Hi! Welcome to Auspol Explained. This is an educational youtube channel that focuses on explaining everything to do with Australian politics. From how voting works to the role of Governor-General, to what Prime Ministers do after they retire. I'll cover it all and more. Have you got a question you want to learn? Comment on one of my videos and I'll answer it!
My aim is to make an accessible educational resource for everyone. This isn't about arguing to vote for a specific political party it's about how the political system as a whole works.
Occasionally, they get given a diamond broach or something, which they seem to appreciate. NZ gave The Queen a silver fern broach, Canada gave a maple leaf one, and, we gave a wattle broach to wear when they visit. First Royal to visit was Prince Alfred, who got shot in the back on Clontarf beach. He survived and the public raised money to build RPA Hospital to celebrate. Politicians and Judges get full wage indexed pensions, even for the life of a surviving spouse. Last time I looked it up, that was $650k per year, untaxed. Public servants, like the lady who oversaw Robodebt, an illegal debt averaging scheme for welfare recipients, ware being paid $900k pa.
Which country gives politicians full wage indexed pensions? It's not Australia. The parliamentary pension scheme for the federal Parliament was a) never that large and b) abolished for anyone elected 2007 onwards
@@AuspolExplainedas of 2015, frontbenchers elected before 2004 received a grandfathered golden handshake worth up to $200k a year, fully indexed. In addition, ex-PMs recieve office and travel expenses. The other figure is for judges. That was 10 years ago when we had to look up judges' remuneration for JD. It may have been indexed up. I don't know whether ex-PM's pension is for the life of a surviving spouse. Paul Keating, 80, is said to be dating a 30-something, for instance. Gov pensions generally are indexed, eg, AOP, DSP, Vet, etc.
I would much prefer we get rid of the governors and governor general and not replace them with a president or anything, and save the greater and more consistent cost they imposem
@AuspolExplained I think it would be fine to have the head of state and head of government be the same person. I don't place the economic cost associated with having a ceremonial head of state anywhere near the value of having them be separate to the head of government.
All Commonwealth countries was joining to Republican, including South Africa, Nigeria, Jamaica, Pakistan, India, etc. without broken of Commonwealth state rules
Monarchy is cheaper than a republic, even for the countries that pay directly. Much better off with a monarchy, for absolute sure. Check the data on democracy, happiness index, governance, freedom…
The Communist Party of Australia does still exist, one branch that split off continued the party after the main party dissolved itself. The party is now growing with many young new members
Everyone uses whichever number is the highest. You just change where you’re counting from. The late Queen was the second Elizabeth in England, but the first in Australia (and Scotland and other places). Since II is higher than I, everyone uses II. If there’s a future king called James, he will be James VIII. England has only had two Kings named James, but Scotland had seven.
For the federal Parliament you can watch/read/listen here: www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/Watch_Read_Listen Each State and Territory Parliament has their own website you can look up for records of their sittings as well.
You can't accurately predict that given that there is no current proposed model for an Australian republic to judge if it would a) cost more b) be a political position or c) resemble the USA in any way. As we can't become a republic without a referendum you are entirely able to argue voting against any proposed model that would hypothetically lead to those things you mentioned.
Monarchy colluded to give Morrison five multiple ministries, in secret. And no one has ever been held to account. Monarchy is a disgusting smear on our nation.
President of Ireland (smaller in size and population, but a model republicans point to) costs the Irish more than 4 million euros a year so its still a bargain anyway.
@@electricVGC therein lies the rub. Of the people who voted no in 1999, a significant portion did so because they did not see the point in becoming a “politicians republic” where the president is appointed.
Not counting the costs in preparing the city. On her last visit to Victoria, the Queen came to our town. A park which she would drive past got a cleanup (bushes removed) the local botanical gardens had council employees jumping on branches to make sure they were stable
Australian Governors-General are a lot cheaper to maintain, and with the odd exception, much less controversial than the Royal family and elected Presidents. Prince Harry? Prince Andrew? Donald Trump? The system here is not broken so there is no ground swell of opinion to fix it.
