Yes, see here:
If the Queen ordered the Governor General to use one of the reserve powers against the wishes of the ruling party, then regardless of the the outcome it would cause a constitutional crisis.
So at the very least she has the power to cause a constitutional crisis in Australia 
No, No, No.
Even in Wiki link you provided it states the situation explicitly.
Under the Australian Constitution (I believe uniquely amongst the Commonwealth) the reserve powers are vested in the Governor General, not the Monarch.
The Queen of Australia’s only constitutional role is to appoint the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister.
She could still cause a constitutional crisis by dismissing the Governor General and then refusing to assent to all replacements offered to her. The end result would be the same, with no Governor General in office, laws cannot legally be passed in Australia and there would need to be an immediate referendum to change the constitution.
Nah.
QEII had absolutely no involvement in the 1975 stand-off and indeed during the crisis showed an impeccable understanding of the Australian Constitution. Much more than yourself.
The Dismissal was the dismissal of the democratically elected Australian Head of Government by his own nomination as Australian Head of State.
Become a republic and (given the same personalities) the same situation would likely play out the same way. Indeed if the ideological Republicans had their wish it would be both more assured and more frequent.
No.
In over 50 years as Monarch QEII has caused a total of exactly zero constitutional crisises among the Commonwealth notwithstanding a never ending parade of opportunities to do so.
The Queen of Australia’s only constitutional role is to appoint the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister.
If QEII was to tender advise to the GG to dismiss the federal government of the Prime Minister of Australia, the Australian GG would, indeed must, refuse.
That was my thought. I like the idea of a monarch because someone explicitly disconnected from politics holds the button to the political nuclear option. (“It’s a great trick, but I can only do it once…”) Go republican, and as Italy and Israel have demonstrated, you simply get used politicians past their best-before date, with the added bonus of past political pecadilloes that could lead to criminal charges. Plus, a 5-year president has a lot less incentive to be uninvolved and avoid meddling than a nominal monarch who has to carry things through for their lifetime and their heirs’. It’s not a great system for the 21st century, but its better than most choices.
md2000, we’ve had this discussion before. The Governor General had no power to veto a constitutional amendment, either before patriation in 1982, or currently.
Prior to patriation in 1982, the way to amend the Constitution was that the House of Commons and the Senate each passed a resolution, asking Her Majesty to lay before the British Parliament the proposed constitutional amendment for the British Parliament to pass.
Resolutions are not bills and do not require the Royal Assent.
Even if the two Houses of the Canadian Parliament had passed resolutions asking for the British Parliament to amend the Constitution without any provincial support, the Governor General would not have had any power to veto the resolutions.
I’m curious: what proposal for a republican form of government in Australia do you think would quickly get approval from absolute majorities in both houses of Parliament, and a majority of the voters nation-wide, and majorities in 4 of the 6 states?
Australia is already a republic, except in the imagination of the ‘republicans’. There is no act of commision or ommision that the Queen could preform that would trigger any kind of result in Australia, other than her theoretical power to refuse to accept a nomination for Governer General. If she did that, there would be a quick constitutional change to remove that power.
She does, of course, have the power to commit acts of political stupidity, like claiming to have powers which she does not have. If she committed an act of political stupidity, any reference to her would be quickly erased. This would not be difficult because, since 1901, Australia is already a republic except in the immagination of the ‘republicans’. It would mostly involve things like not minting any more coins with her picture: very contentious in ordinary circumstances, but not requiring constitutional change.
Although the constitution already technically describes a republic, there have been attempts to hijack “republicanism” to achieve constitutional change, and that would be difficult. But in the circumstance that Australia suddenly didn’t wish to have coins with her image, any changes to the constitution to remove references to the monarchy could be made easily. It only gets difficult when you are trying to use “republicanism” as an excuse to do something different.
And what do you think would be that “quick constitutional change”? how would the Governor General be appointed, if not by Her Majesty?
I’m simply sceptical of all the suggestions that it would be quick and easy for a Commonwealth Realm to go republican.
Constitutional changes are intentionally difficult to implement. Even if there is substantial agreement that something needs to be changed (eg - monarch => republic), the devil is in the details: what kind of republic do we want?
