Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

OMG! "Curtsey-gate"

Jump to new
Ruby said:
Hmmm! not sure if you're right McLovin. The Queen might be Head of State, but it is purely ceremonial. She has no powers in Australia.
Click to expand...

No, that's incorrect.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 1
Legislative power

The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament , or The Parliament of the Commonwealth .
Click to expand...

The Queen also has unwritten Reserve Powers which is the basis on which in 1975 she dismissed the Whitlam government (the same power was used in 1932 in NSW to dismiss the Lang government).

She is also head of the Executive per s61.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 61
Executive power

The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor‑General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
Click to expand...
 
It is obvious Gillard has no class. Look at the legs. I'm not surprised she always wears trousers.

496547-the-royals.jpg
 
McLovin said:
No, that's incorrect.



The Queen also has unwritten Reserve Powers which is the basis on which in 1975 she dismissed the Whitlam government (the same power was used in 1932 in NSW to dismiss the Lang government).

She is also head of the Executive per s61.
Click to expand...

Well may we say "God save the Queen", because nothing will save the Governor-General!
Click to expand...
- Just ask Gough Whitlam

The events of the Dismissal led to only minor constitutional change. The Senate retains its power to block supply, and the Governor-General the power to dismiss the Government. However, those powers have not been exercised again. Kerr was widely criticised by ALP supporters for his actions, resigned early as Governor-General, and lived much of his remaining life abroad. Though Kerr, who died in 1991, continues to be reviled in some quarters, Whitlam and Fraser later reconciled.
Click to expand...
="http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis"

Do wish our PM hadn't appeared to be trying to look queenly by dressing in the same shade. Personally I think we should take a leaf out of the yank's book, and refuse to bow to anyone - seems so outdated these days. Can't see why a handshake won't do. At least Julia didn't touch her (gasp!) like one of our prior leaders...

Paul Keating and the Royal Touch

An explosion of interest in the subject of Australian republicanism reverberated around the world last week. Grizzled expatriates who thought they were safely holed up in this country were shaken to their foundation garments. There was no dodging the issue. Some said it was the first eruption of a long-simmering volcano. Others thought a squib had gone off. The initial evidence supported the latter theory. Meeting the Queen during her tour of Australia, the Australian Prime Minister’s wife had several times failed to curtsy, while the Prime Minister himself, on at least one occasion, had physically touched the Monarch, perhaps at more than one point.

For a while it was not established whether these were deliberate acts of lèse-majesté or examples of disarming Australian casualness.
Click to expand...

http://www.clivejames.com/pieces/dreaming/paul-keating
 
Calliope said:
It is obvious Gillard has no class. Look at the legs. I'm not surprised she always wears trousers.
Click to expand...

Ohh, I hadn't noticed. OMG! again: how can she be PM with legs like that? :rolleyes:
Maybe she should take a leaf out of MistaRabbit's dress sense and wear budgie smugglers.

Anyway: What's his role in the protocol scheme of a Royal Visit? And did he curtsey?

Seriously: Why don't we let the Pommie Press worry about these things and keep going the Aussie way.
And as far as the Dismissal is concerned, I think I heard an opinion that the PM might have been in his rights had he asked the Crown to recall Kerr. But that's History...

Finally: If the Dismissal was based on "unwritten Reserve Powers", then it's about bluddy time we got a properly documented Constitution of our own. No wonder nothing gets done around here, if the Government has to worry at every decision whether a bunch of old fuddy-duddy lawyers in London might find an unwritten precedent from AD 1369 that stands in the way.
 
pixel said:
Finally: If the Dismissal was based on "unwritten Reserve Powers", then it's about bluddy time we got a properly documented Constitution of our own. No wonder nothing gets done around here, if the Government has to worry at every decision whether a bunch of old fuddy-duddy lawyers in London might find an unwritten precedent from AD 1369 that stands in the way.
Click to expand...

Even as a republican, when I read something like that all I can say is God save the Queen.
 
Top