Second that! Time we hold a referendum/ plebiscite on whether to appoint an Australian as head of nation, in principle, without any options, other then listing all possibilities. If just referendum passes, then we can work on what option to proceed with and hold another referendum on whether to adopt that particular option
new video already! happy new years Professor Twomey! as for the idea I think perhaps parilment or a select committee of parilment choosing would be good.In Canada they had a group to advise the PM but Trudeau got rid of it. Thanks for the video and happy new year for you and your loved ones!
Yes, I once sat next to the official Secretary to the Canadian Governor-General at a dinner, and he explained how the system worked. It's a pity that Trudeau got rid of it.
Happy New Year Anne. Interested to know our rights and how to combat the over arching beauracracy and UN and imposition should it ever eventuate. Would love a an opportunity to contribute to an independent arm that undertakes its own maintenance of our rights. I would happily join.
Election by the Parliament of the Commonwealth,and then formal appointment by the Monarch, would still risk giving the GG a political status that current appointed holders of the office do not have..
I clearly recall the last referendum on a republic and the debate over the method of selecting the Governor General. As I recall it, there was strong public support for direct elections, but strong political opposition due to the possibility of political conflict between the GG/President and Parliament. My greatest objection, however was not to the suggestion of Parliament appointing the GG, but to the PM wanting the power to dismiss the GG for any cause, or no cause at all. If the position is to have any value at all, surely there must be some form of Parliamentary oversight. ps, I think we should take an uniquely Australian approach to selecting the GG and raffle the job. Winner gets the gig for five years, funds all of his/her expenses and keeps any leftovers at the end of term as a retirement nest-egg, all tax-free.
It's ashame how the current GG has been completely overpaid just because she never served and does not receive a pension. I served, and never will I get the pension because it was removed in the 90's. All about looking after your mates it seems. It should be the people to vote who becomes the GG and for them to retain the power to dissolve parliament when needed.
The Governor-General received a salary calculated by the same method as her predecessors. The only difference was that her predecessors had agreed to deduct the amount that they simultaneously received from the Crown as a pension. No such deduction was made for the current Governor-General as she was not receiving a pension from the Crown. Ultimately, all of them received the same effective amount from the Crown, as adjusted to take into account inflation and that the salary cannot be altered for the entire term of the Governor-General.
Happy new year from Germany to Australia, which I hope to visit again in the near future. It’s been a long time ago, but when taking my constitutional class here we were taught about the role of the three western allies at the drafting process of the post war West German Basic Law, which serve as our constitution to this day, with amendments ofc. When setting up the provisions of the head of state (Bundespräsident) which should not be the head of government ( that what we have the chancellor for) the British and French delegation were especially active, since the USA don’t do it that way. I understand that member of the British delegation (and I am not sure if the members were not also from British dominions) made reference to the Australian discussion you just talked about. At the end the Bundespräsident is now elected by a unique body, that only comes together to elect the Bundespräsident and is composed of all member of the directly elected lower house (Bundestag) and the same number of members selected by the 16 federal states. This system so far worked fine to keep the officer holder aloof over current party politics, despite being often a former politician himself.
Thanks. That's really interesting. Personally, I would much prefer such a form of indirect election, rather than direct popular election. But there remains a question as to whether the Australian people, in a referendum, would accept that.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Well, in the meantime we are glad that members of our old noble Battenberg and Sachsen-Coburg familes can help you out😉 Have a great 2025!
Thank you, that was very balanced. It's interesting how the constitutional debates came to value the ceremonial, non-partisan role of the GG. You make a good point about trialing (for a few decades) direct elections of the GG (from the exiting Governors - very sensible idea) to see how well it works. Most people don't have the foggiest idea who they are. I look forward to a video about an Australian dynasty to replace the British monarchy - seems wacky, but the more you look into it, the more the idea has going for it. Everyone would know who the monarch is, that's for sure!
When and why did the monarch become unknown? Isn't it the result of deliberately trying to 'play down' monarchy by Australian politicians? It's been a creeping feature of UK life as well I might add - slowly, slowly without consultation small things are removed or suddenly cease. Portraits of the monarch were common when I was young - you'd find one in all municipal and government buildings and elsewhere. They still exist here and there but It's rare to see one now. Small things I remember like 'God Save The Queen' being exclaimed by a Returning Officer after announcing an election result no longer happen. We don't give commemorative coins etc to kids in school on jubilees anymore. I could go on. These things add up and serve to slowly undermine the institution. My paranoid side wonders to what if any extent it is deliberate.
@gideon_uk9754 So true. I think it's a deliberate attack on 'unelected authority' and 'elite privilege', but that has become a hollow accusation as the job entails ever more obligation with very limited powers and many constraints on the monarch's personal freedom. However, the British royal family's considerable wealth is an Achilles heal I think. The symbols of monarchy (the crown jewels, etc) should be state-owned. I think we need to argue for monarchy in a new way - one that recognizes the centrality of family in society.
@@saimoncole Tbf I think the jewels are, in effect, state owned. A quick Google tells me that the Royal Collection is technically owned by the monarch but is divided into two parts. Stuff that is included in the second part is held in 'Right of Trust' and cannot be sold. Anything acquired before Queen Victoria's death in 1901 is automatically included in the Trust and of course includes the regalia etc. There are also many other items that monarchs transfer into the Trust over the years such as wedding gifts that have become iconic. Similarly, all but two of the residences are state owned and could never be sold. The two that aren't - Sandringham and Balmoral were paid for by the RF out of their own monies.
@gideon_uk9754 Thanks for clarifying that... I was aware of some of it being held in Trust... and it is good that it is... However, what I have in mind are objections Aussies might have to an home-grown monarchy. I think an Australian royal family with the personal wealth to own a Sandringham and Balmoral (an Iona and a Como House?) is not going to go down well. But I think there are enough Aussies who like bling enough to shout down those who would say that state-owned regalia would be a waste of taxpayer money. 😆
@@saimoncole Here's an idea: you could take the Sussex's as your new royal family! There's a long tradition of European monarchies allowing their younger sons to go and start new dynasties at the request of another country! I anticipate zero UK objections.😄 As for the jewels and living in full state - what's the point of a king without the bling. You wouldn't want one of those Nordic 'bicycle' monarchies would you. Lol
Genuine question; how is a state governor sworn in today and do they have a relationship with the crown - specifically does the British crown still get a red box from the Australian states?
First, we don't have red boxes in Australia. The monarch gets sent occasional despatches by the Governor about what is going on in the State (eg about elections, the economy, and major controversies), but does not get sent documents by the Government. The monarch's only substantial role in relation to a State is the appointment and removal of the Governor, on the advice of the Premier (see s 7 of the Australia Acts 1986). He or she may perform other functions when visiting a State. Apart from that, it is a ceremonial role. The State Governor is chosen by the Premier, and the monarch is then formally advised to appoint the person chosen (since 3 March 1986). If you want to know about what happened before then, see my book 'The Chameleon Crown - The Queen and Her Australian Governors' (Federation Press, 2006). A new edition of it should be coming out later this year.
Very good explanation. I favour the combined House and Senate choosing a ceremonial President from the state governors or a list of other suitable non-partisan people, to achieve broad support. This would break the monarchial ties but be less open to accusations of bias than the current system where the PM makes the choice. We don't need British supervision. We can do a better job of running our own country.
We don't have British supervision. Australia is already a sovereign, independent nation. Although we could do without the non-resident 'King of Australia'. It's not as if we need him to do anything for us. He doesn't protect us from afar. I can't see it happening any time soon though because it would require a constitutional referendum.
I agree that it is better to have a system where the PM does not effectively get to choose who is Governor-General. This is particularly important during a crisis.
The current system is fantastic and as good as it gets I’m afraid. We should consider whether we can ask the British to formally share the monarch more. Constitutional monarchy is the best system in the world in my humble opinion
All very sensible commentary about an issue that Australia must face sooner or later. To me an election from the combined houses of all states and territories to choose a nominee for the King to appoint makes sense.
Why do we need our GG to be appointed by the English monarch. This needs to change. The appointment should by by the Prime Minister and approved by parliament.
Thanks for another insightful video and happy new year! I’m interested in the project that is digitising and making searchable the various draft versions of the Constitution. Are you able to reveal when that they might become available?
Another interesting video, thank you. In the Solomon Islands the Governor-General is elected by 2/3 of Parliament (unicameral system) compared to half + 1 for the PM. This gives the SI GG a considerable amount of moral authority, and in 2003 it was initially the GG who invited Australian intervention rather than the PM (the Parliament however quickly followed the GG). This example I think shows how an elected GG can subtly change the politics of a given situation, especially when conventions break down.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you for your reply. I again, I very much enjoy this channel! I was a member of the peacekeeping force that went to the Solomon Islands and stayed on there for several years after I finished as a peacekeeper. In that time, I came to know personally three of the Governor-Generals - the Solomon Islands is a small nation! Indeed, I have just finished editing the memoirs of the recently retired GG, Sir David Vunagi. I would be careful about generalising from the experiences of the Solomon Islands to the much larger and developed experience in Australia, but there is certainly an impact to the moral authority of a GG if they are elected. To an extent the Solomon Islands constitution attempts to deal with this by codifying some of the reserve powers.
@@keithjoseph7422 Thanks. If there's anything constitutionally interesting in Sir David's memoirs, do let me know. I wrote about various constitutional crises in South Pacific nations in my book, The Veiled Sceptre, and always like to know more.
@@keithjoseph7422 Keith if you don't mind knowing 3 governor generals of the solomon islands had you heard anything the Kings or queens relation to the GG and the Gg to the government? In particular I'm curious if there was any advance knowledge of the GG about the china treaty and if the GG sends dispatches to the Monarch like in other realms? also sorry to ask but do you know when the memiors will be published?
@@cesargodoy2920 I understand that the relationship between the GG and the Monarch is the same as in Australia; and I am not in the know about anything involving the GG, the Government and China. Confidentiality is always important on these matters, and I am not in the know on this type of thing - I am an Anglican bishop, not a politician! The memoirs will hopefully be published later this year.
The GG should be SELECTED by a two thirds majority of the Members and Senators of the Federal Parliament....with the following qualifications 1. Must never have been an elected member and or senator of Any Australian parliament 2. Must be an Australian citizen. 3. Must not have any criminal convictions 4. As a candidate must provide certified and publicly available statement of personal And immediate family assets and liabilities. 5. Be in good health and be likely to be able to serve a full term of at least 7 years. 6. Cannot be a close relative of a former GG.
Only problem with 1 is that there are actually come politicians who would make good administrators/governors (general), thinking particularly of Chris Patten, former cabinet minister and Tory Party chairman who became the final Governor of Hong Kong, where it is widely regarded he did a very good job. And I think your stipulation of a super-majority would limit the ability of a super-partisan politician getting the top job. However, I also have a problem with the super-majority in the first place: a PM could suggest the most perfect candidate for GG imaginable, but the opposition could easily block that candidate for petty political purposes; I don't know all that much about Australian politics, but can see the likes of Tony Abbott doing just such a dickish thing...
Hi Anne, I have a slightly unusual question about the language used in the Cth Constitution. I’ve noticed that the spelling in the Constitution often conforms to American English instead of British English e.g. ‘Naturalization’ and ‘Authorized’. Do you know why this is? I’ve tried to find information online but can’t seem to be able to! Thanks for another great video!
I imagine for the sake of printing costs, which was the purpose of so-called "American English" to begin with (ie this approach only really took off in America).
@ I would usually think so too - however the two words I spotted (quoted above) are spelled with a ‘Z’ instead of an ‘S’. Since it seems so unusual to write like that now (when it comes to statutes) I wonder why it’s in the constitution?
@@maxleonard5723 I think with that the "S" instead of "Z" is just a more recent fashion. In British texts from earlier centuries (even after the King James Bible) you will see Z used a lot more, eg HMS Enterprize even though in both the UK and US enterprise is spelt with an S today (and there were also HMS Enterprises as well). I can't find good reason why one might be used over the other apart from -ise being more French/Latin and -ize being more Greek. I guess the short answer is they hadn't invented spell check yet and people just accepted the different preferences.
Different spellings have existed throughout Australia's history. What are today regarded as American spellings were popular in Australia throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with the Victorian Department of Education endorsing them into the 1970s and The Age newspaper until the 1990s. This influence can be seen in the spelling of the Australian Labor Party and also in some place names such as Victor Harbor. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary has been credited with re-establishing the dominance of the British spellings in the 1920s and 1930s. For a short time during the late 20th century, Harry Lindgren's 1969 spelling reform proposal (Spelling Reform 1 or SR1) gained some support in Australia and was adopted by the Australian Teachers' Federation and minister Doug Everingham in personal correspondence. Source Australian English - Wikipedia.
