Easily the most entertaining, informative and valuable thing on RUclips! Thank you so much for making your significant knowledge and experience available to the general public.
This is the second video I’ve watched of yours Ma’am. I subscribed. I like your content and delivery very much. It’s intelligent and relevant. Thank you.
Hello, thank you for an amusing (but still informative) video! Here in the UK we celebrate the King's official birthday in June regardless of the real date and the reason is always given that it's in the hope of getting better weather, just as you said. I suppose in general the weather is likely to be better here in June than in November, or even in April (in the case of the late Queen), but it doesn't always work out that way in the event, and it's comforting in a way to know that we are not the only ones to have this problem. The keeping of the monarch's birthday as a national occasion (rather than just a court occasion) is, I gather, a relatively recent innovation, going back only as far as the reign of George II. Here it's always held on a Saturday and we don't get a day off work because of it.
I like how, for a Brit, something that first occurred around 275 years ago is "relatively recent" - that's older than the vast majority of modern nation states :) Odd that this sovereign's home country doesn't give its citizens (subjects?) a day off yet in many of his/her other realms (such as Canada, Australia and here in NZ) it's always on a Monday and thus a statutory holiday - gawd bless ya ma'am/guv'nor!
@@johnnzboy I wondered if that might raise a smile somewhere ... George II is a long time ago even for a Brit, but not as long as (say) Henry VIII or the Crusades etc. I really just meant that having public celebration of the monarch's birthday is a lot more recent than having a monarch. That might be one reason why it never became a public holiday here in the sense of getting the day off work: there was no tradition of that. As for the citizen/subject thing, I would say I was a citizen of the UK (which is what it says on my passport for example) but a subject of the King. I hope Anne won't say that's wrong!
@@Shalott63 I am old enough to remember Cracker Night, when we'd gather round a bonfire with our bags of mixed fireworks, ranging from those to be a spectacle and those to make noise. And a few skyrockets as well. That followed a half day holiday from school - theoretically to honour the monarch's official birthday (and that was George VI to start with) but more to give us time to buy our domestic fireworks and prepare the bonfire.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Indeed - but there's a very simple and practical reason. Were he to choose Barbados over Canada, the Canadians may well be upset. By his staying in the UK, and in his usual residences, he was not upsetting the Canadians or anyone else.
Well he does attend the celebrations in the UK, if he's here at the time, which is usually the case. I guess that if he were in (say) Canada for some reason at the time when his birthday was being celebrated there, then he would attend that.
Appreciate this clarification on Australia’s Head of State. As a Canadian I was never comfortable with the claim that the G-G was Australia’s Head of State. In Canada we’ve had to remind at least one G-G that she was not the Sovereign. On the topic of Provincial Lt. Governors being subservient to the Federal G-G, that is an interesting topic. If a Lt -Gov wanted to decline signing a bill into law, I believe they can refer the bill to the Federal level. However the Queen in Right of Ontario is an independent crown. Per our Constitution there is a division of authority between the Feds and Provinces. So the Crown in right of Ontario is supreme in certain areas such as Education.
I am head of state and it’s about time people accepted that and started listening to me . It’s in the constitution of Australia … penciled in on the fly of my copy !
I have just enjoyed your excellent video on the subject of Australia’s Head of State. It made me wonder if you might have known my late friend Rev Dr David Mitchell. He was a Tasmanian delegate to the Constitutional Convention and held firmly to “the Governor-General is the Head of State” argument, even though he was, if I recall correctly, a transfer from Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, to which I belonged, to the Australian Monarchist League. Our primary connection was that we were both ministers of the Presbyterian Church of Australia. Prior to this he had been a lawyer in public service at Parliament House in Canberra.
right after MY birthday thank you! I think in the age of the internet where messages and even conversations can be had half way across the world in seconds the idea of an absentee head of state might ironically be MORE sensible then when the concept started .or at least have a better chance of lasting. On which note the part about the palace helping the argument is odd to me as my impression is the palace at the time actually wanted Australia to become a republic or at least wouldn't mind it .prince Philp was actually reportedly furious at the result. Perhaps they removed the claim as it was under debate so they thought it best to stay out of it? Thank you for the wonderful video!
If the G-G were the Head of State for Australia, you'd expect that that office-holder would appoint the State Governors - much as the Administrator of the Northern Territory is appointed. But State Governors are appointed by the monarch, with neither the G-G or the Prime Minister having any say in it.
I would say that it's because that the States were sovereign before the Commonwealth existed.... so they have their own relationships with the sovereign.
Hopefully next time the King's Birthday rolls around the Palace/Government House/Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet will have got round to updating Australian royal symbols to reflect the Carolean era so that an Australian Royal Standard is used on these ceremonial occasions and not the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom.
The monarchy is foreign to Australia. It is the trinkets and baubles of another country’s empire. There is no such thing as ‘Australian’ monarchist regalia.
@@kenwaugh7 On the contrary, the King’s Royal Australian Standard would indicate the King of Australia. There’s a hint in that title of whether he’s foreign or not.
I have always understood that the monarch was the titular Head of State with the Governor-General being the de-facto Head of State. I feel that an oath to the monarch did not a complete an oath to the country.
Certainly the unamended text of the Schedule to the Constitution would not help to dispel that feeling. The oath in 1901 was to “Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law”, and the footnote to the Schedule says “[t]he name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.” Obviously the reference to the monarch there is not to the person her- (or him-) self, but to the body politic, and since the late 1920s the Crown is no longer regarded as indivisible. This change means that as a practical matter, the oath that is being sworn nowadays is to the King or Queen of Australia (and the phrase “according to law” is now explicitly Australian law), who is someone who also happens to be the monarch of the United Kingdom.
@@basilpunton5702The crown is divisible and therefore is separate. The title is separate from the person and the crown can only exist by the assent of parliament and the people.
An interesting video. I would quibble with one aspect, as someone who in a thesis on the office of President of Ireland studied the constitutional roles of heads of state. A number of states don't vest executive authority in the head of state, but often directly in the government in its own right. For example, the King of Sweden lost his executive role in the 1974 Instrument of Government, and no longer appoints the government. The Emperor of Japan post World War II lost any governmental role. Executive authority is not vested in the President of Ireland but in the Government of Ireland. So, some people generally seen as heads of state don't have any executive functions. Ireland for a period had a particularly bizarre system, authorised by the author of endless bizarre ideas, Éamon de Valera. In 1922, most of the Island of Ireland, called the Irish Free State, became a dominion, with George V King in Ireland. (Note the word 'in'.) In the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act the King's role in the dominions changed completely. He ceased to be king IN a dominion, but became King OF a dominion, as a personal role. In 1936, de Valera used the abdication of Edward VIII to abolish the crown and governor-generalship in the constitution, but then resurrect the King as King of Ireland in diplomatic and foreign relations via the External Relations Act. To confuse things more, in 1937, de Valera in 1937 enacted a new constitution with an office of President of Ireland. So who was head of state, the King of Ireland or the President of Ireland, as they co-existed? I tend to the view that the King of Ireland was, as he was the embodiment of Ireland on the international state: treaties were signed in his name. He accredited Irish diplomats. Foreign heads of state sent letters of credence to him. The President of Ireland was constitutionally 'first citizen' but had no role representing Ireland outside the state. That messy system, that confused the world, continued until 1949 when the Republic of Ireland Act was enacted and the King's role in foreign affairs was given to the President of Ireland, with the King de facto abolished. Only then could one say definitively that the President was clearly the head of state. Before then, the international representational role done by a head of state or in their name was done by the King. As some heads of state have executive authority but some don't, I think of more significance is who is acknowledged as the representative of the state either symbolically (like doing state visits) or in practice internationally. That would in Australia be the King, not the Governor General. While the Governor General accredits diplomats, etc, it still is in theory on behalf of the King of Australia. If the Governor General paid a state visit to Ireland. the toasts at the state dinner would be to the "President of Ireland" and "King of Australia". So, in effect, the head of state is the highest official in the state who is the symbolic representative of the state on the world's stage. Even the King of Sweden, Emperor of Japan and President of Ireland, none of whom have executive functions, are seen as head of state because they are the country's embodiment on the world stage in international relations, even if practical decisions in international affairs are taken by the government.
Yes, I was conscious of the fact that not all heads of state are able to exercise executive power directly. That's why I qualified it by saying something like 'at least, formally', because the head of state usually still fulfils formal functions, especially those concerning international matters such as treaties and accepting the credentials of visiting ambassadors. In Australia, even these powers have been 'delegated' under s 2 of the Constitution, although not fully transferred, which means they are still technically powers of the Sovereign, even if they are exercised locally in Australia under delegation. Re the messy transfer of power in Ireland, you might be interested in my discussion of the removal of James McNeill as Governor-General, the attempt by de Valera to merge the office of President of the Executive Council and Governor-General, the refusal of the Chief Justice to take the oath necessary to act as Governor-General and the final resolution in which a shopkeeper, Donal Buckley, was appointed as Governor-General. I went through a lot of primary documents to pull it all together. It's at pp 746-758 of my book 'The Veiled Sceptre - Reserve Powers of Heads of State in Westminster Systems' (Cambridge Uni Press, 2018).
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I cannot wait to read your book. It is an area I have written about. I felt a lot of sympathy for McNeill. He was a decent man who bent over backwards to facilitate the change of government and smooth de Valera's entry into power. Yet his ministers treated McNeill with pettiness and often cruelty. In frustration, he then crossed the line. George V, typically, handled it well - convincing de Valera to withdraw the advice to dismiss McNeill, then convincing McNeill to bring forward the end of his term by a few months by resigning. It was a way to take the heat out of the clash. The whole of the 1930s is fascinating. De Valera was an innovative thinker but often tied himself in knots and confused everyone.
I was under the impression that (at least here in NZ) the date of the sovereign's official birthday (the first Monday in June) was chosen so it did not fall in close proximity to any other public holiday, thus giving us a day off between Anzac Day (25 April) and Labour Day (late October), the longest period without a public holiday (though a new one, Matariki (late June/early July), has subsequently also been added between these dates, but it falls according to an annual astronomical event so couldn't be discretionarily assigned). I assume that early June was chosen because of the greater likelihood of fine weather at this time compared to the following four months. Anyway, very informative video!
Very clear. What a blessing it is, to have a sovereign/head of state who is above party politics! His/her existence prevents some self-seeking corrupt politician from grabbing the top position and power.
@@JonathanLee-gl2bb You are actually both wrong. Constitution is just a piece of paper. All politicians would have to do is just ignore it or lie about what it says to get around it. King Charles also has no practical power in Australian politics. Queen Elizabeth couldn't stop a communist revolution in Grenada, the US military had to intervene. If the King had more power he could prevent corrupt politicians, although I disagree with a lot of what he has to say I can see at his core he is a good man. Without that power, what prevents corrupt politicians is really just judges who politicians appoint so in reality we just trust politicians to act in our interest (which clearly hasn't worked).
@@brack5251 Of course in the end force of arms determines the final result that is what the English Civil Wars were all about - who enforces what . It was in the end the battles between Parliament and the Royals that determined Parliaments law prevailed over the Kings . Since then it is the States military forces that enforce the law . ( with outside assistance in Grenadas case ) - the King has zero political OR military force .
@@JonathanLee-gl2bb I agree that it is the highest law in the land and if enforceable but if the politicians really wanted to, they could work around the constitution by packing courts with biased judges, as seen in USA (on both sides) and just acting like the government has not overreached when they clearly have. I would also argue that the King does have lawful military force in that the British and Australian armies swear allegiance to him and nobody else, obviously practically it works a bit different but the military belongs to the King de jure. I am simply of the opinion that having a neutral King above parliament keeps stability in a country far better than a partisan president and that politicians can weasel out of anything, even the constitution.
I imagine a foreign monarch as head of state ‘works’ for you if you are a spinless colonial, too gutless to back Australia. But not if you have any national dignity.
s 2B is a list of definitions, so when you are reading the Act, and you find one of the words that are defined by 2B, then the precise legal meaning is given by section 2B - rather than some other meaning such as you might find in a different source text like a dictionary or encyclopedia. So, you’d note there are three definitions there which tell you to cross-check with section 15B - the definitions of (i) Australia, (ii) Commonwealth, and (iii) external territories. These definitions are what those words mean legally when they are being used in a geographical sense. Islands that are adjacent to Australia that are implicitly part of the lands of a State are also parts of Australia in the legal sense without having to be named - we don’t need to list that for example, Kangaroo Island is an off-shore part of South Australia, or that King Island is a part of Tasmania. So the definitions of Australia and Commonwealth also specifically include those islands or territories that are not adjacent (Norfolk Island, and the territories of Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands); and section 15B is concerned with what offshore seas are legally interpreted as being part of the geographical (and therefore legal) meaning of ‘Australia’. Things like fishing or mining rights would flow out of those definitions.
On the public holiday for the Hair as well as the King. I propose that we should have a public holiday for each of the birthdays of the top 200 in line for the crown. I originally was aiming at the top 365 but realised we do need to do a coupe of days here and there and we essentially MUST maintain weekends and other public holidays.
Thank you, another informative and entertaining video. Early June birthday of George V, there seems to be a reason for using his birthday. It falls around start of summer, a good time for a holiday. Probably having a holiday for present king would be no good as the weather is not so good for a holiday- too close to the start of winter. Always good to keep the peasants happy.
There is a dearth of holidays mid year. This is a convenient way of breaking up the holiday drought. Also in keeping with the historic spirit of celebrating the Monarch's birthday by having a day of rest for the early convicts.
Very interesting video and series. Thank you Anne. I have a general question about transitioning to a republic. Do you think it would be viable to replace the monarch with elected Australians who serve a fixed term in office, while keeping the Crown of Australia as a democratic Crown for the Commonwealth and the states? One advantage of this is that we could fashion the election campaigns for an elected Australian head of state around conventions that constrain the monarch with regards to commenting on political topics and being impartial politically. The election campaigns could be around topics of philanthropy, celebrating organisations and people who volunteer to help the community, or even causes (such as the elimination of landmines worldwide, as an example). Another advantage is that we could leave the constitution much as it is (except Section 59) and add a new section defining the method of election. We may need to request a modification to the Statute of Westminster in Canada and the UK, to recognise a bifurcation in succession for the Crown of Australia, based on new democratic rules to elect the head of state for the Crown of Australia (encompassing the Commonwealth and State Crowns).
