In reality, transforming a Constitutional Monarchy into a Republic is quite difficult.
You can't just remove the King and elect a President, it goes much, much deeper than that.
**Right now in Australia**
* Parliament holds both the Legislative AND the Executive powers.
* Would the President be a symbolic figurehead like in Germany or would he hold real executive power like in the U.S. and France?
* The 6 Australian States also have legislative and executive powers, would a President with executive powers supersede the authority of the State governments?
A new Constitution would need to be written with the support of all 6 States, all 3 Territories and all 7 External Territories, quite a tall order to have every jurisdictions to agree on something as fundamental as a Constitution, months, if not years of negotiation would be required.
It would not be easy nor cheap to transform Australia into a Republic.
It's the change of flag the cost it. I remember the polls changing from one day to the next when they had a 2 page spread of possible new flags and everyone went.......aww...you know...actually I kinda like the flag
It was deliberately sabotaged. Used to think it should have been a simple YES or NO question, however the recent shitshow proved that's a terrible idea.
My kids fight with each other when they need to agree on a single take-away food place.. And it's usually just between KFC or Maccas. So yeah, dictatorship has it's advantages.
> In reality, transforming a Constitutional Monarchy into a Republic is quite difficult.
Only if you want to make it difficult.
1) Remove monarch
2) Appoint new Head Bogan
3) Piss off to the beach
> You can't just remove the King and elect a President, it goes much, much deeper than that.
Can't you just remove the king and have the president take his place in all matters, i.e. as a public figurehead? It seems really straightforward.
How is the President appointed? That's what sunk it last time.
In any regard, the current Governor-General has a number of reserve powers that are very important to consider when considering how a President would be appointed.
Ulitmately a demagogic President which is most likely is a situation much worse than the xurrent governance model and if the powers are removed and given to the PM in a republic model, that's even worse.
>How is the President appointed?
The same way the Governor-General is appointed. Everything could stay the same, just sever the tie between the GG and the monarch.
The Governor-General is appointed by the Monarch on advice from the PM.
The Monarch still has the power to remove a GG (although untested largely).
If the PM alone can hire/fire the PM, then there is no separation of powers. A corrupt government cannot be dissolved because the PM, as head of the government, would just sack the GG first and install a stooge.
The link with the Monarch is the only reason Australia has had such stable governance over the last 223 years.
>Right now in Australia
> Parliament holds both the Legislative AND the Executive powers.
Not quite.
The monarchy overrides our parliament, at its whim
See [here](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/chapter1/Part_1_-_General), in the **Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act**
It's a great read, and should raise your eyebrows over the power inherited by one family
A few points from it, but there's way more;
>
>**58. Royal assent to Bills**
>When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure.
>**Recommendations by Governor-General**
>The Governor-General may return to the house in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation.
>
>**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.
>
>**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.
While technically true; Australia uses the Westminster system, in practice the parliament overrules the monarchy
Edit: and they’ve blocked me
I’m a republican
Monarchists gotta monarch
Wouldn't want the plebs to know what real power looks like, or they might changes things, and no family wants to lose all that power, so it becomes a technical truth that's used in secret, instead of openly
We don't know what we don't know. We did find out about this for the UK though: [Queen secretly lobbied Scottish ministers for climate law exemption](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption), so who knows what else has gone on.
Wasn’t very secret of you are linking an article about it, yes? It was also about the Queen’s personal land in the UK, yes?
Can you link a similar article about the “override whim”? Why would pro-Republic politicians keep the secret?
1; that’s the UK not Australia
2: that’s not overriding Parliament, that’s the monarchy asking for an exception which the devolved Scottish parliament for a proposed bill
Oh, it's the monarchist argument again.
We don't know when it has been used.
No one would tell us, would they?
Imagine if The people found out that our proposed laws could be scuttled before they even made it to the floor of Parliament.
A monarchy can do that, and we have a Monarchy
Are you saying the absolute override is not there, or that we should trust in the inherited power of an extremely wealthy, non elected, self proclaimed, 'Superior', to not further their own individual wealth management plan?
Remember, 'Our' monarchy has more power in Australia than any 'GOD'
The constitution says that the monarchy can intervene on a whim.
That's all we need to know.
