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

[Iluvbertie]

Knighthoods in this order were stopped in the early 1980s until Tony Abbot reestablished them in 2014 so he can't have turned it down all that often as he accepted it within about 8 months of the award being re-established and he already had the next highest level anyway. SHE can't do anything in AUSTRALIA. She is a figure-head only with NO power or SAY in this country. That was stripped from her via the constitution in 1901 and the Australia Act in 1986.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

She is a figure-head only with NO power or SAY in this country. That was stripped from her via the constitution in 1901 and the Australia Act in 1986.

That's what's great with a constitutional monarchy. He / she shall have no political power.

 

[Ish]

Well, yes, this is true. There must be more to the story of why he accepted when he's supposedly, in the past, declined. I suppose, though, at some point, she might have chosen to assert herself and remind him that SHE is The Queen and she can do as she pleases.

The DoE refused the Order of Canada twice on the grounds that he disliked the way it was being offered to him - the first time it was an honourary Companion, and he declined because he believed that as consort to the Queen he was Canadian and therefore eligible to a substantive appointment, and the second time because they proposed to make the spouse of the monarch automatically a Companion and he believed he should be honoured for his own merits. When the rules of the Order were changed and he was offered a substantive Companion for his own merits he accepted.

I do not believe the DoE has ever declined the Order of Australia before. As Bertie pointed out, the Knighthood is a newly revived grade of the order. Until recently, the DoE was a Companion of the Order in the military division.

While the Australian members of the boards very likely disagree, it's very likely that the DoE considers himself an Australian citizen as the spouse of the Australian monarch, and deserving of this honour.

This is Tony Abbott's fault, it was he who asked the Queen to give him the Knighthood. And of course he accepted it. He didn't want to be rude.

The idea of the DoE doing something because he didn't want to be rude makes me laugh. It's the DoE we're talking about.

 

[Roslyn]

Philip would have gone up in my estimation if he had turned it down, but I am impressed by people taking a stand like that. He wouldn't have been perceived as rude if he'd refused it.

No, actually he probably would have been. I can imagine comments like, "The Pommy (or Greek, since some people here still do refer to him as 'Phil the Greek') bastard thinks he's too good for our knighthood". He was placed in a difficult situation by having the darn thing offered to him. It should never have happened. He probably felt compelled to accept it or risk causing offence. I wonder if he has any idea how much controversy it has aroused here?

The idea of the DoE doing something because he didn't want to be rude makes me laugh. It's the DoE we're talking about.

True! But perhaps he has mellowed a little with age.

 

[Ish]

Philip would have gone up in my estimation if he had turned it down, but I am impressed by people taking a stand like that. He wouldn't have been perceived as rude if he'd refused it.

No, actually he probably would have been. I can imagine comments like, "The Pommy (or Greek, since some people here still do refer to him as 'Phil the Greek') bastard thinks he's too good for our knighthood". He was placed in a difficult situation by having the darn thing offered to him. It should never have happened. He probably felt compelled to accept it or risk causing offence. I wonder if he has any idea how much controversy it has aroused here?



True! But perhaps he has mellowed a little with age.

I'm sure gems aware of the controversy around it - I'm sure he was aware before the award was announced.

Ultimately, I think it was a situation where the DoE was damned if he accepted the honour and damned if he didn't. I don't think Abbot really gave him grounds to deny it - when he denied his Canadian honours it was because the way they were offered insulted him. The way this was offered didn't insult him (Australians, perhaps, but not him). I bet he feels he has earned this as much as he has earned his other Commonwealth honours - which, his behavior regarding the Order of Canada indicates that he does believe he deserves them.

What you have here is a man who does believe in the system of monarchy and the honours that go with it. He is a man who has served his monarch for more than 60 years and while Australians might not support the monarchy or believe that the RF are Australians who support Australia, the DoE's comments in the past make me think he believes otherwise; he's presented himself as a servant of the monarch of the Commonwealth Realms, asserted that he identifies himself as a subject of the Commonwealth Realms as the monarch's husband, and has said that a monarchy exists for the people, not the monarch, and if the people do not want it then it is their responsibility to create a republic. With that in mind, given as the award offered to the DoE was a substantive one based on his merits, then I would argue that the DoE likely believes he has earned it. If he were to reject it then he's insulting the order and Australians - he'd be saying "yes, this Order that by my account (and your PM's) I have earned isn't something I'm going to lower myself to accepting because you're really just silly republican colonialists."

