The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A Response to Paul Kelly on our Head of State > Comments

A Response to Paul Kelly on our Head of State : Comments

By David Smith, published 18/8/2011

Paul Kelly asserts that the Governor-General is not Australia’s head of state, but the constitutional, judicial and legal evidence suggests that Kelly is wrong.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All
Paul Kelly is wrong to assert that Australia's G-G is not its head of state, while David Smith's arguments - which few responders seem to have understood - are clearly and convincingly set out.

Perhaps the confusion arises because nowhere - not in the Australian constitution, nor anywhere else - are the concept of an Australian head of state, and the powers pertaining to the role, defined.

But we have an excellent practical worked example to study, which lays - to rest the central question - is our head of state the G-G or the Sovereign? It is the dismissal in November 1975 of PM Whitlam by G-G John Kerr.

In that situation, Kerr dismissed a PM who commanded a majority in (‘enjoyed the confidence of’) the House of Representatives because a crisis arose in which the PM could no longer guarantee lawfully to meet the expenses of the Commonwealth.

It should be noted that the crisis was not constitutional, as many have erroneously stated, because the constitution was never violated; but political, because it was the politics of actions by both sides of the dispute that were vigorously debated.

By his action in dismissing Whitlam, Kerr demonstrated – and was endorsed within a few weeks by an overwhelming majority of the Australian electorate - that:

- the G-G has the power to dismiss a government commanding a majority in the House id that government proposes to fund the expenses of the Commonwealth by unlawful means; and

- when his decision was appealed to Buckingham Palace, the reply explicitly endorsed the power of the G-G to resolve the matter in accordance with the Australian constitution, and implicitly asserted that the Sovereign had no role to play.

If the concept of Australian head of state encompasses the power to dismiss a government, commanding a majority in the House, which proposes to fund its operations unlawfully; and that such an action complies with the constitution - and by any definition the concept must encompass both - then the G-G is unarguably the Australian head of state and the Sovereign is not.

Ham
Posted by Ham, Monday, 22 August 2011 2:47:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy