Australian Politics

[Rhea]

Hey friends. I was surprised to read this. The person claimed her father was Australian and she would know better than me.

Fair enough, you would. (Well, except your spelling makes me question you as a source, but... I’m willing to step back and believe you for a bit.)


But it surprises me, it’s not what I gather when I read.

Anyone care to explain for me?

Australia was given independence via the British and thier government legislates to all it's Australian constituents. They were forced to give up thier guns as they don't legislate or have independent governing within thier nation.

 

[bilby]

Hey friends. I was surprised to read this. The person claimed her father was Australian and she would know better than me.

Fair enough, you would. (Well, except your spelling makes me question you as a source, but... I’m willing to step back and believe you for a bit.)


But it surprises me, it’s not what I gather when I read.

Anyone care to explain for me?

Australia was given independence via the British and thier government legislates to all it's Australian constituents. They were forced to give up thier guns as they don't legislate or have independent governing within thier nation.

Since 1901, Australia has been independent of Britain in all but a handful of little used ways. Our titular head of state is the British monarch, however for all bar ceremonial duties, the power of the monarch is exercised by the Governor General, and/or the various State Governors, and the Queen herself is not consulted. Governors and Governors General are selected by the Prime Minister or State Premier, and ratified by the crown; Traditionally the monarch does not refuse to ratify, in much the same way that your Electoral College traditionally does not refuse to elect a President who gains a majority of EC votes.

Our laws are written by elected legislative governments comprised of members who are required by the State and Commonwealth Constitutions to be Australian Citizens; A recent high-profile series of cases in the High Court led to the confirmation of the law that Federal Parliamentarians are NOT permitted to be dual citizens, and dual Australian/British citizenship debars an person from election to Federal Parliament - Any such dual citizen must officially revoke their citizenships other than Australian before standing for election.

The last time that non-elected influence was exerted on our Federal Government was the 1975 dismissal of the Whitlam government; Rumours persist that HM the Q may have known of this and (at the very least) failed to instruct the GG not to act. but most observers do not consider any British influence to have been crucial in this case - the Governor General (John Kerr, an Australian born in Sydney) is typically credited/blamed for the decision.

All Australian Law today was passed by Australian governments of Australian citizens elected by Australian voters. Australia is governed from Britain to almost exactly the same extent that Canada is - ie Not at all, but we retain the same ceremonial Head of State.

We have a three tier system of States and Territories under a Federal (aka Commonwealth) National government, with each state or territory divided into local government regions. All three tiers of government are entirely Australian in character, although many of the structures and principles are modeled on the Westminster system. The Commonwealth, and the States (except Queensland) have a 'lower house' of constituency elected representatives; and an 'upper house' of state elected senators (Queensland no longer has a senate, and has a unicameral legislature).

Our executive powers are held by the Prime Minister and the State Premiers, both of whom are the leaders of the largest party in the relevant legislative (lower) house; Our Courts are entirely Australian in character. although appeals to the British Privy Council were possible in principle until quite recently - for Commonwealth matters, such appeals were stopped by the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975; and for State matters by the Australia Act 1986.

Since 1986, Australia has been completely independent of the UK in all matters legislative and judicial; and the few executive powers nominally reserved to the Crown are, in practice, exercised by the Governor General.

The National Firearms Agreement following the Port Arthur massacre was formulated by the Australasian Police Ministers Council, and voted into force by the State governments, under the coordination and sponsorship of the then Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard. No British influence is known nor suspected to have occurred during this process.

Your correspondent clearly failed to inherit 'knowing the first thing about Australian Government and Law' from her allegedly Australian father. My father is an authority on the Physical Chemistry of combustion, but that doesn't render me more competent than any other person when it comes to lighting a fire.

 

[Patooka]

Bilby nailed it as usual in my opinion. Just to add, the "give up thier (sic) guns" is also bullshit. My father owned several rifles until 2011 and didn't give them up because big bad government told him to. He gave them up because he was on his third stroke, paralyzed down his left side and was pretty sure at the age of 65, he won't be schlepping in the bush pig shooting anymore. Government, British or Australian, had nothing to do with it.

Most Brits I've met/interacted with are convinced Australia is already a Republic so even any symbolic influence is tenuous at best.

 

[Tigers!]

Hey friends. I was surprised to read this. The person claimed her father was Australian and she would know better than me.

Fair enough, you would. (Well, except your spelling makes me question you as a source, but... I’m willing to step back and believe you for a bit.)


But it surprises me, it’s not what I gather when I read.

Your friend's father sounds like a dual-citizen. Or dopey.
Dual citizenship has been a big issue in Australia for > 1 year now.

 

[Hermit]

Hey friends. I was surprised to read this. The person claimed her father was Australian and she would know better than me.

Fair enough, you would. (Well, except your spelling makes me question you as a source, but... I’m willing to step back and believe you for a bit.)


But it surprises me, it’s not what I gather when I read.

