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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Agree there is lots to sort out. I wish our pollies would just get on with doing their job and the here and now. Daniel Andrews is joke for Victoria billions of dollars down the drain empty hospital floors etc etc but let's throw in republic talk and it will all go away. The old " quick look over there"


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Yeah, that’s an old trick that the BRF is used to. Every time Spain’s economy gets in the dumps their politicians say “look over there, at Gibraltar!”.
 
It's "Australia Day" in Oz today - that's why the Republican Movement brought this out now.

I've had the TV on for a couple of hours and there has been no mention of this latest call.

But, there has been good coverage of the little fur seal living on the steps of the Opera House here in Sydney.

(The steps lead down into the water - and the little creature has been living there for the last couple of months since Miley Cyrus' concert. A music-lover?)

Hope this helps posters in other lands get an insight into what a non-issue this is here.

Even our media don't seem to be interested - let alone the general public.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't mind a residence just outside the Opera House. A prime position, music on tap, a nice place to sun yourself, your own swimming pool, this seal has it made!
 
The press covered on the morning shows yesterday so no need to cover it again today.
 
If one day's coverage is all the Repubican's can muster Iluvberite, then they don't seem to be driving any sort of reform. There will be another "Australia Day" next year though.


He/she must know it has it made as you say Curryong - no sign of him/her moving on anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
It only needs one day coverage as people are now talking about it again - my place of work yesterday that was the only conversation. I was at an Australia Day dawn BBQ this morning with some other friends and again - only topic of conversation was the republic. I am giving an Australia Day talk at a lunch later today and the organiser rang me last night to change the topic to the 'republic and what it will mean for Australia'.
 
It only needs one day coverage as people are now talking about it again - my place of work yesterday that was the only conversation. I was at an Australia Day dawn BBQ this morning with some other friends and again - only topic of conversation was the republic. I am giving an Australia Day talk at a lunch later today and the organiser rang me last night to change the topic to the 'republic and what it will mean for Australia'.


I haven't heard one person talking about it. Lots of other issues been talked about


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Neither have I, with the exception of myself and son who had a short chat when this latest news broke. Plenty of talk about the economy at the moment though, among friends and acquaintances, including the costs of sending children to school, and what will possibly be in the next budget.
 
The PM, Malcolm Turnbull, has stated that no referendum will be held until after the Queen's death. If she lives as long as her mother, that will have to be one long sustained Push by the politicians!
 
A country holds a referendum on an issue of crucial constitutional importance. Its proponents say they want to secure independence from an overbearing colonial overlord in London. The arguments are made, for and against. The whole affair is conducted with passion, for all accept that votes of such significance are rare things and cannot be held every other week. The phrase, “once in a generation” is intoned. Yet for all the campaign’s heat and light, the result, when it is declared, is a comfortable victory for the status quo: 55 per cent to 45 per cent.

This is not the Scottish independence referendum of 2014, though it could be. This is the Australian republican referendum of 1999, when the proposal to remove the Queen as head of state was solidly rejected by Australian voters.

In the years since the subject has faded from view. But now, thanks to the activism of an Australian rugby star, it is back on the agenda. Peter FitzSimons, a former lock for the national team who is now chairman of the Australian Republic Movement (ARM), has signed up the leader of every state and territory in Australia to support the idea of a republic. They add their voices to that of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, himself a former head of ARM. The political stars, in other words, seem aligned for a new plebiscite.

Except for one small detail: the sure and settled will of the people. Mr Turnbull skirts this by saying there are other more important issues at present. So while he might agitate for another referendum, he won’t stake his career on it. The reason is obvious – the dedication and service of the Queen are cherished by most Australians and he knows he would lose. Again. Nicola Sturgeon take note.
Australians want to keep the Queen - Telegraph
 
I haven't heard anyone talking about it at work, on the train or the tram.
 
I haven't heard anyone talking about it at work, on the train or the tram.


