The Queen and Australia: Residences, Governor-General, etc...

[Madame Royale]

Ms Gillard is an elected Prime Minister of Australia. She was elected by her party, which is the largest party in the House of Representatives and thus she was properly elected as per our constitution and the conventions of our system (which is the same as the British one in this regard).

Seasoned political commentators, the incumbent Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader have said on this very day (Abbott stressing the point, naturally) that Ms Gillard is the unelected Prime Minister of Australia, ie: she has not stood for candidacy via an announced federal election certified by the Governor General of this Commonwealth.

It's been an interesting 24hours here in Aus. If the Labor government wasn't a joke before K Rudd, it certainly is now. Roll on the next federal election.

It has indeed, crisscross Though the liberals haven't set a very high standard of party unanimity these past two and a half years..hehe.

Politics hey...

Where is the Australian PM's office? In the parliament building or in another building?

The Prime Minister's office is located in Parliament House

 

[kathl29]

Big news in last 24 hours - I was happily sat reading about Charlene and Alberts engagement last night with the tv on in the background and the next minute we have a leadership challenge and a few hours later our first ever female prime minister.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Seasoned political commentators, the incumbent Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader have said on this very day (Abbott stressing the point, naturally) that Ms Gillard is the unelected Prime Minister of Australia, ie: she has not stood for candidacy via an announced federal election certified by the Governor General of this Commonwealth.

All that shows is that they don't understand the system.

The average Australian doesn't elect the PM. We don't have an election where the ballot says xxx for PM and yyy for Deputy. That decision is made by the party room and the party room alone.

If the seasoned political commentators don't understand the system then they should learn their job (and the opposition leader can't be commenting considering he would be an absolute fool to not understand it after the last election where he is own leader was defeated). I would be asking these people who would have been PM after the last election had the Liberals won but Howard still lost his seat - it wouldn't have been Howard and thus the ordinary people of Australia don't elect the PM.

We never have. Often there has been a change of PM during between elections e.g. Keating. Costello even pushed to change from Howard during the last term. It is perfectly legal because the party decides who will be the PM and not the people of the country. As the Labor Party has decided to change their leader Ms Gillard is now the elected PM. Whether she will still be the PM come Christmas time who knows ... as by then she will have had to face the electorate. Who knows she might lose her seat but Labor still win and the party will choose a leader to be PM who wasn't the leader at the time of the election (or Abbot might loses his seat but the Liberals win and then who would be PM?)

 

[Madame Royale]

All that shows is that they don't understand the system.

It's obviously been explained in laymans terms and gets the point across which is what they wanted to do. It makes the point that she has not achieved high office through the success of an election (federal).

I'd endeavour to believe that they are perfectly aware of the system...lol. They just don't have as much time on their hands to lay it out technicality by technicality...

 

[Lumutqueen]

It's wonderful that they have a Lady Prime Minister.
So the Australians do not vote for a PM, they techinically vote for a party?

 

[Warren]

It's exactly the same as happens in Britain - the Westminster System.

 

[Lumutqueen]

It's exactly the same as happens in Britain - the Westminster System.

Didn't know it was called the Westminster System.
Until you mentioned Britain, I did not think that it does match ours. How strange.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It's wonderful that they have a Lady Prime Minister.
So the Australians do not vote for a PM, they techinically vote for a party?

No - we vote for an individual.

That individual will either belong to a party or be an independent and that information is now on the ballot paper (it wasn't always there but is now to help electors now who is who).

The individual is able to change party allegiance or change from being an independent to being one without having to give up their seat.

We also use a preferential system to elect the representative so the person who gets the most votes with a 1 against their name often doesn't win the seat. If no candidate wins 50%+1 of the votes cast the person who has the least #1 preferences is excluded and their #2 preferences are then allocated and those votes are added to the #1 votes and if a candidate now has 50%+1 they are declared the winner but if no one has that number of votes they repeat the process.

 

[crisscross1]

It has indeed, crisscross Though the liberals haven't set a very high standard of party unanimity these past two and a half years..hehe.

Politics hey...

You are so right. We don't really have a lot to choose from at the moment. I wouldn't trust Abbott as far as I could throw him. From a personal point of view, bring back Howard, things were so uncomplicated when he was PM

 

[Hereditary Thane]

I am ready to be corrected, however under the British and Commonwealth constitutional monarcy the constitution does not allow for a democratic choice in the form of a referendum. For Australia to become a republic all it needs is the current government to decide so. This is the legal requirement, but of course it would be foolhardy for a government to undertake this without a mandate from the people by making it a policy in their election manifesto. I believe also each state would have to follow the same procedure.

 

[wbenson]

That's not the case in Australia. Constitutional amendments there require a referendum (which must pass nationwide and in a majority of states).

 

[Iluvbertie]

...under the British and Commonwealth constitutional monarcy the constitution does not allow for a democratic choice in the form of a referendum. For Australia to become a republic all it needs is the current government to decide so. This is the legal requirement...

