Did the queen of england fire the socialist Prime Minister of Australia?

[Bill Thompson]

Did the queen of england fire the socialist Prime Minister of Australia? I don't mean just a while a go. I mean did this once happen?

I know what you might be thinking. You might be thinking, of course not! It is a whole different country. She does not have that right.

Well, this question has come about after a trip to Canada. The most intelligent 12 year old in the history of mankind asked me what sort of government Canada has. I told him all I knew and then I want online when we got back home to find out more. It turns out that, officially, the Queen of England rules Canada as a monarchy and Canada is some sort of Common Wealth of England.

And the same sort of set up is or was set up in Australia.

And so I heard a rumor that once the royals were not too happy with a democraticly elected socialist president in Australia and they went down under to ask him to leave office.

Well, this is the best forum to ask. Did it really happen?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

Did the queen of england fire the socialist Prime Minister of Australia? I don't mean just a while a go. I mean did this once happen?

I know what you might be thinking. You might be thinking, of course not! It is a whole different country. She does not have that right.

Well, this question has come about after a trip to Canada. The most intelligent 12 year old in the history of mankind asked me what sort of government Canada has. I told him all I knew and then I want online when we got back home to find out more. It turns out that, officially, the Queen of England rules Canada as a monarchy and Canada is some sort of Common Wealth of England.

And the same sort of set up is or was set up in Australia.

And so I heard a rumor that once the royals were not too happy with a democraticly elected socialist president in Australia and they went down under to ask him to leave office.

Well, this is the best forum to ask. Did it really happen?

Wrong in so many ways, and only a little research would have found the facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Au...utional_crisis

Whitlam was sacked by the Governor-General, in accordance with our Constitution, and completely without the consent or otherwise of the Queen (although some CTs believe that the CIA had a hand in it).

Quote:

However, according to the Australian Constitution, and in accordance with established practice in other Westminster style constitutional monarchies, the governor-general apparently possessed wide-ranging reserve powers to dissolve parliament and sack the government on his own initiative, in limited circumstances. Such reserve powers had not been exercised by any monarch since King William IV in 1834, and it was a matter of academic and legal debate as to whether they subsisted under either the unwritten British Constitution or the written Australian Constitution.

I vehemently disagreed with Kerr's decision at the time, and the dismissal is still debated, often heatedly. But to say the Queen did it is ludicrous in the extreme.

[Fiona]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1975...fromthearchive

[Madalch]

There is no Queen of England.

There is a Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. She happens to be the same person as the Queen of Canada and the Queen of Australia. And the Queen of New Zealand, and a bunch of other little places that nobody else wants.

Calling her "the Queen of England", while common, is as incorrect as calling Obama "the President of Washington."

[MrQhuest]

The Governor General of Canada has the same authority. As the Queens representative, she can dissolve the government and force an election. As the Prime Minister is just the leader of the party with the most seats, that effectively fires him. But it does not prevent him re-gaining the position if re-elected.

MrQ

[gumboot]

I love it when foreigners attempt to pretend they know how the Commonwealth works, and then start talking about how the head of state of New Zealand or wherever is the "Queen of England".

My head of state is the Queen of New Zealand, and no one else. No other Queen, King, Emperor or President has any authority over New Zealand whatsoever. Were the UK to become a Republic tomorrow, and Lizzie and her clan dumped into the ocean, there would still be a Queen of New Zealand, and nothing would have changed.

And, dear Republicans, if you can't manage to get your head around this fundamentally important distinction, you will never understand the Commonwealth.

[gumboot]

Also, for the record; the Prime Minister of Australia, just like the PM of New Zealand, is not democratically elected, so forget that silly nonsense. They are appointed by the Governor-General (i.e. by the Crown), hence why they can also be fired (i.e. have their Royal Warrant revoked) by said same Governor-General (i.e. by the Crown).

The requirement to be Prime Minister is that you must be able to form a Government, which requires that you have the confidence of Parliament (who are democratically elected). On account of parliament being made up of parties, it's a matter of convention that the only person who can command the confidence of Parliament is the leader of the largest party, or otherwise the leader of the largest coalition of several parties.

As such, generally the leader of the most powerful bloc in parliament is appointed PM - because any other choice would tend to result in a vote of no confidence. However there is no requirement that this happen. The Governor-General could choose to appoint the lowliest back-bencher of the smallest party as PM, and as long as that individual could form a Government they would remain PM.

In Australia's history there have been nine occasions on which the Governor-General appointed someone other than the leader of the major party as PM. In virtually all instances these were interim appointments either until the majority party elected a new leader, or until elections were held.

[icerat]

clearly you have too much knowledge of the machinations of the australian parliament. You're either a kiwi spy or agitating for the long overdue assimilation of the eastern most states.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by icerat

clearly you have too much knowledge of the machinations of the australian parliament. You're either a kiwi spy or agitating for the long overdue assimilation of the eastern most states.

