4 ms·

But calling it the "Queen's Coup" is overegging the pudding. It was very much John Kerr's Coup. Yes, I find the detailed history fascinating, but I am a bit u

But calling it the "Queen's Coup" is overegging the pudding. It was very much John Kerr's Coup. Yes, I find the detailed history fascinating, but I am a bit unconvinced by the spin put on it. Clearly, the claim that the palace had no idea it was coming is false, but I don't read the supposedly damning quotes from the letters as the Queen (or anyone else in the palace) giving partisan advise about what action to take. I read it as advising him of what powers he held and that he was free to use them should he decide it was necessary. Frankly, I feel like this is exactly the sort of role that a Governor General should take: acting as a neutral referee when the children stop playing nicely. The Governor General's powers are quite limited, but they are very real. The fact that the Prime Minister can replace the Governor General more or less at will acts as a strong democratic check on this power. (This is more problematic in the UK where the King cannot be replaced.) Personally, I think the "theoretical monarchy" and the role of the Governor General is a very nice feature in Canada and Australia (and presumably other commonwealth realms).

mst 4y ago
It is notable that the piece's primary author (as noted at the end) wrote a two volume biography of Whitlam. I'm not going to pretend to be informed enough about the overall events and motivations to have an opinion, but it does seem likely that the piece's overall tone is likely to be affected by that fact.
rswail 4y ago
The GG is the "Queen's Representative" in Australia and is appointed by her on the advice of her Prime Minister. She is "Queen of Australia" in this role, not Queen of the UK. As such, her advice to Kerr should have been "Take the advice from the PM and the legal advice he has asked the Solicitor General and Attorney General to provide to you". That should have been it. Anything else is improper and against the rules of a constitutional monarch. If the Queen had tried to do the same thing in the UK, Parliament would immediately remove the Crown from power. In a similar situation in the UK, where the House of Lords attempted to block supply passed by the Commons, the Lords have no power to amend the bill. If they refuse to pass it, the Commons can reintroduce the bill unchanged. The Crown would have no power to intervene unless there was a "loss of confidence" in the Commons, at which point the PM would have no alternative to advising the Crown to call an election.
- goodcanadian 4y ago
  I actually think that is an advantage in Australia and Canada. The Governor General is not the monarch, but is (effectively) appointed by a democratically elected official. That gives them more freedom to actually wield that power (albeit extremely rarely). I, personally, think it is very useful to have that neutral referee with real power. As you say, the King is much more constrained in the UK. Although, he theoretically has the same power, it is much more problematic if he uses it. EDIT: To be clear, I am not well enough versed in the history to make a judgment on whether Kerr was right or wrong, and I understand that it will always be controversial, but I do think it is a feature and not a bug for the GG to have that power.
  - rswail 4y ago
    I don't agree. Parliament, representing the votes of the people, should be Supreme. The constraints on monarchy or a non-political head of state should be absolutely clear. The so called "reserve powers" have no place in a nation with a written constitution. Almost the single job is to call on someone to be Prime Minister and form a government that holds the confidence of the House of Representatives. Then swear in who that person advises you to as members of the Executive Council. We recently had the ridiculous situation that the Prime Minister advised the Governor General to swear him in as a "secret" additional minister in a number of ministries. That is now the subject of a Parliamentary inquiry.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > If the Queen had tried to do the same thing in the UK, Parliament would immediately remove the Crown from power. That's very far-fetched. MPs take an oath of loyalty to the monarch on taking their seat. The entire House of Lords hold their positions wholly by the grace of some monarch or other. Without an electoral mandate, it's inconceivable that Parliament would dismiss the monarchy. Yeah, I know, it's happened once or twice before; but the last time was 400 years ago, and the world has changed.
  - rswail 4y ago
    MPs take an oath of loyalty to the Crown, representing the nation. The Lords (especially the modern Lords and Bishops) are appointed by the Crown on advice from the Prime Minister, so other than the left over inherited nobility, who's power has been severely curtailed in modern times, no one in the Lords is beholden to the Crown for their position. If the monarch attempted to expand their power beyond their current minimal role in the UK, Parliament would exercise its supremacy. As for "without an electoral mandate", the current UK government is on it's 4th (or 5th? I lose count) Prime Minister because it holds the confidence of the Commons.

mst 4y ago

It is notable that the piece's primary author (as noted at the end) wrote a two volume biography of Whitlam. I'm not going to pretend to be informed enough about the overall events and motivations to have an opinion, but it does seem likely that the piece's overall tone is likely to be affected by that fact.

rswail 4y ago

The GG is the "Queen's Representative" in Australia and is appointed by her on the advice of her Prime Minister. She is "Queen of Australia" in this role, not Queen of the UK. As such, her advice to Kerr should have been "Take the advice from the PM and the legal advice he has asked the Solicitor General and Attorney General to provide to you". That should have been it. Anything else is improper and against the rules of a constitutional monarch. If the Queen had tried to do the same thing in the UK, Parliament would immediately remove the Crown from power. In a similar situation in the UK, where the House of Lords attempted to block supply passed by the Commons, the Lords have no power to amend the bill. If they refuse to pass it, the Commons can reintroduce the bill unchanged. The Crown would have no power to intervene unless there was a "loss of confidence" in the Commons, at which point the PM would have no alternative to advising the Crown to call an election.

goodcanadian 4y ago
I actually think that is an advantage in Australia and Canada. The Governor General is not the monarch, but is (effectively) appointed by a democratically elected official. That gives them more freedom to actually wield that power (albeit extremely rarely). I, personally, think it is very useful to have that neutral referee with real power. As you say, the King is much more constrained in the UK. Although, he theoretically has the same power, it is much more problematic if he uses it. EDIT: To be clear, I am not well enough versed in the history to make a judgment on whether Kerr was right or wrong, and I understand that it will always be controversial, but I do think it is a feature and not a bug for the GG to have that power.
- rswail 4y ago
  I don't agree. Parliament, representing the votes of the people, should be Supreme. The constraints on monarchy or a non-political head of state should be absolutely clear. The so called "reserve powers" have no place in a nation with a written constitution. Almost the single job is to call on someone to be Prime Minister and form a government that holds the confidence of the House of Representatives. Then swear in who that person advises you to as members of the Executive Council. We recently had the ridiculous situation that the Prime Minister advised the Governor General to swear him in as a "secret" additional minister in a number of ministries. That is now the subject of a Parliamentary inquiry.
denton-scratch 4y ago
> If the Queen had tried to do the same thing in the UK, Parliament would immediately remove the Crown from power. That's very far-fetched. MPs take an oath of loyalty to the monarch on taking their seat. The entire House of Lords hold their positions wholly by the grace of some monarch or other. Without an electoral mandate, it's inconceivable that Parliament would dismiss the monarchy. Yeah, I know, it's happened once or twice before; but the last time was 400 years ago, and the world has changed.
- rswail 4y ago
  MPs take an oath of loyalty to the Crown, representing the nation. The Lords (especially the modern Lords and Bishops) are appointed by the Crown on advice from the Prime Minister, so other than the left over inherited nobility, who's power has been severely curtailed in modern times, no one in the Lords is beholden to the Crown for their position. If the monarch attempted to expand their power beyond their current minimal role in the UK, Parliament would exercise its supremacy. As for "without an electoral mandate", the current UK government is on it's 4th (or 5th? I lose count) Prime Minister because it holds the confidence of the Commons.