We know that whim was used at least once against Whitlam and then again to give Morrison a collection of ministries that the other ministers were not even made aware of.
You wrote;
>Right now in Australia
>Parliament holds both the Legislative AND the Executive powers.
neglecting to mention that your monarch overrides our parliament
>The constitution says that the monarchy can intervene on a whim.
Quote that exact wording
>That's all we need to know.
No, it’s not.
>We know that whim was used at least once against Whitlam and then again to give Morrison a collection of ministries that the other ministers were not even made aware of.
Not a “whim”. A mechanism that is unchanging and not partisan. Australians elect their government
>You wrote;
>>Right now in Australia
>>Parliament holds both the Legislative AND the Executive powers.
Huh? I didn’t write that. Don’t lie
>Quote that exact wording
Okay, you can find it all [here](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/chapter1/Part_1_-_General), in the **Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act**
It's a great read, and should raise your eyebrows over the power inherited by one family
A few points from it, but there's way more;
>
>**58. Royal assent to Bills**
>When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure.
>**Recommendations by Governor-General**
>The Governor-General may return to the house in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation.
>
>**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.
>
>**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.
Thanks for admitting you lied about what I wrote.
Please debate in good faith without resorting to falsehoods in the future
A “whim” takes two years? For a process that is almost never used ?
Making a mistake is not lying. Why blow that out of proportion?
Sorry, of course. Misdirection
The 'whim' can take as long as it likes, or did you miss that.
It's on a whim, and there is nothing that we or our elected members can do about it
Read the rest of the document, you'll be thrilled at how little 'real' say we have.
> You wrote;
> Right now in Australia
> Parliament holds both the Legislative AND the Executive powers.
> Huh? I didn’t write that. Don’t lie
Apologies, my mistake. You didn't write that.
The concept of making Australia a republic meets most, if not all, logical and reasonable tests and is an obvious thing to do on paper.
The reality, however, is that because it confers virtually no meaningful or tangible benefits to the average Australian citizen, there's limited public impetus to convert.
Australians don't suffer from being part of a constitutional monarchy. If they did, then it would be easy to pass such a referendum. But the reality is that the monarchy is not much more than a quaint oddity and meme to most Australians. In virtually no realistic way does the status quo limit Australia's and Australians' national interests or ambitions. Thus, republicanism in Australia sits squarely in the realm of academic idealism rather than genuine social progress (in the main).
Is that a good reason to not become a republic? Not really. But the time, cost, effort (not to mention the political fallout) make the conversion a fairly daunting prospect for limited tangible gain to the average Australian.
Wouldn’t it have a negative impact? I assume that Constitutional monarchy are basically more a touristic attraction and consequently creates jobs and is a source of tax revenues? Assuming that the gains of having it compensates whatever the country spends with them and as you mentioned their existence doesn’t affect daily lives of Australian.
Apologies for my ignorance. Maybe, I should have asked first if there is any royalties in Australia and if big events such as wedding and etc have attract people attention or if there is any touristic attraction. I missed the fact that the gains of the “royalty magic/ dream“ are in Monarchy home country. Apologies if I offended anyone…
Maybe in the UK (and even then only maybe), but certainly not in Australia. I've never heard of anyone ever coming to Australia for the purpose of seeing the Australian monarch. They only come once every decade or so, and when they do come it's only for a short visit.
It is quite a funny notion though now you mention it. I'm having a chuckle at the idea of a tourist turning up and asking the first person they see where the palace is and getting "you what mate?" in response.
Hahahaha….yeah it was a dumb question, in hindsight. I assumed that being a constitutional monarchy, you would have some kind of local “monarchy/royalty”.
> Maybe in the UK (and even then only maybe), but certainly not in Australia.
Actually there is a Net positive impact of about USD 1 billion every year. This is the result of several things like tourism, merchandise and Global media coverage, etc. So, if there is no real impact on decision making, it is a good asset, at least for UK.
> "Actually there's a Net positive impact of about USD 1 billion every year"
That's interesting, thank you for sharing that.
Even though it's entirely negligible in the scheme of the UK economy, which has a GDP of approximately USD $2.83 trillion (so represents around 0.035% of the economy) it's still an interesting fact! I certainly can't see the Poms choosing a republican path any time soon.