I haven't either not one of my friends has mentioned it. Maybe the posters who say that's all their friends are talking about have started the conversation and kept it going. Celebs will always jump in as they want the attention and anything they can tweet or put on Facebook is good for them. Half the time their tweets etc are done by their PA


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Australians’ support for the monarchy has grown steadily since the 1999 republic referendum, showing the “folly” of previous predictions that constitutional change was inevitable, new research suggests.

A paper published in the Australian Journal of Political Science examines the shift in attitudes between the late 1960s and now, and helps to explain Malcolm Turnbull’s reluctance to champion the issue.
Read more: Australian support for monarchy has grown as debate for republic revived | UK news | The Guardian
 
Time to send the whole Cambridge family down under. Things will calm down.
 
The fiftieth anniversary of Australia changing it's currency from pounds, shillings and pence to dollars and cents is coming up.

There was much, much, uproar in the lead-up to the change when the then Prime Minister of Australia desired to name the new notes "Royals" - in honour of our ties to the throne and our historical connections.

If you thought any current debate about Oz going republic has stired things up, have a gander at the article below which is now online.

Nothing new under the sun as they say.

Sorry, I can't post links - "Before Harold Holt saw cents, there was a right royal runaround on route to dollar we call our own" by Richard Hughes.
 
Last edited:
The media made a fuss about it, but I don't think Menzies' suggestion of 'the Royal' was ever really taken seriously.
 
May I be so bold as to add my support to many of the fine points made by my fellow Australians?
I was too young to vote in the 1999 Referendum, but would have voted 'No'. Should the question be asked again, I shall vote 'No', along with many other Australians. To be a monarchist is unfashionable and I always felt patronized when the question was raised and apparently learned figures would proclaim proudly that there were no more monarchists being born.

The most infuriating thing about the debate has always been the pathetic rhetoric, on both sides. Republicans and their fixation on it being time to say goodbye to 'Mother England', references to apron strings, standing on our own two feet, being ruled from abroad - all highly emotive, inaccurate nonsense.
The monarchist organisations failed to persuade the population in any meaningful way, other than warning against venturing into the unknown, but could have done so much more to demonstrate why our present constitutional arrangements are so good for Australia and quite frankly, give many Australians the right and privilege not to give a damn.

Practical/cosmetic matters such as the cost of minting coins, altering military and emergency services insignia or the National Flag often elicit attention and an opinion, but other than that, a great many of my friends, colleagues, university alumni or encountered strangers have rarely had an even vague notion about the central role and function of the Australian Crown in Australian life. How much better for our community if they did?! Much, I suspect.

The Sovereign/Head of State question is one of opinion. I am of the opinion that Her Majesty is our Sovereign, while Her Governor-General is our Head of State (in the broadly accepted use of the term in international politics). Others disagree and they're welcome to, but neither side can claim to be the author of absolute fact on this question.

The republican grumblings have always smacked of supposed intellectual superiority and elitism, often found in the fashionable inner suburbs of the cities. The arrogant assumption that everyone who isn't a paid-up member of the Country Women's Association, Australian Monarchist League or National Party must ipso facto be a republican is errant garbage.

There have been various inquiries into the possibility of achieving a republic whatever the cost in the years since the republic referendum. Were there barricades in Martin Place or Spring Street with a groundswell of troops rallying to the Green and Gold on hearing of the publication of the Senate Inquiry into the Republic (2004)? No.

In 2008, Senator Brown chose Remembrance Day to introduce a private member's bill into the Senate - The Plebiscite for an Australian Republic Bill. Apart from the utterly inappropriate timing, a senate committee was established to tour the country and hold public hearings. One of the more memorable moments was when a member of the committee humiliated himself by claiming that Canada was a republic. Another assuming republican politician.

I have always shuddered at the emphatic republican chanting of on the one hand, advocacy for multiculturalism and on the other, claiming Her Majesty is a foreigner and therefore unfit to be our monarch. Always seemed a bit of a contradiction to me. 'For those who come across the sea, we've boundless plains to share'. What better embodiment of a truly multicultural society than one with a sovereign not born within its borders? (I am anticipating the inevitable flak regarding this point, but I know precisely what I mean).

Australia is a constitutional monarchy: at worst, a harmless, nostalgic legacy and reason to waive a flag or buy a magazine every once in a while. At best, the result of centuries of political evolution, a unique, stable and neutral form of peaceful, constant government.
 
For Australia to vote to become a Republic is much more simplified I believe. Aussies are not fools. Therefore they will never Vote to become a Republic until a proper and decent, and agreeable Republican model can be put to the people for us to see if we agree with this style of future or not. Until a REPUBLICAN MODEL can be explained to us then we will be happy to remain as part of the Commonwealth. Simple as that I believe. Quite apart from the fact I can't think of one Politician I would like as our Head of State. And that is where they would draw our new Presidents from. Ex Politicians.
 
:previous: Yes, politicians, or very dull, very worthy ex judges or bureaucrats. What an exciting prospect!

Agree with both Von Schlesian and Tarlita on all points.
 
When was it ever suggested that we would leave the Commonwealth?


No one, to my knowledge, ever suggested such a thing. Becoming a republic means we would have to re-apply for membership but would we be denied - I doubt it.


The idea of a Head of State not born in Australia is fine with most republicans. What they can't stomach is the idea of a Head of State who lives permanently overseas and has only visited this country 16 times in the last 64 years - hardly a reason to continue to have her as the Head of State.


I voted 'no' in 1999 but would vote 'yes' in any new plebiscite or referendum.


I do think that we need a plebiscite with the simple question 'do you want Australia to be a republic?' If that is defeated then we republicans need to accept the decision and disappear from the debate but if that is successful then we need to move forward with debate and further plebiscites on the type of republic Australians want.


While we are in this limbo land of not knowing absolutely whether Australians actually want to be a republic (the 1999 vote included the vote on the type of republic and not just the actual issue itself - which should have come first but didn't) we will continue to see this debate raise its head every so often.


It should also be noted that it is possible for a state to vote separately to become a republic as each state is a separate monarchy - as evidenced by the fact that the Succession to the Crown Act had to pass each state before it was passed federally.
 
It is good to have Von Schlesian's views on this subject.

Tarlita, I don't think anyone's suggesting that Australia would not remain in the Commonwealth if we became a republic. And our President would not necessarily have to be an ex-politician. Our current governor-general is not an ex-politician and neither was the previous one, and they are the sorts of people that I would like to see as our President, but I favour a model of republic that would involve as minimal a departure from our present system as possible. I just want an Australian citizen as head of state; I don't want a foreign head of state whose primary allegiance is to her own country and who shares her role as Queen of this country with 15 other realms. I definitely do not want the American model and I'd vote for the status quo if that were the model put up for approval, but I don't think that is likely to happen.
 
I don't see how we can vote for a republic without knowing what that will be ! What a mess that will become.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
I'm not a republican but Britain downgrading trade with Commonwealth realms in 1973 in order to join the European Common Market came near to a betrayal in my book. I know it had nothing to do with the royal family, but this was a major blow to farmers in Australia and New Zealand who were left scratching for new markets for their wool, butter, meat and other raw produce. It was a kick in the guts that this country and the others that had always been loyal to the Empire/Commonwealth didn't need, in my view.

There have also been complaints over the years that Aussies, Canadians, New Zealanders and others from Commonwealth nations holding their nations' passports have been kept waiting longer in queues at British airports for passport checks while Europeans, including from countries with whom Britain fought world wars, are waved through, as they have EU passports.

It's these sort of things that strain old ties and IMO are and were most unfair.
 
Last edited:
When Malcolm Turn was President of the Republican movement all those years ago, I remember him and Paul Keating saying that a President would be picked by parliament from Ex Politicians. That is the only reason why I mentioned that.
I still wouldn't vote to become a Republic without seeing what type of a republican model we would use.
 
