I became an Australian Public Servant in 1980. I totally get how the myth evolved. The Commonwealth Government Centre at 295 Ann Street Brisbane had been renamed in the mid 70's to the Australian Government Centre. Our bank notes changed from Commonwealth of Australia to simply Australia. When told as a teen this was due to Whitlam wanting us to be our own country without the word Commonwealth dominating our official terminology it made total sense. Thanks for this great explainer.👍
This is as usual both enjoyable and informative - many thanks, Anne. The various uses of the word commonwealth in political usage can be very confusing, as it means at least slightly different things each time - the Commonwealth of 1649-60 in Britain, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Commonwealth of Nations. You may be amused to know (if you don't already) that there is a choral anthem by Peter Aston, setting some words from Pericles' funeral oration over the war dead, that begins 'So they gave their bodies to the commonwealth' and is(/was?) sometimes used on Armistice Day/Remembrance Sunday; originally of course the c-word here meant the Athenian democracy of the 5th century BC, but I think a lot of people here in Britain nowadays must assume it means the Commonwealth of Nations, if they hear it. Presumably in Australia they would interpret it differently ...
Thankyou for your explanation. In the old days misinformation was called gossip and I will never understand how that will ever be controlled. People will believe almost anything if it's kept in the spotlight.
@@jesusislukeskywalker4294 We got our full independence on 3 March, 1986. Unfortunately, Bob Hawke didn't want to make a fuss about it for some weird reason so to this day most Australians are blithely unaware that London has no authority over any part of us. And before you say it, we got our own monarchy in 1953 and could have our own Royal House tomorrow if Parliament passed the enabling legislation.
Thank you for this - I researched the origin of the name 'Commonwealth' ages ago. Great clarification. At 8:23 - "one of the problems of having a foreign Head of State is we have no control over many of the historical records concerning the Head of State and their [sic] relationship with Australia." A solid reason for having our own Australian monarch.
We got our own monarchy in 1953 (see the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953). We could have our own Royal House tomorrow if Parliament passed the enabling legislation. We only got Charles as king because we never passed our own Succession Act.
I reckon you'll find the same people who believe Whitlam abolished the Commonwealth also believe Shakespeare didn't exist and someone else wrote his plays... trust me they're out there... "Believe me, lords, my tender years can tell civil dissension is a viperous worm that gnaws the bowels of the commonwealth" - Henry VI.
Thank you Prof Twomey, I've only just discovered you and your marvelous work, really got me hooked (and i notice and appreciate the nifty colour co-ordination between those fabulous scarfs and jackets and your subject title colour !) BUT I have a question, perhaps something for another new topic : I have the distinct impression that King Charles is less popular in the UK as Head of State than he is here, judging by all the active Republicans in the UK and his recent popularity here (and the fact that PM Albo has recently dropped the proposed republican referendum question ) so I ask you dear Professor Emirata : 1: If King Charles was forced to abdicate the UK Crown, either by a vote of the UK Parliament and / or a referendum and / or (another) republican revolution , what would Australia do ? Would or could he continue being King of Australia ? Could the UK stop him or his heirs and successors from being our Head of State ? Would we need a referendum and what if the republican referendum failed here ? 2: Could King Charles just say, right, I'm sick of being King of all these distant far away lands, I resign from being King of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, New Guinea et al, you lot should all grow up and be republics (but I might remain King of Grenada, as it's nice and tropical ) ? And could he deny his heirs and successors from being Heads of State of these realms ? 3: If either these scenarios did come about , could Australia just pick some notable person to continue to be our monarch? As it could be easier to do than have a successful referendum to become a republic ? Very keen on your considered answer please professor !
The case for the truth is so compelling and so well put yet there conspiracy theory is so attractive in it's simplicity. Sad we spread objectively false thoughts. Thanks for trying to help correct it.
I know it won't convince those who are wedded to their conspiracy needs, but it at least provides some explanation to those who are wondering whether it is true.
As we come up to the fiftieth anniversary of The Dismissal, it does become much clearer just how constitutionally *exciting* the Whitlam era was, in contrast to today. Not even counting loonier theories like this or the Dismissal itself, but just new and interesting developments every month, from stylistic things to material changes, from a Joint Sitting to the Petroleum and Minerals Authority debacle. Makes you realise why everyone went crazy over s44 a few years back, we all were hungry for some Constitutional Drama!
Constitutionally exciting isn't the half of it! :) If you were a woman back then your life changed immeasurably: with no fault (no fee!) divorce, increased pensions and single mothers' benefits; Medibank; an Office for the status of women! Or if you were simply the mother of a conscription-aged son 🥲. I watched my mother and grandmother literally blossom with Whitlam reforms. He was the 'post-war Socialism' we'd beem waiting for.😻
The conspirators are probably the same people who get upset about the shops selling hot cross buns before Easter .LOL! Thanks for another interesting video Professor Twomey.
Years after the dismissal, I ran into Gough Whitlam at a function. I very politely asked him why the words COMMONWEALTH OF were removed from banknotes. He said it was because people were confusing us with the British Commonwealth.
Yes, and these days the primary material is really easy to find. That's the funny thing about the internet - it allows misinformation to spread like a bushfire, but it also democratises access to primary information, allowing misinformation to be disproved if people bothered to check.
@constitutionalclarion1901 It really is surprising that people seem to wait for someone else to read it for them and provide a summary like with the misinformation bill it was very ironic how much misinformation was generated about that. I was against the bill but it really showed why the bill existed in the first place and was disappointing to see.
@@Burgo361 Yep. The bill was far from perfect but with the rise of the tech oligopoly, we probably need some protections to stop people losing their minds.
I agree. I was not keen on the bill at all - some of it was quite bad. But other parts were useful (eg requiring action against bots and greater transparency from social media organisations). And yes, there was a lot of misinformation about it.
I've publicly debated both over the last decade, so comprehensively and citing so much material that Wayne thinks I'm a team of lawyers and Rod has blocked every single Sudy profile on Facebook.
@@mjguerin63 It's a mistake for experts to always ignore the cookers. It gives them too much free reign to propagate their nonsense. It's useful that from time to time the public gets to see them sitting in the same room with the loonies and saying without equivocation, "You're talking nonsense and here's why" (Google the video of Cox schooling Malcolm Roberts regarding climate change on Q&A for an example). When it never happens the public is left with the equivalent of both sides saying go and do your own research, where the public doesn't have the education in the discipline needed to determine whether what they're seeing is bunk or is simply too advanced for them to understand.
@@mjguerin63 You probably think they've also landed on the moon, when NASA is Hebrew "to deceived" the moon's is made out of gases (known since the 50s) making it hard to land on, don't forget there's that picture of Nixon speaking to the astronauts on a landline some 300,000 kms away way before satellite phones. You can ask any PILOT about our FLAT EARTH.
What an animated presentation! I simply swoon at Prof. Twomey's articulation of 'uneuphonious' No doubt she had practised saying "red leather, yellow leather" twelve times beforehand, followed by "the sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep's sick".
I've always been assumed we moved Dominion to a Commonwealth on passing the Statute of Westminster Adoption in 1942. But that I think is a whole story on its own.
Yes, that's a little different. It's true that Australia was classified as a 'Dominion' at the point when being called a 'colony' became a bit embarrassing. The self-governing colonies of the United Kingdom were called Dominions in this sense from the early 1900s, and the term is used in the Statute of Westminster. It was later replaced by the term Realm.
My enduring memory of Whitlam were the broadcasts of his sacking by John Kerr and mentions on the radio. My father told me at the time he was spending money like there was no tomorrow and the national debt was blowing out, so the opposition got a court order to block supply. In any case he was clearly very well liked and respected by many right up till his passing.
The opposition couldn't formally block supply as that would have made them to blame for a double dissolution. So they got opposition senators to refuse to consider a supply bill which therefore didn't pass. The GG dismissed the Whitlam government and appointed an interim Fraser team until an election (which Whitlam lost). They were clever but only once as that loophole is old news now.
You must be very Young. Whitlam was a self aggrandizing fool who was the protoWEF puppet. Not only was he despised by the average Australian of the day,the election of Fraser proved that feeling. It is only the media who keep the myth of Whitlams memory alive.
@@Mercmad As I remember those times, it was John Kerr who most of the contempt was directed at. As for Whitlam, initially a lot of people were impressed by him - and not just the media. But he definitely proved to be a bad manager of money - and hopeless at managing his cabinet ministers. As for Fraser, he wasn't particularly liked by voters, but he and his party were seen as a safer bet re managing Australia's economy.
I'll throw in that Commonwealth seems to have emerged in the 15th century asa kind of loose translation of the Latin Term "Res Publica" the "Public things", a term the Romans came up with when they kicked out their kings but kept during the rule of Emperors. It's a kind of an attempt to come up with a word for a State that exists in its own right rather than merely the property of a monarch. But it's theoretically possible to have a State, a "Res Publica". without being what we know call a Republic. The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth both had a King (an elected one !!) and called itself a Republic. That becomes kind of contradictory in English so we call it a Commonwealth. So it is a kind of 'neutral' word on whether there's a monarch or not.
Putting the cart before the horse? You would first need to establish a referendum was required for the Lisbon Agreement, the Royal Styles & Titles Act, and the Australia Act. Neither contained any alteration to the Constitution to invoke the use of section 128.
Nobody (including staunch republic supporters like me) has ever suggested changing the name of our country from Commonwealth of Australia to 'Republic of Australia'.
