Succession to the Crown Act 2013, Part 1: 2011 - Sep 2022

[padams2359]

More "What If's". Did I say anything about "Forcing" or "Laws"? I guess I should have said "wants", "desires", "it would please her" to have this past.

It only really becomes an issue when the Cambridges have a second baby. The first baby will be next in line under current legislation even if it is a girl. If a daughter gets a baby brother that's when it becomes a problem.

That would give them another 3 or 4 years from now as to when this second child would be born and the issue needs to be addressed, and that is only if the first child is a girl.

 

[cepe]

Can an Australian explain this to me please?

This is an article from the Daily Telegraph which says that Queensland has rejected the federal bill to change the succession laws. IT does this on the basis that it is a sovereign state.

When I read something like this my immediate response is "newspaper exaggeration" but this time I've added - could it happen because I don't understand how the state and federal government in Australia work together.

So can anyone help, please?

Queensland could end up with different head of state to Britain and Australia - Telegraph

 

[Iluvbertie]

Queensland has been arguing that each of the states has to pass the legislation as each state is a separate crown in its own right. As a result Qld is arguing that they have to pass the legislation before the federal government can do so, or at least in addition.

The issue itself won't have any problems going through the parliament/s here but the idea that the states could make a decision like this that is separate to the federal government will need to be sorted out so this could easily end up with the High Court which could delay things as the High Court could take years to decide on a matter - which is to do with the powers of the federal government and the way our constitution works. Unless a power is specifically mentioned in the constitution as a federal power then it is a state power - and this issue could be a catalyst for sorting out some of these powers even though the issue itself isn't contentious.

It is a 'state's rights' type issue.

 

[cepe]

Thank you Iluvbertie. That's much clearer but this does increase the possibility that different rules could apply when the baby is born.

Fingers crossed for a boy!

 

[Lumutqueen]

Fingers crossed for a boy!

Glad I'm not the only one thinking that!

 

[Jacknch]

Have any of the other Australian states brought this issue up? Either way, perhaps Queenland ought to simply get on with approving the Act (or not as the case may be) so that matter can move on.

 

[NGalitzine]

It won't really be an issue until the time comes for Baby Cambridge to succeed to the throne, and even then its only an issue if Baby Cambridge is a girl with a younger brother. By the time Baby Cambridge comes to the throne it is likely Australia and other Commonwealth countries would have become republics with their own elected heads of state.

 

[Warren]

The same issue was raised in the lead-up to the failed republic referendum in 1999. It was suggested by some experts in constitutional law that if the referendum was successful and each individual state didn't revise its constitution, we could end up with a situation where we had, for example, the Republic of the Commonwealth of Australia, while Elizabeth II remained unscathed as the constitutional Sovereign of Queensland.

The issue largely arises because the State constitutions were drawn up well before both the Federal constitution and the Commonwealth [of Australia] came into being on January 1, 1901. Prior to federation the States were self-governing colonies. As there was no conflict between the Federal and colonial constitutions regarding the central position of the Crown and the Sovereign, no special provisions needed to be made.

 

[NGalitzine]

Warren, are the governors of each individual state appointed by the Commonwealth government or by the state governments?

 

[Warren]

The State Governors are appointed by the Sovereign acting on the advice of the State Premier.
The Governor General is appointed by the Sovereign acting on the advice of the Prime Minister.

 

[NGalitzine]

The State Governors are appointed by the Sovereign acting on the advice of the State Premier.
The Governor General is appointed by the Sovereign acting on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Thanks. So the Crown is very much seperate at the state and federal levels. That is different than in Canada where both the GG and the provincial Lt Govs are appointed on the advice of the PM.

 

[Warren]

Yes, quite separate.
No State Premier would allow a Prime Minister to dictate their choice of Governor. Which I guess could lead to another unlikely hypothetical where Elizabeth II or member of her family could be the duly appointed Governor of Queensland within the Republic of Australia.

The reason the Canadian Constitution wasn't used as the model or template for the Australian Commonwealth was due to its more centralised powers. The colonial governments would not accept that degree of centralism. Needless to say the battles and arguments over money and power between Federal and State administrations continues as it ever was.