My idea is to find out first IF there is actual support for Australia to become a republic and then work out the type. Only when it was clear that a type of republic had sufficient support would it become a referendum vote and not a plebiscite vote.

The last vote was one model. The public never has had a chance to vote on a range of models and that is what is needed - find out the model that would be acceptable to the majority of the population.

If we only ever vote for one model it is always going to lose and this costly exercise will keep coming back every 20 or so years.

Let's find out IF there is 50%+1 of the population who actually want to be a republic - a simple question at the next election. Then discuss the possible models and even take that to a vote using the preferential system with the winner needing at least 50%+1 and then finally a full on referendum on accepting that model - having already said we want to be a republic.

Saying that we have to only vote on a particular model will mean that many republicans will vote 'no' because it isn't their preferred model while asking the simple 'do you want Australia to become a republic?' as a starting point to the debate and discussions give time and shows where Australians want to go with their future.

With my suggestion there could be three or four votes:

1. Do you want to be a republic?
2. Which of the following models would you support? A list of up to 10 could easily be arranged at this point to reduce to a smaller number at the next stage.
3. Do you want xxx or yyy or zzz model?
4. Do you agree to change the constitution to the majority model?
 
When was it ever suggested that we would leave the Commonwealth?


No one, to my knowledge, ever suggested such a thing. Becoming a republic means we would have to re-apply for membership but would we be denied - I doubt it.


The idea of a Head of State not born in Australia is fine with most republicans. What they can't stomach is the idea of a Head of State who lives permanently overseas and has only visited this country 16 times in the last 64 years - hardly a reason to continue to have her as the Head of State.


I voted 'no' in 1999 but would vote 'yes' in any new plebiscite or referendum.


I do think that we need a plebiscite with the simple question 'do you want Australia to be a republic?' If that is defeated then we republicans need to accept the decision and disappear from the debate but if that is successful then we need to move forward with debate and further plebiscites on the type of republic Australians want.


While we are in this limbo land of not knowing absolutely whether Australians actually want to be a republic (the 1999 vote included the vote on the type of republic and not just the actual issue itself - which should have come first but didn't) we will continue to see this debate raise its head every so often.


It should also be noted that it is possible for a state to vote separately to become a republic as each state is a separate monarchy - as evidenced by the fact that the Succession to the Crown Act had to pass each state before it was passed federally.


Regarding Commonwealth membership - our Constitutional arrangements have nothing to do with continued membership of the Commonwealth of Nations. When Mauritius became a republic in 1992, it simply changed from a Commonwealth Realm, to a republic within the Commonwealth. There is no question of having to apply for re-admission based on the form of government of an existing member. The only requirement for a nation in such a position is to accept the fact that Her Majesty is at present, the head of this international family of realms and republics, without being the sovereign of all of them.

The misunderstanding however, does illustrate how easily confused this fundamental question is and how many misconceptions abound.

The republic question was asked and was answered. Many continuing and new republicans refuse to accept that the result was the voice of generations saying 'we do not want to change our Constitution'. The motives and rationale for the outcome are there to be debated and there are many popular theories among republicans, but all too often these theories are misrepresented as facts, then assumed to be so by the poor unfortunate forced to listen.

Some would say sour grapes. I like that republicanism exists in Australia, to test the waters and push certain buttons from time to time, but with every effort made on their part, the public apathy is a reassurance to many monarchists that the days of the Crown in Australia are by no means numbered.

I'm glad you raised the question of federalism Iluvbertie, the same is the case in reverse, should any of the states wish to secede from the Federation in the event of wildly diverse referendum result in the future, they may do so. The Crown binds us in an unobtrusive, unbiased way, easily overlooked and underestimated, but I wouldn't give it up for all the tea in China.
 
A little titbit for you: membership of the Australian Republic Movement has quintupled since this time last year. Make of that what you will.
 
:previous: Still doesn't guarantee victory at any referendum.

How many members does the ARM have now, anyway?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom