Britain "giving up" Australia in 1901 is not an accurate description. Constitutional expert Ann Twomey describe federation as six smaller colonies becoming one big colony. Australia's independence and self governance was a slow and gradual process. In short Britain gave Australia what it asked for when it asked for it, finally completing the process in 1986 with the Australia Act. There was no struggle for independence, it was a sensible and mature approach.
@@Peter-f4o4zLiterally, not true. Under Australian law, “the Crown” is a metonym, referring to the Australian people’s elected government, not Britain or the monarchy. ‘Crown land’ is publicly owned - shared by all Australians - administered in trust by the Australian people’s representatives. The British parliament’s legislative supremacy over the monarch and the judiciary was enshrined within the Bill of Rights in 1689, just a few months after the first Englishman (William Dampier) caught the first glimpse of the Australian continent, and a century before the first English fleet set sail to colonise Australia. After 1689, ‘the Crown’ referred to the British Parliament (as holding sovereignty over Britain and its overseas territories) and not the monarch. The British government transferred most of the vestiges of sovereignty to the six colonial governments in Australia between 1859 and 1890. The Australian colonies, later, transferred sovereignty over specific ‘national interests’ to the Commonwealth government in 1901 (shared by the states, which under a federal system, retain control and sovereignty over services and functions not specifically transferred to the Commonwealth government.) The British Parliament finally relinquished the last vestiges of any control over publicly owned land in Australia under the Statute of Westminster in 1931. All the terms of this statute were finally ratified by the Australian government in the Australia Act, 1986. “Crown lands comprise around 23% of Australian land, of which the largest single category is vacant land, comprising 12.5% of the land. Crown land is used for such things as airports, military grounds (Commonwealth), public utilities (usually State), or is sometimes unallocated and reserved for future development.” (A quote from Wikipedia, but that does not mean it’s not true.)
You showed the NZ flag. It’s an indication that research was lacking. We don’t really need an American to teach us our history. Maybe stick to rewriting history so that the USA wins everything as usual.
The Statute of Westminster was passed in 1931, not 1961. It also applies to Canada. The law increases the sovereignty of both countries independent of U.K. laws, basically. Incidentally, in 1931 Sir Isaac Isaacs was appointed as the first Australian born Governor-general, against the wishes of King George V, prompting the King to call Australia a "crowned republic". It was also the year that British currency become no longer legal tender in Australia. That was caused by Britain going off the gold standard that year (which it should have done straight after WW1).
As alvanrigby said, Australia was self-governing well before it federated in 1901. Several colonies became self-governing democracies in the 1850s, especially after the Eureka Stockade.
Britain didn’t give up on Australia, it turned on it. The key events were: 1931 - Britain decides that the only country that has to repay war loans without discount, offset or delay is Australia. 1942 - Britain orders its colonies and the Commonwealth to abandon Australia. 1946 - Britain joins in the occupation of Japan under the condition that Australia pays for it and renounces repayment of all war aid, as well as agreeing to subsidise food exports until 1972. 1953 - Britain agrees with the Versailles signatories, the German condition that only Australia is excluded from recommenced WWI reparations. 1973 - Britain agrees with Europe that Australia is to be excluded from trade. 1984 - Despite the Falklands War, Britain supports the European decision to import meat from Argentina but not Australia. Never trust the British, they’re not with it, we’re better off without them.
1942 Britain refuses support for Australian Air force 1942 Britain colluded with the USA to abandon Australia in favor of India whilst attempting to take control over 3 of the 4 divisions of the ADF
You have made things up and thrown red herrings here there and every where. Don't expect people to chase after them. This is the Anglophobic Indian Nationalist tactic. Don't think that people are not aware of this.
Australia knew in 1922 that Britain could not fight a major war in Europe and Asia at the same time. Despite this and with Germany disarmed Australia decided to either scrap or sell of most of it's fleet as another European war looked unlikely . ie Australia gambled on the Royal Navy being available if Australia was threatened. After the fall of France Britain needed every ship it had for the war in Europe and to just survive. After Japan joined the war it just made military sense for the US Navy to run the war in the Pacific while Britain concentrated on the war in Europe. That was the agreement made between the UK and the US. Britain supplied Australia with Matilda 2 and Grant tanks from 8th army stocks and Curtis fighters from the Desert Air-force and the Spitfires used in Darwin. By then Australia was dependent on US arms, as it still is today.
