SHOULD AUSTRALIA BECOME A REPUBLIC?
Over the past centuries Australia has developed as a nation and remains the greatest country on earth. This exceptional standard shows how quickly this country has matured and achieved social progress. Becoming a republic is one of the final steps needed for Australia to move beyond past norms and into something superior.
Since this change is inevitable the need for constitutional reform is evident. The 114 year old constitution contains several instances of colonial language that is not necessary in 21st century Australia. For example in section 59 the constitution allows for the Queen to “disallow any law within one year from the Governor General’s assent” (Australia, 2013.) Apart from the fact that the Queen has rarely used this power, it is unnecessary and doesn’t represent what Australia is. A foreign citizen, whether in principle or practice should not have the power to veto any law affirmed by the Australian parliament. Throughout the constitution there a several instances of outdated, redundant clauses which serve no purpose. In light of Australia’s sovereignty we should move towards a constitution that upholds independence and embodies our modern society.
…show more content…
The monarchy is a medieval concept that traditionally resembles a dictatorship. The rise of parliament saw a major shift away from the monarch with laws being created by parliament. The traditional monarchy reveals a ‘top down’ approach that is corrupt with laws often sparked out of greed and self-interest. What occurs today is a ‘bottom up’ approach where lawmakers a determined by the people, accountable to the people and is therefore in practice a republic (Teague 2014.) Taking that final step towards official independence is only asserting what we have today and letting go of what used to represent an oppressive system of
One monarch who faced limited royal power due to his relationship with parliament was Henry IV. This uneasy relationship was mainly down to the fact that Henry was a usurper, and was exacerbated by his long periods of serious illness later in his reign. Parliament was thus able to exercise a large amount of control over royal power, which is evident in the Long Parliament of 1406, in which debates lasted from March until December. The length of these debates shows us that Henry IV’s unstable relationship had allowed parliament to severely limit his royal power, as he was unable to receive his requested taxation. A king with an amiable relationship with parliament, such as Henry V, and later Edward IV, would be much more secure in their power, as taxation was mostly granted, however their power was also supported more by other factors, such as popularity and finances. Like Henry IV, Henry VI also faced severely limited power due to his relationship with parliament.
The milestone judicial decision in Cole v Whitfield pronounced a pivotal moment in Australian jurisprudence in relation to the interpretation of s92 of the Australian constitution. This essay will critically analyse the constitutional interpretation approach utilised in Cole v Whitfield. This method will be compared with the interpretational methods exemplified in Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory. Although within these two cases there appears to be a preference towards a particular interpretational method, each mode has both strengths and weaknesses. Accordingly, the merit of each should be employed in conjunction with one another, where the court deems fit, complementing each other. This may provide a holistic approach to interpreting the constitution.
insist on our right of and capacity for being self-governing individuals. But we find ourselves again under the rule of a king - an authority exterior to the self. This time, however, we cannot as easily identify the king and declare our independence." Despite
Many would state that the constitution is not a living document and therefore, it does not change to meet the needs of the nation. One purpose behind this contention would be the constitution comprising no Bill of Rights. A Bill of rights is the arrangement of the most essential rights to the natives of a nation. Australia is the main Western popularity based nation with not a protected or elected administrative bill of rights to ensure its natives (Mchugh 2007). According to Lowitja O'donoghue, previous ATSIC Chair It says very little about what it is to be Australian. It says practically nothing about how we find ourselves here - save being an amalgamation of former colonies. It says nothing of how we should behave towards each other as human beings and as Australians. This in itself obviously depicts the incapacity of the constitution as a political rule of the country. A sample would be the situation law of Gradidge v Grace Bros Pty Limited (1988). There, a hard of hearing quiet in the Compensation Court of New South Wales obliged manual/visual dialect translation. The translator kept on translaing trades between the judge and the advodates throughout lawful submissions. She persevered in doing so notwithstanding the direction of the judge that the trades did not have to be deciphered. Her emphasis after deciphering everything that happened in the general population ...
Therefore, it is clear that a monarchy in Australia should remain. Even though he led the Republican Movement for the 1999 referendum at the time, it has been stated explicitly by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull that a republican Australia will only occur if there is widespread public momentum for the change. Thus, there is today not enough interest in changing our system of government, so why bother with it if the people do not want it? Becoming a republic requires constitutional change, and thus means two-thirds of people in a majority of states must be supportive for a monarch to be replaced by a republic. Traditionally, senior citizens have not been in support of topics such as a republican movement; thus, those who emigrated from England and the United Kingdom would predominantly reject a republic. Hence, the younger generations in society are the citizens in which usually are more divisive or willing to all options. “Many young Australians just don’t see the point of conducting a referendum.” These young Australians also hold the belief that by becoming a republic, the financial detriment will prove to be far too much of a burden and are not in favour of the switch to an untried system from one in which functions effectively now. Moreover, since Australia has always been with the Commonwealth, and having been required
A Constitution is a set of rules put in place to govern a country, by which the parliament, executive and judiciary must abide by in law making and administering justice. In many countries, these laws are easily changed, while in Australia, a referendum process must take place to alter the wording of the Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia, date unknown, South Australian Schools Constitutional Convention Committee 2001). Since the introduction of the Australian Constitution in January 1901, there have been sufficient proposals to alter and insert sections within the body to reflect the societal values of the day, ensuring the Constitution remains relevant to the Australian people. Although Constitutional reform can be made on a arrangement of matters, the latest protests on Indigenous recognition and racial references within the body of the Constitution has called into question the validity of racial inclusion, and whether amendments should be made to allow for recognition. This essay will focus on the necessity of these amendments and evaluate the likelihood of change through the process of referenda.