Thanks. It's an interesting question. When I looked at the Constitution, I noticed 'authorise' with an 's' in sections 42 and 126 but that it was spelt 'authorize' in section 51(xxiiiA), which was added to the Constitution by referendum in 1946. So that's an interesting anomaly. The word 'naturalized' is spelt with a 'z' in sections 34(ii) and s 51(xix). The answer is likely to be that it has nothing to do with English or American spelling, but rather that certain types of words, such as those which describe a transformative process (such as naturalize) have historically used 'z' rather than 's'. There is an explanation of the distinction here: theconversation.com/its-time-to-recognize-and-internalize-the-us-suffix-ize-19828.
Thank you. I would like to see the GG appointed on the basis of a mixed election-sortition model - somewhat similar to the way in which jurors are appointed. Sortition of an initial pool of candidates, followed by a short-listing by Parliament, and then elected - whether by Parliament or directly.
I saw on an 1855 statute the Governor of NSW described as "Governor General of all Her Majesty’s Australian Possessions". I was surprised to see the term Governor General used. Was it commonly used before Federation? And, if so, was the Governor of NSW always given this extra title?
There was a short period during which the NSW Governor was made Governor-General over the other colonies, which had Lieutenant-Governors. There was also a short-lived colony of Northern Australia. But it didn't last long.
When I was working as a constitutional drafter in Tuvalu, supporting their constitutional reform process, the question of the election of the GG came up. In the end, however, the Government decided to go in a different direction, and the final text of the new constitution simply requires the PM to consult Parliament before nominating a person for appointment as GG. I'm looking forward to seeing the digitisation of early Australian drafts.
Thanks. That's very interesting. I've dipped into the Constitution of Tuvalu a number of times for various reasons, and found it quite interesting and different from others.
@elisasblum753 The PM consults Parliament before nominating a person for appointment as GG? To me that sounds so sensible - and less partisan than the way it's done here in Australia.
@@mindi2050 In part, it is a matter of scale. Tuvalu's Parliament consists of 16 MPs and it has Government and Opposition factions rather than clearly defined, organised, parties. So it is possible for the PM to speak to every MP individually.
@@tonyross5799 Oh, that's so very sad. At least it's a constitutionally significant river, where the first full version of the Constitution was drafted on the Qld steamship, The Lucinda!
Don't give the GG his own political mandate. Don't have the people elect him. The GG should have no political power. At most, he is just an umpire on straight Constitutional matters. If you are subtly or indirectly proposing to have the people elect him, please desist.
Having read some of Prof Twomey's views on an Australian republic, she seems not to support the idea of a directly elected HoS. Quite the opposite in fact. www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Whats_On/Senate_training_and_lectures/Senate_lecture_series/Transcripts/2009/030409
Yes, I recall reading Sir George Greys wonderful speech, so far ahead of his time; but that opportunity has passed and Electing the Governor General would be a bad idea.
An elected Governor General may be more concerned with re-election or personal priorities than performing the duties required of the Australian people. The American example where many positions become politicised seems to operate poorly compared to our elected representatives choosing the best people for each role without the negatives of running for the position. Im regards to becoming a Republic it would be poor form to still require the monarchs approval. The parliament or prime minister must nominate a Governor General, should one still be required.
@mindi2050 I agree with your sentiment, however I think that in our current 2 party system it would likely be the same result. If our government sees an increase in micro parties and more sharing of governance then there could well be more negotiation for the position.
After the Morrison secret 'multi-ministries' debacle, I've sometimes wondered if the role of GG should become more of a 'Judicial' one, so that an appointee with high legal status and knowledge would be able to swear in ministers etc. As to how such an appointee would be selected I'm not sure. Perhaps confirmation via a joint vote of all state upper houses? I'm not sure but I think I would prefer some kind of multi-state based process rather than a Federal parliament to reduce the potential of politicisation. Contrary to this I've also felt like the role of a head of state is to be a kind of Mother / Father to the nation. That is, to act as a kind of secular version of a spiritual leader who can guide and reassure the nation through difficult times, especially during times of national crisis. Hard to imagine a politically appointed judge shining in this role.
A few judges have done well at it - such as Sir William Deane and Sir Ninian Stephen. More recently, Margaret Beazley in NSW is doing a good job. But you definitely need the right personality type - it would not suit all judges.
If Australia takes the step to remove crown then the GG should be chosen via a limited election as the absolute power. That is, to be eligible to vote for a GG you would have to have received an OBE, MBE, OAM or other similar award for service to the country. No approved award, no vote. This contrasts choosing via a regular political process which produces a regular politician. Like it or not social media has significant control over the public viewpoint, which is how we come to have a different calibre of politicians to days of past when only newspapers existed. By allowing only these people to vote is the best we can do to obtain "Australian royalty" utilising people who are already community respected. While any applicant could put their name forward for GG, they would then get subject to vetting of character by these people. . Additional to this is to have both a Lt GG and a GG. Service begins with three years as Lt GG, then three subsequent years as GG, with an election every three years. There would be no immediate immediate power, rather a grace period of learning protocols . This creates a rolling overlap cycle where apprentice becomes the master. This allows for three years training before taking command, power overwatch, and avoidance of complacency with leadership changes. GG's could reapply upon completion and be reapproved. Surplus former GGs could be recalled in event of death or similar. Yes that means 16 positions at any one time, but maybe the LT GG replace speaker of the house where he / she could begin delegating some maturity among certain members? In crisis the GG could form council with those who elected him / her. From there discuss the "peoples will" when in constitutional crisis. I feel this is the right mix of the nations best interests to decide when to caution or dismiss an elected government that is failing in its duties. This council could also convene at any time to vote no confidence referendum style against a GG should he / she fail. GG should be able to launch private fact finding investigations where there is cause to seriously question a government's behaviour. I feel this configuration avoids a Donald Trump popularity vote takeover or a Rupert Murdock purchasing his way to control head of state.
@ absolute? No. As per the current GG system, yes, but with an added Lt GG and the overwatch of a broad council of OAMs etc to vote in no confidence if required. Someone has to watch over the “people’s choice of leader” should they prove to be failing. In the current system the GG could do more than be a ceremonial past and add to the checks and balances of governance as well as be a centre of “long term experience” in contrast to relatively short term politicians who serve briefly then disappear to the corporate world.
I do like the idea of the GG being elected by the parliament sorta like PNG though maybe requiring a 75% majority of members to ensure bi-partizan support (wonder where that came from) with the process not being enshrined in the constitution so it can be removed if not effective. M'am, I find your presentations fascinating, keep-up the good work.
looking around the world today Australias political system isnt perfect but its the best one available.I never agreed much with former senator Vanstone but i whole heartedly agree with her when she said ,"democracy, whats the alternative?"
Thank you, Professor Twomey for bringing us a post on this most complex and crucial of constitutional topics - on the 124th anniversary of our Commonwealth. (Not a coincidence, I’m sure.) True to form, you’ve carefully and concisely laid out the background, context and basic issues of the topic, and illustrated the narrative and its intriguing personages with your characteristic dry wit. We all learn so much from you. As a Republican (the Australian kind), this topic has been of particular interest to me (and many Australians), and I’ve been scratching away at the topic since I was in high school in the 1980s. (When I finished high school, I briefly considered studying and taking up a career in constitutional law, like yourself.) No doubt, you’d be aware of a short volume written by David Solomon and published in the wake of the Whitlam government’s dismissal (by a non-elected official) called ‘Elect the Governor-General’. In his book, Solomon observed that the Australian Constitution was written in such a way that the Governor-General was nominal Head of Government as well as Head of State. It was only through convention that all political power should be exercised by the Prime Minister (an office that was not even mentioned in the Constitution), who was an elected representative of the people. Solomon argued that Australia could switch to a ‘presidential’ system, like the USA, simply by electing the Governor-General. No referendum required. Hey presto! a revolutionary reform without needing to go through a messy (and possibly doomed) plebiscite. Solomon even claimed that the Constitution gives a potentially elected Governor-General even more power over the Australian government than the American President has under the American Constitution. He also observed that an elected Governor-General could appoint ministers to the Federal Executive from within or outside parliament, thus resolving one of the structural flaws, he considered, that hampered our current ‘Washminster’ system. The realisation that our Australian Constitution describes a system of governance that is almost the opposite of how our government works really put the ‘cat among the pigeons’ during the Constitutional Convention of the 1990s. It left the referendum open to manipulation by those opposed to an Australian Republic. To ‘fast track’ an Australian Republic, we had to choose a ‘minimalist’ model, changing the name of the Head of State to ‘President’, and having the office elected by an ‘electoral college’ made up of sitting MHRs and senators. If Australians wished to elect their President by popular vote, while maintaining our traditional system of governance, the Constitution would require a complete rewrite. It would need to spell out the specific (limited) reserve powers of our ‘ceremonial’ Head of State, instead of the fantasy of a medieval fairy-tale kingdom described in our current foundational document. In 1999, the Australian people, whether by good judgement or crafty manipulation from the ‘right’ and the ‘far left’, sent the politicians back to the drawing board. It seems we’ll eventually have to bite the bullet and find some decent constitutional lawyers to rewrite the Constitution. (I can think of one name off the top of my head.) Rather than tearing at clothes, gnashing teeth, and fretting over how to reinvent this wheel, there already is at least one nation that has managed to elect a ‘ceremonial’ president without the spectre of conflicting mandates. It seems Australians like the Irish model of governance, just as we preferred the Irish approach to GST (that is, exemptions for fresh food, books, and other essential goods). But even the Irish system has proven that the grubby fingers of politics can stain an office that is supposed to be above politics.
@ Yes. I did read it, and concur with most of the comments. (Through over two decades of working very closely with Irish community in Sydney, I might be more familiar with Irish politics than most Australians.) The last sentence in my post alludes to my distrust of a system that politicises the office of a ‘ceremonial’ Head of State. The Irish constitutional framework allows - and in some cases, requires - an t-Uachtarán (the President) to act politically, ostensibly to reinforce the government’s agenda and bolster the national ‘esprit de corps’. This function springs from the Irish Republic’s relationship with the people of Northern Ireland, whose citizens and resources remain occupied by a foreign power. Former presidents, Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese, in particular, largely managed to succeed in treading that ‘precarious tightrope’, working as a gentle unifying figurehead for a nation with nearly a quarter of its land and people still under occupation. The current president, Michael D Higgins, has been less successful, occasionally stepping outside the generally understood parameters of his office. As we have seen here in Australia, you don’t have to be an elected Head of State (or viceroy), and claim authority through a popular mandate, to step outside the parameters of the office, by acting against the government’s agenda or advice (Sir John Kerr) or against the spirit - if not the letter - of the Constitution (David Hurley). You don’t have to be an elected Head of State to have the media and political heavies trawl through your past, and that of your family members, to have it come back to destroy your career and reputation (Peter Hollingsworth). By contrast, when Australia suffered a series of terrible tragedies during period characterised by political polarisation, Sir William Deane (like the two Irish Presidential Marys) exemplified the Head of State’s most critical ‘political’ role, seeking to unite the nation’s people and help heal the ‘national soul’. As a strong advocate for social justice and reconciliation with our society’s history and relationship with our First Nations, Deane often found himself in opposition to the Howard government’s agenda without openly criticising it. Personally, I was not in favour of Paul Keating’s preferred ‘minimalist’ proposal for the 1999 referendum, although I grudgingly accepted it as a first ‘stepping stone’ towards a more accurately described framework of governance. I thought John Howard and many other conservative leaders’ support for an elected president was disingenuous, and that Paul Cleary and other progressive leaders’ support for an elected president was short-sighted. In the end, it seems a majority of Australians think that something like the Irish model would suit them. We would be prudent to take a closer look at why and how this model was selected, and how well (or not) it serves its purpose. To quote from the final inspiring words of the Irish Proclamation of Independence, written and proclaimed by Pádraic Pearse, leader of the ‘Easter Rising’ in Dublin, which eventually led to Irish Independence (except for six counties still under occupation), one prays that in establishing a future Australian Republic, our nation “prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which it is called”.
I don’t want to turn the Canadian GG into another politician. What I would like to see is a provincially named Senate who would recommend to the Sovereign or simple vote the GG with real power. I would like to see a diluted power PM taking a weekly walk to Rideau Hall to have a chat with a GG (with power) named by the provinces. That could be interesting.
Oh yes, Quick and Garran gives a good snapshot of the debates, and a view of what was intended, as at 1901. However, occasionally the snapshot is inaccurate and it is always best to look at the primary sources if you can. I find Quick and Garran more useful to get an idea of what people at the time thought they were doing. It gives a contemporary context, which is hard to understand otherwise.
The Govenor General should be impartial not a radical Party member favouring their own Party selected by the Government that may be in Governance how else do citizens sack a Government the Govenor General should therefore be separate to Parliamentary influence not appointed by Parliament but appointed by the Crown
When you suggest that the governor-general should be 'appointed by the Crown', do you mean we should retain the system we have for selecting the governor-general? Currently it's the Prime Minister who advises the monarch who to appoint as governor-general. That seems very partisan to me.
