Australia: The Queen and the Republic Debate (3 Viewers)

Should Australia become a republic?

  • YES

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • NO

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

absorber

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
874
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
There is actually strong evidence that a republican government would fundamentally alter the balance of Australian political power and anyone who tells you that a republic would not be detrimental to the governing of Australia is talking out of their ass.

Time for a lesson in constitutionalism:

The Governor General is head of the executive according to the Constitution. They can appoint and dismiss ministers as they please. They can also call elections under certain circumstances. Obviously in practice these decisions are made on advice by the Prime Minister who can also advise the Queen to dismiss the GG.

Because the Crown itself is trusted and normally only operates on the advice of democratically elected advisers, the Governor-General has been entrusted with vast powers. These include the command of the armed forces, the power to call and prorogue Parliament and the power to choose the Ministry, whether the ministers be in Parliament or not. The brake on undue or improper exercise of the Governor-General's power is the threat of his or her instant recall by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister.

But just imagine that we abolished the monarchy and became a republic. Our GG would be replaced with a President who we shall say is directly elected by the people but otherwise fulfils the same functions as the GG does now: they represent Australian executive power, they are in control of the military and so on.

What happens when a President chooses to use their reserve powers? On whose authority do they use them? What if the use of these powers is a flagrant breach of convention and seriously destabilises the government? Can they somehow be removed from office? Should they be dismissed given that they will have an electoral mandate? Whose electoral mandate is superior: theirs, or the governments? Does the government even have the authority to do this? If the government does somehow undermine the office of the President, how will that be resolved given that they are constitutionally Australia's head of state? Doesn't that represent a gross overreach of government power? There are no clear answers to these questions because the elegant balance of power between Parliament and the executive/head of state that we now have would be utterly destroyed.

These are just a few important questions that can be raised if one adopts the 'minimalist republican' approach that is very clearly totally incompatible with the Constitution as it stands. Imo, to successfully implement a republican government would require a major redesign of the Constitution, something night on impossible and which should not be done given that it is the fundamental law of our land.

With this in mind, the fact that the constitutional monarchy has provided us with decades upon decades of stable, democratic government, is cheap to maintain (and the costs of transitioning to a republican government would be enormous), has adapted well so far to shifting cultural values, and provides a tangible link to the institutions that all Australians identify with, means that there is no logical or rational reason why this country should become a republic.
The Governor General tends to use none of the powers you're talking about being a threat. Suggesting a president would use them where the GG didn't is probably a bit outlandish.

Legally our links to Britain have slowed down enormously the development of our legal system. Hardly a good thing. Anyway, Britain's influence on us is less than America, whom we have no monarchical ties to.
 

Chemical Ali

지금은 소녀시대
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
1,728
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
The Governor General tends to use none of the powers you're talking about being a threat. Suggesting a president would use them where the GG didn't is probably a bit outlandish.

Legally our links to Britain have slowed down enormously the development of our legal system. Hardly a good thing. Anyway, Britain's influence on us is less than America, whom we have no monarchical ties to.
Influence culturally yes, but our Constitution and legal system are still very similar to Britain, and very different from America.
 

Kim Il-Sung

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
110
Location
Pyongyang
Gender
Male
HSC
2001
The Governor General tends to use none of the powers you're talking about being a threat. Suggesting a president would use them where the GG didn't is probably a bit outlandish.

Legally our links to Britain have slowed down enormously the development of our legal system. Hardly a good thing. Anyway, Britain's influence on us is less than America, whom we have no monarchical ties to.
It's hardly outlandish.

Under the current Constitutional framework the Governor-General chooses not to exercise their reserve powers because of two things.

The first is convention. I assume that as a law student you have at least some cursory familiarity with the Constitution. If you do you will notice that it reads quite strangely. The Governor-General is mentioned prominently, yet no mention is made of the Prime Minister! Obviously, the way that the Constitution says things should be done is not, on face value, how they are actually done. While the Governor-General is nominally capable of appointing ministers, calling elections and so forth, the established convention is that such things should only be done on Ministerial advice (this is, however, mentioned nowhere in the Constitution). So the Prime Minister 'advises' the GG to appoint Ministers, they 'advise' the GG to call elections and so forth. It is through the doctrine of convention that the confusing differences between the Constitution and RL are reconciled and through convention that the stipulations of the Constitution are actually carried out - it is not simply a case of ignoring the written words as Existential suggests. However, if various other conventions - such as blocking supply - are broken, then reserve powers most certainly become an option.

