Quentin Bryce was sworn in as Australia's
first female Governor General on 5th September
2008.

I watched the event on television.
It was most impressive.
The lady herself has charisma, and
impeccable credentials. She is an
asset, and would grace any social
gathering. She will do the office
of Governor General proud.

In her acceptance speech Ms Bryce
stated that Australians respected
their institutions and traditions, but
were open to change. This came as somewhat
of a surprise.

"...we embrace change as a natural and
necessary consequence of our evolution..."

Which makes me wonder what sort of change
did she foresee in Australia's future?

There have been predictions in the media
that possibly Ms Bryce will be our last
Governor General, as a Republic is on
the cards for the future.

Your thoughts please...

Foxy, I wish Ms Bryce all the best in the position.

But I think that most people couldn't give a hoot. Perhaps one thing that she could do to become more in touch with the general populace is to dedicate a large part, say half, of her enormous (and tax-free I believe) salary to a bunch of very needy charities.

Perhaps the most useful thing she could do is take up the cause of sustainability, and start keeping Rudd honest about decisions made in the interests of sustainability that might run counter to the wishes of big business... or which might be at odds with our worship of continuous nevger-ending economic growth!

Wouldn't it be just amazing if she was to take on role like this. Even if she just made a few comments now and then, she would no doubt achieve more than she will in all her other efforts combined throught her tenure in the position!!

What is this woman's official role or function as the Governor-General and what influence does she have over the Cth Parliament and its law making power ?

Would her role or function as the Gov-Gen differ in any way to what she was responsible for as the Governor of the State of Qld or is Qld a Republic as a consequence of her failure to perform her role as Governor and is she also going to direct the Commonwealth down the same path ?.

She reminds me a bit of Helen Mirren impersonating our actual Head of State, Queen Elizabeth.

I truly hope that Lizzy is Australia's last monarch, therefore also that Quentin is our last G-G.

However, Helen Mirren rocks.

Ludwig
"to dedicate a large part, say half, of her enormous (and tax-free I believe) salary to a bunch of very needy charities"
What do say Ludwig? I do not care for the money! I am sure our taxes will not go for our benefits! I do not care who will waste them! but I want the demolition of the monarchy the soonest possible.
Can she transfer ALL her rights and duties, as general governor, to Federal Australian Parliament?
I WANT ONLY THIS FROM HER! CAN SHE?
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

How do any of you know that she doesn't already, past and present, donate substantial sums of money and efforts to charity? Admit it, you don't know! I notice that on this site the Tall Poppy Syndrome is alive and well. So many people can't stand the powerful, rich or influential. These Tall Poppy knockers all seem to have their little bit of dirt dug up, ready to fling at the next Tall Poppy on the horizon; especially if the Tall Poppy is of a different political or social persuasion. But let's not worry if it's factual, because the "truth" can so easily spoil a good tale.

She's a marvelous woman, highly intelligent and successful. How many of us here on this site have achieved even a semblance of what this woman has achieved? I think we know the answer to that one, don't we!

Please no personal attacks on the lady.

She is after all the Queen's Representative
under the Australian Constitution.

And as I stated in my opening post, her
credentials are very impressive.

So what is the objection?

Is it that she's a woman?

Is it that she's the Queen's Representative?

That she's 65 years old, an academic, lawyer,
mother with five children, five grandchildren,
was Governor of Queensland?

Your thoughts please?

Foxy,

I was going to ask why such a courteous person as your are uses entirely upper case characters in your topic titles, when just about every other opening poster observes the convention of largely using lower case, but then I noticed how this topical question about the most important person to Australia's polity was made to stand out comparably to the way in which the Sovereign's representative should, so I won't, at least not on this occasion.

And to answer your question, I can't think of a single good reason why, with around 50% of the people in Australia being female, she should be the last female Governor-General.

My thoughts, you ask? The name Becket comes to mind, if I may think transgendered thoughts.

Contrary to what Young Dan seems to imply was some failing in the discharge of her function as Governor of Queensland, I had gained the impression she had been 'kicked upstairs' because she had been being 'difficult' with respect to the manner in which the Queensland politicians wanted her to do her job. If she was in truth being 'difficult', that can only augur well for Australia at large now she is where she is. Any Vice-Regal appointee who is prepared to be 'difficult' with politicians can't be anything but good for the rest of us.