Happy New Year Anne and apologies in advance for a slightly rambly post: Serious question. If we become a republic and there is no monarch to be represented and the head of state in a republic is purely ceremonial, why have one at all? Why can’t the prime minister also be the head of state? And, if we are to have an elected president, as was stated in 1891, who would stand for such a position if it had no power attached to it? While I’m firmly in support of an Australian head of state, I’m concerned that the rusk of unraveling a system that seems to work well is great and we may continue to be best served by an absentee and powerless head of state represented by a GG with even less moral authority to intervene than the monarch, which brings me back to my point. If our current GG can’t even tell us when for example, a PM appoints himself the minister of nearly everything and has virtually no power to act except on the advice of the PM, why have one at all? Are there systems of government that don’t have a head of state save the elected leader of the governing party?
The reason for having a ceremonial head of state and a separate head of government, is to ensure that there is someone non-partisan who can represent the country as a whole at national events (rather than a highly partisan political figure) and to stop the head of government from getting too big for their boots. The head of state also has official functions to fulfil - such as receiving the credentials of each new Ambassador to the country and granting honours, etc. Heads of government are too busy with other work to fulfil these functions. The head of state also has an important oversight role (to pick up errors in Executive Council matters) and a role in warning a Prime Minister who is pushing against the constitutional guardrails. Ultimately, the head of state has reserve powers, including the power to dismiss a government. You cannot give such a power to the Prime Minister.
South Africa has a President who is more like a Prime Minister in that they are elected by Parliament and be dismissed by a vote of no confidence, but they combine the office of head of state and head of government. However most parliamentary republics separate these roles. For example, Ireland directly elects their president, who has almost no power save the ability to deny the government's request to dissolve parliament, and the head of government is elected by the parliament
Happy New Year Professor, hope the break was peaceful for you. Most interesting video as always. As a fellow Sydneysider, I’m a bit intrigued by the current fight between the state government and the railway unions, it’s made me wonder if there is a constitutional right to go on strike, or is it legislated or even just implied? I see it’s a bit of a maelstrom of law with the Fair Work Act, the Fair Work Commission and the elected state government with it’s own laws, i.e. The Essential Services Act etc. Overall it seems to be a mess.
It's a long story. There's no right to strike in the Constitution. The Commonwealth Parliament was given limited powers to legislate in s 51(xxxv) in relation to 'conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State'. However, this limited power was effectively overridden by the High Court in the notorious WorkChoices case, where a majority of the Court interpreted s 51(xx), regarding trading and financial corporations, so widely that it permits laws on industrial relations concerning those corporations. When it comes to State railways, the question then is whether the relevant persons are employed by a trading corporation (as sometimes government corporations are created to employ people in different sectors) or whether they come under the Crown. In some jurisdictions, such as Victoria, they gave up altogether and just use the Commonwealth industrial relations laws. In some, State railway employees continue to fall under State industrial laws. So yes, it is rather a mess.
Fascinating explanation, almost an exegesis, of the topic. For my mind I have fancied for some time that the G-G be appointed as usual by the monarch but on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition or if the election results necessitate a coalition potentially three persons agreeing to a nomination. Such a method would rid the PM's patronage (currently the case) and widen the field as both government and opposition would be responsible. If matters were to go awry as has happened then both leaders would be responsible for nominating an unsuitable person. In respect to Governors the same system could apply. Of course this needs further reasoning/discussion.
Many complain we have too many levels of Government. Perhaps you would like to comment on the near impossibility of removing any layer of our current system of Government?
The states are a left over from the pre federation era... we could do away with the state levels - make all their responsibilities such as education, health etc federal agencies, and have local / regional councils that deliver services and are the public face of the federal government. The states hold so much up, all with different ideas, as well as the cost of holding all the elections, party politics, corruption and costs associated with this level of government. On a practical level, consider we have one health department, not 7 or 8, we have one education department, not 7 or 8, we have one land titles office, driver licencing and other services, instead of the 7 or 8 - that is massive duplication and waste.
Personally i think the position should be symbolic and electing them could give a mandate to use their position but i also don't like the idea of them being unilaterally appointed.
Professor, have you ever canvassed the issue of the reserve powers which would appropriately vest in a Republican Head of State? I tried to float this as an honours topic 20 years ago, but couldn't get a supervisor to take it on.😢
I've certainly looked at it from time to time. I'm not keen on codifying reserve powers, because this results in a brittle Constitution that breaks under stress - see my book, The Veiled Sceptre. I also gave a Senate lecture on its once, setting out one approach: www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Publications_and_resources/Papers_and_research/Papers_on_Parliament_and_other_resources/Papers_on_Parliament/51/twomey.
@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you for that. I can still stand on the very spot I was standing on when the ABC btoke the news on 11 November 1975. The day is burned in my memory. 50th anniversary this year. Best wished and thanks for your continuing efforts.
No system of government is fool proof. But the existing system where we have a prime minister rather than a president is safer. And it is good to have a prime minister tossed about by political winds, who has someone he or she is answerable to, even if only in a largely ceremonial sense, who represents the Crown, that is, the whole system.
I also like our parliamentary system (for the most part) with a Prime Minister and a separate position of governor-general as Australia's de facto Head of State. I just don't want the governor-general to be vice regal to a non-resident monarch.
Having a president does not necessarily mean that the president must be Head of Government as well as Head of State (that is, a ‘Presidential’ system, like the USA and Indonesia). There are many countries (like Germany, Israel and India, for instance) who have a ‘ceremonial’ president as Head of State, while the prime minister holds most of the political power as Head of Government (that is, a parliamentary system, like our own). Most ceremonial presidents are elected by a nation’s parliament (or electoral college made up of elected representatives) - which was the proposal put forward in Australia’s 1999 referendum on the Republic. Some nations, like Ireland, have an elected ‘ceremonial’ president with very limited (‘reserve’) powers spelled out in the constitution. And yes, each major party puts forward its own presidential candidate, but the winning party gains little more than ‘bragging rights’, when the president’s role is an apolitical one. The Taoiseach (prime minister) is the Head of Government with all the power of the electoral mandate. France has a unique (dare I say, ‘weird’) hybrid system with political powers divided between the President (a Head of State with its own electoral mandate) and the Prime Minister (a Head of Government, and leader of the parliament, but with limited power over the major affairs of state).
Hi Professor, Proclamation of the Commonwealth. s(3) shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth. The King may at anytime after the proclamation appointment a G.G There's more frequency signals and broadcasting TV from N.S.W that... "the east coast is tilting in the ocean." So when the constitution has the wording 'agreed thereto' to the appointment of the G.G do you think it's fair? Advance Australia Fair. 🌏🇦🇺
The words 'agreed thereto' in covering clause 3, occur in a phrase about whether Queen Victoria was satisfied that the people of Western Australia had agreed to join the Federal Commonwealth. If so, she could include Western Australia in a proclamation that established the Federal Commonwealth. After that proclamation, she could appoint a Governor-General. This needed to happen first, so that writs could be issued for an election and ministers appointed. The words 'agreed thereto' didn't concern the appointment of the Governor-General. Moreover, covering clause 3 is now of historical relevance only, as the proclamation and the appointment of the first Governor-General have already occurred.
@constitutionalclarion1901 Thankyou for straightening me out. Was Western Australia so "special" because of geography distance or was there opposition to Federation?📻☮️📻⛩️
Western Australia was wary about joining. It had not agreed yet to join at the time the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 was enacted by the UK Parliament on 9 July 1900. But the Act left open the ability for it to join as an "original State" if it did so before the Proclamation. WA held its referendum on 31 July 1900. Women over 21 could vote. The referendum passed, which allowed Queen Victoria to include Western Australia in her Proclamation establishing the Commonwealth of Australia.
Was omitting a Bill of Rights from the Australian Constitution a conscious decision or an oversight? The UK Bill of Rights had been pretty well eroded by the time the Aussie constitution was written, so they knew relying on common law for rights didn't work. The rights of the US constitution, however, were still standing strong.
It was deliberate. An attempt to include aspects of the US bill of rights, such as equality before the law and due process of law was voted down, on the basis that no one could say precisely what they mean, leaving the courts to interpret them in potentially very broad ways. The framers of the Constitution thought it was better for elected Parliaments to decide such matters.
It makes no sense that a third party (ie the electors) could choose the sovereign’s representative. At that point the GG is no longer repressing the sovereign, as he/she had no hand in their selection, but at the GG are rather the representative of the electors to whom the GG owes their position.
It makes no sense to me that we need a non-resident monarch to officially approve the appointment. It's the Prime Minister who actually chooses the governor-general. All the monarch does is officially approve the appointment. The monarch approving the appointment would still happen no matter how our GG was selected. To me it all seems like anachronistic nonsense. I doubt Charles would even know any of these people who supposedly 'represent' him.
King George V took your view back in 1930. He didn't want to appoint Sir Isaac Isaacs as Governor-General of Australia, because he didn't personally know him. But in the end, the King had to back down, because the various Dominions agreed at an Imperial Conference that the King had to act on the advice of his local ministers in the relevant Dominion on the subject.
Electing a Governor-General would undermine the parliamentary system of government, which would be detrimental to democracy in Australia. A more worthwhile reform would be introducing proportional representation into the lower house.
Politicians will never allow the citizens to elect the Governor General for the same reason that they will never allow the citizens to elect the President in a future republic . It would erode politicians power . There would be no point in the public electing the Governor General if only " suitable " candidates were allowed to run for the position . Same for President .
There's too much power in the office of the Prime Minister, imo. The GG's appointment should be in consultation with the Opposition Leader to ensure a non-partisan person.
Of course, politicians will allow an Australian Head of State to be elected. Because whenever you have an election, a politician always wins! Just like other countries with an elected Head of State, be prepared for the Labor candidate, the Liberal-National Candidate, the Greens candidate and the One Nation candidate for the office of President of Australia. It won’t mean much, though, if the Constitution is rewritten to spell out the specific reserve powers of the office.
And it's for the very same reason that the politicians will never allow citizens to vote, the Voice and Gay Marriage notwithstanding, in referendums for matters of public importance other than when seeking changes to the Commonwealth Constitution. Indeed, the slightest mention of it causes politicians and bureaucrats to mess themselves.
I suggested to John Williams a couple of years ago, that he publish a second edition or reprint. He said a lot of barristers had asked him that. I will have to press him on it again, next time our paths cross.
Yes, it was terrible that they remaindered the book. It's the sort of thing that people will want for a long time. Nonetheless, the online project will hopefully fill the gap to some extent.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 John has just returned from leave, and in response to my email tells me that he has a grant to digitize his book with Uni of WA.
The Governor General should be appointed by a Constitutional Majority of the Federal Parliament on the nomination by a Joint Select Committee of both houses. No to a Presidential style direct election.
Hello and happy new year! It's occurred to me to ask something about the discussions for drafting the Australian constitution - was anyone at the time influenced by the US system of electing state governors, as far as we know?
I can't say I noticed such references on reading the debates, but it's not inconceivable because a number of the framers were quite interested in American constitutional law. They looked to a book by Bryce, called 'The American Commonwealth', which is quite interesting if you can get hold of one. However, there was never any real support in Australia for a presidential style system. The preference was always for responsible government, as in the UK.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Many thanks! I do appreciate that US state governors are a different kettle of fish, but I just thought the idea of having them elected might have been derived from the American system.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 thanks, This could lead to another Video, On the ACT and NT Administrator and Governor-General. Love your work and hope for a great 2025
First time posting so forgive if I’m being rude by asking a further question as opposed to contributing feedback(not that I’m knowledgeable to be able to do so). What complexity of legal and constitutional workarounds would be required to keep the current structure , including the GG with only the current powers they have, but snip off the Head of state , which currently is filled by the monarchy(i.e. no head of state/ monarch/president)? Note here I’m saying rh GG would still have the dismissal mechanism
That was essentially the minimalist model put forward by the Australian Republican Movement at the 1999 referendum. It failed partly on the premise that it did not clarify the reserve powers hence 1975 could occur again.
@@alanbrookes275I’m guessing, reading wiki (I’m not a constitutionalist) You’re referring to the Mcgarvie model? Very much a minimalist model and would have been probably more likely to pass a referendum but seems to have been deep Sixes by more radical republicans, supposedly thinking the referendum would fail and they’d have a second Crack at it? Sigh. My only dissent to what otherwise seems something most could swallow is that it still has a head of state. My thoughts are that after decades of of what is basically an absent head of state or a theoretical tick i. The box delivered by the monarchy still holding that title, that I. Fact we haven’t actually had a head of state. It would be interesting to see a poll of Australians when give three choices - do you want a head of state (current) , do you want a head of state ( president) , you don’t want/ think we need/ a head of state. Of course such an action would then wreck the beauty of the mcgarvie model as it’d make it highly complex
Snipping off the monarch is not as easy as it sounds, because you still then have to work out how, and by whom, the Governor-General is chosen and can be removed. Removal is a particularly tricky issue - on what basis and by whom? There is also the question of whether the existing conventions and incentives would apply if the monarchy were removed from the system. Finally, it has to be acceptable to the people, to get them to vote in favour of it at a referendum. In 1999, the argument was successfully run that the people were being denied their right to choose the President and that they should therefore reject the model. (It was silly, because the people didn't get to choose the hereditary monarch either, but the referendum still failed).
