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.
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 .
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.
If you feel the need to be servile to her, just imagine her sitting on the loo having a bog.
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.
- Just ask Gough WhitlamWell may we say "God save the Queen", because nothing will save the Governor-General!
="http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis"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.
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.
It is obvious Gillard has no class. Look at the legs. I'm not surprised she always wears trousers.
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.
Ohh, I hadn't noticed. OMG! again: how can she be PM with legs like that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?