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

[Iluvbertie]

The report is to report in June and could easily suggest a plebiscite next year as seen in this paper last month.

Politicians 'standing in the way of Australian republic vote' - Telegraph

Rudd promised a vote during the last election campaign and it would be something to take everyone's mind off the economy - if on the same day as the federal election.


There is also talk of a private members bill by Bob Brown in the Senate to bring on a plebiscite.

If either major party allows a consience vote on that issue then the plebisicite will go ahead.

 

[Charlotte1]

But both leaders have stated quite categorically that they would not push for a republic during the lifetime of the Queen. Yes Rudd did state during the last election campaign that he would push for a republic vote, but once he was elected it changed to 'not in his first term'. So that then pushes it to 2011. Since then we had the 2020 Summit and the government had chosen not to go ahead with the republic recommendation, other recommendations they will work on.

Plus the economic situation would make pushing for a republic seen as frivolous,( when people are in dire economic straits, the model for a Head of Government isn't exactly going to help them much! Money could be much better spent) last republic campaign cost the country millions of dollars. Republicans and monarchists both received funding from the tax payer to fund their campaigns. Not the mention the cost of the Constitutional Convention to give recommendations on what model to have.

While there are some politicians who would push for a republic at the moment that is not reflected in their leadership or their party priorities. ( non-Australians Bob Brown is a member of a minor party, the Green Party)

So the Senate could recommend a vote, but then if the government choses not to go ahead ( as it chose not to go ahead with the 2020 Summit recommendations), there are more important priorities that the government ( and opposition) have stated they want to focus on, Australians voting on a republic isn't one of them)

 

[Madame Royale]

The main reason I don't see her coming is her age and the attitude of the Commonwealth government.

As long as the Queen is healthy and able, I think we'll see her continue flying. And sometimes quite a distance at that.

Granted, Australia is one of the furtherest destinations HM could travel, but she is in wonderful health, and has all her facaulties about her; especially when considering many her age are resolved to an early "retirement". Elizabeth herself has given no clear indication she would not again visit, and though I cannot be certain, I was sure Buckingham Palace dismissed this speculation around the time of her last visit.

I still believe we'll again see Elizabeth R visit these shores. Statistics and polls aside.

 

[Iluvbertie]

But both leaders have stated quite categorically that they would not push for a republic during the lifetime of the Queen...

The article I posted was from last month and nothing since.

They article clearly says that the report from the 2020 thing is to make its final report in June.

The next federal election is in 2010 not 2011 (we have three year federal terms.)

Rudd promised a referendum on 4 year terms and a plebiscite on the republic. Both would cost a lot less if attached to a federal election next year as most of the cost is employing staff, hiring halls etc but if all of that is a one off expense for the election and the referenda the cost falls massively.

We simply can't wait until some indeterminant date in the future to determine our future direction and we don't know when the Queen will die.

She could die tomorrow - the does the republic come onto the agenda or she could live for another 20 years and we have to wait. That sort of position is not a way to move a country forward.

If the Senate approves Bob Brown's vote it must go to the House of Representatives. Legislation in this country can start in either house unless it is the money bills. A free vote by all members would see it pass and it is perfectly possible that Rudd and/or Turnbull might very well allow that to take the pressure for insituting the vote away from one of the major parties.

At this point in time we need some certainty about the future and a simple 'Do you want Australia to be a republic?' question would at least clear up that side of things. We can then take 10 years to sort out the details and set up a start date, which could be on the Queen's death the GG automatically becomes the President with an election, or whatever, to follow. That gives us certainty rather than waiting and having a King Charles who knows that despite the initial declaration it won't last long.

 

[Roslyn]

At this point in time we need some certainty about the future and a simple 'Do you want Australia to be a republic?' question would at least clear up that side of things. We can then take 10 years to sort out the details and set up a start date, which could be on the Queen's death the GG automatically becomes the President with an election, or whatever, to follow. That gives us certainty rather than waiting and having a King Charles who knows that despite the initial declaration it won't last long.