@@constitutionalclarion1901could therefore the mcgarvie model suffice with the dismissal mechanism supported through some form of advice/guidance by an independent person/body but leaving the final decision and responsibility on the GG to wear. Could that form of GG be stated to not be a head of state , not be a president( the latter because that nomenclature and model seems toxic now to Australians particularly when we see currently overseas the issues with elected heads of state )?
Yes, it would be preferable not to call the new head of state a 'President', as this misleads people as to the person's status and powers. Personally, I'd just use 'head of state', although it would be good if we could find a uniquely Australian word for the office. You could also use a McGarvie-type of model for appointment and removal. The main problem would be convincing people to agree to it in a referendum, as those opposing it would run the old argument of it being a "politicians' republic" and that the head of state would be chosen by politicians in a corrupt deal or to placate party hacks.
So how about this then, a degree of "democracy" in what is essentially an undemocratic system and PM gets to keep their powers of patronage: Prime Minister/Premier makes a nomination that must be approved by respective parliament? Because PM is the leader of the largest party/coalition, they're pretty certain to get their nominee through, however if the PM were to go a bit mad and try nominating someone completely inappropriate, Parliament can still say no...
France changed from a King to an elected head of state and where are they now?…up to their fifth version of the constitution, maybe headed for a sixth. The fact is that elections for head of state are very complex to manage when you also have a parliament. Our system is very uncomplicated, there’s no split mandate. There’s clear democratic accountability.
In no ways a constitutional lawyer just an interested voter. Recently self published, on amazon, a booklet on the same topic. Not likely to be a best seller but had fun researching it with help of some of Profs writings.
Happy New Year Anne. PNG and Solomon Island legislatures elect their Governor- Generals. I would amend the Constitution to ensure the G G is dismissed by the Parliament after a 2/3 vote
Thank you, Professor Twomey, for this interesting video. There are a few additional things that are perhaps worth discussing. The first is the impression I have that the Crown (British Crown at that time) was considered as something of an umbrella that protected everything under it. The Federation unified under the Crown - personified at the time and identified with the British monarch as King or Queen. The ultimate authority was always assumed to be from the Crown (or tangentially assumed to be from the elected Parliaments authorised by the Crown). It was interesting in your video to see that the states were to keep their sovereignty within the Federation. To keep that independence for the states, the Governors were not made to be subservient to the Governor-General. I assume from this that the vice-regal roles for both the federal and state tiers of government have essentially a status of equality between the seven respective representatives of the monarch: the six Governors and the Governor-General. The vice-regal representatives deal with the parliaments on a day-to-day basis - providing royal assent and performing other functions and duties. They would meet with and interact with Ministers on a regular basis. They would be considered insiders on the political workings of governments for both major parties, and hopefully are selected for an impartial viewpoint. The monarch, however, has nothing to do with the day-to-day running of parliaments, apart from appointing the Governor or Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister or Premier. And yet, the modern Crown for a body politics could now be identified with the people of the the respective body politics - even if there is some overlap between body politics (ie, between the federal and state tiers of government). A question is how that sense of a unifying Crown can be maintained once Australia becomes a republic, and in a way that is both blind to politics in parliaments and yet sees and is seen as belonging to the people of the body politics in Australia. I feel that the office of Governor-General is not the best focal point for an Australian head of state. But that is just my opinion. Your videos are really helpful for building an understanding and historical context for the arguments and points put forward in debates on the transition to an Australian republic.
Why not just have senior state governor be appointed as GG. Can implement now with or without Republic. Remove from PM, and means they have had experience in Governor role and had vetting. Oops posted before listening to the video.
Gosh, you are really behind! For the first time in a long time, I wandered outside at midnight to see the Sydney fireworks on the Harbour Bridge at midnight. They were pretty impressive. Less impressive was the enormous amount of garbage around the foreshore in the morning.
Uninformed viewers here. This is all very interesting. may break down. I’d be against direct appointment of G-G just on the principle of avoiding an election process and the inevitable corruption. No presidents. Maybe let the parliament pick six qualified candidates and they roll dice to pick the winner.
But if you remove the monarch from the process, you have to change how the GG is appointed and removed, because at the moment that is done by the monarch.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Appoint a '(Lord) Protector' to take the place of the Monarch. Appointing the G-G and being there as a backstop outside the political process.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I would prefer having no Governors or Governor Generals. In a republic, why would we? Premiers and Prime Minister are all we need, and as a Queenslander I do not believe in a Senate in any form. However some form of review is required to curb rampant legislating, so a Constitutional Court would have to review new legislation for Constitutional conformity before being presented to Parliament, and this would also include legislation proposed by members of the public. I think Sweden has something like this but it looks at new laws for conformity, not new legislation. While I'm here, why do Qld LNP members elected to Federal Parliament suddenly become Liberal or National as soon as they cross the border? To me this makes the whole LNP fake and ineligible to stand in Federal Parliament.
@@EdMcF1 Do you mean a 'lord protector' and a governor-general? Where would the lord protector come from? Who would choose them? One head of state is all we need - just the one. If he/she breaches the Constitution, they can be challenged in the HCA. I don't understand why many Australians seem to think we need a de facto HoS (the GG) as well as a constitutionally spent 'King of Australia'. I suspect King Charles probably wonders the same thing.
@@kennkoala If we retain our parliamentary system, it's important to have a resident head of state and a separate head of government. At least at the federal level. I like the separation of powers and checks and balances a parliamentary system provides.
Not concerning legal aspects, only general control theory. The first question we have to ask - who is the governor? What is his functions? Just stamp laws, sign award sheets and ceremonial functions? In this case it does not matter at all how to appoint, elect or whatever else, including select on some exhibition like pedigree cats. Nothing depends on his own decisions, its just wending machine, drop coin get snack. Ooops, not completely, we do have "reserve power" concept, some informal way to break ties, last resort for stalled state machine, used very rare but in absolutely critical situation? In this case the governor must NOT belong to existing state politics. The best way if he will be somewhere from Mars, but at least he must NOT be appointed (even advised) by govt or elected by voters. It creates loopback, the very same thing which this reserve power destined to drive over. When constitution was written 130 years ago this concept did not exist, all these ideas are from WWII era, dawn of cybernetics, automated control, theory of games and all other math studies in these fields, but math is always math and it always work the same regardless do people know it or not. I suspect that some politicians of 19th century (Barton) did not realise it, but definitely had some feeling about. Particularly this was the reason of separate governors for states, to destroy additional links tangling this reserve power, even if they proclaimed it as "state independency". Reserve power must NOT depend on anything, including GG or who is there above. It must cope with problems strictly by itself.
I have a question about elected federal members - if they can be bound to certain conditions to resign if they fail to meet a particular criteria - but don't have the legal or constitutional understanding to find the answer myself... can I suggest a video topic or send you an e-mail to get an answer?
Members of Parliament are not able to enter into contracts about how they vote, etc, as this is regarded as being a contract against public policy. Further, the Constitution provides for a person to be elected for a specific term - subject to disqualification or resignation or death. I don't think you could legislate to require a person to resign, as that would be contrary to the Constitution.
What is wrong with the current system of appointing the GG? It’s fine. None have been controversial appointments, at least in the past 50 years. This is so much navel-gazing it is beyond belief
@@99thTuesday Maybe there would have been a better selection to choose from if there had been some kind of selection committee nominating suitable people for the position. Who knows? But having a monarch who John Kerr was busy trying to placate (by not getting her involved) plus worry about being sacked by Gough, did seem to stop Kerr from officially warning Gough Whitlam that his government would be dismissed and an election called if Gough didn't resolve the problem of Supply.
I do believe that Australia will become a Republic and I support a Republic but I do not support the model of an elected Governor General /President . Do we really need the office of GG or President being politicized on party political lines ? The great thing about the present unelected GG is just that he is head of state but is largely ceremonial . We have a great system in this country it works so why completely upend it ?
assuming that the governor general acts largely ceremonially is short-sighted. the governor general acts in the interest of preserving the influence and and position of the monarch
@@davidlogan4329 Views vary on the subject of Australia becoming a republic. Although I don't know any Australian republic supporter (including me) who would ever support a US style presidential system.
Did First Nations people have any input to these discussions if not how does this fact affect the Constitutions legality under the rules of the British legal system of the time, as pertains to is colonies ?
The Constitution was legally enacted under the British legal system because it was enacted by the Westminster Parliament, which is a sovereign Parliament with full power to make laws.
There is a system that involves choosing by lot - it's known as 'sortition'. Check out how the Doges of Venice were chosen - it's amazingly complex and used sortition at various stages to reduce the prospect of manipulation by the great families.
What's wrong with discussing hypotheticals? It's how we think, analyse and learn. Besides, most of the video is about history, based upon primary sources. It is hardly baloney.
Professor Twomey, you really are a national treasure. Thank you and happy new year!
Thanks. Much appreciated.
Please find attached a freshly polished New Year, Anne. The Clarionettes are on board and ready to sail with you through 2025.
Excellent. All steam ahead!
Second that!
Time we hold a referendum/ plebiscite on whether to appoint an Australian as head of nation, in principle, without any options, other then listing all possibilities.
If just referendum passes, then we can work on what option to proceed with and hold another referendum on whether to adopt that particular option
I am a huge admirer of your work, I really love what you do. I am very grateful for you sharing your wisdom, it is a real privilege.
Thanks. That's lovely to hear.
Hurray for another Constitutional Clarion! Happy New Year 🎉
Same to you!
I've been advocating for this for ages, thank you so much for this video
You're most welcome.
I've wondered why the office of Prime Minister is not in the Constitution. What were the proposals or deliberations at the conventions?
I might do a video on that one at some stage.
new video already! happy new years Professor Twomey! as for the idea I think perhaps parilment or a select committee of parilment choosing would be good.In Canada they had a group to advise the PM but Trudeau got rid of it.
Thanks for the video and happy new year for you and your loved ones!
Yes, I once sat next to the official Secretary to the Canadian Governor-General at a dinner, and he explained how the system worked. It's a pity that Trudeau got rid of it.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 you could have ended that sentence after ‘Trudeau’.
@@alanbrooke144 😆
And a happy New Year to you, Prof.
Thanks!
Banger vid, great stuff
Glad you enjoyed it.
Happy New Year Anne. Interested to know our rights and how to combat the over arching beauracracy and UN and imposition should it ever eventuate. Would love a an opportunity to contribute to an independent arm that undertakes its own maintenance of our rights. I would happily join.
Election by the Parliament of the Commonwealth,and then formal appointment by the Monarch, would still risk giving the GG a political status that current appointed holders of the office do not have..
Although having the Prime Minister choosing our de facto Head of State also risks giving the position of GG a political penchant.
I clearly recall the last referendum on a republic and the debate over the method of selecting the Governor General. As I recall it, there was strong public support for direct elections, but strong political opposition due to the possibility of political conflict between the GG/President and Parliament. My greatest objection, however was not to the suggestion of Parliament appointing the GG, but to the PM wanting the power to dismiss the GG for any cause, or no cause at all. If the position is to have any value at all, surely there must be some form of Parliamentary oversight.
ps, I think we should take an uniquely Australian approach to selecting the GG and raffle the job. Winner gets the gig for five years, funds all of his/her expenses and keeps any leftovers at the end of term as a retirement nest-egg, all tax-free.
That would not be a uniquely Australian approach. It's called 'sortition' - check it out on the internet.
The only reason to have a GG or President is for them to be able to sack the government of the day if required .
It's ashame how the current GG has been completely overpaid just because she never served and does not receive a pension. I served, and never will I get the pension because it was removed in the 90's.
All about looking after your mates it seems.
It should be the people to vote who becomes the GG and for them to retain the power to dissolve parliament when needed.
Yeah . Albanese's best mate and doubles the salary for her .
The Governor-General received a salary calculated by the same method as her predecessors. The only difference was that her predecessors had agreed to deduct the amount that they simultaneously received from the Crown as a pension. No such deduction was made for the current Governor-General as she was not receiving a pension from the Crown. Ultimately, all of them received the same effective amount from the Crown, as adjusted to take into account inflation and that the salary cannot be altered for the entire term of the Governor-General.
Happy new year from Germany to Australia, which I hope to visit again in the near future. It’s been a long time ago, but when taking my constitutional class here we were taught about the role of the three western allies at the drafting process of the post war West German Basic Law, which serve as our constitution to this day, with amendments ofc. When setting up the provisions of the head of state (Bundespräsident) which should not be the head of government ( that what we have the chancellor for) the British and French delegation were especially active, since the USA don’t do it that way. I understand that member of the British delegation (and I am not sure if the members were not also from British dominions) made reference to the Australian discussion you just talked about. At the end the Bundespräsident is now elected by a unique body, that only comes together to elect the Bundespräsident and is composed of all member of the directly elected lower house (Bundestag) and the same number of members selected by the 16 federal states. This system so far worked fine to keep the officer holder aloof over current party politics, despite being often a former politician himself.
Thanks. That's really interesting. Personally, I would much prefer such a form of indirect election, rather than direct popular election. But there remains a question as to whether the Australian people, in a referendum, would accept that.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Well, in the meantime we are glad that members of our old noble Battenberg and Sachsen-Coburg familes can help you out😉 Have a great 2025!
Really interesting - thank you. Although I'm hoping you don't view countries like Australia as 'British dominions'.
@ sorry, was that the wrong term for self-governing countries under the Westminster system?
G,day Buddy "mate" have a read of the words to the Australian national anthem.
☕🫖
Thank you, that was very balanced. It's interesting how the constitutional debates came to value the ceremonial, non-partisan role of the GG. You make a good point about trialing (for a few decades) direct elections of the GG (from the exiting Governors - very sensible idea) to see how well it works. Most people don't have the foggiest idea who they are. I look forward to a video about an Australian dynasty to replace the British monarchy - seems wacky, but the more you look into it, the more the idea has going for it. Everyone would know who the monarch is, that's for sure!
When and why did the monarch become unknown? Isn't it the result of deliberately trying to 'play down' monarchy by Australian politicians? It's been a creeping feature of UK life as well I might add - slowly, slowly without consultation small things are removed or suddenly cease. Portraits of the monarch were common when I was young - you'd find one in all municipal and government buildings and elsewhere. They still exist here and there but It's rare to see one now. Small things I remember like 'God Save The Queen' being exclaimed by a Returning Officer after announcing an election result no longer happen. We don't give commemorative coins etc to kids in school on jubilees anymore. I could go on. These things add up and serve to slowly undermine the institution. My paranoid side wonders to what if any extent it is deliberate.
@gideon_uk9754 So true. I think it's a deliberate attack on 'unelected authority' and 'elite privilege', but that has become a hollow accusation as the job entails ever more obligation with very limited powers and many constraints on the monarch's personal freedom. However, the British royal family's considerable wealth is an Achilles heal I think. The symbols of monarchy (the crown jewels, etc) should be state-owned. I think we need to argue for monarchy in a new way - one that recognizes the centrality of family in society.
@@saimoncole Tbf I think the jewels are, in effect, state owned. A quick Google tells me that the Royal Collection is technically owned by the monarch but is divided into two parts. Stuff that is included in the second part is held in 'Right of Trust' and cannot be sold. Anything acquired before Queen Victoria's death in 1901 is automatically included in the Trust and of course includes the regalia etc. There are also many other items that monarchs transfer into the Trust over the years such as wedding gifts that have become iconic.
Similarly, all but two of the residences are state owned and could never be sold. The two that aren't - Sandringham and Balmoral were paid for by the RF out of their own monies.
@gideon_uk9754 Thanks for clarifying that... I was aware of some of it being held in Trust... and it is good that it is... However, what I have in mind are objections Aussies might have to an home-grown monarchy. I think an Australian royal family with the personal wealth to own a Sandringham and Balmoral (an Iona and a Como House?) is not going to go down well. But I think there are enough Aussies who like bling enough to shout down those who would say that state-owned regalia would be a waste of taxpayer money. 😆
@@saimoncole Here's an idea: you could take the Sussex's as your new royal family! There's a long tradition of European monarchies allowing their younger sons to go and start new dynasties at the request of another country! I anticipate zero UK objections.😄
As for the jewels and living in full state - what's the point of a king without the bling. You wouldn't want one of those Nordic 'bicycle' monarchies would you. Lol
Genuine question; how is a state governor sworn in today and do they have a relationship with the crown - specifically does the British crown still get a red box from the Australian states?
First, we don't have red boxes in Australia. The monarch gets sent occasional despatches by the Governor about what is going on in the State (eg about elections, the economy, and major controversies), but does not get sent documents by the Government. The monarch's only substantial role in relation to a State is the appointment and removal of the Governor, on the advice of the Premier (see s 7 of the Australia Acts 1986). He or she may perform other functions when visiting a State.
Apart from that, it is a ceremonial role.
The State Governor is chosen by the Premier, and the monarch is then formally advised to appoint the person chosen (since 3 March 1986). If you want to know about what happened before then, see my book 'The Chameleon Crown - The Queen and Her Australian Governors' (Federation Press, 2006). A new edition of it should be coming out later this year.
God, I hope not. Poor Charles III. Having to wade through all those red boxes.
Very good explanation. I favour the combined House and Senate choosing a ceremonial President from the state governors or a list of other suitable non-partisan people, to achieve broad support. This would break the monarchial ties but be less open to accusations of bias than the current system where the PM makes the choice.
We don't need British supervision. We can do a better job of running our own country.
We don't have British supervision. Australia is already a sovereign, independent nation. Although we could do without the non-resident 'King of Australia'. It's not as if we need him to do anything for us. He doesn't protect us from afar.
I can't see it happening any time soon though because it would require a constitutional referendum.
I agree that it is better to have a system where the PM does not effectively get to choose who is Governor-General. This is particularly important during a crisis.
The current system is fantastic and as good as it gets I’m afraid. We should consider whether we can ask the British to formally share the monarch more. Constitutional monarchy is the best system in the world in my humble opinion
All very sensible commentary about an issue that Australia must face sooner or later. To me an election from the combined houses of all states and territories to choose a nominee for the King to appoint makes sense.
Elections are political thus an elected person is always a politician.
A republic is a lawyers and politicians picnic. No thanks!
No more than the current system. That's because all systems of government give rise to difficult legal problems from time to time.
I sometimes joke that we should just choose a random citizen through a lottery.
Why do we need our GG to be appointed by the English monarch. This needs to change. The appointment should by by the Prime Minister and approved by parliament.
There is no English monarch. There is a British monarch who is also the Australian monarch.
Thanks for another insightful video and happy new year! I’m interested in the project that is digitising and making searchable the various draft versions of the Constitution. Are you able to reveal when that they might become available?
I'm not sure, but I think it's soon. When people are back from their holidays and I find out more info, I'll let you know.
Another interesting video, thank you. In the Solomon Islands the Governor-General is elected by 2/3 of Parliament (unicameral system) compared to half + 1 for the PM. This gives the SI GG a considerable amount of moral authority, and in 2003 it was initially the GG who invited Australian intervention rather than the PM (the Parliament however quickly followed the GG). This example I think shows how an elected GG can subtly change the politics of a given situation, especially when conventions break down.
Thanks. That's very interesting.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you for your reply. I again, I very much enjoy this channel! I was a member of the peacekeeping force that went to the Solomon Islands and stayed on there for several years after I finished as a peacekeeper. In that time, I came to know personally three of the Governor-Generals - the Solomon Islands is a small nation! Indeed, I have just finished editing the memoirs of the recently retired GG, Sir David Vunagi. I would be careful about generalising from the experiences of the Solomon Islands to the much larger and developed experience in Australia, but there is certainly an impact to the moral authority of a GG if they are elected. To an extent the Solomon Islands constitution attempts to deal with this by codifying some of the reserve powers.
@@keithjoseph7422 Thanks. If there's anything constitutionally interesting in Sir David's memoirs, do let me know. I wrote about various constitutional crises in South Pacific nations in my book, The Veiled Sceptre, and always like to know more.
@@keithjoseph7422 Keith if you don't mind knowing 3 governor generals of the solomon islands had you heard anything the Kings or queens relation to the GG and the Gg to the government? In particular I'm curious if there was any advance knowledge of the GG about the china treaty and if the GG sends dispatches to the Monarch like in other realms?
also sorry to ask but do you know when the memiors will be published?
@@cesargodoy2920 I understand that the relationship between the GG and the Monarch is the same as in Australia; and I am not in the know about anything involving the GG, the Government and China. Confidentiality is always important on these matters, and I am not in the know on this type of thing - I am an Anglican bishop, not a politician! The memoirs will hopefully be published later this year.
May God save us from megalomaniac millionaires and ultra rich buffoons.
Your imaginary deity is not going to save you from your evident envy.
other option is gray political career rat who at last, after years and years, got the office. Megalomaniac is much more predictable.
@@DerykRobossonnothing here says envy.
And save us from social engineering idealogues and self-proclaimed so-called 'enlightened reformers'.
@@mgregory2430 hatred of the good for being the good is envy. Envy is rooted in altruism. Think a bit deeper next time.
The GG should be SELECTED by a two thirds majority of the Members and Senators of the Federal Parliament....with the following qualifications
1. Must never have been an elected member and or senator of Any Australian parliament
2. Must be an Australian citizen.
3. Must not have any criminal convictions
4. As a candidate must provide certified and publicly available statement of personal And immediate family assets and liabilities.
5. Be in good health and be likely to be able to serve a full term of at least 7 years.
6. Cannot be a close relative of a former GG.
Only problem with 1 is that there are actually come politicians who would make good administrators/governors (general), thinking particularly of Chris Patten, former cabinet minister and Tory Party chairman who became the final Governor of Hong Kong, where it is widely regarded he did a very good job. And I think your stipulation of a super-majority would limit the ability of a super-partisan politician getting the top job.
However, I also have a problem with the super-majority in the first place: a PM could suggest the most perfect candidate for GG imaginable, but the opposition could easily block that candidate for petty political purposes; I don't know all that much about Australian politics, but can see the likes of Tony Abbott doing just such a dickish thing...
Hi Anne, I have a slightly unusual question about the language used in the Cth Constitution. I’ve noticed that the spelling in the Constitution often conforms to American English instead of British English e.g. ‘Naturalization’ and ‘Authorized’. Do you know why this is? I’ve tried to find information online but can’t seem to be able to! Thanks for another great video!
I imagine for the sake of printing costs, which was the purpose of so-called "American English" to begin with (ie this approach only really took off in America).
@ I would usually think so too - however the two words I spotted (quoted above) are spelled with a ‘Z’ instead of an ‘S’. Since it seems so unusual to write like that now (when it comes to statutes) I wonder why it’s in the constitution?
@@maxleonard5723 I think with that the "S" instead of "Z" is just a more recent fashion. In British texts from earlier centuries (even after the King James Bible) you will see Z used a lot more, eg HMS Enterprize even though in both the UK and US enterprise is spelt with an S today (and there were also HMS Enterprises as well).
I can't find good reason why one might be used over the other apart from -ise being more French/Latin and -ize being more Greek. I guess the short answer is they hadn't invented spell check yet and people just accepted the different preferences.
Different spellings have existed throughout Australia's history. What are today regarded as American spellings were popular in Australia throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with the Victorian Department of Education endorsing them into the 1970s and The Age newspaper until the 1990s. This influence can be seen in the spelling of the Australian Labor Party and also in some place names such as Victor Harbor. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary has been credited with re-establishing the dominance of the British spellings in the 1920s and 1930s. For a short time during the late 20th century, Harry Lindgren's 1969 spelling reform proposal (Spelling Reform 1 or SR1) gained some support in Australia and was adopted by the Australian Teachers' Federation and minister Doug Everingham in personal correspondence. Source Australian English - Wikipedia.
Thanks. It's an interesting question. When I looked at the Constitution, I noticed 'authorise' with an 's' in sections 42 and 126 but that it was spelt 'authorize' in section 51(xxiiiA), which was added to the Constitution by referendum in 1946. So that's an interesting anomaly. The word 'naturalized' is spelt with a 'z' in sections 34(ii) and s 51(xix).
The answer is likely to be that it has nothing to do with English or American spelling, but rather that certain types of words, such as those which describe a transformative process (such as naturalize) have historically used 'z' rather than 's'. There is an explanation of the distinction here: theconversation.com/its-time-to-recognize-and-internalize-the-us-suffix-ize-19828.
Thank you. I would like to see the GG appointed on the basis of a mixed election-sortition model - somewhat similar to the way in which jurors are appointed. Sortition of an initial pool of candidates, followed by a short-listing by Parliament, and then elected - whether by Parliament or directly.
A video on sortition should be uploaded tomorrow.
I saw on an 1855 statute the Governor of NSW described as "Governor General of all Her Majesty’s Australian Possessions". I was surprised to see the term Governor General used. Was it commonly used before Federation? And, if so, was the Governor of NSW always given this extra title?
There was a short period during which the NSW Governor was made Governor-General over the other colonies, which had Lieutenant-Governors. There was also a short-lived colony of Northern Australia. But it didn't last long.
Thank you!