As soon as you ask that second question, consensus quickly dissolves. Wasn’t that clear from the referendum, where polls suggested that a majority of Australians wanted to go republican, but the proposal was defeated because there was not sufficient support for the proposed republican model?
There’s been a lot of discussion about what QEII has done historically, but I think at this point we also need to consider what Charles III will do. I don’t see him in any way as a carbon copy of his mum.
He might choose to go by King George VII, rumor has it. See the 1993 political drama To Play The King for some interesting (if farfetched) speculation on what a more politically-assertive British monarch might do.
He sides quite overtly with the evil PM’s political opposition. The irony is that the new king’s heart is in the right place and he genuinely wants to do the right thing, but he clumsily tramples on constitutional convention and loses his crown - quite rightly! - at the behest of the evil but legally-in-the-right PM.
The GG is not the Australian head of state, of course; he (or she) is the representative of the head of state, who was in 1975 and still is in 2015 the Queen of Australia: Governor-General of Australia - Wikipedia.
As I understand it, the Governor-General is almost universally viewed as the head of state in Australia.* I don’t think there’s an “of course” because it’s not a term that’s actually legally defined in Australia (unlike, say, New Zealand).
*Unlike in Canada where the previous GG caused a mini-scandal by referring to herself as such.
He has already more than hinted at wanting space for more proactive expression of opinions. The question is the extent to which that might stray into “politics” rather than “good causes”, and whether anyone could prevent that happening, whatever his intentions. The Guardian’s long campaign to turn up what is in the letters and other interventions he makes to cabinet ministers has turned up some interesting questions about the boundaries between “good causes” and areas of his potential private interest as a major agricultural landholder. In the long run, it might simply not be a sustainable position*; or some new convention might be developed, but it won’t amount to more than a formal process for politicians and parliament to reply with a suitably obsequious way of saying “Yes, dear, that would be nice, wouldn’t it?” and doing damn all about it.
*especially if he expects to be able to do it in relation to all the other different realms and all their different social and political set-ups.
No, and and let’s be fair about it, quoting Wiki on the finer points of constitutional law lacks a certain rigour.
The Australian Constitution makes no mention of “Prime Minister” and equally it does not mention “Head of State”.
So who is the Australian Head of State? Well let’s start by considering who actually performs the duties of HoS. This is crystal clear both in practice and constitutional law (unlike for Canada and the other other Dominions), all constitutional and “reserve” powers and functions including being command in chief of the naval and military forces, [except the power to appoint or remove the Governor-General], have been given to the Governor-General by the Constitution from 1 January 1901.
The authority to appoint or remove a Governor-General is vested in the Queen of Australia acting only on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister
I recommend the linked article by David Smith who was the Official Secretary to five Governors-General from 1973 to 1990 and was the GG’s representative who read the proclamation on the steps of Parliament in November 1975.
Why the Governor-General is Australia’s Head of State
The GG would be appointed, as is already the case, by the government of the day. The “quick constitutional change” would be to remove the symbolic reference to the Monarch in that process. Since the ‘change’ would have no constitutional or political effect, it would be a quick and easy change if required.
Yes, if you want a different kind of republic than the one we have now, much more difficult changes are required.
Very interesting indeed, but not sure I buy it. Why have a “Queen of Australia,” feted with much pomp and circumstance whenever she visits Australia, if she’s not HOS? Why have a crown appear on the GG’s flag? In practical terms the GG certainly does a lot of what the monarch would do, if she were a full-time resident Down Under, but it seems a leap to say the GG is actually the HOS.
QEII is feted with all due pomp and circumstance on the occasion of her visiting because we are a constitutional monarchy and she is the Queen of Australia.
I don’t think the verdict swings on the appearance of a crown on the standard that waves on the bonnet of the GG’s car. It’s a quirk of history and I’d reckon 99% of Australian’s wouldn’t recognise what is was. There is no crown on the national flag, but there is a crown on a couple of the state flags. There is a crown on the New Zealand Governor General’s flag as well and they are definitely not the HoS, it states that explicitly in Section 2 of their Constitution.
And no, the GG does not do a lot of what the Monarch would do, the GG does absolutely everything that a HoS would do, even when the Monarch is resident on these shores. Which happens also to be the view of Buckingham Palace and the British Privy Council.