Republic - Can an Australian State unilaterally sever its links with the monarch?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 фев 2025
- This is the first of a series of videos on republic questions in Australia. It addresses the question of whether an Australian State could unilaterally sever its constitutional links with the monarch, while Australia remained a constitutional monarchy.
The video explains that each State retains a separate constitutional link with the monarch, which is not governed or controlled by the federal government. While neither the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 nor the Commonwealth Constitution itself seem to require State Governors to be appointed by the monarch or for a State to retain its separate link with the monarch, the real impediment is the Australia Acts 1986.
Section 7 of these Acts declares that the Governor is the representative of the monarch. A State alone could not change that. There would need to be legislation enacted by all the States and the Commonwealth to alter it (or a referendum giving power to the Commonwealth Parliament to do so).
The video also discusses how this issue was dealt with in 1999 in relation to the republic referendum.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
That story of the state's solicitors general republic meeting is hilarious. I bet none of them have made it big as a youtube star, so you've one upped them once again 😎
I doubt very much that any of them would have wanted to be a RUclips star! (And I also doubt that the label star could apply to me on this little channel.)
@@constitutionalclarion1901who knows, one day you might have a million or more subscribers, you sure deserve it. It would be great if schools included your videos as discussion points in their curriculum on constitutional studies. But I don’t even know how much constitutional studies are part of the curriculum if at all.
@@Robert-xs2mvif you take Legal Studies during your senior years it features fairly strongly
@@MenaceGallagher “ if”? I don’t deal in ifs, neither does chicken little so we still don’t know what kind of hat we would wear “If” the sky fell down.
Constitutional and civil studies MUST be a prerequisite qualification for any voter.
Professor, I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for this channel. Loads of great content - and literature for further reading! This American public administration student read your tome "The Veiled Sceptre" last year and thoroughly enjoyed it.
Excellent! Glad to break into the American market. Now, just encourage your colleagues...
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I'll do my best. However, most of my colleagues don't share my research interests. I'm broadly interested in machinery of government topics as they relate to detecting public sector fraud, upholding the rule of law, and preventing abuses of power. I came across data suggesting states with Westminster style heads of state outperform presidential systems on a number of key measures, which led me to Professor Blackburn's and Bogdanor's work in the UK and in turn to yours.
While I'm certainly prejudiced on the point, I think Westminster systems are, on the whole, better than Presidential systems. Although both, obviously, have their flaws when it comes to the abuse of power and corruption.
Hi Dr Twomey - if you haven't already, can you please do a video on the story that New Zealand is legally allowed to join Australia as a state whenever they wish, due to being include as a state in the Constitution?
Whether it's legal or not, I just can't imagine New Zealand ever wanting to become a state of Australia. It would be about as likely as Canada wanting to join the United States.
@mindi2050
I seem to recall back in the 70's there were discussions about merging somehow.
Can't find it but I remember a Kiwi saying on an ABC forum show
"We don't mind getting into bed with you but we don't want to get married"
@@daleford8411But we’ve had children together……
This is a bit of an urban myth. The definition of 'The States' in covering clause 6 only lists the various colonies, including Western Australia and New Zealand, 'as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States'. At the time the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 was passed in the UK, neither WA nor NZ had agreed to join. But WA did agree to join, as an original State, before the Constitution came into force. NZ did not. NZ could only become a State of Australia if admitted to the Commonwealth as a State under s 121, in the same way as any other place could become a State. The definition of 'The States' in covering clause 6 does not allow it to become a State any time it chooses. It would still have to be admitted by the Commonwealth under the existing constitutional procedures.
@ Are you able to expand on how the constitution was adapted for the people of Papua New Guinea to have Australian citizenship?
"Remember I was New South Wales"
It must have felt amazing to be literally be your state or closest thing to it for the purposes of such an important task.
It is my understanding that the cook islands in new Zealand have there own line to the monarch as well for medals and appointments and are counted by the royal family as one of there prime ministers .which I suppose is a bit higher then the Aussie Premiers but a similar concept.
Thank you for taking the time to explain the difference with Canada for Canadian viewers! It makes it clear this is even more interesting for us.
You're welcome. The British preferred the Canadian system and tried to push the Australian States into agreeing to it, but they refused to do so.
@@constitutionalclarion1901
I am glad that the Australians had the fortitude to resist the British in their Constitutional arrangements re: Royally appointed Governors during the Constitutional Conventions of the 1890's.
Currently, the Royal Commissions of Appointment for the Lieutenant Governors in Canada are headed by the Royal Style and Titles of the Sovereign, and are "witnessed" by the Governor General of Canada pursuant to the Constitution Act 1867, Part V --- Provincial Constitutions, Sections 58 & 59.
Also, I think that giving reserve commissions to the Governors of the States to act as Administrator of the Commonwealth is a far better arrangement than having the Chief Justice of Canada serving as the Administrator of the Government of Canada.
Thank you, Professor Twomey - absolutely fascinating, as always. I loved your anecdote about the States' solicitors general meeting!
Glad to entertain!
So wonderful you have a communication medium unfiltered by anyone else. Love these clear explanations.
Yes, it's good to be able to say what I want without being reduced to a 10 second soundbite.
Hello, I'm currently serving in the Army and have a few legal questions regarding service in the ADF.
1. Upon enlistment or appointment into the Australian Defence Force, one must swear an oath to the Monarch. Many members swore their oath to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, not directly to His Majesty King Charles III. However, the oath includes allegiance to 'Her Heirs and Successors.' With Charles’s ascension to the throne, did their loyalty automatically transfer to him? Even if this is the case, I still believe a parade (or various parades at each unit) should be conducted in which all ADF personnel, especially those who swore allegiance to the Queen, reaffirm their allegiance to King Charles III. What do you think?
2. Who are ADF members legally loyal to? Since we swear an oath to the Monarch, if a hypothetical situation arose in which King Charles and the Australian Government disagreed on the use of the ADF, would the ADF be legally required to answer to the King rather than the Australian Government?
Thank you for the great content!
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900
“Section 68. Command of naval and military forces
The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative.”
Your loyalty and obedience is to the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia as the Kings representative in Australia. To Australian citizens the Governor-General is effectively the King, legally holding “vice-regal status”.
Yes your oath automatically transferred. That is the same for any ambassador appointments and other governors generals along with other officials. The oath is sworn to the crown with the name of the reigning monarch used within the oath but the person and crown as an office are different
While the name of a monarch is given in the oath, the courts have long held that it is not an oath of personal loyalty to that individual. It is an oath to the office that they hold - in this case the office of King or Queen of Australia. The oath extends to the monarch's heirs and successors according to law. There is no need to re-swear oaths.
