Dangerous pro-republicans to irreversibly upend nation

EFFORTS to remove Australia’s sovereign Head of State have been expanded into a plot by pro-republicans to irreversibly render Australia unrecognisable. 

Anti-Christian, anti-white, anti-male and anti-Western sentiments ooze from their messaging, providing a frightful insight into the kind of nation they hope to create. 

Deposing the monarch has become a mere afterthought as the movement lurches into a cringeworthy campaign of identity politics and safe space virtue signalling. 

Just look at the people who run & support the republican movement for a glimpse of the havoc they have in store…

For starters, think of men chest-feeding babies. Then throw in the uninterrupted homosexualisation of children by State-sponsored activists. Finally, ensure skin colour becomes the accepted currency of personal “worth”. 

Their nirvana is nothing short of cancel culture, environmental socialism and identity politics on steroids.

You just need to look at the people who run and support the Australian Republican Movement to get a tiny glimpse of the havoc they have in store.


Like replacing the governor-general with a role called “Guardian”, which can only ever be held by a person of colour – or a person who claims to be of colour. [Thank-you Ms Lorraine Holmes. Your contribution to ARM’s online forum on Tuesday was as eye opening as it was repulsive.]

Or take the campaign tactics seeping out of Britain with billboards screaming that “no man should be king” under an image of the Prince of Wales.

Is this supposed to portray some sort of subliminal anti-male messaging – or is it the handy-work of a second-language copywriter, or both?

Then there’s the claim by the Australian Republic Movement that Queen Elizabeth is unfit for office because she’s either too Christian, too totalitarian, too out of touch or too meddling. Read the Left’s dishonest response to the Palace Letters for an insight into the latter.

With the Queen being of Anglican faith, pro-republicans have even appealed to Muslims and Catholics to rise-up against her tyranny.

“Catholics, Muslims and Jews are banned from being Australia’s Head of State!” they herald. “Why are you putting up with such discrimination?”

Of course, they leave out the fact that Australia’s actual executive Head of State – the office of governor-general – has been held by many Jews, Catholics and even atheists. Though Bill Hayden converted to Christianity on leaving office.

Pro-republicans have attempted to paint Australia’s system of constitutional monarchy as one of servitude, disadvantage and class divide.

Their problem, though, is that only nutters listen to such tosh without turning off. Most honest people, even those who lean towards a republic style of governance are unable to reconcile this nonsense with the reality of their lived experience.


Most people would also be aware that the actual truth is, in fact, the exact opposite.

The introduction of a constitutional republic would trigger an irreversible class divide in Australia. One where politicians hold unrestrained power, while citizens are captive to their dictates.

A system will exist where there is no higher authority than the political class – and their mates – with all the baggage, bias, patronage and favours that follow.

It’s worth remembering that Australia’s constitution exists for one primary purpose – to protect Australians from those who govern them.

Changing it is not supposed to be a feel-good issue. It’s not like altering the words of the national anthem or re-designing the flag.

Re-wording the constitution has real-life, every-day consequences on the lives of real, every-day Australians. And not necessarily for good.

This is why Australians have rejected all but eight of the 44 constitutional changes proposed by politicians.

Most Australians, it’s often said, wouldn’t trust a politician to walk their dog.

In these crazy and divided times – when the true colour of the political class is on display – why would any right-minded citizen allow a self-serving politician to get anywhere near a document so important to their basic human rights?PC

60 thoughts on “Dangerous pro-republicans to irreversibly upend nation

  1. Ever notice, especially in these last couple of years how Truth has become the rarest commodity in this world? Until this nation does a complete 180 and turns back to the One True Living God that made Australia great, there is no hope at all. This true God did not say He was ” the religion”, no, what Jesus said was: “I AM THE TRUTH “. If only this nation would do what He says and return to Him, He would, from along way off, already be sprinting back towards us with arms outstretched, as only a true loving Father would. He has not changed, but we have fallen terribly in our morality, and our love for one another, because we no longer follow the Good Shepherd. Here is what the Lord is asking of us Australia – if we really want to see a semblance of good again for one final short season. Christ says: “If My people, who are called by My name, will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and TURN FROM THEIR WICKED WAYS, then I WILL hear from Heaven, then I WILL forgive you of your sins and then I WILL HEAL YOUR LAND. Jesus cannot lie, He is God. He does not change. His Word remains the same yesterday, today and forever. His promises are true. What good father would make a life giving promise like that to his children and then not stand on his word? None, thats who. Then what will it take for this great nation to have faith again and trust in the Father of fathers when He makes a promise. This true God is not a man that He should lie. He is the Creator of everything and we as human beings, men and women, are privileged in that we are the only creatures who were created in the image of the Living God – not even the angels in Heaven were. If you are finally desperate enough and have become finally hungry enough for The Truth, start reading your bibles. After all this time, our Father has never given up on any of us and is eternally patient. Will we finally come to our senses and come home to Him in humility and confession? I truly hope so. He suffered terribly and gave up everything for us by taking our place on that rugged cross. God bless all the people of this great land in the name above all names – in Jesus name. Amen.

