I frankly don’t know. All I know is a lot of my fellow-Filipinos want to emigrate to Ozzy. 
Me, I want Iceland: 60% of childbirths are out of wedlock and zero pollution in their capital. That’s for me!
Me. I’m really pleased to hear they’ve reintroduced knighthoods and further, I don’t think they should have gotten rid of them in the first place.
The problem I (and I think some others in this thread) have is that I’ve my doubts about how “earned” this respect will be.
The only reference I have is the French “legion of honour”, and the main way to get it is by connections. If not you can try being famous. If you have neither connections nor fame, trying to get killed in a military action is probably your best (and only) bet.
If you really earned respect, you’ll probably be awarded some very minor medal (only minor will require connections too, although minor connections). The lowest ranking honour requires you to endanger yourself to save someone’s life. The highest to sit at a government job for most of your life and know someone important.
No offense intended, by I doubt Australia is any different. I’m pretty sure that most of those knights and dames will have deserved nothing of the sort.
To acheive an honour under the system currently in place in Australia, it helps considerably to be male, to be middle-class, to have attended one of a suprisingly small number of private schools in Victoria, and to have made a career in the public service or the military. These things aren’t essential, but each of them substantially increases your odds of getting an honour, especially at one of the more senior grades.
As far as the Order of Australia goes, currently anyone can nominate someone for appointment to any class of the Order. Nominations are assessed by the Council of the Order of Australia against stated criteria. The Council then recommends them to the Governor-General (or not). The Governor-General is constitutionally bound to act on the recommendation of the Council.
However for the new knighthoods, an - ahem - streamlined procedure will be introduced. The Prime Minister will advise the Queen as to the appointments to be made. There are no stated criteria. The Council will not be involved; nor will the Governor-General. The Queen will be constitutionally bound to accept the PM’s advice.
Or, to put it another way, knighthoods will be in the personal gift of the Prime Minister. It’s so much simpler and more efficient that way, don’t you think?
When did they get rid of them?
Sorry, my bad. I forgot they also move in an L-shaped way.
Yes it is.
Some time in the 1970s, I think. Before my time, anyway.
It’s not common, it’s downright bloody rude if you’re a lone male passenger to get in the back seat.
The grade of knight/dame was removed from the Order of Australia in 1986 (the order was created in 1975 without a knight/dame grade, which was added in 1976), and the states agreed to stop submitting recommendations for imperial honors in 1992.
Bullshit.
The Australian Constitution doesn’t create the office of Prime Minister of Australia. The Prime Minister is head of Cabinet (which is also not mentioned in the Constitution) and by convention the PM is the de facto head of government.
The Queen would be conventionally bound by the advice of her Prime Minister, and also bound by the advise from her Governor General, and we all know how it ended up when those two advisors were in conflict.
I don’t. How did it end up?
"The Dismissal - 1975 Constitutional Crisis
Gough Whitlam dismissed as Prime Minister by Governor General John Kerr; Leader of Opposition Malcolm Fraser commissioned as caretaker Prime Minister
So, GG trumps/outranks PM? Is that always the case? Strange, since the GG is the stand-in for the Queen. Imagine what would happen in the UK if she tried to dismiss the PM!
Head of State outranks Head of Government in a Constitutional monarchy (at least in the ones I’m familiar with e.g. Aust, NZ, Canada etc)
It’s a bit more convoluted than that. Convention is that the the GG acts on the PMs advise.
The GG is appointed and dismissed by the Queen on advise by the PM.
Kerr and Whitlam had the power to sack each other.
Whitlam misjudged his man and Kerr didn’t blink.
Fact is though, that if the people of Australia felt it was wrong, they could have re-elected Whitlam to power, but they voted for the other guy.
The problem lay in the fact that the Australian Constitution grants the Senate control over supply just like the House. And in a parliamentary state, republic or monarchy, a government that fails to attain supply is expected to go or face dismissal. The Australian constitution did not specify if supply implied only the House, only the Senate, or both as the trigger.
It was an unprecedented situation and Kerr (at least IMO) did the only thing he could do, which was find a PM who could secure supply, whoever that may be. And then an election happened and Whitlam was kept out of power by the public vote.