Australians, what does our Governor General do for us?
The governor general acts as head of state, representing the crown in their absence. This is the same role that a president or other from of head of state would fulfill in other systems of government. They sign bills into law, fulfill the obligations required of them through the constitution and defend the democratic process by putting some distance between the politicians and the reserve powers. They also use their public position to support community involvement in charities, disasters and other events of national significance. The governor-general represents the queen personally and not the United Kingdom. As sovereign the queen does not have citizenship of any country. Although she can be considered a national of all her realms. However, no realm of the commonwealth has claims over any other realm of the commonwealth. Britain has no more say over Australian affairs than Canada does over Jamaica or Papua New Guinea. When there is a conflict of interest between the queen's roles between her realms, the Australian constitution specifically demands that the governor-general work independently of the queen's instruction in the interest of Australia. If the governor-general did not do this, then the prime minister would have grounds to summarily request their retirement. For Australia, the queen acts on the instructions of her Australian ministers, not her other realms.
Could Australia replace its Governor General with the high court?
Thanks to David Stewart for the A2A on this. No I don't think Australia nor any great institution should be lead by a committee ... even one so noble and comprising people so eminent as the High Court of Australia.One key requirement of leadership is that it inspires followers to be aspirational. i.e. inspiring them to better themselves; to make a better life for their families; to make their society a better place in which to live. This emotive drive can never be elicited by the balanced and considered proclamation of a committee because humans beings need a role model, a leader and a hero. It is hard wired in our DNA.While there were many people behind these people it is widely acknwledged that it was Winston Churchill that lead the people of Great Britain through their darkest hour, it was Franklin Roosevelt who lead the USA and the world through the Great Depression of 1939, it was Mahatma Gandhi who lead India to independence, it was Aung San Suu Kyi who has brought a measure of democracy to Burma and Nelson Mandela who lead South Africa out of the apartheid state. No group of people, however talented and wise, could have achieved what these great leaders did with the demonstrated strength of their individual personalities.History has taught us that effective leadership must include an exalted role model of a human being who can inspire other human beings to reach beyond themselves for the greater good. Groups of people organised into committees will never inspire a people in this way. Australians, like all other nations, need inspirational individuals to rise up and lead us. Abdicating that role to a high court or any other committee is in my opinion, doomed to failure.
Can the Queen of the UK fire the Australian government?
The realistic answer is no.Technically the Queen can order the Governor General to sack the Prime Minister (triggering fresh elections) if the government is unable to perform it’s duties. However if she did that today then the entire nation would rise up and become a republic.The country is not the same as it was when the Governor General dismissed Gough Whitlam in 1975.1975 Australian constitutional crisis - WikipediaBoth sides of politics are committed to the nation becoming a republic but both sides have also stated that they would not do this while the Queen is alive.That policy would swiftly change if the Queen suddenly overstepped her boundaries and tried to interfere in Australian politics.The Queen of the UK has no more power to interfere in Australian politics than she does to do so in the UK and she has a great deal to lose if she did.King Charles is likely to to be the last monarch of Australia and his reign is likely to be very brief indeed, and that is if he even gets to become King at all.So the reality is, no she can’t just sack the government or we would just sack her back.
Should the Australian people directly elect the Governor-General?
No, The role of Governor General is to represent the Queen so it doesn't make sense, in a constitutional monarchy to elect such a person.As long as this country has a monarch, that monarch chooses a representative.We don't even elect our Prime Minister directly so it would be a very strange dynamic if we elected the GG.The Governor General approves parliamentary decisions in a non-partisan role, representing a woman who is not allowed to vote.Given the tribal-style partisanship divide in the US and Australia’s habit of adopting the US mistakes five to ten years after they've made them, I'm quite grateful that we have a Governor General who is exempt from partisan compromise.I would be just as grateful to see us become a republic. If we get through the next decade without a Neo-fascist movement, without electing an unqualified demagogue or a having our elections decided by Russian trolls and Twitter bots, then we might just be ready.But as long as we have a Governer General, we need them to be non-partisan.