Anyone care to explain for me?

Australia was given independence via the British and thier government legislates to all it's Australian constituents. They were forced to give up thier guns as they don't legislate or have independent governing within thier nation.

The last vestiges of the UK's power over Australia were abolished with the Australia Acts in 1986. Acts plural, because two identical ones were proclaimed simultaneously - one in Canberra, the other in London. They eliminated the remaining possibilities for the UK to legislate with effect in Australia, for the UK to be involved in Australian government, and for an appeal from any Australian court to a British court. The famed buyback of guns happened ten years later. We well and truly had our independence by then. As for being forced to give up our guns, that is factually incorrect as well. The buyback scheme was targeted (excuse the pun, please) at taking semi-automatic rifles and pump action shotguns out of circulation, weapons favoured by mass murderers. That meant that 80% of privately owned rifles remained in possession of their owners. Private ownership of concealable firearms was never legal in Australia.

 

[lpetrich]

Most Brits I've met/interacted with are convinced Australia is already a Republic so even any symbolic influence is tenuous at best.

Eek.

I think that Queen Liz II has succeeded in keeping the British monarchy going by being very likable. The same cannot be said about Prince Charles, however. Given the fate of many of his fellow monarchs over the past century, he seems remarkably reckless.

 

[bilby]

Most Brits I've met/interacted with are convinced Australia is already a Republic so even any symbolic influence is tenuous at best.

Eek.

I think that Queen Liz II has succeeded in keeping the British monarchy going by being very likable. The same cannot be said about Prince Charles, however. Given the fate of many of his fellow monarchs over the past century, he seems remarkably reckless.

Given the fate of the first of his name, he is almost certain to do better.

Mind you, losing ones head is rather a low bar.

 

[bilby]

Most Brits I've met/interacted with are convinced Australia is already a Republic so even any symbolic influence is tenuous at best.

Eek.

I think that Queen Liz II has succeeded in keeping the British monarchy going by being very likable. The same cannot be said about Prince Charles, however. Given the fate of many of his fellow monarchs over the past century, he seems remarkably reckless.

Likeability is irrelevant. Monarchy is not a democracy; there are rules of succession, and the alternative is war.

Given the toothlessness of the British monarchy, after a succession of wars, another war seems excessive just because Charles III is a little gormless.

 

[Rhea]

Thank you all so much. I love being able to get a direct targeted answer from people who know <3

So basically she is full of shit. Not a surprise.

 

[bilby]

Thank you all so much. I love being able to get a direct targeted answer from people who know <3

So basically she is full of shit. Not a surprise.

Before the Internet, I had a vague feeling that most people had at least a moderate grasp of the basic stuff taught in school; Geography, History, Arithmetic, Grammar, some simple Physics, Chemistry and Biology, that kind of thing. I mean, most people were present in class when these things were discussed, so I assumed that some of it would stick. Then when the Internet became popular and widespread, I figured that even the people who were asleep in class could at the very least google stuff that they were thinking of discussing, so as to not make a total fool of themselves by spouting nonsense in public.

But it turns out that people are not only full of shit; They feel entitled to, and proud of, their continuing lack of knowledge, and don't see total and abject ignorance as any kind of barrier to espousing an opinion.

And now those people can look up to the Oval office, and say "See? It doesn't matter how ignorant you are, you just need to make bullshit claims loudly and often, and you too can become President".

Or to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, "Whatever I say three times becomes the truth".

 

[lpetrich]

Most Brits I've met/interacted with are convinced Australia is already a Republic so even any symbolic influence is tenuous at best.

Eek.

I think that Queen Liz II has succeeded in keeping the British monarchy going by being very likable. The same cannot be said about Prince Charles, however. Given the fate of many of his fellow monarchs over the past century, he seems remarkably reckless.

Likeability is irrelevant. Monarchy is not a democracy; there are rules of succession, and the alternative is war.

Given the toothlessness of the British monarchy, after a succession of wars, another war seems excessive just because Charles III is a little gormless.

The monarchy would be abolished peacefully, like by Parliament or by a referendum.

 

[bilby]

Likeability is irrelevant. Monarchy is not a democracy; there are rules of succession, and the alternative is war.

Given the toothlessness of the British monarchy, after a succession of wars, another war seems excessive just because Charles III is a little gormless.

The monarchy would be abolished peacefully, like by Parliament or by a referendum.

Not going to happen. They don't have enough power to be worth the hassle of abolishing them.

A referendum to replace the British crown with a local head of state might eventually get up in Australia or Canada, where we face the incongruity of a foreign head of state; But recent history suggests it might not - such debates in Australia usually founder on the problem of who chooses the replacement and what powers they should have. The public don't want an appointed head of state, and the politicians don't want an elected one.

But in Britain, there's no likelihood of the monarchy ever coming to an end. If some future monarch were to have the poor taste to actually excercise their few remaining powers, then they might be stripped of those powers; but not of the title nor ceremonial duties.