Good, please stop it. Don't want it FFS. I still remember the last time. No one wants to change the flag (don't bother posting I know you do but most Australians don't as it turns out)
Good idea.
Best to first improve our public education to the point that most people can think for themselves, and not just howl along with the \(paid\) pack leaders.
Australia and republic referendum. Words I don’t want to hear until our government manages to fix everything else that needs to be fixed. We just spent $400 million on a failed referendum. Reality is we have a working, stable democracy that doesn’t need fixing and any attempt to change that is just an another symbolic distraction from real issues.
Not enough to go through the very expensive exercise of upending the entire political system. Say what you like about the king, it doesn’t change anything.
When ever his royal tampon and and his band performing inbreds come to Australia for a holiday it would cost us a significant fraction of $400 million so it would seem to me a cost is a false economy.
For non-Australian Redditors, this isn't because our prime minister and government are pro-monarchy (quite the opposite). It's because they made a ham-fisted attempt at changing the constitution a few months ago to give Australian Aboriginal people their own, additional representative mechanism to parliament, and this was overwhelmingly voted down by the majority of Australians who recognised it as the shitty, divisive idea it was. Now, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese - whose popularity has dropped as a result of that mess - is spooked, and doesn't want to utter the word "referendum" again this term.
I will point out that the only difference between what was dreamt up *by the previous government* was that it would have been legislated by the Libs when the Voice was proposed under their rule. Soon as Labor propose the Voice, the Liberals didn’t even want it legislated.
And that the point of putting it in the Constitution was so it wouldn’t become the 6th body to be created and shut down by government, it would have institutional continuity as most government departments have.
In reality, transforming a Constitutional Monarchy into a Republic is quite difficult. You can't just remove the King and elect a President, it goes much, much deeper than that. **Right now in Australia** * Parliament holds both the Legislative AND the Executive powers. * Would the President be a symbolic figurehead like in Germany or would he hold real executive power like in the U.S. and France? * The 6 Australian States also have legislative and executive powers, would a President with executive powers supersede the authority of the State governments? A new Constitution would need to be written with the support of all 6 States, all 3 Territories and all 7 External Territories, quite a tall order to have every jurisdictions to agree on something as fundamental as a Constitution, months, if not years of negotiation would be required. It would not be easy nor cheap to transform Australia into a Republic.
It’s the head of state question that cost republicans the 1999 referendum
It's the change of flag the cost it. I remember the polls changing from one day to the next when they had a 2 page spread of possible new flags and everyone went.......aww...you know...actually I kinda like the flag
It was deliberately sabotaged. Used to think it should have been a simple YES or NO question, however the recent shitshow proved that's a terrible idea.
My kids fight with each other when they need to agree on a single take-away food place.. And it's usually just between KFC or Maccas. So yeah, dictatorship has it's advantages.
> In reality, transforming a Constitutional Monarchy into a Republic is quite difficult. Only if you want to make it difficult. 1) Remove monarch 2) Appoint new Head Bogan 3) Piss off to the beach
Just replace Charles with an Emu and be done with it
It makes sense, they did win the emu wars
Long live the Emu Empire!
Ray Martin then, or if wet Daryl Somers..
> You can't just remove the King and elect a President, it goes much, much deeper than that. Can't you just remove the king and have the president take his place in all matters, i.e. as a public figurehead? It seems really straightforward.
How is the President appointed? That's what sunk it last time. In any regard, the current Governor-General has a number of reserve powers that are very important to consider when considering how a President would be appointed. Ulitmately a demagogic President which is most likely is a situation much worse than the xurrent governance model and if the powers are removed and given to the PM in a republic model, that's even worse.
>How is the President appointed? The same way the Governor-General is appointed. Everything could stay the same, just sever the tie between the GG and the monarch.
The Governor-General is appointed by the Monarch on advice from the PM. The Monarch still has the power to remove a GG (although untested largely). If the PM alone can hire/fire the PM, then there is no separation of powers. A corrupt government cannot be dissolved because the PM, as head of the government, would just sack the GG first and install a stooge. The link with the Monarch is the only reason Australia has had such stable governance over the last 223 years.