Australia joined WWII as part of the British empire, and finished it independent. Australians considered themselves culturally British, and sent a lot of its defence force to defend Britain as well as British colonies around the Mediterranean and SE Asia. After SE Asia fell to Japan in 1942, Britain turned its back on Australia. That’s when Australia separated itself from Britain politically.
I was taught in school that Sir Henry Parkes was the father of our federation. He was prime minister of New South Wales in pre-federation days and as a side note a right horny old bloke right into his 90's. One of his ministers said don't you think you ought to give it up at your age Sir Henry?, and Sir Henry was said to have said, I must admit it takes a little longer these days but I don't begrudge the time.
Australia was a constitutional monarchy actually in 1901 , however Australia is not fully independent until it becomes a republic, Australia is basically fully self autonomous at a state and federal level
@@Peter-f4o4z The "Australia Act" of 1986 was the last step in making Australia fully independent. The passing of the act effectively made Britain a foreign country. Being a Constitutional Monarchy has no connection with Australia's relationship with the UK. It is a stand alone arrangement with the crown with the Governor General making all decisions. This was fully borne out in the 1975 Constitutional Crisis.
@@Peter-f4o4z The republic question fails basically because the people of Australia want the right to chose who will be Australia's head of state and the politicians want to be the only ones to choose Australia's head of state like they do now with the GG. The people's argument is if we don't get to choose who will be our head of state then what's the point of changing if it's going to be exactly as it is now. Also mistrust in government is at an all time high and the people of Australia don't want an American type of republic.
@@AussiePom Australia wouldn't have been "exactly as it is now" if the 1999 referendum had been successful. We would have had an Australian as our official titular Head of State, instead of a non-resident member of the British aristocracy. An independent nation shouldn't get a foreign country to supply its official HoS.
@@mindi2050 Why not the English sovereign head of state doesn't cost us anything except on state visits which are once in a blue moon and has little to no say in how we do things. A real economic bargain.
Not quite ‘fully’ independent. For instance, the Australian government and High Court could still refer legislation and cases to the British Privy Council for final consideration. This and other vestiges of former British sovereignty over the Australian government were relinquished by the UK parliament under the Statute of Westminster in 1931, and finally ratified by the Australian parliament under the Australia Act of 1986.
@@noelleggett5368 The Statute of Westminster introduced in 1931 was a Canadian initiative to give the six Dominions equal status to Britain. Australia refused to sign as the government thought that the Statute would threaten Britains obligation to defend Australia. We finally ratified the statute in October 1942 with New Zealand following in 1947.
1962 the UK joined the EEC { common market } imports of AUS /NZ produce were reduced in favour of imports from the EEC. AT the same time removing NAVAL BASE from Singapore. So, in my opinion is this post is waffle !
Separation by water creates a strange situation of those accross the sea to want to project their OWN individual identity, just like the Americans wanted to be considered individal so it was with the Australians, BUT did you know that New Zealand had been, up until 1841 was considered part of the state of Australia know as New South Wales, why is it that separation by water do this? It would seem more significant that a unity happen rather than a seperation, but it is still happening.
From viewing this way off track video you gain only a tiny insight into Australia's history and our step by step movement towards full independence in 1986. Dominion status was only the first step.
Hi everyone! 👋 Thank you so much for your comments and support-I’m truly grateful! I hope you're enjoying the historical content I create here as a hobby. 🌍🕰 I focus on exploring fascinating geopolitical and historical events, uncovering the why behind some of history’s most intriguing moments. From empires collapsing to unexpected alliances, I love diving into these unique stories. Now, I’d love to hear from YOU! 🤔 Are there any specific topics, like historical conflicts, forgotten empires, or major global shifts, you’d like me to cover? Drop your suggestions in the comments below, and who knows, your idea might be the next video on this channel! 🎥✨ Looking forward to your ideas!
Today's South Australia is located in in the middle of the continent and only extends up to central Australia where it becomes the Northern Territory Adelaide is Souh Australia's capital city, Darwin is the Nothern Territory's capital city
@@michaelhalsall5684: Yes, the NT only became a separate territorial entity directly administered by the Commonwealth, i.e. the Federal government in mid-1978.
Hello, you may like to peruse Prof. Dr. Gerard F. Carney’s Wednesday, 10th April 2013 Canberra (High Court) lecture notes which may explain the big picture.
