to pass motions to defer consideration of supply.

Incidentally the same process happened in NSW when Lionel Murphy resigned to take up an appointment to the High Court and was replaced by independent Cleaver Bunton (elder brother of Fitzroy champion Haydn Bunton) by the NSW premier Tom Lewis.

This is where your 'blocking of supply' came from - by blatant flouting of democratic protocols and conventions that underpin our democracy. A LNP Premier using the death of a democratically elected Labor Senator to replace him with his own conservative nominee.

Prior to the 1977 alteration of the Constitution, it was not a constitutional requirement that a replacement be from the same political party. As I said above, it had also been the practice for the relevant party to provide a list of suitable names to the state premier (as happened with Bjelke Peterson), and for the state parliament to make or confirm or the choice.

And in stepped sir John Kerr. Ignoring the advice of his PM that the Senate impasse was about to be broken by the usual political processes, a fact supported by subsequent evidence and interviews, Kerr deliberately misled the Prime Minister while the Opposition Leader was waiting in the wings for his coup to be complete.

That is disputable. Whitlam didn’t help himself.

Whitlam on 16 October, told Kerr that if the crisis continued, "It could be a question of whether I get to the Queen first for your recall, or whether you get in first with my dismissal". Kerr saw that as a threat, given that Whitlam had already revoked Queensland governor’s Colin Hannah’s commission as “Administrator of the Commonwealth” after Hannah had publicly criticised the government. Malcolm Fraser in an interview with Tony Bramston in 2013 judged that Kerr was certainly concerned about being dismissed. Whitlam's comment had certainly heightened that concern. It certainly clear that Kerr didnt trust Whitlam to not have the Queen recall him, which she would have no option to follow the advice of her Prime Minister. (i.e Whitlam).

On 30 October, Kerr proposed a possible compromise. If the Opposition were to allow supply to pass, Whitlam would not advise a half-Senate election until May or June 1976, and the Senate would not convene until 1 July, thus obviating the threat of a possible temporary Labor majority. Whitlam refused any compromise.

Had the then PM Whitlam been told by his Governor General what course of action GG was considering - Whitlam would have gone to Parliament advising of his intention to call a double dissolution which would have led to a backdown in the Senate.

The Coalition threatened that if Kerr should grant Whitlam a half-Senate election, that the Coalition state premiers would advise their governors not to issue writs, thus blocking the election from taking place in the four states with non-Labor premiers. Fraser proposed a further compromise: that the Opposition would concede supply if Whitlam agreed to hold a House of Representatives election at the same time as the half-Senate election. Whitlam rejected the idea.

Kerr therefore concluded on 6 November that neither Government nor Opposition would compromise. Kerr feared that as Whitlam might advise the Queen to dismiss him, he considered it important that Whitlam be given no hint of the impending action. It was then Kerr asked High Court Judge Barwick in writing if he were able to dismiss the Prime Minister if he could not obtain supply. Barwick advised that he was duty bound to do so. I have provided part of the text of that advice in a recent earlier post.

A further meeting to try and solve the impasse was set for 9 am on Tuesday 11 November, at Parliament House. That Tuesday was also the deadline for an election to be called if it were to be held before Christmas and Whitlam was suggesting December 13th as the date. Supply would run out on 27th November. At that meeting Whitlam informed the Coalition leaders that he would be advising Kerr to hold a half-Senate election on 13 December, and he would not be seeking interim supply for the period before the election. As I said above this was problematic as the Coalition threatened that their four Coalition state premiers would advise their governors not to issue writs, thus blocking the half-Senate election from taking place in the four states with non-Labor premiers.

After Whitlam tried to advise Kerr about calling a half-Senate election, Kerr then told Whitlam about his decision to withdraw his commission as Prime Minister under Section 64 of the Constitution.

Whitlam had already rejected two compromises as described above. Again….

1. Whitlam rejected Kerr’s compromise that he [Whitlam] would not advise a half-Senate election until May or June 1976, and
2. the Senate would not convene until 1 July, thus obviating the threat of a possible temporary Labor majority.

Malcolm Fraser’s proposed compromise that the Opposition would concede supply if Whitlam agreed to hold a House of Representatives election at the same time as the half-Senate election

Fraser warned Whitlam after the meeting at 9 am on the 11th that the Governor-General might make up his own mind about the matter but Whitlam was quite dismissive.

Instead, Whitlam went a few hours later to the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, to seek a half-Senate election in December. This would not have been likely to resolve the impasse, and would have been particularly problematic if supply was not granted to cover the election period.