I made an oath of allegiance to the Monarch and her heirs and successors in 1957. As a monarchist during the 1999 referendum debate I realised that if we became a republic my allegiance would be automatically transfered to the republic. Many republicans were already claiming not to be loyal to the current system, indicating that they were not to be respected. The idea of a State taking it on itself to beome a republic is of course beyond crazy.
@@wattlebough Yes, but I'd rather defence personnel, politicians etc. affirmed their allegiance to the people of Australia. We're the ones who pay their salaries - not King Charles.
Another thoughtful fascinating video - as ever.
Thanks.
The republic question must not even come up for a referendum again while Malcolm Turnbull is still among us.
Don't worry. With the lack of success with recent referendums, unfortunately we'll probably never have another referendum for many years - on any subject.
There's not enough maturity or intelligence in the country, to re-write the 'constitution', which BTW is only an adminstrative, and tax collection document. The 'people' aren't even mentioned!
There are no rights for the people in said document to protect people from corrupt state, and federal executives.
But the activist luvvies in the High Court would give most the short end of the stick if they dared to take on the govt.
Fascinating. Nothing is simple.
What is truly amazing is not your masterful ability to in so detailed a fashion, explain such a quite difficult and controversial a topic so cleanly and in such a understandable manner but for me to get to the end of the video and not being sure of your personal view on the topic. Purely a information video based on the question and tittle of the video, extremely professional work (as expected :D)
Thanks. The point of these videos is to explain the Constitution or relevant aspects of public law. It's a pity that some of the other people making comments didn't bother watching the video and just assumed that a political answer would be given. It is a sad indictment on our society that people instantly assume that everyone is engaging in spin these days.
The abysmal example of a republic, as set by the USA, is enough to put many people off the whole idea.
Very interesting topic though, thank you.
Well the US is a Presidential republic, and the problem is that their two party system helped along by monied interests and a poor voting system, is causing their democracy to fail.
Despite the rise of some populist right wing parties in Europe, I wouldn’t say that Germany, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Iceland, Finland or other Parliamentary Republics are failing tbh.
I’m a Brit and it feels like climbing up a cliff with water being thrown at you tryna be a republican over here, unless you stick to only talking to young people.
Except no Australian republic supporter wants a US style executive presidential republic.
@@tobeytransport2802 The republics you listed are all parliamentary republics with mostly ceremonial heads of state. I don't know why the US didn't also want a parliamentary system when they formed their own nation. At least they wouldn't have ended up with that massively expensive, long and complicated method of choosing their president.
@ They chose their own path, bear in mind that they were one of the first modern republics in the world… they didn’t really have a model so they created their own.
I think for them they are used to a presidential system, but they ought to get rid of the electoral college, cut out big business from campaign financing, and bring proportional representation in for Congress.
Thank you, Professor Twomey!
A very interesting discussion about the mechanisms to transition for a constitutional monarchy into a republic.
I am interested in the topic of whether it would be feasible to sever the link(s) of the Crown(s) of Australia from the monarchy and institute a democratic process for selecting "successors" to the Crown in Australia (for the Commonwealth and states) only.
This would be an Australian republic (so to speak) where we elect an Australian to serve a fixed term in office as our head of state, but while retaining Crown of Australia and turning it into a democratic Crown. Such a change would retain the Governor-General and state Governors as the representatives of the elected head of state, and these representatives would still have reserve powers if needed.
The elected head of state would replace the monarch, and would have no reserve powers - being a purely ceremonial role.
The major benefit of such an approach, apart from keeping most things as they are now, is the carry over the long established conventions of the Crown with regard to the monarch being politically neutral and above politics to the office of the elected head of state. Election campaigns would be along the lines of promoting community causes, supporting charities, and being a platform for philanthropy - much like the public persona of royal family in the UK today.
I think a suitable title for an elected Australian to replace the monarch would be "Australian of the Year". The elections would be state-based with a round robin around the states, with the Commonwealth taking one spot for the territories combined. The proposed term would be one year.
Its just an idea, but I am keen to spend time to find out whether it would be workable.
What about our de facto HoS (the governor-general) becoming our official HoS? Exactly the same role - minus the vice-regal part.
@@mindi2050 That is the accepted and common approach for moving to a republic.
But I think it doesn't work that well.
The main reason is that Australia is unique in having subnational direct representatives of the monarch - the Governors of the states - as well as the Governor-General for the federal tier.
If we promote the governor-general to become the head of state in a republic, the relationship between the Commonwealth and the states will change. The Governors will need to be appointed by the promoted Governor-General (the new head of state in a republic) to their roles.
We also have the issue that most polling shows that Australians would prefer to elect our head of state, and if we promote the Governor-General to be the new head of state in a republic, that role will need to have some reserve powers - whether codified or not. That makes for a potential political head of state that could become a rival to the Prime Minister.
We can avoid all these issues if we simply try to observe and note the current system we have now. There is no question that, at least when the King or Queen is in Australia, the monarch is the head of state. For every major office, like the head of state or heads of government, there are always alternatives that can step up and temporarily play the major role in the absence of the actual person who is formally the head of state or head of government.
That the Governor-General needs to play the role of head of state, in the absence of the monarch being physically in Australia even for 95% of the time, does not make the Governor-General the formal head of state.
The King is the head of state. If we want to replace the monarch with an elected Australian head of state it is natural, it makes sense, to replace the "monarch". The difference between the monarch and their representative is like comparing apples and oranges. I don't know why this point needs to be continually laboured.
In former commonwealth nations that have become republics - like Ireland as an example - the reason they could do away with the monarch and Governor-General (two separate and distinct roles) to create the head of state in the new republic, which usually takes on the functions of the former Governor-General - is because there was a redundancy in keeping the two separate roles in a republic. All but Nigeria had a one-to-one relationship between the monarch and the Governor-General for the former commonwealth nation before they became a republic. For Australia (and Nigeria) there is a one-to-many relationship between the monarch and their direct representatives. This makes a world of difference.
Australia is unique. We have seven direct representatives of the monarch. When we become a republic, there will be no redundancy of the representatives of the head of state in a republic. We will still need a head of state to replace the monarch. We will still need representatives of the head of state for the Commonwealth and states. The representatives will still need reserve powers. IDEALLY, the head of state in a republic - whether elected, appointed or by hereditary lineage or whatever - will remain above politics, stay out of political fights, and will be effectively powerless politically and purely ceremonial - just as the monarch is now.
The claim for the 1999 referendum was that it was a minimalist model for a republic. I don't believe that. Any glance at the proposed changes to the constitution would dispel that claim.
If you want to see a potential model for a republic - where the Crown of Australia is retained and made into a democratic Crown - here is a rough draft:
7gs.au/index.php/2024/08/01/proposed-draft-for-changes-to-the-constitution-to-establish-an-australian-republic/
@@robertvose2644 Yes, I understand that the GG is our de facto HoS and the monarch is our official HoS. ARM's model for a republic in 1999 was a minimalist model. I wouldn't have supported ARM's model if they had departed from the Westminster parliamentary system. Anyway, just a suggestion from me. Thank you for the link.