 

[Roslyn]

For anyone who is interested, this article provides some useful background to the battle for sovereignty between the States, the Commonwealth, and the Crown in Australia:

Anne Twomey† "The States, the Commonwealth and the Crown—the Battle for Sovereignty*" – Parliament of Australia

 

[Iluvbertie]

Remember that until ALL the realms have passed the legislation necessary the changes don't come into effect in any of them so the idea of a different monarch has already been dealt with by agreement anyway.

So if a girl is born in July and then has a brother the brother still is ahead of his sister until ALL realms have made the changes within their own jurisdictions. The idea of separate heirs is a furphy.

The legislation will be passed here but the issue of state's rights is important and if this is used as a test case in the High Court so be it.

I believe it is also scheduled for discussion at todays COAG meeting in Canberra (COAG = Commonwealth of Australia Governments). This is an annual event at least where the heads of government of the states, territories and the federal government discuss various matters usually involving the division of tax money so a lot of today's discussions will be on the changes to education funding being proposed but the issus of the succession to the crown is also on the agenda with Qld's premier no doubt going to stick to his guns.

 

[Roslyn]

"COAG agreed to a hybrid model to implement the previously agreed changes to the rules of Royal succession in Australia. Under the hybrid model, States may choose to enact State legislation dealing with the rules of Royal succession. States have agreed that they will request the Commonwealth under s.51(38) of the Constitution to enact legislation, and that any State legislation will be consistent with their requests to the Commonwealth under s.51(38)."

Bertie, Warren, what do you make of this?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Sounds like they aren't going to sort out the issue of state's rights on this issue.

 

[AdmirerUS]

For anyone who is interested, this article provides some useful background to the battle for sovereignty between the States, the Commonwealth, and the Crown in Australia:

Anne Twomey† "The States, the Commonwealth and the Crown—the Battle for Sovereignty*" – Parliament of Australia

Thanks, Roslyn - that was an excellent explanation. I had no idea there was a state/territory issue in AU. I learn so much here at the Forums.

 

[Dman]

Paul Harrison ‏@SkyNewsRoyal 2h
#royal #Queen is set to give royal assent to Bill ending archaic primogeniture. Cabinet Office says HM will see it "in coming days"

Paul Harrison ‏@SkyNewsRoyal 2h
#royal the Succession to the Crown Bill means regardless of the sex of #Kate's baby, it will be the monarch following Prince William

Paul Harrison ‏@SkyNewsRoyal 3h
#royal #Queen turns it from a Bill into Act of Parliament, but Act comes into effect simultaneously in all HM's Realms on a date tba.

Paul Harrison ‏@SkyNewsRoyal 52m
do those realms not need to pass the bill in their own parliaments?” processes all differ, but all agree in principle

 

[royalistbert]

It's a done deal then.

 

[Roslyn]

This is excellent news.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It was always a 'done deal' but it doesn't take effect until all the realms have passed it according to their own processes.

So this doesn't take effect yet.

 

[Ish]

That's what I was thinking - basically, it's one down, fifteen more to go.

 

[NGalitzine]

That's what I was thinking - basically, it's one down, fifteen more to go.

A bit more than that actually. The different Channel Islands will also have to pass the legislation in their own legislatures since the laws of Westminster have no effect there. Not sure about the Isle of Man but expect it is likely the same.

 

[Roslyn]

But the first step has been taken successfully. It's no longer just an intention; the legislation has been passed in the UK. And, IMO, the fact it has been passed at home will make it just that little more difficult for the realms to resist.

 

[Dman]

Well, when the baby arrives, he or she will be the future Monarch.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

Is this article correct? Prince Michael of Kent will be restored to his position in the Line of Succession?

Change to royal succession passes House of Lords, now awaits Queen - National Royal News | Examiner.com

 

[Roslyn]

That is the effect of Section 2 of the Act, and that is what will happen once Section 2 is proclaimed to commence.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yes - when the legislation has passed in all the different realms, and most of the others haven't even started the process yet, Michael and any others who have lost their place in the order of succession due to marriage to a RC will be restored. Those who lost their place due to being RC or becoming RC will still be out.

 

[yvr girl]

If Peter and Autumn have a son where will he place. He would be born after the cut-off date but his sisters were born before?

 

[Roslyn]

The answer lies in the wording of the relevant section: "In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that person’s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever born)."