I'm not sure how practical that would be. In practice, people are unlikely to campaign on philanthropic matters (and even if they did, would you really want a campaign that people with disease A are more worthy of support than people suffering disadvantage B or cause C?) Politics would inevitably slip in. This is particularly the case when you consider who would have the organisation in place to run a national campaign and who would have the money to fund it.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Anne you are confusing choosing a politician with political policies and capacity with choosing a Head of State who cannot act in a political manner and has no political capacity ie a titular President ( like the Irish President ). If your contract says you must be apolitical and you are political - you are in breach of your contract .
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Hi Anne, thank you for your reply. Sorry, I didn't explain myself well. As a thought experiment, imagine if we replaced the King or Queen with an elected Australian who serves a fixed term (of one year, as "Australian of the Year", let's say, elected in one state at a time, and from the territories for the Commonwealth, in a round robin around the nation). What if the elected Australian would be constrained by the conventions that constrain the monarchy with regards being impartial. The campaigning would be along similar topics that the royal family in the UK engage with the public - supporting public causes, visiting hospitals, supporting charities, encouraging public philanthropy, etc. You could imagine some candidates in Australia championing organisations like their local volunteer bush fighting brigade, their local netball team, etc. It wouldn't matter much what candidates were supporting - the process is more about seeing how candidates interact with the public, their interpersonal skills and manner, and how well they perform under a public spotlight. The elections would not include political parties, by definition. There are no preferences in voting. The role is purely ceremonial. There would still be an appointed Governor-General for the Commonwealth, and appointed Governors for the States - and these representatives of the elected head of state would continue to have reserve powers - as they do now under a monarchy. But an elected head of state (under a democratic Crown of Australia) has no political power at all. Its essentially a state-based beauty contest to be the face of Australia. We could alternate the gender each year, and ensure gender equality. A person would vote only once every seven years for the head of state. The governments would need to run some events or forums to give candidates some airtime - but there is no point for political parties to try to push favorite candidates. A state-based election would probably be small enough for this to work - but a nationwide election could only be run by party machines. Keeping everything else as it is - even the Crown of Australia for the Commonwealth and the states - the question is whether it would be feasible to replace the monarch with an elected Australian to serve a fixed term in office as Australia's head of state.
As a second question. For the 1999 referendum it was claimed that the only thing the Queen or King does is appoint the Governor-General (and state Governors) on the advice of the Prime Minister (or state Premier). That may have been true before the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act came into effect. But since the 3rd of September 1939 (retroactively) there have been two or more Crowns in Australia. Once the Crown became at least partially divisible, it is the person of the monarch who provides unity as the Sovereign - and no longer the Crown itself. Could it be argued that the monarch provides a personal unity for the Crown of Australia (the Crown in right of the Commonwealth and the six Crowns in right of the states, respectively, and maybe even the Crowns in right of the ACT & NT). Is this a function of the monarch that has been missed? If the 1999 referendum had been successful, would we have woken up the next morning with two heads of state - an appointed President (or whatever their title was to be) for the Commonwealth tier, and the Queen for the states' tier of government? This question would only apply to Australia, as Australia is unique (apart from Nigeria) in having more than one representative of the monarch and more than one divisible Crown in a federation.
Yes, I've got a copy on my shelf. It presents some views with which I disagree, but it does have the advantage of insider knowledge of how the office of Governor-General operates in practice. So it is worth a read - but in the knowledge that it is also pushing some ideological positions.
Pity you weren’t around in 1999! What the ACM (Australians for Constitutional Monarchy) asserted that we already had an Australian Head of State in the Governor-General was non-sense.
I was around in 1999, but I was a government lawyer then, so not able to speak out. I actually did the republic negotiations on behalf of New South Wales, and got a few bits of the proposed amendments changed (albeit not enough, because of the need for the Commonwealth to save face). I would have been in charge of revising the NSW Constitution, if the republic referendum had passed at the national level. But that did not come to pass.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Turnbull blew it in 1999. He didn’t seem to accept that direct election advocates were the real enemy until too late. In the type of Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, where the most important quality of a governor general is discipline to following the constitution, and equally important conventions, direct election was totally inappropriate. We don’t vote for judges or the referee at the weekend football match for good reasons - impartiality being paramount. Direct election would inevitably produce a partisan head of state.
@@geoffk8996 How could a person elected to a position that requires an apolitical stance mysteriously become political ? Elected without policies or campaigns and able to be sacked for breach of contract ? Historically we have beheaded a King for challenging Parliaments Sovereignty .
@@JonathanLee-gl2bb My point is that to be elected a candidate would need to reveal his stance on various issues so that voters know what they are voting for. And once he/she does they become a politician. I don’t know what David Hurley’s views on political issues are, and I don’t need to know. All I need to know is that he will uphold the Constitution, and its various conventions, and that he will be impartial.
@@geoffk8996 What do you mean by ' what they are voting for ' ? The GG or President MUST act on the Advice of ministers of Parliament - that is what you are getting . The HoSs opinions are worthless once in the position . And if they don't like that they can resign or be sacked . You are filling a position that is subject to the Constitution and Laws of the Commonwealth NOT choosing a ruler .
I've just discovered this channel and it's so informative. I love it. Well done. I have two questions: 1. Was the Canadian parliament entitled to force military personnel to take a certain vaccine? 2. Following on from the video about illegitimacy, what about surrogacy? I have no view on these but would welcome information to enable me to form an opinion.
On the Canadian question, that's outside my area of expertise. My knowledge of the Canadian Constitution is directed at pretty specific areas, such as succession to the Crown, constitutional amendment, etc, rather than day-to-day issues about the scope of legislative power. Best to ask a Canadian constitutional lawyer. As for surrogacy, I'm unaware of any law that specifically deals with that in relation to succession to the Crown. So the question would be how the law on surrogacy operates generally in the UK (which again, is beyond my expertise) and whether this has any effect on existing common law and statute regarding succession to the throne. My guess is that the law has not caught up with this issue. If it arose, it is likely that Parliament would act to clarify the situation.
Interesting. I would have liked to hear you discuss the point that the monarch cannot exercise the powers of sovereign personally, but is _required_ to delegate them. Only the G-G (or administrator) can exercise the powers of the head of state. That leads us to consideration of the Royal Powers Act 1953. Is it valid? Under what head of power was it made, and did it exceed the competence of Parliament by attempting to alter the Constitution without a referendum? And if indeed it is valid, was it proper?
The Royal Powers Act 1953 does *not* seek to alter the wording of the Constitution whatsoever at all, which would require a referendum. Nor does it seek to usurp nor depower the GG in any way. If anything it is more an act of respect and courtesy to the Sovereign to enable him/her to exercise powers, under the guidance of our GG and parliament, strictly temporarily, while physically present in Australia. Any suggestion otherwise, falls under the remit of pseudolaw beliefs, which are both legally meritless and tiresome.
A reading of s.59 & s.60 of the Constitution seems at odds with what you are suggesting (indebted to a random on Twitter who once pointed this out to me, and thus convinced me in one fell swoop that perhaps the Sovereign remains Australia's Head of State after all).
@@DamonSchultz No , s.59 & 60 are now ' spent ' according to the Australian High Court - were only there in colonial days to allow Imperial ministers to ' Advise ' the Monarch to void colonial Acts not in the UKs interests. ( another example of words unchanged in the Constitution that are now redundant ).
@DamonSchultz s59 has *never* been used, is never likely to be used and the AGs office in 2020 referred to it as a "dead letter" in operational terms. It also could not be used by the Sovereign without Australian ministerial advice anyway. S60 is still a power of the GG, not of the physical Sovereign themselves in any current capacity.
Being a staunch monarchist from a Commonwealth country, I can understand the obvious appeal of the claim that the GG is head of state, it's a convenient line used to shut up republicans who call for a "home-grown head of state" but deep down we all know the truth, the King is the true head of state
You mention that The Hon Margaret Beasly was Administrator of Aust that weekend. It would have been interesting to know how the Administrator is appointed, and their powers.
The short answer is that section 4 of the Constitution says that the provisions of the Constitution relating to the Governor General extend to such person as the monarch appoints 'to administer the Government of the Commonwealth'. In practice, this is usually the most senior State Governor. As Administrator, they exercise all the powers of the Governor-General. I did a video on the Chain of Command here: ruclips.net/video/9Q0guYY6QuY/видео.html.
BTW, she is Margaret Beazley. She had had an outstanding career at the NSW Bar before accepting judicial appointment, first to the Federal Court (with associated ,appointments), later as a Judge of, and then President, of the NSW Court of Appeal. From there she became Governor of NSW. It is usual that the senior of the State Governors holds a dormant commission to act as Administrator of Australia. The Administrator has all the powers of a Governor General.
@@doubledee9675 It was not my intention to downplay her achievements, only to enquire about the temporary transition from State Governor to Administrator
Hi Ann. I am going to use this info to seize control of my office as sometimes my boss delegates duties to me. Thanks EDIT: Like the ex GG of Canada apparently. LOL!
@@constitutionalclarion1901 quite seriously though whenever the monarchy in Australia comes up online I always see republicans use the GG is head of state line. In future I shall gleefully link this video and exclaim: “You’ve been had! You’ve been had!”
Anne, thank you for your wonderful videos I am really enjoying them - and learning from them! I live in the Australian Capital Territory, as you once did too I think, and you would well know that the ACT is the only self-governing jurisdiction in Australia without a representative of the Crown, despite the fact that the Governor-General resides here. If, as in the states, or at least most of them, the Governor can be said to be the Head of State at the state level, is it true to say that there is no Head of State at the territory level in the ACT? There is, after all, no royal assent given to bills passed by the ACT Legislative Assembly. Is the ACT, de facto, if not de jure, a sort of republic at the territory level, domiciled within a constitutional monarchy at the national level? By extension, is it true to say that there is no representative of the Crown in some of the other territories, which also lack Administrators (as the ACT also lacks), such as Jervis Bay Territory, Coral Sea Islands Territory and Australian Antarctic Territory? What is the nature of the "presence" of the Crown in these parts of Australia, and what does it say, if anything, about the relevance and the role of the "presence" elsewhere in the states, at the state level. Thank you! Regards, Shane.
Yes, these are interesting questions. The ACT does not have a 'head of state' in that sense, which probably does not matter much, as it is a territory, rather than a country. Internationally, a head of state is required for certain purposes, eg re treaties and diplomatic recognition. In countries like Switzerland, that don't want one, they nominate a council to be it, but then take turns amongst the council members for 1 year each to be the President of the Council and do all the things that a head of state needs to do. I'm assuming that some of the representational functions a Governor would ordinarily fulfil might be done instead by the Chief Minister of the ACT, in a dual role. It would be interesting to know. But yes, the ACT is an interesting model of how a republic might work, especially regarding matters such as assent and the appointment and removal of the chief minister.
Thank you Anne, Clause 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK , "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesties heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom", as such there can only be King Charles III as the successor to the Queen, not the "King of Australia", as there would then be a Royal Style and Title to that reference. In fact on that note where is the head of Power in clause 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 Uk for the legislator to provide legislation altering the Monarchs title? Would that legislation then be beyond the power of the legislator to create as the Bill of Rights 1688-9 section 13(8) and beyond the power of the Monarch to enact?
At the Commonwealth level, there have been two Royal Style and Titles Acts, passed in 1953 and 1973. I presume that they rely on the incidental legislative power in s 51(xxxix) and the executive power in s 61. The Queen also gave personal assent to them. It is unclear at this stage whether a new statute is going to be enacted specifically in relation to King Charles III, but proclamations were made upon his succession setting out his royal style and title in Australia. For more detail on this, see the following paper by the UK House of Commons Library: commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-kings-style-and-titles-in-the-uk-and-the-commonwealth/.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thanks for the reply but there is still the unanswered question as to where is the head of power allowing a change to the Royal Style and Title in the light of the Bill of Rights?
@@constitutionalclarion1901 On the point of 51(xxxix) there seems to be , until shown, a head of power for the Parliament to create a Royal Style and Title in particular the 1973 Act. With respect to the 1953 Royal Style and Title there also needs to some sort of evidence that Westminster had the power to create that legislation in the light of the Bill of Rights section 13(8).
@@1darryloflife The Bill of Rights is just an Act of Parliament. It is not entrenched in any way. It has been altered by later laws that changed the succession to the throne, both in the UK and Australia. To the extent that it is part of Australian law, it can be altered by Australian law. But in any case, royal style and titles legislation does not alter the succession at all. It just gives the monarch a particular title to use to show the capacity in which the monarch is acting.
Ok, so when Charles makes his next trip to Australia, constitutionally, can he lawfully perform any of the constitutional duties of the GG? For example, if the King's trip councides with a prime minister resigning, can the king appoint a prime minister?
The power of appointment of ministers (including the Prime Minister) is given directly to the Governor-General by the Constitution, so the King cannot exercise it. The King can, however, exercise powers conferred upon the Governor-General by statute, when present in Australia - see the Royal Powers Act 1953.
If there were an alteration to the Cth Constitution substituting “Queen” for “President” (and presumably provision for the appointment or election of the President), where does that leave the State Governors and their vice-regal status? Would the State Parliaments need to legislate amendments to their Constitution Acts? Or would the Cth alteration be drafted to cover that issue?
They will be exactly where they are today - representatives of their individual State - and subject to the Commonwealth Constitution ( as the States are ) .
Back in 1999, the republic referendum did not affect State Governors or State Constitutions. So the Governor would have remained the representative of the Queen within an Australian republic. It was assumed that if the referendum was successful at the national level, this would encourage each State to make its own changes, and that if any States tried to cling to the Queen, she would make it clear to them that she did not want to remain Queen of a State in a republic. But because the referendum failed, we never saw how this would have played out. Yes, each State would have had to change its own Constitution to cut their links with the Queen. Some would have required their own referendum. Theoretically, a future republic referendum at the Commonwealth level could try to bind the States as well, but it is very messy and best avoided. I wrote a chapter about it in a book edited by Sarah Murray called ''Constitutional Perspectives on an Australian Republic" (Federation Press, 2010).