@@robertvose2644 I've just been reading the link. Some of it sounds good but I don't understand - what has Canada got to do with anything? For that matter, what does the UK have to do with it? If we ever become a republic, the whole process will be up to us. We won't have to seek the UK's permission.
@@mindi2050 Thanks for your question!
The basic idea is that we would try to change the rules of succession for the Crown of Australia. While the Statute of Westminster stipulates that the dominions (Australia, Canada, etc) should consult on any changes to rules of succession - with the intention of making sure they are in sync - the idea is to deliberately create a bifurcation in succession for the Crown of Australia.
The Statute of Westminster is still active for Australia, Canada and the UK (based on my limited understanding on reading an exert from Anne's book on the Australia Acts 1986).
So the idea is that we request the UK and Canada to make changes to the Statute of Westminster to reflect the democratic will of Australians if we pass a referendum to democratise the Crown of Australia.
I am not sure if this will work, it is a long shot, but this is one way to try to keep the Crown of Australia while making it democratic.
During the reign of Queen Elizabeth II the Commonwealth of Nations was developed to promote democracy and good governance among the Commonwealth nations. It would be difficult for the UK to refuse such a request if a referendum is passed to democratise the Crown in Australia. But that is just based on my limited understanding of the issues.
I have two questions tangentially related to the subject of this video.
First, the talk about the failed republic referendum reminded me of the legally-required "yes" and "no" case published and mailed to every address in last year's referendum. It made me wonder, has that aspect always been there? And if so, what were the cases put in some of our older referenda? I'm particularly curiois who ran the no case and what they said during the 1967 Aboriginal referendum, but I'm also interested in the 1988 elections referendum, and some of what I usually call the "boring" referenda, like the two on states' debts, the ones on Senate Elections and Casual Vacancies, etc.
The second question relates to Australia Day. Obviously the question of whether we should change the date comes up annually, and without wading into that question I'm curious about what date we should pick if we did move it. Specifically, I'm curious what day a constitutional scholar would say had the most historical constitutional significance? Some that occurred to me were the commencement of the Australia Acts on 3 March, the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act on 3 September, or the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act on 9 July (when it was passed, rather than 1 January when it actually come into effect, just because thats already a public holiday). But I don't know exactly how they would rank in constitutional significance.
I did a video about the Yes/No cases, back at the time of the Voice referendum. It goes through the history: ruclips.net/video/wbNnfg0eXvs/видео.html. The pamphlet is written by a group of those MPs who voted for the referendum bill in Parliament, who do the Yes case, and a group of those who opposed it in Parliament, if any, who do the No case. In 1967, as no one voted against the referendum bill concerning Aboriginal people, there was not a 'No' case presented.
In 1893 the Queensland colony raised a militia and captured the German New Guineas. Can a modern State do the same?
Under s 114 of the Commonwealth Constitution an Australian State may not raise or maintain any naval or military force without the consent of the Commonwealth Parliament (which has not been given).
I always thought that the answer was that yes they can, but that they've agreed to act collectively. It seems that it's a bit more complicated than that.
Yes, it is quite complicated, as many things are when you look at them closely.
Not sure how I started getting recommended your videos in the United States, but I've really been enjoying them, so thank you very much!
Regarding Section 7 of the Australia Acts 1986, would it be possible for a state, inclined to marginalize the role of the monarch to the extent constitutionally permissible, to establish a separate "chief executive officer or administrator of the government of the State" as provided for in Section 110 of the constitution, and transfer the powers and duties of the Governor to that administrator? I.e. leaving a vestigial and powerless Governor on paper "representing the monarch" without any role in the affairs of the state? I'm particularly thinking of the situation in the Irish Free State after 1936, when the King's role in domestic affairs was eliminated.
The Governor still has a significant role under State Constitutions, and is given many powers under statutes. In some States there are also letters patent which control the role of the Governor and those who substitute for the Governor in his or her absence (i.e. the Lieutenant-Governor and the Administrator). So I think it would be impractical and possibly unlawful to try to transfer the Governor's powers to someone else.
If you wanted to follow the Irish approach (at least as taken in 1932 re the appointment of Donal Buckley), you could downgrade the ceremonial role of the Governor, so that they didn't live in Government House or perform ceremonial duties, and just did the paperwork on their kitchen table at home. But when the NSW Premier, Bob Carr, proposed in the 1990s that the Governor would hold the office part-time and live at home, while Government House would be opened up to the people, there was such a ruckus that he abandoned the idea.
@constitutionalclarion1901 I suppose I can understand why that might not go over well. It's pretty nakedly hostile to the institution of the Crown, but rather inadequate from a republican perspective.
Thanks for the reply, and again for the videos!
ok so i finished watching my guess was sorta right thank you for clearing that up i do enjoy ur videos
I've been really looking forward to when this topic would be covered, thanks for making this.
I'm glad it was worth the wait.
Hi Anne.
Have u ever done a video on the constitutional issues around the events of 1975?
I don't think so - because it would take quite a lot of videos, as there are so many different aspects to cover. Maybe I should do a series of them for the 50th anniversary next year.
I just watched a related video:
"The night of the long prawns"
It covers a bit of it.
But as another commenter wrote, it is an extensive area, too much for a 15 minute video.
Really interesting video as always! Would that apply to a newly created state, for example if NT got statehood or if North Queensland split into it's own state, a topic that has come up here during the election. Would a new state be forced to have the monarch as their head of state too, even though they aren't currently an entity that has a relationship with the crown?
This was considered when the Australia Acts were drafted. The definition of 'State' in it says that it 'includes a new State'. This means that s 7 would apply to it, which says 'Her Majesty's representative in each State shall be the Governor'.
Without amending the Australia Acts, how much responsibility can a state strip from its Governor and move to an officer who is not a representative of the monarch? Some kind of republic-lite setup where you remove the monarch from Parliament, exercise executive powers and the appointment/dismissal of ministers without the Governor... (I realise there are obviously many provisions in Commonwealth law that refer to the Governor that a state couldn't unilaterally amend.)
(I take inspiration from the ACT Self-Government Act, which retains certain "reserve powers" for the Governor-General and the Commonwealth Territories Minister but doesn't require the GG to have any role at all in the ACT Government apart from those emergency scenarios.)
A bit of this could be done, but the problem would be that in most cases it would require an amendment to the State Constitution, and in some cases a referendum would be involved. So it would not be easy, and therefore not worth the bother. In those States which have fixed term Parliaments, the Governor's powers are already significantly restrained.
One issue I have with Australian govts is the manner in which state constitutions can (and have been) changed without reference to the people via referendum... at least in Victoria.
