That’s covered under the “Various places in what was once the British Empire” clause. 
Hawai’i was in the British Empire? They’ve claimed the place a few times, and British people have certainly lived there, but was it actually ever in the British Empire?
Please search “University of Woolamaloo” and “good Sheila”.
Oddly enough, there are more Google hits for “University of Woolloomooloo” than for “University of Woolamaloo”. Plus, I think the correct spelling of the Sydney suburb is funnier than the incorrect one. But your mileage obviously varies.
No. It was what is called a “British protectorate” from 1794-1843, which is why the British flag is incorporated into the state flag. But I lived there 2-1/2 years, and no one ever considered it to have been an actual part of the empire. It was Hawaii, then it was the US. Protectorates were foreign territorities where the British government had political authority but not sovereignty. They were often a means of controlling the Brits in a territory rather than the native population or of keeping another foreign power from moving in. Looks like the years of the protectorate closely coincided with the heyday of the whaling industry, so I’m guessing that had something to do with it.
Even so, whilst Hawaii wasn’t a Crown Colony, being a “British Protectorate” was basically the next closest thing since it meant the territory was in Britain’s sphere of influence, to employ a term from the era of the Great Game.
What happened then had nothing to do with Australia having a monarchy.
The GG is an appointed representative of the Crown, no?
Even under a Republican system, there’d still be someone in a Governor-General like role with the ability (and, dare I say, the inclination) to do exactly the same thing.
More importantly, even though the Governor-General is the Monarch’s representative in the country, I don’t for a moment believe Her Majesty phoned him up one day back then and said something to the effect of “It has come to our attention that Canberra is a Silly Place, and that Mr. Whitlam has displeased us. Dismiss him and get someone else to be Prime Minister.”
That’s still a far cry from saying Hawaii was “part of the British Empire,” which it was not.
Whether you think Gough should have been dismissed or not, the monarchy’s unelected rep did something, in a highly peremptory fashion, without consultation with Australia’s elected prime minister which in my view is *harmful *whatever your politics, and the monarchy didn’t end.
Mr. Excellent’s point is rebutted as far as I am concerned.
I don’t think it is, to be honest- “Spheres Of Influence” still form part of an Empire, albeit an indirect one. And the Hawaiians obviously felt their connection to Britain was important/significant enough to incorporate the Union Jack on their State Flag.
But you’ve not argued anything that’s specific to Australia being a monarchy. Australia could’ve had an elected non-executive President who did exactly the same thing.
If Whitlam had tried to solve the deadlock by requesting that the Queen “recall” the Governor-General, and the Queen had refused, then you might have an argument. But he didn’t, and she didn’t, so you don’t.
Anyway, how could Kerr have consulted with Whitlam as to whether or not to dismiss Whitlam…?!
I think the Union Jack in the canton has more to do with Hawaiians asserting something to the rest of the world, than with their actual relationship with Britain? I’m pretty sure the British at the time didn’t consider the islands to be part of their Empire (they certainly didn’t subsequently).
One typical defining feature of a “protectorate” (more properly, a “protected state”) is that the state concerned hands over the conduct of its external relations to the “protecting” state. I don’t know much about Hawaiian history, but I don’t believe this ever happened? I don’t think the British ever stationed any military force in the islands, either, nor appointed formal “advisors” to the Hawaiian monarchy.
The system did something harmful. That another system could have the same fault is not excusative.
I’m not sure what your point is here. When you clarify why you think this is an answer to what I am saying then I’ll respond. Are you raising an agency point? Are you saying Whitlam should have moved quicker? What?
By speaking to him. Do you think there is something unusual about giving someone you may be going to move against a hearing? I would have said that was natural justice, a fundamental principle of our system. Perhaps you think that a legal principle that applies widely in Australia in respect of minor administrative decisions shouldn’t apply here.
Your arguments may work for you but I find them utterly unconvincing.