I tend to agree. We need certainty. Having the settlement of our affairs depend on how long the Queen lives is not satisfactory. We should take a stand and resolve the issue now.

I like the idea of it being decided that on HM's death the GG automatically becomes President with the formal change of system to follow, but I'm not sure that's possible, and if it is I don't think it would be simple to achieve. There would still be a lot of work to be done and detail to sort out and agree upon and amendments to be made to the Constitution, and if you're going to amend the Constitution you really only want to be doing that once. So perhaps a simple "yes", or "no" referendum at the next election with the nuts and bolts referendum at the following one, and we keep our fingers crossed for HM's health in the meantime.

 

[Mermaid1962]

At the time of the Queen's Golden Jubilee, the prediction among some was that it would be her last trip here. Well, her second trip since then is coming up soon.

I think that it's most likely that you'll see your Queen again, and I hope that you do.

As long as the Queen is healthy and able, I think we'll see her continue flying. And sometimes quite a distance at that.


I still believe we'll again see Elizabeth R visit these shores. Statistics and polls aside.

 

[Iluvbertie]

My idea is that the nuts and bolts are worked out before the Queen dies with the GG automatically becoming President instead of Charles becoming King and then proceed to hold an election (or whatever we agree to) to chose the true first President of the Republic of Australia.

I think I will send this idea to the PM and Opposition Leader for their 'suggestion box'.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

So perhaps a simple "yes", or "no" referendum at the next election with the nuts and bolts referendum at the following one, and we keep our fingers crossed for HM's health in the meantime.

I agree. We need to know whether or not a republic is really as inevitable as everyone says. I don't think it is - everytime the Australia people have been asked they always say no.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I agree. We need to know whether or not a republic is really as inevitable as everyone says. I don't think it is - everytime the Australia people have been asked they always say no.

The Australian people have only been asked once in any true poll and it wasn't that far from getting up - 55% No to 45% Yes.

Virtually everyone agrees that the reason it was defeated was the model not the concept. The idea that the parliamentarians select the President rather the preferred method of directly elected President.

There have been many unofficial polls that would indicate overwhelming support for a republic but it is the form of that republic that is the issue.

That is why a plebiscite asking straight out - Do you want Australia to be a republic? would be a revealing vote because until that fact is absolutely clear the country won't get any further towards a republic.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

Maybe there's a reason why republicans always squander opportunities to state their case: Not even they are prepared to admit that a republic would be an expensive and pointless rebranding of the status quo that no one has any great desire to see.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Maybe there's a reason why republicans always squander opportunities to state their case: Not even they are prepared to admit that a republic would be an expensive and pointless rebranding of the status quo that no one has any great desire to see.

Very well put RoyalistRiley. That would be the main reason people wouldn't break with us, because it would be too expensive.

 

[Madame Royale]

That would be the main reason people wouldn't break with us, because it would be too expensive

Breaking with you? You may be surprised by what I'm about to say......but Australia is not a part of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and so cannot discontinue governance from something it isn't a part of to begin with.

Australia is a sovereign nation with our own head of state.

And as for being too expensive? I personally doubt that would be the reason to hold off from disestablishing the Australian monarchy.

 

[Roslyn]

What are the big-ticket expenses going to be? Yes, there'll be lots of new stationery and stuff like that, but we already have nice big houses for the President to live in. He/she will need staff, but the G-G already has some staff. Depends on what sort of republic we have I suppose, but I don't see huge expenses looming because of the change.

 

[Iluvbertie]

What are the big-ticket expenses going to be? Yes, there'll be lots of new stationery and stuff like that, but we already have nice big houses for the President to live in. He/she will need staff, but the G-G already has some staff. Depends on what sort of republic we have I suppose, but I don't see huge expenses looming because of the change.

The big ticket item would be the election expenses for all the candidates whether by direct election or whatever there will be expenses associated with making the decision.

I doubt if Australians would accept a Republican model where the PM chooses the President as he now chooses the GG so there will be campaigning expenses and election expenses.

We would probably expect a higher profile for the President as well thus increasing travel and security expenses to make sure that Australians see their President out and about.