Flying one person here would cost very little. The true cost is the Royal Publicity Department which accompanies Charles. Literally a plane full of PR flacks, and publicists, and media managers, and photographers, and associated camp followers. It is a farce.
Here is a thought- according to the Economist of the 24 full democracies in the world, 11 are monarchies. Monarchies are about 21% of legal systems in the world. So in the democracy stakes constitutional monarchies punch above their weight. Ironic isn’t it?
@@kenwaugh7 Maybe so, but for the rest of the democratic world, monarchies tend to be highly stable forms of government. Also Ireland both parts of Ireland now tend to be a lot more stable than has been the case in the past.
@@brontewcat In 1975 the unelected representative of the unelected head of state ignored parliament and removed the elected government without explanation. Democratic my ass.
@@kenwaugh7 And then it was put to a vote and the public voted 1 month later and endorsed the decision. Whenever people speak about Whitlam’s dismissal they conveniently forget it was followed by an election and the decision endorsed by a record majority. Whitlam later said the thing that Kerr did wrong was not warning him of his intention. That was the undemocratic aspect of it. Kerr was caught between the egos of 2 elected representatives who were playing politics, and what he did was necessary. However he should have warned Whitlam that a half senate election was not viable. If Kerr had granted Whitlam’s request then Whitlam would have lost that half senate election and the Australian government would have run out of money. The hardship that would have caused would have been disastrous. That is one of the reasons having an unelected and non political head of state is important. Even if we do become a republic, directly electing a head of state will be potentially dis-stabilising as it will set up another person with arguably too much power to ignore the head of government’s recommendations, particularly if they get more votes than the government in Parliament.
A Head of State that lives on the other side of the world, visits once a decade and that is forbidden to interfere in our politics is a blessing that most nations don't have. One thing to note: The Australian taxpayers were mentioned - because we pay for the visits. If the crown in the UK is funded from the Sovereign Grant (% of income from the royal estates) as well as personal funds of the Sovereign............What part of the whole sheebang do the British taxpayers pay for? Their media is full of stories about the "cost" of maintaining a royal family - is there a major part of the cost of the royal family you left out? Why do British taxpayers complain?
The foreign monarchy is an insult that brands Australia a pitiful little colony, clinging to the trinkets and buables of another country's empire, too gutless to back itself.
@@kenwaugh7 Not an insult - it gives us an historical link which is recognised as prestigious in traditional western culture. The UK knows we have surpassed them, but credit where credit is due - they did help us become the shining jewel of a nation we are now. I'm not a rabid monarchist - more of a status quo person - it works. There is no way our politicians would let us have a popularly elected President with executive power - thats why they sabotaged the 1999 referendum with the parliamentary appointment model, which is why it lost. We might risk having another mad king in the future - but he couldn't harm us., But electing our own Donald Trump would.
Wrong. Australian tax payers pay circa $100m per year for the office of the monarch's appointed representative in Canberra. Plus the six seperate representatives in each of the states. Monarchy is a crap deal.
@@kenwaugh7 You can abolish all of these roles and just keep the King who gets no salary. After an election he can call the winner and install them as PM. But I don't think Australians want these roles abolished.
@@kenwaugh7 even if we moved to a Republic, we would still have similar offices. Unless we decide to abolish the seperation of powers and just have the PM/Premier equivilant having both Legislative and Executive powers.
@@Elitrian that's the problem. Leaders in the 21st century, elected or unelected, will always cost us the taxpayers. That $100 million could easily be spent on a President Of Australia, probably even more if the President needed more security.
I mean Franz Von Bayern is German and the one in line of the Jacobian line of succession if the House of Stuart hadn't been disqualified because of Catholicism so.... someone out there adamantly believes the King of Australia should be a german man.
@@AuspolExplained the problem with Jacobitism is instead of the UK it's Liechtenstein which is good if you want to become independent because they let their regions declare independence in Liechtenstein The house of Hanover also makes sense
Well if we're going far back enough the heir of the House of Plantagenet, Simon Michael Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun, lives in Australia already. Let's write the wildest alternative history story ever.