At least that's my take on it.

I think the problem here doesn't lay at the DoE's feet - because again, he has served the monarch of Australia for pretty much the whole of his adult life - for accepting the award. It's on Tony Abbot for offering it when it seems to go so strongly against the desires of the people of Australia. In a way it can even be laid at the feet of the Australian people themselves, who despite apparently being strong republicans chose to elect a staunch monarchist as PM (although I'm assuming that this behaviour is indicative of the general policy of Abbot's party, and isn't simply his own doing).

 

[Osipi]

Perhaps a lot of this controversy could have been avoided if Tony Abbot had put a bit more thought into reestablishing the Order of Australia. Although the Order of Australia is a national honor as opposed to a dynastic order such as the Order of the Garter, how hard would it have been to establish a gong for "stranger knights" such as are awarded to foreigners honored with the Order of the Garter?

 

[Ish]

Perhaps a lot of this controversy could have been avoided if Tony Abbot had put a bit more thought into reestablishing the Order of Australia. Although the Order of Australia is a national honor as opposed to a dynastic order such as the Order of the Garter, how hard would it have been to establish a gong for "stranger knights" such as are awarded to foreigners honored with the Order of the Garter?

The DoE likely would have rejected such an honour - he rejected being given an honourary Order of Canada on the grounds that as the monarch's spouse he is a Canadian citizen.

I believe in the 80s a provision was added to the Order of Australia to make members of the royal family eligible, regardless of debatable citizenship. A similar provision was added to the Order of Canada more recently.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Perhaps a lot of this controversy could have been avoided if Tony Abbot had put a bit more thought into reestablishing the Order of Australia. Although the Order of Australia is a national honor as opposed to a dynastic order such as the Order of the Garter, how hard would it have been to establish a gong for "stranger knights" such as are awarded to foreigners honored with the Order of the Garter?

There was no re-establishing of the Order of Australia. It has been the only awards acceptable to Aussies since the 1980s but the idea of knights was done away with until Tony decided to revive them. 5 a year and the first three were true servants of Australia - the outgoing and incoming GGs and the outgoing Governor of NSW.

They even had to change the rules of the order to allow Philip to get one as the Order of Australia is limited to Australians only - meaning that Philip is NOT an Australian and even his wife doesn't see him as one (other realms might regard him as a citizen of their country but Australia most definitely doesn't.) They had to change the rules to allow for 'honourary' appointments for non- Australians and that is what he has received - because he is a foreigner in every possible way.

 

[Chubb Fuddler]

The Order of Australia has included honorary membership since its establishment in 1975. The Duke of Edinburgh's AK, however, is substantive, not honorary. It is not gazetted as honorary, or referred to as honorary in any of the official announcements. The citizenship issue was sidestepped by the Queen issuing Letters Patent that simply declared that the Duke of Edinburgh is a Knight of the Order of Australia (the same process used in 1981 for the Prince of Wales). The latest version of the Constitution of the Order of Australia, published last week, lists the Duke of Edinburgh as a "Knight in the General Division of the Order", with precedence immediately after the Governor-General (the position previously held by the Prince of Wales, who now takes precedence after the Duke).

Constitution of the Order of Australia, Compilation 13, Prepared 16 April 2015

I don't have a problem with the Duke of Edinburgh receiving an AK, and I like having Knights and Dames back in the Order of Australia. But I do not approve of the Prime Minister's decision to exclude its awarding from the Council of the Order Australia. By making his "captain's call" the Prime Minister placed the Queen in an awkward position, made the Duke of Edinburgh the object of ridicule, and killed off any chance of Knights and Dames of the Order of Australia surviving a change in government.