@@homohoglet2915 We had Commonwealth of Australia on bank notes because there is plenty of room on them. By contrast coins and stamps are very small, so there is a limit on how much can be written on them.
Thank you for your knowledge and wisdom. I used the word "commonwealth" in a letter to a paper today. Well do I remember in Whitlam's Day the fact that "Commonwealth" remained on the statute books because, we assumed at the time, the word could not be removed without a referendum- perhaps not even then. Without a streak of republicanism within me, I think it's a good word for a constitutional monarchy. Kamala Harris of course brackets monarchy with tyranny, but her ignorance and flummery are beside the point. We do not have a foreign head of state. We have a Governor-General who is, if the expression must be used, our head of state. But calling the King "foreign" is absurd.
Kamala Harris was making a point specific to her own country's history with the monarchy of old when she equated monarchy with tyranny. There's no way she'd view modern European constitutional monarchs as tyrannical. As for our governor-general being our official Head of State, she isn't. She's vice regal to a man with lots of fancy medieval titles who lives on the other side of the planet. I like King Charles and wish him all the best, but he doesn't represent Australia - and I doubt even he thinks he does. For people who like the historical links to Britain (including me), there is still the Commonwealth of Nations.
Actually we have two 'Heads of State", a de jure one, living in the UK and selected under the terms of the British Act of Succession and a de facto one living at Yarralumla. That was the primary problem with the dismissal in 1975. The de facto one who decided on the dismissal was terrified that the de jure one would dismiss him if so advised by the PM so kept his PM in the dark and the de jure one, who would have openly counselled her PM was unable to do so because she was kept at arms length by the de facto one. This was the only time the silly system we have inherited was put to a serious test and it failed dismally because of the inherent weakness in having two people doing the same job. Time we grew up and decided on our own head of State and had only one person to do the job.
@@alanramsey2761 I'm told by constitutional experts that the Queen had no power or right to advise our PM and her only possible function in the affair would have been to dismiss Kerr if so advised by Whitlam. She may well have delayed because of due process by a day or two- or longer, giving Kerr plenty of time to act. There is only one person "doing the job", and that is the GG. Whether or nor Kerr did the right thing- books have been written about it- the system didn't fail. What could have been disastrous would have been a Yes vote for a Turnbull republican model where the PM and President each had the right to dismiss the other without notice.
@@davidmorrison2739 Who are these "Constitutional experts' who say that the reigning monarch has no power to advise the Australian PM if asked or consulted? Think about it, if Whitlam knew what Kerr was thinking he would have acted differently or at least with full knowledge of his position. If Kerr had been an honourable man and not petrified that he would be sacked, he would have disclosed his mind to Whitlam as he was really obliged to do but didn't. Whitlam himself believed that the Queen herself would not have been so deceitful. The problem was the three way distribution of knowledge and power instead of it being between two people as it would have been for a UK PM. It was (and is) a weakness in the system.
I was under the impression that the term Commonwealth was used because there was a fear that powerful states like New South Wales and Victoria who at the time had different economic practices would lose all power as states when combined with less powerful states when creating a new single entity so therefore adding the word Commonwealth inferred that the states were combining for a common good as one nation without diminishing states rights as a compromise as well as creating a senate to represent states rights or it was feared they would drop out and go it alone. That was why Western Australia held out signing to see what happened with the other states after federation.
Just on the point of ‘Commonwealth’ and republicanism. I find it interesting that the English language adopted Commonwealth also in reference to Poland-Lithuania in the 18th Century. French chose to refer to it as a ‘Republic’ (République des Deux Nations) even though the Polish retained a King. Perhaps Commonwealth was an accurate term to convey the ‘Golden Liberty’ of the Polish (or at least the magnates) at this time.
Apparently 'Queen Victoria requested that her daughter, Princess Beatrice, edit her diaries after her death. Beatrice abridged the diaries and destroyed the originals'. www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/victoria.pdf
Queen Victoria published some excerpts from her journals during her lifetime, in her books on her life in the Scottish Highlands. Princess Beatrice was her literary executor, so she had the power to act as she did. Apparently King George V objected to the destruction of the originals, but to no avail. You can get a bit of an idea about what Princess Beatrice excluded by comparing the Princess Beatrice version with the copies of the early volumes made by Lord Esher. For example, in the Lord Esher copy, Queen Victoria said, after saluting her officers at a military review that 'I felt for the first time like a man, as if I could fight myself at the head of my troops'. This was expunged from the Princess Beatrice version, sadly. I quite liked that statement, because it showed something of her personality.
I searched, but couldn't find the answer to "Which territories that are not OF the Commonwealth are administered BY the Commonwealth?" Is the answer in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973?
Not sure what you mean by 'of the Commonwealth" buy try Christmas Island, possibly Norfolk Island and Macquarie island as well as the Aust Antarctic territory. There are probably others as well.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Yes. For the benefit of others, the Territory of Papua and the Territory of New Guinea were each different and distinct despite being administered as one by Australia since the end of WW2. Papua was OF the Commonwealth and its people were Australian citizens. New Guinea (being formerly a German colony) was a territorty mereley administerd BY the Commonwealth under the terms of a UN Trusteeship Agreement.
'Commonwealth' is a great term as there is much we must do together on a large mainly dry continent - more than other nations must do collectively to build individual wealth on the back of collective/common effort. The constitution allocates various responsibilities to the Commonwealth, and is silent on others like roads. The states have residual powers, but surely the Commonwealth can reach into the silent space?? When, in 1946, the Labor led NSW led the other states in agreeing to a permanent transfer of income tax to the Commonwealth led by a Labor government, no extra responsibility was taken on by the Commonwealth. The transfer was in part about paying Commonwealth war debt. It led to vertical fiscal imbalance. The Commonwealth now gets 80% of all taxes, but that 80% no longer stand behind debt funded infrastructure investment by the states - the most effective form of 'common' investment. The private sector regards community (common) infrastructure a great investment as the private sector is willing to lend money (buy state and federal bonds) at a lower effective interest rate than it demands from companies and people (bank interest rates). Our housing affordability problems relate to insufficient (and poorly conceived) access services and their supporting infrastructure. A UK study showed private toll roads needs tolls 2.6 times higher than public toll roads due to the higher price for private capital and debt. Building stuff in common is far cheaper but business leaders and many Libs and Nats hate it. The constitution gives power to the Commonwealth for navigation and communication (post, telegraph, internet) but makes no mention of roads. Surely, the Commonwealth could take land of its choice and build roads under the navigation power?? Railways get a few constitutional mentions including the Commonwealth can buy railways from the states. The totality of the railway powers surely permit the ARTC to operate without state agreement, although the states agree. The HSRA legislated in the current parliament is surely well within Commonwealth power. But does the Commonwealth have constitutional power to take state land and build railways if the state does not agree??? Does Maglev fit the constitutional definition of motorways?? Access (transport) serves our land use. The Commonwealth does no land use planning in the states beyond that for its own use. All the access efforts of the Commonwealth (navigation, communication, railways) must be subservient to land use plans. What we really need is joint Commonwealth and State/territory land use and supporting access services/infrastructure?? Does the Commonwealth have sufficient constitutional authority to force the states into joint planning for the common wealth of us all???
Broadly speaking, the Commonwealth can expand its effective authority over the states in two ways. First, under S51(xxix), the external affairs power, any treaty it signs and ratifies becomes Australian law and can override state law, per S109. Second, S96 gives it the power to grant money to the states on any terms it sees fit, and of course since WWII it's been the main tax collector in the nation. They both give Canberra enormous power and leverage over the states that might well disturb the Founding Fathers.
Adding to the comment of @TheRealPotoroo, the expansive interpretation of the corporations power in s 51(xx) also gives the Commonwealth great power, as corporations fulfil most functions in Australia these days. But road building and land management mostly occur through cooperative schemes that involve grants under s 96 of the Constitution.
I didn't even know that there was a conspiracy that the constitution had been abolished 😂 But, if the UK Parliament decided (in the overwhelming sanity) to repeal the Constitution Act, would that cause a minor Constitutional panic here? I know that in practicality, nothing would change, but I imaging a great number of scholars would have a lot of work
Since the enactment of the Australia Acts 1986, it would make not one iota of difference if the UK Parliament repealed the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, because that repeal would have no effect upon the operation of that law as part of Australian law.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 ein Beitrag an Donnerstag, dem 16. Januar 2025 (Central European Time) (a winter semester in the Northern hemisphere) (a summer semester in the Southern hemisphere) In the Federal Republic Germany (= FRG), where I reside, the Neanderthal is located in the FRG, too, circa 10 kilometers, east of the State Capital of Düsseldorf (the State of Northern Rhine-Wesphalia, NW), in a very western part of the FRG. Düsseldorf is a part of the Rhineland. Have you ever been outside the Commonwealth of Australia? I speak New High German, British English and Castilian (the Kingdom of Spain, in South Western Europe) As the Treaty of Waitanga, was debated, in the Parliament of New Zealand (Oceania), in the year 2024, a female Maori MP, performed the, militaristic, Haka dance, inside New Zealands, parliament chamber! Have the orgininal tribes of Oceania, something as a Pow Wow, which the US American Indians have? I have seen a didgeridoo, in real, in the united Berlin, FRG´s federal capital. Eskimos still build iglus. In Canada, members of the orgininal tribes of the Americas, which reside in Canada, are called First Nations. Compare this to the term Aborignees in the Commonwealth of Australia. The terms First Nations, resp. Aborigenees, are somehow pseudo terms, when it comes to describe, biological decendencies, haplo groups, tribes, ethnicities, races, mother tounge speakers groups etc .... The term "human races" is used in so many different ways, the its use confuses me more than it helps! The Hula dance, from the State of Hawaii, (the United States of America; Oceania) is more fun, than the Haka dance! towards y´all: Have a happy Australia Day (26th of January), and a happy Waitinga Day (6th of February)! What ever you celebrate, ... or not celebrate!
