3 ms·
> It is because of The King that, for example, Australians are not allowed to investigate their military - a privilege only deigned to be granted by the Soverei
by jemmyw 3y ago
> It is because of The King that, for example, Australians are not allowed to investigate their military - a privilege only deigned to be granted by the Sovereign at his whim, and thus rarely if ever actually given.
That is blatantly untrue. It's not because of the monarch themself - the position has little power over that kind of thing. The Aussie govt will be "advising" the crown on what decision to make (i.e. telling), and they could investigate if they wished to, and/or change the law in a heartbeat to allow it.
I'm no royalist, I think it should be abolished. However, it is squarely at the whim of the British and Australian governments when they use this kind of legislation to hide responsibility.
- boffinAudio 3y agoThe Australian government can 'advise' the sovereign all they want - but the sovereign still has the right to ignore that advice. And, it frequently does ignore that advise - see for example the cases of Witnesses J, K, L, M .. whose trials in a Secret Star Court received no civilian oversight on the basis of the national security regime .. Convention and legality are two entirely different things. Australians cannot call for an investigation into their own military - they can only ask that Parliament advise the sovereign to allow it. > Australian governments when they use this kind of legislation to hide responsibility. .. use the 'cover' of the Sovereign to do so.