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

[Muhler]

I find this discussion fascinating and I've learned quite a bit about how the Australian system works.
I do like that voting is compulsory.

But back to the republican issue. Would a similar serious political move towards turning Canada and/or New Zealand into republics, i.e. asking the public, seriously influence the Australian stand, you think?
Regardless of the outcome. Say a no in Canada, would that influence the Australian public and help the monarchists?

 

[Sun Lion]

Today's news -

A court case is being brought to have the National Archives release the approximately sixty letters that passed between the Queen and her advisors, and Australia's Governor-General of the time, Sir John Kerr, during what is known as "The Dismissal".

These have been sealed for more than forty years.

("The Dismissal" was the sacking of the Federal Government by the Queen's representative.)

The National Archives are fighting to keep them secret.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I find this discussion fascinating and I've learned quite a bit about how the Australian system works.
I do like that voting is compulsory.

But back to the republican issue. Would a similar serious political move towards turning Canada and/or New Zealand into republics, i.e. asking the public, seriously influence the Australian stand, you think?
Regardless of the outcome. Say a no in Canada, would that influence the Australian public and help the monarchists?

Maybe a vote in NZ because it is our neighbour and a country with which we have a very special relationship. Remember that NZ actually was asked to join us at the time of Federation and voted 'thanks but no thanks'.

Canada - I doubt it. We hardly ever get any news from there and it is seen as being part of America (I suspect that many Aussies wouldn't even know that Canada is part of the Commonwealth e.g. there was virtually no coverage in Australia of Canada's 150th birthday celebrations.

Then again I have seen many people claim that The Queen would be sad to see a country become a republic ignoring the fact that she has seen it many times during her reign as most of the countries of which she was Queen when she ascended the throne have already removed her from that position with quite a few of those left actively talking about dropping her.

We would probably get more coverage of Jamaica or Barbardos - due to the fact that these two countries play cricket and thus have a more regular sporting connection - than with Canada that we only seem to compete against at the Commonwealth or Olympic Games.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

1. I'm a constitutional monarchist, but I for one agree that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the twelve other countries that has HM as monarch should become republics - why? Because I find it strange that you can have a foreigner as head of state, but Bill Shorten could have had the decency to wait to after the Queen's death.

2. The reason for him (Bill Shorten) to start with this now is because he thinks he can win votes on it, while the even more republican Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull thinks he would loose votes on it due to the Queen's popularity and therefore wants to wait to after her death. Turnbull was (as you of course know) one of the founders of the Australian Republican Movement in 1991, but now describes himself as an Elizabethan.

3. There have been some polls on australian news-sites today and most of them show a lead for the monarchists (not to be taken seriously, i know). I also read the Facebook comments on ABC/Sky News Australia sites, and the vast majority were negative to spend a lot of money on this as long as the Queen lives.

4. And according to the two monarchists organisations and others, more young voters support the monarchy.

Maybe a vote in NZ because it is our neighbour and a country with which we have a very special relationship. Remember that NZ actually was asked to join us at the time of Federation and voted 'thanks but no thanks'.

Canada - I doubt it. We hardly ever get any news from there and it is seen as being part of America (I suspect that many Aussies wouldn't even know that Canada is part of the Commonwealth e.g. there was virtually no coverage in Australia of Canada's 150th birthday celebrations.

Then again I have seen many people claim that The Queen would be sad to see a country become a republic ignoring the fact that she has seen it many times during her reign as most of the countries of which she was Queen when she ascended the throne have already removed her from that position with quite a few of those left actively talking about dropping her.

We would probably get more coverage of Jamaica or Barbardos - due to the fact that these two countries play cricket and thus have a more regular sporting connection - than with Canada that we only seem to compete against at the Commonwealth or Olympic Games.

As usual, I very much disagree with you.

1. I very much doubt that australians see Canada as being part of America.

2. Yes, she have seen other realms go. But that was countries that became independent after she ascended to the throne, with the exception of Ceylon, Pakistan and South Africa, which already was independent when she become the monarch. The last independent realm who replaised her with another head of state was Mauritius in 1992. But there is something else about Canada, Australia and New Zealand who has had her as monarch since she ascended in 1952.