Happy New Year, Prof. Twomey! 😀😀😀
Same to you!
As usual, very well explained Anne.
Thanks!
Happy New Year! That Sir George Gray chap had an interesting life!
Oh my goodness, he certainly did. You can read about him in more detail here: adb.anu.edu.au/biography/grey-sir-george-2125.
When I was working as a constitutional drafter in Tuvalu, supporting their constitutional reform process, the question of the election of the GG came up. In the end, however, the Government decided to go in a different direction, and the final text of the new constitution simply requires the PM to consult Parliament before nominating a person for appointment as GG.
I'm looking forward to seeing the digitisation of early Australian drafts.
Thanks. That's very interesting. I've dipped into the Constitution of Tuvalu a number of times for various reasons, and found it quite interesting and different from others.
@elisasblum753 The PM consults Parliament before nominating a person for appointment as GG? To me that sounds so sensible - and less partisan than the way it's done here in Australia.
@@mindi2050 In part, it is a matter of scale. Tuvalu's Parliament consists of 16 MPs and it has Government and Opposition factions rather than clearly defined, organised, parties. So it is possible for the PM to speak to every MP individually.
"Elect the Governor-General" by David Solomon, had this book doing Year 12 (night) in 1977
Yes, I've got a copy of it on my bookshelf too.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Unfortunately the book and the bookshelf went floating down the Hawkesbury River in March 2021
@@tonyross5799 Oh, that's so very sad. At least it's a constitutionally significant river, where the first full version of the Constitution was drafted on the Qld steamship, The Lucinda!
Don't give the GG his own political mandate. Don't have the people elect him. The GG should have no political power. At most, he is just an umpire on straight Constitutional matters. If you are subtly or indirectly proposing to have the people elect him, please desist.
Having read some of Prof Twomey's views on an Australian republic, she seems not to support the idea of a directly elected HoS. Quite the opposite in fact. www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Whats_On/Senate_training_and_lectures/Senate_lecture_series/Transcripts/2009/030409
I would loved to have gone to Prof. Twomey's lectures
Sorry to have missed you.
Yes, I recall reading Sir George Greys wonderful speech, so far ahead of his time; but that opportunity has passed and Electing the Governor General would be a bad idea.
An elected Governor General may be more concerned with re-election or personal priorities than performing the duties required of the Australian people.
The American example where many positions become politicised seems to operate poorly compared to our elected representatives choosing the best people for each role without the negatives of running for the position.
Im regards to becoming a Republic it would be poor form to still require the monarchs approval. The parliament or prime minister must nominate a Governor General, should one still be required.
Preferably the parliament. Not just the leader of the party in power.
@mindi2050 I agree with your sentiment, however I think that in our current 2 party system it would likely be the same result. If our government sees an increase in micro parties and more sharing of governance then there could well be more negotiation for the position.
After the Morrison secret 'multi-ministries' debacle, I've sometimes wondered if the role of GG should become more of a 'Judicial' one, so that an appointee with high legal status and knowledge would be able to swear in ministers etc. As to how such an appointee would be selected I'm not sure. Perhaps confirmation via a joint vote of all state upper houses? I'm not sure but I think I would prefer some kind of multi-state based process rather than a Federal parliament to reduce the potential of politicisation.
Contrary to this I've also felt like the role of a head of state is to be a kind of Mother / Father to the nation. That is, to act as a kind of secular version of a spiritual leader who can guide and reassure the nation through difficult times, especially during times of national crisis. Hard to imagine a politically appointed judge shining in this role.
A few judges have done well at it - such as Sir William Deane and Sir Ninian Stephen. More recently, Margaret Beazley in NSW is doing a good job. But you definitely need the right personality type - it would not suit all judges.
If Australia takes the step to remove crown then the GG should be chosen via a limited election as the absolute power.
That is, to be eligible to vote for a GG you would have to have received an OBE, MBE, OAM or other similar award for service to the country. No approved award, no vote. This contrasts choosing via a regular political process which produces a regular politician. Like it or not social media has significant control over the public viewpoint, which is how we come to have a different calibre of politicians to days of past when only newspapers existed. By allowing only these people to vote is the best we can do to obtain "Australian royalty" utilising people who are already community respected. While any applicant could put their name forward for GG, they would then get subject to vetting of character by these people. .
Additional to this is to have both a Lt GG and a GG. Service begins with three years as Lt GG, then three subsequent years as GG, with an election every three years. There would be no immediate immediate power, rather a grace period of learning protocols . This creates a rolling overlap cycle where apprentice becomes the master. This allows for three years training before taking command, power overwatch, and avoidance of complacency with leadership changes. GG's could reapply upon completion and be reapproved. Surplus former GGs could be recalled in event of death or similar. Yes that means 16 positions at any one time, but maybe the LT GG replace speaker of the house where he / she could begin delegating some maturity among certain members?
In crisis the GG could form council with those who elected him / her. From there discuss the "peoples will" when in constitutional crisis. I feel this is the right mix of the nations best interests to decide when to caution or dismiss an elected government that is failing in its duties. This council could also convene at any time to vote no confidence referendum style against a GG should he / she fail. GG should be able to launch private fact finding investigations where there is cause to seriously question a government's behaviour.
I feel this configuration avoids a Donald Trump popularity vote takeover or a Rupert Murdock purchasing his way to control head of state.
@@BC-op7rj No.
One person should have 'absolute power'? No.
@ absolute? No. As per the current GG system, yes, but with an added Lt GG and the overwatch of a broad council of OAMs etc to vote in no confidence if required. Someone has to watch over the “people’s choice of leader” should they prove to be failing.
In the current system the GG could do more than be a ceremonial past and add to the checks and balances of governance as well as be a centre of “long term experience” in contrast to relatively short term politicians who serve briefly then disappear to the corporate world.
I do like the idea of the GG being elected by the parliament sorta like PNG though maybe requiring a 75% majority of members to ensure bi-partizan support (wonder where that came from) with the process not being enshrined in the constitution so it can be removed if not effective. M'am, I find your presentations fascinating, keep-up the good work.
Thanks. Glad to provide something interesting in the slow days of summer.
Why not the citizens ?
We do not need another elected official to replace the position of governor general.
Why ?
Great to hear that there is a project to make the drafts of the constitution available online.
Yes, it will be really useful when it's done. It is being funded under a ARC grant.
looking around the world today Australias political system isnt perfect but its the best one available.I never agreed much with former senator Vanstone but i whole heartedly agree with her when she said ,"democracy, whats the alternative?"
Thank you, Professor Twomey for bringing us a post on this most complex and crucial of constitutional topics - on the 124th anniversary of our Commonwealth. (Not a coincidence, I’m sure.) True to form, you’ve carefully and concisely laid out the background, context and basic issues of the topic, and illustrated the narrative and its intriguing personages with your characteristic dry wit. We all learn so much from you.
As a Republican (the Australian kind), this topic has been of particular interest to me (and many Australians), and I’ve been scratching away at the topic since I was in high school in the 1980s. (When I finished high school, I briefly considered studying and taking up a career in constitutional law, like yourself.)
No doubt, you’d be aware of a short volume written by David Solomon and published in the wake of the Whitlam government’s dismissal (by a non-elected official) called ‘Elect the Governor-General’. In his book, Solomon observed that the Australian Constitution was written in such a way that the Governor-General was nominal Head of Government as well as Head of State. It was only through convention that all political power should be exercised by the Prime Minister (an office that was not even mentioned in the Constitution), who was an elected representative of the people.
Solomon argued that Australia could switch to a ‘presidential’ system, like the USA, simply by electing the Governor-General. No referendum required. Hey presto! a revolutionary reform without needing to go through a messy (and possibly doomed) plebiscite. Solomon even claimed that the Constitution gives a potentially elected Governor-General even more power over the Australian government than the American President has under the American Constitution. He also observed that an elected Governor-General could appoint ministers to the Federal Executive from within or outside parliament, thus resolving one of the structural flaws, he considered, that hampered our current ‘Washminster’ system.
The realisation that our Australian Constitution describes a system of governance that is almost the opposite of how our government works really put the ‘cat among the pigeons’ during the Constitutional Convention of the 1990s. It left the referendum open to manipulation by those opposed to an Australian Republic.
To ‘fast track’ an Australian Republic, we had to choose a ‘minimalist’ model, changing the name of the Head of State to ‘President’, and having the office elected by an ‘electoral college’ made up of sitting MHRs and senators. If Australians wished to elect their President by popular vote, while maintaining our traditional system of governance, the Constitution would require a complete rewrite. It would need to spell out the specific (limited) reserve powers of our ‘ceremonial’ Head of State, instead of the fantasy of a medieval fairy-tale kingdom described in our current foundational document.
In 1999, the Australian people, whether by good judgement or crafty manipulation from the ‘right’ and the ‘far left’, sent the politicians back to the drawing board. It seems we’ll eventually have to bite the bullet and find some decent constitutional lawyers to rewrite the Constitution. (I can think of one name off the top of my head.)
Rather than tearing at clothes, gnashing teeth, and fretting over how to reinvent this wheel, there already is at least one nation that has managed to elect a ‘ceremonial’ president without the spectre of conflicting mandates. It seems Australians like the Irish model of governance, just as we preferred the Irish approach to GST (that is, exemptions for fresh food, books, and other essential goods). But even the Irish system has proven that the grubby fingers of politics can stain an office that is supposed to be above politics.
Yes - see the comment from one of my Irish viewers, who was very critical of the Irish system.
@ Yes. I did read it, and concur with most of the comments. (Through over two decades of working very closely with Irish community in Sydney, I might be more familiar with Irish politics than most Australians.) The last sentence in my post alludes to my distrust of a system that politicises the office of a ‘ceremonial’ Head of State. The Irish constitutional framework allows - and in some cases, requires - an t-Uachtarán (the President) to act politically, ostensibly to reinforce the government’s agenda and bolster the national ‘esprit de corps’. This function springs from the Irish Republic’s relationship with the people of Northern Ireland, whose citizens and resources remain occupied by a foreign power. Former presidents, Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese, in particular, largely managed to succeed in treading that ‘precarious tightrope’, working as a gentle unifying figurehead for a nation with nearly a quarter of its land and people still under occupation. The current president, Michael D Higgins, has been less successful, occasionally stepping outside the generally understood parameters of his office.
As we have seen here in Australia, you don’t have to be an elected Head of State (or viceroy), and claim authority through a popular mandate, to step outside the parameters of the office, by acting against the government’s agenda or advice (Sir John Kerr) or against the spirit - if not the letter - of the Constitution (David Hurley). You don’t have to be an elected Head of State to have the media and political heavies trawl through your past, and that of your family members, to have it come back to destroy your career and reputation (Peter Hollingsworth). By contrast, when Australia suffered a series of terrible tragedies during period characterised by political polarisation, Sir William Deane (like the two Irish Presidential Marys) exemplified the Head of State’s most critical ‘political’ role, seeking to unite the nation’s people and help heal the ‘national soul’. As a strong advocate for social justice and reconciliation with our society’s history and relationship with our First Nations, Deane often found himself in opposition to the Howard government’s agenda without openly criticising it.
Personally, I was not in favour of Paul Keating’s preferred ‘minimalist’ proposal for the 1999 referendum, although I grudgingly accepted it as a first ‘stepping stone’ towards a more accurately described framework of governance. I thought John Howard and many other conservative leaders’ support for an elected president was disingenuous, and that Paul Cleary and other progressive leaders’ support for an elected president was short-sighted. In the end, it seems a majority of Australians think that something like the Irish model would suit them. We would be prudent to take a closer look at why and how this model was selected, and how well (or not) it serves its purpose.
To quote from the final inspiring words of the Irish Proclamation of Independence, written and proclaimed by Pádraic Pearse, leader of the ‘Easter Rising’ in Dublin, which eventually led to Irish Independence (except for six counties still under occupation), one prays that in establishing a future Australian Republic, our nation “prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which it is called”.
I don’t want to turn the Canadian GG into another politician. What I would like to see is a provincially named Senate who would recommend to the Sovereign or simple vote the GG with real power. I would like to see a diluted power PM taking a weekly walk to Rideau Hall to have a chat with a GG (with power) named by the provinces. That could be interesting.
Is there any value of the Annotated Constitution by Quick and Garran in light of the three books that you mentioned?
Oh yes, Quick and Garran gives a good snapshot of the debates, and a view of what was intended, as at 1901. However, occasionally the snapshot is inaccurate and it is always best to look at the primary sources if you can.
I find Quick and Garran more useful to get an idea of what people at the time thought they were doing. It gives a contemporary context, which is hard to understand otherwise.
Have a vote, you get a politician. No thanks.
The Govenor General should be impartial not a radical Party member favouring their own Party selected by the Government that may be in Governance how else do citizens sack a Government the Govenor General should therefore be separate to Parliamentary influence not appointed by Parliament but appointed by the Crown
When you suggest that the governor-general should be 'appointed by the Crown', do you mean we should retain the system we have for selecting the governor-general? Currently it's the Prime Minister who advises the monarch who to appoint as governor-general. That seems very partisan to me.