 

[Skydragon]

Breaking with you? You may be surprised by what I'm about to say......but Australia is not a part of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and so cannot discontinue governance from something it isn't a part of to begin with.

Australia is a sovereign nation with our own head of state.

I can not see why Australia does not break with the British altogether. The British get nothing from the association, nor I imagine do the Australians.

 

[Jacknch]

I think that any form of republic should be on the basis that the Head of State (President) is elected by the people - one should never trust parliamentarians, MP's or politicians - give them an inch and they'll take a mile! The Head of State of any nation should represent all the people and not be affiliated with a particular political party representing only some of the people.
I am all in favour of referendums and the question being asked should be threefold - 1) Are you in favour of Australia becoming a republic
2) If Australia becomes a republic, would you like to vote to choose a Head of State
3) If Australia becomes a republic, would you like the Government to choose a Head of State.

 

[Madame Royale]

I can not see why Australia does not break with the British altogether. The British get nothing from the association, nor I imagine do the Australians.

But we did break with the British. It's an entirely different ball game.

Apart from the considered bilateral relations and the many common values shared between the two, Australia is otherwise dissimilar to Great Britain.

The only 'binding' ties being this country's colonial founding, our shared love of competitive sports and that we share the same lady as our respective head of state (though it may have been the latter to which you refer?)

 

[Skydragon]

It was indeed HM I was talking about, but also the right to a visa, either because they hold UK citizenship or on an ancestry claim.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think that any form of republic should be on the basis that the Head of State (President) is elected by the people - one should never trust parliamentarians, MP's or politicians - give them an inch and they'll take a mile! The Head of State of any nation should represent all the people and not be affiliated with a particular political party representing only some of the people.
I am all in favour of referendums and the question being asked should be threefold - 1) Are you in favour of Australia becoming a republic
2) If Australia becomes a republic, would you like to vote to choose a Head of State
3) If Australia becomes a republic, would you like the Government to choose a Head of State.

Once we have answers to these questions then we would have to have further referenda questions as the question has to actually refer to the re-wording of the constitution.

These questions above are non-binding questions on the government as only ones that change the wording of the constitution itself are binding.

After the government gets a definitive answer to the plebiscite (to use the correct technical term for a non-binding vote) that Australia wants to become a republic then there will need to be at least one conference to determine the form of republic and the wording of the constitution to bring that about for that question to be put to the people. If the people reject that form of republic then the process will start again but first we need a vote directly on 'Do you want Australia to become a republic?' and I do hope we get that vote out of the way soon. Until that is confirmed but the majority the country is just standing still.

If they wait until the present Queen dies to ask that question it could be a couple of years or more before we get a form of republic agree to by a majority of the population AND a majority of the states. A simple vote of 50%+1 isn't enough in Australia. It also has to have 4 of the 6 states record a Yes vote.

 

[Madame Royale]

I had reached the end of my post, re-read and thought...I wonder if that's what Skydragon was referring too...haha. I get there in the end!

It was indeed HM I was talking about, but also the right to a visa, either because they hold UK citizenship or on an ancestry claim.

Though wouldn't this be applicable to more countries than just Australia? A broader issue which would require the systems revision as a whole and not on a select basis?
You're right that neither Australia nor Great Britain should benefit at any great length from it. It would seem to me more a personal gain on an indavidual basis.

 

[Charlotte1]

It was indeed HM I was talking about, but also the right to a visa, either because they hold UK citizenship or on an ancestry claim.

The right to a working holiday visa for young Australians isn't restricted to just Britain. Australians can also get a working holiday visa for Japan, as well as young Japanese being entitled to a working holiday visa for Australia. (Just as UK citizens can get a working holiday visa for Australia, it's a reciprocal agreement between countries)

Australia recognises dual citizenship as since young Australians are a very mobile population many opt for a EU passport as that makes life easier to work and in the UK or Europe (no need for a visa) So passports by ancestry aren't just claimed by Australians with British grandparents, but also Australians with grandparents from other EU countries which allow dual citizenship.

Neither the working holiday visas nor British passports by ancestry are sought after because people want a connection with the UK but rather as a means to an end. The mobile young adult who wants to broaden their horizons.

 

[Roslyn]

I think you might find that the older Australians who are entitled to visas because of their ancestry may be at least partly motivated by a desire to maintain their connection with the UK. There are at least two categories that I am aware of: Ancestry Visas which you can apply for with one British grandparent, but you have to work there on this one, and right of abode visas, which require a British parent, and you don't have to work with one of those.

 

[Skydragon]

If and when any country becomes a republic, IMO dual citizenship availability is should be withdrawn immediately. The very stringent controls Australia has in place regarding work visas, should be introduced in the UK, as should the 'repatriation' of Australian workers, no longer required because of the recession, (a move already implemented by Australia).

I can't see any problems for Britain when Australia becomes a republic, nor can I see what difference it would make in reality to Australians, not to have HM addressed as Queen of Australia.

 

[Roslyn]

I have very mixed feelings about the issue.

I was born a British Subject, and my father's parents were both English. My mother's family came out a generation before that, but they all came to live in a British Colony. My ancestors on both sides lie in English soil (and a few in Scotland and Ireland). My blood is British; British history is my history.

On the other hand, the majority of Australian citizens now have no such links with Britain, and the younger ones who do have been brought up in a different society and taught differently at school and don't feel a special connection to Britain. Similarly, a significant part of the British population is now comprised of people who are not of Anglo-Saxon-Celtic blood and they wouldn't give a hoot about us and wouldn't see any reason why we should have any special rights. Britain is now looking towards Europe, and has no formal interest in its former Colonies.

Both countries have changed in many ways politically and demographically over the last half century or so during my lifetime. Both have changed direction and become melting pots for want of a better expression, and neither can give preference to its parents/children as the case may be, any longer.

You've kicked us out of the nest and don't want to let us back in. And if you won't let us go back "home" when we want to go back, I want my own distinctly Australian, Head of State, because at present when both countries are represented together on the world stage at State level we don't have our own Head of State. We share the same person and she is always going to put her own countrymen first. It didn't matter in the past when we were special to Britain, but we aren't any more.

And the part of me that remembers with affection when God Save the Queen was our National Anthem and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was our highest appeal Court, doesn't like it at all.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If and when any country becomes a republic, IMO dual citizenship availability is should be withdrawn immediately. The very stringent controls Australia has in place regarding work visas, should be introduced in the UK, as should the 'repatriation' of Australian workers, no longer required because of the recession, (a move already implemented by Australia).

I can't see any problems for Britain when Australia becomes a republic, nor can I see what difference it would make in reality to Australians, not to have HM addressed as Queen of Australia.

Most Australians who have dual citizenship don't hold British and Australian citizenship but that of their homelands.

For most Aussies of British descent they were born here and so are Australian by birth and haven't considered taking British as well (although many younger ones do due to ability to work in the EU).

Many Australians have come from other countries and keep that citizenship and take out (or being born here gain automatically) Australian citizenship.

Last year I surveyed my Year 10 classes - total 52 students (2 classes) and over 60 nationalities. About 30% are not Australian citizens due to not being born here and parents refusing to take Australian citizenship at this stage (some not yet eligible as well as haven't lived here long enough) but of the 52 students 45 hold citizenship other than Australian and none hold British citizenship. The 7 who are only Australian are also the only kids from totally British backgrounds.

When Australia becomes a republic there will be no need to change the laws regarding dual or even multiple citizenship (some students I teach have four - Greece, Malta, Lebanon and Australian is one child due to grandparents).

Until the 1970s (if my memory serves me correctly) Australians weren't allowed to hold dual citizenship but that changed as we became more multicultural.

 

[Charlotte1]

If and when any country becomes a republic, IMO dual citizenship availability is should be withdrawn immediately...

Republics also allow dual citizenship, Italy for example is a republic and yet allows its citizens to hold dual or multiple citizenships, from other republics as well!

Until the 1970s (if my memory serves me correctly) Australians weren't allowed to hold dual citizenship but that changed as we became more multicultural.

