freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2008 at 2:11pm:


Sorry Freediver, I'm not making myself very clear. What I intended to say was that the foreign Monarch has no power to dissent in any way whether she approves of the appointment or not. The PM may appoint whomsoever he likes (within the law) and the Monarch may not question that appointment, so there is no guarantee that a snivelling lapdog would not be appointed now or in the future under a foreigner or not. She may of course apply pressure in an attempt to appoint her choice using her considerable influence and status to affect the outcome of a sovereign nation's choice of GG. There has been a precedent where an Australian Prime Minister has inisisted on a GG appointment against the wishes of the foreign Monarch as with the case of Sir Isaac Isaacs. Prime Minister James Scullin had to travel to London to personally insist that the old King assent to the appointment which he reluctantly did. The fact that an Australian PM acting under the law should have his decision of GG appointment questioned under these circumstances by a foreigner is unacceptable and should not be allowed to occur.

As with Kerr, apparently QE2 never liked him and was happy with his resignation in '77.

Why was it necessary for that PM to fly to England then?

It was necessary for Scullin to take a voyage to Britain because King George V thought that he could get his way by just refusing Royal assent (A GG's appointment had no validity in law until Royal Assent was granted). His expectation was that Scullin would back down. To his credit, he didn't, although he had to make the costly and time consuming trip to demonstrate to an arrogant old aristocrat that he intended to insist on the right of an Australian to choose the Australian Vice Regal. The King was forced to grant Royal Assent.

She may of course apply pressure in an attempt to appoint her choice using her considerable influence and status to affect the outcome of a sovereign nation's choice of GG.

Gven that GG is a largely ceremonial role, this is a good thing. If people stop paying attention to it because it becomes completely meaningless, we may one day end up with a GG too timid to fulfil their role in a time of need.

It is arguably a good thing only where an Australian Parliament or other authorised Australian body can influence the outcome. In Britain, although the Queen is advised by the PM (a euphemism for instructed) she in fact has considerable influence over what she is instructed to do and say. That may be acceptable in Britain, if not formally acknowledged, as at least there she is the unqualified Head of State. No Australian is involved in this process of instruction and neither should there be. Similarly, I believe no foreigner should have any influence whatsoever (either formally through law or informally through influence) over the selction of an Australian GG.

The fact that an Australian PM acting under the law should have his decision of GG appointment questioned under these circumstances by a foreigner is unacceptable and should not be allowed to occur.

Yes it should. The whole point of the GG position is that they are independent of the PM. This cannot happen if the PM's choice cannot be questioned. It is absurd to give the PM 100% control over selection of the person whose job it is to sack him.

The decision, if it is to be questioned at all I believe should be made by a legally authorised Australian body (i.e. Parliament or an Australian body authorised by Parliament).

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2008 at 7:45pm:


You don't get it, do you freediver!

It's like FREE DIVING!  Australia should (again) look at us going alone without the Monarchy connection.

''It's not "broke" our Parliamentary System is great.  The Queen is superflous!

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2008 at 7:45pm:


A foreigner "vetting" a decision made by a democratically elected representative (or representatives) of the Australian people is a most inappropriate model. If the foreign monarch prefers an unpopular choice, what then? If she uses her considerable influence to advance the cause of this unpopular choice, what then? Another situation where the legal representative of the Australian people must insist on another  candidate? No democratically elected body, person or persons charged by Parliament with the duty of appointing a GG should have to suffer the opinions of an unelected, foreign Head of State. Australians are eminently capable of making sound decisions when appointing an honourable and dignified Australian to act as the nation's Head of State, without turning to a foreigner to see if it's OK with her.

A foreigner "vetting" a decision made by a democratically elected representative (or representatives) of the Australian people is a most inappropriate model.

But why? This is something no-one has explained. It works. Who cares whether the Queen of Australia lives oerseas? The only objection is ideological. There is no practical objection, right?

No democratically elected body, person or persons charged by Parliament with the duty of appointing a GG should have to suffer the opinions of an unelected, foreign Head of State.

Yes they should. That's how it works. That's why it works, because the GG is not a democratic position.

Australians are eminently capable of making sound decisions when appointing an honourable and dignified Australian to act as the nation's Head of State

But we don't, the PM does. When it comes to choosing the person who might sack the PM, I'd choose the Queen over the PM to appoint the person any day.

Am I right that your objection is purely ideological and has no practical basis?


Deepthought, good question, but it seems too much to answer unfortunately. I am deeply concerned that people are calling to overthrow our noble Queen before they have figured out what to replace her with. The french made this mistake a while back. Let's not repeat it.

Quote:


The "Queen of Australia" is a foreigner and will never be permitted by foreign law while she is the British HOS to become an Australian. No foreign person is eligible to become an Australian Parliamentarian

Quote:


The GG is appointed and dismissed by democratically elected representatives of the people. He currently serves at the HOG's pleasure.

Quote:


The PM (and all Parliamentarians) are democratically elected. It needs to be acknowledged that Parliamentarians are of good character and can act appropriately if called on to choose a GG.

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2008 at 10:00pm:


The core problem with revolutions is how to justify only the one and also prevent other subsequent coups for the same reasons. However, no one is suggesting a revolution or a coup d’état that I know of.

mantra wrote on Apr 24^th, 2008 at 10:49pm:


I believe they do.