-------------- Original message --------------
Interesting. However, all laws must pass through the governor general who is the Queen's representative.
Also, a republic is a "a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president". Despite what you've said, our head of state is the Queen.
See http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/q&a/qa_hos.htm - they ARM say that:
Elizabeth II, the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is Australia's Head of State because:
The Constitution of Australia defines the Parliament as "the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives" and vests the Federal legislative (law-making) power in the Parliament (section 1, Constitution).
The executive power (the governing and administrative power) of the Commonwealth of Australia is vested in the Queen (section 61, Constitution).
If the ARM can't get this right, then I don't know who can.
TBSDY
Your citation of the constitution only lends credence to Austrailia as a republic, the true "head of state" is the constitution. All purported human heads are subject to the limitations of the constitution.
Now if the queen or governer general could invalidate the constitution, you might have an argument that Austrailia was not a republic or true constitutional monarchy. The fact that the constitution gives these positions their limited roles, makes Austrialia a type of republic, more correctly referred to as a constitutional monarchy, because that is more specific.
-- Silverback
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:54:20 +0000, actionforum@comcast.net actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
-------------- Original message --------------
Interesting. However, all laws must pass through the governor general who is the Queen's representative.
Also, a republic is a "a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president". Despite what you've said, our head of state is the Queen.
See http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/q&a/qa_hos.htm - they ARM say that:
Elizabeth II, the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is Australia's Head of State because:
The Constitution of Australia defines the Parliament as "the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives" and vests the Federal legislative (law-making) power in the Parliament (section 1, Constitution).
The executive power (the governing and administrative power) of the Commonwealth of Australia is vested in the Queen (section 61, Constitution).
If the ARM can't get this right, then I don't know who can.
TBSDY
Your citation of the constitution only lends credence to Austrailia as a republic, the true "head of state" is the constitution. All purported human heads are subject to the limitations of the constitution.
Now if the queen or governer general could invalidate the constitution, you might have an argument that Austrailia was not a republic or true constitutional monarchy. The fact that the constitution gives these positions their limited roles, makes Austrialia a type of republic, more correctly referred to as a constitutional monarchy, because that is more specific.
-- Silverback
I'm sorry to jump into the midst of this argument, but I wonder are the parties in this debate aware of Ireland's previous situation, between 1937 when we approved a new constitution (one with no reference to the monarch) and 1949 (when we passed a law to officially become a Republic). The monarch represented Ireland internationally until 1949, despite our having a president. The question of who was head of state is not clear cut (though I think people outside Ireland tend to see it as the monarch who was head of state).
In other words, I think it's fair to say Australia isn't a Republic, but probably, like Ireland, they would become one simply by passing law, rather than the customary new constitution. I think Ireland is the only country to date that has become a Republic in this fashion.
We do have articles on Wikipedia on the Irish historical situation (which I probably should have double-checked before writing all this) which you may find interesting. A good starting point is probably [[President of Ireland]].
Zoney
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 12:54:20 +0000, actionforum@comcast.net actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
Now if the queen or governer general could invalidate the constitution, you might have an argument that Austrailia was not a republic or true constitutional monarchy. The fact that the constitution gives these positions their limited roles, makes Austrialia a type of republic, more correctly referred to as a constitutional monarchy, because that is more specific.
As I said before, I am not aware of any commonly accepted definition of 'republic' which includes constitional monarchies.
In any case, I really doubt that everyone on this list is interested in this discussion. I suggest [[Talk:Australia]] or [[Talk:Republic]].
Steve
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 08:59:49 -0500, Stephen Forrest stephen.forrest@gmail.com wrote:
As I said before, I am not aware of any commonly accepted definition of 'republic' which includes constitional monarchies.
How about the first two definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary or the first two in Australia's Macquarie Dictionary?
Australia is a commonwealth, sovereignty resides in the people, the monarch is a powerless figurehead, the monarch is not the head of government, the form of government is republican and the executive power is exercised by an appointed official.
Australia may share the same Queen as the UK, New Zealand and Canada, but the constitutional arrangements are quite different.
Skyring wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 08:59:49 -0500, Stephen Forrest stephen.forrest@gmail.com wrote:
As I said before, I am not aware of any commonly accepted definition of 'republic' which includes constitional monarchies.
How about the first two definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary or the first two in Australia's Macquarie Dictionary? Australia is a commonwealth, sovereignty resides in the people, the monarch is a powerless figurehead, the monarch is not the head of government, the form of government is republican and the executive power is exercised by an appointed official. Australia may share the same Queen as the UK, New Zealand and Canada, but the constitutional arrangements are quite different.
I notice you have a severe absence of sources to refer to on the point - you know, anything other than your own original research that says the words "Australia is a republic."
- d.
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:36:37 +0000, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Skyring wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 08:59:49 -0500, Stephen Forrest stephen.forrest@gmail.com wrote:
As I said before, I am not aware of any commonly accepted definition of 'republic' which includes constitional monarchies.
How about the first two definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary or the first two in Australia's Macquarie Dictionary? Australia is a commonwealth, sovereignty resides in the people, the monarch is a powerless figurehead, the monarch is not the head of government, the form of government is republican and the executive power is exercised by an appointed official. Australia may share the same Queen as the UK, New Zealand and Canada, but the constitutional arrangements are quite different.
I notice you have a severe absence of sources to refer to on the point - you know, anything other than your own original research that says the words "Australia is a republic."
Do tell? Have you actually '''read''' [[Talk:Government of Australia]]? You'll get more sources there than you can shake a fist at. Dive in.
Skyring wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:36:37 +0000, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Skyring wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 08:59:49 -0500, Stephen Forrest stephen.forrest@gmail.com wrote:
As I said before, I am not aware of any commonly accepted definition of 'republic' which includes constitional monarchies.
How about the first two definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary or the first two in Australia's Macquarie Dictionary? Australia is a commonwealth, sovereignty resides in the people, the monarch is a powerless figurehead, the monarch is not the head of government, the form of government is republican and the executive power is exercised by an appointed official. Australia may share the same Queen as the UK, New Zealand and Canada, but the constitutional arrangements are quite different.
I notice you have a severe absence of sources to refer to on the point - you know, anything other than your own original research that says the words "Australia is a republic."
Do tell? Have you actually '''read''' [[Talk:Government of Australia]]? You'll get more sources there than you can shake a fist at. Dive in.
All refuted or questioned to some degree. I've most definitely read that page.
TBSDY