Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
Lewis Holden continues the series arguing the Queen is Australia’s Head of State, based on a new book by Steven Spadijer.
The Queen is Head of State series: parts I II III IV
Why is the ACM missing in action on the head of state?
My apologies for the slow production of this part of the Queen is Head of State series. I’ve been preoccupied fighting a referendum on electoral change here in New Zealand. More on that later.
Amazingly, there has been no response to this series from its instigators, the ACM’s David Flint and Sir David Smith. Following Steven Spadijer’s devastating dismissal of their claim that a single precedent from 1907 “proves” the Governor-General is Australia’s head of state (even though they’ve mis-quoted the precedent), they’ve been missing in action.
This isn’t a surprise – both have refused to debate the author of the book in question.
Try as I may I haven’t been able to get back to this series over the last few days. Thinking more about it, I can’t see why we should waste ammunition on an argument until such a time as the monarchists actually decide to address it. We just have to wait for them to peak above the trench again…
9 Comments
Of course this issue isn’t going to win hearts and minds. It’s a distraction generated by monarchists. I’d much rather focus on issues that actually matter to this debate.
I’m interested in how we can replace the Queen with an Australian as our head of state. We could specify periodic elections to fill the role.
My concern is the way this issue has been constructed in Australia so that the proposed replacement of our head of state, the Queen, would be to take the place of BOTH the Queen and the Governor-General in a republic.
The Queen has different powers and functions to the Governor-General and they both play an important role in Executive Government.
Our system of government could only be improved if we kept the Governor-General with the same roles and functions and then had a full time elected head of state to be the public face of Australia. The head of state would be ceremonial and politically powerless, but this person could work for Australia’s interests on a personal and public relations level – both locally and internationally. This is what we do not have now. The Queen is clearly recognizable as an advocate for the UK.
We need a full time elected replacement of the Queen as our head of state who would focus solely on promoting Australia, while the PM appointed Governor-General continues to look after the business of Parliament.
Robert—I disagree with the thrust of your argument. An elected Australian HoS will have exactly the same powers in an Australian Republic as the Queen has in the UK, and he will perform the same duties for Australia as the Queen does for the UK.
By convention, our GG already carries out all of the duties of the Queen and by convention he has the same powers. (A-La 1975)
One change of course is our parliament through the PM will directly appoint our HoS, after an election, rather than the de-facto and unneccessary appointment by the Queen after the recommendation of the PM. This whole argument simply highlights how our Australian political system will operate perfectly well as a Republic, without the monarchy.
Wrong, Len.
You say, “By convention, our GG already carries out all of the duties of the Queen and by convention he has the same powers.”
But of course you know that the GG holds these powers directly by law from the constitution, not by convention. The GG follows conventions in how she exercises those powers, but no president would be so obliged without somehow trying to specify and replicate the conventions in writing in any replacement constitution – a task hitherto agreed to be impossible.
Another interesting point you raise. You seem to propose the president be appointed after elections, not as at the moment (for the GG) for a term of office regardless of intervening elections. Is this so that the president is properly the PM’s poodle?
Wrong Colin—I will be more precise in future for your benefit, that is if you are not purposefully misleading.
The GG does of course hold powers directly by law from the constitution. However he also holds reserve powers and a convention was established in 1975 when Kerr acted in his own right in the dismissal, thereby establishing a new convention.
It could be undeniably argued that should any other event occur whereby reserve powers are enacted, these may well be by convention or not. Who knows.
You and other monarchist continually try to present the most ridiculous argument of a politicians republic whilst at the same time ignoring the fact that since 1930 all of our GGs have been politicians GGs.
Let me spell out just for you so there can be no future attempts at misleading people.
I have a well publicised model for a republic which allows for HoS elections in conjunction with federal elections after the life of two parliaments.
Once an HoS is elected by the people, he will be appointed by the PM, after the election, as I stated.
There is no need to specify anything for our HoS because he will have the same powers in the new constitution as in the old, and he will retain reserve powers, by convention or otherwise.
Is that plain and simple enough for you.
“and he will retain reserve powers, which he will use if needed, by convention or otherwise.
No need to be nasty, Len. My questions were honest and my reasoning is still intact.
I think you’ll find that the general consensus is that reserve powers exist only under our monarchy because they derive from the once absolute monarchy (where the sovereign had every power) and have gradually been constrained by mutual agreement between UK parliament and sovereign by increasing the specified powers of the politicians. Thus some powers remain reserved specifically because they cannot and have not been defined.
Without the monarchy, no president can be constrained by conventions related to the monarchy. You can’t tell a president of the Australian Republic to act as if he were the King of Australia under the old constitution. He won’t feel constrained unless the conventions are specified in the new constitution.
Ask yourself if the President of the US has reserve powers. Some would say yes, but in fact he uses written laws to give himself extraordinary powers in some cases. Is that what you want?
Apologies Colin—I just get so sick and tired of the nitpicking nonsense that monarchists continually try on. Our republic will not be like the US republic. We will still have an Australian Westminster system of government, the US does not. With our Westminster system will come reserve powers, actionable by the President, the same as Ireland, except they call them Discretionary Powers.
The Discretionary Powers of the Irish President are limited.
[...] directions about curtsying – and of course as Buckingham Palace is the principal residence of our Head of State, we can only assume those directions apply to apply to our “commoner” [...]