@@JonathanLee-gl2bb The Queen of Western Australia or the Queen of Tasmania. That is because a separate Crown in relation to the State would either have already existed (which is arguable - because State Premiers advise the monarch directly on State matters) or have been created by the republic referendum. It was one of the supreme ironies of the 1999 referendum, that it might have abolished one Crown and created six!
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Strange , in 1901 and earlier there was only the British Crown . How did the Australia Acts create six Crowns ( independent political entities ) and are there Royal Titles accepted by the Monach for these Australian States ? ( established by the 1901 Constitution ) .
I suggest a compromise. The GG can represent crown rather than the soverign. That way we can have an Australian head of state and he or she can represent the crown rather than the monarch in personam.
I'm not a flag expert, but I'm sure those at Government House are very careful about what flags they fly on particular occasions. No doubt there is a long list of rules they obey, but I'll leave this to others to explain.
@constitutionalclarion1901 The Queen had her own Australian flag when in Australia. I guess Charles hasn't got around to getting new flags designed for each Realm. Or perhaps he'll just use his British one everywhere?
Yes, because the King is now King of Australia due to laws that have become part of Australian law and cannot be altered by the UK (although there might be a dispute about the application of covering clause 2).
@@JonathanLee-gl2bb I'm not sure what you mean here. The title 'head of state' is not used in the Constitution. The 'royal style and title' of the monarch is just the description that they use when signing documents, so not terribly important, apart from being an indicator of the capacity in which they act. What is important is the substance - which is that the monarch acts on Australian advice with respect to Australian matters and is monarch due to rules of succession that are part of Australian law.
I'm less than convinced, sorry. In any event, it's a distinction without a difference in that we don't mention any Head of State in our constitution nor is it universally defined. Anne provides a 'generally accepted definition' but in essence, the only people who care are the republicans who, after 25 years since their failed referendum, still can't decide what model they want. We seem to be able to get by without a HoS so why stir the pot? More importantly, I'm reminded that Australia had a diplomatic incident with Indonesia some years ago when the GG was due to visit but the Indonesians refused to accord him the ceremonial honours of a HoS. The Australian government therefore cancelled the visit and, as a result, the Indonesians rescheduled the visit with full HoS honours. Since then, governments of both sides have insisted that the GG is received abroad with full HoS ceremony. Several powers are held in the GG's own right under the constitution eg Commander in Chief of the defence forces. And we should remember the GG is not a delegate of the sovereign and his decisions are not reviewable by him. Finally, Anne's references to other realms may be educational, but our constitution isn't the same. I understand that for many years, even the British Government and the sovereign misunderstood the legal implications of our constitution but later corrected their interpretations after representations from Australia. Additionally, we all know how skilful lawyers are in arguing both sides of the same case and inventing interpretations of longstanding laws. Beware the interpretations of just one constitutional lawyer, good as she is.
Yes, as I noted in my video, several powers are directly conferred on the Governor-General, and are not exercisable by the Sovereign. But the power you mention, that of commander in chief of the naval and military forces, is actually vested by s 68 of the Constitution in 'the Governor-General as the Queen's representative'. This makes the point, which monarchists ought to support, that the Governor-General is only a representative of someone else, and is therefore constrained in the exercise of his or her powers. The risk of a republic is that a head of state who is not similarly constrained, but rather, exercises powers fully in his or her own right, might have power go to his or her head and exercise those powers inappropriately. This has been the main argument against a directly elected head of state. Hence, the rather odd argument by some monarchists that the Governor-General is the head of state with full powers, rendering the Sovereign irrelevant, undermines the strongest argument that monarchists have against a republic.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thanks for your reply, Anne. Much appreciated. I’m certainly a monarchist and tire of the endless debates about who is the HoS. It’s obvious the top position is the king, not the GG and that the GG’s powers are the king’s exercised in Australia. But the republican argument is that they don’t want to be dictated to by a foreign, hereditary monarch, failing to explain what insufferable indignities the evil king (of Australia) has inflicted. All the power is wielded by the GG, an Aussie and the beauty of the current system is definitely the constraint on both the politicians and the GG by the presence of a superior moderating influence to which they all respectfully bend the knee. I can see your point on the monarchist argument which, despite all the hoopla, nevertheless seems to prevail when needed.
@@kenwaugh7 I always have. 40 years of service in the RAN including active service might give an indication. There's nothing un-Australian in backing the very successful system of government we've enjoyed for so long and which we Australians voted for. Is it this democracy thingy you don't understand?
Do Australians not consider King Charles III to be an Australian? Would he not automatically as head of state be an Australian citizen, or is the debate about having an Australian as head of state more political than factual?
King Charles does not satisfy the requirements of Australia's citizenship legislation to be classified as an Australian citizen. There is a higher level argument about whether he should be considered Australian because he is the head of state of Australia. But from a public point of view, everybody knows that he is British and that his primary loyalty lies to the United Kingdom.
There are two principles missing. The head of state is the highest public servant one, and two the head of state is the first sovereign amongst sovereigns, as expressed through Royal prerogative which was removed by Parliament in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was cause enough to enact the security clause of the 1215 Magna Carta, Article 61. However was later invoced on March 23, 2001 after Queen Elizabeth failed to rebutt the evidence of treason (by Tony Blair in signing over Sovereignty via the Treaty of Nice), as required under her coronation oath.
Nonsense ? Why not you forward an address Professor Anne Twomey, and I can send you all the evidence of the invocation of Article 61 by the Barons on March 23, 2001? Information readily available from the British Library archives, if you perhaps doubt me. Then again, I would be only too happy to do the work for you.
So who is Charles, King of Australia? From an FOI enquiry, the government don't seem to know nor do they have the documentation to support the establishment of such head of state.
The monarch is technically the head whether that be a king or queen however all the powers exercisable by the monarch are vested in the Governor's General However the king or queen can not act without the authority of the english parliament so while on paper we are a constitutional monarchy to all intents and purposes we are a republic We no longer have appeals to the english privy council there by ending the last vestige of english control over Australia Also from 1933 onwards australia began appointing australians as governors general
@@evangiles4403 Yes we are effectively now a Republic as our High Court no longer recognises the ' Crown of the UK ' and the UK Parliament cannot legislate for us . Remember these days no one with allegiance to the UK can sit in our Parliament . We ceased to be British subjects on 3rd March 1986 ( Independence Day ) .
What a load of claptrap. Factually correct as it maybe. Please when will we ever have our own resident head of state? Most other countries have been so brave as to rule themselves.
@@leechgully of course we do but that is not the question - the question is why do we still represent ourselves as British -- and no that is not anti British it is just that we aren't British .
@JonathanLee-gl2bb oh I agree we don't need a hereditary foreign sovereign as head of state. Its an anachronism. But we don't ever actually get them to represent us in any meaningful way anymore. But I take your point they could perform that role if they were actually one of us so we could perhaps get more out of the institution. A good head of state could be someone who helped to unify the place. On the other hand if you end up with a duff one ,then they can be seen as an expensive seat warmer too. Not sure why we need one at all really.
It is an interesting question. He is foreign to the extent that he is not an Australia citizen and does not qualify for Australian citizenship. Yet it could also be argued that as Sovereign of Australia, he is necessarily not foreign. He therefore may fall within the category identified in the Love and Thoms cases of 'non-citizen non-alien'.
"Head of state ' is an office under customary public international law, gradually replacing the term 'prince' in the earlier twentieth century. The Australian Governor-General fulfils this role. There is no office of 'head of state' under the Australian constitution. The one achievement of the Australian Republican Movement has been to make this obscure diplomatic term better known. At the time of the referendum, it was not even in the Macquarie Dictionary. Incidentally, the High Court's first description ( (R v Governor of South Australia, 1907) of the office of governor-general was the 'constitutional head of the Commonwealth' and of the office governor was the 'head of state'.
@@JonathanLee-gl2bbFirst the King is not foreign. Just as Charles III is also Canadian so he is also Australian. Second, the KIng adds another layer to the crucial checks and balances, as seen when EGW threatened to advise the Queen to terminate Kerr's commission. The King in such a situation enjoys what we would call a reserve power. In one case in the thirties, the termination of a Governor-General took months, during which time, of course, the G-G may act. Third, the Australian people have voted to keep the monarchy in the more than six referendums involved in the formation of the Commonwealth and in the referendum where ACM ran the No case in 1999. ACM ensured this was in issue in the No case submitted to the Australian people . The NO case won nationally , in every state and 72% of electorates.
@@davidflint2561 , you’re right. What I should have said is that, as someone who has been a partisan actor in this debate for decades, any attempt on your part to rebut anything Anne says should be seen through that lens and given no weight. In other words, what I should have said is that you are the archetypal unreliable witness in this debate. Nothing you say should be given credence unless it is self-implicating or confirmed from another source.
You would think so. The reason for the controversy was a political argument in 1999 when monarchists wanted to diffuse the republican slogan of 'A mate for head of state' by arguing that the Governor-General was head of state.
No , the States are ' parts of ' the Commonwealth and subject to the Commonwealth Constitution ( in fact the States only exist because the Federal Constitution says they do )
The monarch’s representative is appointed by the monarch, acts for the monarch, answers to the monarch, and serves only at the pleasure of the monarch. So Ms Windsor’s NOT MY PROBLEM line in 1975 was a gutless cop out.
@@kenwaugh7 The Governor-General did send a letter to the Queen explaining his conduct, after it had occurred. But the power that he exercised was one conferred upon him as Governor-General, not the Queen. The Governor-General can always be removed by the monarch, but upon the advice of the Prime Minister.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 if her appointed representative did the right thing, Windsor should have backed him. If he did the wrong thing, she should have sacked him. She did nothing. And proved she was a coward.
@@blackdog417 The oath to the monarch is required when you become a member of parliament. There is no oath required by the constitution when you become a minister or prime minister. Albo swore an oath to the Queen when he entered parliament in the 90s
Thank you for confirming what I learned in Grade 7 social studies 40-odd years ago 😅 I think we should become a republic, but until that happens, the monarch is our Head of State, with the GG and state Governors as proxies. Simple!
Great discussion! Thanks! I regard this matter as in no way trivial or non-core to constitutional matters. A renewed republic debate is in the offing, and it is well to be clear about these matters before kick-off. The ACM stance promoting the G-G as 'head of state' is nothing short of a staggeringly cynical pragmatism, but strikes me as typical of an organisation that repeatedly declines to take a sanguine, positive stance in support of our constitutional monarchy, extolling the virtues of the system it claims to prefer. Instead, ACM relies on sentiment, celebrations of Royal heritage through articles and postings about the interior decoration of Royal palaces and the like, and puff pieces about Royal princesses and fashions in the Royal enclosure at Ascot. There never was a more intellectually defunct organisation supposedly dedicated to constitutional affairs. Professor David Flint, ACM Chair, even wrote a piece about Mary Donaldson, now Queen of Denmark, and her personal popularity amongst Australians, declaring that it was proof that most Australians value monarchy in its own right. It was yet another attempt to win the 'debate' without actually having a debate, and without examining just why our constitutional arrangements are supposedly so good, and then carefully explaining that reasoning to their fellow Australians. It is literally as if Professor Flint and ACM have no faith whatever in current constitutional arrangements or Australians' capacity to appreciate them, preferring to divert people with talk of horses, or Royal portraits, and the decidedly inaccurate notion that ongoing majority support for the constitutional monarchy is a given so we ought to just drop discussion of ia republic altogether. In fact, the erroneous and, it must be said, dishonest, pragmatism that saw ACM argue in the last republic debate that the Governor-General is head of state was not only a clear legal blunder and personal affront to the Queen, but, in fact, it was totally unnecessary. Whatever may be the historical or causal fact of the matter, legally, the monarch of Australia is not monarch by virtue of being the monarch of the United Kingdom or anywhere else, but is our monarch directly, unmediated by any other arrangement, including place of habitual residence or birth. His Majesty King Charles III is, in fact, Australian, as was the late Queen before him. Somebody get the man a chilled stubbie of VB - a King's not a camel! Given ACM's lack of faith in Australians' ability to value our constitutional monarchy for its actual and explicitly articulated constitutional virtues, the technical fact of the King being an Aussie gives them little comfort. In their eyes, this technicality has no power to win over people erroneously concerned that Australia's monarchy represents some form of unacceptable ongoing subordination to 'the motherland'. Instead of openly disabusing such people of this wholy mistaken notion, ACM simply tries to divert attention by means of resort to falsehood. It makes a telling difference to our constitutional arrangements if an understanding were ever to be formally adopted that the Governor-General, in exercising the powers of the sovereign in their stead is, by virtue of that fact, our head of state. 'Head of state' is a phrase the meaning of which includes the core functional role understood to be the exclusive province of the sovereign. It is not synonymous with 'sovereign', but it so crucially overlaps the concept as to make it an impossibility that, if there is a sovereign, then that person is not one and the same person as any person designated head of state. That is just semantics. Here's the real problem: Once you sever the function of head of state from the sovereign, then you sever the ancient authority and prestige of the sovereign - its very point - from affairs of state. The severance at once destroys the undeniability of the authority with which affairs of state are conducted. To make the point plainly, consider what happens if a person not themselves invested with the ancient and undeniable authority and prestige of the monarchy decides to withdraw the commission of a Prime Minister. If a King does it, it may well be controversial, but the parties are dealing with the living embodiment of an undeniable tradition. They'll grumble and there will be more than a few ugly catcalls from high places and low against the King, but for the sake of the system we have all inherited, they will comply, an election will be held in due course, and people will settle down and get on with things. If a nobody does it, a person whose actions are not, by definition, imbued with the same ancient authority as that of the King, and worse, whose position is entirely the gift of the PM, the gap that has been opened up between the sovereign and the Governor-General as 'head of state' will be enough psychologically and rhetorically for disgruntled forces in politics and the community at large to discount the authority of the head of state to end their government, exactly as an American President has lately discounted outright the authority of a perfectly valid election to end his Presidency, with life threatening turmoil, upheaval and societal corrosion as a result. In extremis, we are not dealing with entirely sane people. The pressures are enormous, and any argument on however slender a footing will be used by someone somehow to justify dangerous nonsense. It is in extreme circumstances that the absolutely unquestionable authority of the monarch is precisely what is needed to right the ship. For this reason, there cannot be a distinction drawn between sovereign and head of state. Such a distinction literally undermines the entire point of having the monarchy at all.
but a GG already has removed a pm before the head of state debate started and it was a giant controversy half of it was people wanting to know if it was the Queens idea! althrough as an american your right that a difference between goverment and state in the realms is a good thing although I'm happy with our republic
@JonathanLee-gl2bb I understand that but my general point was I don't think there's ever a case where this would be uncontroversial .expect if like a PM just mentally broke down and turned into a complete raging loon and everyone believed this to be the case.