At the time of federation in 1901, the Northern Territory was administered by South Australia. The Colony of South Australia’s original borders, established in 1836, were much the same as they are today. The remaining northern and western territories were still part of New South Wales. Eventually, after the Colony of Western Australia was established, administration of the remaining Northern Territory was transferred from New South Wales to South Australia in 1863. After federation in 1901, administration of the Northern Territory was transferred to the Commonwealth government, until it achieved (limited) self-government in 1978.
Simonlitten has posted a comment t hat is untruthful, NZ separated as a colony on the first of July 1841, N Z also DOES have a constitution, New Zealand's constitution is made up of many different parts, including: Common law Legislation, such as the Constitution Act 1986, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and the Public Finance Act 1989 Constitutional conventions, which are customary rules that lack legal standing The Standing Orders of the House of Representatives The Cabinet Manual Important documents, such as the Treaty of Waitangi and ancient English statutes like the Magna Carta 1297 and the Bill of Rights 1688 ANYONE can check this out,so this Simon guy is just plain WRONG
Why the New Zealand flag(1:37) and did you really need the arrows to point to the labels. King Charles of Australia still ratifies the Australian Governor General.Who in turn ratifies the the various state Governors So many tenuous generalisations and you failed to mention the passing of the Australia Act in 1947 which finally gave a Australian the rite to an Australian passport in stead of a British one. I didn't like!! too many wrongs!
King Charles is still Australias king and head of state still have the union jack flag politicians swear aligance to the king not the country most Anglo Australians want to keep the status quo. Still part of Brittain.
In the ultimate, England was still running the show when in 1975 a governor general took advice from the Queen’s private secretary before sacking our elected prime minister.
That is incorrect. The Governor General, Sir John Kerr made the decision completely alone to dismiss the Whitlam Labor government in 1975. This year marks the 50th anniversary and I am sure that all the ins and outs will be delved into and highly scrutinised as November 11 approaches. As a youthful 21 year old Uni student I remember the drama very well !
No, England was not 'running the show' in Australia 1975. Only the Australian governor-general can exercise the reserve (emergency) powers in Australia, and he/she doesn't need the non-resident monarch's permission to do so. Source: See Palace letters.
@@mickhawkins9864 Bull. Kerr acted on his own, something even Whitlam admitted. The monarch was consulted, so was Washington, but Kerr was told by all that it was his decision alone.
I thought that Kerr had no choice but to dismiss the government due to the blocking of supply and only contacted the crown to inform them of his intent!!
I would love to see(CANZUK) Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom a lot of discussion about it. It would be the a huge economic and Defence block and we all have the Westminster system so passing laws would be easier and English is our background.
Australia is still part of the British Commonwealth and has a stable government because executive power is buffered by state governors, the governor general and our own monarch King Charles III, who is aloof from politics and prevents grubby politicians trting to grab power in opposition to that of the prime minister the head of the elected parliamentary majority.
No, Australia is a voluntary member of the Commonwealth of Nations. The 'British Commonwealth' is long gone. As for Charles III, he's nominal HoS in independent nations like Australia.
Britain "giving up" Australia in 1901 is not an accurate description. Constitutional expert Ann Twomey describe federation as six smaller colonies becoming one big colony. Australia's independence and self governance was a slow and gradual process. In short Britain gave Australia what it asked for when it asked for it, finally completing the process in 1986 with the Australia Act. There was no struggle for independence, it was a sensible and mature approach.
The crown still owns every square inch of land in Australia
@@Peter-f4o4zLiterally, not true. Under Australian law, “the Crown” is a metonym, referring to the Australian people’s elected government, not Britain or the monarchy. ‘Crown land’ is publicly owned - shared by all Australians - administered in trust by the Australian people’s representatives.
The British parliament’s legislative supremacy over the monarch and the judiciary was enshrined within the Bill of Rights in 1689, just a few months after the first Englishman (William Dampier) caught the first glimpse of the Australian continent, and a century before the first English fleet set sail to colonise Australia. After 1689, ‘the Crown’ referred to the British Parliament (as holding sovereignty over Britain and its overseas territories) and not the monarch. The British government transferred most of the vestiges of sovereignty to the six colonial governments in Australia between 1859 and 1890. The Australian colonies, later, transferred sovereignty over specific ‘national interests’ to the Commonwealth government in 1901 (shared by the states, which under a federal system, retain control and sovereignty over services and functions not specifically transferred to the Commonwealth government.) The British Parliament finally relinquished the last vestiges of any control over publicly owned land in Australia under the Statute of Westminster in 1931. All the terms of this statute were finally ratified by the Australian government in the Australia Act, 1986.
“Crown lands comprise around 23% of Australian land, of which the largest single category is vacant land, comprising 12.5% of the land. Crown land is used for such things as airports, military grounds (Commonwealth), public utilities (usually State), or is sometimes unallocated and reserved for future development.” (A quote from Wikipedia, but that does not mean it’s not true.)
@@Peter-f4o4z Nonsense.
@@Peter-f4o4z Bull.
@@Peter-f4o4zahhh yeah nah the Chinese have been buying up large pastoral lands for a few years now.
You guys put up the New Zealand flag with 4 red stars We have 6 white stars with the southern cross star constellation, please get it right.
Absurd. Britain did not give up Australia in 1961.
1901 is when we combined our colonies and became the Commonwealth of Australia. Australia decided this not the British.
No, we didn't, not 1901. The Vommonwealth was part of the Empire until after the Second World War anyway. Then, we became independent.
So much wrong with this video
The use of the New Zealand flag was wrong while discussing the colonies
I only saw the Australian flag. It had the southern cross and the large star with six points directly under the Union Jack.
@@stevepatching8107 NZ flag is on 1:35
Makes you wonder what else he got wrong..
Point taken. I didn't notice that.
You showed the NZ flag. It’s an indication that research was lacking. We don’t really need an American to teach us our history. Maybe stick to rewriting history so that the USA wins everything as usual.
👍😂🤣😂🤣
The Statute of Westminster was passed in 1931, not 1961. It also applies to Canada. The law increases the sovereignty of both countries independent of U.K. laws, basically.
Incidentally, in 1931 Sir Isaac Isaacs was appointed as the first Australian born Governor-general, against the wishes of King George V, prompting the King to call Australia a "crowned republic".
It was also the year that British currency become no longer legal tender in Australia. That was caused by Britain going off the gold standard that year (which it should have done straight after WW1).
As alvanrigby said, Australia was self-governing well before it federated in 1901. Several colonies became self-governing democracies in the 1850s, especially after the Eureka Stockade.
Britain didn’t give up on Australia, it turned on it. The key events were:
1931 - Britain decides that the only country that has to repay war loans without discount, offset or delay is Australia.
1942 - Britain orders its colonies and the Commonwealth to abandon Australia.
1946 - Britain joins in the occupation of Japan under the condition that Australia pays for it and renounces repayment of all war aid, as well as agreeing to subsidise food exports until 1972.
1953 - Britain agrees with the Versailles signatories, the German condition that only Australia is excluded from recommenced WWI reparations.
1973 - Britain agrees with Europe that Australia is to be excluded from trade.
1984 - Despite the Falklands War, Britain supports the European decision to import meat from Argentina but not Australia.
Never trust the British, they’re not with it, we’re better off without them.
You have great imagination and an amazing ability to distort history ! Next time do your research without bias and hatred !!
1942 Britain refuses support for Australian Air force
1942 Britain colluded with the USA to abandon Australia in favor of India whilst attempting to take control over 3 of the 4 divisions of the ADF
You have made things up and thrown red herrings here there and every where. Don't expect people to chase after them. This is the Anglophobic Indian Nationalist tactic. Don't think that people are not aware of this.
@@Jetchisel Wot? Its history as it’s recorded.
Australia knew in 1922 that Britain could not fight a major war in Europe and Asia at the same time. Despite this and with Germany disarmed Australia decided to either scrap or sell of most of it's fleet as another European war looked unlikely . ie Australia gambled on the Royal Navy being available if Australia was threatened. After the fall of France Britain needed every ship it had for the war in Europe and to just survive. After Japan joined the war it just made military sense for the US Navy to run the war in the Pacific while Britain concentrated on the war in Europe. That was the agreement made between the UK and the US.
Britain supplied Australia with Matilda 2 and Grant tanks from 8th army stocks and Curtis fighters from the Desert Air-force and the Spitfires used in Darwin. By then Australia was dependent on US arms, as it still is today.