@constitutionalclarion1901 As someone who likes stability - excellent. As someone who also likes administrative drama - damn. That could have been fun to watch unfold. To follow up, any chance of a detailed video on the Australia Acts?
It is interesting to see that the origins of term "Commonwealth" are somewhat republican in tinge, though this is of course not surprising when you consider previous usages of the term such as the Commonwealth of England or the states in the U.S which use the term. I say this because today the term "Commonwealth", at least to the lay person tinges somewhat more monarchical, perhaps mostly because of the (unrelated) usage of the term in the Commonwealth of Nations. Personally I see the term as neither Republican or Monarchical, the term first and foremost expresses the idea of Popular Sovereignty, which of course extends to include the principle of the Consent of the Governed. This is in no way at odds with the principles of Constitutional Monarchy, in fact it is on the contrary. A core principle of Constitutional Monarchy is that the King only reigns because people consent to his continued reign, if we were to change our minds, then we have the full right and ability to change our constitutional arrangements via a referendum, either to establish a republic or to force the present monarch to abdicate. As a constitutional monarchist, I am fully in favour of the usage of the term "Commonwealth". Not only because of it's immensely important historical significance which is of great importance to me, but also because it serves to emphasise the separation of powers between the Commonwealth and the States in Australia which I think is very important. I also think that it is very unfortunate that Whitlam tried to undermine this distinction, and I want to thank you for teaching everyone about it, because I didn't know about it until you brought it up in your last video, and I think it is very important for everyone to know about, so thanks a lot!
You're welcome. Yes, it is an interesting case of the word 'Commonwealth', despite its republican associations, being co-opted as the term for the remnants of the British Empire. But I suppose it was appropriate, as the majority of members of the Commonwealth of Nations are republics. Commonwealth can happily accommodate both constitutional monarchies and republics.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 The choice of "commonwealth" for the remnants of the Empire surely just aims to evoke the same idea of "the common good" (of the constituent states) as Australia's adoption of it (or the CIS's). No hint at republicanism or reflection of the republican character of any of its members.
Maybe they wanted to distinguish between the continent 'Australia' and the name of the polity. Most countries usually have some kind of description of the type of government in their name, albeit sometimes misleading - eg 'Democratic Republic of...', 'United Kingdom of', 'Republic of', etc.
Yes? But that's not what is being argued about. It's the idea and conspiracy that Whitlam secretly removed all the mentions of commonwealth in law, which the lovely professor clearly dismissed.
No-one can abolish something that needs a Constitutional amendment to change. Whitlam's 'attitude' to the term Commonwealth is irrelevant on that point.
My question is about the jnclusion of s44 in the Constitution and the High Court cases it has generated. Is it a necessary or redundant section. Is a Referendum the only way to change it. Is this a possibility or highly unlikely. Great if you can do a video on this section and its implications.
Have you watched Anne's most recent video on Section 44? th-cam.com/video/dA4AtPmyEUc/w-d-xo.html It absolutely is live and necessary. And yes, it can only be changed by a referendum.
I never understood Labor's opposition to "Commonwealth"? Our banknotes did change .... strange thing ... like Labour (UK) vs Labor (Aus) where did the u go and why?
@Mercmad The Australian Labor Party (ALP) uses the spelling "Labor" instead of the traditional British English spelling "Labour" due to the influence of early 20th-century American spelling reform. When the party was officially established in the 1890s, the founders sought to align themselves with progressive ideals, including those of the broader labor movement. At the time, the American labor movement, which used the simplified spelling "labor," was highly influential. The simplified spelling was seen as modern, practical, and reflective of the party's forward-looking agenda. One prominent figure in this decision was King O'Malley, a founding member of the ALP and an American-born politician, who advocated for the simplified spelling. This choice distinguished the party from British Labour traditions, emphasizing its uniquely Australian identity. Despite Australia's general use of British English, the party has retained this spelling as part of its historical identity. Other organizations and entities in Australia, however, continue to use "labour" in non-political contexts.
@rossyeaah it was called Labour here they changed it in 1912 to sit better with the American Spelling, which at the time caused a stir in their party and a lot of Australian voters.
@LORDOFJOY1818 Nope According to Ross McMullin, who wrote an official history of the Labor Party, the title page of the proceedings of the Federal Conference used the spelling "Labor in 1902, "Labour" in 1905 and 1908, and then "Labor" from 1912 onwards.[12] In 1908, James Catts put forward a motion at the Federal Conference that "the name of the party be the Australian Labour Party", which was carried by 22 votes to 2. A separate motion recommending state branches adopt the name was defeated. There was no uniformity of party names until 1918 when the Federal party resolved that state branches should adopt the name "Australian Labor Party", now spelt without a u. Each state branch had previously used a different name, due to their different origins.[13
Whitlam was anti-British. The word ‘Commonwealth’ galled on him by its association through its association with the British Commonwealth or the Commonwealth of Nations which I believe he was contemptuous of. Removing the words ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ from the banknotes of the time as his little vanity project designed to show for all time that, if he couldn’t get rid of the queen, at least he could get rid of the Commonwealth. At least, from the paper money. I lived through these chaotic years as a working adult and remember Whitlam as an untalented politician albeit with an ego the size of the planet.
I don't think Gough was anti-British at all. He certainly didn't like what he referred to as 'old British colonial relics' though. But then, neither do some British. It's true that Whitlam found Britain's privy council really abhorrent and believed: 'No people with an ounce of self-respect would allow decisions made by their own judges … to be overruled by judges sitting in another country."
Even if you were entirely true about his motivation (you aren't), you didnt learn anything from the video because you are falsely describing what he did as getting "rid of the Commonwealth". All hereally did was a minor rebranding exercise that reformed and modernised some of the language we use to describe Australia.
Thank you for the comprehensive evaluation of the Statute Law Revision Act. Given the power of the specific wording within clause 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act UK 1900 does section 1 prescribe that the only enacting power is via "the Parliament" and the "Parliament of the Commonwealth" and yet the other creation of the Whitlam government was a term used since being, "the Parliament of Australia". As such does the Parliament of Australia have a legislative power? There also seems to be another anomaly via section 42 and the schedule as the obligation in the Constitution demands a strict adherence and yet the Parliamentarians seem to be taking an oath not prescribed by the Constitution which is to the Queen of Australia. According to "Bill Number 2" of the Constitution Commission Reports 1988, the government were seeking a question be put to the people at referendum to modify the Constitution allowing members of Parliament to take an oath to the Queen of Australia via the Constitution Alteration(Oaths and Affirmations of Allegiance) Act 1988 via omitting the words "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and substituting "of Australia". From this report it would seem there is no power to use the words as afore mentioned.
Members of Parliament are still sworn in using exactly the same words, set out in the schedule to the Constitution. You can see a video of it happening in the Senate here: th-cam.com/video/rC7hvn1DuHM/w-d-xo.html. Whether the Whitlam Government chose to describe the Parliament as the Parliament of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth Parliament or the Parliament of Australia, that description did not affect its existence or its powers. There was no separate creation of a Parliament by the Whitlam Government.
Perhaps food for future videos, 'we are a public company, listed on the New York Stock Exchange' and 'Queensland is a Private Company, owned by the Brigalow Corporation'? 🙂
Except that we're not a "public company" anywhere. From the Wiki page on this very topic, "The Commonwealth of Australia is a Form 18 United States SEC registered entity[1] representing the nation of Australia for the purpose of issuing securities in the US market. Form 18 registrations are used only for foreign government registrations with the SEC and do not create a corporation." It's purely a convenience for the purpose of financial law in the States and has nothing to do with our sovereignty.
Many factors. While under a Monarchy it means we are spared the chance of coming under a dictators control for the King is the commander of all our military and law enforcement . To remove the Monarchy would mean all crown lands would become native title . All ranks in military ,police and all government department would no longer have crown titles. Whitlam was a fantastic man who came from public housing and wanted nothing but the best he could for this country but was not always correct and our politics were tampered with by CIA . Great thankyou Whitlam for because of him we have Medi bank and try existing in a country without such.
Have a read of the Constitution, please. Sect 68 vests the command of the armed forces in the Governor-General, not the king . The "crown" in "Crown land" refers to the government (the Australian monarchy) not the actual person who happens to be king. If we change the form of governemnt the land will remain safely in the hands of the government.
Came from public housing??!! He grew up in Canberra and his father was the Solicitor General of the Commonwealth. He had many admirable qualities, but 'one of the common folk' he never was.
Australian crown land is public land i.e. belonging to Australia and administered by our governments. If Australia becomes a republic, the land which is Australian crown land/public land will remain as it is. The Australia's commander-in-chief of the ADF is not King Charles. It's the Governor-General. As for Gough Whitlam yes, he did introduce some good policies. He didn't grow up in public housing though.