Yes, the Governor-General has a reserve power to dismiss the Government. I have written a long book about the reserve powers if you are interested in the subject. It is called 'The Veiled Sceptre - Reserved Powers of Heads of State in Westminster Systems' (Cambridge University Press).
@constitutionalclarion1901 Alot people are not happy Karen brewer always wants people to go Governer General gates .And Australia should in droves because the only way to get Australia 🇦🇺 back .Peaceful protest. GOVERNER General given her self a 200 thousand dollar 💵 payrise .While Aussie can't afford a loaf of bread 😢. THEY work for us .
@@sue9151 The Governor-General did not give herself a pay rise. Parliament passed a law setting the pay rate. As the Constitution prevents the pay rate from being changed during the Governor-General's term, it is set at a rate so that it averages out across a five year term at an amount pegged to that of the Chief Justice of the High Court. That did not change at all this time. The same method was used as for the previous Governor-General. The only difference is that the headline number was reduced for the previous Governor-General to take into account his military pension. The consequence was that it seemed like a big pay rise for the new Governor-General, simply because she doesn't have a military pension.
@constitutionalclarion1901 Well God bless her what is she actually doing for the people of Australia 🇦🇺. BECAUSE there way of life is sinking faster than the Titanic .Homeless people everywhere in Tents ⛺️ People live in houses that should be Condemned have mould and rising dampness getting sick Families struggling.And labors motto should to be we look after the workers and the battlers now causing both now .The people of Australia 🇦🇺 need to know that they are in charge. AND they actually work for them .And it's about time people in masses went to the Governer General gates and said we are not happy jan Peacefully and sing that song we Are Australians one and many.and proved it .Because it's the only way to get change 💯
Interestingly & even though The King referred to himself as 'Head of State and Nation', His Majesty at least in The United Kingdom is 'the state', so as it's not possible to be head of yourself, the 'Head of State' moniker doesn’t actually work. For example the royal style refers to 'His' other realms - possession and at the Coronation he ascended quite literally the throne thereby symbolically taking possession of his kingdom (& probably all his other realms). Like you say The King is 'the sovereign', the source of all authority, not the people (apart from Papua New Guinea) and reigns instead 'By the Grace of God'. Blimey...
No Parliament is the source of all authority and the Monarchs are also subject to Parliament - see results of English Civil Wars and the Glorious Revolution .
The foreign monarch’s representative serves only at the foreign monarch’s ‘pleasure’. In other words, the foreign monarch is constitutionally obliged to monitor the performance of their representative and ensure they remain ‘pleased’. In other words, the foreign monarch’s role in overseeing Australia’s governance is active and ongoing.
While the office of Governor-General is held 'at pleasure', in practice there is an underlying agreed term. Any extension of that term requires the monarch's approval, as does any action in cutting the term short. But the monarch acts in both cases upon the advice of the Prime Minister.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 So language has no meaning at all, and the GG maintaining the monarch’s 'pleasure’ actually means ‘the monarch must do what the PM says’. How odd. And how concerning that our constutitoin can be twisted beyond all meaning.
@@kenwaugh7 No it is not odd - the Royals lost their bid to be Sovereign ( rule ) when they lost the English Civil Wars - from then on Parliament became Sovereign ( actually ruled ) which is why the monarchs MUST do what the PMs say . See ' Causes and effects of English Civil Wars '
Queen Victoria's birthday was May 24th, and George V's birthday was June 3, Edward VIII 23 June (but Edward VII's was November) - so we got in the habit of having the public holiday in Mey/June and so we're stuck with the fictional convenience that it is Charle's birthday. Louis XIV famously said"L'etat c'est moi" (I am the State), and if I understand correctly, for us there's a convenient legal game that this is still true - King Charles is an absolute dictator and all power resides in him, he is that state, but he merely choses to only use that power on the advice of elected offical and delegate it to representatives chosen by those elected officials. And so the King is the Head of State because he is the ultimate font of power legitimising all actions of the Australian State. The surreal parallel universe is allowed to continue, because 99.9999% of the time we're able to ignore it.
No, this is not correct because many powers are directly conferred by the Constitution on the Governor-General, as I mentioned in the video. So the King is not an absolute dictator. While the Governor-General is the King's representative (see sections 2, 61 and 68 of the Constitution), this does not mean the King can override the Governor-General and personally exercise the Governor-General's powers under the Constitution. This was recognised in 1975 when the Speaker of the House of Representatives wrote to the Queen asking her to override the dismissal of the Whitlam Government. The Queen's Private Secretary correctly responded that the dismissal of the Government was a power vested by the Constitution in the Governor-General, not the Queen, so she had no power to overturn it.
The King is Head of State and represented by the Governor General. It would seem commonsense that the Governor General would be afforded all honors of Head of State as the King's representative unless the King (or Queen) is in Australia or formally representing Australia. If you desperately need to chuck tradition so that you have an Australian HoS, begin your own branch of the Royal Family, republics where very official is a politician isn't all what it is cracked up to be. If only George Washington had become America's king.
@@mindi2050 Even people who are interested cannot require 16 minutes of discussion to answer a question to which the answer is clear and incontrovertible. There can only be one head of state. It cannot be the GG, as he or she merely represents a superior power. It cannot be the PM (who may accurately be described as Head of Government), because he or she is merely an adviser to the GG, who answers to a superior power. It can only be the King.
@@mindi2050 It is sad only until you compare the absurd idea of a non-resident Head of State with the only practical alternatives - a Head of State who is either elected AS a politician, or appointed BY politicians. Who would you choose? John Howard? Julia Gillard? Kevin Rudd? Scott Morrison? Charles III doesn’t do much for Australia. But he isn’t paid a salary to do anything for Australia, he isn’t provided with a home in Australia, and he enjoys no real perks beyond getting his face on coins and $5 notes. His most important role is to stand in the way of anyone who might seek to acquire the powers which he theoretically holds but - in practice - never exercises. Australia is one of the half-dozen or so most stable democracies in the world. In a century and a quarter since Federation, the reserve powers of the Crown have been used just once, on 11 November 1975, to dismiss an elected government. We can debate the rights and wrongs of that decision. But, even allowing that it was arguably a wrong decision, what was the consequence? All it meant was that the voters had a chance either to reaffirm their support for the Whitlam Government, or to elect a different government. And the decision to dismiss the Whitlam Government wasn’t even made by the late Queen; it was made by her representative, an Australian, appointed by her on the recommendation of none other than Gough Whitlam.
Yes, and every country has a 'head of state', because the word 'state' has a number of different meanings, just as the word 'Crown' does. No country refers to having a 'head of country'.
The term "sovereign state" is a Political Science term describing an independent country that is free from any other government. Therefore, Australia is a sovereign state, and every single "Commonwealth Realm" is a independent sovereign state.
Australia has no Head of State. Officially our Head of State is the monarch of England, and in their absence, the Governor General. But in carrying out their ceremonial role, the British Monarch follows the advise of the British Government, which can lead to events were the Australian government is strongly presenting one point of view, while the purported Head of State of Australia is making speeches in support of the opposite view, on the advise of the PM of England. (This has actually happened.) So, de facto, we have a Head of State when it is not inconvenient to England for us to do so; which is to say, we do not really have a Head of State at all.
Honestly, this only strengthens my convictions; we might as well not have a monarch at all. The office is practically useless and symbolically irrelevant in modern Australia.
Do you think we should do away with a head of state completely ? Just not have one ? Who does the entertaining when we have to host a foreign head of state ?
Please let this be the end of it. The monarch is head of state. Only by removing the birthright of a foreign monarch can Australia have an Australian as head of state.
Independence seems to preoccupy republicans. Could we have an independent constitutional monarchy? Could we replace the King with a monarch of our own choosing (start a new dynasty)?
Not my king Charles III, holds no line of Authority to the stone of remembrance, is under a foreign crown ( St Edwards Crown ). We are not part of the British Commonwealth of Nations. We are under the Australian Imperial crown. Lest ye forget
You had better check the Constitution and understand that there has been no British Commonwealth since about 1949 . And the Australian High Court does not recognise the ' Crown of the UK '.
Having a foreign claimant to the divine rights of princes being the unelected head of state is, frankly, a revolting state of affairs. Considering the public rejected even marginal reform to the constitution to enable an Indigenous voice I can’t see a referendum to address this appalling flaw in Australian democracy succeeding in my lifetime.
I think King Charles would be surprised to hear himself described as a 'claimant to the divine right of princes'. He has made it quite clear that he accepts he is a constitutional monarch, not an absolute one. Anyway, the whole idea of the divine right in the UK was rejected (at least implicitly) in 1688, and no subsequent monarch has claimed to rule by divine right.
Sadly for you, we Australians voted several times in favour of our constitutional monarchy; initially at the time of federation and finally in 1999 referendum. So we elected this system making it all fully democratic.
Easily the most entertaining, informative and valuable thing on RUclips! Thank you so much for making your significant knowledge and experience available to the general public.
Thanks. Much appreciated!
This is the second video I’ve watched of yours Ma’am. I subscribed. I like your content and delivery very much. It’s intelligent and relevant. Thank you.
Much appreciated!
Hello, thank you for an amusing (but still informative) video! Here in the UK we celebrate the King's official birthday in June regardless of the real date and the reason is always given that it's in the hope of getting better weather, just as you said. I suppose in general the weather is likely to be better here in June than in November, or even in April (in the case of the late Queen), but it doesn't always work out that way in the event, and it's comforting in a way to know that we are not the only ones to have this problem. The keeping of the monarch's birthday as a national occasion (rather than just a court occasion) is, I gather, a relatively recent innovation, going back only as far as the reign of George II. Here it's always held on a Saturday and we don't get a day off work because of it.
I like how, for a Brit, something that first occurred around 275 years ago is "relatively recent" - that's older than the vast majority of modern nation states :) Odd that this sovereign's home country doesn't give its citizens (subjects?) a day off yet in many of his/her other realms (such as Canada, Australia and here in NZ) it's always on a Monday and thus a statutory holiday - gawd bless ya ma'am/guv'nor!
@@johnnzboy I wondered if that might raise a smile somewhere ... George II is a long time ago even for a Brit, but not as long as (say) Henry VIII or the Crusades etc. I really just meant that having public celebration of the monarch's birthday is a lot more recent than having a monarch. That might be one reason why it never became a public holiday here in the sense of getting the day off work: there was no tradition of that. As for the citizen/subject thing, I would say I was a citizen of the UK (which is what it says on my passport for example) but a subject of the King. I hope Anne won't say that's wrong!
"the reason is always given that it's in the hope of getting better weather" - whereas here, it marks the start of the ski season.
@@doubledee9675 😀
@@Shalott63 I am old enough to remember Cracker Night, when we'd gather round a bonfire with our bags of mixed fireworks, ranging from those to be a spectacle and those to make noise. And a few skyrockets as well. That followed a half day holiday from school - theoretically to honour the monarch's official birthday (and that was George VI to start with) but more to give us time to buy our domestic fireworks and prepare the bonfire.
Transubstantiation to mark The King’s birthday, who knew?!
As a good Anglican, surely the King eschews transubstantion.
It's rather disappointing that the King doesn't attend any of his birthday celebrations even though he has so many to choose from.
Perhaps he is worried about having to eat too much cake.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Indeed - but there's a very simple and practical reason. Were he to choose Barbados over Canada, the Canadians may well be upset. By his staying in the UK, and in his usual residences, he was not upsetting the Canadians or anyone else.
Well he does attend the celebrations in the UK, if he's here at the time, which is usually the case. I guess that if he were in (say) Canada for some reason at the time when his birthday was being celebrated there, then he would attend that.
Appreciate this clarification on Australia’s Head of State. As a Canadian I was never comfortable with the claim that the G-G was Australia’s Head of State. In Canada we’ve had to remind at least one G-G that she was not the Sovereign. On the topic of Provincial Lt. Governors being subservient to the Federal G-G, that is an interesting topic. If a Lt -Gov wanted to decline signing a bill into law, I believe they can refer the bill to the Federal level. However the Queen in Right of Ontario is an independent crown. Per our Constitution there is a division of authority between the Feds and Provinces. So the Crown in right of Ontario is supreme in certain areas such as Education.
I am head of state and it’s about time people accepted that and started listening to me .
It’s in the constitution of Australia … penciled in on the fly of my copy !
Humans are funny.
I have just enjoyed your excellent video on the subject of Australia’s Head of State. It made me wonder if you might have known my late friend Rev Dr David Mitchell. He was a Tasmanian delegate to the Constitutional Convention and held firmly to “the Governor-General is the Head of State” argument, even though he was, if I recall correctly, a transfer from Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, to which I belonged, to the Australian Monarchist League. Our primary connection was that we were both ministers of the Presbyterian Church of Australia. Prior to this he had been a lawyer in public service at Parliament House in Canberra.
I have probably run across him at functions from time to time, but I can't claim to know him, I'm afraid.
right after MY birthday thank you!
