I had an Australian staying with me through Global Freeloaders for the past few days. The last night when we are all drunk and out at the bars she was telling me something about Australia not being completely independent from the UK. I think she said that the Queen of England is also known as the Queen of Australia. She said the same thing holds true for Canada. She also said Australians had a referendum and decided that they were fine with this and their ties to the UK.
Obviously Australia is its own country, passes its own laws, and has an elected government. What I don't understand is that what role does the monarchy play in Australia? I read something about Royal Prerogative, but it was fairly vague. It sounded like the Queen can still pardon criminals, mint coins, revoke passports, appoint certain government officials, and call for the expulsion of people and diplomats.
Is this true? Why did Australia not vote to become a republic so they could cut ties with the monarchy? Do you have citizen rights to the UK?
Yes, I'm an idiot American, but I had never known anything about this.
The only option offered put in the referendum was do Australians want to change to a system where parliament elects the head of state.
They voted "No" to that. There was no option of "do you want the reigning UK monarch to be Head of State or would you prefer a republic"
So, at the moment, Queen Elizabeth II, The Queen of Australia, resides in the UK and is also the queen of that country I believe. The difference is that they have no say in it, although Australians do appreciate that the UK taxpayer largely funds her and her extended family. Rather a convenient arrangement I reckon. Her dual role confers no special rights on citizens of Australia regarding the UK, or her subjects in the UK regarding Australia. That sort of thing is negotiated by the elected governments of each country. Sort of like Australia does with America, except with more give and take.
I have never heard of her minting Australian coins, revoking Australian passports, pardoning Australian criminals or appointing Australian officials. Or at least she hasn't done that in Australia.
However she can, through her appointed representative the Governor-General (who also serves to open bridges, make arm-waving speeches, and shake hands with dictators at airports) dismiss an elected Australian government. I would suggest the vast majority of Australians want a local head of state (in a republican model, not a perverted royal one created through unmerited inheritance and incestuous couplings), however Nerb is correct - the ruling classes knew this very well, so the question was not put in a way to elicit such a vote.<BR><BR>But hey, it's the best country in the world, so we don't sweat the small stuff. Football is on soon.
In 1975, the governor-general, (Queen's representative) used his powers(given to him by the queen or something along those lines) to dismiss the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam because he couldnt get supply bills through the Senate.
Personally I think that if the referendum was held again, the vote would be 'yes' as absolutely no Australian under the age of 60 considers themselves in any way British (unless they've lived or where born there of course).
But like ianw6705 said, best country in the world.
The Queen is still the Head of State in Australia!
Essentially the Queen's role in Australia is much like the role of the Queen in the UK. Laws in the UK are still passed through your two houses of parliament (UK) and its the same in Australia.
The Navy is still called the RAN (ROYAL Australian Navy)
the armed forces are referred to as HER MAJSTIES armed forces etc
The Queen is represented in Australia by the Governer General - and has similar powers to the Queen in the UK - generally these days its not too much more than cuttin ribbons and other ceremonies and looking important.
the previous poster was corrent in saying that the Governor General has, in the past, used his powers to throw out the government afte some controversy! And of course at that time the Prime Minister that was thrown out of office (Gough Whitlam) made the famouse speech where he said - ' MAY GOD SAVE THE QUEEN, BECAUSE NOTHING WILL SAVE THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'
there is a big push by some groups in Australia to become a republic - completely severing ties with the monarchy. But, there are also significant people who want to maintain links with the monarchy arguing that 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' and that the current system of government works well.
there was a referendum a few years back (about 1999) - As an Australian I voted in it - which essentially determined whether Australia would become a republic or stay linked to the monarchy. Although, as previously noted on this forum, the question was something like 'SHOULD AUSTRALIA CHOOSE ITS OWN HEAD OF STATE THROUGH ELECTION' or something like that.
Essentially, there was an argument that Australia should choose its own president (much like the United States) although the problem was that the promoters of the YES vote could not agree on HOW a head of state should be elected!
So, the vote was no and Australia remains firmly part of the Commonwealth with the Queen as Head of State. But there are still people pushing for a repblulic and this will probably happen as younger generations come through!
there have already been some changes:
australia has not had 'God Save the Queen' as the anthem since the 1970's
Australia can now determine its own right to go to war - during wolrd war 2, England declaring war on Germany meant that Australia had AUTOMATICALLY declared war as well! Now we can make that decision for ourselves!
etc
Actually that was quite farcical, in that you had the "Yes" vote advocating for people to vote "No". I couldnt understand why we would vote No. Surely it was better to vote Yes, then worry about the changes once we were a republic.
<blockquote>Quote<br><hr>Essentially the Queen's role in Australia is much like the role of the Queen in the UK.<hr></blockquote>There are "reserve powers" in the Australian Constitution that allow a Governor-General to sack a government - clearly against the advice of the Prime Minister - as happened in 1975. The Queen does not have such powers in the UK, and there have been quite a few beheadings in British history to establish the law on this, and the relative powers of Parliament. Therefore the Queen (ie the GG) has significantly more power in Australia than in the UK. It's totally outrageous, in my view.<BR><BR>Also - having a president would not mean Australia would leave (or no longer be a member of) the Commonwealth - there are plenty of Commonwealth nations that have a President rather than the Queen as the formal head of state. Collingwood won the football, by the way.
It's complex, let's say that.
In accordance with the Statute of Westminster Act 1942, the reigning Monarch in the United Kingdom is also the Monarch of Australia. Prior to this, Australia was still considered "part" of the UK; there was no legal separation of "Britain" and "Australia" with reference to the Head of State. In fact, until 1949, Australians were issued British Passports, and were considered to be also British subjects (though there was a separation of British vs Australian CITZENSHIP).
Currently, the Australian constitution divests a great deal of theoretical power to the Queen and her representative in Australia, the Governor -General. The GG is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. The GG generally speaking acts as little more than a rubber stamp for the government, and does not operate beyond the scope of signing legislation, opening primary schools and judging cake contests (though I may be getting cynical there), with the glaring exception of the events surrounding the dismissal in 1975. But that's another story.
The Queen herself contributes little to Australian life, other than being on the $5 note, on all of our coins, and visiting us once every so often. I believe the situation in Canada is the same.
In terms of the republican referendum in 1999, Nerb explains it well. "to alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament" was the question upon which we voted. It was a classic piece of wedge politics and political manoeuvering by Howard to engineer a question that would gain the answer he wanted (which was No).
The reasons Australia voted no are varied, with a few voting no to retain the monarchy, but many voting no to the perceived "politicians republic". Overwhelmingly, Australians support the idea of a republic (it's in the region of 70% approval), but the "No" campaign focussed not on keeping the monarchy, but rather against the "politicians republic". The preamble section of the referendum was neither here nor there, but largely embarrassing to all concerned.
The changing of the Flag debate is a different kettle of fish.
And finally, there is no right to British citizenship for simply being Australian. Many who live here are entitled to a British passport by virtue of birth (or one parent's birth), but simply being Australian does not pass muster anymore.
<blockquote>Quote
<hr>which essentially determined whether Australia would become a republic or stay linked to the monarchy. Although, as previously noted on this forum, the question was something like 'SHOULD AUSTRALIA CHOOSE ITS OWN HEAD OF STATE THROUGH ELECTION' or something like that.<hr></blockquote>
The question was nothing like that Andy, essentially my point in #2
trusted partner
