Queens power

[Admin]

I am not sure if everyone knows this but the Queen has the last say on any laws that are passed here in Australia. Apparently it is extremely rare that the Queen exercises her right and the last time it was done was in the 1700's when she stopped a law regarding the Scottish military EXCEPT for in 1979 when she stopped a law here in Australia. It was hushed up till 2006 but she exercised her right in a 'soft' manner without coming out formally to stop a NSW State law.

 

Some info...

 

In the case of the Queen of Australia, concerning a move by a 1979 NSW Government to terminate appeals to the Privy Council, constitutional expert Anne Twomey remarks:

 

What is most remarkable about this story is not that the Queen, supported by the British government, was prepared to override the will of the New South Wales Parliament as late as 1979, but that this entire incident was hushed up so that the public never knew of it until at least 2006. It illustrates the immense “soft power” of the Queen. She does not have to refuse assent. It is enough to indicate that she might do so and in almost all circumstances a government will yield. This system is supported by the procedure for receiving advice from the realms. Informal advice must first be sent and it is only once the Queen’s private secretary indicates approval of the informal advice that the formal advice may be given. Hence, any objections by the Queen are raised and resolved at the informal advice stage so that the Queen never rejects formal advice.

 

 

[dutchroll]

In Australia it is the Governor General, as the Queen's representative, who normally grants Royal Assent. However the Governor General can refer the legislation onto the Queen, which is called "Reserved for Sovereign's Assent". Also the GG can return the Bill to parliament with suggested amendments. Both of these cases have happened quite a number of times.

 

I think it's pure speculation by the writer as to whether she would've actually refused to grant Royal Assent and in modern times it would create quite a Constitutional scandal. It's not that unusual for the monarch to take either parliamentary or legal advice over possibly controversial legislation. However the mere rumoured possibility that she might was likely enough to get it reconsidered or redrafted. The only time legislation from the Australian Parliament was ever refused Royal Assent was in 1906 (involving customs tariffs) but I think this was eventually passed when it was returned with amendments. The 1700s case with the Scottish militia was the last time it was refused in the UK, although if you go back further in time to Charles 1 and the English Civil War, refusal to grant Royal Assent was pretty common.

 

 

[old man emu]

We are so lucky to have such a politically astute person as the head of government here. "We are not amused" seems to be a wonderful way of bringing errant children to their senses.

 

Elizabeth has brought the monarchy into an essential, practical role in 21st Century governance. I have grave doubts that any person elected, or appointed from the populace would have the capacity to steer the Ship of State as she has brought to her role. Australia has the best of both systems. We are virtually totally independent, yet have a Head of State who draws on over sixty years' personal experience and a thousand years of experiences in governing. Apart from our Commonwealth cousins, show me another country who basks in this security?

 

OME

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Religious people will mention that the chain officially ends with God, not the Queen, she's in second place.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Religious people will mention that the chain officially ends with God, not the Queen, she's in second place.

Don't know why, they must be about the same age.

 

 

[Bruce]

If the Queen had done what Governor General Kerr did to Whitlam, it would have been the beginning of the end of the monarchy. Kerr was hounded out of the country. He attracted a jeering group wherever he went.

 

 

[Admin]

If the Queen had done what Governor General Kerr did to Whitlam, it would have been the beginning of the end of the monarchy. Kerr was hounded out of the country. He attracted a jeering group wherever he went.

But I guess he wouldn't have done that without first consulting the queen to get approval

 

 

[old man emu]

He didn't. That's the problem.

 

OME

 

 

[dutchroll]

Yeah it's on the historical record that Kerr did not consult with the Queen at all, and according to the Constitution, he didn't have to. The Queen has kept her opinion on those events very private but it is widely believed by Palace insiders that she felt it could've been handled much better!