It depends on the State and what has been (and can be) entrenched in its Constitution. See my 'manner and form' videos about amending State Constitutions.
Good to know that I was right in what I believed was the case here. I thought the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) prevented a state from unilaterally becoming a republic, unless the other states and the Commonwealth consented to make the required changes to the Act.
Pardon miss, a Queenslander from the bush here but I would like to ask if you have done a video on the creation of new Australian states in the modern age and the nature of of hypothetical state seccession from the Commonwealth since I've always been curious about how the Commonwealth would tackle such an issue.
On another note of interest i would like ask on the hypothetical nature of the seperation of the british and Australian crowns or rather the idea of an independent Australian monarchy and it's legal repercussions within the Commonwealth at large.
Kind regards to you. Have a nice day
Yes, I've done a video on the splitting of States: ruclips.net/video/Xmc2aR64l_E/видео.html. I've also done one on secession: ruclips.net/video/FnsYiOgOjRI/видео.html.
I will do some more republic videos which include whether Australia could have an independent monarchy.
@constitutionalclarion1901 Ah many thanks for the reply, have a lovely day
Fascinating.
Thank you
Hi Anne - do you have a view on the argument that the king, by virtue of the relationships between each of the states, could correctly be identified as the king of each of the states, in addition to being king of the commonwealth?
There is a big dispute about this. I deal with it in my book, The Chameleon Crown. The short answer is that when the Australia Acts were being drafted, the British asked this question and the Australians did not want to consider it, as it would lead to further disputes, so it was swept under the carpet. It has not been definitively resolved.
Thank you! I have long wondered about this. I hope your new series will include a video about why the 1999 referendum failed. On the same subject, are there any good books you can recommend on the referendum? I've read various essays and papers written in the immediate aftermath or within a few years of the event, but has anyone tried to write about it as history, now that we have at least a modest remove from the event? (Strange as it is for some of us to consider, an entire generation of Australians have been born and reached adulthood without the question ever having been put to the voters on either the state or commonwealth level.)
The Republic referendum was clearly a lot more complex than it appeared at the time!
There was a lot of work behind it, much of which was probably not apparent to the general public.
Very interesting! I wonder if there's a 'fudge' position like used by the Irish Free State from 1937-1949 where they had a President and the Monarch simultaneously. Just because the Governor has to exist, it doesn't sound like the Australia Acts define what the Governor's role is. So perhaps it could be left as a shell role with the powers reallocated by the State constitutions to an alternative role.
Yes, the Irish did largely render the Governor-General redundant before the office was eventually ended. It's quite an interesting story, which I set out in detail in The Veiled Sceptre. Maybe I'll do a Clarion about it one day, as it had many twists and turns.
@@constitutionalclarion1901would doing something similar in Australia be plausible?
What a tangle of threads, pull on one and you're sure to get a knot
Does the UK version of the Australia Act still apply to Australia? If not, would the remaining Commonwealth version be subject to the limits of s 51(xxxviii)? As in, if the manner of amending the Australia Act set out in s 51(xxxviii) overrides the purported manner and form in s 15 of the Act, could one State and the Commonwealth bilaterally override the Australia Act for that State without the approval of the other five States? Might provide an easier way for one State to sever tries with the Crown.
This is an important and controversial question. Personally, I would say that the UK version does still apply - as part of Australian law. Certainly, the States took that view during the negotiation of the Australia Acts, as they regarded this as a necessary protection. Unsurprisingly, the Commonwealth took the view that it could later just ignore the UK version and that only the Commonwealth version applies.
So far the High Court seems to have swallowed the Commonwealth view - but in an unthinking kind of way, without the issue having been properly argued before it. We would have to wait to see how it decided the issue if the matter was raised and argued directly before it. This is all discussed in detail in my book 'The Australia Acts 1986 - Australia's Statutes of Independence' (Federation Press, 2010).
If a state can't get rid of its governor, could it not instead remove all of the governor's powers?
To whom would you give the Governor’s powers too though,the Premier?
I am sure any Queensland Premier would love that.
A majority in the Legislative Assembly and no Legislative Council to oversee them.
The font of power is different for governors and they are meant and a check and balance against premiers- you would need the consent of the governor general or King to change it
@@jackrussell4437time the Queensland Government was “ forced” to reintroduce the upper chamber of state parliament .
Extremely clear and precise, as always.
Thanks - it is quite a legally tricky topic.
So would it be correct to infer that if the Commonwealth Constitution did include a provision explicitly saying the states can choose their own governors, that the Australia Act would be repugnant to the Constitution therefore meaning a state could unilaterally become a republic in that hypothetical? In the current situation, how would the High Court consider the fact the framers implicitly wanted states to have the sovereign power of selecting their governors? Would they alternatively consider the fact the framers did not anticpate or want the monarch absent from state government?
No wonder we need constitutional lawyers to work all that out. My only question is. To what degree if any does the British Parliament have the ability to interfere or affect Australian law? My view is that we should be completely independent from Britain itself. I have no problem with retaining the Monarchy for as long as that arrangement works to the benefit of the country but that relationship should be direct and unconstrained by the British parliament.
None. Not for a long time
I believe that was the purpose to of the Australia acts. To sever the remaining legal ties between Australia and the UK. Except for the monarch but the relationship with the monarch is defined in the constitution.
The Australia Acts cut off all the links with the British Government and Parliament. Only the monarch remains.
Can Australia become a Republic?
Yes.
We'll miss you.
No, you won't. Australia can become a republic and still be a member of the Commonwealth.
I voted no in the 1999 referendum. In theory, I support a republic, and most of the people that I know that are against a republic are almost entirely of British descent. I am not, I only have one grandparent, (my maternal grandfather) and he was 3rd generation Australian. But there wasn't enough readily available information about what kind of republic we would become or how our government would change. I wish videos like yours were easily accessible back then. (I also apologise if my comments contain grammatical errors that are difficult to decipher. I'm almost legally blind and I have a couple of ND learning difficulties, but I do my best).
Thanks. Yes, the internet has been great in allowing more people access to knowledge - while it has simultaneously been bad by allowing more people access to complete rubbish. This means it remains challenging to ensure people are well informed when they vote in a referendum, because there are many people out there, some of whom provide accurate information and others who seek to mislead.
WHO'S GOING TO BE THE PRESIDENT?
That is not the question the video addresses. Try watching it.
YOU CAN HAVE THE JOB
Certainly not one that I would want!
Fine, I'll do it.
That story makes me laugh you were obviously the smartest person in the room with grace and humility. Talking about the States; the Qld Premier released a press statement in 2019 about the State's upcoming 160th Birthday. At the time I thought to myself hmm wait a minute if the Colony of Queensland ended at midnight on Dec 31, 1900 and the State of Queensland began on Jan 1, 1901 then State of Queensland in 2019 must only be 118 years old, they've conflated the Colony and the State into one legal entity. Am I correct in that assumption is January First the Birthday of all the Australian States?
