Abstract
Australia’s system of government is, in formal terms, a constitutional monarchy, and in efficient terms a federal parliamentary democracy. Elizabeth II is ‘by the Grace of God Queen of Australia’,1 but since she is an absentee monarch the head of state functions for Australia’s national and state governments are performed by the Governor-General and State Governors. These officers are strictly substitutes for the sovereign in that they are representatives of the Queen and are formally appointed by her. The monarchic element retains symbolic significance for many Australians, and the monarchic trappings of language and ritual lend an additional dignity to the offices of Governor-General and Governor. While retaining monarchic forms, these offices have become thoroughly Australianised as Constitutional Heads of State in an autonomous federal system of democratic parliamentary government, a process that was only completed for the States with the passing of the Australia Act in 1986.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution, 1867.
But see Sir Walter Campbell, The Role of a State Governor With Particular Reference to Queensland, Royal Australian Institute of Public Administration, Queensland Division, Brisbane, 1989.
Sir Paul Hasluck, The Office of Governor-General, Melbourne, 1979, p. 10.
See B. Galligan & J.R. Nethercote, The Constitutional Commission and the 1988 Referendums, Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations, ANU, Canberra, 1989.
D.A. Low, ‘The Dismissal of a Prime Minister: Australia, 11 November 1975’, in D.A. Low, ed., Constitutional Heads and Political Crises, London, 1988, pp. 90–106.
According to Fraser, Kerr put to him four questions about conditions of appointment as Prime Minister — guaranteeing supply, advising an immediate election, undertaking no new policies or significant appointments, and initiating no inquiries into the activities of the Whitlam Government — in a telephone conversation on the morning of the dismissal. Although hypothetical, such questions tipped off Fraser on what was to take place that afternoon. Fraser’s biographer, Philip Ayers, (Malcolm Fraser: A Biography, Richmond, Vic., 1987), calls this ‘the most momentous call Fraser had ever taken’ (p. 292). Fraser’s account flatly contradicts that of Sir John Kerr in Matters for Judgment (South Melbourne, 1978, pp. 355, 364–5), who insists that these questions were only asked of Fraser in the Governor-General’s study just prior to his swearing in. Fraser has reaffirmed his account publicly, while Kerr is also sticking to his earlier version. See interview with Gerard Henderson, Weekend Australian, 7–8 November 1987.
Sir Paul Hasluck, The Office of Governor-General, Melbourne 1979, p. 10.
Sir Zelman Cowen, ‘The Office of Governor-General’, Daedalus, Vol. 14, No. 1, Winter 1985, pp. 127–46.
Sir Zelman Cowen, A Touch of Healing: Speeches by Sir Zelman Cowen 1977–1982, St. Lucia, Qld, 1986, 3 Volumes.
I have argued elsewhere that part of the reason for the 1975 constitutional crisis and the way in which it was resolved was due to the fact that both the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, and the Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, from whom he took advice, had distorted views regarding the primacy of the written text and insufficient knowledge of, or respect for, constitutional conventions: B. Galligan, ‘The Kerr-Whitlam Debate and the Principles of the Australian Constitution’, Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, Vol. 18, No. 3, November 1980, pp. 247–71; and ‘Interpreting the Constitution after 1975’, Australian Quarterly, Vol. 56, Winter, pp. 142–52.
Alternatively, according to Sawer, Ministers could be sworn in with the appropriate oaths of office and of secrecy, and become members of the Executive Council by virtue of being Ministers of State according to section 64, and would cease to be Executive Councillors when they ceased to be Ministers. This is disputed by others and in any case has never been tried. For this point and a thorough discussion of the history and formal procedures of the Executive Council, see Geoffrey Sawer, Federation Under Strain: Australia 1972–1975, Melbourne, 1977, Chapter 6, especially pp. 94–5.
L.F. Crisp, Australian National Government, 4th edn, Melbourne, 1978, p.351.
J. Quick & R.R. Garran, The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, Sydney, 1901, pp.705–6.
Sir John Kerr, Matters for Judgment, Melbourne, 1978, Chapter 15; and Sir P. Hasluck, ‘The Executive Council’, in The Office of Governor-General, pp. 35–42.
See John Stubbs, Hayden, Melbourne, 1989, Chapter 24.
Interview, Weekend Australian, 7–8 January 1989.
See A.C.V. Melbourne, Early Constitutional Development in Australia, 2nd edn, 1963, edited by R.B. Joyce, St. Lucia (first published 1936);
and W.G. McMinn, A Constitutional History of Australia, Melbourne, 1979.
Discussed in H.P. Lee, ‘Legislative Comment: The Australia Act 1986 — Some Legal Conundrums’, Monash Law Review, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Sept. 1988), pp. 298–315.
R.D. Lumb, The Constitutions of the Australian States, 4th edn, St. Lucia, 1977, p. 77.
The significance of these differences in formal law and practice for the two vice-regal offices was debated by Australian authorities. See H.V. Evatt, The King and His Dominion Governors, 2nd edn, edited by Zelman Cowen, Melbourne, 1967 (first published 1936), pp. 208 ff.
For an earlier instance of Premier Bjelke-Petersen’s political use of the Vice-Regal office in undermining the influence of the Liberal Party in the Coalition Government, see D.J. Markwell, ‘The Conventions of Ministerial Resignations: The Queensland Coalition Crisis of 1983’, in D.A. Low, ed., Constitutional Heads and Political Crises, London, 1987, pp. 163–81.
G.L. Davies & CD. Gilbert, ‘Ex Parte: National Party of Australia — Queensland: Joint Opinion’, 12 October 1987.
See Peter Coaldrake, Working the System, St. Lucia, 1989.
Evan Whitton, The Hill-Billy Dictator: Australia’s Police State, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sydney, 1989.
See Marcus Haward & Graham Smith, ‘The 1989 Tasmanian Election: The Green Independents Consolidate’, University of Tasmania, 1989.
Discussed at length in R.P. Roulston, ‘Dismissal of Ministers of the Crown: A Tasmanian Precedent’, Tasmanian University Law Review, Vol. 1, 1959, pp. 280–8; and Enid Campbell, ‘The Prerogative Power of Dissolution: Some Recent Tasmanian Precedents’, Public Law, 1961, pp. 165–79.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1991 David Butler and D. A. Low
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Galligan, B. (1991). Australia. In: Butler, D., Low, D.A. (eds) Sovereigns and Surrogates. Cambridge Commonwealth Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-11565-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-11565-5_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-11567-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-11565-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)