Great history. Illustrates how we went from one illegitimate monarchy (aka 'divine right of kings') to tyranny of the majority. Both propositions being dogmatic exercises in sceptical resignation. Leave it to democracy and authoritarianism to offer bad options. 1. Your compliance or your life 2. Your compliance or your money
@@Robert-xs2mv you need to leave your house mate. there's many places in the world where you only not have the opportunity to work, but there's forced labour and active wars, systems of oppression and generational inequality, amongst a very long list. If you want to roll the rice again be my guest, but for most right thinking people undermining the absolute privilege it is to be part of Australian society which is the gold standard available anywhere in the world only goes to advertise your ignorance or your inability to make something of yourself.
@Robert-xs2mv I'm not rich or in a gated community. Wealth is more than money to me, and that is why I feel wealthy and happy and not whinging about my life 😊
well... yeah? Being a Commonwealth and a kingdom are not necessarily mutually exclusive - there have historically been other Commonwealths that have been kingdoms (e.g. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).
That would be to imply that we are part of the United Kingdom, which we’re not, and that the significance of the monarch in our constitution is the same as the states within the United Kingdom, which it isn’t. Australia is a sovereign state.
@ No, the King of Australia is embodied in King Charles III, but he is a different king to Charles III, King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He is also the Lord of Mann, a totally different authority. He is the King of many realms, but he is not the King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with regards to Australia and the other realms.
... as is New Zealand. In both cases, it was part of the formal name of the country though in Canada's case at least, we've stopped using the term for exactly the reasons set out in this video.
@memememe981 As a francophone Canadian who's also fluent in English, I don't find the English term any more or less cringe-worthy (downright feudal, in fact) than its French equivalent - spelled the same way since it is, of course, a Latin word ("dominio") in middle French garb, imported into English after 1066. Even "domaine" (the nowadays more commonly used French word that has a broader sense than "dominion") still bears a bit of the pejorative overtone of "domination" by a feudal lord. So: no surprise that French-speakers here never use the word.
So why is Australia registered in America as a Company with an ABN number? I did a search two years ago and found it. I believe the Commonwealth means We the People.
It allows the Australian Commonwealth to do business in the US such as foreign investment. It's just like any other company registering with the SEC to buy shares or invest in US companies. It's also not an ABN as that's an Australian term.
The Commonwealth countries “The Cool Club” should be made stronger for the average person. For example, any member countries should be able to export and import at a reduced tax rate. Also, when travelling overseas, why not make the lines at the airports as a “straight through” style. Just 2 examples of ensuring the Commonwealth remains and other countries want to join. Just a thought.
In the old days, before the UK joined the EU, there were such trade and immigration advantages within the Commonwealth of Nations. Some UK politicians fantasized that when Brexit happened, the Commonwealth of Nations would provide it with a new trading bloc in this way, but the other countries who are members of the Commonwealth of Nations have moved on.
I still remember how the conservative media and the liberal party loudly blamed him for a world wide recession that had nothing to do with Australia's policies. Every single thing the government did was ruthlessly attacked for any reason no matter how stupid. Fake news didn't start in this millennium.
There was no "Whitlam recession". On the contrary, Austalia under Whitlam avoided recession following the Oil Shock, unlike America and the UK. Ian Verender has a great article about it called "Think Whitlam ruined our economy? Think again".
@@mjguerin63 Presumably Australia. That's the subject of the video. (And the title is probably as far as Julie got, if she's prepared to say such a silly thing.)
Whitlam could not abolish the Commonwealth of Australia, even though he was only the CEO of the Australian Government Corporation. It would require a referendum to do any abolishing, and the approval of the Monarch which we do not have.
Whitlam was not the CEO of the 'Australian Government Corporation', as it didn't exist. He was the Prime Minister of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia.
The Commonwealth 'parliament' has been abandoned, the Australian Government is a CORPORATION, spin it how ever you like, one only needs to look around at the decades of systemic corruption, the unlawful judicial practices, unconstitutional local councils, and all the extra new powers given to 'policy officers' , masquerading as "Police constables" and behaving like a private standing army. the Australian Government have only ever raped and pillaged this land, they have stolen the wealth and assets of the people and continue to piss them up the wall and line their own pockets with he inheritance of our future generations!!
A prime example of the effect of corporate self protection is the latest legislation purporting to be for the protection of children under 16 on line. Only the One nation party is questioning this piece of oppression.
Well, a corporation needs to be registered under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Since the Australian government isn't registered under the Act, by definition, it isn't a corporation. You could argue (maybe) that the Government has acted unfairly in some matters, but it's still the Government; not a corporation. If the Government has exceeded its legal powers, you can mount a challenge in the High Court. The Commonwealth government has lost many cases in the High Court; so the system isn't completely rigged in its favour.
@@Mercmad that's odd, I'd read a lot of discussion of the pros n cons of the legislation. Respectfully, only One Nation Cookers would forget to read & pay attention to anything other than Pawleene's drivel.
I think someone's alfoil hat is on to tight 😂 talk about a long, slow game being played by the Man😂 remembering that the ones who started all the bad stuff that you are afraid of died along time ago 😂
There is nothing common about wealth, some have it and some don't. We need a new constitution to establish Australia as an independent republic, Do we need to have a revolution for this to happen, as the king has already told us that it is up to Australians what they do. The British have more than enough problems of their own to be bothered about what Australians choose to do.
get rid of king charlie!!! Aus first, peacefully by legislative consensus- then the others will do the same. Canada, NZ, the Carribean countries. Better for everyone, might even give the brits a taste for regicide (by which I mean demotion to ordinary citizen- calm down MI6)
If you watched the video you'll see the "wealth" in "commonwealth" does not mean what "wealth" means to day, it actually comes from the Middle English "weal", which while relating to the modern "wealth" actually means "in the interest of", so commonwealth means "in the public interest"
I became an Australian Public Servant in 1980. I totally get how the myth evolved. The Commonwealth Government Centre at 295 Ann Street Brisbane had been renamed in the mid 70's to the Australian Government Centre. Our bank notes changed from Commonwealth of Australia to simply Australia. When told as a teen this was due to Whitlam wanting us to be our own country without the word Commonwealth dominating our official terminology it made total sense.
Thanks for this great explainer.👍
You're welcome.
This is as usual both enjoyable and informative - many thanks, Anne. The various uses of the word commonwealth in political usage can be very confusing, as it means at least slightly different things each time - the Commonwealth of 1649-60 in Britain, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Commonwealth of Australia, the Commonwealth of Nations. You may be amused to know (if you don't already) that there is a choral anthem by Peter Aston, setting some words from Pericles' funeral oration over the war dead, that begins 'So they gave their bodies to the commonwealth' and is(/was?) sometimes used on Armistice Day/Remembrance Sunday; originally of course the c-word here meant the Athenian democracy of the 5th century BC, but I think a lot of people here in Britain nowadays must assume it means the Commonwealth of Nations, if they hear it. Presumably in Australia they would interpret it differently ...
Thankyou for your explanation. In the old days misinformation was called gossip and I will never understand how that will ever be controlled. People will believe almost anything if it's kept in the spotlight.
You're going to enrage the sovcits and freemans with this video! They will be frothing at the mouth over this! 🤣😂
I’ve always been pleased that Australia refused the moniker of Dominion that the UK expected its other ex-colonies to adopt.
why don't we have an independence day .. this month.
And what supporting references do you supply to support your claim?
@@jesusislukeskywalker4294 We got our full independence on 3 March, 1986. Unfortunately, Bob Hawke didn't want to make a fuss about it for some weird reason so to this day most Australians are blithely unaware that London has no authority over any part of us. And before you say it, we got our own monarchy in 1953 and could have our own Royal House tomorrow if Parliament passed the enabling legislation.
Surprise surprise, I picked up my copy of the Australian Constitution, printed 2013 and it says “commonwealth” all over!
Yes, indeed. Plenty of 'Commonwealth' references remain, despite all the wails to the contrary.
Thank you for this - I researched the origin of the name 'Commonwealth' ages ago. Great clarification. At 8:23 - "one of the problems of having a foreign Head of State is we have no control over many of the historical records concerning the Head of State and their [sic] relationship with Australia." A solid reason for having our own Australian monarch.
We got our own monarchy in 1953 (see the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953). We could have our own Royal House tomorrow if Parliament passed the enabling legislation. We only got Charles as king because we never passed our own Succession Act.
@TheRealPotoroo It's a little more complex than that. I'll do a video about it soon.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I very much look forward to it! I think the choice of which House is one of the major problems! So much controversy!
Always an interesting commentary and analysis - thanks
You're most welcome.
@constitutionalclarion1901 what does COMMONWEALTH MEAN IN COMMONWEALTH BANK
I reckon you'll find the same people who believe Whitlam abolished the Commonwealth also believe Shakespeare didn't exist and someone else wrote his plays... trust me they're out there... "Believe me, lords, my tender years can tell civil dissension is a viperous worm that gnaws the bowels of the commonwealth" - Henry VI.
Shakespeare was 17th earl of oxford.. Edward de Vere. Paul mccartney died in 1966.
Thank you Prof Twomey, I've only just discovered you and your marvelous work, really got me hooked (and i notice and appreciate the nifty colour co-ordination between those fabulous scarfs and jackets and your subject title colour !)
