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

 

[Number37]

Another question for you Roylion.

Oz Con - Section 68
The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative.

Keep in mind that when war strikes, parliament and the judiciary take a seat right at the back of the bus. (by convention & for other reasons)
ie Should the Queen or her rep choose so, she could ignore the "advice" of the Executive Council. Sure that could breach convention, but would she really GAF that she was breaching convention, I think not.
So the question is:
Would the military follow the orders of their commander in chief or some nuffy who says he or she is PM?

 

[Festerz]

She's still dead isn't she?

Have to check because the way our ABC is carrying on with their constant coverage it seems something is going to happen that we might not expect.

 

[Roylion]

The rule of law applies to rules of law, conventions are not rules of law, they aren't even rules, they are conventions.

I didn't say they were.

Conventions are not justiciable bro. i.e. you can't go to court over a breach of convention.

Go and read again what I said. Do you understand what I said in relation to the Governor-General?

Courts have no power here because it would breach the separation of powers doctrine.

Courts have no power where?

 

[Roylion]

Another question for you Roylion.

Oz Con - Section 68
The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative.

Keep in mind that when war strikes, parliament and the judiciary take a seat right at the back of the bus. (by convention & for other reasons)
ie Should the Queen or her rep choose so, she could ignore the "advice" of the Executive Council. Sure that could breach convention, but would she really GAF that she was breaching convention, I think not.
So the question is:
Would the military follow the orders of their commander in chief or some nuffy who says he or she is PM?

The Governor-General's duties as Commander-in-Chief of the naval and military forces include:

• Through Federal Executive Council, appointing the Chief of Defence Force and Service Chiefs
• Commissioning officers in the Navy, Army and Air Force
• Presenting Colours, Banners and other Honours to military units and personnel
• Visiting military units to acknowledge the service of service personnel
• Leading Australia’s response, celebration and acknowledgement at commemorative events.

The creation in 1975 of the position of Chief of the Defence Force Staff effected a 'fundamental change' with the Government being 'introduced as an intermediary in the command chain between the Crown and the armed forces of Australia so that no longer will the armed forces be commanded directly by the Crown without the intervention of the Parliament.

Sir Paul Hasluck 17th Governor-General of Australia between 1969 and 1974 wrote:

"The exercise by the Governor-General of the command-in-of the armed forces is qualified by a number of statutes of the Australian Parliament and regulations made under them. This ensures that civil administration and civil control of those forces will remain and be exercised by a Governor General acting with the advice of Ministers."

 

[Number37]

The Governor-General's duties as Commander-in-Chief of the naval and military forces include:

• Through Federal Executive Council, appointing the Chief of Defence Force and Service Chiefs
• Commissioning officers in the Navy, Army and Air Force
• Presenting Colours, Banners and other Honours to military units and personnel
• Visiting military units to acknowledge the service of service personnel
• Leading Australia’s response, celebration and acknowledgement at commemorative events.

The creation in 1975 of the position of Chief of the Defence Force Staff effected a 'fundamental change' with the Government being 'introduced as an intermediary in the command chain between the Crown and the armed forces of Australia so that no longer will the armed forces be commanded directly by the Crown without the intervention of the Parliament.

Sir Paul Hasluck 17th Governor-General of Australia between 1969 and 1974 wrote:

"The exercise by the Governor-General of the command-in-of the armed forces is qualified by a number of statutes of the Australian Parliament and regulations made under them. This ensures that civil administration and civil control of those forces will remain and be exercised by a Governor General acting with the advice of Ministers."

So you're now posting stuff that disagrees with your own view?

 

[fishardansin]

She could have apologised for the atrocities committed by the British Empire and handed back every piece of jewellery that was in her silly hat. She could have handed back the land her family had appropriated. She could have paid tax or sold off her mansions.

She could have come out and publicly stated the obvious. That is absolutely ridiculous to have anyone in a position just because they fell out of a particular vagina before anyone else did.

Avoiding that so she could hang on to power, while regularly being the face of neocolonialism in Africa and the Pacific, makes her a piece of poo. No sympathies at all.

 

[Number37]

You've argued that according to the High Court....prerogative powers can be abrogated by express words of a statute. So "dreaming up new powers" (whatever they might be) cannot violate the constitution nor can it contradict the express words of a statute already in force.

Prerogative powers can't violate the constitution or contradict express words of a statute.
Prerogative powers predate the Constitution and statute. ie Prerogative powers existed before the Constitution and statutes.