You used the wrong flag for Australia, the one with the red stars is new Zealand
Australia joined WWII as part of the British empire, and finished it independent. Australians considered themselves culturally British, and sent a lot of its defence force to defend Britain as well as British colonies around the Mediterranean and SE Asia. After SE Asia fell to Japan in 1942, Britain turned its back on Australia. That’s when Australia separated itself from Britain politically.
I was taught in school that Sir Henry Parkes was the father of our federation. He was prime minister of New South Wales in pre-federation days and as a side note a right horny old bloke right into his 90's. One of his ministers said don't you think you ought to give it up at your age Sir Henry?, and Sir Henry was said to have said, I must admit it takes a little longer these days but I don't begrudge the time.
Australia was a constitutional monarchy actually in 1901 , however Australia is not fully independent until it becomes a republic, Australia is basically fully self autonomous at a state and federal level
@@Peter-f4o4z The "Australia Act" of 1986 was the last step in making Australia fully independent. The passing of the act effectively made Britain a foreign country. Being a Constitutional Monarchy has no connection with Australia's relationship with the UK. It is a stand alone arrangement with the crown with the Governor General making all decisions. This was fully borne out in the 1975 Constitutional Crisis.
@@Peter-f4o4z The republic question fails basically because the people of Australia want the right to chose who will be Australia's head of state and the politicians want to be the only ones to choose Australia's head of state like they do now with the GG. The people's argument is if we don't get to choose who will be our head of state then what's the point of changing if it's going to be exactly as it is now.
Also mistrust in government is at an all time high and the people of Australia don't want an American type of republic.
@@AussiePom Australia wouldn't have been "exactly as it is now" if the 1999 referendum had been successful. We would have had an Australian as our official titular Head of State, instead of a non-resident member of the British aristocracy. An independent nation shouldn't get a foreign country to supply its official HoS.
@@mindi2050 Why not the English sovereign head of state doesn't cost us anything except on state visits which are once in a blue moon and has little to no say in how we do things. A real economic bargain.
Same reason they gave up Canada in 1867.
Australia was already fully independent in 1901 from Britain
Not quite ‘fully’ independent. For instance, the Australian government and High Court could still refer legislation and cases to the British Privy Council for final consideration. This and other vestiges of former British sovereignty over the Australian government were relinquished by the UK parliament under the Statute of Westminster in 1931, and finally ratified by the Australian parliament under the Australia Act of 1986.
@@noelleggett5368 The Statute of Westminster introduced in 1931 was a Canadian initiative to give the six Dominions equal status to Britain. Australia refused to sign as the government thought that the Statute would threaten Britains obligation to defend Australia. We finally ratified the statute in October 1942 with New Zealand following in 1947.
Australia became independent in stages. Beginning with Federation in 1901.
1962 the UK joined the EEC { common market } imports of AUS /NZ produce were reduced in favour of imports from the EEC. AT the same time removing NAVAL BASE from Singapore. So, in my opinion is this post is waffle !
Australia is still part of the British commonwealth of nations as an independant country.
Australia is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations.
This hypothosis is wrong, how do you explain the fact the Aussies want to retain the Royal family??
The Fact King Charles is the Sovereign Head of Australia is a source of Embarrassment and Shame to Me.
They occupy and settled Australia
They lost several before this. It was a wise move.
Separation by water creates a strange situation of those accross the sea to want to project their OWN individual identity, just like the Americans wanted to be considered individal so it was with the Australians, BUT did you know that New Zealand had been, up until 1841 was considered part of the state of Australia know as New South Wales, why is it that separation by water do this? It would seem more significant that a unity happen rather than a seperation, but it is still happening.
1840 was the date of separation
There is still provision in the Australian Constitution for New Zealand to become a state of Australia if it wanted to.
@@ktipuss To quote King Dick: "There are 1200 reasons why New Zealand wouldn't."
@@simonlitten Which means up UNTIL 1841 !
@@ktipuss WRONG ! Not only wrong but N Z has it's OWN constitution !o what you say is utter rubbish!
Informative video, I never knew how Australia got independence. Although some parts of it were a bit repetitive
Mate, a 2 min google search could have taught you this 4th grade knowledge.
From viewing this way off track video you gain only a tiny insight into Australia's history and our step by step movement towards full independence in 1986. Dominion status was only the first step.
Lots of misinformation in this video more like it!!
Hi everyone! 👋 Thank you so much for your comments and support-I’m truly grateful! I hope you're enjoying the historical content I create here as a hobby. 🌍🕰
I focus on exploring fascinating geopolitical and historical events, uncovering the why behind some of history’s most intriguing moments. From empires collapsing to unexpected alliances, I love diving into these unique stories.