8:30 that's literally nothing for 1 employee that might look like a lot but for the government that's a rounding error there's probably members of that organisation who can afford to give away that amount of money
We have to update our constitution every time we have a referendum, theyre amendments to our constitution, its fine for the parragraphs and sections directly mentioned in any amendments, but someone will always challenge how any new amendments affect other unnamed articles .. Usually the right to private property - the "special place"of the family , women's place in the home , the special standing of the church .. All the vague shite most of which didnt need to be there , but people though was great in a 1930s conservative ,catholic ,sort of revolutionary state - i know thats a bit oxymoronic
Royal visits are events for the public hosted by the Aus government in Australia. They aren't for the benefit of the royals, but for the public who participate in them. $1 Million might sound like a lot for everyday people, but in terms of a series of events hosted over 10 days across the country for the general public, it's peanuts. The Aus government only hosts these events because they draw crowds and attention. If nobody showed up, they probably wouldn't bother.
yeah 6 million since 2011 is peanuts, I was expecting a larger amount but the amount on people that go to those events is huge. I think they are beneficial.
@@chadst0r Beneficial, i guess, in that these events remind us that some Australians are still gutless little colonial dogs clinging to the trinkets and baubles of another country's empire.
there's also the economic benefit of people spending their own money during these visits, even if its as little as buying coffee/food/ flag, its still money that the individual was only facilitated to spent because of the event. The cost of the event is also going to australians/aus businesses running the event, hardly any of that is vanishing.
Don't we spend money when foreign dignitaries visit ? (Presidents, Prime Ministers etc) Which means even if Australia becomes a republic, if they were to visit (in their capacity as the British monarch), we would still have to pay ?
We do spend money to entertain foreign dignitaries so yes, there would be some cost whenever the King visits in an official capacity. I don't think we'd be paying every facet of that visit though, and there would be less reason to do a tour of multiple states when visiting as a foreign dignitary instead of sovereign so it could be less money, I assume. How much less? I dunno. I'm not the one who needs to crunch these numbers.
@@AuspolExplainedIf the King visited in his capacity as King of Head of State for Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu or the UK, Australia would still be required to pick up the tab. 😂
Australian tax payers pay circa $100m per year for the office of the monarch's appointed representative in Canberra. Plus the six seperate representatives in each of the states.
Wait for the auto response from monarchist grovellers - 'but we would have to pay for a president'. Which is true, and irrelevant. No one has ever claimed a republic would be free. Unlike to oft repeated lie that we don't pay for monarchy.
Better an appointed figurehead GG than a directly elected dictatorial president. Just do not need a foreigner to supervise her. We do need the state governors, otherwise Order of Australia awardees would be denied the ribbon sandwiches and have to get their gongs in the mail.
I guess that we aren't actually paying them to attend but are only covering their costs so seems fair enough but it's a complete waste of money and they should just stay home. Noticed the Royal Melbourne Show has changed its name to the Melbourne Royal Show this year for some weird reason. Just call it the Melbourne Show and the Children's Hospital and ditch the Royal altogether. It sounds so stone-age.
Royal in many cases was an honour, so it is OK to keep. BUT our Governor General should not albeit be subordinate to a foreigner who does not have the citizenship credentials to sit in our parliament. Referendum not required (too divisive), we just forget the need for the GG to report to someone. All we need to do is repeal the Flag Act and banish the foreign flag from the primary quartile. And we become a FULLY independent Commonwealth (who would want an elected president (dictator like Russia, China or the US if Trump wins)).
Relax guys, the King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is merely a symbolic head of state. Our actual head of state is the President of the United States of America.
William and Catherine, not Kate. Please and thank you. Plus, you forgot to mention ( or I missed it, sorry) that the RF are usually invited to visit by other countries or asked to visit on behalf of the UK Govt - if invited by other countries then those countries should pay, if visiting for UK Govt, UK Govt/ RF should pay. Simples.
@@AuspolExplained Catherine has made it known for some years now that she prefers to be addressed as Catherine, not Kate. I call my hubby Porkchop as a nickname but I don't expect others to copy that . Cheers !
@@OzzieJayne You're a knob! 😂 Kate gets quite a lot of ( undeserved ) taxpayer money each year, I think she'll be fine being called Kate and no one listening to this video is confused by the usage of Kate.