Happy New Year Anne and apologies in advance for a slightly rambly post: Serious question. If we become a republic and there is no monarch to be represented and the head of state in a republic is purely ceremonial, why have one at all? Why can’t the prime minister also be the head of state?
And, if we are to have an elected president, as was stated in 1891, who would stand for such a position if it had no power attached to it? While I’m firmly in support of an Australian head of state, I’m concerned that the rusk of unraveling a system that seems to work well is great and we may continue to be best served by an absentee and powerless head of state represented by a GG with even less moral authority to intervene than the monarch, which brings me back to my point. If our current GG can’t even tell us when for example, a PM appoints himself the minister of nearly everything and has virtually no power to act except on the advice of the PM, why have one at all? Are there systems of government that don’t have a head of state save the elected leader of the governing party?
The reason for having a ceremonial head of state and a separate head of government, is to ensure that there is someone non-partisan who can represent the country as a whole at national events (rather than a highly partisan political figure) and to stop the head of government from getting too big for their boots.
The head of state also has official functions to fulfil - such as receiving the credentials of each new Ambassador to the country and granting honours, etc. Heads of government are too busy with other work to fulfil these functions.
The head of state also has an important oversight role (to pick up errors in Executive Council matters) and a role in warning a Prime Minister who is pushing against the constitutional guardrails. Ultimately, the head of state has reserve powers, including the power to dismiss a government. You cannot give such a power to the Prime Minister.
South Africa has a President who is more like a Prime Minister in that they are elected by Parliament and be dismissed by a vote of no confidence, but they combine the office of head of state and head of government. However most parliamentary republics separate these roles. For example, Ireland directly elects their president, who has almost no power save the ability to deny the government's request to dissolve parliament, and the head of government is elected by the parliament
Happy New Year Professor, hope the break was peaceful for you.
Most interesting video as always.
As a fellow Sydneysider, I’m a bit intrigued by the current fight between the state government and the railway unions, it’s made me wonder if there is a constitutional right to go on strike, or is it legislated or even just implied?
I see it’s a bit of a maelstrom of law with the Fair Work Act, the Fair Work Commission and the elected state government with it’s own laws, i.e. The Essential Services Act etc.
Overall it seems to be a mess.
It's a long story. There's no right to strike in the Constitution. The Commonwealth Parliament was given limited powers to legislate in s 51(xxxv) in relation to 'conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State'. However, this limited power was effectively overridden by the High Court in the notorious WorkChoices case, where a majority of the Court interpreted s 51(xx), regarding trading and financial corporations, so widely that it permits laws on industrial relations concerning those corporations.
When it comes to State railways, the question then is whether the relevant persons are employed by a trading corporation (as sometimes government corporations are created to employ people in different sectors) or whether they come under the Crown. In some jurisdictions, such as Victoria, they gave up altogether and just use the Commonwealth industrial relations laws. In some, State railway employees continue to fall under State industrial laws. So yes, it is rather a mess.
Have a look trying to find a constitutional right to anything in the Australian Constitutional. Enjoy.
Fascinating explanation, almost an exegesis, of the topic. For my mind I have fancied for some time that the G-G be appointed as usual by the monarch but on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition or if the election results necessitate a coalition potentially three persons agreeing to a nomination. Such a method would rid the PM's patronage (currently the case) and widen the field as both government and opposition would be responsible. If matters were to go awry as has happened then both leaders would be responsible for nominating an unsuitable person. In respect to Governors the same system could apply. Of course this needs further reasoning/discussion.
I'd be fine with that - but the problem is that it would probably not succeed in a referendum.
Many complain we have too many levels of Government. Perhaps you would like to comment on the near impossibility of removing any layer of our current system of Government?
The states are a left over from the pre federation era... we could do away with the state levels - make all their responsibilities such as education, health etc federal agencies, and have local / regional councils that deliver services and are the public face of the federal government. The states hold so much up, all with different ideas, as well as the cost of holding all the elections, party politics, corruption and costs associated with this level of government. On a practical level, consider we have one health department, not 7 or 8, we have one education department, not 7 or 8, we have one land titles office, driver licencing and other services, instead of the 7 or 8 - that is massive duplication and waste.
I did a video on the issue of why federalism is not as bad a you think: ruclips.net/video/KgeFlxyvEsQ/видео.html. You might find it interesting.
Look up 'Shed a Tier'. Such a change should come from below, imo.
Personally i think the position should be symbolic and electing them could give a mandate to use their position but i also don't like the idea of them being unilaterally appointed.
Professor, have you ever canvassed the issue of the reserve powers which would appropriately vest in a Republican Head of State? I tried to float this as an honours topic 20 years ago, but couldn't get a supervisor to take it on.😢
I've certainly looked at it from time to time. I'm not keen on codifying reserve powers, because this results in a brittle Constitution that breaks under stress - see my book, The Veiled Sceptre.
I also gave a Senate lecture on its once, setting out one approach: www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Publications_and_resources/Papers_and_research/Papers_on_Parliament_and_other_resources/Papers_on_Parliament/51/twomey.
@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you for that. I can still stand on the very spot I was standing on when the ABC btoke the news on 11 November 1975. The day is burned in my memory. 50th anniversary this year. Best wished and thanks for your continuing efforts.
No system of government is fool proof. But the existing system where we have a prime minister rather than a president is safer. And it is good to have a prime minister tossed about by political winds, who has someone he or she is answerable to, even if only in a largely ceremonial sense, who represents the Crown, that is, the whole system.
I also like our parliamentary system (for the most part) with a Prime Minister and a separate position of governor-general as Australia's de facto Head of State. I just don't want the governor-general to be vice regal to a non-resident monarch.
@@mindi2050 If the GG would selected by lottery would you feel better about it. What's more Australian that a lottery!
Having a president does not necessarily mean that the president must be Head of Government as well as Head of State (that is, a ‘Presidential’ system, like the USA and Indonesia). There are many countries (like Germany, Israel and India, for instance) who have a ‘ceremonial’ president as Head of State, while the prime minister holds most of the political power as Head of Government (that is, a parliamentary system, like our own).
Most ceremonial presidents are elected by a nation’s parliament (or electoral college made up of elected representatives) - which was the proposal put forward in Australia’s 1999 referendum on the Republic. Some nations, like Ireland, have an elected ‘ceremonial’ president with very limited (‘reserve’) powers spelled out in the constitution. And yes, each major party puts forward its own presidential candidate, but the winning party gains little more than ‘bragging rights’, when the president’s role is an apolitical one. The Taoiseach (prime minister) is the Head of Government with all the power of the electoral mandate.
France has a unique (dare I say, ‘weird’) hybrid system with political powers divided between the President (a Head of State with its own electoral mandate) and the Prime Minister (a Head of Government, and leader of the parliament, but with limited power over the major affairs of state).
@@mattmunn71 No. But it would make me feel better if our de facto Head of State wasn't a vice-regal position.
Hi Professor,
Proclamation of the Commonwealth.
s(3) shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth. The King may at anytime after the proclamation appointment a G.G
There's more frequency signals and broadcasting TV from N.S.W that... "the east coast is tilting in the ocean."
So when the constitution has the wording 'agreed thereto' to the appointment of the G.G do you think it's fair?
Advance Australia Fair.
🌏🇦🇺
The words 'agreed thereto' in covering clause 3, occur in a phrase about whether Queen Victoria was satisfied that the people of Western Australia had agreed to join the Federal Commonwealth. If so, she could include Western Australia in a proclamation that established the Federal Commonwealth. After that proclamation, she could appoint a Governor-General. This needed to happen first, so that writs could be issued for an election and ministers appointed. The words 'agreed thereto' didn't concern the appointment of the Governor-General. Moreover, covering clause 3 is now of historical relevance only, as the proclamation and the appointment of the first Governor-General have already occurred.
@constitutionalclarion1901 Thankyou for straightening me out.
Was Western Australia so "special" because of geography distance or was there opposition to Federation?📻☮️📻⛩️
Western Australia was wary about joining. It had not agreed yet to join at the time the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 was enacted by the UK Parliament on 9 July 1900. But the Act left open the ability for it to join as an "original State" if it did so before the Proclamation. WA held its referendum on 31 July 1900. Women over 21 could vote. The referendum passed, which allowed Queen Victoria to include Western Australia in her Proclamation establishing the Commonwealth of Australia.
Was omitting a Bill of Rights from the Australian Constitution a conscious decision or an oversight?
The UK Bill of Rights had been pretty well eroded by the time the Aussie constitution was written, so they knew relying on common law for rights didn't work. The rights of the US constitution, however, were still standing strong.
It was deliberate. An attempt to include aspects of the US bill of rights, such as equality before the law and due process of law was voted down, on the basis that no one could say precisely what they mean, leaving the courts to interpret them in potentially very broad ways. The framers of the Constitution thought it was better for elected Parliaments to decide such matters.
It makes no sense that a third party (ie the electors) could choose the sovereign’s representative. At that point the GG is no longer repressing the sovereign, as he/she had no hand in their selection, but at the GG are rather the representative of the electors to whom the GG owes their position.
The sovereign doesn't " choose " the Governor General currently .
It makes no sense to me that we need a non-resident monarch to officially approve the appointment. It's the Prime Minister who actually chooses the governor-general. All the monarch does is officially approve the appointment. The monarch approving the appointment would still happen no matter how our GG was selected. To me it all seems like anachronistic nonsense. I doubt Charles would even know any of these people who supposedly 'represent' him.
King George V took your view back in 1930. He didn't want to appoint Sir Isaac Isaacs as Governor-General of Australia, because he didn't personally know him. But in the end, the King had to back down, because the various Dominions agreed at an Imperial Conference that the King had to act on the advice of his local ministers in the relevant Dominion on the subject.
Didn't Peter Beattie float a similar idea for selecting the QLD governor?
Yes. Unfortunately it did not catch on.
Electing a Governor-General would undermine the parliamentary system of government, which would be detrimental to democracy in Australia. A more worthwhile reform would be introducing proportional representation into the lower house.
Some very interesting history. Put it on the backburner for now though.
Politicians will never allow the citizens to elect the Governor General for the same reason that they will never allow the citizens to elect the President in a future republic . It would erode politicians power .
There would be no point in the public electing the Governor General if only " suitable " candidates were allowed to run for the position . Same for President .
There's too much power in the office of the Prime Minister, imo. The GG's appointment should be in consultation with the Opposition Leader to ensure a non-partisan person.
Of course, politicians will allow an Australian Head of State to be elected. Because whenever you have an election, a politician always wins! Just like other countries with an elected Head of State, be prepared for the Labor candidate, the Liberal-National Candidate, the Greens candidate and the One Nation candidate for the office of President of Australia. It won’t mean much, though, if the Constitution is rewritten to spell out the specific reserve powers of the office.
And it's for the very same reason that the politicians will never allow citizens to vote, the Voice and Gay Marriage notwithstanding, in referendums for matters of public importance other than when seeking changes to the Commonwealth Constitution. Indeed, the slightest mention of it causes politicians and bureaucrats to mess themselves.
I suggested to John Williams a couple of years ago, that he publish a second edition or reprint. He said a lot of barristers had asked him that. I will have to press him on it again, next time our paths cross.
Yes, it was terrible that they remaindered the book. It's the sort of thing that people will want for a long time. Nonetheless, the online project will hopefully fill the gap to some extent.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Just emailed John, offering season's greetings, and suggesting a reprint ...
@@constitutionalclarion1901 John has just returned from leave, and in response to my email tells me that he has a grant to digitize his book with Uni of WA.
The Governor General should be appointed by a Constitutional Majority of the Federal Parliament on the nomination by a Joint Select Committee of both houses. No to a Presidential style direct election.
We could implement this now under legislation.
Hello and happy new year! It's occurred to me to ask something about the discussions for drafting the Australian constitution - was anyone at the time influenced by the US system of electing state governors, as far as we know?
no
I can't say I noticed such references on reading the debates, but it's not inconceivable because a number of the framers were quite interested in American constitutional law. They looked to a book by Bryce, called 'The American Commonwealth', which is quite interesting if you can get hold of one.
However, there was never any real support in Australia for a presidential style system. The preference was always for responsible government, as in the UK.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Many thanks! I do appreciate that US state governors are a different kettle of fish, but I just thought the idea of having them elected might have been derived from the American system.
OK, then NOW put the Question up: Can the Administrator of the Northern Territory and ACT be Elected for those offices?