The second reason is the way in which Governor Generals are appointed. This is another process of convention, where the Prime Minister 'advises' the Queen on who she should (/will) appoint. In the same way, the Prime Minister can also 'advise' the Queen to recall the Governor-General. So therefore, if the GG breaks with convention in a severe and unauthorised way, they will most likely be recalled by the Queen (she can of course decline if there is no reason for the GG to be recalled and a dubious ploy by the PM is suspected).

If we became a republic, this advisory link would be severed. Current opinion polls suggest that the majority of Republicans would like a directly-elected President to replace the GG. This would give the GG an electoral mandate which could easily turn out to be destructive.

Firstly, the brake on the President's power, the threat of recall by the Queen, would no longer exist. Therefore they would have less incentive to adhere to convention. If a political or constitutional crisis developed for some reason, the only authority that could sack the President would be Parliament. BUT - both have been elected by the people! Plus, the President is the head of state! Under the Constitution they control the executive and the military! So whose mandate to govern is superior? How can this crisis be solved?

Constitutions that rely on convention to function are not set up for republican government. Other Commonwealth countries such as Trinidad and Tobago, which essentially grafted a minimalist republic on to a monarchical constitution and not long ago suffered a messy power struggle between the prime minister, parliament and president, plainly highlight this fact. A Presidential mandate from the people, coupled with a reduction in the power of convention, could have serious implications for the balance of political power.

You say that such a thing may not happen often, and I would agree. However, it only takes one crisis for these problems to come to the fore and cause serious destabilisation.

Also, your assertion that English law has somehow slowed the development of Australian law is quite false. Firstly, English common law has not been binding in Australia since before Federation. The Australian legislature was deliberately designed to be different to the British Parliamentary system and furthermore, it was in fact Australians who deliberately chose to retain ties to English statutory law, not vice versa. The Australian Parliament held the power to cut its legislative dependence on Britain long before it actually did so.
 
Last edited:

absorber

Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
874
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
The second reason is the way in which Governor Generals are appointed. This is another process of convention, where the Prime Minister 'advises' the Queen on who she should (/will) appoint. In the same way, the Prime Minister can also 'advise' the Queen to recall the Governor-General. So therefore, if the GG breaks with convention in a severe and unauthorised way, they will most likely be recalled by the Queen (she can of course decline if there is no reason for the GG to be recalled and a dubious ploy by the PM is suspected).

If we became a republic, this advisory link would be severed. Current opinion polls suggest that the majority of Republicans would like a directly-elected President to replace the GG. This would give the GG an electoral mandate which could easily turn out to be destructive.

Firstly, the brake on the President's power, the threat of recall by the Queen, would no longer exist. Therefore they would have less incentive to adhere to convention. If a political or constitutional crisis developed for some reason, the only authority that could sack the President would be Parliament. BUT - both have been elected by the people! Plus, the President is the head of state! Under the Constitution they control the executive and the military! So whose mandate to govern is superior? How can this crisis be solved?

Constitutions that rely on convention to function are not set up for republican government. Other Commonwealth countries such as Trinidad and Tobago, which essentially grafted a minimalist republic on to a monarchical constitution and not long ago suffered a messy power struggle between the prime minister, parliament and president, plainly highlight this fact. A Presidential mandate from the people, coupled with a reduction in the power of convention, could have serious implications for the balance of political power.

You say that such a thing may not happen often, and I would agree. However, it only takes one crisis for these problems to come to the fore and cause serious destabilisation.

Also, your assertion that English law has somehow slowed the development of Australian law is quite false. Firstly, English common law has not been binding in Australia since before Federation. The Australian legislature was deliberately designed to be different to the British Parliamentary system and furthermore, it was in fact Australians who deliberately chose to retain ties to English statutory law, not vice versa. The Australian Parliament held the power to cut its legislative dependence on Britain long before it actually did so.
What about Privy Council decisions? The Terra Nullius doctrine held for so long due to British influences may have been torn down sooner, for example. We might have chosen it, but it doesn't change the fact that it may have slowed down our legal development.