BUT I have a question, perhaps something for another new topic :
I have the distinct impression that King Charles is less popular in the UK as Head of State than he is here, judging by all the active Republicans in the UK and his recent popularity here (and the fact that PM Albo has recently dropped the proposed republican referendum question ) so I ask you dear Professor Emirata :
1: If King Charles was forced to abdicate the UK Crown, either by a vote of the UK Parliament and / or a referendum and / or (another) republican revolution , what would Australia do ? Would or could he continue being King of Australia ? Could the UK stop him or his heirs and successors from being our Head of State ? Would we need a referendum and what if the republican referendum failed here ?
2: Could King Charles just say, right, I'm sick of being King of all these distant far away lands, I resign from being King of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, New Guinea et al, you lot should all grow up and be republics (but I might remain King of Grenada, as it's nice and tropical ) ? And could he deny his heirs and successors from being Heads of State of these realms ?
3: If either these scenarios did come about , could Australia just pick some notable person to continue to be our monarch? As it could be easier to do than have a successful referendum to become a republic ?
Very keen on your considered answer please professor !
Thanks. Yes, I'm going to do a video on this soon. So keep an eye out for it.
This is absolutely fascinating!
Thanks. I thought so, but others don't necessarily share my interests in such things.
What a bumper year 2025 is evolving into. The Clarionettes are amazed with every winning post.
Glad to amaze and astonish.
Thanks for clearing that up, as I've heard a few make those claims about Whitlam.
The case for the truth is so compelling and so well put yet there conspiracy theory is so attractive in it's simplicity. Sad we spread objectively false thoughts. Thanks for trying to help correct it.
I know it won't convince those who are wedded to their conspiracy needs, but it at least provides some explanation to those who are wondering whether it is true.
Thank you for a delightful and informative report!
You are most welcome.
Thank you for such an informative & interesting video. I love all your presentations.
Thanks. Glad you find them useful.
As we come up to the fiftieth anniversary of The Dismissal, it does become much clearer just how constitutionally *exciting* the Whitlam era was, in contrast to today. Not even counting loonier theories like this or the Dismissal itself, but just new and interesting developments every month, from stylistic things to material changes, from a Joint Sitting to the Petroleum and Minerals Authority debacle.
Makes you realise why everyone went crazy over s44 a few years back, we all were hungry for some Constitutional Drama!
Constitutionally exciting isn't the half of it! :) If you were a woman back then your life changed immeasurably: with no fault (no fee!) divorce, increased pensions and single mothers' benefits; Medibank; an Office for the status of women! Or if you were simply the mother of a conscription-aged son 🥲. I watched my mother and grandmother literally blossom with Whitlam reforms. He was the 'post-war Socialism' we'd beem waiting for.😻
The conspirators are probably the same people who get upset about the shops selling hot cross buns before Easter .LOL!
Thanks for another interesting video Professor Twomey.
They should sell hot cross for the whole 12 months of the year
Years after the dismissal, I ran into Gough Whitlam at a function. I very politely asked him why the words COMMONWEALTH OF were removed from banknotes. He said it was because people were confusing us with the British Commonwealth.
yes...im sure they would have been
I ran into him at the ballet, by stepping on his toe on our way to the bar during the intermission. He wasn’t impressed.
@@seanlander9321 ✅✅✅
It is a bit amusing how may conspiracies can be dispelled by just reading.
Yes, and these days the primary material is really easy to find. That's the funny thing about the internet - it allows misinformation to spread like a bushfire, but it also democratises access to primary information, allowing misinformation to be disproved if people bothered to check.
Read mien Kampf
@constitutionalclarion1901 It really is surprising that people seem to wait for someone else to read it for them and provide a summary like with the misinformation bill it was very ironic how much misinformation was generated about that.
I was against the bill but it really showed why the bill existed in the first place and was disappointing to see.
@@Burgo361 Yep. The bill was far from perfect but with the rise of the tech oligopoly, we probably need some protections to stop people losing their minds.
I agree. I was not keen on the bill at all - some of it was quite bad. But other parts were useful (eg requiring action against bots and greater transparency from social media organisations). And yes, there was a lot of misinformation about it.
I reckon watching this channel should qualify for CLE points.
I agree.
would like to see a live debate with constitution clarion and Rodney Culleton and Wayne Glew .
I've publicly debated both over the last decade, so comprehensively and citing so much material that Wayne thinks I'm a team of lawyers and Rod has blocked every single Sudy profile on Facebook.
“Never play chess with a pigeon.
The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over.
Then shits all over the board.
Then struts around like it won.”
While would she lower herself? Much like Brian Cox debating a flat earther. Why would he even bother.
@@mjguerin63 It's a mistake for experts to always ignore the cookers. It gives them too much free reign to propagate their nonsense. It's useful that from time to time the public gets to see them sitting in the same room with the loonies and saying without equivocation, "You're talking nonsense and here's why" (Google the video of Cox schooling Malcolm Roberts regarding climate change on Q&A for an example). When it never happens the public is left with the equivalent of both sides saying go and do your own research, where the public doesn't have the education in the discipline needed to determine whether what they're seeing is bunk or is simply too advanced for them to understand.
@@mjguerin63 You probably think they've also landed on the moon, when NASA is Hebrew "to deceived" the moon's is made out of gases (known since the 50s) making it hard to land on, don't forget there's that picture of Nixon speaking to the astronauts on a landline some 300,000 kms away way before satellite phones. You can ask any PILOT about our FLAT EARTH.
Commonwealth = Common prosperity
I’ve just found this / your channel ! Thank you for clear education.
You are very welcome. I have a big back catalogue, so there's plenty to watch.
Well thank goodness for clearing that up!
You're most welcome.
What an animated presentation!
I simply swoon at Prof. Twomey's articulation of 'uneuphonious'
No doubt she had practised saying "red leather, yellow leather" twelve times beforehand,
followed by "the sixth sick sheik's sixth sheep's sick".
No, I didn't practice that way, but it would have been a good idea. Maybe I'll try it next time.
I've always been assumed we moved Dominion to a Commonwealth on passing the Statute of Westminster Adoption in 1942. But that I think is a whole story on its own.
Yes, that's a little different. It's true that Australia was classified as a 'Dominion' at the point when being called a 'colony' became a bit embarrassing. The self-governing colonies of the United Kingdom were called Dominions in this sense from the early 1900s, and the term is used in the Statute of Westminster.
It was later replaced by the term Realm.
My enduring memory of Whitlam were the broadcasts of his sacking by John Kerr and mentions on the radio. My father told me at the time he was spending money like there was no tomorrow and the national debt was blowing out, so the opposition got a court order to block supply. In any case he was clearly very well liked and respected by many right up till his passing.
The opposition couldn't formally block supply as that would have made them to blame for a double dissolution. So they got opposition senators to refuse to consider a supply bill which therefore didn't pass. The GG dismissed the Whitlam government and appointed an interim Fraser team until an election (which Whitlam lost).
They were clever but only once as that loophole is old news now.
You must be very Young. Whitlam was a self aggrandizing fool who was the protoWEF puppet. Not only was he despised by the average Australian of the day,the election of Fraser proved that feeling. It is only the media who keep the myth of Whitlams memory alive.
Sounds like your father didn't know what "blocking supply" meant. There was no court order.
@@Mercmad As I remember those times, it was John Kerr who most of the contempt was directed at. As for Whitlam, initially a lot of people were impressed by him - and not just the media. But he definitely proved to be a bad manager of money - and hopeless at managing his cabinet ministers. As for Fraser, he wasn't particularly liked by voters, but he and his party were seen as a safer bet re managing Australia's economy.
By the 13th minute of this video, i received 5 separate ad interruptions. I don't mind listening to the odd ad, but so many is unacceptable to me.
Oh dear, that's terrible. I'm afraid I don't control how many ads there are, but there really shouldn't be so many!
Malwarebytes fixes the ads
I'll throw in that Commonwealth seems to have emerged in the 15th century asa kind of loose translation of the Latin Term "Res Publica" the "Public things", a term the Romans came up with when they kicked out their kings but kept during the rule of Emperors. It's a kind of an attempt to come up with a word for a State that exists in its own right rather than merely the property of a monarch. But it's theoretically possible to have a State, a "Res Publica". without being what we know call a Republic. The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth both had a King (an elected one !!) and called itself a Republic. That becomes kind of contradictory in English so we call it a Commonwealth. So it is a kind of 'neutral' word on whether there's a monarch or not.
gorgeous colours
Thanks!
Lisbon Agreement. Royal Styles & Titles Act. The Australia Act. No Referendums. But I digress...
Putting the cart before the horse? You would first need to establish a referendum was required for the Lisbon Agreement, the Royal Styles & Titles Act, and the Australia Act. Neither contained any alteration to the Constitution to invoke the use of section 128.
Surely a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
I prefer Commonwealth of Australia to Republic of Australia. Lets keep it that way.
Nobody (including staunch republic supporters like me) has ever suggested changing the name of our country from Commonwealth of Australia to 'Republic of Australia'.
I don't.
@@mindi2050hear hear!
Agreed. Republic is an ugly term.
The “Republican” bit is unsaid. See South Africa.
OED reference, love it.
I was under the impression he changed the currency to remove the commonwealth of and just have Australia. You seemed to confirmed that (I think)
So why then did we never have "Commonwealth of Australia" on both coins and stamps ?
@@homohoglet2915 We had Commonwealth of Australia on bank notes because there is plenty of room on them. By contrast coins and stamps are very small, so there is a limit on how much can be written on them.