I think in the age of the internet where messages and even conversations can be had half way across the world in seconds the idea of an absentee head of state might ironically be MORE sensible then when the concept started .or at least have a better chance of lasting. On which note the part about the palace helping the argument is odd to me as my impression is the palace at the time actually wanted Australia to become a republic or at least wouldn't mind it .prince Philp was actually reportedly furious at the result. Perhaps they removed the claim as it was under debate so they thought it best to stay out of it?
Thank you for the wonderful video!
No it was a deliberate attempt to undermine the Referendum - then reversed after the result .
If the G-G were the Head of State for Australia, you'd expect that that office-holder would appoint the State Governors - much as the Administrator of the Northern Territory is appointed. But State Governors are appointed by the monarch, with neither the G-G or the Prime Minister having any say in it.
I should have said that the monarch's appointment of State Governors is on the advice of the State Premier..
@@doubledee9675 And the Federal Constitution authorizes that arrangement .
@@JonathanLee-gl2bb I'd say that the arrangement is consistent with the Federal Constitution.
@@doubledee9675 Yes it is and must be .
I would say that it's because that the States were sovereign before the Commonwealth existed.... so they have their own relationships with the sovereign.
Another wonderful talk on matters that I didn’t know I didn’t know😂🙏
Thank you. Clearly and explicitly explained.
You are most welcome.
Another interesting video! Thanks Anne! Good to see those extra letters released by the archives have come in handy!
Yes - those letters are a treasure trove. I intend to write a book exploring some of the different constitutional issues that they exposed.
Hopefully next time the King's Birthday rolls around the Palace/Government House/Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet will have got round to updating Australian royal symbols to reflect the Carolean era so that an Australian Royal Standard is used on these ceremonial occasions and not the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom.
The monarchy is foreign to Australia.
It is the trinkets and baubles of another country’s empire.
There is no such thing as ‘Australian’ monarchist regalia.
@@kenwaugh7 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Personal_Australian_Flag
Yes there is
Well spotted! I had missed it.
It is like a Chinese flag made in Australia.
It advertises a foreign entity. In our case a foreign monarchy, led by a foreign person.
@@kenwaugh7 On the contrary, the King’s Royal Australian Standard would indicate the King of Australia. There’s a hint in that title of whether he’s foreign or not.
I have always understood that the monarch was the titular Head of State with the Governor-General being the de-facto Head of State.
I feel that an oath to the monarch did not a complete an oath to the country.
Certainly the unamended text of the Schedule to the Constitution would not help to dispel that feeling. The oath in 1901 was to “Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law”, and the footnote to the Schedule says “[t]he name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.” Obviously the reference to the monarch there is not to the person her- (or him-) self, but to the body politic, and since the late 1920s the Crown is no longer regarded as indivisible. This change means that as a practical matter, the oath that is being sworn nowadays is to the King or Queen of Australia (and the phrase “according to law” is now explicitly Australian law), who is someone who also happens to be the monarch of the United Kingdom.
@@Xanthe_Cat I am unable concur that an oath to a person is a full oath to the country. The person or the position can be easily replaced.
@@basilpunton5702The crown is divisible and therefore is separate. The title is separate from the person and the crown can only exist by the assent of parliament and the people.
I hope you don't mind me making this remark but you have the nicest jackets. And they fit you so well, they look so good on you
Thanks. Much appreciated.
Fabulous thanks Anne!
An interesting video. I would quibble with one aspect, as someone who in a thesis on the office of President of Ireland studied the constitutional roles of heads of state. A number of states don't vest executive authority in the head of state, but often directly in the government in its own right. For example, the King of Sweden lost his executive role in the 1974 Instrument of Government, and no longer appoints the government. The Emperor of Japan post World War II lost any governmental role. Executive authority is not vested in the President of Ireland but in the Government of Ireland. So, some people generally seen as heads of state don't have any executive functions.
Ireland for a period had a particularly bizarre system, authorised by the author of endless bizarre ideas, Éamon de Valera. In 1922, most of the Island of Ireland, called the Irish Free State, became a dominion, with George V King in Ireland. (Note the word 'in'.) In the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act the King's role in the dominions changed completely. He ceased to be king IN a dominion, but became King OF a dominion, as a personal role. In 1936, de Valera used the abdication of Edward VIII to abolish the crown and governor-generalship in the constitution, but then resurrect the King as King of Ireland in diplomatic and foreign relations via the External Relations Act.
To confuse things more, in 1937, de Valera in 1937 enacted a new constitution with an office of President of Ireland. So who was head of state, the King of Ireland or the President of Ireland, as they co-existed? I tend to the view that the King of Ireland was, as he was the embodiment of Ireland on the international state: treaties were signed in his name. He accredited Irish diplomats. Foreign heads of state sent letters of credence to him. The President of Ireland was constitutionally 'first citizen' but had no role representing Ireland outside the state.
That messy system, that confused the world, continued until 1949 when the Republic of Ireland Act was enacted and the King's role in foreign affairs was given to the President of Ireland, with the King de facto abolished. Only then could one say definitively that the President was clearly the head of state. Before then, the international representational role done by a head of state or in their name was done by the King.
As some heads of state have executive authority but some don't, I think of more significance is who is acknowledged as the representative of the state either symbolically (like doing state visits) or in practice internationally. That would in Australia be the King, not the Governor General. While the Governor General accredits diplomats, etc, it still is in theory on behalf of the King of Australia. If the Governor General paid a state visit to Ireland. the toasts at the state dinner would be to the "President of Ireland" and "King of Australia".
So, in effect, the head of state is the highest official in the state who is the symbolic representative of the state on the world's stage. Even the King of Sweden, Emperor of Japan and President of Ireland, none of whom have executive functions, are seen as head of state because they are the country's embodiment on the world stage in international relations, even if practical decisions in international affairs are taken by the government.
Yes, I was conscious of the fact that not all heads of state are able to exercise executive power directly. That's why I qualified it by saying something like 'at least, formally', because the head of state usually still fulfils formal functions, especially those concerning international matters such as treaties and accepting the credentials of visiting ambassadors. In Australia, even these powers have been 'delegated' under s 2 of the Constitution, although not fully transferred, which means they are still technically powers of the Sovereign, even if they are exercised locally in Australia under delegation.
Re the messy transfer of power in Ireland, you might be interested in my discussion of the removal of James McNeill as Governor-General, the attempt by de Valera to merge the office of President of the Executive Council and Governor-General, the refusal of the Chief Justice to take the oath necessary to act as Governor-General and the final resolution in which a shopkeeper, Donal Buckley, was appointed as Governor-General. I went through a lot of primary documents to pull it all together. It's at pp 746-758 of my book 'The Veiled Sceptre - Reserve Powers of Heads of State in Westminster Systems' (Cambridge Uni Press, 2018).
Our Royals lost their Executive power when the Parliamentary forces stormed Red Hill and won the Civil Wars .
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I cannot wait to read your book. It is an area I have written about. I felt a lot of sympathy for McNeill. He was a decent man who bent over backwards to facilitate the change of government and smooth de Valera's entry into power. Yet his ministers treated McNeill with pettiness and often cruelty. In frustration, he then crossed the line. George V, typically, handled it well - convincing de Valera to withdraw the advice to dismiss McNeill, then convincing McNeill to bring forward the end of his term by a few months by resigning. It was a way to take the heat out of the clash.
The whole of the 1930s is fascinating. De Valera was an innovative thinker but often tied himself in knots and confused everyone.
I was under the impression that (at least here in NZ) the date of the sovereign's official birthday (the first Monday in June) was chosen so it did not fall in close proximity to any other public holiday, thus giving us a day off between Anzac Day (25 April) and Labour Day (late October), the longest period without a public holiday (though a new one, Matariki (late June/early July), has subsequently also been added between these dates, but it falls according to an annual astronomical event so couldn't be discretionarily assigned). I assume that early June was chosen because of the greater likelihood of fine weather at this time compared to the following four months. Anyway, very informative video!
Very clear. What a blessing it is, to have a sovereign/head of state who is above party politics! His/her existence prevents some self-seeking corrupt politician from grabbing the top position and power.
He or she does not do that - the Constitution and laws of Australia do that . ie Parliaments law .
@@JonathanLee-gl2bb You are actually both wrong. Constitution is just a piece of paper. All politicians would have to do is just ignore it or lie about what it says to get around it. King Charles also has no practical power in Australian politics. Queen Elizabeth couldn't stop a communist revolution in Grenada, the US military had to intervene. If the King had more power he could prevent corrupt politicians, although I disagree with a lot of what he has to say I can see at his core he is a good man. Without that power, what prevents corrupt politicians is really just judges who politicians appoint so in reality we just trust politicians to act in our interest (which clearly hasn't worked).
@@brack5251 Of course in the end force of arms determines the final result that is what the English Civil Wars were all about - who enforces what . It was in the end the battles between Parliament and the Royals that determined Parliaments law prevailed over the Kings . Since then it is the States military forces that enforce the law . ( with outside assistance in Grenadas case ) - the King has zero political OR military force .
@@brack5251 The Constitution is a law and enforceable - not just a piece of paper .
@@JonathanLee-gl2bb I agree that it is the highest law in the land and if enforceable but if the politicians really wanted to, they could work around the constitution by packing courts with biased judges, as seen in USA (on both sides) and just acting like the government has not overreached when they clearly have. I would also argue that the King does have lawful military force in that the British and Australian armies swear allegiance to him and nobody else, obviously practically it works a bit different but the military belongs to the King de jure. I am simply of the opinion that having a neutral King above parliament keeps stability in a country far better than a partisan president and that politicians can weasel out of anything, even the constitution.
Works very well for Australia I will NEVER vote to change it
I imagine a foreign monarch as head of state ‘works’ for you if you are a spinless colonial, too gutless to back Australia. But not if you have any national dignity.
So how do I interpret
Section 2B and 15B acts Interpretation Act 1901
s 2B is a list of definitions, so when you are reading the Act, and you find one of the words that are defined by 2B, then the precise legal meaning is given by section 2B - rather than some other meaning such as you might find in a different source text like a dictionary or encyclopedia.
So, you’d note there are three definitions there which tell you to cross-check with section 15B - the definitions of (i) Australia, (ii) Commonwealth, and (iii) external territories. These definitions are what those words mean legally when they are being used in a geographical sense. Islands that are adjacent to Australia that are implicitly part of the lands of a State are also parts of Australia in the legal sense without having to be named - we don’t need to list that for example, Kangaroo Island is an off-shore part of South Australia, or that King Island is a part of Tasmania.
So the definitions of Australia and Commonwealth also specifically include those islands or territories that are not adjacent (Norfolk Island, and the territories of Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands); and section 15B is concerned with what offshore seas are legally interpreted as being part of the geographical (and therefore legal) meaning of ‘Australia’. Things like fishing or mining rights would flow out of those definitions.
On the public holiday for the Hair as well as the King. I propose that we should have a public holiday for each of the birthdays of the top 200 in line for the crown. I originally was aiming at the top 365 but realised we do need to do a coupe of days here and there and we essentially MUST maintain weekends and other public holidays.
Thank you, another informative and entertaining video. Early June birthday of George V, there seems to be a reason for using his birthday. It falls around start of summer, a good time for a holiday. Probably having a holiday for present king would be no good as the weather is not so good for a holiday- too close to the start of winter. Always good to keep the peasants happy.
A curious fact is that the sovereign's birthday is not a public holiday in the UK
@@charlieb2903 Also, the UK is more likely to become a republic before us
There is a dearth of holidays mid year. This is a convenient way of breaking up the holiday drought. Also in keeping with the historic spirit of celebrating the Monarch's birthday by having a day of rest for the early convicts.
@@raycorcoran137 The UK will never get rid of its indigenous titular Head of State .
@@raycorcoran137 Not likely as the Monarch is not a foreigner there ..
Very interesting video and series. Thank you Anne.
I have a general question about transitioning to a republic. Do you think it would be viable to replace the monarch with elected Australians who serve a fixed term in office, while keeping the Crown of Australia as a democratic Crown for the Commonwealth and the states? One advantage of this is that we could fashion the election campaigns for an elected Australian head of state around conventions that constrain the monarch with regards to commenting on political topics and being impartial politically. The election campaigns could be around topics of philanthropy, celebrating organisations and people who volunteer to help the community, or even causes (such as the elimination of landmines worldwide, as an example). Another advantage is that we could leave the constitution much as it is (except Section 59) and add a new section defining the method of election. We may need to request a modification to the Statute of Westminster in Canada and the UK, to recognise a bifurcation in succession for the Crown of Australia, based on new democratic rules to elect the head of state for the Crown of Australia (encompassing the Commonwealth and State Crowns).
I'm not sure how practical that would be. In practice, people are unlikely to campaign on philanthropic matters (and even if they did, would you really want a campaign that people with disease A are more worthy of support than people suffering disadvantage B or cause C?) Politics would inevitably slip in. This is particularly the case when you consider who would have the organisation in place to run a national campaign and who would have the money to fund it.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Anne you are confusing choosing a politician with political policies and capacity with choosing a Head of State who cannot act in a political manner and has no political capacity ie a titular President ( like the Irish President ). If your contract says you must be apolitical and you are political - you are in breach of your contract .
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Hi Anne, thank you for your reply. Sorry, I didn't explain myself well.
As a thought experiment, imagine if we replaced the King or Queen with an elected Australian who serves a fixed term (of one year, as "Australian of the Year", let's say, elected in one state at a time, and from the territories for the Commonwealth, in a round robin around the nation). What if the elected Australian would be constrained by the conventions that constrain the monarchy with regards being impartial. The campaigning would be along similar topics that the royal family in the UK engage with the public - supporting public causes, visiting hospitals, supporting charities, encouraging public philanthropy, etc. You could imagine some candidates in Australia championing organisations like their local volunteer bush fighting brigade, their local netball team, etc. It wouldn't matter much what candidates were supporting - the process is more about seeing how candidates interact with the public, their interpersonal skills and manner, and how well they perform under a public spotlight. The elections would not include political parties, by definition. There are no preferences in voting. The role is purely ceremonial. There would still be an appointed Governor-General for the Commonwealth, and appointed Governors for the States - and these representatives of the elected head of state would continue to have reserve powers - as they do now under a monarchy. But an elected head of state (under a democratic Crown of Australia) has no political power at all. Its essentially a state-based beauty contest to be the face of Australia. We could alternate the gender each year, and ensure gender equality. A person would vote only once every seven years for the head of state. The governments would need to run some events or forums to give candidates some airtime - but there is no point for political parties to try to push favorite candidates. A state-based election would probably be small enough for this to work - but a nationwide election could only be run by party machines.