The States were continuations of the existing colonies, with the colonial laws and Constitutions continuing on, without interruption. So the States trace their origins to the beginnings of the relevant colony. Even then, there are debates as to what you count.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you kindly for that clarification Anne, surely that isn't the case at the Commonwealth level though, i.e. the Commonwealth of Australia was born a microsecond past midnight on Dec 31st, 1900, which is my main gripe against celebrating Australia Day on January 26th.
Yes, it was the same with the 'bicentenary' in 1988. The Commonwealth claimed the right to run the celebrations, but it was not a bicentenary of the Commonwealth, but of the founding of New South Wales.
I think the problem for the Commonwealth is that 1 January is not a good day for a special national holiday, because it is already taken by New Years Day (and most people have hangovers and want to sleep in!)
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Anne thank you once again for that clarification, that leads me to another question could we legitimately celebrate a Constitution based "Independence Day" without becoming a Republic first? I see this as an alternative to the NSW Foundation Day annual controversy.
I can just imagine the commonwealth and several states becoming republics and Queensland refusing and staying a constitutional monarchy.
That was certainly permitted by the 1999 referendum. The view was taken that the Queen would probably put her foot down and refuse to be Queen of a State in a federal republic. But this was just a guess, and we never found out how it would have played out.
Very interesting. Thank you.
Are all compacts, treaties etc Australia entered into as a Sovereign State before the Australia Act 1986 invalid?
I'm struggling to understand how a country can be considered a Sovereign Nation and part of the British Monarchy at the same time...!!
Am i missing something obvious.??
Any explanation or references would be appreciated..!!
Australia gained the power to enter into treaties in the 1920s, as a result of agreements reached at Imperial Conferences (although it chose not to exercise this power for a while). The King would enter into the treaty upon behalf of Australia, as advised by Australian ministers. In doing so, the King was not acting as King of the United Kingdom (or the British Monarchy, as you put it), but as the King of Australia, acting on the advice of responsible Australian ministers. The Australia Acts 1986 made no difference to treaty-making.
17:45 Why would they be concerned about that? This historical homework had already been done for them by the time of the ratification.
Sorry, but I don't quite understand what you mean.
apparently nobody gets the word “indissoluble” in the federal constitution that also applies to the states…
'Indissoluble' is an aspiration and intention (which might be used in interpreting the terms of the Constitution - see my previous video on secession). It could not prevent the Constitution being amended or repealed, or even overthrown.
Could you do a video as apart of this series as to alternatives. What would be most effective if we were to become a republic? Are there other models than the one which confers power from the GG/King to a president?
Why does section 5 (or 15 for that matter) of then Australia Acts bind state parliaments? What is the basis for a piece of ordinary UK and Cth legislation binding a state parliament? I always understood that the binding nature of the Australia Acts came through the states’ passing legislation to request the Cth parliament to pass it. In that case couldn’t a state simply repeal the Australia Acts enabling act? Or would that be a nuclear option that would cause too many other issues?
There are two ways that the Australia Acts bind the State Parliaments. First, section 51(xxxviii) allowed the Commonwealth Parliament to enact its version of the Australia Acts, which then overrides any inconsistent State law because of s 109 of the Constitution. Second, the UK version of the Act was the last British law of paramount force to bind the States. While it ends the paramountcy of other British laws in Australia, section 5 preserves it in relation to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, the Commonwealth Constitution and the Statute of Westminster.
@ Thank you. So a State which requests Cth legislation under section 51(xxxviii) cannot then revoke that request as the act to revoke the request would be inconsistent with the (originally requested) piece of Cth legislation (assuming the Cth parliament passed it) under s109?
So you are saying that the preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act is only prescriptive and not binding and yet it forms part of the Act and is binding via clause 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 UK. That is interesting as the preamble to the Australia Act is geographical and therefore not binding on the people of each of the States, or am I barking up the wrong tree.
I may have raised this in the past but what was the point of the 1984 Commonwealth referendum relating to the interchange of powers as that referendum seems suspiciously timed with the advent of the Australia Act 1986 !
the constitution is "only" binding on "the people" in so far as they may seek to amend it by s128 (referendums) and that subject to s128 its indissoluble (WA v the CTH 1933 the succession cases) the rest of it is administrative and/or defines the CTH powers and power relationships - the real power to "bind" comes from its legislative powers and its the legislative provisions that bind
First, I said that preambles are not usually regarded as prescriptive or binding. Second, a preamble is not 'part of the Act'. A preamble is something that goes 'before' the substantive provisions of the Act. That is the point of a preamble.
The preamble to the Australia Acts is the only part that is different between the UK and the Commonwealth Acts. This is because it explains the background and context of the Act in the relevant jurisdiction, and it is not in any way prescriptive or binding, as it is only a preamble.
The Australia Acts were negotiated over a long period from the mid 1970s. The timing of their enactment had nothing to do with the 1984 referendum.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Who is not regarding the preamble to be prescriptive or binding? Clause 5 clearly says that "This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and every part of the Commonwealth...."
There is a very long history of preambles in Constitutions not being binding, but being drawn on for constitutional interpretation. If you really want to know, here is a publicly accessible version of an article I wrote which explains it: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2408308.
The topic sounds pretty dry and boring, your video is fascinating and entertaining.
Kudos
Thanks!
How can a new Premier be sworn in by the Governor when the Electoral Office has not declared any (or only a few) seats following an election?
First, a new Premier can only be sworn in if the incumbent Premier resigns. If so, the vacancy in the office of Premier needs to be filled immediately, so there is no break in the continuity of government. The convention is that the Governor appoints as Premier the person most likely to command the confidence of the Legislative Assembly.
In this case, the Labor Premier, Steven Miles, did resign (taking the view that he would not command that confidence in the new LA) and the Governor has taken the view that that person who will command that confidence is David Crisafulli. That assessment would have been based upon the election outcome and the views of the leaders of the relevant parties. It is not necessary that every seat be declared to reach that view.
If Australia became a republic and all if the states then severed their independent links with the Crown, what is keeping the States in existence as sovereign entities? Is it possible the abolition in the Crown in federal and state constitutions could lead to abolition of the states?
People have raised this question before. The existence of the States would have to be based in the Commonwealth Constitution.
@@constitutionalclarion1901
"The existence of the States would have to be based in the Commonwealth Constitution."
Doesn't the Commonwealth Constitution already describe the Commonwealth as a Federation by the inclusion of Chapter V -- The States, and Chapter VI ---- New States?
@@ronaldmccallum2111 Yes. And for that reason, some argue now that matters concerning the States fall within federal jurisdiction because the States are established by the Commonwealth Constitution. Others argue that the States are recognised by the Constitution as continuing polities from colonial times and were not created by the Commonwealth Constitution. In any case, if there were a republic, it would not wipe out the federation or the States.