I was just in Australia for the first time this week, and what struck me most of all was that despite the countless little differences, fundamentally our two nations are practically identical.

It struck me most of all late at my sister's wedding, when the dancing and fun times were underway. All of the girls were dancing around, laughing, shouting, and singing, while all of the men stood in a big circle around the outside, barely moving, beer in hand, watching.

Just like at any party in NZ.

We're the same.

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I was just in Australia for the first time this week, and what struck me most of all was that despite the countless little differences, fundamentally our two nations are practically identical.

It struck me most of all late at my sister's wedding, when the dancing and fun times were underway. All of the girls were dancing around, laughing, shouting, and singing, while all of the men stood in a big circle around the outside, barely moving, beer in hand, watching.

Just like at any party in NZ.

We're the same.

Bunch of barbarians! Learn to dance you oafs! The womenfolks need you!

[lionking]

Originally Posted by gumboot

All of the girls were dancing around, laughing, shouting, and singing, while all of the men stood in a big circle around the outside, barely moving, beer in hand, watching.

Just like at any party in NZ.

We're the same.

You must have been in Sydney - full of vulgarians.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by lionking

You must have been in Sydney - full of vulgarians.

Katoomba at the time, actually, but the Aussies were from Brisbane, Sydney and Darwin mostly.

[lionking]

Yup, none from Melbourne. Case closed.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by lionking

Yup, none from Melbourne. Case closed.

yes thats correct, if more guests were from Melbourne Gumboot would have noticed the difference. When he went to try to find his wallet

[lionking]

Well I'm glad this thread has taken a turn for the better from the very silly OP.

[The Fool]

I just called the queen to ask her about this thread and all I get are people thanking me for my call and promising to pass my questions on to her ..
Know what?? I'm beginning to suspect she hasn't even read this thread.

[Brainster]

I am the Queen of England,
I like to sing and dance.
And if you don't believe me,
I will punch you in the pants.

(National Lampoon, circa 1972)

[Undesired Walrus]

"If I didn't have this gun the King of England could just come in here and start pushing you around. Do you want that, well do ya?"

[commandlinegamer]

IIRC, there was a constititional crisis of any note within the Commonwealth was a coup in Fiji (which was already independent but still had the Queen as head of state) back in the 80s. The Queen did not invade then, so I think it's unlikely she would take on the Aussies.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

The most intelligent 12 year old in the history of mankind asked me what sort of government Canada has.

I'm pretty sure the most intelligent 12 year old in the history of mankind would already know the forms of government of all the major polities of their time period.

[Merko]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I love it when foreigners attempt to pretend they know how the Commonwealth works, and then start talking about how the head of state of New Zealand or wherever is the "Queen of England".

Yeah, I mean, that's totally wrong. She's the sovereign of England! Everybody knows that.

[rjh01]

If anyone wants to know how the Australian Government system works, please do not look at the Australian Constitution. There is a vast difference between how the Constitution says things should work and how it does work. For example in the original constitution there was no mention of Prime Minister. Several powers have been transfered from the states to the Federal government, eg tertiary education.

What the GG did in 1975 is unlikely to happen again.

[Damien Evans]

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

IIRC, there was a constititional crisis of any note within the Commonwealth was a coup in Fiji (which was already independent but still had the Queen as head of state) back in the 80s. The Queen did not invade then, so I think it's unlikely she would take on the Aussies.

This makes no sense.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

This makes no sense.

It was just missing the sarcasm smilie. Either that, or commandlinegamer has had a dram or two too many.

[INRM]

What's the Governor General?

[lionking]

The Queens representative in Australia and other Commonwealth countries. The position is almost totally ceremonial (as, indeed, is the Queen).

[INRM]

But if the Governor General can fire a Prime Minister, that doesn't sound ceremonial, does it?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by INRM

But if the Governor General can fire a Prime Minister, that doesn't sound ceremonial, does it?

This was anomolous, and the system has changed so that the Senate cannot deny supply to the government, which was the trigger for Whitlam's dismissal.

The GG does have the reserve power to withdraw a government's commission, but in these days it's impossible to envisage a circumstance where this will happen.

ETA The powers of the Governor General:

http://www.gg.gov.au/governorgeneral/category.php?id=2

Quote:

When exercising the executive power of the Commonwealth, in accordance with long established constitutional practice, the Governor-General acts on the advice of Ministers who are responsible to the Parliament.

Here are the reserve powers, which as I said, I cannot ever see being exercised:

Quote:

However, there are some powers which the Governor-General may, in certain circumstances, exercise without – or contrary to – ministerial advice. These are known as the reserve powers. While the reserve powers are not codified as such, they are generally agreed to at least include:

1. The power to appoint a Prime Minister if an election has resulted in a ‘hung parliament’;

2. The power to dismiss a Prime Minister where he or she has lost the confidence of the Parliament;

3. The power to dismiss a Prime Minister or Minister when he or she is acting unlawfully; and

4. The power to refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives despite a request from the Prime Minister.

[the_eye]

Gough Whitlam wasn't a Socialist, he was at best a Social Democrat.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by the_eye

Gough Whitlam wasn't a Socialist, he was at best a Social Democrat.