NO - our constitution requires a referendum to get any change. To get a referendum through we have to have a majority of the voters agree i.e. 50%+1 of all voters AND a majority of the states also vote in favour. That is clearly spelt out in the constitution which is why we had the referendum in 1999 and will have to have another one to get a republic. We don't need to do it separately at state level though as the states gave control of that aspect of our nation's identity to the Federal government in 1901.

 

[Madame Royale]

You are so right. We don't really have a lot to choose from at the moment. I wouldn't trust Abbott as far as I could throw him. From a personal point of view, bring back Howard, things were so uncomplicated when he was PM

I dont trust Abbott either, crisscross. And although I was never fond of Howard, things were much less complicated as you say

 

[RoyalistRiley]

For those interested, here is a video of the Swearing-in of the Hon. Julia Gillard MP as Prime Minister by Her Excellency the Governor-General YouTube - Julia Gillard sworn in as Prime Minister

In the past, an Oath of Alliegance to the Queen was also taken, but this is no longer the case. All MP's and Senators take one after an election.

Do they do anything like this in the UK and the other Commonwealth Realms?

------------------------------------------
I would just like to say I can understand the confusion regarding the way in which Gillard has become PM. I spent yesterday consoling the Kevin Rudd fan club at school and explaining that she has every right to be PM as she commands a majority in the House of Representatives. The Consititution doesn't say anything about the people getting a say in the matter as Iluvbertie has stated and I am pretty sure it doesn't actually mention the term 'Prime Minister'

 

[wbenson]

They do in Canada. The ministerial oath doesn't mention the Queen, but if a new minister is being sworn in who isn't already a member of the (Canadian) Privy Council, he or she will also take a plain oath of allegiance to the Queen as well as a longer oath specific to the Council. Since Stephen Harper was already a member of the Privy Council when we was appointed PM in 2006 (the leader of the opposition is usually appointed to the council), he took a single oath, similar to the one taken by Ms Gillard.

As far as I know, ministers in the UK only take an oath upon being sworn of the Privy Council (which they are often already members of), and they don't even read it out loud (it's read to them). The appointment is effective upon "kissing hands" with the Queen.

Edit to add: For comparison, here are the Australian and Canadian oaths:

I, _______________, do swear that I will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia, her land and her people, in the office of the prime minister, (so help me God).

I, _________, do solemnly and sincerely promise and swear (declare) that I will truly and faithfully, and to the best of my skill and knowledge, execute the powers and trust reposed in me as Prime Minister, (so help me God).

 

[wbenson]

Queen's death right time for republic move: Gillard - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Prime Minister Julia Gillard says the death of the British monarch would be the appropriate time for Australia to become a republic.

Ms Gillard says while Australians have a deep affection for Queen Elizabeth, she would like to see the country work through the debate to decide on an appropriate model for an Australian republic.

 

[Warren]

In other words, it's off the agenda.

 

[Iluvbertie]

In other words, it's off the agenda.

I don't think it is 'off the agenda' as such but that we have currently have a PM who isn't prepared to risk the defeat that a referendum would bring at the moment.

The Labor Party did promise before the last election that it would be on the agenda in a second term - but what is a broken promise from a political party - they all practice them.

She did say we should move towards and agreed upon model and that will take a series of plebiscites to get that process going.

The sooner we are a republic the better in my opinion so I am angry that she has not committed to when we will get a second chance to vote on this issue.

Leaving for another 20 years is ridiculous in my opinion.

To have it in place to happen the instant the Queen dies though will need the process to start soon, as, despite the Queen's apparate good health and the longevity of her mother and other ancestors, she is 83 and things could change very quickly and suddenly we are left with Charles as King - a thought that most Australians I think would not enjoy - just as people in Britain don't really want him (sadly).

 

[lucien]

Your current PM will be long gone and forgotten by the time HM QE II decides to change for Eternal Life,and all will have forgotten her craze of the day not worth mentioning verbal diarhea to gain a few votes.How Cheap.Politicians with low self-esteem use anything to raise attention as some,like this woman who pretends she's the next Maggie but fails every time and again as you will see in the near future,she's nothing.She got lucky one sec,but soon loose that again,she isn't PM material.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She simply made a comment when asked about an issue and gave an answer. She may be gone when the Queen goes and she may not be.

She may very well be PM from tomorrow for a number of years.

When you say she isn't PM material what do you mean? She is the PM of Australia, has fought a hard campaign and well probably wake up Sunday morning still PM of Australia so obviously she is PM material - if she has the job she is seen as the right person by those who matter - the members of her party who elect the PM.

In Australia we don't all elect the PM (despite what many people think).
Tomorrow we will vote and the polls seem to say she will win.

If she does win I can see the Labor Party starting the process to us being a republic at some time in the future such as asking the simple question 'Should Australia be a republic?' Until that question is asked and given the answer yes we can't move forward.