  2. What is the difference between Bandana Man and whining Marxist atheist intent on destroying Western values and traditions? Crickets?

  3. One critical factor of the modern Monarchy is not what powers the Monarch has to DO this-or-that…but that the Monarch has reserve powers not possessed by any other branch of Government to PREVENT governments breaching the Constitution or to resolve a Constitutional conflict by stepping in to send the decision to a vote of the electorate. It’s not what the Monarch can do, but what he /she prevents others from doing.

    1. In a nut shell. Where some change in the constitution could be considered by the people not the politicians most change is motivated by vested interest.

  4. I have asked Psimmonds many times what sort of republic he wants, like USA, France, Germany, African? he never answers, nor can he dance. I have lived in African republics – one man one vote once!!!

  5. Thank you for highlighting the danger of allowing such ratbags to ever get their way. we need to fight against this madness nd uphold our current Constitutional Monarchy and its shining example to the world.

  6. The Governor-General has specific constitutional and statutory powers. The Governor-General acts on the advice of Ministers who are responsible to Parliament (and ultimately, through elections, the Australian people).
    Key constitutional duties include:
    Presiding over the Federal Executive Council
    Facilitating the work of the Commonwealth Parliament and Government
    Dissolving Parliament and issuing writs for a Federal election
    Commissioning the Prime Minister; appointing Ministers and Assistant Ministers; and swearing-in other statutory positions
    Holding and possibly exercising the Reserve Powers.
    Under the Australian Constitution, the only action performed by The Queen is the appointment of the Governor-General (on the advice of the Australian Prime Minister).

    1. The GG is appointed by, acts for, and answers to the monarch.
      The GG must swear allegiance to the monarch.
      The GG serves only at the pleasure of the monarch, who can remove and replace the GG at any time, for any reason.
      And if the GG acts against the wishes of the monarch, they can be over ruled (s59).
      If you think the constitution is not broken, that’s up to you.
      But don’t lie about it.

      1. We know Ms Windsor is a gutless coward.
        Perhaps that’s why 20 separate countries have abandoned the British crown on her watch, more than for any other British monarch in history.
        As monarch, she can choose to delegate everything, and never seek to instruct the GG, or never have any involvement in Australia in any way ever. That’s her call.
        But it does not change the constitution.
        And it does not mean the next monarch will act the same way.

      2. Hey Stu, I see you’re still pedalling these half truths. S59 only applies to legislation, not other decisions made by the GG. S59 has never been used. The GG does not answer to the monarch. They (the GG) do not need consult the Monarch on any matter, what so ever.The only thing appearing broken is your argument. ✌️

    2. The Governor General does indeed have to “Act on advice”. That just means that he must act by agreeing or disallowing or referring back for further advice

  7. These same Republicans will be the first to scream to the UK for help if Australia ever comes under attack/invasion. Under the present system, the UK would be duty-bound to come to our defense. Under a Republic, they wouldn’t. AU becoming a Republic would increase our sovereign risk and reduce investment form Commonwealth countries.
    These Republicans think only one step ahead and place more importance in their opportunity for flag waving and self congratulating that they do on security.

    1. The Commonwealth is a pointless gaggle of ex-colonies. No Commonwealth member is under any obligation to assist any other. That is how it should be.

      Unless you think Australia should be obliged to assist, say, Pakistan or Rwanda (both Commonwealth members) if they are attacked.

      Is that what you would like?

  8. Thank you for this excellently written appraisal. We need to rally and fight against any attempt to change our current system of safe, strong, democratic and envy of the world system of government. We need to uphold the values and truths that have stood us well in the past and will steer us forward for the future.

    1. The island of Ireland is part monarchy, part republic. Guess which part is more stable.

      In fact, monarchist Northern Ireland is verging on collapse. Its parliament has not sat for almost two years. Its imperial benefactors have just signed them over to the EU. Its citizen are desperately queuing for Republican passports.

      Where is Queen stability when you need her hey?

      1. “The island of Ireland is part monarchy, part republic. Guess which part is more stable.”

        The Irish never know what they want, but they are always willing to fight for it. Perhaps you yourself have bog Irish antecedents; this would explain the chip you so clearly have on your shoulder.

  9. Appointment

    The Governor-General is appointed by the Crown, in practice on the advice of Australian Ministers of the Crown.[10] The Governor-General holds office during the Crown’s pleasure, appointments normally being for five years, but some Governors-General have had extended terms of office, and others have resigned or have been recalled.

    1. “on the advice of Australian Ministers ….”

      The Queen does not select the Governor General, on advice she “appoints” the person nominated by The Australian Federal Government.

  10. The republicans lost the war, now they’re trying to gain the Commonwealth nations by economics. May it NEVER BE! The Commonwealth nations are the glory and envy of the World, we MUST go back to our Judeo-Christian beliefs!
    God save the Queen.

    1. The majority of Commonwealth members are republics.
      Less than 4% of people in the Commonwealth have Elizabeth Windsor as Head of State.
      Australia should be like the majority of the Commonwealth and stop hiding behind a foreign monarch like colonial poodles.

      1. “The majority of Commonwealth members are republics.”

        The majority of the German people supported Adolf Hitler during his time in power.

      2. The Queen is not a foreigner. Many of the republics in the Commonwealth want to remain in the commonwealth because of our Head of State. The 4% (which is closer to 6%) or 151 million people) you mention just so happens to represent some of the most advanced, economically wealthy, stable and democratic nations on the planet. or would you like us to be more like France who have had 5 republics since they murdered their King? Perhaps more like North Korea? Even the USA with their record? Long live the Queen and long live our eminently superior system of government.

        1. In no first world republic can the head of state’s appointed representative remove the elected head of government suddenly, without warming, without consultation, and against the wishes of parliament.

          That happened in Australia, in 1975.

          Even worse, we then witnessed our head of state’s extraordinary cowardice, when she gutlessly refused to even voice an opinion on what had been done in her name.

          Monarchy is an inferior and unstable form of governance.

          1. As a labor voter in 1975 I was dismayed that the PM was sacked, but the people were given the vote and overwhelmingly backed the decision. There is nothing undemocratic about giving the people the chance to support or reject a government. Reserve powers are there to protect us from despots. Even a President would have reserve powers. The only difference is that the president would be afraid of public opinion and the vested interests that put the president in place to act. That is so much more inferior to our tried and tested system.

          2. “That happened in Australia, in 1975.”

            Still pining for the “good old days” under Gough, are we?

            Perhaps you should start living in the present, lest you reach the end of your days on this mortal coil and realise that you’ve done nothing but waste all the time and breath that was given to you.

          3. “Monarchy is an inferior and unstable form of governance.”

            LOL, perhaps you should move to North Korea; I hear the governance there is very stable.

          4. The most sacred principle of monarchy is that it is never, ever, involved in politics.

            It’s a bit rich for monarchists to use the political outcome of a political event – an election – to retrospectively validate the unprecedented actions of the monarch.

            If Whitlam had won the subsequent election in 1975, would the crown still have done the right thing firing him?

  11. Why are people allowed to commit treason against our Sovereign? The federal government should disband the Republican Party and hold them to account.

    God save the Queen and her Allies.

  12. And separately, perhaps you can tell me why monarchists lie about the constitution, apparently to prove it is not broken.
    Why is that, do you think? Why can’t monarchists be honest?

      1. A foreign monarch reigning over Australia is an insult.
        But worse are the so-called Australians who think it is all we deserve.
        Such pitiful colonial inferiority is shameful.

        1. During the 1930s the British Parliament passed an Act of Parliament removing all remaining powers of a monarch and that extended to Commonwealth of Nations member countries. In the 1980s the Hawke Labor Government created the Australia Act of Parliament that reinforced the British Parliament Act here, the Governor General is our permanent Head of State and the High Court of Australia is our highest legal authority. Australians can no longer appeal to the Privy Council in Great Britain.

          The Queen of Australia is a figurehead with very few responsibilities and no power, she is advised by the Government of Australia and the Governor General and for constitutional purposes.

          For all intents and purposes Australia is a self governing nation with sovereignty and laws created by our parliaments.

          The Australian Flag is an accurate historical design.

          As former NSW Labor Premier Bob Carr commented at the time when a Referendum on Australia becoming a republic was underway said there was no point in changing anything apart from confirming the position of Governor General as Head of State and removing the Queen’s minor role.

          1. As set out in the constitution, the GG is appointed by the monarch, acts for the monarch, answers to the monarch, serves only at the monarch’s pleasure, and can be removed, replaced, or over ruled by the monarch for any time, for any reason.