The ACT doesn't have an Administrator - but the NT does. The NT Administrator is currently appointed by the Governor-General.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 thanks, This could lead to another Video, On the ACT and NT Administrator and Governor-General. Love your work and hope for a great 2025
First time posting so forgive if I’m being rude by asking a further question as opposed to contributing feedback(not that I’m knowledgeable to be able to do so). What complexity of legal and constitutional workarounds would be required to keep the current structure , including the GG with only the current powers they have, but snip off the Head of state , which currently is filled by the monarchy(i.e. no head of state/ monarch/president)? Note here I’m saying rh GG would still have the dismissal mechanism
That was essentially the minimalist model put forward by the Australian Republican Movement at the 1999 referendum. It failed partly on the premise that it did not clarify the reserve powers hence 1975 could occur again.
@@alanbrookes275I’m guessing, reading wiki (I’m not a constitutionalist) You’re referring to the Mcgarvie model? Very much a minimalist model and would have been probably more likely to pass a referendum but seems to have been deep
Sixes by more radical republicans, supposedly thinking the referendum would fail and they’d have a second
Crack at it? Sigh. My only dissent to what otherwise seems something most could swallow is that it still has a head of state. My thoughts are that after decades of of what is basically an absent head of state or a theoretical tick i. The box delivered by the monarchy still holding that title, that I. Fact we haven’t actually had a head of state. It would be interesting to see a poll of Australians when give three choices - do you want a head of state (current) , do you want a head of state ( president) , you don’t want/ think we need/ a head of state. Of course such an action would then wreck the beauty of the mcgarvie model as it’d make it highly complex
Snipping off the monarch is not as easy as it sounds, because you still then have to work out how, and by whom, the Governor-General is chosen and can be removed. Removal is a particularly tricky issue - on what basis and by whom? There is also the question of whether the existing conventions and incentives would apply if the monarchy were removed from the system.
Finally, it has to be acceptable to the people, to get them to vote in favour of it at a referendum. In 1999, the argument was successfully run that the people were being denied their right to choose the President and that they should therefore reject the model. (It was silly, because the people didn't get to choose the hereditary monarch either, but the referendum still failed).
@@constitutionalclarion1901could therefore the mcgarvie model suffice with the dismissal mechanism supported through some form of advice/guidance by an independent person/body but leaving the final decision and responsibility on the GG to wear. Could that form of GG be stated to not be a head of state , not be a president( the latter because that nomenclature and model seems toxic now to Australians particularly when we see currently overseas the issues with elected heads of state )?
Yes, it would be preferable not to call the new head of state a 'President', as this misleads people as to the person's status and powers. Personally, I'd just use 'head of state', although it would be good if we could find a uniquely Australian word for the office.
You could also use a McGarvie-type of model for appointment and removal. The main problem would be convincing people to agree to it in a referendum, as those opposing it would run the old argument of it being a "politicians' republic" and that the head of state would be chosen by politicians in a corrupt deal or to placate party hacks.
My Great Grandfather, Robert George Ely, once had need to engage the services of a Solicitor. He engaged a local Solicitor named Alfred Deakin 🙂
I hope he got good advice.
So how about this then, a degree of "democracy" in what is essentially an undemocratic system and PM gets to keep their powers of patronage: Prime Minister/Premier makes a nomination that must be approved by respective parliament? Because PM is the leader of the largest party/coalition, they're pretty certain to get their nominee through, however if the PM were to go a bit mad and try nominating someone completely inappropriate, Parliament can still say no...
France changed from a King to an elected head of state and where are they now?…up to their fifth version of the constitution, maybe headed for a sixth. The fact is that elections for head of state are very complex to manage when you also have a parliament. Our system is very uncomplicated, there’s no split mandate. There’s clear democratic accountability.
My brain hurts!
an elected governor-general is one step away from a republic. The current system is more relevant to a constitutional monarchy
If we are to elect the Governor-General, why don't we extend this action logically and elect the Sovereign whom the G-G represents?
*Hello Anne* ------- I haven't seen you since last year ---- *My how time flies* ----- 🙂
Apparently for some of my viewers, it is still last year.
@@constitutionalclarion1901
You're right - it's still last year in Hawaii
In no ways a constitutional lawyer just an interested voter. Recently self published, on amazon, a booklet on the same topic. Not likely to be a best seller but had fun researching it with help of some of Profs writings.
Glad to have been useful.
Comment for engagement!
Happy New Year Anne. PNG and Solomon Island legislatures elect their Governor- Generals. I would amend the Constitution to ensure the G G is dismissed by the Parliament after a 2/3 vote
Thank you, Professor Twomey, for this interesting video.
There are a few additional things that are perhaps worth discussing.
The first is the impression I have that the Crown (British Crown at that time) was considered as something of an umbrella that protected everything under it.
The Federation unified under the Crown - personified at the time and identified with the British monarch as King or Queen.
The ultimate authority was always assumed to be from the Crown (or tangentially assumed to be from the elected Parliaments authorised by the Crown).
It was interesting in your video to see that the states were to keep their sovereignty within the Federation.
To keep that independence for the states, the Governors were not made to be subservient to the Governor-General.
I assume from this that the vice-regal roles for both the federal and state tiers of government have essentially a status of equality between the seven respective representatives of the monarch: the six Governors and the Governor-General.
The vice-regal representatives deal with the parliaments on a day-to-day basis - providing royal assent and performing other functions and duties.
They would meet with and interact with Ministers on a regular basis. They would be considered insiders on the political workings of governments for both major parties, and hopefully are selected for an impartial viewpoint.
The monarch, however, has nothing to do with the day-to-day running of parliaments, apart from appointing the Governor or Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister or Premier.
And yet, the modern Crown for a body politics could now be identified with the people of the the respective body politics - even if there is some overlap between body politics (ie, between the federal and state tiers of government).
A question is how that sense of a unifying Crown can be maintained once Australia becomes a republic, and in a way that is both blind to politics in parliaments and yet sees and is seen as belonging to the people of the body politics in Australia. I feel that the office of Governor-General is not the best focal point for an Australian head of state. But that is just my opinion.
Your videos are really helpful for building an understanding and historical context for the arguments and points put forward in debates on the transition to an Australian republic.
Why not just have senior state governor be appointed as GG. Can implement now with or without Republic. Remove from PM, and means they have had experience in Governor role and had vetting. Oops posted before listening to the video.
Best to listen first! But glad you did.
THE CLARIENETTS
No. Keep the current system. It works.
Love your work but I'm drunk.
Glad it still informs and entertains in sobriety and drunkenness!
Lucky Australians, your American fans are still waiting for 12 😜. Happy new year!🎉
Gosh, you are really behind! For the first time in a long time, I wandered outside at midnight to see the Sydney fireworks on the Harbour Bridge at midnight. They were pretty impressive. Less impressive was the enormous amount of garbage around the foreshore in the morning.
Uninformed viewers here. This is all very interesting.
may break down.
I’d be against direct appointment of G-G just on the principle of avoiding an election process and the inevitable corruption. No presidents.
Maybe let the parliament pick six qualified candidates and they roll dice to pick the winner.
Becoming a republic shouldn't require the change of name, function or selection for any roles, other than removing monarch from the process.
But if you remove the monarch from the process, you have to change how the GG is appointed and removed, because at the moment that is done by the monarch.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Appoint a '(Lord) Protector' to take the place of the Monarch. Appointing the G-G and being there as a backstop outside the political process.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I would prefer having no Governors or Governor Generals. In a republic, why would we? Premiers and Prime Minister are all we need, and as a Queenslander I do not believe in a Senate in any form. However some form of review is required to curb rampant legislating, so a Constitutional Court would have to review new legislation for Constitutional conformity before being presented to Parliament, and this would also include legislation proposed by members of the public. I think Sweden has something like this but it looks at new laws for conformity, not new legislation.
While I'm here, why do Qld LNP members elected to Federal Parliament suddenly become Liberal or National as soon as they cross the border? To me this makes the whole LNP fake and ineligible to stand in Federal Parliament.
@@EdMcF1 Do you mean a 'lord protector' and a governor-general? Where would the lord protector come from? Who would choose them? One head of state is all we need - just the one. If he/she breaches the Constitution, they can be challenged in the HCA.
I don't understand why many Australians seem to think we need a de facto HoS (the GG) as well as a constitutionally spent 'King of Australia'. I suspect King Charles probably wonders the same thing.
@@kennkoala If we retain our parliamentary system, it's important to have a resident head of state and a separate head of government. At least at the federal level. I like the separation of powers and checks and balances a parliamentary system provides.
Not concerning legal aspects, only general control theory. The first question we have to ask - who is the governor? What is his functions? Just stamp laws, sign award sheets and ceremonial functions? In this case it does not matter at all how to appoint, elect or whatever else, including select on some exhibition like pedigree cats. Nothing depends on his own decisions, its just wending machine, drop coin get snack.
Ooops, not completely, we do have "reserve power" concept, some informal way to break ties, last resort for stalled state machine, used very rare but in absolutely critical situation? In this case the governor must NOT belong to existing state politics. The best way if he will be somewhere from Mars, but at least he must NOT be appointed (even advised) by govt or elected by voters. It creates loopback, the very same thing which this reserve power destined to drive over. When constitution was written 130 years ago this concept did not exist, all these ideas are from WWII era, dawn of cybernetics, automated control, theory of games and all other math studies in these fields, but math is always math and it always work the same regardless do people know it or not.
I suspect that some politicians of 19th century (Barton) did not realise it, but definitely had some feeling about. Particularly this was the reason of separate governors for states, to destroy additional links tangling this reserve power, even if they proclaimed it as "state independency". Reserve power must NOT depend on anything, including GG or who is there above. It must cope with problems strictly by itself.
I think we should elect the governor general and the people select candidates not the politicians
Even if we keep the monarchy
I have a question about elected federal members - if they can be bound to certain conditions to resign if they fail to meet a particular criteria - but don't have the legal or constitutional understanding to find the answer myself... can I suggest a video topic or send you an e-mail to get an answer?
Members of Parliament are not able to enter into contracts about how they vote, etc, as this is regarded as being a contract against public policy. Further, the Constitution provides for a person to be elected for a specific term - subject to disqualification or resignation or death. I don't think you could legislate to require a person to resign, as that would be contrary to the Constitution.
So long as the correct oath is taken and is upheld.
What is wrong with the current system of appointing the GG? It’s fine. None have been controversial appointments, at least in the past 50 years. This is so much navel-gazing it is beyond belief
Gough Whitlam got kicked out
@@thomastuohy7688How would that have been averted with a different system of choosing the Governor General?
The current one is an avowed Republican and only got the job because she is one of Albanese's long time mates .
@ that’s ok. Vote out Labor if you don’t like it
@@99thTuesday Maybe there would have been a better selection to choose from if there had been some kind of selection committee nominating suitable people for the position. Who knows? But having a monarch who John Kerr was busy trying to placate (by not getting her involved) plus worry about being sacked by Gough, did seem to stop Kerr from officially warning Gough Whitlam that his government would be dismissed and an election called if Gough didn't resolve the problem of Supply.
Just like a bauble! Lol
I do believe that Australia will become a Republic and I support a Republic but I do not support the model of an elected Governor General /President . Do we really need the office of GG or President being politicized on party political lines ? The great thing about the present unelected GG is just that he is head of state but is largely ceremonial . We have a great system in this country it works so why completely upend it ?
We have a better system in Ireland. Just saying.
assuming that the governor general acts largely ceremonially is short-sighted. the governor general acts in the interest of preserving the influence and and position of the monarch
Ok
A republic is quite close at hand based on the severe downturn in the economic well being of Australia which is coming at the hands of China
rubbish ... Australians don't want a bar of any republic
I doubt that there's a connection between economic well-being and a republic, as they are directed at different issues.
@@davidlogan4329 Views vary on the subject of Australia becoming a republic. Although I don't know any Australian republic supporter (including me) who would ever support a US style presidential system.
ruclips.net/video/fwjxFsE9P6s/видео.htmlsi=2wVFjCjbt4rGTofc
Bad idea
Did First Nations people have any input to these discussions if not how does this fact affect the Constitutions legality under the rules of the British legal system of the time, as pertains to is colonies ?
The Constitution was legally enacted under the British legal system because it was enacted by the Westminster Parliament, which is a sovereign Parliament with full power to make laws.
How about, given Australians perchance for gambling, how about the GG be chosen by lottery??
There is a system that involves choosing by lot - it's known as 'sortition'. Check out how the Doges of Venice were chosen - it's amazingly complex and used sortition at various stages to reduce the prospect of manipulation by the great families.
What a load of baloney.
Hypothetical nonsense again and again.
What's wrong with discussing hypotheticals? It's how we think, analyse and learn. Besides, most of the video is about history, based upon primary sources. It is hardly baloney.
@constitutionalclarion1901 it's a free country (somewhat) you are entitled to your opinion. But That doesn't necessarily mean that you are correct.
@@mindi2050 your curiosity is irrelevant.
Why "hypothetical"? At Howard's plebiscite it was a canvassed option! Are you objecting to the discussion?
@@anthonywatts2033 LOL 😂