Keeping everything else as it is - even the Crown of Australia for the Commonwealth and the states - the question is whether it would be feasible to replace the monarch with an elected Australian to serve a fixed term in office as Australia's head of state.
As a second question. For the 1999 referendum it was claimed that the only thing the Queen or King does is appoint the Governor-General (and state Governors) on the advice of the Prime Minister (or state Premier). That may have been true before the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act came into effect. But since the 3rd of September 1939 (retroactively) there have been two or more Crowns in Australia. Once the Crown became at least partially divisible, it is the person of the monarch who provides unity as the Sovereign - and no longer the Crown itself.
Could it be argued that the monarch provides a personal unity for the Crown of Australia (the Crown in right of the Commonwealth and the six Crowns in right of the states, respectively, and maybe even the Crowns in right of the ACT & NT). Is this a function of the monarch that has been missed? If the 1999 referendum had been successful, would we have woken up the next morning with two heads of state - an appointed President (or whatever their title was to be) for the Commonwealth tier, and the Queen for the states' tier of government? This question would only apply to Australia, as Australia is unique (apart from Nigeria) in having more than one representative of the monarch and more than one divisible Crown in a federation.
Hi Anne, am wondering if you ever read ‘Head of State’ by private secretary of GG Kerr, David Smith, which pushed this view?
Yes, I've got a copy on my shelf. It presents some views with which I disagree, but it does have the advantage of insider knowledge of how the office of Governor-General operates in practice. So it is worth a read - but in the knowledge that it is also pushing some ideological positions.
Pity you weren’t around in 1999! What the ACM (Australians for Constitutional Monarchy) asserted that we already had an Australian Head of State in the Governor-General was non-sense.
I was around in 1999, but I was a government lawyer then, so not able to speak out. I actually did the republic negotiations on behalf of New South Wales, and got a few bits of the proposed amendments changed (albeit not enough, because of the need for the Commonwealth to save face). I would have been in charge of revising the NSW Constitution, if the republic referendum had passed at the national level. But that did not come to pass.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Turnbull blew it in 1999. He didn’t seem to accept that direct election advocates were the real enemy until too late. In the type of Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, where the most important quality of a governor general is discipline to following the constitution, and equally important conventions, direct election was totally inappropriate. We don’t vote for judges or the referee at the weekend football match for good reasons - impartiality being paramount. Direct election would inevitably produce a partisan head of state.
@@geoffk8996 How could a person elected to a position that requires an apolitical stance mysteriously become political ? Elected without policies or campaigns and able to be sacked for breach of contract ? Historically we have beheaded a King for challenging Parliaments Sovereignty .
@@JonathanLee-gl2bb My point is that to be elected a candidate would need to reveal his stance on various issues so that voters know what they are voting for. And once he/she does they become a politician. I don’t know what David Hurley’s views on political issues are, and I don’t need to know. All I need to know is that he will uphold the Constitution, and its various conventions, and that he will be impartial.
@@geoffk8996 What do you mean by ' what they are voting for ' ? The GG or President MUST act on the Advice of ministers of Parliament - that is what you are getting . The HoSs opinions are worthless once in the position . And if they don't like that they can resign or be sacked . You are filling a position that is subject to the Constitution and Laws of the Commonwealth NOT choosing a ruler .
I've just discovered this channel and it's so informative. I love it. Well done. I have two questions: 1. Was the Canadian parliament entitled to force military personnel to take a certain vaccine? 2. Following on from the video about illegitimacy, what about surrogacy? I have no view on these but would welcome information to enable me to form an opinion.
On the Canadian question, that's outside my area of expertise. My knowledge of the Canadian Constitution is directed at pretty specific areas, such as succession to the Crown, constitutional amendment, etc, rather than day-to-day issues about the scope of legislative power. Best to ask a Canadian constitutional lawyer.
As for surrogacy, I'm unaware of any law that specifically deals with that in relation to succession to the Crown. So the question would be how the law on surrogacy operates generally in the UK (which again, is beyond my expertise) and whether this has any effect on existing common law and statute regarding succession to the throne. My guess is that the law has not caught up with this issue. If it arose, it is likely that Parliament would act to clarify the situation.
Interesting. I would have liked to hear you discuss the point that the monarch cannot exercise the powers of sovereign personally, but is _required_ to delegate them. Only the G-G (or administrator) can exercise the powers of the head of state.
That leads us to consideration of the Royal Powers Act 1953. Is it valid? Under what head of power was it made, and did it exceed the competence of Parliament by attempting to alter the Constitution without a referendum? And if indeed it is valid, was it proper?
The Royal Powers Act 1953 does *not* seek to alter the wording of the Constitution whatsoever at all, which would require a referendum.
Nor does it seek to usurp nor depower the GG in any way. If anything it is more an act of respect and courtesy to the Sovereign to enable him/her to exercise powers, under the guidance of our GG and parliament, strictly temporarily, while physically present in Australia.
Any suggestion otherwise, falls under the remit of pseudolaw beliefs, which are both legally meritless and tiresome.
A reading of s.59 & s.60 of the Constitution seems at odds with what you are suggesting (indebted to a random on Twitter who once pointed this out to me, and thus convinced me in one fell swoop that perhaps the Sovereign remains Australia's Head of State after all).
@@DamonSchultz No , s.59 & 60 are now ' spent ' according to the Australian High Court - were only there in colonial days to allow Imperial ministers to ' Advise ' the Monarch to void colonial Acts not in the UKs interests. ( another example of words unchanged in the Constitution that are now redundant ).
@DamonSchultz s59 has *never* been used, is never likely to be used and the AGs office in 2020 referred to it as a "dead letter" in operational terms. It also could not be used by the Sovereign without Australian ministerial advice anyway.
S60 is still a power of the GG, not of the physical Sovereign themselves in any current capacity.
The GG is appointed by, acts for, and answers to the monarch.
If the constitution is not broken, please do not lie about it.
F W Maitland would appreciate your lucidity, ma'am.
Being a staunch monarchist from a Commonwealth country, I can understand the obvious appeal of the claim that the GG is head of state, it's a convenient line used to shut up republicans who call for a "home-grown head of state" but deep down we all know the truth, the King is the true head of state
You mention that The Hon Margaret Beasly was Administrator of Aust that weekend. It would have been interesting to know how the Administrator is appointed, and their powers.
The short answer is that section 4 of the Constitution says that the provisions of the Constitution relating to the Governor General extend to such person as the monarch appoints 'to administer the Government of the Commonwealth'. In practice, this is usually the most senior State Governor. As Administrator, they exercise all the powers of the Governor-General.
I did a video on the Chain of Command here: ruclips.net/video/9Q0guYY6QuY/видео.html.
BTW, she is Margaret Beazley. She had had an outstanding career at the NSW Bar before accepting judicial appointment, first to the Federal Court (with associated ,appointments), later as a Judge of, and then President, of the NSW Court of Appeal. From there she became Governor of NSW. It is usual that the senior of the State Governors holds a dormant commission to act as Administrator of Australia. The Administrator has all the powers of a Governor General.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thanks. I thought that the position of administration might have been rotated amongst the state governors
@@doubledee9675 It was not my intention to downplay her achievements, only to enquire about the temporary transition from State Governor to Administrator
@@petergale9200 I'd not read it as a. downplaying her achievements, but thought a bit of her background would flesh out an aspect of this discussion
Hi Ann. I am going to use this info to seize control of my office as sometimes my boss delegates duties to me. Thanks
EDIT: Like the ex GG of Canada apparently. LOL!
Well done. Go for it!
@@constitutionalclarion1901 quite seriously though whenever the monarchy in Australia comes up online I always see republicans use the GG is head of state line. In future I shall gleefully link this video and exclaim: “You’ve been had! You’ve been had!”
@@chegayvara1136 Go for it - with the GG as Head of State - the monarch is completely redundant and of no further use ..
Anne, thank you for your wonderful videos I am really enjoying them - and learning from them! I live in the Australian Capital Territory, as you once did too I think, and you would well know that the ACT is the only self-governing jurisdiction in Australia without a representative of the Crown, despite the fact that the Governor-General resides here. If, as in the states, or at least most of them, the Governor can be said to be the Head of State at the state level, is it true to say that there is no Head of State at the territory level in the ACT? There is, after all, no royal assent given to bills passed by the ACT Legislative Assembly. Is the ACT, de facto, if not de jure, a sort of republic at the territory level, domiciled within a constitutional monarchy at the national level? By extension, is it true to say that there is no representative of the Crown in some of the other territories, which also lack Administrators (as the ACT also lacks), such as Jervis Bay Territory, Coral Sea Islands Territory and Australian Antarctic Territory? What is the nature of the "presence" of the Crown in these parts of Australia, and what does it say, if anything, about the relevance and the role of the "presence" elsewhere in the states, at the state level. Thank you! Regards, Shane.
Yes, these are interesting questions. The ACT does not have a 'head of state' in that sense, which probably does not matter much, as it is a territory, rather than a country. Internationally, a head of state is required for certain purposes, eg re treaties and diplomatic recognition. In countries like Switzerland, that don't want one, they nominate a council to be it, but then take turns amongst the council members for 1 year each to be the President of the Council and do all the things that a head of state needs to do.
I'm assuming that some of the representational functions a Governor would ordinarily fulfil might be done instead by the Chief Minister of the ACT, in a dual role. It would be interesting to know.
But yes, the ACT is an interesting model of how a republic might work, especially regarding matters such as assent and the appointment and removal of the chief minister.
Ah, but royal constitutional issues are very interesting. I didn‘t know about the Royal Standard procedure at the parade.
Yes, it is rather odd!
@@constitutionalclarion1901 The real presence of the sovereign is something Catholics of a Roman or Anglo variety would understand quite well.
Thank you Anne, Clause 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK , "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesties heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom", as such there can only be King Charles III as the successor to the Queen, not the "King of Australia", as there would then be a Royal Style and Title to that reference. In fact on that note where is the head of Power in clause 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 Uk for the legislator to provide legislation altering the Monarchs title? Would that legislation then be beyond the power of the legislator to create as the Bill of Rights 1688-9 section 13(8) and beyond the power of the Monarch to enact?
There IS a Royal Style and Title to that effect
At the Commonwealth level, there have been two Royal Style and Titles Acts, passed in 1953 and 1973. I presume that they rely on the incidental legislative power in s 51(xxxix) and the executive power in s 61. The Queen also gave personal assent to them.
It is unclear at this stage whether a new statute is going to be enacted specifically in relation to King Charles III, but proclamations were made upon his succession setting out his royal style and title in Australia. For more detail on this, see the following paper by the UK House of Commons Library: commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-kings-style-and-titles-in-the-uk-and-the-commonwealth/.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thanks for the reply but there is still the unanswered question as to where is the head of power allowing a change to the Royal Style and Title in the light of the Bill of Rights?
@@constitutionalclarion1901 On the point of 51(xxxix) there seems to be , until shown, a head of power for the Parliament to create a Royal Style and Title in particular the 1973 Act. With respect to the 1953 Royal Style and Title there also needs to some sort of evidence that Westminster had the power to create that legislation in the light of the Bill of Rights section 13(8).
@@1darryloflife The Bill of Rights is just an Act of Parliament. It is not entrenched in any way. It has been altered by later laws that changed the succession to the throne, both in the UK and Australia. To the extent that it is part of Australian law, it can be altered by Australian law. But in any case, royal style and titles legislation does not alter the succession at all. It just gives the monarch a particular title to use to show the capacity in which the monarch is acting.
Thanks
Ok, so when Charles makes his next trip to Australia, constitutionally, can he lawfully perform any of the constitutional duties of the GG? For example, if the King's trip councides with a prime minister resigning, can the king appoint a prime minister?
The power of appointment of ministers (including the Prime Minister) is given directly to the Governor-General by the Constitution, so the King cannot exercise it. The King can, however, exercise powers conferred upon the Governor-General by statute, when present in Australia - see the Royal Powers Act 1953.
If there were an alteration to the Cth Constitution substituting “Queen” for “President” (and presumably provision for the appointment or election of the President), where does that leave the State Governors and their vice-regal status? Would the State Parliaments need to legislate amendments to their Constitution Acts? Or would the Cth alteration be drafted to cover that issue?
They will be exactly where they are today - representatives of their individual State - and subject to the Commonwealth Constitution ( as the States are ) .
Back in 1999, the republic referendum did not affect State Governors or State Constitutions. So the Governor would have remained the representative of the Queen within an Australian republic. It was assumed that if the referendum was successful at the national level, this would encourage each State to make its own changes, and that if any States tried to cling to the Queen, she would make it clear to them that she did not want to remain Queen of a State in a republic. But because the referendum failed, we never saw how this would have played out.
Yes, each State would have had to change its own Constitution to cut their links with the Queen. Some would have required their own referendum.
Theoretically, a future republic referendum at the Commonwealth level could try to bind the States as well, but it is very messy and best avoided. I wrote a chapter about it in a book edited by Sarah Murray called ''Constitutional Perspectives on an Australian Republic" (Federation Press, 2010).
@@constitutionalclarion1901 But if there was no Queen of Australia in who's name would the State Governor give assent in the name of ?
@@JonathanLee-gl2bb The Queen of Western Australia or the Queen of Tasmania. That is because a separate Crown in relation to the State would either have already existed (which is arguable - because State Premiers advise the monarch directly on State matters) or have been created by the republic referendum. It was one of the supreme ironies of the 1999 referendum, that it might have abolished one Crown and created six!
