The republic of Australia.

originally posted by: alldaylong

The above powers would be executed by The Governor General as i have already stated.

The GG has those powers, not the Queen.

a reply to: hellobruce

From the quote you posted yourself.

Her Majesty, as Queen of Australia, is watching events in Canberra with close interest and attention, but it would not be proper for her to intervene in person in matters which are so clearly placed within the jurisdiction of the Governor-General by the Constitution Act.[86]

In other words, the Queen doesn't publicly intervene or personally direct the Governor General. But she does have the power to, if she felt the need.

a reply to: hellobruce

he GG has those powers, not the Queen.

I don't think you know what the role of Governor General is. He is The Queens representative in such as this case Australia.

" Reserve Powers " are held by The Head Of State ( in this case Queen Elixabeth II ) and are thus enforced on her The Governor General on her behalf .

In a parliamentary or semi-presidential system of government, a reserve power is a power that may be exercised by the head of state without the approval of another branch of the government.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Wasn't Gough Whitlam removed from the prime minister position because he wanted to break away from the crown? Also, both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard were in favour of making Australia a republic, look what happened to them.

I think the queen has a lot more influence on Australia and our politicians than most people think.

I'm in favour of Australia becoming a republic, but I think the average Australian just doesn't care about it enough to do anything, the old "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality. Australians don't even bother with trying to remove tony abbott from office, so why would they waste their energy on a non-issue like becoming a republic.

We need to remove abbott from office before anything can happen anyway, that idiot is so in love with the british monarchy it's not funny. Not surprising though, since he's a british citizen and all......

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
It does seem the Queen has some extraordinary powers to dictate how the Australian parliament operates.

Wrong, the only power she has is to appoint the Governor General the PM nominates.

The crown seems to have far more power (in theory) to interfere into Australia's democratic process than even UK's democratic process.

Care to show us the power she has in Australia?

The question is, do we as an (apparent) independent nation want an obsolete non-elected tourist attraction authority figure, to have such powers over our own political process?

Yes we do, when the alternative is a popularly elected personality!

Where do you get your information from? What you are saying is just plain wrong, and you seem to have no clue about what powers the queen and governor general have over Australia.

The governor general is second only to the queen, and is her direct representative in Australia. The governor general is given powers by the queen to do as she sees fit and basically rule Australia in her absence. The GG has the power to appoint or dismiss a prime minister, or even dissolve parliament entirely.

The GG is also commander-in-chief of the Australian Defence Force. They decide when we go to war, or who we follow into war. Nobody else can do this, and whilst the GG is supposed to act on advice from ministers in the government, the reality is that the GG can damn well do whatever they want.

Governor General's role

originally posted by: symphonyofblase
Nobody else can do this, and whilst the GG is supposed to act on advice from ministers in the government, the reality is that the GG can damn well do whatever they want.

And, just like back in the UK, if Queeny (or in your case the GG) decided to actually exercise the power outside of a remit from the Government, it would trigger a constitutional crisis and possibly end the Monarchy altogether.

The fact they have all this power but never use it speaks volumes about it really.

originally posted by: symphonyofblase
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Wasn't Gough Whitlam removed from the prime minister position because he wanted to break away from the crown?

No, he was r4emoved for gross incompetence - he could not get supply passed. When the election was held labor lost by a landslide, as the Australian people had enough of his incompetence.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

they already proved there lack of loyalty during WWII

They were a little preoccupied with Hitler to send troops to secure your borders. Not to mention Singapore and Hong Kong, both more strategically important than Australia.

originally posted by: doubtit
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

they already proved there lack of loyalty during WWII

They were a little preoccupied with Hitler to send troops to secure your borders. Not to mention Singapore and Hong Kong, both more strategically important than Australia.

Why?

I mean, lets face it, Hitler showed his true utter incompetence in warfare by even attempting to invade the UK. What possible logical use could of that tiny natural resource deficient island been to the Nazi's?

Anyway.... I'm not even talking about the refusal of the pome's to defend us. I'm talking about how they refused to even allow our own troops (who were overseas fighting to protect UK's border at the time) to return home to defend our own borders.

At least the Americans realized how strategically stupid it would have been to allow the Japanese to invade Australia.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Why?

I mean, lets face it, Hitler showed his true utter incompetence in warfare by even attempting to invade the UK. What possible logical use could of that tiny natural resource deficient island been to the Nazi's?

Aside from it's strategic position and large fleet, of course... Knocking out the UK would have prevented anything like D-Day from ever happening, as well as the possibility of capturing a good portion of what was the worlds largest Navy at the time

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Anyway.... I'm not even talking about the refusal of the pome's to defend us. I'm talking about how they refused to even allow our own troops (who were overseas fighting to protect UK's border at the time) to return home to defend our own borders.

What bollocks - the Japanese never intended to invade Australia and Australian forces were being used around the Pacific theatre. In fact, in 1942, reinforcements arrived from the Middle East to the Australian mainland.