I wouldn't even go that far. He was certainly left of centre, but freely accepted the great capitalist institutions, quite rightly in my opinion.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by lionking

This was anomolous, and the system has changed so that the Senate cannot deny supply to the government, which was the trigger for Whitlam's dismissal.

The GG does have the reserve power to withdraw a government's commission, but in these days it's impossible to envisage a circumstance where this will happen.
<snip>

Are you sure your first paragraph is correct? I think this is no more than an agreement between the parties. This can be thrown out at any time. No one wants a repeat of 1975 again.

The Australian constitution
HTML format

PDF format

[lionking]

No I'm not certain. In retrospect it must be a convention because otherwise a referrendum would have been necessary.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Were the UK to become a Republic tomorrow, and Lizzie and her clan dumped into the ocean, there would still be a Queen of New Zealand, and nothing would have changed.

She'd have a hell of a long swim though.

Dave

[commandlinegamer]

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

This makes no sense.

I'm pointing out that the last time the Queen might have got involved in the internal affairs of a Commonwealth nation she didn't. Unlike Reagan, she knew where to draw the line.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by INRM

But if the Governor General can fire a Prime Minister, that doesn't sound ceremonial, does it?

I think it's a bit misleading to call the Governor-General a "ceremonial" role. They do actually perform some pretty significant duties on an every day basis - for example a law does not become law until the Governor-General signs off on it.

The Governor-General has a range of what are called "reserve" powers. They are, on paper, quite substantial powers, however they're called "reserve" powers for a reason. They're functionally like the reset button on your PC. Ideally you'll never have to use it, but if you ever do, it's nice to know it's there. Fortunately the Westminster System is a little more robust than Windows. :P

Now, the average American might freak at these reserve powers and cry "but what's to stop the Governor-General (or the monarch, since the Governor-General only exercises those powers on behalf of the monarch, and at the monarch's pleasure) from doing X?!!!!!!" and the answer to that is a very old maxim that we're fond of here; "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". We don't have the same paranoid mistrust of authority that seems so present in American society, and funnily enough we've had far less issues with politicians (or monarchs) abusing their power.

Probably because the Westminster system has a good thousand years or so of ironing out the kinks when monarchs did try to abuse their powers.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by INRM

What's the Governor General?

Essentially, the individual appointed to exercise the powers of the monarch. These include the signing of Acts of Parliament, the appointment of ministers to the crown, the issuing of warrants for officers of the crown, and signing birthday cards for golden oldies.

The Governor-General exercises these powers by law, however by convention they are exercised only upon the advice of the Ministers of the Crown, with the exception of reserve powers.

This dates back to medieval times, when monarchs would appoint advisors, but then do whatever they wanted. By granting only parliament the authority to raise taxes, parliament could ensure that the monarch actually did what their advisors said.

That is why the head of government is called the "Prime Minister" - because they are the chief advisor to the crown.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Probably because the Westminster system has a good thousand years or so of ironing out the kinks when monarchs did try to abuse their powers.

Its best to cut their heads off if they become a significant problem.

[timhau]

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

And so I heard a rumor that once the royals were not too happy with a democraticly elected socialist president in Australia and they went down under to ask him to leave office.

Yeah, and shortly afterwards they assassinated the Emperor of Tasmania.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

Did the queen of england fire the socialist Prime Minister of Australia? I don't mean just a while a go. I mean did this once happen?

I know what you might be thinking. You might be thinking, of course not! It is a whole different country. She does not have that right.

Well, this question has come about after a trip to Canada. The most intelligent 12 year old in the history of mankind asked me what sort of government Canada has. I told him all I knew and then I want online when we got back home to find out more. It turns out that, officially, the Queen of England rules Canada as a monarchy and Canada is some sort of Common Wealth of England.

Once read a fascinating book on the history of British law. It was heavy on things like "can Parliament permanently ban future Parliaments from making certain laws?" The answer was no, said Parliaments could (barring a US-style Constitution) simply vote away previous laws, even if they required a supermajority, self-contained, to do so, effectively retroactively disabling the law. *


Anyway, according to the letter of the law, at that point anyway, technically Canada was supposed to get permission from England for its own laws, to say nothing of declaring independence, but that, in practice, nobody paid attention to it as it was a ludicrous anachronism.




* This also served as a model to explain the inalienability of rights in the US, say, that you could not, in fact, "sell yourself into permanent slavery" and expect the government to capture and return you should you flee. This wasn't a paternalistic dominance on your ability to make contracts, but rather a reflection of the inherent inalienability of freedom. At best, you might be responsible for financial damages, per normal contract and civil law. But returned as a criminal or as stolen "property"? No way.

[Architect]

Are you sure you mean "British" law? Really sure? Really, really sure?

Or was it English and Welsh law, perhaps?