Now, I’d love to hear from YOU! 🤔 Are there any specific topics, like historical conflicts, forgotten empires, or major global shifts, you’d like me to cover? Drop your suggestions in the comments below, and who knows, your idea might be the next video on this channel! 🎥✨
Looking forward to your ideas!
“1961”?! What happened during “Bobby Ming’s” time?!
How could South Australia be called South Australia when it had all of the center of Australia?
Today's South Australia is located in in the middle of the continent and only extends up to central Australia where it becomes the Northern Territory
Adelaide is Souh Australia's capital city, Darwin is the Nothern Territory's capital city
@@michaelhalsall5684: Yes, the NT only became a separate territorial entity directly administered by the Commonwealth, i.e. the Federal government in mid-1978.
Hello, you may like to peruse Prof. Dr. Gerard F. Carney’s Wednesday, 10th April 2013 Canberra (High Court) lecture notes which may explain the big picture.
At the time of federation in 1901, the Northern Territory was administered by South Australia. The Colony of South Australia’s original borders, established in 1836, were much the same as they are today. The remaining northern and western territories were still part of New South Wales. Eventually, after the Colony of Western Australia was established, administration of the remaining Northern Territory was transferred from New South Wales to South Australia in 1863. After federation in 1901, administration of the Northern Territory was transferred to the Commonwealth government, until it achieved (limited) self-government in 1978.
Simonlitten has posted a comment t hat is untruthful, NZ separated as a colony on the first of July 1841, N Z also DOES have a constitution, New Zealand's constitution is made up of many different parts, including:
Common law
Legislation, such as the Constitution Act 1986, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and the Public Finance Act 1989
Constitutional conventions, which are customary rules that lack legal standing
The Standing Orders of the House of Representatives
The Cabinet Manual
Important documents, such as the Treaty of Waitangi and ancient English statutes like the Magna Carta 1297 and the Bill of Rights 1688
ANYONE can check this out,so this Simon guy is just plain WRONG
Why the New Zealand flag(1:37) and did you really need the arrows to point to the labels. King Charles of Australia still ratifies the Australian Governor General.Who in turn ratifies the the various state Governors So many tenuous generalisations and you failed to mention the passing of the Australia Act in 1947 which finally gave a Australian the rite to an Australian passport in stead of a British one. I didn't like!! too many wrongs!
A Failure of research .. I know from personal experience.
King Charles is still Australias king and head of state still have the union jack flag politicians swear aligance to the king not the country most Anglo Australians want to keep the status quo. Still part of Brittain.
In the ultimate, England was still running the show when in 1975 a governor general took advice from the Queen’s private secretary before sacking our elected prime minister.
Prime Ministers are not elected.
That is incorrect. The Governor General, Sir John Kerr made the decision completely alone to dismiss the Whitlam Labor government in 1975. This year marks the 50th anniversary and I am sure that all the ins and outs will be delved into and highly scrutinised as November 11 approaches. As a youthful 21 year old Uni student I remember the drama very well !
No, England was not 'running the show' in Australia 1975. Only the Australian governor-general can exercise the reserve (emergency) powers in Australia, and he/she doesn't need the non-resident monarch's permission to do so. Source: See Palace letters.
@@mickhawkins9864 Bull. Kerr acted on his own, something even Whitlam admitted. The monarch was consulted, so was Washington, but Kerr was told by all that it was his decision alone.
I thought that Kerr had no choice but to dismiss the government due to the blocking of supply and only contacted the crown to inform them of his intent!!
I would love to see(CANZUK) Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom a lot of discussion about it. It would be the a huge economic and Defence block and we all have the Westminster system so passing laws would be easier and English is our background.
No thanks. It's time Australia learnt from its own history.
Australia is still part of the British Commonwealth and has a stable government because executive power is buffered by state governors, the governor general and our own monarch King Charles III, who is aloof from politics and prevents grubby politicians trting to grab power in opposition to that of the prime minister the head of the elected parliamentary majority.
No, Australia is a voluntary member of the Commonwealth of Nations. The 'British Commonwealth' is long gone. As for Charles III, he's nominal HoS in independent nations like Australia.
This is Garbage
I agree. This video is a masquerade. The content-creator has no idea of Australian constitutional history.