 

[Chubb Fuddler]

On another point, the Constitution of Australia did not strip the monarch of power in 1901, it entrenched it. The Queen makes up one third of the Parliament (Section 1). Executive power is vested in the Queen, but is exercisable by the Governor-General (Section 61). If the Queen moved permanently to Canberra we would still need a Governor-General to keep the wheels of government turning. That is why legislation was needed in 1954 to allow the Queen to carry out the Governor-General's duties to open the Commonwealth Parliament and chair a meeting of the Federal Executive Council. But it is simplistic to conclude that the Queen has no power in Australia, as constitutionally and symbolically she clearly does. That she cannot exercise the executive powers vested in her by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, and does not exercise the powers she has under the various State Constitutions, does not mean they do not exist.

Interestingly, at a state level, the Queen now has more freedom of action than she did prior to the Australia Act 1986. Up until then, state governments did not have direct access to the Queen, they had to go through the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. But in 1986 all British Government involvement with Australia came to an end, and Australia's six state governments gained immediate access to the Queen. Under normal conventions, the Queen is obliged to accept the advice of her responsible ministers. But what would happen if the Premier of Victoria advised her to sack the Governor of Tasmania, while the Premier of Tasmania advised her to sack the Premier of Victoria? The solution is that the Queen is obliged to accept the advice of her state ministers only when it relates to the appointment of a state governor, or an issue clearly pertaining only to that state. All other advice is to be discussed with the Queen's Private Secretary before it can be formally submitted.

 

[vkrish]

It is quite amusing to see even senior, serious and well respected members ranting furiously about him being a "foreigner". But so is your HEAD OF STATE. Aussies cling so desperately to coat(skirt)-tails of a foreign monarch halfway across the globe, want all the stability, glitz and glamour that comes with it..but are so ashamed to honour her consort who has been her backbone for two thirds of a century. The Queen is not just the person, she is an institution. When you sign up for a system, you have to live with the baggage that comes with it. Take it in entirety or just leave it!

 

[muriel]

It is quite amusing to see even senior, serious and well respected members ranting furiously about him being a "foreigner". But so is your HEAD OF STATE. Aussies cling so desperately to coat(skirt)-tails of a foreign monarch halfway across the globe, want all the stability, glitz and glamour that comes with it..but are so ashamed to honour her consort who has been her backbone for two thirds of a century. The Queen is not just the person, she is an institution. When you sign up for a system, you have to live with the baggage that comes with it. Take it in entirety or just leave it!

Quite right. Except when it comes to becoming a republic, they can't seem to come up with a credible alternative.

I guess the closest equivalent we have to this is situation are the Scots: they love complaining about being a part of the UK, but clearly do not want to leave it!

 

[Curryong]

Iluvbertie doesn't speak for me either! And the imputation that often comes from Australian republicans that Australian monarchists are somehow less Australian than they are or are British sycophants isn't true either! Heard too much of that sort of posturing during the referendum years ago.

I'm a Labor Party supporter, have been all my adult life. However, Tony Abbott is as proud an Australian as Malcolm Turnbull, Paul Keating or any others.

 

[Jacknch]

Several posts have been deleted because the discussion was veering way off topic. The tone of the discussion had become personal and argumentative which, in turn, is obviously disruptive to the majority of those interested in the topic of this thread. Posters are reminded to be civil and respectful towards one another and to discuss potentially emotive or sensitive issues in a reasonable and measured way, being mindful of others' opinions and to post within TRF Rules.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Constitution stripped the monarch of the power to sign legislation - only the GG can do that. The Queen did sign something in 1954 and then there was a constitutional review and they determined that she didn't have the right or power to sign it into law under the constitution and that only the GG could do that.


The Australia Act stripped them of any other power still left - such as deciding on legal issues via the Privy Council.


The Queen has NO power in Australia at all. She is also the only member of the BRF who is a citizen of Australia. The others are foreigners whose titles are recognised here but aren't Australian titles but British ones.




As for the idea that Knights and Dames would survive a change of government - that was never going to happen as the ALP are totally opposed to that idea. I am not even sure they would survive a change of PM within the Coalition government we have now. I can see a new government legislating to ban them permanently so that they can't be revived on the whim of a PM in the future without having to pass through the parliament again.