Current 16 Commonwealth realms:

Australia 1952–present
Canada 1952–present
New Zealand 1952–present
Jamaica 1962–present
Barbados 1966–present
The Bahamas 1973–present
Grenada 1974–present
Papua New Guinea 1975–present
Solomon Islands 1978–present
Tuvalu 1978–present
St. Lucia 1979–present
St. Vincent and the Grenadines 1979–present
Belize 1981–present
Antigua and Barbuda 1981–present
St. Kitts and Nevis 1983–present

Former 16 Commonwealth realms:

Pakistan 1952–1956
South Africa 1952–1961
Ceylon 1952–1972
Ghana 1957–1960
Nigeria 1960–1963
Sierra Leone 1961–1971
Tanganyika 1961–1962
Trinidad and Tobago 1962–1976
Uganda 1962–1963
Kenya 1963–1964
Malawi 1964–1966
Malta 1964–1974
The Gambia 1965–1970
Guyana 1966–1970
Mauritius 1968–1992
Fiji 1970–1987

 

[Curryong]

Would Australians be influenced by New Zealand or Canada beoming a republic before we voted? We have a much closer relationship with NZ than with Canada as it's our nearest neighbour and in many ways we have a shared history. It might influence some of the thousands of Kiwis who live in Australia and have become citizens, but I doubt it would make much difference to the figures.

I don't think most Aussies think of Canada in terms of being part of North America. I believe, with the amount of travel that goes on today that they are very well aware of Canada as a fellow Commonwealth nation.

If those unlikely circumstances Muhler mused on were to happen, I think there would be an enormous amount of publicity in the Australian media and inevitably some would want to jump on the bandwagon. However, I tend to think that at base, it would confirm people's opinions yea or nay. I can't see too many voting on the basis that 'that country has changed course. We have to do the same.'

 

[Mbruno]

Would Australians be influenced by New Zealand or Canada beoming a republic before we voted? We have a much closer relationship with NZ than with Canada as it's our nearest neighbour and in many ways we have a shared history. It might influence some of the thousands of Kiwis who live in Australia and have become citizens, but I doubt it would make much difference to the figures.

I don't think most Aussies think of Canada in terms of being part of North America. I believe, with the amount of travel that goes on today that they are very well aware of Canada as a fellow Commonwealth nation.

If those unlikely circumstances Muhler mused on were to happen, I think there would be an enormous amount of publicity in the Australian media and inevitably some would want to jump on the bandwagon. However, I tend to think that at base, it would confirm people's opinions yea or nay. I can't see too many voting on the basis that 'that country has changed course. We have to do the same.'

As I said and I suppose the Canadian posters can comment further, support for the monarchy is actually softer in Canada than in Australia . The thing is that, at the same time, there is no harcdore support for a republic either. Apparently, it is an issue that Canadians simply don't seem to care about. The most important practical difference, however, is that there is no major national political party campaigning for a republic in Canada as there is in Australia. My experience is that issues like the abolition of the monarchy only enter the realm of possibility once mainstream politicians embrace them and lead public opinion in that direction.

 

[wyevale]

I can't see too many voting on the basis that 'that country has changed course. We have to do the same.'

I agree, were that the case there would be a rush for the gates of the EU, following Brexit !

 

[Curryong]

Republicanism has been a matter of public discourse in Australia since at least 1850. It first peaked in the 1880's and 1890's when several national figures spoke in favour of it. The idea therefore has a long history. It's been part of the platform of the Australian Labor Party for many many years. Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard were Prime Ministers who were in favour.

However, support for republicanism has definitely ebbed and flowed in the general population. It has often been considered as something on the horizon, something to be considered tomorrow not today. Since the 1990's referendum it's been very much on the back burner for most people I think.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Today's news -

A court case is being brought to have the National Archives release the approximately sixty letters that passed between the Queen and her advisors, and Australia's Governor-General of the time, Sir John Kerr, during what is known as "The Dismissal".

These have been sealed for more than forty years.

("The Dismissal" was the sacking of the Federal Government by the Queen's representative.)

The National Archives are fighting to keep them secret.