It's not the UK "refused", it's that after the loss of Singapore we couldn't - not without jeopardising the defence of India which was of far more strategic value to both the Allies and Japan.

It seems to me you've got a bit of a chip on your shoulder. I've seen these nonsense arguments on ATS before about WW2 and I'm sure it was from you.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
I'm talking about how they refused to even allow our own troops (who were overseas fighting to protect UK's border at the time) to return home to defend our own borders.

Oh dear, just where did you learn your "history" from?

Two of the three Australian divisions in the Middle East were being returned to fight the Japanese

primeministers.naa.gov.au...

a reply to: stumason

You may claim they were never planning to invade. But honestly, I personally have my doubts that they would have just peacefully packed up and gone home, once they bombed the crap out of our cities and reeked havoc onto Australian citizens. With all the iron ore, gold and farming land they would ever need.

I don't particularly have a chip on my shoulder, btw. But I would politely suggest that maybe your looking at it naively though the eyes of your own national pride.

Either way.... whatever truly happened back then is not whats important now. Fact is, at this point in time we are the 12th most wealthiest economy in the world and the 5th most wealthiest per capita (GDP nominal). So why should we be bound to asking permission from the UK on whether we can defend our own land, if a similar situation was to ever occur again? Why should we be told when we have to go to war? Or even be bound by a redundant royal family who has the power to dictate how we choose to run our own country?

I mean, I'm truly thankful to the Brits, for turning the great southern land into a prison colony 220 years ago and establishing what is now the greatest country to live in, in the entire world. But that's long gone history now, Australia is now it's own country.

We need to retire our flag to the museum because its irreverent to modern day Australia and then become a republic.

it's about establishing nation pride and not just being content with being the UK's bitch!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
I'm talking about how they refused to even allow our own troops (who were overseas fighting to protect UK's border at the time) to return home to defend our own borders.

Oh dear, just where did you learn your "history" from?

Two of the three Australian divisions in the Middle East were being returned to fight the Japanese

C'mon mate, give me a break...... Traitor!

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

All of that waffle based on a false premise - since when do you need to "ask permission" for anything from the UK, whether it be defence or otherwise?

You don't.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
So why should we be bound to asking permission from the UK on whether we can defend our own land, if a similar situation was to ever occur again? Why should we be told when we have to go to war? Or even be bound by a redundant royal family who has the power to dictate how we choose to run our own country?

You again show you have no clue at all how Australia works.... We do not have to ask anyone permission to defend Australia, we are not told when we have to go to war - so why lie and claim we do?

Australia is now it's own country.

True, about the first thing you have gotten correct!

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

All of that waffle based on a false premise - since when do you need to "ask permission" for anything from the UK, whether it be defence or otherwise?

I am trying to work out where he gets that strange idea from as well!

a reply to: stumason

The fact is the british betrayed and left us open to invasion by the Japanese.

Having the Union Jack on our flag is a disgrace to national pride. We're like a women who gets beaten by her man, yet still remains unquestionably loyal!

WINSTON CHURCHILL - NO FRIEND TO AUSTRALIA

Although happy to take all the sailors, soldiers and airmen that Australia was prepared to place at his disposal for the defence of Britain, Churchill had no concern about Australia's fate when Japan's conquering armies menaced Australia. His assurances of British military support for Australia against the Japanese were lies. He had already betrayed Australia to the Japanese at the Arcadia Conference held in Washington in late December 1941. Churchill even resisted the return of Australian troops from the Middle East to defend their own country; he wanted to use them In Burma to defend India against the advancing Japanese.

Winston Churchill betrays Australia

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: jinni73
umm No I can't

Of course you cannot, as it was never said!

I suggest you do the research yourself

So you want me to research something that was never said.... you made the claim, it is up to you to back that claim up!

Sorry I don't understand what you are saying you want me to read it for you and repeat that back to you rather than you reading it, LOL

originally posted by: jinni73
Sorry I don't understand what you are saying

It is very simple, you made a claim but are unable to back that claim up as it never happened - but you want me to chase up something that never happened!

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: stumason

The fact is the british betrayed and left us open to invasion by the Japanese.

Having the Union Jack on our flag is a disgrace to national pride. We're like a women who gets beaten by her man, yet still remains unquestionably loyal!

WINSTON CHURCHILL - NO FRIEND TO AUSTRALIA

Although happy to take all the sailors, soldiers and airmen that Australia was prepared to place at his disposal for the defence of Britain, Churchill had no concern about Australia's fate when Japan's conquering armies menaced Australia. His assurances of British military support for Australia against the Japanese were lies. He had already betrayed Australia to the Japanese at the Arcadia Conference held in Washington in late December 1941. Churchill even resisted the return of Australian troops from the Middle East to defend their own country; he wanted to use them In Burma to defend India against the advancing Japanese.

Winston Churchill betrays Australia

The "fact" is we didn't - other strategic concerns came into play and as it turns out, troops were redeployed.

And that site of yours isn't biased at all... Not one bit...