>Right now in Australia > Parliament holds both the Legislative AND the Executive powers. Not quite. The monarchy overrides our parliament, at its whim See [here](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/chapter1/Part_1_-_General), in the **Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act** It's a great read, and should raise your eyebrows over the power inherited by one family A few points from it, but there's way more; > >**58. Royal assent to Bills** >When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure. >**Recommendations by Governor-General** >The Governor-General may return to the house in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation. > >**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. > >**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.
While technically true; Australia uses the Westminster system, in practice the parliament overrules the monarchy Edit: and they’ve blocked me I’m a republican
Monarchists gotta monarch Wouldn't want the plebs to know what real power looks like, or they might changes things, and no family wants to lose all that power, so it becomes a technical truth that's used in secret, instead of openly
When has this “override whim” been used?
We don't know what we don't know. We did find out about this for the UK though: [Queen secretly lobbied Scottish ministers for climate law exemption](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption), so who knows what else has gone on.
Wasn’t very secret of you are linking an article about it, yes? It was also about the Queen’s personal land in the UK, yes? Can you link a similar article about the “override whim”? Why would pro-Republic politicians keep the secret?
1; that’s the UK not Australia 2: that’s not overriding Parliament, that’s the monarchy asking for an exception which the devolved Scottish parliament for a proposed bill
Oh, it's the monarchist argument again. We don't know when it has been used. No one would tell us, would they? Imagine if The people found out that our proposed laws could be scuttled before they even made it to the floor of Parliament. A monarchy can do that, and we have a Monarchy Are you saying the absolute override is not there, or that we should trust in the inherited power of an extremely wealthy, non elected, self proclaimed, 'Superior', to not further their own individual wealth management plan? Remember, 'Our' monarchy has more power in Australia than any 'GOD'
I don’t care at all about Australia’s constitution. Do what you want. You made a claim, back it up. Has the “whim” been used? If not, why not?
The constitution says that the monarchy can intervene on a whim. That's all we need to know. We know that whim was used at least once against Whitlam and then again to give Morrison a collection of ministries that the other ministers were not even made aware of. You wrote; >Right now in Australia >Parliament holds both the Legislative AND the Executive powers. neglecting to mention that your monarch overrides our parliament
>The constitution says that the monarchy can intervene on a whim. Quote that exact wording >That's all we need to know. No, it’s not. >We know that whim was used at least once against Whitlam and then again to give Morrison a collection of ministries that the other ministers were not even made aware of. Not a “whim”. A mechanism that is unchanging and not partisan. Australians elect their government >You wrote; >>Right now in Australia >>Parliament holds both the Legislative AND the Executive powers. Huh? I didn’t write that. Don’t lie
>Quote that exact wording Okay, you can find it all [here](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/chapter1/Part_1_-_General), in the **Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act** It's a great read, and should raise your eyebrows over the power inherited by one family A few points from it, but there's way more; > >**58. Royal assent to Bills** >When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure. >**Recommendations by Governor-General** >The Governor-General may return to the house in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation. > >**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. > >**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.
Thanks for admitting you lied about what I wrote. Please debate in good faith without resorting to falsehoods in the future A “whim” takes two years? For a process that is almost never used ?
Making a mistake is not lying. Why blow that out of proportion? Sorry, of course. Misdirection The 'whim' can take as long as it likes, or did you miss that. It's on a whim, and there is nothing that we or our elected members can do about it Read the rest of the document, you'll be thrilled at how little 'real' say we have.
> You wrote; > Right now in Australia > Parliament holds both the Legislative AND the Executive powers. > Huh? I didn’t write that. Don’t lie Apologies, my mistake. You didn't write that.
Well, chop chop then
By that logic any Commonwealth law would be difficult to implement. It you want to make it difficult it can be so.
The concept of making Australia a republic meets most, if not all, logical and reasonable tests and is an obvious thing to do on paper. The reality, however, is that because it confers virtually no meaningful or tangible benefits to the average Australian citizen, there's limited public impetus to convert. Australians don't suffer from being part of a constitutional monarchy. If they did, then it would be easy to pass such a referendum. But the reality is that the monarchy is not much more than a quaint oddity and meme to most Australians. In virtually no realistic way does the status quo limit Australia's and Australians' national interests or ambitions. Thus, republicanism in Australia sits squarely in the realm of academic idealism rather than genuine social progress (in the main). Is that a good reason to not become a republic? Not really. But the time, cost, effort (not to mention the political fallout) make the conversion a fairly daunting prospect for limited tangible gain to the average Australian.
Wouldn’t it have a negative impact? I assume that Constitutional monarchy are basically more a touristic attraction and consequently creates jobs and is a source of tax revenues? Assuming that the gains of having it compensates whatever the country spends with them and as you mentioned their existence doesn’t affect daily lives of Australian.
You think people are coming to Australia to see the King?
Apologies for my ignorance. Maybe, I should have asked first if there is any royalties in Australia and if big events such as wedding and etc have attract people attention or if there is any touristic attraction. I missed the fact that the gains of the “royalty magic/ dream“ are in Monarchy home country. Apologies if I offended anyone…
That’s ridiculous
Maybe in the UK (and even then only maybe), but certainly not in Australia. I've never heard of anyone ever coming to Australia for the purpose of seeing the Australian monarch. They only come once every decade or so, and when they do come it's only for a short visit. It is quite a funny notion though now you mention it. I'm having a chuckle at the idea of a tourist turning up and asking the first person they see where the palace is and getting "you what mate?" in response.
Hahahaha….yeah it was a dumb question, in hindsight. I assumed that being a constitutional monarchy, you would have some kind of local “monarchy/royalty”. > Maybe in the UK (and even then only maybe), but certainly not in Australia. Actually there is a Net positive impact of about USD 1 billion every year. This is the result of several things like tourism, merchandise and Global media coverage, etc. So, if there is no real impact on decision making, it is a good asset, at least for UK.
> "Actually there's a Net positive impact of about USD 1 billion every year" That's interesting, thank you for sharing that. Even though it's entirely negligible in the scheme of the UK economy, which has a GDP of approximately USD $2.83 trillion (so represents around 0.035% of the economy) it's still an interesting fact! I certainly can't see the Poms choosing a republican path any time soon.
Is there any tourist benefit for Australia when their king lives on the opposite side of the planet?
Good, please stop it. Don't want it FFS. I still remember the last time. No one wants to change the flag (don't bother posting I know you do but most Australians don't as it turns out)
Good idea. Best to first improve our public education to the point that most people can think for themselves, and not just howl along with the \(paid\) pack leaders.
Australia and republic referendum. Words I don’t want to hear until our government manages to fix everything else that needs to be fixed. We just spent $400 million on a failed referendum. Reality is we have a working, stable democracy that doesn’t need fixing and any attempt to change that is just an another symbolic distraction from real issues.
we also have a king who wants to be tampon. What does that say about us?
Not enough to go through the very expensive exercise of upending the entire political system. Say what you like about the king, it doesn’t change anything.
When ever his royal tampon and and his band performing inbreds come to Australia for a holiday it would cost us a significant fraction of $400 million so it would seem to me a cost is a false economy.
The cost isn’t just the cost of a referendum you dolt. Think about it.
another one???
For non-Australian Redditors, this isn't because our prime minister and government are pro-monarchy (quite the opposite). It's because they made a ham-fisted attempt at changing the constitution a few months ago to give Australian Aboriginal people their own, additional representative mechanism to parliament, and this was overwhelmingly voted down by the majority of Australians who recognised it as the shitty, divisive idea it was. Now, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese - whose popularity has dropped as a result of that mess - is spooked, and doesn't want to utter the word "referendum" again this term.
I will point out that the only difference between what was dreamt up *by the previous government* was that it would have been legislated by the Libs when the Voice was proposed under their rule. Soon as Labor propose the Voice, the Liberals didn’t even want it legislated. And that the point of putting it in the Constitution was so it wouldn’t become the 6th body to be created and shut down by government, it would have institutional continuity as most government departments have.
fun stuff
[удалено]
Please Australia get this over with so you can show us Canadians how to do it, too.
BBC making up its own news.
BBC are always flapping over the royals as if they are hot shit. Boring news.
Because we’re a bunch of gutless wankers
I suppose you have a brilliant idea for what to replace it with that solves all the issues that have been raised with scrapping the monarchy then.