Push for release of ‘palace letters’ between Queen and the man who dismissed Gough Whitlam from office after 40 years of secrecy

Push for release of Queen's 'palace letters' about Whitlam | Daily Mail Online

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Read more: No prospect of republic while Queen reigns | The Advocate

There is no prospect of an Australian republic in the next few years, and a republic in the medium term is unlikely.

While Labor is banging the republic drum and is no doubt honestly portraying its beliefs, in practical terms it is little more than a product differentiation attempt, or, quite possibly, a crack at driving a wedge between republican Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and the monarchist elements of the Coalition.

There would be next to no possibility of a republic referendum being passed with the Queen on the throne.

It is by no means certain a future King Charles would swing it for the republicans either, particularly with the younger royals extremely popular.

Then there is the well established Australian tradition of rejecting referendum questions.

Only eight of 44 have passed since 1901.

Throw into the mix:

Many Australians would take a “not broke, don’t fix” it approach to a republic vote;

the difficulties in agreeing on a model, and how a head of state would be chosen;

the enormous scare campaign potential for opponents; and
the fact most Australians are much more concerned about other issues, including jobs, the economy, health and education.

The weapons which could be used against a republican campaign are almost limitless.

 

[Anthony Clayden]

The other challenge for a Republic is that it is not just the Commonwealth of Australia (CofA) would need to become a republic but each state is a monarchy in its own right. The Australian States/Colonies were monarchies before the CofA or the seperate Australian realm were created and in law retained soveriegnty in all areas not specifically enumerated in the constitution as having been given to the CofA(and their individual crowns were not included) So each states will have to change their systems as well. Each could remain monarchies even if the CofA was not.

I do have another query though, how is the Queen monarch of an individual state? Victoria was Queen of say, Victoria, before Australia existed, and Elizabeth II might remain Queen of Queensland after her Australian realm is extinguished. How is Her Majesty soveriegn over each Australian state, through which title does she take on this role?

The reason I ask is to do with the current situation with Section 44 and allegiance to a foreign power. The Aus. High Court has ruled that allegiance to the Queen of the UK, NZ, or Can is allegiance to a foreign power. So if the Queen, is queen of the states because is she Queen of the UK, would that create an allegiance to a foriegn power, if a Australian in a state owed allegiance through their state to her Majesty because is she is Queen of the UK? (Hope the last bit made sense)

 

[Mbruno]

The other challenge for a Republic is that it is not just the Commonwealth of Australia (CofA) would need to become a republic but each state is a monarchy in its own right. The Australian States/Colonies were monarchies before the CofA or the seperate Australian realm were created and in law retained soveriegnty in all areas not specifically enumerated in the constitution as having been given to the CofA(and their individual crowns were not included) So each states will have to change their systems as well. Each could remain monarchies even if the CofA was not.

I do have another query though, how is the Queen monarch of an individual state? Victoria was Queen of say, Victoria, before Australia existed, and Elizabeth II might remain Queen of Queensland after her Australian realm is extinguished. How is Her Majesty soveriegn over each Australian state, through which title does she take on this role?

The reason I ask is to do with the current situation with Section 44 and allegiance to a foreign power. The Aus. High Court has ruled that allegiance to the Queen of the UK, NZ, or Can is allegiance to a foreign power. So if the Queen, is queen of the states because is she Queen of the UK, would that create an allegiance to a foriegn power, if a Australian in a state owed allegiance through their state to her Majesty because is she is Queen of the UK? (Hope the last bit made sense)

I believe that is a non-issue as the traditional legal doctrine in the Commonwealth is that the Queen of Australia and the Queen of the UK (or Canada, or New Zealand, etc.) are separate legal entitities. In fact, the Queen of Australia could declare war on the Queen of the UK and vice-versa. Their meaning in the law should not be confused with the physical person Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor.

 

[Anthony Clayden]

I believe that is a non-issue as the traditional legal doctrine in the Commonwealth is that the Queen of Australia and the Queen of the UK (or Canada, or New Zealand, etc.) are separate legal entitities. In fact, the Queen of Australia could declare war on the Queen of the UK and vice-versa. Their meaning in the law should not be confused with the physical person Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor.

