As recounted by Elendil’s Heir, SDSAB, the Queen doesn’t find it unusual to get a phone call from her Canadian Prime Minister, although the phone security of her palace minions leaves a bit to be desired: “How Does the Queen Answer The Phone?”
When it comes to nominating a GG, I"d imagine there’s a fairly formal document that gets sent for signature, after a bit of behind the scenes forewarning between officials. No need for either party physically to travel.
Neither. Since the GG is appointed for a fixed term, vacancies and the need to fill them are generally foreseeable. Correspondence on the subject is by letter, between the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in Canberra and the Private Secretary to the Sovereign in London, with the letters being routed through the Australian High Commission in London.
If the need for urgent contact arises it’s by phone or any other convenient technology, but it’s still mainly between officials, not between the principals.
Only when the whole thing is settled does the PM formally advise the Queen to appoint so-and-so as Governor-General. This would normally be by letter from the PM to the Private Secretary, but in a case of urgency it could be phone or e-mail or whatever.
The GG is not the Australian Head of State; that is the Queen: Governor-General of Australia - Wikipedia
Thanks, Patrick and UDS.
Yes, that’s what one Wiki entry says. There are others which recognise the situation is fluid and the evolving weight of opinion is only going one way.
The Australian Constitution (unlike other Commonwealth notables like say NZ) is explicit that the GG alone exercises the Reserve Powers, is head of the armed forces etc. I wouldn’t get too concerned, after all even the Poms missed the consequences of the subtle if not devious drafting change over a century ago.
You can go right to the heart of the primary vested interests. 1999 on the British monarchy website was amended from claiming Elizabeth II as head of state of Australia to be it’s sovereign. In 2010, the “head of state” epaulet was restored but was changed again in 2014 and currently Elizabeth II is again described as sovereign.
QEII is ambiguous as to the status of her own claims, so it’s no biggie.
Interesting. Can you point us to the provisions of the Australian Constitution that deal with the Crown and GovGen? I’d like to compare them to the Canadian ones.
The best outline and context of the argument for the GG to be HoS in the case of Australia is this article by David Smith who was Official Secretary to five Governors-General from 1973 to 1990.
Most famously he read the GG’s proclamation dissolving parliament in Nov 1975 with Gough standing beside him.
The Australian Constitution does not contain the words “Head of State”, nor “Prime Minister” for that matter and so it is as much evolving convention rather than codified provisions which define the governance of Australia. True, the recognition of these provisions has slowly unfurled. Certainly Queen Victoria thought the Australian GG was there principally to ensure Britain’s interests were maintained in the Colony; British Prime Ministers communicated instructions directly to the Australian GG until 1926. Until 1930 the appointment of the Australian GG by the Monarch was on advise of the British PM. Yes, incremental progress but without any retarding and it has saved any unpleasantness in achieving independence via a revolution.
In 1900, when the Empire was at/near the peak of it’s power.
Had the Australian Founding Fathers cocked a snoot at the Monarch and claimed full independence there might have seen another instance of British gunboat diplomacy for redrafting of the agreement and the Poms would have billed us for the reprinting costs.
The relevant sections of the Australian Constitution are #2 and #61.
Chapter 1 – The Parliament – Sections 1-60
Section 2 – Governor-General
A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.
Chapter 2 – The Executive Government – Sections 61-70
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.
Other sections of Chapter 2 - The Executive Government which specify the functions exercised by the Governor General include:
Section 68. Command of naval and military forces
The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative.
Thanks!
The repeated use of the word “representative” shows that the GG is not head of state, but rather a stand-in for the monarch who, especially when present in Australia, is clearly treated as head of state, with due deference shown by the GG and all other public officials. The GG is appointed by the monarch, on advice of the PM, showing that the monarch is superior in rank to the GG. Legislative bills receive the Royal Assent, not the GG’s assent: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6072_aspassed%2F0000;query=Id%3A"legislation%2Fbills%2Fr6072_aspassed%2F0000";rec=0. And the monarch, when available, herself signs legislation into law; the GG does not: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Australia_Act_1986.jpg
That’s a UK law, relating to Australia. It’s not an Australian law.
Edit: oops, I meant the other link.
Which is a consequence of Australia being a constitutional monarchy, not a republic.
Thank you, much obliged.
Since 1953 it has been the legal position here that the Governor-General exercised constitutional powers in their own right, not as a representative of the Sovereign and that the Governor-General’s powers could not be exercised by the Sovereign, even when the Monarch was in Australia.
If assent to legislation or other HoS functions are required when the monarch is present in Australia the Governor General performs them without reference to the Monarch.
Accordingly QEII has never performed any duties of Australia’s Head of State; but has performed many times the constitutional duties of Sovereign and Queen of Australia.
You can contrast the Australian situation with New Zealand’s where in their Constitution Act 1986 clause #1 unambigously states:
Head of State (1) The Sovereign in right of New Zealand is the head of State of New Zealand, and shall be known by the royal style and titles proclaimed from time to time.
Until around 1990 the NZ GG and Queen were not seen in public together. The GG would ‘disappear to the South Island’ during royal visits and any HoS function was performed by the Monarch. I don’t know whether that vice regal convention continues.
Different from Canada then. George VI and Elizabeth II have both granted Royal Assent personally to federal bills.
Plus, there’s the power to appoint extra Senators, which only HM can do. The GovGen doesn’t have that power.
As much a consequence of distance and circumstance.
Elizabeth II is the only reigning monarch of Australia to have set foot on Australian soil.
George V, Edward VIII and George VI toured here before their succession.
Had they been Monarch at the time I think conventions then would have seen them function as HoS.
Sorry. Some other examples of the Queen personally granting assent to Australian laws:
https://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-sdid-99.html
The GG’s assents to legislation are in the Queen’s name, and not based on his or her own inherent powers as a supposed Australian head of state:
And see:
Nice pics.
It’s a question of hats and QEII wears several at any state occasion.
So in the the instances cited:1973 with a bill that confers her the title as Queen of Australia, 1983 the repeal of Letters Patent signed by the then Monarch Queen Victoria. The 1953 was a sop specifically drafted after the royalist Menzies, who wanted QEII to have a formal hand in egislation for electoral advantage, was given advice that Governor-General exercised constitutional powers in their own right. The argument of the Commonwealth Solicitor General, and mine, is that she was, and was limited to, formally acting as Queen of Australia.
Australia has not made any change to the constitutional section on executive powers since Federation. What has changed are the evolving conventions they support. e.g. that the GG is replaced by the Monarch on the advice of the PM which would not seem possible by a plain text reading.