Does the British Royal Family leach money off Australian taxpayers?
I realise that having a republic would cost us money. I just don't like the idea of someone being born into power, without being elected into the position or having any connection with the country. That's what I mean by leaching.
If the queen can fire the Australian government, can she do so with the US government?
Firstly, the Queen cannot fire the Australian government. While in theory it is her government, no English/British monarch has been able to dissolve parliament since the 17th century (with the result of a Civil War!) and if she tried, it’s likely it wouldn’t happen. The Queen knows better than to even try, however. The United Kingdom, and by extension the Commonwealth, is a constitutional monarchy, meaning the Queen does not actually hold any real political power. The real guy (or girl) in charge is the Prime Minister.And now to answer your question, the Queen cannot fire the US government. The US has not had to answer to a British monarch since the Revolutionary War. Even if the Queen was able to fire the Australian government, she would not be able to fire the US one. The UK and US are totally different countries, and the Queen has zero power in the United States.So, alas, we’re stuck with Trump for four more years and there’s nothing Queen Liz can do about it! Your best bet is if he gets impeached.
Do Australians and New Zealanders like the English?
Q: “Do Australians and New Zealanders like the English?”Speaking for myself (an Australian for the last 50+ years), I feel a certain amount of kinship with the English. I am mostly from English and Scottish ancestry, and I feel that Australia as a modern nation owes quite a lot to England.While there are some differences between English and Australian society, I feel we have much more in common with the English than, for example, the Americans. And the thousands of kms between England and Australia, while having a marked effect on our military and social interactions with the English since WW11, does not seem to have significantly dampened English influence. Many of the various institutions of Australian society still have some obviously very English influence, and we still have the English Head of State as our Head of State, and represented by our Governor General.However, there are a lot of different nationalities living in Australia now, many of them having no real affinity with the English. So over time the Australian kinship with the English has diminished somewhat. But I like the English, always have, always will.
Who is Australia's current President?
The system of government is completely different in Australia. Instead of a President, the role is split between the Prime Minister (Kevin Rudd- elected in 2007) who is head of the House of Representatives (similar to Congress in the US) and the Governor General (Quentin Bryce) who represents the Queen of England (Australia's Head of State) and the Governor General can dismiss the Prime Minister at any time, even though that has only happened once, when Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was dismissed in 1975. Instead of Republicans and Democrats, Australia's two major political parties are Labor and Liberal. Liberal is the more conservative party, so opposite to how it is in the US.
If the UK went to war against Australia, what would prevent the governor-general from deliberately throwing the Australian government into chaos to let the UK prevail?
If the UK went to war against Australia, what would prevent the governor-general from deliberately throwing the Australian government into chaos to let the UK prevail?This very problem has been considered in some detail and a contingency plan has been developed, and is regularly rehearsed, against the possibility of the Governor General interfering in the government of Australia in the event of a war against the United Kingdom so as to allow the United Kingdom to prevail.The plan involves hitting the Governor General on the back of the head, stuffing him or her (as the case may be) in a silken sack, measured for the purpose, then carrying him or her in the silken sack down to the jetty at Yarralumla, the Governor-General’s official residence in Canberra on the shore of Lake Burley Griffin, placing the sack with the Governor General in it in a boat and rowing the boat out into the middle of Lake Burley Griffin and sinking it. A tragic boating accident, all too common sadly, but the nation experienced the loss of a Prime Minister through wave action before and recovered from it. They even named a swimming pool after him to teach the need for water safety.If the Governor General was at Admiralty House, the Governor General’s official residence in Sydney, overlooking Sydney Harbour, at the time the plan is implemented the plan is for the Governor General to be hit on the head then thrown into the harbour to be finished off by the sharks. If the Governor General was in North Queensland at the time crocs would be called in to do the job.