Until 1972 Australians were British subjects and Australian citizens and travelled on British passports, after 1972 Australian passports were issued. The Whitlam government brought it in, prior to 1949 all Australians were just British subjects, there was no Australian citizenship. Dual citizenship was brought in as other countries allowed their citizens to keep their citizenship when they became Australian citizens. Beforehand certain countries required you to renounce your old citizenship if you became an Australian citizen. This was the case with Italy as I counsel frustrated young people (who want to work overseas) who have Italian born grandparents and parents and find they can't get an Italian passport (EU one) through descent as prior to 1992 the Italian government required that you renounce your Italian citizenship if you took on Australian. Their parents and grandparents became proud Australians on paper and their descendents lost forever the right to dual citizenship, those that became Australian citizens after 1992( due to change in Italian law, not Australian) can get dual citizenship. The British government always has allowed for dual citizenship and many young people then qualify and get their EU passport by having just one British born grandparent.

Most Australians who have dual citizenship don't hold British and Australian citizenship but that of their homelands.

I think you'll find that for adult Australians who have dual, one of those citizenships is Australian, simply if they work overseas for extended periods they risk loosing their permanent residence status in Australia. I have dual citizenship, one being Australian, one EU (not British) and I qualify for another throught descent. I could have also qualified for permanent residence status for another country due to time spent living and working there, I'm not that unusual when looking at young mobile professionals, thanks to Australia's multicultural nature being able to move and work worldwide isn't an unusual situation.


I have no British descent or history and am quite happy for Australian to stay a Consitutional Monarchy and be spared totally unnecessary expense. In all honesty it would make no difference to have a president or Governor-General except for the cost. First the cost of having the public debate and referendum, the 1999 one cost well over a million dollars, ( as far as I'm concerned money better spent on education, rural health care, road, disablity services, all of which actually make a real difference in people's lives) If Australia becomes a republic the model that seems to have the most support is the elected president, so then there's the cost of a political campaign by the candidates, all funded with government money. (which again could be better spent) Then finally when the president retires, he or she receives a pension for life, along with other perks, more money! The office of the Italian president (purely ceremonial) currently costs more to run than the monarchy does in the UK, it's a good comparison as the population is about the same, Italians are also paying for the pensions of at least 3 former presidents who are still alive.
For a figurehead Head of State, currently money is not spent on campaigns, the monarch inherits, the governors-general are appointed, the role is ceremonial, spend money on things that actually affect Australians in their daily lives.

 

[Skydragon]

When Australia becomes a republic there will be no need to change the laws regarding dual or even multiple citizenship

On that we will have to agree to differ.

Republics also allow dual citizenship, Italy for example is a republic and yet allows its citizens to hold dual or multiple citizenships, from other republics as well! - The British government always has allowed for dual citizenship and many young people then qualify and get their EU passport by having just one British born grandparent.

Why when many Australians want a republic, would they want to hold on to anything other than an Australian passport? The Italian example is wonderful I am sure but Britain is not Italy.

Lets see Britain implement stringent rules regarding dual nationality when Australia becomes a republic, it is almost as bad as the plastic Scots.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why should we have to change our laws because we become a republic and break any sort of links with Britain?
What laws we have will be for us and whether we are a republic or not will not enter into it.
Most people with dual or multi-national citizenship aren't British anyway so why would they have to give up something they have been able to do for the last 30 years?

 

[Skydragon]

I am not suggesting Australia change her rules, I am suggesting Britain does!

 

[Madame Royale]

I was born in Australia though have spent alot of time either living or travelling between here and the UK. My father was born and bred there, my parents own considerable property in London, I've worked there and I also hold a British passport.

Should Australia become a republic, I'd be quite disheartened if I should have to relinquish my dual-citizenship which has served me, and my life, most significantly. To me, it's provided an entirely personal opportunity to live as a dual citizen and has benefited me and my career well.

It's something which means alot to me. I'm an Australian lady with a bi-cultural (global) upbringing and I appreciate that fact.