@@constitutionalclarion1901
"In any case, if there were a republic, it would not wipe out the federation or the States."
I quite agree that some people do not and will not understand that the States are continuing polities from colonial time.
I do believe that they are continuing polities as I have a post secondary degree in History and Political Science, and would have loved to attend law school. Now, I would love to "audit" a Constitutional Law course. I wonder if the University of Toronto's Faculty of Law allows seniors to audit their courses.
How can a state sever ties, wouldn't that forcibly change the citizenship of people from one state to another?
Not sure what you mean here. If a State severed its ties with the monarch, it would not affect Commonwealth laws concerning citizenship.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Under the constitution, a member of the Federal House of Reps must be a subject of the monarch, and section 117 talks of residents in terms of being subjects of the monarch. So, if a citizen is a subject of the monarch, would severing ties with that monarch sever the citizen's status as subject of the monarch? I realise I'm speaking about federal matters here and you are speaking about the potential problems of individual states being non-monarchical while the federal level is monarchical, but I'm asking about the potential illegality of a state or federal constitutional change alienating a subject of the monarch from that monarch. I can't see how it could be legal for a parliament to forcefully change a subject of a monarch into someone not a subject of that monarch.
The States have no control over Commonwealth citizenship laws. Those references to 'subject of' the Queen/King in the Constitution have, in any case, been interpreted as meaning Australian citizen in more recent years.
If the monarch ceased to be a part of the Constitution of a State (and therefore no longer appointed the State Governor and was no longer a constituent part of the State Parliament), this would not affect the continuing status of the people resident in that State as citizens under Commonwealth law and under the Commonwealth Constitution which continued to recognise a King or Queen of Australia.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Section 44 (i) clearly differentiates between the two terms "subject" and "citizen" in reference to foreign powers, clearly they have different legal meanings, and our constitution uses the term "subject of the monarch" with reference to eligibility for office, not "citizen". Can you please provide references for this interpretation, because such an interpretation may in itself be alienating subjects from their monarch.
@@Jamie-n5h Traditionally, people were either 'subjects' of monarchs or 'citizens' of republics. But then the UK decided to establish 'citizenship' despite having a monarch and Australia did too, back in 1948. The category of 'subject' gradually disappeared. See the discussion of the issue in Street v Queensland Bar Association (1989) 168 CLR 461.
Fascinating, as usual.
Long Live the King.
@@LachlanA.Farquhar bah humbug!
Booooo
@@chasejohnson302 who?
@@Robert-xs2mv the king
#NotMyKing
Engineers case already did it unlawfully. But Menzies was a "boring conservative"
No, the Engineers case did not sever the links of the States with the monarch.
Fascinating! Thank you!
Thanks again Professor Twomey, another really interesting series coming up.
Just a question if I could and it’s probably a bit curly.
If Australia remains a constitutional monarchy, are there any reasons why a local monarchy couldn’t be established?, does the Australian monarchy have to be King Charles?
It's the 21st Century. Why would you even want to breed an Australian 'royal family' with inherited titles and inherited jobs?
Yes, that's quite a hard question. Australia does control its own rules of succession, but the issue would be the effect of covering clause 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and the oath in the Schedule to the Constitution. I might add this issue to my republic series of videos.
@@constitutionalclarion1901
What about the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster 1931?
@@ronaldmccallum2111 It's a preamble, so not in itself binding in the legal sense (although in the UK such preambular statements can become 'constitutional' in the sense of being recognised as conventions). But in any event, it has been overtaken by time. South Africa and the Irish Free State have long gone. The convention about not changing the royal style and titles without the assent of other Parliaments is no longer relevant. The commitment not to legislate for the Dominions without a request has been overtaken by the Australia Acts. And in any case, s 15 of the Australia Acts permits the amendment of the Statute of Westminster (although there is an argument about whether you can actually amend a preamble, as it is not a substantive provision of an Act).
Constitutional Clarion weren't you heavily involved in The Voice "yes" team?
She's made a video about that.
I wasn't a member of the 'Yes' team in the Voice referendum. I was a member of the Constitutional Expert Group which advised the Commonwealth Government on constitutional questions that it asked concerning the proposed Voice referendum. (We did not have a broad remit re the form of the amendment - we only got to advise in relation to the narrow questions we were asked).
As my videos and public writings show, in my view the Voice referendum was constitutionally sound and I supported it. I also explained why many of the arguments about it were misconceived, from a constitutional point of view - see the many videos on this channel. But no, I was never a member of 'Yes 23' or the other advocacy group run out of UNSW. I prefer to remain independent and do my own thing.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 The Public concern behind the "no" result was never about Constitutional validity: the concern was embodied privilege based on race; political coercion on the administration (potentially a threat to the separation of powers); and untested legal precedence. Personally I struggled with the narrative in the Uluru Statement, where the unfortunate plight of some indigenous Australians would be solved by a Voice. Like many Australians, I was deeply concerned and frustrated that successive governments and the indigenous community had failed to achieve meaningful improvements, and I wanted first nation recognition, but the referendum was botched by the politicians and the indigenous elites. Reasonable voices from ordinary people were not listened to: ironic really!
The nation sorely needs a modernised Constitution that eliminates inefficiencies and improves accountability.
We won the referendum. The people of Aus shall keep our King for as long as we want.
Haha. What if he doesn't want to be our King? Do we find a new bloodline?
@@retabera No he just abdicates and the next guy comes on
25 years ago. When millions of Australian voters either weren’t alive or couldn’t vote. (Anyone today under the age of 42) Many also voted no because they didn’t agree with the proposed model but supported a Republic in general.
@@JamesVCTH There have been many general elections since, if Australians want a republic they can elect a government that would bring a referendum forward. Australians' choice of not electing such a government is a de-facto never ending pro-monarchy vote
@ A Republic is obviously not people’s first priority when voting, nor are people single issue voters. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t vote yes given the opportunity. The Labor Party have a official party supporting Republicanism, and many liberals are also republicans.
This comment is here but also from your Queensland Nuclear Power video and the Senator Thorpe video.
Once upon a time about 30 years ago I passed Commonwealth Constitutional law at a law school, so I do know that there is an implied right of freedom of political discussion in our constitution by the High Court (Australia's constitution does not have an express right of freedom of speach written in the Constitution,). So regardless of whether Sen.LT is a Senator or not, she can express the political views she has regarding the monarchy, as public political discourse. Indeed, the indigenous Sovereignty movement has been around since the 1930's in Australia, and no less would this right of political discussion limit other political discussion challenging the Commonwealth or the Federation as it currently stands, such as various State Succession movements.