I believe that Australia should not become a republic. I think that there would be no point in becoming a republic, because we live without the intervention of the Queen at the moment, so becoming a republic would achieve nothing. If we were to become a republic, we would lose the support of England in times of war, famine or other disaster. I think that becoming a republic would achieve nothing, lose our links with England and waste the parliament's time when they should be concerned with more important issues.If we were to become a republic, the governor general would be replaced by a president who would have the same powers and responsibilities as our Governor General, so only the name and the person holding the position would change, wasting important parliament time and achieving absolutely nothing.
Today, we have freedom in many forms, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion. The Magna Carta and John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government laid the foundation for the freedom we enjoy today. The Magna Carta accomplished the liberty Englishmen currently enjoy by raising the status quo of peasants to commoner. This means those born to royalty will begin to treat the peasants as people, for instance the Magna Carta states, “(9) Neither we [feudal barons] nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, as long as the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt.” Similarly to the U.S., which has three branches of government to limit power, executive, legislative and judicial; the Magna
The Magna Carta developed through a tumultuous period of English History. Through the verge of a revolution, attack and civil war, all within 1215, a time where the Kings abused his power by excessive royal efforts which were funded by undue taxes that supported such endeavors. In determining whether the Magna Carta has legal nor symbolic significances, it is important to consider not only the history of the Magna Carta but the significance of the article, a review of its current legal meaning, its dominance towards the symbol of power in particularly the perspectives of the individual against the state which allowed for alternative perspectives on the article and one
The Australian Legal System has a rich and detailed history dating from 1066. Law is made in Parliament. We have four sources of law and three courts with different jurisdictions that interpret the law when giving out justice. Important doctrines act as the corner-stones of our legal system. There is a procedure in the courts for making appeals. Separation of powers exists between officials in the courts, the parliament and the Executive. Everyone in Australia is treated equally under the Rule of Law, no matter their office or status. The Law is always changing as society changes, but it can never be perfect and cannot please everyone.
The rights and freedoms achieved in Australia in the 20th and 21st century can be described as discriminating, dehumanising and unfair against the Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians have achieved rights and freedoms in their country since the invasion of the English Monarch in 1788 through the exploration and development of laws, referendums and processes. Firstly, this essay will discuss the effects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the Indigenous Australians through dehumanising and discriminating against them. Secondly, this essay will discuss how Indigenous Australians gained citizenship and voting
The monarchy symbolizes unity and traditions, which is unique and treasured to the nation. The monarch universally known as head of the Commonwealth, she is voluntarily recognised as the Head of State to 54 independent countries (The British Monarchy, 2013) The Queen to modern Britain, is an icon, who cannot simply be swapped for an elected politician. The British monarchy has played huge importance in British history, which is integral to our national identity. The Queen reined for 61 years and she provides an existing connection between the past, present and future. This is exactly what a politician could not offer to the public; for instance, Tony Blair, prior to 1997 was unknown on a state level, as he had done nothing significant for the British public. The monarchy’s traditions are famous not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the world. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the ruler of sixteen other countries including Britain. Whilst the queen receives many privileges as head of state, it does come at a personal cost. Her privacy is limited as she is consistently scrutinized from t...
Thomas Aquinas speaks of the highs and lows of governing and what power can do to mankind in his political prose De Regno - On Kinship.“… Just as the government of a king is the best, so the government of a tyrant is the worst. … For democracy stands in contrary opposition to polity, since both are governments carried on by many persons, as is clear from what has already been said; while oligarchy is the opposite of aristocracy, since both are governments carried on by a few persons; and kingship is the opposite of tyranny since both are carried on by one person. Now, as has been shown above, monarchy is the best government. If, therefore, "it is the contrary of the best that is worst." it follows that tyranny is the worst kind of government”(Aquinas). Aquinas also speaks of the importance of a governing figure, he says the people need someone to look up to in order to succeed. Aquinas believes in his predecessors words which believes man is only as strong as the man he looks up to. He believes the prominence of an authority figure is crucial in the survival of a just society. “. In like manner, the body of a man or any other animal would disintegrate unless there were a general ruling force within the body which watches over the common good of all members. With this in mind, Solomon sa...
The extent to which the judiciary and the legislature are able to regulate the exercise of prerogative powers by the executive has increased. However, there are still some who are concerned by the lack of control that can be exerted by the other constitutional bodies. The challenges to the power of the Monarch was by the reign of James I (1603-25) the monarch was faced with an increasingly effective Parliament, culminating in the temporary abolition of the monarchy in (1625). Consequently, the monarchy’s powers were eroded by both revolution and by legal challenges, which included the case of Proclamations (1611), the monarchy could not change the law by proclamation. The law of the land, which required that the law be made by Parliament, limited the prerogative.
When one thinks of Britain, perhaps the first thing that comes to mind is the iconic figures of the Royal Family. This hallowed line of descendants makes up the British Monarchy, serving above the people of the Commonwealth under the control of Britain. With such fanfare and dignity come an equally great responsibility. While the structure and ceremonial hype surrounding the British Monarchy has remained nearly unchanged since its creation, the role and powers of Britain's current Monarchy is significantly different.