@boy

Following on from the recently posted Citizenship[ thread, I thought this one would make for a good discussion, and is also bound to get some good Monarchist comment from JAJ ;-)

No offence intended to the Queen by the way. She's a sweet old dear !

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Republicans are asking all Australians to sit a tongue-in-cheek quiz on Australia Day, and they're calling it the “Fair Dinkum unAustraliana” quiz. Here's how it runs.

First, answer five factual questions about Australia 's Head of State:

• Why does our Head of State live overseas?
• Why is our Head of State not an Australian?
• Why is our Head of State decided by birth rather than merit?
• Why can our Head of State only be a woman if a man is unavailable?
• Why is our Head of State neither allowed to be a Catholic nor marry one?

Now answer a subjective question about the office of Head of State:

• Do you think the office characteristically Australian or unAustralian?

Finally, determine if you are a monarchist or Republican:

• If you think the office is characteristically Australian, you are a: monarchist
• If you think the office is characteristically unAustralian, you are a: Republican

The Australian Republican Movement's National Chair, Ted O'Brien, stated that “The word unAustralian is the newest phrase in our national vocabulary, so let's put it to good use”.

“UnAustralian means anything that contradicts our identity as a nation and our values as a people, including our symbols and institutions. And since there is no more important constitutional, institutional and symbolic office in Australia than the Head of State, let's put it under the microscope and expose how characteristically unAustralian it really is”.

“Queen Elizabeth II is our Head of State and King Charles III is our next. This is an archaic arrangement of national inferiority that impairs our identity, in how we look at ourselves and how we are perceived internationally,” said Mr O'Brien. “ We Australians live in the greatest country on the face of the earth, but we can make it even greater by facing up to the big issues of national identity, starting with becoming a Republic with an Australian as Head of State. Only then we will be navigating our future with a truly independent compass”.

MartinLuther

Apparently Charles is going to be called George. Charles has not been a successful name for monarchs in the past.

I find it satisfyingly poetic that Herschel's newly discovered planet was called George before it changed to Uranus.

NedKelly

Whilst I understand the sentiments of being a Republic the question will then become, "Who shall be the first Head of State?" We all know that spent politicians will be first in line, like maybe Hawke, Latham, Beazley to name a few. How about Howard, or Rudd? Maybe we should have a footballer or sportsman, Cousins perhaps. How about an Aboriginal person as they were here first?

JAJ

The Governor-General is effectively the Head of State and none of the above apply.

@boy

Now in fairness, It should be recognised that the expression 'Head of State' is not found in the Australian Constitution. On a plain English reading of the Constitution the Queen is the Australian Head of State and acts through her representative, the Governor-General.

However, it should be recognised that there is debate as to whether the Governor-General is the Head of State or the Queen is the Head of State.

The Governor-General only holds office "during the Queen's pleasure" which means that the he can be dismissed by the Queen at any time (section 2, Constitution).

JAJ

Note my use of the term "effectively"

Yes, in theory the Governor-General could be dismissed by the Queen. But the Queen would not take such action without advice from her Australian ministers.

Similarly, the Queen could in theory refuse to accept a nomination for Governor-General, but that issue was resolved as far back as 1930:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Isaac_Isaacs

There should be some understanding in all of this that over a period between 1926 and 1986, the Crowns of Britain and Australia have been separated. The Australian monarch of today happens to be the same as in the United Kingdom. However there is absolutely no obligation on Australia to abide by the same succession rules (for the Australian monarchy) that apply in the United Kingdom should it wish to do things differently.

MartinLuther

The separation of the crowns separated the functions of the crown not the personage. All of the original questions still apply to the Queen of Australia.

Australia could not easily chose a monarch different to the UK monarch. Major legislative changes would be required.

JAJ

Why's that? (legislation change yes, but "major" legislation change?)

Amazulu

Ultimately, the people of Australia will decide who is the head of state.

bridie

Chas Licciardelo for Head of State

MartinLuther

They'd have to separate the succession process from the current one. They would have to create a new Act of Succession. They would have create a way to select an alternative monarch. They would have to amend the legislation pertinent to the GG. And there's probably a few other issues hiding in there somewhere. I would suggest that the current situation with executive power would be a problem big enough under a dedicated monarch to warrant a change to the constitution (not a minor change by any stretch of the imagination).

Given that changing the name on the door from GG to President is considered major change of legislation then I think all of the above would also be considered major.

Vin 'n Bin

None of the four 'Georges' have been any good either ...check each of them out
If Australia became a republic we would have a 'president'

JAJ

A new Act of Succession would of course be required. But other than this it is hard to see what other legislative change would be required, as the office of King/Queen of Australia would remain unchanged in its scope. The Australian monarch is already different from the British monarch, in not being titular head of a state church (Australia doesn't have one).

Hard to see how that would change the position of the GG as Representative of the Queen/King of Australia.

Transforming the role of the GG into that of a constitutional President is a much more significant step.

JAJ

There have been six kings called George, most recently in 1952.

Vin 'n Bin

My sincere apologies ...I do of course know that as I have studied the lives and times of all English Monarchs . It is so difficult when it is heading towards 39c...and the air con has packed up ...just can't concentrate.
My mind was going back to the 'Georges' who followed each other
Good news, only four more sleeps until new air con is installed