 

[Roslyn]

The Queen has NO power in Australia at all. She is also the only member of the BRF who is a citizen of Australia. The others are foreigners whose titles are recognised here but aren't Australian titles but British ones.

I don't believe the Queen is an Australian Citizen. She satisfies none of the eligibility criteria in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. She was born in Britain, she's lived there all her life, hasn't got any Australian ancestry or family and has never once called this country home. The mere fact she has a statutory position under the Constitution does not give her citizenship.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She is the exception to the rules as the Queen of Australia.

 

[Roslyn]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Citizenship is a creature of citizenship statute, not the Constitution. If there is an exception for the Queen, it should be written down in the citizenship legislation, and I haven't found any mention of such an exception.

The Migration Act 1958 and its 1994 Regulations make is abundantly clear that members of the Queen's immediate family are non-citizens and require a visa to come here. The Queen is not mentioned but I consider that can simply be taken to mean that she has a special status, similar to that which means she does not require a passport. I do not believe she is an Australian citizen, and I know I'm not the only one with that opinion.

 

[Curryong]

Well, Elizabeth remains the Queen of Australia, regardless. (What's more, I don't believe that William and Kate, or Harry, went through the process of applying for visas to visit here.)

There seems to be a huge reluctance among Australian republicans to (a) acknowledge the results of the referendum on retaining the monarchy or polling since, and (b) on Australians being willing to retain any British links whatsoever.

Presumably Aussies knew the Queen (and her family) were 'foreigners' and 'non-Australian citizens' when they voted on whether to keep the Queen or not, and they voted to keep her.

To hear or read some observations, claiming to represent the opinion of ALL Australians, on this forum and others, people from other countries would form the view that ALL Australians loathe the very thought of the Queen and her family, can't wait to 'get rid of them all' and on the grounds of 'sycophancy' are longing to rid themselves of all British links. In reality, they know that this is not the case at all.

 

[Chubb Fuddler]

No, Iluvbertie, you are wrong about the Constitution and the Queen’s powers in Australia. Sweeping generalisations without reference to supporting legislation does not a fact make. Section 61 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia states that:

The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.​

But does this mean the Queen can never exercise her vested powers? It was never an issue until the Queen’s impending visit to Australia in 1953, during which the Prime Minister wanted her to open the Federal Parliament, chair a meeting of the Federal Executive Council, and sign bills reserved for her pleasure. The Royal Powers Act 1953 was passed to confirm that the Queen could exercise her vested powers when she is in Australia. Nothing has changed since then, and the Queen has opened the Federal Parliament a couple of times, as well as State Parliaments. Governors-General have also reserved legislation for her pleasure a number of times:

• • Royal Style and Titles Act 1953
• • Flags Act 1953
• • Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968
• • Royal Style and Titles Act 1973
• • Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975

The Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth), while not reserved for the Queen’s pleasure, did not commence until the Queen signed a proclamation in Canberra stating that it would come into effect the following day. Simultaneously, at 05:00 GMT and 16:00 AEST, on the 3rd March 1986 the Australia Act 1986 (UK) and the Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth) took effect. The Australia Acts of 1986 stopped the Queen and Government of the United Kingdom from having any involvement in Australia’s governments. The Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth), however, did not strip the Queen of Australia of any of her powers in relation to Australia. Such powers she has are defined by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia and would require a referendum to change or remove. A referendum was not required to approve the Australia Act 1986 because it did not change a single letter in the text of the Constitution.

The Queen of Australia hardly ever exercises her legislative and executive power, and then only when she is in Australia. But it still exists, unaltered since 1901. There is also her role in the constitutions of the six Australian States, and in other areas such as the military and community patronages. The Queen’s power and influence in Australia, in theory, symbolically and in practice, is somewhat nebulous and difficult to pin down. You can claim that the Queen has NO power in Australia as much as you like, but it is simply not true.

