Talk:Republicanism in Australia/Archive 1

message: Just out of curiosity, why would an article on Australian Republicanism feature a photo of QEII? Also, it seems that the article ought to discuss the 19th Century republican movement in some depth. --Herschelkrustofsky 16:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would this article have a picci of the Queen? Mmmmm :) Who do you think the Australian republican movement is trying to replace as Australian head of state? Or alternatively, why is it called a 'republican' movement in the first place? :) And the picci is right next to the section on 'Current constitutional structures', where it clearly belongs. Of course, it would be better if it weren't the only picci in the article. But that should be dealt with by adding more piccis elsewhere, not by removing this very appropriate one. You're right about expanding the article back in time though. jguk 17:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The UK Parliament could, theoretically, make amendments to the Constitution Act, but this would have no legal effect, as the Australia Act has established that the UK Parliament does not have the power to legislate for Australia. Furthermore, I can't conceive of even a theoretical situation in which it would take such an action. Lacrimosus 10:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: s1 of the Australia Act states: No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or a Territory. Lacrimosus 10:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: It would be legislating for Australia in the sense that it was proclaiming that its legislative instruments have legal force in Australia, which is not the case. The Statute of Westminister and the Australia Act were assented to by both the Australian and United Kingdom parliaments, meaning that their spheres of sovreignty, both in law and in practice, are separate. Lacrimosus 10:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: It cannot. The British parliament can amend the Constitution Act all its wants, but its legislative intent and effect was to bring into being the Constitution of the Commonwealth, which by virtue of its creation exists independently of that Act. Under its own terms, it can only be altered by referendum within Australia. Any act by the British parliament would be judged as legally void both within the UK and within Australia. The Parliament would no more amend this act then it would go about amending repealed or antiquated laws. Lacrimosus 10:56, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Nobody's talking about diplomatic ties, we're talking about political - ie. governmental and administrative - ties. Views on the propriety or otherwise of constitutional monarchy do not hold a a place in a dispassionate description of what the process of becoming a republic would involve. The entry on "capitalism" should certainly not be expected to read "capitalism is a system of slavery and expolitation designed to make the greedy and rapacious prosper at the expense of the masses", simply because some people think that it is. Lacrimosus 11:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't understand why it should have to. The whole point is that republicans feel that the current "separate realities" are not to their liking. And, whatever way you want to put it, sharing a head of state is, at some level, a "political tie" between the UK and Australia. Many monarchists of course argue that this is one of its strongest points. Lacrimosus 11:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Again, how is the article expected to describe the republican movement at all, unless it conceives of Australia as belonging to someone other than the Queen? Lacrimosus 11:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two issues: The Queen/19th century republican movement

message: I am removing the revision made at 05:19, 18 August 2005, which "Suggests" Australia could have a relative of the Queen be our Head of State. This is unsourced or anonymous speculation and certainly not a compromise position.
--Lawe 15:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion of a relative to be Head of State 

message: I am pushing for the above to occur. There seems to be general support for it.
--Lawe 01:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from Proposed President of Australia

message: I would like people to think about candidates for detailed articles on aspects of republicanism. An obvious candidate is the bi-partisan appointment model (Australia). As for other models and concepts a structure is preferred, by which I suggest we follow what is found in the 2004 Senate Inquiry Report, Road to a Republic. It may be too simplistic to just have a direct-election model. The six models process is under review by the ARM but that could also provide some basis for articles. What I am looking for in particular is to follow the history of these ideas and add to them as develop. 
--Lawe 01:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Articles

message: The merge is complete. See the new section "Proposals for Change" --Lawe 12:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Complete

message: I have read recently a book(let) published by the Constitutional Centre of WA pointing out that our state constitution makes the Queen our head of state, and that the commonwealth becoming a republic would have no effect on our state (pun intended) of Constitutional Monarchy(it does, however, question whether the Queen would wish to remain associated with us). It also talks about the reverse situation, of WA becoming a republic with Australia remaining a Monarchy. I'm sure that there are similar situations in other states with constitutions (A quick scan of austlii shows that all the states have A "Constitution Act", although many of them since federation), and I think this deserves some mention here. I am unable to find the book at the moment though, so I don't want to add anything. Bjmurph 08:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, on rereading the article, it probably doesn't belong here, but I haven't seen the article that it would belong in, something like An Australian Republic (not a good name), if it exists. Bjmurph 16:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a known issue. As I understand it, states retain their links to the monarchy until altered at the state level. Links could be changed in the federal constitution, provided it was done deliberately. This was the understanding at the 1998 convention and the very relevant Gladstone Convention (checkout ). Note the Queen is advised by state premiers. I dont believe Aust Act s7 stops state independently breaking its links with the crown - worse case: the Act is amended OR the links exist but become dead. State issues have not featured heavily in the republican debate sofar, so its perhaps premature to include it in wikipedia. --Lawe 01:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The 106 is about explicit inconsistances in the constitutional provisions. You are also assuming the content of a future constitution. If such future constitution said "No state governor can be appointed by the Queen", then, sure, 106 would apply. However most proposals, including the 1999 referendum proposal, don't contain any words which would prevent the Queen from appointing a state governor. --Lawe 13:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Republics