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Strange , in 1901 and earlier there was only the British Crown . How did the Australia Acts create six Crowns ( independent political entities ) and are there Royal Titles accepted by the Monach for these Australian States ? ( established by the 1901 Constitution ) .
I suggest a compromise. The GG can represent crown rather than the soverign. That way we can have an Australian head of state and he or she can represent the crown rather than the monarch in personam.
Interesting to notice that the flag being flown is that of the King of the UK. The King of Australia doesn't seem to have an Australian version yet.
I'm not a flag expert, but I'm sure those at Government House are very careful about what flags they fly on particular occasions. No doubt there is a long list of rules they obey, but I'll leave this to others to explain.
@constitutionalclarion1901 The Queen had her own Australian flag when in Australia. I guess Charles hasn't got around to getting new flags designed for each Realm. Or perhaps he'll just use his British one everywhere?
Very interesting stuff.
Glad you enjoyed it.
I have a question. If the UK became a republic, and Australia did not, would the monarch still be the head of state in Australia?
Well yes at least until we had overcome our shock and realised we had no one to represent our Nation and give assent to legislation .
Yes, because the King is now King of Australia due to laws that have become part of Australian law and cannot be altered by the UK (although there might be a dispute about the application of covering clause 2).
@@constitutionalclarion1901 So the Title is important ..?
@constitutionalclarion1901 I opened The Constitution and read the clause. Interesting.
@@JonathanLee-gl2bb I'm not sure what you mean here. The title 'head of state' is not used in the Constitution. The 'royal style and title' of the monarch is just the description that they use when signing documents, so not terribly important, apart from being an indicator of the capacity in which they act. What is important is the substance - which is that the monarch acts on Australian advice with respect to Australian matters and is monarch due to rules of succession that are part of Australian law.
I'm less than convinced, sorry. In any event, it's a distinction without a difference in that we don't mention any Head of State in our constitution nor is it universally defined. Anne provides a 'generally accepted definition' but in essence, the only people who care are the republicans who, after 25 years since their failed referendum, still can't decide what model they want. We seem to be able to get by without a HoS so why stir the pot?
More importantly, I'm reminded that Australia had a diplomatic incident with Indonesia some years ago when the GG was due to visit but the Indonesians refused to accord him the ceremonial honours of a HoS. The Australian government therefore cancelled the visit and, as a result, the Indonesians rescheduled the visit with full HoS honours. Since then, governments of both sides have insisted that the GG is received abroad with full HoS ceremony.
Several powers are held in the GG's own right under the constitution eg Commander in Chief of the defence forces. And we should remember the GG is not a delegate of the sovereign and his decisions are not reviewable by him.
Finally, Anne's references to other realms may be educational, but our constitution isn't the same. I understand that for many years, even the British Government and the sovereign misunderstood the legal implications of our constitution but later corrected their interpretations after representations from Australia.
Additionally, we all know how skilful lawyers are in arguing both sides of the same case and inventing interpretations of longstanding laws. Beware the interpretations of just one constitutional lawyer, good as she is.
Yes, as I noted in my video, several powers are directly conferred on the Governor-General, and are not exercisable by the Sovereign. But the power you mention, that of commander in chief of the naval and military forces, is actually vested by s 68 of the Constitution in 'the Governor-General as the Queen's representative'.
This makes the point, which monarchists ought to support, that the Governor-General is only a representative of someone else, and is therefore constrained in the exercise of his or her powers. The risk of a republic is that a head of state who is not similarly constrained, but rather, exercises powers fully in his or her own right, might have power go to his or her head and exercise those powers inappropriately. This has been the main argument against a directly elected head of state.
Hence, the rather odd argument by some monarchists that the Governor-General is the head of state with full powers, rendering the Sovereign irrelevant, undermines the strongest argument that monarchists have against a republic.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thanks for your reply, Anne. Much appreciated. I’m certainly a monarchist and tire of the endless debates about who is the HoS. It’s obvious the top position is the king, not the GG and that the GG’s powers are the king’s exercised in Australia.
But the republican argument is that they don’t want to be dictated to by a foreign, hereditary monarch, failing to explain what insufferable indignities the evil king (of Australia) has inflicted. All the power is wielded by the GG, an Aussie and the beauty of the current system is definitely the constraint on both the politicians and the GG by the presence of a superior moderating influence to which they all respectfully bend the knee.
I can see your point on the monarchist argument which, despite all the hoopla, nevertheless seems to prevail when needed.
What would it take for you to back Australia?
@@kenwaugh7 I always have. 40 years of service in the RAN including active service might give an indication. There's nothing un-Australian in backing the very successful system of government we've enjoyed for so long and which we Australians voted for. Is it this democracy thingy you don't understand?
@@colinjones7107 Who said anything about changing the system of government ? Other than the IDENTITY of the person officiating as ' Head of State ' .
Do Australians not consider King Charles III to be an Australian? Would he not automatically as head of state be an Australian citizen, or is the debate about having an Australian as head of state more political than factual?
King Charles does not satisfy the requirements of Australia's citizenship legislation to be classified as an Australian citizen. There is a higher level argument about whether he should be considered Australian because he is the head of state of Australia. But from a public point of view, everybody knows that he is British and that his primary loyalty lies to the United Kingdom.
This is cool. I wish we had a monarchy, again
There are two principles missing. The head of state is the highest public servant one, and two the head of state is the first sovereign amongst sovereigns, as expressed through Royal prerogative which was removed by Parliament in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was cause enough to enact the security clause of the 1215 Magna Carta, Article 61. However was later invoced on March 23, 2001 after Queen Elizabeth failed to rebutt the evidence of treason (by Tony Blair in signing over Sovereignty via the Treaty of Nice), as required under her coronation oath.
While I'm sure you are sincere in believing this stuff, from a legal and constitutional point of view it is just nonsense.
Nonsense ? Why not you forward an address Professor Anne Twomey, and I can send you all the evidence of the invocation of Article 61 by the Barons on March 23, 2001? Information readily available from the British Library archives, if you perhaps doubt me. Then again, I would be only too happy to do the work for you.
What's crazy is i was taught at school that the GG was the Head of State.
To ' all intents and purposes ' they are - the monarchs are now redundant .
So who is Charles, King of Australia? From an FOI enquiry, the government don't seem to know nor do they have the documentation to support the establishment of such head of state.
The monarch is technically the head whether that be a king or queen however all the powers exercisable by the monarch are vested in the Governor's General
However the king or queen can not act without the authority of the english parliament so while on paper we are a constitutional monarchy to all intents and purposes we are a republic
We no longer have appeals to the english privy council there by ending the last vestige of english control over Australia
Also from 1933 onwards australia began appointing australians as governors general
@@evangiles4403 Yes we are effectively now a Republic as our High Court no longer recognises the ' Crown of the UK ' and the UK Parliament cannot legislate for us . Remember these days no one with allegiance to the UK can sit in our Parliament . We ceased to be British subjects on 3rd March 1986 ( Independence Day ) .
What a load of claptrap. Factually correct as it maybe. Please when will we ever have our own resident head of state? Most other countries have been so brave as to rule themselves.
We will when Anglo Australians finally assimilate here ..
We still govern ourselves with a non-resident head of state.
@@leechgully of course we do but that is not the question - the question is why do we still represent ourselves as British -- and no that is not anti British it is just that we aren't British .
@JonathanLee-gl2bb oh I agree we don't need a hereditary foreign sovereign as head of state. Its an anachronism. But we don't ever actually get them to represent us in any meaningful way anymore. But I take your point they could perform that role if they were actually one of us so we could perhaps get more out of the institution. A good head of state could be someone who helped to unify the place. On the other hand if you end up with a duff one ,then they can be seen as an expensive seat warmer too. Not sure why we need one at all really.
If Charles is the sovereign of Australia, can he actually be considered foreign?
It is an interesting question. He is foreign to the extent that he is not an Australia citizen and does not qualify for Australian citizenship. Yet it could also be argued that as Sovereign of Australia, he is necessarily not foreign. He therefore may fall within the category identified in the Love and Thoms cases of 'non-citizen non-alien'.
"Head of state ' is an office under customary public international law, gradually replacing the term 'prince' in the earlier twentieth century. The Australian Governor-General fulfils this role. There is no office of 'head of state' under the Australian constitution.
The one achievement of the Australian Republican Movement has been to make this obscure diplomatic term better known. At the time of the referendum, it was not even in the Macquarie Dictionary. Incidentally, the High Court's first description ( (R v Governor of South Australia, 1907) of the office of governor-general was the 'constitutional head of the Commonwealth' and of the office governor was the 'head of state'.
My God, are you still around?
In an Anne Twomey v David Flint credibility fight, you would not even get through the weigh in
Strange little man.
So David , if the GG is the head of state and carries out all the functions - why do we need the foreign Queen ?
@@JonathanLee-gl2bbFirst the King is not foreign. Just as Charles III is also Canadian so he is also Australian. Second, the KIng adds another layer to the crucial checks and balances, as seen when EGW threatened to advise the Queen to terminate Kerr's commission. The King in such a situation enjoys what we would call a reserve power. In one case in the thirties, the termination of a Governor-General took months, during which time, of course, the G-G may act. Third, the Australian people have voted to keep the monarchy in the more than six referendums involved in the formation of the Commonwealth and in the referendum where ACM ran the No case in 1999. ACM ensured this was in issue in the No case submitted to the Australian people . The NO case won nationally , in every state and 72% of electorates.
@@greybirdo There is, of course, no point in debating vulgar abuse rather than substantive argument.
@@davidflint2561 , you’re right. What I should have said is that, as someone who has been a partisan actor in this debate for decades, any attempt on your part to rebut anything Anne says should be seen through that lens and given no weight.
In other words, what I should have said is that you are the archetypal unreliable witness in this debate. Nothing you say should be given credence unless it is self-implicating or confirmed from another source.
I have never heard a more aristocratic Australian. G’day, mate.
Should I be starting my videos with "G'day, mate" to help people relive old Paul Hogan ads?
LOL love it even if was on the thorny issue of the soverign.
certainly isnt Steven Spiers.
This is so interesting. Why does the english speaking world worry about a term such as head of state? Surely the term Sovereign makes it obvious.
You would think so. The reason for the controversy was a political argument in 1999 when monarchists wanted to diffuse the republican slogan of 'A mate for head of state' by arguing that the Governor-General was head of state.
Could a state become a republic before the commonwealth does?
It's tricky. I've got this down on my list for a future Clarion, so watch out for it.
No , the States are ' parts of ' the Commonwealth and subject to the Commonwealth Constitution ( in fact the States only exist because the Federal Constitution says they do )
The monarch’s representative is appointed by the monarch, acts for the monarch, answers to the monarch, and serves only at the pleasure of the monarch.
So Ms Windsor’s NOT MY PROBLEM line in 1975 was a gutless cop out.
To whom does the monarch’s representative answer, if not the monarch?
@@kenwaugh7 The Governor-General did send a letter to the Queen explaining his conduct, after it had occurred. But the power that he exercised was one conferred upon him as Governor-General, not the Queen. The Governor-General can always be removed by the monarch, but upon the advice of the Prime Minister.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 if her appointed representative did the right thing, Windsor should have backed him.
If he did the wrong thing, she should have sacked him.
She did nothing. And proved she was a coward.
And Windsor’s cowardice posed a question that no one can answer. To whom is the monarch’s representative accountable, if not the monarch?
Except she appointed the GG on the PM's advice. Whitlam conceded this.
there are times when boots are more appropriate than heels.
The Governor did make a joke about wearing gum boots, when showing me her mud-caked shoes!
His mother was my queen and I saluted her morning and night for 20 years.
I wil never salute him he is not my king.
no need to salute him regardless
Hey, cool hair.
Of course WA and QLD would have different dates . Gotta love our rebellion states 😂😂
I doubt any politican has sworn an oath to the sovereign
They do when they are first elected to Parliament
@@JamesVCTH No choice ...
This current batch has sworn an oath pursuant to the 1901 Constitution. Albo swore to Australia and the people of Australia. No Sovereign included
@@blackdog417 The oath to the monarch is required when you become a member of parliament. There is no oath required by the constitution when you become a minister or prime minister. Albo swore an oath to the Queen when he entered parliament in the 90s
really I thought they did it everytime they're re elected. Makes the Oath a joke then wouldn't you say
Thank you for confirming what I learned in Grade 7 social studies 40-odd years ago 😅 I think we should become a republic, but until that happens, the monarch is our Head of State, with the GG and state Governors as proxies. Simple!
Great discussion! Thanks! I regard this matter as in no way trivial or non-core to constitutional matters. A renewed republic debate is in the offing, and it is well to be clear about these matters before kick-off.
The ACM stance promoting the G-G as 'head of state' is nothing short of a staggeringly cynical pragmatism, but strikes me as typical of an organisation that repeatedly declines to take a sanguine, positive stance in support of our constitutional monarchy, extolling the virtues of the system it claims to prefer. Instead, ACM relies on sentiment, celebrations of Royal heritage through articles and postings about the interior decoration of Royal palaces and the like, and puff pieces about Royal princesses and fashions in the Royal enclosure at Ascot. There never was a more intellectually defunct organisation supposedly dedicated to constitutional affairs.
Professor David Flint, ACM Chair, even wrote a piece about Mary Donaldson, now Queen of Denmark, and her personal popularity amongst Australians, declaring that it was proof that most Australians value monarchy in its own right. It was yet another attempt to win the 'debate' without actually having a debate, and without examining just why our constitutional arrangements are supposedly so good, and then carefully explaining that reasoning to their fellow Australians. It is literally as if Professor Flint and ACM have no faith whatever in current constitutional arrangements or Australians' capacity to appreciate them, preferring to divert people with talk of horses, or Royal portraits, and the decidedly inaccurate notion that ongoing majority support for the constitutional monarchy is a given so we ought to just drop discussion of ia republic altogether.