Prerogative powers can be abrogated by express words of statute.
But as we saw in the Tampa case, sometimes express words of a statute that purport to abrogate a prerogative power, don't always do so.
This is because prerogative powers are special.
How special are prerogative powers? How long is a piece of string?
There is just some things that the Executive and the Monarch have the power to do and parliament can't take away their power to do that thing.


An example is the Tampa case. The govt has the power to determine who can and who can't enter the country. Even though that's what the Migration Act is for. The govt has the prerogative to determine who can and can't enter the country and parliament can't strip them of that power.
Apparently it is just one of those things that they can do.
What exactly are the other things that the Executive or Monarch can do that parliament can't take away their ability to do?
Who the F knows.

In the Williams case, which was about the Schools Chaplaincy program, the govt argued that one of its special powers was to give money to schools for chaplaincy programs. The High Court disagreed. Some members of the High Court, like Dyson Heydon, agreed with the govt.
In the Pape case, which was about the Rudd GFC stimulus payments, the govt also argued that one of its special powers was to give money to the people in times like the GFC. The High Court agreed. The same Dyson Heydon who said the govt has the special power to give money to schools for chaplaincy programs said the govt doesn't have a special power to give money to the people during a global financial crisis.

Those examples illustrate that we don't know what prerogative powers actually are, and we can't know until they are used.
Which govt is going to pass a whole heap of laws to abrogate their special powers to do things?
Even if a govt was silly enough to try it, they will not be able to think of all the things.

You say dreamed up like it is fanciful.

So far the govt has dreamed up:

• the power to give money to schools for chaplaincy programs,
• the power to give money to people during a GFC,
• the power to deny refugees entry into the country for ever,
• the power of preventative detention,
• the power to stop bikies from fortifying their club houses,
• the power to keep in prison people who have completed their prison sentences.
• the power to stop people from socialising with known criminals
• the power to send people to prison as a result of an ex-parte hearing. (ex-parte means they don't have to tell you what they are doing, and even if you find out, you're not allowed to be part of the proceedings, you can't even be in the court whilst the ex-parte hearing is on)
• the power to send people to prison on secret evidence, that you or your legal rep isn't allowed to see, ever.

 

[Cuzz09]

put in my leave request for Fri sep 23rd as soon as I heard Thurs is a pub hol.

Stuff working for 1 day

Approved ASAP Yessss 4 day weekend.



On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

The institution of a constitutional monarchy isn't pointless at all, given that reserve powers are vested in the monarch. 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.

One of the strengths of a hereditary constitutional monarchy in my view is that the Head of State can more readily remain apolitical.

What we know now about November 1975 rendered that argument rubbish.

 

[spinynorman]

Very normal country.

 

[Gough]

Very normal country.

Bicycle frames make great pipe bombs. You've never been able to park a bike in the centre of Windsor.

 

[NSWCROW]

 

[footyfan1978]

That's right. There is The Republic of Ireland and Occupied Ireland.

Let's hope Ukraine does not end up like this with Russki's

What we know now about November 1975 rendered that argument rubbish.

Excellent tv series back in early 80's

 

[Roylion]

What we know now about November 1975 rendered that argument rubbish.

What do we now know about November 1975 that renders that rubbish?

 

[Satan]

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

What do we now know about November 1975 that renders that rubbish?

Jenny Hocking's research, showing that the Palace never pressed Kerr to inform Whitlam of his plans, showed that the whole notion of background reserve powers is laughably fictional when they were not exercised the one time they should have been.

Or you could say that background reserve powers are just code for "kneejerk, unthinking conservatism", take your pick.

 

[Not Important]

What do we now know about November 1975 that renders that rubbish?

read prof hocking's research and account.

 

[Roylion]

Jenny Hocking's research, showing that the Palace never pressed Kerr to inform Whitlam of his plans,

It wasn't their duty to do so, nor did they know what Kerr's plans were.

According to Paul Kelly's 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.

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."

showed that the whole notion of background reserve powers is laughably fictional when they were not exercised the one time they should have been.

Kerr did exercise the reserve powers. He terminated Whitlam's commission as Prime Minister.

Or you could say that background reserve powers are just code for "kneejerk, unthinking conservatism", take your pick.

I fail to see how that is the case.

 

[Roylion]

read prof hocking's research and account.

I have. Underwhelming.

