3 ms·

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 elect

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.