Also, the American constitution. Heard of checks and balances?
 

Lentern

Active Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
4,980
Gender
Male
HSC
2008
Australia's been legally dependent for almost 25 years, really. We don't need Britain to tell us what to do, and once the Queen dies we'll probably become a republic. Not that it's worth caring about at present. Though, I don't understand what reason one would have to not support a republic.
I generally agree but would suggest it won't happen in any great rush, not because it is a bad idea or an unpopular one but because of the rarity that a referendum passes.
 

Existential

Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
620
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
lol with what? I'll probably become a lawyer if I get thru the degree, not too much that can be done with arts really. History major for arts.
kool. here's one more question lol.

what ATAR did you get and with what subjects?
 

Kim Il-Sung

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
110
Location
Pyongyang
Gender
Male
HSC
2001
What about Privy Council decisions? The Terra Nullius doctrine held for so long due to British influences may have been torn down sooner, for example. We might have chosen it, but it doesn't change the fact that it may have slowed down our legal development.

Also, the American constitution. Heard of checks and balances?
Privy council decisions were the one exception because they formed part of the Australian court hierarchy. However, the sheer rarity of such decisions meant that they had very little practical effect. Again, the Australian government had the legislative powers to abolish privy council appeals more or less from the time of the Statute of Westminster, and in fact Menzies was urged to do such a thing a number of times. It was the reluctance of Australia's own government, and not British legal institutions, that prevented this development.

The doctrine of terra nullius was repeatedly affirmed by Australian courts over many many years before Mabo and Australian courts had had many chances to reject it. It was Australian law and Australian decisions that 'slowed down' the development of Aboriginal land rights law. Unfortunately your claim can only be supported by referring back to (and condemning) the formative English legal structure that was 'imported' to Australia upon colonisation. This would of course be absurd, for it was this same legal structure that overruled the doctrine of terra nullius.

The American Constitution does not rely on convention as our own does. The two are very, very different documents and cannot be directly compared.
 

Existential

Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
620
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
CHECK AND BALANCES.

put it this way: if there was a republican system that WORKED as effectively as our monarchy system, would you still be opposed?

this would suggest you just love britian, the queen and all that jazz.
 

Kim Il-Sung

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
110
Location
Pyongyang
Gender
Male
HSC
2001
put it this way: if there was a republican system that WORKED as effectively as our monarchy system, would you still be opposed?
That hypothetical means nothing in our case. A republic interpretation of our current constitution would encounter serious difficulties as I have explained above.

An American-esque Constitution would be more appropriate for an Australian republic in a perfect world, but we can't just change our entire existing Constitution willy-nilly, which is why your hypothetical is irrelevant. The Commonwealth Parliament would never agree to it, for the legitimacy of the entire Federal structure is based upon that Constitution. Unless a referendum was successful (and to change the fundamental structure of the Constitution, this would be next to impossible given the sheer number of items to vote on), the chances of being able to radically alter the Constitution are remote at best.

Given that our current system works fine and that re-engineering the Constitution would come at enormous cost to the taxpayer, why bother?
 
Last edited:

Existential

Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
620
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
That hypothetical means nothing in our case. A republic interpretation of our current constitution would encounter serious difficulties as I have explained above.

An American-esque Constitution would be more appropriate for an Australian republic in a perfect world, but we can't just change our entire existing Constitution willy-nilly, which is why your hypothetical is irrelevant. The Commonwealth Parliament would never agree to it, for the legitimacy of the entire Federal structure is based upon that Constitution. Unless a referendum was successful (and to change the fundamental structure of the Constitution, this would be next to impossible given the sheer number of items to vote on), the chances of being able to radically alter the Constitution are remote at best.

Given that our current system works fine and that re-engineering the Constitution would come at enormous cost to the taxpayer, why bother?
i see your point. but i also see australia, at some point in the future, whether it be the 22nd Century ect. moving in this direction.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top