That Whitlam would have called a double dissolution if he had been told by Kerr is by no means certain. He was just as likely, if not more likely, to contact the Palace to withdraw Kerr’s commission as Governor-General thus preventing Whitlam’s dismissal – a course of action that Kerr had already been told by a High Court judge was his duty to fulfil, if the Government could not source supply.

But that was a course of action denied to him by the deception of his Governor General who appointed the Opposition Leader as Acting PM, An utterly disgraceful action.

No it wasn’t. Whitlam had several opportunities to come to a compromise. Both sides were playing a game of brinkmanship

These are the events that you have glossed over in your cut and paste frenzy to create a particular narrative.

And what particular narrative would that be? I can assure you I’m no Coalition voter.

You, like all of us, are free to have any political opinion you want in this country and to express it here as such. But please, don't try and cloak that biased narrative with carefully selected tidbits of truth masquerading as historical fact.

And which ‘historical fact’ that I’ve presented are you disputing? Your version has also left out some fairly important information which I have provided above.

 

[Roylion]

Universally? Paul Keating disagrees, for one. And he would be in a position to know.

Paul Keating on Jenny Hocking's claims:

"The idea that the Queen may have wished or actively conspired in arrangements with Sir John Kerr to affect a party political outcome in Australia amounts to no more than tilting at shadows."

 

[Festerz]

The insane bombarding of royal propaganda also plays a big part

Yep.

Wishing this was a thing...



If only to give an alternative to the wall to wall forelock-tugging 24/7 dirge across Australian media that still has more than a week to run.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

 

[Festerz]

And poor old Harry has been banned from wearing his military uniform at his mother's funeral despite serving for 10 years in the British military, including two tours in Afghanistan.

His departure from the firm means he is regarded as no longer being on official service.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

So what method would choose for selecting that head of state? How do you pick one free from party politics?

Well, personally I think it should be by direct vote of the people, but I wouldn't be opposed to a parliamentary vote putting someone forward. Of course they'd need to be an educated adult, one who, if serious about the Presidential role might need some kind of familiarity with Constitutional Law.

The President's job should be largely what the Governor-General's job is today in my opinion.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

And poor old Harry has been banned from wearing his military uniform at his mother's funeral despite serving for 10 years in the British military, including two tours in Afghanistan.

His departure from the firm means he is regarded as no longer being on official service.

I wonder if our own (alleged) war criminal Benno Robbo-Smiddy will be wearing his?

Ben Roberts-Smith: Australian soldier to travel to Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral

Department of Defence says Australian taxpayers will cover flight cost ‘upon request’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Festerz]

Well, personally I think it should be by direct vote of the people, but I wouldn't be opposed to a parliamentary vote putting someone forward. Of course they'd need to be an educated adult, one who, if serious about the Presidential role might need some kind of familiarity with Constitutional Law.

The President's job should be largely what the Governor-General's job is today in my opinion.

Or you do exactly what we do now, just take the British Royal family out of the loop.

Have the GG appointed for a fixed 5 year term by the government at the time (with maybe an addition of endorsement by a set % of the Senate and with clear criteria for appointments - in terms of background, experience, qualifications etc. - agreed by legislation) as part of the Constitutional amendment agreed by the people.

Not too hard, surely?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Or you do exactly what we do now, just take the British Royal family out of the loop.

Have the GG appointed for a fixed 5 year term by the government at the time (with maybe an addition of endorsement by a set % of the Senate and with clear criteria for appointments - in terms of background, experience, qualifications etc. - agreed by legislation) as part of the Constitutional amendment agreed by the people.

Not too hard, surely?

I'm happy with anything that gets us away from the British Monarchy.

 

[footyfan1978]

We’ll Liz didn’t last as long as her mother.

That's right. Did she reach 100?
Her mother also lived fairly long when looked at some doco about her son Edward that quit as King in 1936.

 

[footyfan1978]

Or you do exactly what we do now, just take the British Royal family out of the loop.

Have the GG appointed for a fixed 5 year term by the government at the time (with maybe an addition of endorsement by a set % of the Senate and with clear criteria for appointments - in terms of background, experience, qualifications etc. - agreed by legislation) as part of the Constitutional amendment agreed by the people.

Not too hard, surely?

Something like this is what we want.
As long as we are not trying some President bullshit system. That can **** right off.

 

[Festerz]

Something like this is what we want.
As long as we are not trying some President bullshit system. That can * right off.