Personally I would like to see Australia become a republic tomorrow and not wait any longer. We need our own Head of State and not an aging foreign woman who has no ties to this country or its people.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Your current PM will be long gone and forgotten by the time HM QE II decides to change for Eternal Life,and all will have forgotten her craze of the day not worth mentioning verbal diarhea to gain a few votes.How Cheap.Politicians with low self-esteem use anything to raise attention as some,like this woman who pretends she's the next Maggie but fails every time and again as you will see in the near future,she's nothing.She got lucky one sec,but soon loose that again,she isn't PM material.

You have no idea when the Queen will pass away or how long this PM will last. She could be there for years, and IMO I hope she is.

A referendum on the monarchy in Australia from what I have heard from posters in this forum is very much on the minds of people in Australia, it is hardly "verbal diaorhea" if it is on the mind of the majority of people is it? She is the PM and speaks for the people.

This woman seems like a very confident person, surely she didn't get to being PM of Australia by not being confident in her own abilities. You are assuming she wants to be the next "maggie", I have never ever seen an article comparing her and I have taken an interest in this woman.

Your predicting the future, that she's going to disappear soon? Why do you have something against her?

 

[Madame Royale]

I woudn't take much notice of lucien's post (respectively). They have little, to no idea, concerning the topic of which they speak. Being ill informed, as is clearly the case, does not aide an argument. . .

 

[crisscross1]

This woman seems like a very confident person, surely she didn't get to being PM of Australia by not being confident in her own abilities.

Your predicting the future, that she's going to disappear soon? Why do you have something against her?

Gillard became PM because the Labor government lost confidence in Rudd. It had nothing to do with her confidence more a case of being in the right place at the right time. I for one, hope that the Liberal government is elected tomorrow and Labor takes it's seat on the back burner again. They have all but ruined this country in 3 years by giving money away, (school halls, baby bonuses, a one off 'suck-up' payment and making promises that they didn't/couldn't keep.)
You can probably tell, I'm not a Labor supporter.
As for the referendum.....I don't know how anyone can say that a mojority of Australians want it. At the last referendum in 1999 only 39% of those who voted, voted 'Yes' which would suggest that a minority of Australians would prefer a republic.
I personally don't care either way but the cost involved with such a move would be tremendous and as far as I can see the Queen has very little input into this country so 'Why change what isn't broken?'
JMPO

 

[Iluvbertie]

At the last referendum in 1999 only 39% of those who voted, voted 'Yes' which would suggest that a minority of Australians would prefer a republic.

It was 45% voting Yes and 55% voting No and many of the Nos said they would have voted Yes with the right model.

 

[crisscross1]

It was 45% voting Yes and 55% voting No and many of the Nos said they would have voted Yes with the right model.

I would love to know where I can find those figures and the statement so that I can read it. Thanks

 

[Iluvbertie]

I would love to know where I can find those figures and the statement so that I can read it. Thanks

These were the figures annouced at the time - like that night.

Australian republic referendum, 1999 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia has the statistics and a summary of the different types of people who voted the way they did.

The figures you are quoting look more like the ones for the preamble referendum held on the same day.

 

[wedmonds]

I think that if the UK ever became a republic (highly-unlikely) that the Queen would move to Australia and the Governor-General and all of the State Governors would be dismissed, since they act on behalf of the Queen there would be no need for them. I think that all of the state houses in Australia would be occupied by the royal family. The Queen would live in one, and she would place her children and grand-children in some of the others. I think she would do all of the ceremonial duties.

Or there is a chance that all of the Commonwealth Realms will get together and sign a treaty that will banish the crown from all of their countries. And they all at one become republics?

Do you think I am correct, or what do you think will likely happen if otherwise?

 

[Madame Royale]

You couldn't be more wrong, I'm affraid wedmonds.

But even so, and in this day and age, if the British monarchy was abolished (so very very unlikely in the present and forseeable future), there would be no need for them to live outside Britain. Not that I can see anyway.

They (the RF) would certainly retire from public view for the most part, however. Probably wishing to live outside the main centres (Sandrigham and Balmoral then being the principle places of residence for the former head of state) and often travel abroad.

Of course that is but one scenario and theres an entire royal family to consider into the equation.

But as for moving to Australia? Not a chance and dare I say that if Britain had removed the monarchy, you can be certain Australia would have already done so aswell.

 

[wbenson]

She couldn't just up and move to Australia and set up court there. She needs the permission of the government to even visit (let alone move in!), she would have no official budget, and it's possible that there would be significant public opposition to a locally-resident monarchy suddenly popping into existence.

 

[Lumutqueen]

The Queen has lived in the UK all her life, why would their be any reason for her leave just because the monarchy had been abolished?

As for setting up herself as sole "Queen of Australia", why would she? If the monarchy in the UK had been disbanded, why move to another country that wants to get rid of the monarchy now, which the UK doesn't atm.

Why would her family and grand-children follow her? They would have a choice of what they would do with their lives, and IMO some of them would love to be without their titles.

Gillard became PM because the Labor government lost confidence in Rudd. It had nothing to do with her confidence more a case of being in the right place at the right time.

Exactly, they lost confidence in the old PM, so her party must have more confidence in her. And if you have no confidence in your self, people can't have confidence in you.