Could a Queensland government so opposed to building nuclear power look to secede from the Commonwealth of Australia by Queensland referendum? (like WA voted in a WA Secession referendum in 1932?
This is another way a state could loose the Crown is by a Sessesion Referendum (and would there need to be a corresponding Commonwealth federal referendum to let said departing State (or part of a State) go? For Example, could a Queensland State Referendum fully secede Queensland from the federation, or hold a referendum to say, secede North Queensland or South East Queensland? If 4 out of 6 States and a national yes votes to approve the State succession, would it be effective? Queensland would be its own nation or North Queensland it's own country.
Could a national referendum expel an Australian State from the Commonwealth in a referendum regardless of how the votes? (There have been instances where State policy has been highly divergent from Federal policy such as when Jack Lang was NSW Premier, a while back) So could the Commonwealth ever look to expel a State and how would it do it?
Could a State unilaterally declare its independence, regardless, to leave the Crown (like the American Declaration of Independence)?
I was wondering if you can do a video on whether there is a separate indigenous Sovereignty that exists under, with or alongside or wholly separate to Australia's Constitution and Crown Sovereignty?
There was a recent High Court decision holding an Aboriginal Australian could not be deported, (and while I did not read the Judgement in depth) there were various asside orbiter on the topic of Australia's Sovereignty, as there have been in other notable Constitutionsl cases.
Could one day there be an ndigrnous Treaty with Australia (or Treaties), and how constitutionally would this be effective or ratified? By referendum? Or would it be like any other International treaty Australia enters into, that Australia's Parliament can simply enter into it.
My final question, notes the 1860's New Zealand Maori precedent of the establishment of a Maori monachy, which continues by succession with a current Maori Queen and mutual recognition by the English Crown.
Could there one day be the formation of an Indigenous monarchical system in Australia, and how would it become operative from the Crown with respect of Australia. By treaty or other constitutional process? Or by mutual recognition of both Crown's?
That does seem a very 'way out there' question but there is precedent in New Zealand for this from thev1860"s onwards.
Maybe you could have a "fire-sise' chat on your channel with an Australian Native Title Expert, I would be interested to watch.
Could an indigenous native title holder gain greater legislative autonomy or independence from its State it is contiguos within, the Commonwealth or both, (APY Lands in South Australia case example, where it is part of South Australia but highly Autonomous by legislation or incorporation) or become fully independant from the Commonwealth or Crown (if Sen Lydia Thorpe is correct that a separate indigenous Sovereignty or Sovereingties does/do exist separate from the Crown and has never been extinguished by it or the establishment of Australia's Federation on 1 Jamuary 1901).
I would be interested to know your or others thoughts?
I just thought of a final question, the republican movements in Australia and Canada are not alone, there has always been a UK Republic movement (indeed there were "not my King' protesters in the UK at the time of Charles IIi's coronation.
My question is what happens to our constitution if the English Crown ceases to exist (hopefully without the removal of a monarch's head) as with the 10 year period of the English Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell? Or could an English monarch ever abdicate with respect of their Australian Crown and with respect of their heirs and successors?
First, the implied freedom of political communication is not a personal 'right' that can be exercised against others. It only operates as a limitation on legislative power (and possibly executive power). So if the Commonwealth Parliament tried to enact a law that said no one can criticise King Charles III, that would probably be invalid. But it doesn't mean that there cannot be some laws that restrict speech. For example, laws concerning defamation or speech that incites violence, have been regarded as valid.
On the Secession issue, I have already done a video: ruclips.net/video/FnsYiOgOjRI/видео.html. I have also done one about splitting off the north of Queensland: ruclips.net/video/Xmc2aR64l_E/видео.html.
Re the topics you have suggested, I will probably do a video, as part of my republic series, on what would happen if the UK ended the monarchy and whether Australia could choose a different monarch.
IF there was a 2nd republic referendum, the Australia Request Act 1999, does the act become life or are we going to put through Fresh acts as their time limit?
The Request Acts would not revive, as their commencement was conditional on the commencement of that particular 1999 bill. So new legislation would be required.
Arsenic..
My Brain Hurts !!! 🧠💭
Yessum. I does think a few watchings is needed to get all that high flatutin talk all crammed up in that there little ol' brain o'mine.
It's good to expand it! (I've just been singing Handel's Messiah, and that is likely doing non-stop mental arithmetic to get all the notes right and the Amens in the right place. Definitely a work-out for the brain.)
@@constitutionalclarion1901I've performed Handel's Messiah a couple of times. It's always fun!
Why would you want to?
That's not the issue here. It is answering a question about the constitutional constraints.
I haven't listened yet, but I can't resist suggesting that the heading should be "Would any Australian State take leave of its senses and act in a stupifyingly stupid unilateral manner on a basic constitutional matter?"
Best to listen. The video is not about the politics of why, but the constitutional law of how. You might find it interesting.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I'll get time later and will listen to it!
The question is ‘could’ not ‘would’.
That was a fantastic story at the front of the segment demonstrating the persistent elitism and sexism in the various branches of law, Constitutional speaking if your not Blackstone or George Williams (All respect to Mr Williams) you don't get so much as a "by your leave!" Im not sure if you've already published an episode yet but a nice episode on wide and narrow Ultra Vires would be interesting
The island of Ireland is part monarchy, part republic.
Guess which part is more stable?
Thanks, the monarchy is an anachronism in modern Australia but on the other hand it is not a show stopper and we are able to freeload on the UK with them picking up many of the costs of head of state.
Pragmatically in despite some of its nonsense the monarchy works quite well so I think there needs to be a lot of care in devising a replacement.
On possibility is an indigenous monarchy. The question then becomes who is the royal family. In the late 1800s there were quite a number of recognised aboriginal "kings" perhaps their descendants could be persuaded to establish an Australian royal family.
If you're going down that line, we could take a leaf out of Malaysia's books and have multiple monarchs.
@mindi2050 No palaces to maintain, no crown jewels, no royal carriage, no royal estates, no privy purse, no royal guard, no royal family and hangers on, the list of savings by having poms pay for it is substantial. True we do pay for occasional visit but we can work to keep these as few as possible. Overall it's good news HOS at bargain basement price.
It will be a real problem for us if the poms give royalty the flick. In that event we could appoint a turtle as king (or queen).
I can't agree with an indigenous monarchy simply because that falls into the camp of sidelining the majority population of Australia which is already and issue that has been slowly burning into sparks of radicalism, combined with the fact that that there are thousands of Aboriginal tribes with their own customs, traditions and tribal relations, I believe that it would only cause greater instability within those communities if disagreement to whom becomes the monarch arises, rather the best of both worlds here would be to have a regular Australian with Aboriginal blood to be the monarch as that not only takes the aboriginal population into account but also ties them within the greater Australian population.