Yay for John Quick and Robert Garran
Thank you for your knowledge and wisdom. I used the word "commonwealth" in a letter to a paper today. Well do I remember in Whitlam's Day the fact that "Commonwealth" remained on the statute books because, we assumed at the time, the word could not be removed without a referendum- perhaps not even then. Without a streak of republicanism within me, I think it's a good word for a constitutional monarchy. Kamala Harris of course brackets monarchy with tyranny, but her ignorance and flummery are beside the point.
We do not have a foreign head of state. We have a Governor-General who is, if the expression must be used, our head of state. But calling the King "foreign" is absurd.
Kamala Harris was making a point specific to her own country's history with the monarchy of old when she equated monarchy with tyranny. There's no way she'd view modern European constitutional monarchs as tyrannical.
As for our governor-general being our official Head of State, she isn't. She's vice regal to a man with lots of fancy medieval titles who lives on the other side of the planet. I like King Charles and wish him all the best, but he doesn't represent Australia - and I doubt even he thinks he does. For people who like the historical links to Britain (including me), there is still the Commonwealth of Nations.
@@mindi2050 Yes, Kamala is definitely as silly as I thought she was. But I didn't intend to start an argument about our monarchy.
Actually we have two 'Heads of State", a de jure one, living in the UK and selected under the terms of the British Act of Succession and a de facto one living at Yarralumla. That was the primary problem with the dismissal in 1975. The de facto one who decided on the dismissal was terrified that the de jure one would dismiss him if so advised by the PM so kept his PM in the dark and the de jure one, who would have openly counselled her PM was unable to do so because she was kept at arms length by the de facto one. This was the only time the silly system we have inherited was put to a serious test and it failed dismally because of the inherent weakness in having two people doing the same job. Time we grew up and decided on our own head of State and had only one person to do the job.
@@alanramsey2761 I'm told by constitutional experts that the Queen had no power or right to advise our PM and her only possible function in the affair would have been to dismiss Kerr if so advised by Whitlam. She may well have delayed because of due process by a day or two- or longer, giving Kerr plenty of time to act. There is only one person "doing the job", and that is the GG. Whether or nor Kerr did the right thing- books have been written about it- the system didn't fail. What could have been disastrous would have been a Yes vote for a Turnbull republican model where the PM and President each had the right to dismiss the other without notice.
@@davidmorrison2739 Who are these "Constitutional experts' who say that the reigning monarch has no power to advise the Australian PM if asked or consulted? Think about it, if Whitlam knew what Kerr was thinking he would have acted differently or at least with full knowledge of his position. If Kerr had been an honourable man and not petrified that he would be sacked, he would have disclosed his mind to Whitlam as he was really obliged to do but didn't. Whitlam himself believed that the Queen herself would not have been so deceitful. The problem was the three way distribution of knowledge and power instead of it being between two people as it would have been for a UK PM. It was (and is) a weakness in the system.
I was under the impression that the term Commonwealth was used because there was a fear that powerful states like New South Wales and Victoria who at the time had different economic practices would lose all power as states when combined with less powerful states when creating a new single entity so therefore adding the word Commonwealth inferred that the states were combining for a common good as one nation without diminishing states rights as a compromise as well as creating a senate to represent states rights or it was feared they would drop out and go it alone. That was why Western Australia held out signing to see what happened with the other states after federation.
Just on the point of ‘Commonwealth’ and republicanism. I find it interesting that the English language adopted Commonwealth also in reference to Poland-Lithuania in the 18th Century. French chose to refer to it as a ‘Republic’ (République des Deux Nations) even though the Polish retained a King.
Perhaps Commonwealth was an accurate term to convey the ‘Golden Liberty’ of the Polish (or at least the magnates) at this time.
Did Queen Victoria ever specify what was to be done with her diaries or journals (her private papers in general)?
Apparently 'Queen Victoria requested that her daughter, Princess Beatrice, edit her diaries after her death. Beatrice abridged the diaries and destroyed the originals'. www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/victoria.pdf
Queen Victoria published some excerpts from her journals during her lifetime, in her books on her life in the Scottish Highlands. Princess Beatrice was her literary executor, so she had the power to act as she did. Apparently King George V objected to the destruction of the originals, but to no avail.
You can get a bit of an idea about what Princess Beatrice excluded by comparing the Princess Beatrice version with the copies of the early volumes made by Lord Esher. For example, in the Lord Esher copy, Queen Victoria said, after saluting her officers at a military review that 'I felt for the first time like a man, as if I could fight myself at the head of my troops'. This was expunged from the Princess Beatrice version, sadly. I quite liked that statement, because it showed something of her personality.
What were the objections to the United States of Australia ?
I think there would have been a bit of a problem regarding abbreviation, as USA was already taken.
@@shellyaus People get confused between Australia and Austria. Imagine the USA and the USA.
Please don't encourage the masses like the usa we seem to be getting duller
I searched, but couldn't find the answer to "Which territories that are not OF the Commonwealth are administered BY the Commonwealth?" Is the answer in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973?
I’m not an expert on the history of territories under trusteeship, but I think it was New Guinea and Nauru.
Not sure what you mean by 'of the Commonwealth" buy try Christmas Island, possibly Norfolk Island and Macquarie island as well as the Aust Antarctic territory. There are probably others as well.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Yes. For the benefit of others, the Territory of Papua and the Territory of New Guinea were each different and distinct despite being administered as one by Australia since the end of WW2. Papua was OF the Commonwealth and its people were Australian citizens. New Guinea (being formerly a German colony) was a territorty mereley administerd BY the Commonwealth under the terms of a UN Trusteeship Agreement.
Thanks @uasj2 for that very clear reply.
'Commonwealth' is a great term as there is much we must do together on a large mainly dry continent - more than other nations must do collectively to build individual wealth on the back of collective/common effort.
The constitution allocates various responsibilities to the Commonwealth, and is silent on others like roads. The states have residual powers, but surely the Commonwealth can reach into the silent space??
When, in 1946, the Labor led NSW led the other states in agreeing to a permanent transfer of income tax to the Commonwealth led by a Labor government, no extra responsibility was taken on by the Commonwealth. The transfer was in part about paying Commonwealth war debt. It led to vertical fiscal imbalance. The Commonwealth now gets 80% of all taxes, but that 80% no longer stand behind debt funded infrastructure investment by the states - the most effective form of 'common' investment.
The private sector regards community (common) infrastructure a great investment as the private sector is willing to lend money (buy state and federal bonds) at a lower effective interest rate than it demands from companies and people (bank interest rates).
Our housing affordability problems relate to insufficient (and poorly conceived) access services and their supporting infrastructure. A UK study showed private toll roads needs tolls 2.6 times higher than public toll roads due to the higher price for private capital and debt. Building stuff in common is far cheaper but business leaders and many Libs and Nats hate it.
The constitution gives power to the Commonwealth for navigation and communication (post, telegraph, internet) but makes no mention of roads. Surely, the Commonwealth could take land of its choice and build roads under the navigation power??
Railways get a few constitutional mentions including the Commonwealth can buy railways from the states.
The totality of the railway powers surely permit the ARTC to operate without state agreement, although the states agree.
The HSRA legislated in the current parliament is surely well within Commonwealth power. But does the Commonwealth have constitutional power to take state land and build railways if the state does not agree???
Does Maglev fit the constitutional definition of motorways??
Access (transport) serves our land use. The Commonwealth does no land use planning in the states beyond that for its own use. All the access efforts of the Commonwealth (navigation, communication, railways) must be subservient to land use plans.
What we really need is joint Commonwealth and State/territory land use and supporting access services/infrastructure??
Does the Commonwealth have sufficient constitutional authority to force the states into joint planning for the common wealth of us all???
Broadly speaking, the Commonwealth can expand its effective authority over the states in two ways. First, under S51(xxix), the external affairs power, any treaty it signs and ratifies becomes Australian law and can override state law, per S109. Second, S96 gives it the power to grant money to the states on any terms it sees fit, and of course since WWII it's been the main tax collector in the nation. They both give Canberra enormous power and leverage over the states that might well disturb the Founding Fathers.
Adding to the comment of @TheRealPotoroo, the expansive interpretation of the corporations power in s 51(xx) also gives the Commonwealth great power, as corporations fulfil most functions in Australia these days.
But road building and land management mostly occur through cooperative schemes that involve grants under s 96 of the Constitution.
Thanks.
I didn't even know that there was a conspiracy that the constitution had been abolished 😂
But, if the UK Parliament decided (in the overwhelming sanity) to repeal the Constitution Act, would that cause a minor Constitutional panic here? I know that in practicality, nothing would change, but I imaging a great number of scholars would have a lot of work
Since the enactment of the Australia Acts 1986, it would make not one iota of difference if the UK Parliament repealed the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, because that repeal would have no effect upon the operation of that law as part of Australian law.
@@constitutionalclarion1901
ein Beitrag an Donnerstag, dem 16. Januar 2025 (Central European Time)
(a winter semester in the Northern hemisphere)
(a summer semester in the Southern hemisphere)
In the Federal Republic Germany (= FRG), where I reside, the Neanderthal is located in the FRG, too,
circa 10 kilometers, east of the State Capital of Düsseldorf (the State of Northern Rhine-Wesphalia, NW),
in a very western part of the FRG. Düsseldorf is a part of the Rhineland.
Have you ever been outside the Commonwealth of Australia?
I speak New High German, British English and Castilian (the Kingdom of Spain, in South Western Europe)
As the Treaty of Waitanga, was debated, in the Parliament of New Zealand (Oceania), in the year 2024,
a female Maori MP, performed the, militaristic, Haka dance, inside New Zealands, parliament chamber!
