Quentin the desirable

Looking back to this time last year I was wondering why those who should know better keep spreading the misinformation that the Governor General is our Head of State.

They were complaining that she was daring to state an opinion.

She is not of course our Head of State
In fact the Constitution couldn't be clearer:
Section1. The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall
be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate,
and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called "The Parliament," or "The Parliament of the Commonwealth. "

Section2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen
shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him.

Criticising the GG for saying (what she has always said even since before being appointed ) that Australians would decide to become a republic at some point, (the soon to be ex) Senator Minchin was saying she should just say nothing.
Personally, whether she is our Head of State or not (and she is not), I think it is not only OK, but desirable that she should contribute to public debate. And not just defer to the pollies.

I was interested to see in the National Orchid Garden of Singapore when there in February, this rather stunning orchid..Dendrobium Quentin Bryce amongst those of other national leaders of the region. One hopes there is one for our actual leader, but QB deserves it any way.

BUT I do notice that since I first posted on this last year she does seem to have been quieter, or perhaps not reported on so much. I do hope the pollies have not got their way. She is in such a good position to comment as other GGs have been. And the more indepoendent, non-political voices that contribute to national discussion the better in my opinion

Who is in charge?

The curious suggestion that one of the young princes William and/or Harry could be a candidate to be the next Governor-General prompted me to write to the local Paper

The answer to the question posed yesterday in The Advertiser: "Could one of these blokes be our next head of state?" is twofold.

First, no matter who is the Governor General our Head of State is actually these 'blokes' grandmother, the G-G is merely her viceroy.

Second, the first question I would be asking of someone who aspired to the viceregal position is: "Are you an Australian citizen?"

Clearly neither of these 'blokes' is!

The suggestion has received little interest, so it would seem. But the more I have thought about it the more I have wondered who had such an idea. And will we ever get over our British cultural dependency, or even worse the latent belief that some how 'aristocracy' confers an inherent ability to rule.

Were the GGs job to actually go up for application, surely two rich kids in their twenties would not be seriously considered for such a significant position. Unmarried playboys with very limited life experience...what are we on about.

Royal obsession

On this anniversary of the defeat of the Republic referendum we are all reflecting a bit about monarchy.

A couple of articles in the press this week reminded me of this bizarre obsession we all seem to have worldwide with the idea that leadership and the right to rule is some how an inherited characteristic.

Touring Australia is a "Crown Prince" of the former Indian State of Rajpipia (here). How can you be a "Crown Prince" of a former state. I mean there is nothing to rule.

However the good prince, an openly gay man, is touring Australia and Asia to campaign against laws which criminalise homosexuality. His argument being that this aggravates the AIDS problem, I mean you are unlikely to admit to being gay if you are going to be executed!!!

I suppose the 'royal' status is a hook to grab attention. And why is it any different from a joke I might tell at the beginning of a sermon?

Likewise the Institute of African Royalty is meeting this week( see Associated Press's report here). At least these people may have some claim to represent some regional and sectional interests, though it is yet to be demonstrated that birthright is necessarily the best determinant of who might or might not represent the interests of a group of people.

There is a good photo of some leaders in traditional dress here....look at the footwear!

Meanwhile the ever smug Mr Abbott reminds us on RN this a.m. that we have 'evolved' our conception of monarchy by not focussing on the Windsors any more but rather on who the GG is.

Well, isn't that precisely what the Republican Movement wanted?

Furphy

I don't quite get why those who shoudl know better (see for example a letter from Liberal Senator Minchin in today's Advertiser) keep spreading the misinformation that the Governor General is our Head of State.
The Constitution couldn't be clearer:

Section1. The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall
be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate,
and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called "The
Parliament," or "The Parliament of the Commonwealth. "

Section2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen
shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and
may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to
this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be
pleased to assign to him.

Criticising the GG for saying (what she has always said even since before being appointed ) that Australians would decide to become a republic at some point, Minchin says she should just say nothing.
Personally, whether she is our Head of State or not (and she is not), I think it is not only OK, but desirable that she should contribute to public debate. And not just defer to the pollies.

Do you want to know a secret?

It will come as no surprise to anyone that early opinion polls about workplace agreements will not be released for general public consumption. Indeed they will be kept secret (here).
Apparently the PM thinks that the electorate will be confused by the figures.
The oft touted line by both sides of politics that the Australian electorate is sufficiently intelligent to be able to assess such information only appears to be true when 'information' supports your particular side.
I think, any way, that forbidding the reading (as always) makes us surer about the content, and I suppose we will all be much more eager to get our hands on red hot copy, which will turn out to be as dry as dust!
I don't mean to be particularly pedantic, but I have blogged about this twice in the last fortnight (here and here). We are being treated like idiots and need to not take this sort of manipulation. It will only get worse.

On a lighter note, I have suggested in a letter to the press that the curious idea that William Windsor (a British Rock Concert Promoter) would like to become GG of Australia should nto be dismissed out of hand. But as in the case of those who want to become elected politicians who, like William, happen to be British citizens he should first be required to renounce his British citizenship!
Flinty, that urbane professor of the monarchic cause, thinks it a spiffing idea of course (here), and it would attract attention to Australia. Strangely, I thought that our recent experience would suggest to us that attention is the last thing we want our GGs to generate.