Mbruno,

Thanks for your reply, I was aware that the monarch in each realm is a distinct legal entity. Australia is different to the other remaining realms as the rest are unitary states, with the exception of Canada where the provinces have Lt Governers, who are appointed by Can GG on advice from Can PM under the Can consitution. However Australian states have fully fledged Governers appointed directly by Her Majesty from advice of each State Premier with no reference to the Commonwealth government.

So my first quesiton is, how is QEII soveriegn over each state, if the monarchies of each state existed before and can exist after the Australian realm?

 

[Ish]

Mbruno,

Thanks for your reply, I was aware that the monarch in each realm is a distinct legal entity. Australia is different to the other remaining realms as the rest are unitary states, with the exception of Canada where the provinces have Lt Governers, who are appointed by Can GG on advice from Can PM under the Can consitution. However Australian states have fully fledged Governers appointed directly by Her Majesty from advice of each State Premier with no reference to the Commonwealth government.

So my first quesiton is, how is QEII soveriegn over each state, if the monarchies of each state existed before and can exist after the Australian realm?

I would think QEII is sovereign over each Australian state, independent of each other, in the same way that she is sovereign of each Realm, independent of each other. That is, the Queen of Queensland is a legal entity separate from the Queen of New South Wales, etc.

My understanding of the way things work in Australia is that each state is its own sovereign entity, and that the federal government only has power over what the states do not deal with.

This is different from Canada, where the provinces are not sovereign entities, but rather have some autonomy granted to them by the federal government. Thus, there is no Queen of British Columbia, but rather a Queen of Canada who has a representative in British Columbia.

 

[Anthony Clayden]

Australia becomes a republic but Queensland remains a monarchy (not an inconceivable outcome, given QLD and WA liking to be different from the rest of the country). A Qlder would then be owe allegiance to the President of Australia, over things the Commonwealth was sovereign for and the Crown of Qld represented by HM EII for things the state of Qld is sovereign over.

I'm not sure there such a thing as the Queen of Queensland, the states were never sepearate realms, they were self governing crown colonies (or dominions). The Crown of a colony\state was the person who was monarch of the UK. I presume the Australia Act might have addressed these issue but I'm not sure thought it a possible outcome when it ws drafted.

 

[LadyRohan]

Australia becomes a republic but Queensland remains a monarchy (not an inconceivable outcome, given QLD and WA liking to be different from the rest of the country). A Qlder would then be owe allegiance to the President of Australia, over things the Commonwealth was sovereign for and the Crown of Qld represented by HM EII for things the state of Qld is sovereign over.

I'm not sure there such a thing as the Queen of Queensland, the states were never sepearate realms, they were self governing crown colonies (or dominions). The Crown of a colony\state was the person who was monarch of the UK. I presume the Australia Act might have addressed these issue but I'm not sure thought it a possible outcome when it ws drafted.

There is indeed legally no such entity as the Queen of Queensland, or any other Australian state, today, but there is no stretch to imagine that being the case in the future, which is why the whole republican whine is slightly a moot point. If politicians had any foresight, they would let this thought sit with people themselves, and if the mood at some point has sufficiently changed across the nation as a whole, they can grab the issue and run with it, but as it stands today, it's a very risky project. The Australian federation would most likely survive a successful republican project, but several states, such as Queensland and Western Australia would most likely reject the republic, and their allegiance on a state level, would therefore fall to a monarch as a state, and towards a president on a federal level.
It might seem an odd construction, but it's similar to how states in various federations around the world operate, allegiance to different leaders on different levels. There are local monarchs in states in Malaysia and the UAE, while another leader heads the federation as a whole. Given both Queenslands and WAs usual direction of differing from the other states on such issues, and experiences from the previous referendum, it's not inconceivable that the Queen in effect would end up as head of more governments than she currently is, although both Queensland and WA would not necessarily become independent states and add to the total number of Commonwealth realms.

 

[Kronprinz]

Does the Prime Minister of Australia have a weekly audience with the Governor-General like in Britain?

 

[Iluvbertie]

He/She certainly meets with the GG (as do the State Premiers with the respective Governors). Whether it is weekly would depend on whether there was anything to disucss (the same as in the UK where it isn't actually 'weekly' but 'weekly when Parliament is sitting' or at other times as necessary).