Have the orgininal tribes of Oceania, something as a Pow Wow, which the US American Indians have?
I have seen a didgeridoo, in real, in the united Berlin, FRG´s federal capital.
Eskimos still build iglus. In Canada, members of the orgininal tribes of the Americas,
which reside in Canada, are called First Nations.
Compare this to the term Aborignees in the Commonwealth of Australia.
The terms First Nations, resp. Aborigenees, are somehow pseudo terms, when it comes to describe,
biological decendencies, haplo groups, tribes, ethnicities, races, mother tounge speakers groups etc ....
The term "human races" is used in so many different ways, the its use confuses me more than it helps!
The Hula dance, from the State of Hawaii, (the United States of America; Oceania) is more fun, than the Haka dance!
towards y´all: Have a happy Australia Day (26th of January), and a happy Waitinga Day (6th of February)!
What ever you celebrate, ... or not celebrate!
@constitutionalclarion1901 As someone who likes stability - excellent.
As someone who also likes administrative drama - damn. That could have been fun to watch unfold.
To follow up, any chance of a detailed video on the Australia Acts?
Yes, one day. I wrote a whole book about them, so hard to break down into watchable chunks.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 oh wow, hold my phone while I go spend some money. Thank you!
It is interesting to see that the origins of term "Commonwealth" are somewhat republican in tinge, though this is of course not surprising when you consider previous usages of the term such as the Commonwealth of England or the states in the U.S which use the term. I say this because today the term "Commonwealth", at least to the lay person tinges somewhat more monarchical, perhaps mostly because of the (unrelated) usage of the term in the Commonwealth of Nations.
Personally I see the term as neither Republican or Monarchical, the term first and foremost expresses the idea of Popular Sovereignty, which of course extends to include the principle of the Consent of the Governed. This is in no way at odds with the principles of Constitutional Monarchy, in fact it is on the contrary. A core principle of Constitutional Monarchy is that the King only reigns because people consent to his continued reign, if we were to change our minds, then we have the full right and ability to change our constitutional arrangements via a referendum, either to establish a republic or to force the present monarch to abdicate.
As a constitutional monarchist, I am fully in favour of the usage of the term "Commonwealth". Not only because of it's immensely important historical significance which is of great importance to me, but also because it serves to emphasise the separation of powers between the Commonwealth and the States in Australia which I think is very important.
I also think that it is very unfortunate that Whitlam tried to undermine this distinction, and I want to thank you for teaching everyone about it, because I didn't know about it until you brought it up in your last video, and I think it is very important for everyone to know about, so thanks a lot!
You're welcome. Yes, it is an interesting case of the word 'Commonwealth', despite its republican associations, being co-opted as the term for the remnants of the British Empire. But I suppose it was appropriate, as the majority of members of the Commonwealth of Nations are republics. Commonwealth can happily accommodate both constitutional monarchies and republics.
@@constitutionalclarion1901
The choice of "commonwealth" for the remnants of the Empire surely just aims to evoke the same idea of "the common good" (of the constituent states) as Australia's adoption of it (or the CIS's). No hint at republicanism or reflection of the republican character of any of its members.
All conspiracy is about the individual benefit of those spinning the insubstantial rumors they are built upon.
I didn't know weal and (un)euphonious were words until I saw this! Why not simply call it "Australia"?
Maybe they wanted to distinguish between the continent 'Australia' and the name of the polity. Most countries usually have some kind of description of the type of government in their name, albeit sometimes misleading - eg 'Democratic Republic of...', 'United Kingdom of', 'Republic of', etc.
This is a bit of a strawman argument. She freely admits that Gough downplayed the term "Commonwealth" which was his style through and through.
Yes? But that's not what is being argued about. It's the idea and conspiracy that Whitlam secretly removed all the mentions of commonwealth in law, which the lovely professor clearly dismissed.
No-one can abolish something that needs a Constitutional amendment to change. Whitlam's 'attitude' to the term Commonwealth is irrelevant on that point.
I am sure you must mean "Commondebt" with today's governments.
My question is about the jnclusion of s44 in the Constitution and the High Court cases it has generated. Is it a necessary or redundant section. Is a Referendum the only way to change it. Is this a possibility or highly unlikely. Great if you can do a video on this section and its implications.
Absolutely required.
Have you watched Anne's most recent video on Section 44? th-cam.com/video/dA4AtPmyEUc/w-d-xo.html It absolutely is live and necessary. And yes, it can only be changed by a referendum.
@b3108 how come we have an Italian prime minister. . does the mafia still run new south wales ?
Thank goodness we didn't end up with an 'uneuphonious' name for Australia! 😃
New word for me lol
I never understood Labor's opposition to "Commonwealth"? Our banknotes did change .... strange thing ... like Labour (UK) vs Labor (Aus) where did the u go and why?
Labor was never called Labour here
They couldn't spell.
@Mercmad The Australian Labor Party (ALP) uses the spelling "Labor" instead of the traditional British English spelling "Labour" due to the influence of early 20th-century American spelling reform.
When the party was officially established in the 1890s, the founders sought to align themselves with progressive ideals, including those of the broader labor movement. At the time, the American labor movement, which used the simplified spelling "labor," was highly influential. The simplified spelling was seen as modern, practical, and reflective of the party's forward-looking agenda.
One prominent figure in this decision was King O'Malley, a founding member of the ALP and an American-born politician, who advocated for the simplified spelling. This choice distinguished the party from British Labour traditions, emphasizing its uniquely Australian identity.
Despite Australia's general use of British English, the party has retained this spelling as part of its historical identity. Other organizations and entities in Australia, however, continue to use "labour" in non-political contexts.
@rossyeaah it was called Labour here they changed it in 1912 to sit better with the American Spelling, which at the time caused a stir in their party and a lot of Australian voters.
@LORDOFJOY1818 Nope
According to Ross McMullin, who wrote an official history of the Labor Party, the title page of the proceedings of the Federal Conference used the spelling "Labor in 1902, "Labour" in 1905 and 1908, and then "Labor" from 1912 onwards.[12] In 1908, James Catts put forward a motion at the Federal Conference that "the name of the party be the Australian Labour Party", which was carried by 22 votes to 2. A separate motion recommending state branches adopt the name was defeated. There was no uniformity of party names until 1918 when the Federal party resolved that state branches should adopt the name "Australian Labor Party", now spelt without a u. Each state branch had previously used a different name, due to their different origins.[13
Whitlam was anti-British. The word ‘Commonwealth’ galled on him by its association through its association with the British Commonwealth or the Commonwealth of Nations which I believe he was contemptuous of. Removing the words ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ from the banknotes of the time as his little vanity project designed to show for all time that, if he couldn’t get rid of the queen, at least he could get rid of the Commonwealth. At least, from the paper money. I lived through these chaotic years as a working adult and remember Whitlam as an untalented politician albeit with an ego the size of the planet.
More likely, pro Australian. And did a fair job, cutting the apron strings.
I don't think Gough was anti-British at all. He certainly didn't like what he referred to as 'old British colonial relics' though. But then, neither do some British.
It's true that Whitlam found Britain's privy council really abhorrent and believed: 'No people with an ounce of self-respect would allow decisions made by their own judges … to be overruled by judges sitting in another country."
Labor~ brisbane Lord Mayor also chose to stop doing old~british Lord things ,, mostly in summer,, as lords of old chains , 1 ~i
@ Good.
Even if you were entirely true about his motivation (you aren't), you didnt learn anything from the video because you are falsely describing what he did as getting "rid of the Commonwealth". All hereally did was a minor rebranding exercise that reformed and modernised some of the language we use to describe Australia.
Thank you for the comprehensive evaluation of the Statute Law Revision Act.
Given the power of the specific wording within clause 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act UK 1900 does section 1 prescribe that the only enacting power is via "the Parliament" and the "Parliament of the Commonwealth" and yet the other creation of the Whitlam government was a term used since being, "the Parliament of Australia". As such does the Parliament of Australia have a legislative power?
There also seems to be another anomaly via section 42 and the schedule as the obligation in the Constitution demands a strict adherence and yet the Parliamentarians seem to be taking an oath not prescribed by the Constitution which is to the Queen of Australia. According to "Bill Number 2" of the Constitution Commission Reports 1988, the government were seeking a question be put to the people at referendum to modify the Constitution allowing members of Parliament to take an oath to the Queen of Australia via the Constitution Alteration(Oaths and Affirmations of Allegiance) Act 1988 via omitting the words "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and substituting "of Australia". From this report it would seem there is no power to use the words as afore mentioned.
Members of Parliament are still sworn in using exactly the same words, set out in the schedule to the Constitution. You can see a video of it happening in the Senate here: th-cam.com/video/rC7hvn1DuHM/w-d-xo.html.
Whether the Whitlam Government chose to describe the Parliament as the Parliament of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth Parliament or the Parliament of Australia, that description did not affect its existence or its powers. There was no separate creation of a Parliament by the Whitlam Government.
Perhaps food for future videos, 'we are a public company, listed on the New York Stock Exchange' and 'Queensland is a Private Company, owned by the Brigalow Corporation'? 🙂
Except that we're not a "public company" anywhere. From the Wiki page on this very topic, "The Commonwealth of Australia is a Form 18 United States SEC registered entity[1] representing the nation of Australia for the purpose of issuing securities in the US market. Form 18 registrations are used only for foreign government registrations with the SEC and do not create a corporation." It's purely a convenience for the purpose of financial law in the States and has nothing to do with our sovereignty.