Your argument was that the 1975 crisis was due to Australia having a monarchy. I pointed out that having an elected head of state would not by itself have prevented those events from happening the way that they did. Ergo, you have not provided a valid argument against Australia being a monarchy.
It has been argued that Whitlam could have pre-empted the dismissal by requesting the Queen to “recall” Kerr. Obviously if Kerr had been dismissed, he could not himself have dismissed Whitlam, and thus Whitlam would’ve “won”. The convention is that the Queen acts on the “advice” of her ministers, so in principle she would’ve had no choice but to dismiss Kerr if asked to do so. However, if she’d been “advised” do dismiss Kerr, and had refused to do so (or even worse, had refused to do so on the advice of her British ministers), then this is something that could only have happened if Australia were a monarchy, and thus it would have been a valid (and potentially powerful) argument against that monarchy.
Natural justice has little or nothing to do with high politics. If a Prime Minister loses an election, s/he doesn’t get to appeal that either! And according to traditional analysis, Kerr got it right: the subsequent general election failed to return Whitlam to power.
Anyway, if Kerr had “consulted” with Whitlam, and had then decided that it was still appropriate to dismiss him, I rather doubt there would have been any less controversy either at the time or since.
Do I think that the 1975 crisis demonstrates the case for a change to the Australian constitution? Yes. A democracy’s formal constitution that resolves controversies in a different manner than people’s expectations is deficient. But the source of this particular deficiency lies in the reserve power of the head of state to dismiss the prime minister, and also (I would argue) the failure of the constitution to place sole authority for the nation’s finances in the hands of the House of Representatives. Neither of these would be altered by Australia becoming a republic, and thus the 1975 crisis is not an argument against the monarchy.
Read my actual posts. I haven’t argued that the 1975 crisis was due to Australia having a monarchy at all. Don’t assume or Benny Hill will get you. Mr Excellent suggested a particular thing and I provided a counterexample. The fact that an unelected person made an important decision about government is in my view inherently harmful. No matter what can be said to justify the decision itself, it was a bad thing for that decision to be made by an unelected person. No one unelected should have that sort of power. Hard decisions must not only be made they must seen to be made by people who are seen as rightfully entitled to make them.
At another level, while the crisis (at some level) may well have happened anyway, part of the problem was that once it began to develop there was great uncertainty about what Kerr could or could not legitimately do. A lot of that problem can be laid at the feet of having an anachronistic system based around gentleman’s understandings rather than black letter law. And the reasons for that revolve signficantly around deference to the power of the monarch.
Firstly, whether it does or doesn’t is not the issue. It’s a question of whether it should.
Secondly, you appear confused. Natural justice isn’t about “appeals”. It’s about being heard before a decision is made. So to use your somewhat weird example, there is a vast amount of natural justice in elections because the candidates are heard (ad nauseum) before the decision. Natural justice isn’t about having an entitlement to an appeal after you have been heard and a decision has been made.
As I recall, when the US finally made it’s grab for Hawaii in the 1890s, it was at least partially a pre-emptive strike, as Britain, Russia and Japan all had an eye on the kingdom too. As the dates of the Protectorate (1794-1843) coincide with the whaling heyday, it must have had to do with that. They weren’t keeping other powers out though, as American whalers and missionaries had free reign, especially missionaries as evidenced in James Michener’s excellent novel Hawaii. Maybe Russians were whaling too, but I think Japan was still isolated during that period?
There’s some good background info on the Hawaiian flag’s Wikipedia entry.
A. Gwilliam is correct that no British bases were ever in Hawaii.
I like to piss off my Franco-Ontarian (very Canadian nationalist) boyfriend by saying I support an independent Quebec so we could move there and live in a Republic, not a monarchy.
Of course, I am the one who would suffer occupationally, not him, so it kind of gets silly. This is merely a topic I get into when I feel life is boring and we need some verbal spats. We both love Montreal, but I don’t know if I could live and work there.