[ad_1]
MPs in one Australian state have sworn allegiance to King Charles III, with some taking the opportunity to call for a republic.
Australia’s centre-left Labour government wants the Australian president to replace the British monarch as head of state.
The Queen’s death last week after 70 years on the throne was seen by many as an ideal opportunity for change.
Green Party lawmakers have used their swearing-in ceremony in Victoria’s parliament to advocate for Australia’s head of state.
Green Party leader Samantha Ratnam told reporters ahead of the ceremony: “We are here as Victorian MPs swearing allegiance to King Charles III and the new head of state is decided for us, not by We decide.” He was referring to MPs.
“This is a very important moment to reflect on the future role of the British monarchy in Australia, the impact of colonisation and the need to move forward through treaties and a republic in this country,” Ms Ratnam added.
Despite the protests, all four Green MPs joined other MPs to swear or confirm their allegiance to the king, the head of state of Britain, Australia and 13 other countries that were once part of the British Empire.
Three Green Party MPs wore clothes with slogans emphasizing Britain’s colonization of Australia without a treaty with Aboriginal people.
The ceremony for Australia’s second most populous state, named after Queen Victoria in the 19th century, is the result of a legal quirk that underscores how complicated Australia’s process of severing constitutional ties from the British monarch can become.
Lawmakers’ pledge of allegiance in five other states and Australia’s parliament has shifted from the late queen to her eldest son.
Victoria is requiring a new oath of successor to a late monarch before lawmakers vote on motion or legislation – a process one expert has called a “stupid quirk”.
“They have a clause in their constitution that shouldn’t be there,” said UNSW constitutional lawyer George Williams.
“Really, you don’t need to. You should take an oath to the monarch’s heir and successor, as happened in the Australian Parliament,” Mr Williams said.
Australians voted in a 1999 referendum against Australia becoming a republic and breaking its constitutional ties to its former colonial master.
Mr Williams said states were expected to eventually take the same steps if the referendum succeeded in establishing Australia’s president.
Mr Williams does not think the Australian republic with its national monarchy is sustainable in the long run.
“As a republic and having a national monarchy, it would be symbolically worrisome and quite inconvenient, and it wouldn’t make much sense,” Mr Williams said.
“I don’t think anyone would think it would last long, but it’s at least a theoretical possibility,” Mr Williams added.
University of Adelaide law professor Greg Taylor said the possibility that states would refuse to end their ties with the monarch was not a reason for Australia not to hold a second referendum on becoming a republic.
“There are good reasons not to, but ‘too hard’ is not one of them,” Professor Taylor said.
The German Empire from 1871 to 1918, he said, was an example of a combination of monarchy and republic.
“So something like this is possible. I personally think it would be weird,” Professor Taylor said of the possibility of the national monarchy remaining in the Australian Republic.
The British monarch is represented across Australia by a Governor-General appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister.
Each state has a governor representing the monarch who is appointed on the advice of the state premier.
The Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory do not have the same rights as the states, and their ties to the monarch are less direct.
[ad_2]
Source link