Exactly.

The dangers of having a popularly elected head of state - an idea that derailed the 1998 Constitutional Convention and subsequent Republican Referendum - effectively setting up an inevitable conflict between the democratically elected government and the institution/position put in place to protect the system of government should be obvious to all by now.

 

[PP34]

Australians and Americans simping for British monarchs will never not be weird

It's what happens when the education system practically teaches nothing but worship of the ****ers for decades. Unless you go really long into history education you will be taught next to nothing about the disgraceful behaviour of the British Empire. Plenty of stuff of course about the reprehensible Nazis, Soviets etc. At most you might get a little discussion about the British coming here and committing a few genocides.

Combine this with the constant ass kissing of the family by the Western media and it's no wonder they're so revered.

**** me, it's sad for the relatives that they've lost the old lady but my goodness the media. Days upon days now of coverage about what a remarkable women she was. Yet to hear one ****ing achievement other than the usual "oh didn't she just look wonderful getting her photo taken!". You'd think she cured cancer such is the bullshit carry on.

Her last contribution was probably paying to bail out that nonce Prince Andrew for his disgusting behaviour

I've never seen so many middle aged bogans simp on social media for people who are the polar opposite to them. Then you've got them plus the usual bogan gronks in the media telling Aboriginals, Irish or whoever else was unfortunate enough to get in the way of the British over the years how they should shut up and bow down to this family cause the old lady died.

Í couldn't give a shit that she died. She's just another rich old lady gone. Who gives a ****?

What a bizarre world we live in.

 

[Festerz]

I'm not sure I agree or understand some of the sudden anti-monarchy sentiment that is apparent since QEII passed.

The anti-monarchist sentiment amongst many people in 'the dominions' is neither new or sudden. Especially amongst those of Indigenous descent who remember the callous treatment of their recent relatives in the name of His/Her Majesty.

It is just that you are hearing their voices at a time when you expect them to be quiet, out of respect.

How odd that they choose not to follow your rules.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Got to say the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force really being out done in the Ceremonial Uniform stakes by the British Army.

 

[NSWCROW]

 

[deanc]

The anti-monarchist sentiment amongst many people in 'the dominions' is neither new or sudden. Especially amongst those of Indigenous descent who remember the callous treatment of their recent relatives in the name of His/Her Majesty.

It is just that you are hearing their voices at a time when you expect them to be quiet, out of respect.

How odd that they choose not to follow your rules.

Firstly, you've clearly misunderstood the nature of my post or you've chosen to ignore it beyond the first line.

In regards to your comments - you're either being deliberately obtuse or conveniently ignorant if you are under the impression that the Soveriegn or the Monarchy going back to Queen Victoria and her successors were ever provided accurate reports in relation to the despciable human atrocities that were committed during the various historical colonialist pursuits by the British Empire..?

Moreover the frequent dispatches back to England's privy council during the early years of Australia's burgeoning colonies were rarely anything but positive accounts, so if the British government of the time were not aware of issues between the settlers and our aboriginals, how would the Monarchy know of this? Also note the first member of the British royal family to tour Australia was Prince Alfred in 1867, almost 100 years after Cook arrived.
And to state the obvious the World was a very different place 200 years ago, where unaccountable brutality and injustice were common...

And the voices I'm suddenly hearing is due mainly to the evolution of social media promoting narcissistic ideology which also encourages people to have 'an opinion on everything' irrespective of their qualifications, knowledge, experience or historical fact..!

 

[Gough]

I wonder if our own (alleged) war criminal Benno Robbo-Smiddy will be wearing his?

Ben Roberts-Smith: Australian soldier to travel to Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral

Department of Defence says Australian taxpayers will cover flight cost ‘upon request’

www.theguardian.com

There's a bit of a paradox in the royals parading around in their military finery at the same time as we're told now is not the time to discuss their legacy. In a way it feels like being made to sit through the victory parade of a conquering army.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Not a fan but give her credit she did say she would never retire and she kept her word. Best thing for republicans is Charles and Camilla.

Why TF would she have retired, with the wicket she was on?

 

[Gough]

It's all just a big public relations exercise for the new King now, the old lady is just incidental to the whole thing.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

"Parliament will reconvene late next week for several days of condolence motions for the Queen"

FMD this country is a joke.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Great article, with a nice turn in the final paragraph.

Queen Elizabeth is not innocent of the Crown’s crimes

The late queen faithfully served the British imperial project.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[NSWCROW]