Read 'The truth of the Palace Letters' by Kelly and Bramston. They're fairly scathing of Jenny Hocking's claims of Palace involvement calling them "revisionist history without evidence." Hocking is of course on the national committee of the Australian Republican Movement and has a clear agenda.

 

[footyfan1978]

Her representative as head of our state..

 

[Roylion]

Prerogative powers can't violate the constitution or contradict express words of a statute.
Prerogative powers predate the Constitution and statute. ie Prerogative powers existed before the Constitution and statutes.

Yes? So?

An example is the Tampa case. The govt has the power to determine who can and who can't enter the country. Even though that's what the Migration Act is for. The govt has the prerogative to determine who can and can't enter the country and parliament can't strip them of that power.

Why would the majority party in the Parliament (i..e the government) strip themselves of that power?

Apparently it is just one of those things that they can do.

No kidding. Sovereign power rests with the people and is exercised through representative bodies such as Congress or Parliament

Borders are central to sovereignty. They establish the categories of citizen and alien, which is a fundamental element of sovereignty. As Joseph Carens stated: "The power to admit or exclude aliens is inherent in sovereignty and essential for any political community"

What exactly are the other things that the Executive or Monarch can do that parliament can't take away their ability to do?
Who the F knows.

You're contradicting yourself. You've already stated that the royal perogrative is limited by Statute. A constitutional monarch simply cannot do as they like.

In the Williams case, which was about the Schools Chaplaincy program, the govt argued that one of its special powers was to give money to schools for chaplaincy programs. The High Court disagreed. Some members of the High Court, like Dyson Heydon, agreed with the govt.

There you go. The courts determined how far they could go.

In the Pape case, which was about the Rudd GFC stimulus payments, the govt also argued that one of its special powers was to give money to the people in times like the GFC. The High Court agreed. The same Dyson Heydon who said the govt has the special power to give money to schools for chaplaincy programs said the govt doesn't have a special power to give money to the people during a global financial crisis.

There you go. The courts determined how far they could go.

Those examples illustrate that we don't know what prerogative powers actually are, and we can't know until they are used.

So there you go. So like Parliament the monarch or governor-general's powers are limited by Statute, the Constitution and by the courts. The monarch simply cannot do anything they like.

Which govt is going to pass a whole heap of laws to abrogate their special powers to do things?
Even if a govt was silly enough to try it, they will not be able to think of all the things.

Whatever they decide will be limited by court rulings

You say dreamed up like it is fanciful.

So far the govt has dreamed up:

• the power to give money to schools for chaplaincy programs,
• the power to give money to people during a GFC,
• the power to deny refugees entry into the country for ever,
• the power of preventative detention,
• the power to stop bikies from fortifying their club houses,
• the power to keep in prison people who have completed their prison sentences.
• the power to stop people from socialising with known criminals
• the power to send people to prison as a result of an ex-parte hearing. (ex-parte means they don't have to tell you what they are doing, and even if you find out, you're not allowed to be part of the proceedings, you can't even be in the court whilst the ex-parte hearing is on)
• the power to send people to prison on secret evidence, that you or your legal rep isn't allowed to see, ever.

All done by Statute, which is the only way Parliament can govern. Reserve powers of the monarch / governor-general are also limited by statute (you said that yourself) and/or the Constitution.

I fail to see what your argument is.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

It wasn't their duty to do so, nor did they know what Kerr's plans were.

According to Paul Kelly's 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.

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."





Kerr did exercise the reserve powers. He terminated Whitlam's commission as Prime Minister.


I fail to see how that is the case.

So, don't ask don't tell in other words. What exactly is the Queen for then?

 

[Roylion]

So, don't ask don't tell in other words. What exactly is the Queen for then?

The reserve powers are vested in the person of the monarch and exercisable by the Governor-General in Australia (whoever that might be)

Walter Bagehot famously attributed three rights to the sovereign – to be consulted, to encourage and to warn. These rights apply not only in the United Kingdom but also with respect to the powers of the Governor-General.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

The reserve powers are vested in the person of the monarch and exercisable by the Governor-General in Australia (whoever that might be)

Walter Bagehot famously attributed three rights to the sovereign – to be consulted, to encourage and to warn. These rights apply not only in the United Kingdom but also with respect to the powers of the Governor-General.

Doesn’t answer my question. What is the Queen for then?

 

[Financialpanther]

Doesn’t answer my question. What is the Queen for then?

To stop people licking currency?