That is already addressed in a separate video.
Yes, I will do one specifically on this one day, when I have the fortitude to deal with all the abusive comments.
@@constitutionalclarion1901it does seem that more looneys are frequenting your comments section now that the channel has grown. 😂
You are not wrong there.@@virginiacharlotte7007
Many factors. While under a Monarchy it means we are spared the chance of coming under a dictators control for the King is the commander of all our military and law enforcement . To remove the Monarchy would mean all crown lands would become native title . All ranks in military ,police and all government department would no longer have crown titles. Whitlam was a fantastic man who came from public housing and wanted nothing but the best he could for this country but was not always correct and our politics were tampered with by CIA . Great thankyou Whitlam for because of him we have Medi bank and try existing in a country without such.
Have a read of the Constitution, please. Sect 68 vests the command of the armed forces in the Governor-General, not the king . The "crown" in "Crown land" refers to the government (the Australian monarchy) not the actual person who happens to be king. If we change the form of governemnt the land will remain safely in the hands of the government.
@@uasj2 Good to know.
Came from public housing??!! He grew up in Canberra and his father was the Solicitor General of the Commonwealth. He had many admirable qualities, but 'one of the common folk' he never was.
Australian crown land is public land i.e. belonging to Australia and administered by our governments. If Australia becomes a republic, the land which is Australian crown land/public land will remain as it is.
The Australia's commander-in-chief of the ADF is not King Charles. It's the Governor-General.
As for Gough Whitlam yes, he did introduce some good policies. He didn't grow up in public housing though.
Great history. Illustrates how we went from one illegitimate monarchy (aka 'divine right of kings') to tyranny of the majority. Both propositions being dogmatic exercises in sceptical resignation. Leave it to democracy and authoritarianism to offer bad options.
1. Your compliance or your life
2. Your compliance or your money
The commonwealth where wealth is anything but common!
So edgy...
I don't know about that?. It's pretty common around here, I don't know anyone not out of work. Everyone I know is happy.
@ I gather you reside on a gated community. Literally and figuratively!
And just being In work does not make one wealthy.
@@Robert-xs2mv you need to leave your house mate. there's many places in the world where you only not have the opportunity to work, but there's forced labour and active wars, systems of oppression and generational inequality, amongst a very long list. If you want to roll the rice again be my guest, but for most right thinking people undermining the absolute privilege it is to be part of Australian society which is the gold standard available anywhere in the world only goes to advertise your ignorance or your inability to make something of yourself.
@Robert-xs2mv I'm not rich or in a gated community. Wealth is more than money to me, and that is why I feel wealthy and happy and not whinging about my life 😊
Call it what you want, but Australia is a kingdom, as are Canada and New Zealand.
No, it's a Crowned Republic.
well... yeah? Being a Commonwealth and a kingdom are not necessarily mutually exclusive - there have historically been other Commonwealths that have been kingdoms (e.g. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).
That would be to imply that we are part of the United Kingdom, which we’re not, and that the significance of the monarch in our constitution is the same as the states within the United Kingdom, which it isn’t. Australia is a sovereign state.
@ No, the King of Australia is embodied in King Charles III, but he is a different king to Charles III, King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He is also the Lord of Mann, a totally different authority. He is the King of many realms, but he is not the King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with regards to Australia and the other realms.
@@paulsummers7462There are no states in the UK. Where did you get that idea.
lol.... canada is a dominion
... as is New Zealand. In both cases, it was part of the formal name of the country though in Canada's case at least, we've stopped using the term for exactly the reasons set out in this video.
@@PeloquinDavid And that Dominion does not translate well into French the other official language of Canada.
@memememe981 As a francophone Canadian who's also fluent in English, I don't find the English term any more or less cringe-worthy (downright feudal, in fact) than its French equivalent - spelled the same way since it is, of course, a Latin word ("dominio") in middle French garb, imported into English after 1066.
Even "domaine" (the nowadays more commonly used French word that has a broader sense than "dominion") still bears a bit of the pejorative overtone of "domination" by a feudal lord.
So: no surprise that French-speakers here never use the word.
Both Canada and New Zealand rarely use their official names, bit like a divorcée who won’t let go of the name of a prestigious ex-spouse.
So why is Australia registered in America as a Company with an ABN number? I did a search two years ago and found it.
I believe the Commonwealth means We the People.
Australia is not registered in America as a company. Read the document. It is registered as a 'foreign government', which is what it is.
Oh dear Oh dear Oh dear. Mate take a Bex and have a lie down.
America doesn't even have ABNs so you're wrong on all counts here
It allows the Australian Commonwealth to do business in the US such as foreign investment. It's just like any other company registering with the SEC to buy shares or invest in US companies. It's also not an ABN as that's an Australian term.
Oh for goodness sake, grow up.
The Commonwealth countries “The Cool Club” should be made stronger for the average person. For example, any member countries should be able to export and import at a reduced tax rate. Also, when travelling overseas, why not make the lines at the airports as a “straight through” style. Just 2 examples of ensuring the Commonwealth remains and other countries want to join. Just a thought.
that has nothing to do with the subject of this video
In the old days, before the UK joined the EU, there were such trade and immigration advantages within the Commonwealth of Nations. Some UK politicians fantasized that when Brexit happened, the Commonwealth of Nations would provide it with a new trading bloc in this way, but the other countries who are members of the Commonwealth of Nations have moved on.
The indigenous Australians had more to do with commonwealth than the English colonizers 😂
Anglo saxon conquers
@@DerNevar-l7s
Are you trying to correct "English" to "Anglo-Saxon"? Why?
First Nations- many with no connection to one another at all?
50000 years of war didn’t make any common wealth at all.
It is more a 1%-er wealth now! There is nothing common about wealth distribution this country! (I am aware of what the real meaning is)
Whitlam recession man
I still remember how the conservative media and the liberal party loudly blamed him for a world wide recession that had nothing to do with Australia's policies. Every single thing the government did was ruthlessly attacked for any reason no matter how stupid. Fake news didn't start in this millennium.
There was no "Whitlam recession". On the contrary, Austalia under Whitlam avoided recession following the Oil Shock, unlike America and the UK. Ian Verender has a great article about it called "Think Whitlam ruined our economy? Think again".
It's a business with an ABN.
No, it's not. It's a polity.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 A what? I'll have to look that up.
What is?
@@mjguerin63
Presumably Australia. That's the subject of the video. (And the title is probably as far as Julie got, if she's prepared to say such a silly thing.)
Whitlam could not abolish the Commonwealth of Australia, even though he was only the CEO of the Australian Government Corporation.
It would require a referendum to do any abolishing, and the approval of the Monarch which we do not have.
Whitlam was not the CEO of the 'Australian Government Corporation', as it didn't exist. He was the Prime Minister of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia.
The Commonwealth 'parliament' has been abandoned, the Australian Government is a CORPORATION, spin it how ever you like, one only needs to look around at the decades of systemic corruption, the unlawful judicial practices, unconstitutional local councils, and all the extra new powers given to 'policy officers' , masquerading as "Police constables" and behaving like a private standing army. the Australian Government have only ever raped and pillaged this land, they have stolen the wealth and assets of the people and continue to piss them up the wall and line their own pockets with he inheritance of our future generations!!
A prime example of the effect of corporate self protection is the latest legislation purporting to be for the protection of children under 16 on line. Only the One nation party is questioning this piece of oppression.
Well, a corporation needs to be registered under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Since the Australian government isn't registered under the Act, by definition, it isn't a corporation. You could argue (maybe) that the Government has acted unfairly in some matters, but it's still the Government; not a corporation. If the Government has exceeded its legal powers, you can mount a challenge in the High Court. The Commonwealth government has lost many cases in the High Court; so the system isn't completely rigged in its favour.
@@Mercmad that's odd, I'd read a lot of discussion of the pros n cons of the legislation. Respectfully, only One Nation Cookers would forget to read & pay attention to anything other than Pawleene's drivel.
I think someone's alfoil hat is on to tight 😂 talk about a long, slow game being played by the Man😂 remembering that the ones who started all the bad stuff that you are afraid of died along time ago 😂
@@shanebluett5560shhh you said the quiet bit out loud, piece by piece
There is nothing common about wealth, some have it and some don't. We need a new constitution to establish Australia as an independent republic, Do we need to have a revolution for this to happen, as the king has already told us that it is up to Australians what they do. The British have more than enough problems of their own to be bothered about what Australians choose to do.
get rid of king charlie!!! Aus first, peacefully by legislative consensus- then the others will do the same. Canada, NZ, the Carribean countries. Better for everyone, might even give the brits a taste for regicide (by which I mean demotion to ordinary citizen- calm down MI6)
The problem with that is that we lose "common law" in the process.
If you watched the video you'll see the "wealth" in "commonwealth" does not mean what "wealth" means to day, it actually comes from the Middle English "weal", which while relating to the modern "wealth" actually means "in the interest of", so commonwealth means "in the public interest"
A complete waste of money, to achieve nothing
@@dafyddllewellyn6636 US kept it
Australia originally set up as a Constitutional Monarchy but was changed to Limited Liability company registered in the New York stock exchange.
By magic?
Prove it.
@@mjguerin63rum rebellion 26 January
@@mjguerin63 Prove it either way yourself by accessing Dunn and Bradstreet's website. It's up to you now.
@@Mercmadyou speak cooker nonsense lol