@@jimgraham6722 It won't be a problem for Australia if Britain gives the monarchy the flick - which I doubt they would ever do. But if it happened, nothing would change in Australia except we wouldn't have a non-resident King of Australia. We already run our own show and it's the GG who performs all HoS duties - independently of the monarch.
As for the pageantry of royalty, the castles, the crown jewels etc, Yes, it's impressive but I'm not sure how you think THEIR royal palaces and crown jewels somehow saves us money!! That's a bit of a stretch. It's not as though if we became a republic, we would need our own palaces and crown jewels. We already have perfectly beautiful residences for the GG and governors. I'd rather have Kirribilli House and its spectacular surrounds and million-dollar harbour views than Buckingham Palace any day.
But I like watching British pageantry on television. Although I can do that whether we become a republic or not.
Can Australia sever ties with Tasmania unilaterally? Asking for a friend.
Tasmania is an 'original State', so you'd need a referendum to change the Constitution.
@@constitutionalclarion1901I'll add that in any such referendum you would need Tasmanians to vote in favour of any such amendement as it affects their state constitutional standing. I guess we can only sever ties with Tasmania with their approval.
The recent “Voice” referendum demonstrated that a healthy scepticism for the establishment continues among the majority of Australia’s voting public. But here we are again, the cultural left agitating through public conversations for removal of this check and balance, over which they do not have complete control.
If you watch the video, it's not agitating for anything. It's just explaining the constitutional issues, because I was asked by viewers to do so. Perhaps try watching and learning something.
My impression was that the recent "Voice" referendum just demonstrated how susceptible many Australians are to scare mongering campaigns. This is why an understanding about how our Constitution works is so important.
“Healthy skepticism for the establishment” is certainly one way of framing pathetic apathy and disregard for others’ plight
That would be very sad.
well thats interesting considering that iv herd recently that the high court has ruled the Australia act of 1986 as invalid
No, it didn't. I'm afraid you are being told nonsense. Check the High Court's judgments on AustLii. They are all freely available.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 oh ok hmm interesting well i hadint seen the ruling for myself just what i herd but ok ill look into it
The Socialist Republic State of Victoria comes to mind
😂
Don't threaten me with a good time.
it is a socialist state where i live
I think we should just delete the Monarch but keep the Governor General and state Governors, including the way they are appointed. The last thing we need is the divisive Presidential system of the US where, because of the polarised nature of politics there (and increasingly in Australia too) half of the country hates whichever party holds the presidency. At least here, the Head of State cannot rally half the country behind him. He or she has a mainly ceremonial role, above politics, leading to a much more stable government. Why change that aspect of it for something of an unknown future. If it ain't broke, don't fix any more of it than you need to.
The GG is appointed by, acts for, and answers to the monarch (according to the apparently un-broken constitution).
The United States is 1 of 150+ republics on earth
@@kenwaugh7 Yes, but you know it's really the PM who chooses the GG. Much has changed since 1901 - including the way the Constitution is interpreted. The governor-general doesn't answer to the monarch. The GG acts independently of the monarch (e.g. reserve powers) and abides by Australian laws.
@@mindi2050 To whom does the monarch's representative answer, if not the monarch?
And who is the GG constitutionally obliged to keep 'pleased', pray tell?
Please talk about how we can come together,not separate more.There is so much division in Australia now.Who is this woman.There are real problems out there,like homelessness.There is no republic in the world that makes me want to change.
This is a channel that explains constitutional issues. People on it asked me about whether a State could unilaterally sever its links with the monarch, so I explained the constitutional issues. If you want to discuss non-constitutional issues, like homelessness, then there are surely other channels to do it on. But it is not what this one is about.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Yep, that the kind of bullshit reply we'd expect from some over educated femocrat!
I use my education and expertise constructively, to explain constitutional matters to people for free, when they would otherwise have to pay a large amount for it. It is a better contribution to society than abuse.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Yeah, well, you and your othe misandrist mates should have thought of that fifty years ago!!!
@@sunriseboy4837 why are you even on this channel?
Did the Australia Acts take power away from the people and give it to the government?
Silly question
If by people you mean the Privy Counsellors then maybe 🤔
@@MichaelTavares silly statement
Not at all. The Australia Act 1986 severed the final legal ties between the Australian states and the UK. No Australian citizen lost any 'power' in the process.
@@mindi2050 did it remove the right to appeal to the privy council?
with out watching this video im going to say that considering that all states agreed apart from western oz in 1900 then it would be up the whole state then to agree then put it to federal then the now king now im going to watch the video to see if i was at lest half right lols
The selection process of monarchs is necessarily a hit and miss, (or boy and miss?), process of choosing "lore-full" memory associations accumulated in the natural learning by doing experience apprenticeship system.
A Ruler set the "measures of man" and was astrologically tuned to the seasonal requirements, slaved to necessity, by agricultural-derived of epicycles in Totality once labeled "spiritual" and conforms to observable relative-timing ratio-rates of math-music reciprocation-recirculation coherence-cohesion phenomena in holographic flat-space ground-state vanishing-into-no-thing Singularity-point positioning perspectives.
Until the educational program is reset and vertically integrated into the Actuality of QM-TIMESPACE In-form-ation substantiation, in which actual thermodynamical real-time superposition empirical laws of probabilistic correlations shaping WYSIWYG QM-TIME Actuality, I'm going to accept King Charles as the likelyest candidate to make a lore-full standard reference-framing containment of government operations.
The sneaky mafia-like autocratic command based betrayal of the promised standards might be gradually dealt with as our educational awareness reasserts our orientation to "who we serve", as represented by the crown (of thorns).
Australians should join BRICS THIS Colonial government MAY BE NOT PRACTICAL IN asia pacific REGION MUCH LONGER 🦘
Go live in Russia fool
why the hell would we want to and loose our constitutional rights no thank you
What constitutional right would you lose?
Because it might deny others particular rights .
Not everyone agrees over these “ constitutional rights “, why there is such a strong call for a bill of rights for example.
@@Robert-xs2mv There aren't a lot of constitutionally enshrined rights to lose.
@@mindi2050 it only takes one to destroy society, real or perceived.
@@Robert-xs2mv Yes, I'd definitely like Australia to have more constitutionally enshrined rights, not less. Australia had the chance in 1944 to have constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech (among other things), but the referendum failed.
Parliament can change the Monarch whenever it wants. We need an indigenous Australian monarch appointed for a 5 year term by the living ex GGs and monarchs. No constitutional change at all.
Try watching the video and learning something about the Constitution.
I like the idea of an aboriginal monarch, as for the rest of the comment….
We didn't take the glorious revolution into account when framing the constitution? Big fail.
The advantage of an appointed monarchy is that no politicians are involved. Limiting the monarch to indigenous people only will also help to keep the political class out.
@@endintiers not at all confident that is correct.
It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to keep the political aspect out of anything in life.