In fact, the erroneous and, it must be said, dishonest, pragmatism that saw ACM argue in the last republic debate that the Governor-General is head of state was not only a clear legal blunder and personal affront to the Queen, but, in fact, it was totally unnecessary. Whatever may be the historical or causal fact of the matter, legally, the monarch of Australia is not monarch by virtue of being the monarch of the United Kingdom or anywhere else, but is our monarch directly, unmediated by any other arrangement, including place of habitual residence or birth. His Majesty King Charles III is, in fact, Australian, as was the late Queen before him. Somebody get the man a chilled stubbie of VB - a King's not a camel!
Given ACM's lack of faith in Australians' ability to value our constitutional monarchy for its actual and explicitly articulated constitutional virtues, the technical fact of the King being an Aussie gives them little comfort. In their eyes, this technicality has no power to win over people erroneously concerned that Australia's monarchy represents some form of unacceptable ongoing subordination to 'the motherland'. Instead of openly disabusing such people of this wholy mistaken notion, ACM simply tries to divert attention by means of resort to falsehood.
It makes a telling difference to our constitutional arrangements if an understanding were ever to be formally adopted that the Governor-General, in exercising the powers of the sovereign in their stead is, by virtue of that fact, our head of state. 'Head of state' is a phrase the meaning of which includes the core functional role understood to be the exclusive province of the sovereign. It is not synonymous with 'sovereign', but it so crucially overlaps the concept as to make it an impossibility that, if there is a sovereign, then that person is not one and the same person as any person designated head of state.
That is just semantics. Here's the real problem: Once you sever the function of head of state from the sovereign, then you sever the ancient authority and prestige of the sovereign - its very point - from affairs of state. The severance at once destroys the undeniability of the authority with which affairs of state are conducted.
To make the point plainly, consider what happens if a person not themselves invested with the ancient and undeniable authority and prestige of the monarchy decides to withdraw the commission of a Prime Minister. If a King does it, it may well be controversial, but the parties are dealing with the living embodiment of an undeniable tradition. They'll grumble and there will be more than a few ugly catcalls from high places and low against the King, but for the sake of the system we have all inherited, they will comply, an election will be held in due course, and people will settle down and get on with things. If a nobody does it, a person whose actions are not, by definition, imbued with the same ancient authority as that of the King, and worse, whose position is entirely the gift of the PM, the gap that has been opened up between the sovereign and the Governor-General as 'head of state' will be enough psychologically and rhetorically for disgruntled forces in politics and the community at large to discount the authority of the head of state to end their government, exactly as an American President has lately discounted outright the authority of a perfectly valid election to end his Presidency, with life threatening turmoil, upheaval and societal corrosion as a result.
In extremis, we are not dealing with entirely sane people. The pressures are enormous, and any argument on however slender a footing will be used by someone somehow to justify dangerous nonsense. It is in extreme circumstances that the absolutely unquestionable authority of the monarch is precisely what is needed to right the ship. For this reason, there cannot be a distinction drawn between sovereign and head of state. Such a distinction literally undermines the entire point of having the monarchy at all.
but a GG already has removed a pm before the head of state debate started and it was a giant controversy
half of it was people wanting to know if it was the Queens idea!
althrough as an american your right that a difference between goverment and state in the realms is a good thing although I'm happy with our republic
@@cesargodoy2920 GG is authorised to act by our Constitution and can sack a PM - in restricted circumstances .
@JonathanLee-gl2bb I understand that but my general point was I don't think there's ever a case where this would be uncontroversial .expect if like a PM just mentally broke down and turned into a complete raging loon and everyone believed this to be the case.
De jure Imperial Crown not de facto usurping U.N. St. Edwards Crown 👑
that would be king charlie. [knuckleing forehead]
god bless his british boots!
So the Governer General can sack the government. LIKE whitlam Got sacked by John keer
Yes, the Governor-General has a reserve power to dismiss the Government. I have written a long book about the reserve powers if you are interested in the subject. It is called 'The Veiled Sceptre - Reserved Powers of Heads of State in Westminster Systems' (Cambridge University Press).
@constitutionalclarion1901 Alot people are not happy Karen brewer always wants people to go Governer General gates .And Australia should in droves because the only way to get Australia 🇦🇺 back .Peaceful protest. GOVERNER General given her self a 200 thousand dollar 💵 payrise .While Aussie can't afford a loaf of bread 😢. THEY work for us .
@@sue9151 The Governor-General did not give herself a pay rise. Parliament passed a law setting the pay rate. As the Constitution prevents the pay rate from being changed during the Governor-General's term, it is set at a rate so that it averages out across a five year term at an amount pegged to that of the Chief Justice of the High Court. That did not change at all this time. The same method was used as for the previous Governor-General. The only difference is that the headline number was reduced for the previous Governor-General to take into account his military pension. The consequence was that it seemed like a big pay rise for the new Governor-General, simply because she doesn't have a military pension.
@constitutionalclarion1901 Well God bless her what is she actually doing for the people of Australia 🇦🇺. BECAUSE there way of life is sinking faster than the Titanic .Homeless people everywhere in Tents ⛺️ People live in houses that should be Condemned have mould and rising dampness getting sick Families struggling.And labors motto should to be we look after the workers and the battlers now causing both now .The people of Australia 🇦🇺 need to know that they are in charge. AND they actually work for them .And it's about time people in masses went to the Governer General gates and said we are not happy jan Peacefully and sing that song we Are Australians one and many.and proved it .Because it's the only way to get change 💯
@@sue9151 It is the politicians who make the laws, so if you wish to achieve change, that is where you should address your arguments.
Interestingly & even though The King referred to himself as 'Head of State and Nation', His Majesty at least in The United Kingdom is 'the state', so as it's not possible to be head of yourself, the 'Head of State' moniker doesn’t actually work. For example the royal style refers to 'His' other realms - possession and at the Coronation he ascended quite literally the throne thereby symbolically taking possession of his kingdom (& probably all his other realms). Like you say The King is 'the sovereign', the source of all authority, not the people (apart from Papua New Guinea) and reigns instead 'By the Grace of God'.
Blimey...
No Parliament is the source of all authority and the Monarchs are also subject to Parliament - see results of English Civil Wars and the Glorious Revolution .
Not in Queensland and Western Australia
Klaus Schwab
has no influence at all
Hmmm... but Charles III is not heir or successor and we aren't of the British commonwealth of nations!
What is the ' British Commonwealth of Nations '?
The foreign monarch’s representative serves only at the foreign monarch’s ‘pleasure’.
In other words, the foreign monarch is constitutionally obliged to monitor the performance of their representative and ensure they remain ‘pleased’.
In other words, the foreign monarch’s role in overseeing Australia’s governance is active and ongoing.
While the office of Governor-General is held 'at pleasure', in practice there is an underlying agreed term. Any extension of that term requires the monarch's approval, as does any action in cutting the term short. But the monarch acts in both cases upon the advice of the Prime Minister.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 So language has no meaning at all, and the GG maintaining the monarch’s 'pleasure’ actually means ‘the monarch must do what the PM says’.
How odd. And how concerning that our constutitoin can be twisted beyond all meaning.
@@kenwaugh7 No it is not odd - the Royals lost their bid to be Sovereign ( rule ) when they lost the English Civil Wars - from then on Parliament became Sovereign ( actually ruled ) which is why the monarchs MUST do what the PMs say . See ' Causes and effects of English Civil Wars '
Queen Victoria's birthday was May 24th, and George V's birthday was June 3, Edward VIII 23 June (but Edward VII's was November) - so we got in the habit of having the public holiday in Mey/June and so we're stuck with the fictional convenience that it is Charle's birthday. Louis XIV famously said"L'etat c'est moi" (I am the State), and if I understand correctly, for us there's a convenient legal game that this is still true - King Charles is an absolute dictator and all power resides in him, he is that state, but he merely choses to only use that power on the advice of elected offical and delegate it to representatives chosen by those elected officials. And so the King is the Head of State because he is the ultimate font of power legitimising all actions of the Australian State. The surreal parallel universe is allowed to continue, because 99.9999% of the time we're able to ignore it.
No, this is not correct because many powers are directly conferred by the Constitution on the Governor-General, as I mentioned in the video. So the King is not an absolute dictator.
While the Governor-General is the King's representative (see sections 2, 61 and 68 of the Constitution), this does not mean the King can override the Governor-General and personally exercise the Governor-General's powers under the Constitution. This was recognised in 1975 when the Speaker of the House of Representatives wrote to the Queen asking her to override the dismissal of the Whitlam Government. The Queen's Private Secretary correctly responded that the dismissal of the Government was a power vested by the Constitution in the Governor-General, not the Queen, so she had no power to overturn it.
You might want to read up on the English Civil Wars and the English Bill of Rights ..
The King is Head of State and represented by the Governor General. It would seem commonsense that the Governor General would be afforded all honors of Head of State as the King's representative unless the King (or Queen) is in Australia or formally representing Australia.
If you desperately need to chuck tradition so that you have an Australian HoS, begin your own branch of the Royal Family, republics where very official is a politician isn't all what it is cracked up to be. If only George Washington had become America's king.
Who needs a 16-minutes video to answer a question which can be answered in 2 words: The King.
If you watch the video, you will understand that there has been an argument about this, both in Australia and Canada, and the basis for that argument.
@@mindi2050
Even people who are interested cannot require 16 minutes of discussion to answer a question to which the answer is clear and incontrovertible. There can only be one head of state. It cannot be the GG, as he or she merely represents a superior power. It cannot be the PM (who may accurately be described as Head of Government), because he or she is merely an adviser to the GG, who answers to a superior power. It can only be the King.
@@anthonymorris2276 Yes, a non-resident monarch is the official HoS of Australia. Sad but true.
@@mindi2050
It is sad only until you compare the absurd idea of a non-resident Head of State with the only practical alternatives - a Head of State who is either elected AS a politician, or appointed BY politicians.
Who would you choose? John Howard? Julia Gillard? Kevin Rudd? Scott Morrison?
Charles III doesn’t do much for Australia. But he isn’t paid a salary to do anything for Australia, he isn’t provided with a home in Australia, and he enjoys no real perks beyond getting his face on coins and $5 notes. His most important role is to stand in the way of anyone who might seek to acquire the powers which he theoretically holds but - in practice - never exercises.
Australia is one of the half-dozen or so most stable democracies in the world. In a century and a quarter since Federation, the reserve powers of the Crown have been used just once, on 11 November 1975, to dismiss an elected government.
We can debate the rights and wrongs of that decision. But, even allowing that it was arguably a wrong decision, what was the consequence? All it meant was that the voters had a chance either to reaffirm their support for the Whitlam Government, or to elect a different government. And the decision to dismiss the Whitlam Government wasn’t even made by the late Queen; it was made by her representative, an Australian, appointed by her on the recommendation of none other than Gough Whitlam.
Australia is a Country, not a State !
Yes, and every country has a 'head of state', because the word 'state' has a number of different meanings, just as the word 'Crown' does. No country refers to having a 'head of country'.
No , Australia is a Sovereign Independent and Federal Nation - by law .
The term "sovereign state" is a Political Science term describing an independent country that is free from any other government.
Therefore, Australia is a sovereign state, and every single "Commonwealth Realm" is a independent sovereign state.
Australia has no Head of State. Officially our Head of State is the monarch of England, and in their absence, the Governor General. But in carrying out their ceremonial role, the British Monarch follows the advise of the British Government, which can lead to events were the Australian government is strongly presenting one point of view, while the purported Head of State of Australia is making speeches in support of the opposite view, on the advise of the PM of England. (This has actually happened.) So, de facto, we have a Head of State when it is not inconvenient to England for us to do so; which is to say, we do not really have a Head of State at all.
Just a parroted post, therefore invalid
Honestly, this only strengthens my convictions; we might as well not have a monarch at all. The office is practically useless and symbolically irrelevant in modern Australia.
Do you think we should do away with a head of state completely ? Just not have one ? Who does the entertaining when we have to host a foreign head of state ?
@@leechgully The President of course .
Please let this be the end of it.
The monarch is head of state.
Only by removing the birthright of a foreign monarch can Australia have an Australian as head of state.
Or just be like Denmark and import an Aussie to be Queen! Technically speaking, the Crown Prince of Denmark, Prince Christian, is an Aussie.
Not sure i would have wanted scomo as our head of state...
@@spinifex2d He would then be legally unable to act in a political manner ie MUST act on Advice of ministers of Parliament .
No , the monarch is only theoretically ' Head of State ' - the GG carries out all the functions of the Office - which leaves the monarch redundant .
@@spinifex2d To be fair, it's not as if Turnbull, the Juliar or Rudd would have been any better.
I thought I was illegal for the dictators of England to be king or queen of any other place?
Do you have any basis for that position other than your thoughts ?
Believe it. We have a people's parliament in the kings court.
Independence seems to preoccupy republicans. Could we have an independent constitutional monarchy? Could we replace the King with a monarch of our own choosing (start a new dynasty)?
Not my king Charles III, holds no line of Authority to the stone of remembrance, is under a foreign crown ( St Edwards Crown ). We are not part of the British Commonwealth of Nations. We are under the Australian Imperial crown. Lest ye forget
You had better check the Constitution and understand that there has been no British Commonwealth since about 1949 . And the Australian High Court does not recognise the ' Crown of the UK '.
Having a foreign claimant to the divine rights of princes being the unelected head of state is, frankly, a revolting state of affairs. Considering the public rejected even marginal reform to the constitution to enable an Indigenous voice I can’t see a referendum to address this appalling flaw in Australian democracy succeeding in my lifetime.
Perhaps you are being a bit nasty towards foreigners? Some of the nicest people I know are foreigners and they are not at all 'revolting'.
I think King Charles would be surprised to hear himself described as a 'claimant to the divine right of princes'. He has made it quite clear that he accepts he is a constitutional monarch, not an absolute one. Anyway, the whole idea of the divine right in the UK was rejected (at least implicitly) in 1688, and no subsequent monarch has claimed to rule by divine right.
Sadly for you, we Australians voted several times in favour of our constitutional monarchy; initially at the time of federation and finally in 1999 referendum. So we elected this system making it all fully democratic.
@@colinjones7107 Who said it wasn't democratic?
@@JonathanLee-gl2bbMost republicans.
Govenor General. Is it that hard?
Perhaps watch the video, and the issues will be explained.