 

[eya]

An photo made available by the Australia Department of Treasury on 22 April 2018 shows a new effigy of Queen Elizabeth soon to be circulated on Australian coins. The federal government says a new effigy of Queen Elizabeth , designed by British Royal Mint's engraver Jody Clark, will be rolled out and is expected to be seen on 2019-dated coins.

https://api.profimedia.com/data/large-preview/4/0/0369301360/profimedia-0369301360.jpg

 

[Lumutqueen]

A new PM in Australia;
Australia has a new prime minister again after Scott Morrison wins historic party room ballot | Daily Mail Online

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

A new PM in Australia;
Australia has a new prime minister again after Scott Morrison wins historic party room ballot | Daily Mail Online

Historic? Barely! This is our 6th prime minister in 11 years!

 

[VictoriaB]

The High Court has ruled that correspondence between the Queen and Sir John Kerr dealing with the dismissal of PM Gough Whitlam is not personal correspondence and therefore the National Archives must consider whether a member of the public (In this case a historian) should have access to them.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/hig...ers-on-whitlam-dismissal-20200528-p54x9l.html

 

[Iluvbertie]

If these letters reveal any interference - or even suggestion of interference by the monarch in Australian affairs it will be the final nail in the coffin for the monarchy in Australia.

I suspect they will be like Charles' spider letters - rather nondescript and say things like - follow the advice of the PM and the constitution of Australia. Anything more and she would have been exceeding her political role.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

The High Court has ruled that correspondence between the Queen and Sir John Kerr dealing with the dismissal of PM Gough Whitlam is not personal correspondence and therefore the National Archives must consider whether a member of the public (In this case a historian) should have access to them.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/hig...ers-on-whitlam-dismissal-20200528-p54x9l.html

Honestly, Wouldn’t anything really incriminating have been destroyed by now, if it ever existed in the first place? I agree with Iluvbertie, its spider memos 2.0.

 

[Mbruno]

"Dramatic" revelations expected as private correspondence between the Queen, her Private Secretary and the Governor General in connection to the dismissal of the Whitlam government in 1975 is due to be released imminently.



https://www.theguardian.com/austral...australian-gough-whitlam-government-dismissed


That will be interesting to see.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Isn’t this being touted as another “spider paper” that Charles was involved in?

Much ado about nothing.

 

[Mbruno]

Isn’t this being touted as another “spider paper” that Charles was involved in?

Much ado about nothing.

Not quite, because it is not about organic farming or modern architecture, but rather exchanges between the Sovereign and her vice-regal representative in Australia related to a specific constitutional crisis (one which BTW is said to have triggered the modern republican movement in Australia).


Republicans of course will look for clues that the Queen was not neutral in the dispute and favored the Labor government's removal from office.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Not quite, because it is not about organic farming or modern architecture, but rather exchanges between the Sovereign and her vice-regal representative in Australia related to a specific constitutional crisis (one which BTW is said to have triggered the modern republican movement in Australia).


Republicans of course will look for clues that the Queen was not neutral in the dispute and favored the Labor government's removal from office.

My apologies I should have explained my sentence further, I didn’t necessarily mean the topic at hand was similar more that the situation is looking similar in that it turns out to be nothing.

However I’m unawares as to the surrounding, would love to hear Iluvberties take on it.

 

[Mbruno]

My apologies I should have explained my sentence further, I didn’t necessarily mean the topic at hand was similar more that the situation is looking similar in that it turns out to be nothing.

However I’m unawares as to the surrounding, would love to hear Iluvberties take on it.

The letters are due to be released tomorrow in Australia, I think, which actually means tonight for us who are on the opposite side of the world. So I guess we will know soon if it is much ado about nothing, or not.

 

[Iluvbertie]

These letters could be very important and the historian who has brought this case believes they will show a great deal as I understand it.

It appears there are over 200 letters amounting to around 1200 pages ... but many of those pages are newspaper clippings etc so how much is actually the Queen's own words - or those of her Private Secretary at the time as his letters are supposed to be included.

If the letters are anything more that basically 'follow the Australian constitution' or 'follow the advice of your Prime Minister' they will give a massive boost to the republican movement but if they are more circumspect it mightn't make that big a difference.

I have set my TV news channels to cover this when they are released but we may not really know much for a day or so - until someone, presumably the historian has actually bothered to read them.