Reading another thread, I noticed that ** Matt_mtl ** stated, rouglhy that the Queen could only be informed about Canadian matters by her Canadian government.
This never occured to me before. I assume that she’s well informed about British issues by the british government, but is it also true for Canada or Australia? If so, to what extent? It seems to me there could serious conflicts of interests if she were privy to informations coming from different and not necessarily agreeing, governments. I’m guessing that maybe, only the governor-general (is it the correct name?) is actually informed, not the Queen herself, but maybe I’m wrong.
The Queen doesn’t play any part in the day to day workings of the Australian government. Even the “royal assent” that is required for all legislation is given by the Governor-General (Major General Michael Jeffery) in the Queen’s name.
The Queen is advised of any significant issues by her Australian Ministers. I imagine that the Governor-General also speaks to her from time to time as the need arises. Some information about the Governor-General’s role is available here .
There’s probably also someone in the Queen’s household in the UK who keeps up to date with Australian affairs, monitors the newspapers, political developments etc and briefs her.
In relation to e.g. Australian affairs, the Queen is advised by her Australian ministers. She rarely needs advice on Australian affairs since, as pointed out above, the functions of the crown are largely exercised by the Governor-General (who is also advised by the Australian ministers). A conspicuous exception is the appointment of the Governor-General, who is appointed by the Queen, and not by the preceding Governor-General. In this matter the Queen acts as she is advised to act by her Australian ministers. Her UK ministers are not supposed to be involved in the process at all (and, presumably, aren’t).
As to who <i>informs</i> her about Australian affairs, I suppose she reads the newspapers like everybody else.
The Queen also regularly meets with her Prime Minister.
(So she has heard all about the WMD’s in Iraq, plus how lucky we all are that President Bush has been re-elected. :rolleyes: )
Let’s be clear on what’s going on here.
The Crown is kept informed of political developments in every realm in which QE2 is the reigning monarch.
In the U.K., this is done by providing her in person daily with “the boxes” – the background material based on which government policy is made, and the discussions of such policy. The P.M. meets with her weekly; other ministers are obliged to meet with her once on taking office (“kissing hands” in token of receiving the office, though the actual custom of hand-kissing has been abandoned for better than a lifetime), and at her request thereafter (though generally such communications are made through the P.M. as a matter of custom and courtesy). The Bagehotian “royal rights” – to be informed, to give counsel, and to warn – are in fact preserved, and it’s a fool of a P.M. who ignores the ability to get advice from someone of average intelligence who is constitutionally mandated to be loyal to him, with no interest in replacing him, and who has over 50 years of experience in government.
In “the Dominions” – the other countries where Elizabeth II is officially Head of State, taken as a group – keeping “the Crown” informed is done by providing the same material to the Governor General, who is an elder statesman national of that country whose job it is to represent her and fulfill her duties as regards that one of her realms. The P.M. and the G.G. in each government both communicate with the Queen at least on the most important occasions – how much more so is not made public knowledge. The 1975 constitutional crisis in Australia, however, indicates that the Queen is kept abreast of what is actually happening in her government – she was kept up to date of the impasse there and how the G.G. resolved it, with the implication in the references I’ve read that she could override him if she felt it necessary to do so.
Does she have at her fingertips the general attitude of New Brunswickers on the level of taxation in that province? Or labour disputes in Queensland? Probably not. But can she keep abreast of such issues if they head for crisis level? Absolutely. Will she act on them? Maybe – but if she does, it’ll be “behind the scenes” – encouraging a particular political solution confidentially, with local political figures the ones who make that solution public, and no reference to her role.
IIRC, the Canadian (and presumably the Australian) Governments pay for a senior official who hangs with the Royal Household. His function is to pass along information from his country.
There was a discussion in the British papers that the Canadians were balking at continuing the custom. I suppose it might have fallen by the wayside.
Polycarp, thank you for your very informative answer.
Bear in mind that the term “advice” has a specific meaning in the system of responsible government shared by Britain and the other parliamentary Commonwealth countries. By constitutional convention, only the PM can “advise” the Queen on the use of her constitutional, prerogative and statutory powers. It’s a polite term for what is in fact an instruction by the head of the elected government to the sovereign. She cannot act on anyone else’s “advice” without being in breach of the constitution, likely triggering a constitutional crisis. By winning the election, Tony Blair won the exclusive right to “advise” her on all matters relating to the government of the United Kingdom.
The same principle applies internally in each of the Commonwealth countries which have the Queen as head of state. Within Canada, only Prime Minister Martin can “advise” her on the use of her powers at the federal level. In Australia, only Prime Minister Howard can “advise” her on the use of her powers at the Commonwealth (federal) level. And none of her Prime Ministers can “advise” her on the use of her powers in any of the other countries. Tony Blair cannot give her advice on the exercise of her powers under the Constitution of Canada, or the Constitution of Australia, or any of the other Commonwealth countries.
This constitutional “advice” is different from being kept up to speed on the events in each of HM’s realms. She can read the papers and surf the web like anyone else; she can talk to people on her trips; and so on.
As for how often she actually needs “advice” in the constitutional sense in Canadian matters - very rarely, would be my guess. As UDS comments, the only routine matter where HM personally exercises a power under the Australian or Canadian constitutions is the appointment of the Governor General, which happens about every five years. When the GG’s term of office is up, the PM of Canada submits the name of the person that the PM wants the Queen to appoint, and “advises” her to appoint that person under section 10 of the Constitution Act, 1867. She always takes that “advice” and appoints the person the PM wants. The Gov Gen then exercises her powers in relation to Canadian affairs.
Other than that, there are the occasional extraordinary cases where the Queen needs “advice” from her Commonwealth PMs. The decision of the Gov Gen of Australia to sack the Prime Minister in 1975 was potentially such a case, as UDS mentions.
Another example occurred in Canada in 1990, when there was a deadlock in the Senate over the passage of the Goods and Services Tax. There is a provision in the Constitution which allows the appointment of additional Senators to break a deadlock, but the appointment can only be done by the Queen herself, not by the GovGen. So Prime Minister Mulroney “advised” the Queen to appoint 8 additional senators under section 26 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which the Queen of course did, as she was constitutionally required to do.
Another Austrlian example was a few years ago, when there was a referendum on removing the Queen as Queen of Australia and creating a republican form of governmnt. I remember reading at that time that the Prime Minister of Australia went to London to brief the Queen personally on the referendum and the position of the Australian government on it.
I went back and checked. I assume you’re thinking this post by Matt:
(Bolding mine.)
It looks to me like Matt is using the term “advised” in its technical constitutional sense, not in the more general sense of giving information.