The ambiguity over the Queen’s powers is also reflected in her status in Australia. I do not think the Queen can be called an Australian Citizen, but nor can she be called a foreigner. Such terms are defined by legislation and she simply does not fit into any of the categories. She is Sovereign of Australia by virtue of the Constitution (and, I suppose, the various documents that established the Australian colonies), and Queen of Australia by legislation. As far as I'm concerned she is The Queen, and that's that.

The Order of Australia was established by Letters Patent that a Prime Minister can advise the Queen to update at any time. I’m not sure if legislation can be used to stop changes to the Letters Patent. An alternative might be to make the Constitution of the Order of Australia an act of parliament. But I hope AKs and ADs somehow manage to survive. Australia has a long history of Knights and Dames in public life, and I see nothing wrong with them as long as they are Australian.

 

[Roslyn]

Presumably Aussies knew the Queen (and her family) were 'foreigners' and 'non-Australian citizens' when they voted on whether to keep the Queen or not, and they voted to keep her.

Australians did not vote to keep the Queen, they voted to reject the referendum question put to them, which was: "To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and the Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament". If the wording of the question had ended with "President", I would agree that Australians had voted to keep the Queen, but that wasn't the question and it's not that simple. There were many reasons for the defeat. In this detailed paper paper written in 2000, High Court Justice Michael Kirby points to ten possible reasons: Law and Justice Foundation - The Australian Republican Referendum 1999 - Ten Lessons

The proposal was defeated 45.13% for and 54.87% against. That is a helluva lot of Australians who wanted a republic. Had the question put been along the lines of: "To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and the Governor-General being replaced by an Australian Head of State", with the details of the method of appointment/election of the Head of State to be settled later, the result might have been very different. Opinion polls at the time indicated that 70% of Australians favoured a directly elected President but were strongly against the appointed model. I've never understood why, because I think the minimalist change approach, which is what the appointed model involves, would be more likely to appeal to the majority of Australians.

A directly elected president would have created all sorts of problems since we couldn't just, essentially, scrub out the Queen's name and call the Governor-General the President, we would end up with a completely different model, more along the lines of what you have in the USA. Having recently watched the box set of "The West Wing", I could never vote for such a model. I want an Australian Head of State who owes his/her first loyalty to Australia and Australians, but if the directly elected US presidential model was the only option I'd vote to keep what we've got. At the time I voted against the proposal, but at the time I was a monarchist. If the same question were asked now, I would vote for it, but that's not likely to happen.
http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/app/DF4206863AE3C52DCA2571A30082B3D5.html

 

[Curryong]

Yes, a directly elected President is not compatible with the Westminster system of Government. Well over 54 % of the Australian people didn't wish for a republic in that referendum and they did understand the issues. I don't think that it can be said that a majority only voted the proposal down because of the proposed model.

Also, since then, polls have shown support for a republic receding, especially among the young. If a referendum on the monarchy were held tomorrow I believe there would be a similar result to the first one.

 

[Eden]

The last referendum was not what the Australian people wanted, the model put forward was a joke. The overwhelming consensus at the time was for a republic and the government begrudgingly put forward their ideal Republic model. This model was rejected by the people, not the idea of a republic.
Personally a constitutional republic in Australia is a good idea, but the model going forward needs to be one that involves the Australian people. The right to directly vote in our elected leader and not one deemed appropriate by a select few.
Australia is a diverse country with an indigenous people who should have input into the constitution of their country. The many other ethnic groups that make this country what it is today, also deserve a say. Our history is vast and should not be swept under a rug, it should also be allowed to impact how we choose to govern and remember where & how we got here. There is nothing wrong with still being part of the Commonwealth, but we need a constitution based on our identity.
I think there are many Australians that don't understand what a constitutional Australia would mean and therefore don't see the point of making the change.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Curryong]

Well, if the model put forward was a joke then the republican leaders at the time should have said so. Instead they were out night and day, urging people to vote 'Yes'. Why? Why not reject that particular model after the convention?

There were many explanations printed and discussed in the media at the time so I hardly feel that people didn't know what they were voting for. Presumably ethnic groups and indigenous people did have a vote in that referendum too.

You cannot have a U.S. style President operating alongside a Westminster system of government. It just wouldn't work. Good luck in getting parliamentarians of whatever stamp putting that up as a model.

 

[Eden]

Having an elected leader put there by a select few is not ideal. I voted at the last referendum and ended up voting no because I didn't like not having a say in who ran the country. As the system stands now we have leaders of two parties and have an idea of who will lead as prime minister and what they are like. The model proposed would see someone leading the country that parliament decided on.
I think Australia froze last time and chose to say no to the parliamentary idea of a republic.
I'm not suggesting we become America I am suggesting we choose a model that suits who we are as a country, a diverse multi-cultural country.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Chubb Fuddler]

That's quite a revisionist view of the referendum you've posted Eden. I don't recall an "overwhelming consensus" for change at the time, and the Government did not "begrudgingly" put forward its preferred republican model. Prime Minister Paul Keating started the ball rolling for a Constitutional Convention to determine what model for a republic would go to a referendum. When the Government changed, and John Howard became Prime Minister, he could have scuppered the whole thing. But he decided the convention and referendum would go ahead. The republicans at the Constitutional Convention decided on the model that would go to the referendum, not the Australian Government. The Government, however, did insist that the wording of the question adequately described the proposed changes to the text of the Constitution (there was talk at the time that some republicans wanted to keep the word "republic" out of the question).

I agree with what you wrote Curryong. I think some of the Australian posters exaggerate the extent of republican sentiment here, and sometimes they presume to speak on behalf of all Australians, when quite clearly they do not.

 

[Curryong]

With respect, you've done it again. You state you 'now' know two people who were pro the award of a gong to Prince Philip, 'out of a population of 23 million'. So you 'know' the other twenty three million people and their views, do you?

I believe you stated once that because of the World Wars, Gallipoli, Changi etc., ex servicemen in your family hated the British. Somehow that got transposed in your post to 'people in Australia' hating the British, which is patently not so.

That people are prepared to take a decision about the future of their country based on what Tony Abbott did says a lot really, and I am Labor (have been all my adult life.)

As you pay regard to the media so much you will no doubt know that republicanism has been on the decline over the past few years according to polling, especially among the young.

Yes, let's have a plebiscite. I have an extended family of twenty five and know at least thirty more myself who voted 'No' in the referendum and haven't changed their views.

 

[Polly]

The problem is, as I see it, that too many cannot discriminate between the Constitutional and the personal.

The Constitutional debate is something which I welcome and endorse - all modern, 'grown up', democratic societies should continually examine its governance, rules and regulations, else they never really advance and remain blindly in thrall to the past, for its own sake. The personal is another matter.

Continually attacking a group of people whom none of us knows and for reasons usually based on surmise, rumour and scandal-mongering, or some journalists' efforts to sell newspapers and magazines, I regard as an impertinence, to say the least.

The Royal Family are amongst the most maligned anywhere and whether or not some of the rumour is true, my position remains that so long as the Australian Constitution informs me that Queen Elizabeth II is Head of State of Australia, she, and her heirs and successors are entitled to respect and a welcome from all Australians. We have a ballot box in this country which allows us to disagree.

Criticisms should always be based on fact and certain knowledge and bear a particular relevance to the issue at hand, rather than some emotional response which is often as spurious as what it's responding to. A particular example to hand in my opinion was the slandering and humiliation of Prince Andrew in his erstwhile role as Trade Ambassador for the UK.

Yesterday, the POW clearly identified with Australia and New Zealand; he didn't just 'do his duty'. His demeanour and dedication was praiseworthy and honourable.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, I agree. Both Prince Charles and Prince Harry did extremely well at these commemoration ceremonies and both were clearly moved.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Thank you to both of you... Obviously it was a silly question from my part

Your question was not silly at all.

Not a silly question at all. I too can't fathom why they are coming...again!

We do have a royal lover in our Prime Minister Tony Abbot though. I imagine he is the reason we are spending so much money on the English royals.

November is a good month to visit. Sun, not too hot, not cold. Perhaps Mr Abbot wants to advertise Australia to the English as a great country to migrate to?

It will cost you more money to become a republic and the English royals is also your royals. The Queen is Australia's head of state.