Former State Governor Sir Philip Game, and former Governor-General Sir John Kerr each ended up with one notch on their metaphorical gun butts. I would like to think Her Excellency Quentin Bryce might end up with six on hers, all at once.

Her function, as Governor-General, Young Dan, is to uphold the Constitution. One might speculate that taking direct action with respect to that function might be the change to which she could have been referring that so surprised Foxy. I suspect many, yea, a majority of Australians would embrace that sort of change.

For such a talented and well-credentialled person to be elevated to this office may result in some long-overdue political chickens coming home to roost.

Well Forest, her role as Governor-General is to provide Royal Assent to the various Bills passed by the Parliament and the Senate, and when a Bill before the House requires a Proclamation being given as well the Governor-General must comply with the Parliaments requirements.
If you can get a photo copy of the original of these PUBLIC documents signed and sealed with the SEAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA, you will be doing better that many people I know and myself over the past couple of weeks as a photo-copy of the originals appear to be impossible to prise out of our public servants.

One example is that Royal Assent has been provided for the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and a photo-copy of the original has been provided albeit unsealed but the Proclamation has posed a serious problem for our public-servants. The effect of no Proclamation in relation to this Act is that, if it does not exist, then this Court, (entity) does exist, but with no lawful authority to commence any proceedings in the Court (tribunal) without our express consent.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976.
2 Commencement [see Notes 1 and 2]
(1) This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives
the Royal Assent.
(2) No proceeding shall be instituted in the Court before a day to be
fixed by Proclamation as the day on which the Court shall
commence to exercise its jurisdiction.

The Attorney-General's office is choking on this at this very moment and the corrupt Judges will also have this issue identified in the coming weeks

Foxy





I wish her well and hope to see her around for a very long time.
I am sure she will use her powers to improve conditions for aborginal people which she is dedicated to.

Anybody wanting her to hand other her powers to parliment must see her as a threat.

Parliment in this country now are worse than ever but I dont think anybody could buy her principles.
( Perhaps thats a problem for some ah.)

I hope she does better in her role than our last Govenor General because according to Her Majesty it was his job to do somthing about Australias shameful live exports.

http://www.livexports.com/queen.html

http://www.livexports.com/prince.html

http://www.livexports.com/letter3.html

Thank You for opening this very important thread Foxy.

If she is not the last she will be the second last.
We are indeed changing and old Lizzy means little to most of us.
Now I see red faced rage filled monarchists coming for me. But they too are nearly a thing of the past.
Good luck to our first woman GG she will do a good job.
And eat a truck load of cucumber Sanger's during her term.

I think we can already know she will do at great deal more than that.
I dont find comments of that nature directed to the lady either neccessary or acceptable.

I hope she will have some quite infulence and perhaps some good advise on occassion for Mr Rudd.

He could sure use it.

the blind urge of 'progressives' to transfer all power to parliament may have some genetic connection with the reported tendency of north european field rodents to jump off cliffs into the sea. but probably it's just blind ignorance, and curable.

the governor general can, legally, fire the pollies in parliament. everyone knows this and should encourage the gg to do it often. by sending parliament to the people whenever the government presents to the gg a bill that polls show to be vastly unpopular, a sort of rough and ready referendum could be introduced to oz. that is why a president of a republic should be elected by the people, to act as our tribune against the politicians. an elected president need not be a cowed non-entity, a walking rubber-stamp, as the pollies have demanded since kerr showed the nation that the constitution means what it says.

actual democracy would be vastly more efficient and effective, but only evolutionary changes can be hoped for. ozzies are terrified of democracy because they have no experience of it, have no political education, and are constantly told it's too hard for them. this is a lie: consider the performance of pollies and you can see immediately that politics as state management is too hard for them. they are the ones who said we must have 'work choices', and also said we must not. they are the ones who say we must be the gun-dogs of america,but most ordinary people see the insanity, and immorality, of invading countries that have done us no harm.

bryce should be the last gg. let's hope the first president is the elected champion of the people, and not some fig-leaf over the corruption and incompetence of politicians.

antonios, are you insane?

parliament is the problem, not the solution. of course the monarchy is a joke, but the only hope for evolution to democracy is an elected president whose role is to say "no, go to the people" whenever s/he thinks incompetence, corruption, or megalomania have gone too far.

so we must use the monarchy as a bargaining counter, demanding an elected president with the power to dissolve parliament. from there we can get to democracy someday, maybe. but if we put all power in the hands of the politicians guild, it will never happen.

so open your mind to the process of empowering the people. don't let empty symbols like bryce lead you to throwing away the goal to get a bauble.

Sadly for the legions of wishful thinkers who believe that the Rudd/Bryce combo will steer Australia into the calm waters of a Republic, it is not going to happen in their political lifetimes.

It should, of course. There is no reason on earth why we should still maintain the colonial umbilical cord. But we will.

And the reason is that we are still insufficiently politically mature to make an orderly transfer from constitutional monarchy to republic.

Would that it were otherwise. But we only have to look around us and see the quality of debate that passes for our political process to understand that our pollies are still just a bunch of kids, running around the playground in gangs and pulling on girls' pigtails.

Look at the shambles that is NSW.

And the pork-barrelling that will shortly leave an indelible mark on the outcome of the current WA election.

The manner in which State governments ride roughshod over local councils.

The petty triumphalism that seems to be the Federal Liberals' only response to the recession we are experiencing. The opportunity for robust debate is inevitably trumped by the temptation to indulge in personal abuse and denigration.

Not to mention the incredible - and daily - abuse of freedom-of-information laws, which, far from providing what is advertised on the packet, seem tailor-made to shield the antics of government from the very people they are supposed to serve.

We have a lot to learn.

If our new Governor-General is able to make headway against the tide of vested interests that flow against change, then she will have performed a great service for all of us.

If she actually gets the republic debate as far as the people, she will be a miracle worker.

But I still believe that a visceral distrust of our politicians - any politician - is at the heart of every "no" vote on the topic of a republic. And that until this changes, the noes will continue to have it.

So will this be our last female Governor General?

No.

We have time for many more.

Dear Forrest,

I didn't realize just how large the
title of this thread appears. You're
right, It does jump out at you.
Using caps was a mistake. Thanks for
pointing it out to me.

Thanks also to you and other posters
for your inputs so far.

My personal feelings are that she won't
be the last female Governor General.

>>"...we embrace change as a natural and
necessary consequence of our evolution..."

Which makes me wonder what sort of change
did she foresee in Australia's future?<<

I'd like to see the governance arrangements in this country evolve to one where the head of state is a normal person who has distinguished himself/herself in some way. By normal, I mean not from the traditional ruling class or lofty strata of society, but one of the ordinary people.

I agree with Pericles point about the Australian polity not being politically mature enough. Another point is that the public will never support a Republic as long as it's not clear to them what they're really supporting. That's why the 1999 Referendum failed, too many silvertails were associated with selling the idea.

As for making predictions, we'll have a Republic in, say, 2025.

Before all the republicans get their knickers in a twist about our new GG making moves for a republic, there may be a couple of things to consider.

Firstly, it seems the role of the GG has been diminished by pollies, particularly PMs, getting in on anything where there could be good publicity and photo shoots. Like welcoming troops/athletes home, send off for the Para Olympians, etc.

This seems to have reduced the role, and influence, of GG somewhat.

Secondly, the republicans may be putting the cart before the horse, in that the States may have to become republics before Australia could do so. We have a poster here on OLO that seems to be somewhat knowledgeable on our constitution, Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlarka, I think. If I read his last post correctly, and if he is right, he maintains that Australia is not a country. It is a commonwealth of 6 sovereignties. Thus being unable to become a republic until the States do so. That could pose a bit of a problem if one or more States decided against the idea.

I would like to hear more from Mr Gerrit, and others, on this.

Sorry Foxy if this seems a little off topic, but part of the GGs role is to uphold the provissions of the constitution.

I for one says she should be the last GG for ever. Australia needs to stand alone. Australia needs to be counted as a whole, and not a half. It's about time Australia was given the key to the door, so we can enter by the front door and not the night carters door. If any-one wants to know my persuasion in this matter please ask.

Thanks everyone for your inputs.

I agree with Pericles.

I don't think that things will
change quickly.

Banjo, I too am waiting for Mr Gerrit to come
into this thread. His expertise would be
of great value here.

I hope that we'll get some input from him.

I've got a question...

I know that the Governor General of
Australia is the official representative
of the Queen as Head of State. That, she's
been appointed by the Queen on the
recommendation of the Prime Minister for a
current term of 5 years. That she acts on the
advice of the PM and his Government. That
almost all of her constitutional duties are
performed on the advice of the Government.

However, if there is a future proposal for
turning Australia into a Republic, which would
depend on a National Referendum. What would
happen to the position of Governor General?
Would it be totally abolished or a position of
President created in its place?

Australia voted No, at the last National Referendum.

Foxy,

As I understand it, if and when we move to a Republic we replace the G-G with a President, who then becomes our head of state. A lot of the paraphernalia of the British Monarchy will also disappear if it hasn't already.

As for the term of the G-G, it's not set in concrete. Witness what happened to Peter Hollingworth's term which got cut short (to about 2 years) and Michael Jeffery and Bill Deane who both had theirs extended by a short period if I remember correctly.

So, in other words, if the Government thinks the time is right for holding a Referendum on a Republic, and if it was successful, the G-G's term would be cut short. There's no tenure any more, even in that job.

Foxy, we voted no to the model that was presented. Personally I am inclined to err on the side of caution and stick with what we have. Its not too broke, and it could be much worse (particularly if the Constitution comes up for a re-write - think of what havoc vested interests might stir up, not to mention throwing out 100 years of law development).

However, if we were to venture down this path, I'd like to think that this high office retains a sense of dignity which I think it currently has. Governor or Governor-General is to me a much more dignified term than President. "President" might be a term that is poisoned by the way US Presidents act - certainly I hope that our system will remain significantly different to theirs, so the name of the head of state should be different too.

I would not like to see the head of state election devolve into popular elections. This basically ensures that the office becomes achievable only for those rich enough and slick enough to catch the public's interest, and could easily be swayed by media portrayal. I'd prefer the option that saw someone with certain creditials chosen by a set percentage of both Houses of Parliament - maybe 75% majority or something like that. I'd also like to think that politicians be banned from ever being eligible, thereby removing more politics from the role.

I also feel that the role should be mostly restricted to being the rubber-stamp of parliament, staying out of law-making. However, where an imbalance of power is blocking effective law-making by the Parliament (such as a hostile Senate), the GG/Pres should first issue a public warning, then move to dissolve both Houses. The function should be as a aid to facilitate the effectiveness of the other arms of government.

Dear Rob,

Thanks for answering some aspects of the GG
position for me. I didn't realize that
there was no tenure.

Dear Country Gal,

As always what you've written most so much
sense. Thanks.

However, I'm not too sure whether the election
of a new Head of State by Parliament is going
to be a popular choice. It's my preference as
well. Most people I've spoken
to would prefer a general election to be held.

And again, this may not happen for a long time
yet.

Country Gal if you beleive that the GG should only be the rubber stamper for the Government would you not agree that evidence of the use of the rubber stamp, the Great SEAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and the GG signature should be made available to the public ?

This is one of the roles of the GG but the entire Federal system is having difficulty providing any evidence of the use of this stamp or the GG's signature on the various documents, Royal Assent and Proclamations, required by the Parliament that you all take part in electing at the polls.

I am afraid to say that this GG has brought some very bad habits with her from Queensland to Canberra and if she does not correct the errors of the past she wont last very long at all.

She has all of the most suitable credentials for the appointment (bottom feeder Barrister) and has no excuse to claim ignorance for what has been going on.

Thanks Everyone for all your inputs.

They are greatly appreciated.

The next decade should prove to be an
interesting one.

Cont'd

I forgot to add this quote that I came
across while trawling the Web. It was made
by Edward VII (1841-1910), about his mother,
but it could have been made by Prince Charles
about his:

Edward VII (1841-1910) (On his lifelong wait for
the throne). "I don't mind praying to the
eternal Father, but I must be the only man in
the country afflicted with an eternal mother."