            So tell me, who is the senior authority? Who is the head of state?

          2. Your rather too facile ‘… and for constitutional purposes’ at the end of your second paragraph belies a comment you make further on (presumably quoting Carr) where the Queen’s role is descibed as ‘minor’. Being responsible for the rigorous upholding of the Constitution is not ‘minor’, rather it is fundamental and the Queen is its ultimate protector. There is no doubt on this. The Governor-General is the effective head of state when in office and will protect the Constitution as part of his duties but the fact of the Queen’s existence (as Sovereign) is an extra safeguard to ensure that on the ground, political shenanigans can be discounted in law by the Sovereign’s ultimate guardianship. Remove the Queen and you remove the protection. The fact that she is a descendant of King George III, in effect Australia’s first king, brings continuity and historical veracity to the office. The fact that she is mostly absent (although she has been present on 16 occasions since 1954) removes her from the day to day aspects of governance handled by the Governor-General and this allows her to take a much more measured view of circumstance if needed. Her power is in the power she denies others. She is the incorruptible lifer whose existence and the existence of her immediate successor, guarantees the constitutional freedoms of all Australians which no republican model can ever do. Changing our system of governance to suit those who would do so is both irreversible and foolhardy. Our system works to our communal advantage as it has done since Foundation. Leave it be.

          3. “[…] we witnessed [the Queen’s] spineless silence in 1975 […]”

            LOL – there it is; the left-wing loser finally breaks cover.

            “Any Australia with any pride, or dignity, or national self-respect knows this.”

            That would exclude you, then.

            “Until we have an Australian at the top, our nation is incomplete.”

            I’m sorry to hear that your ego is so fragile and that your identity is founded upon such shallow underpinnings (sorry, but not at all surprised). You are such a clueless and vain individual that you should run for politics yourself; I’m sure that you’d be right at home with your synapsing suspended and your snout in the trough.

        2. “A foreign monarch reigning over Australia is an insult.”

          I suppose that you’d prefer to lick the arse of some empty-headed narcissist like Kevin Rudd or Malcolm Turnbull – maybe that’s all *you* deserve.

          1. We can do better than a distant absent part-time borrowed foreign monarch. I back Australia.

            It takes a special kind of gutless colonial inferiority to think these foreign aristocrats are better than us, and should reign over us, and that if we try with one of our own we will fail, because we are too stupid.

            Hang your head Morrie

          2. “I back Australia.”

            Obviously you haven’t been paying attention. We currently have as a choice of Prime Minister either:
            (a) Scott Morrison, or
            (b) Anthony Albanese.
            So you can have either a garrulous ill-bred moron, or, if you prefer, a different garrulous ill-bred moron. If these two represent the apotheosis of all those who have expended so much time and effort in ascending the greasy pole of Australian politics, then what calibre of individual do you think we should expect to see as a “president”, should one have to be chosen by some means?

            Clearly you lack the native wit to arrive at well-reasoned conclusions concerning such matters, to say nothing of the fact that you are so totally lacking in discernment that you cannot even dimly comprehend that talk of a republic is not at all about Australia or its people; it’s all about the left and their pursuit of a Godless, amoral, and toxic agenda.

            Perhaps you should refrain from commenting in future, and I think it might be a really good idea if you give voting in elections a miss from here on in, because it’s people like you who are very much the problem in Australia today.

            P.S. The “gutless” people in Australia are those on the left of the political spectrum, who comprise men who want to be women, women who want to be men, and who constitute an execrable rabble of insipid and characterless dullards.

          3. So you think Australia cannot be trusted, and it’s too risky, and we should just shut up and let a foreign monarch reign over us, as a birth right, because that’s as good as it gets? You really think that?
            And to defend your cowardice, the best you can do is mutter about greenies and commies?
            I didn’t realise any so-called Australian could have such a miserable disregard for their country, or such a disgraceful lack of dignity, or pride, or national self-respect.
            Maybe a foreign monarch really is all YOU deserve Morrie.

          4. “I didn’t realise any so-called Australian […]”

            Well, let’s see now. My antecedents on my mother’s side were among the first settlers in Adelaide. One was a member of the first Parliament of South Australia, another was a founding member of the Congregational Church there (when I was christened, the State Governor put in an appearance to see how things were going). My grandfather fought with the Light Horse in France and Palestine, and my great uncle fought with the Light Horse at Gallipoli, and died there. My late father, mother, and aunt all served in the Armed Forces in WWII.

            So yes, I guess that someone with blinkered vision, trammelled thinking, and a deficient intellect could easily reach the conclusion that I’m only a “so-called” Australian.

            “[…] the best you can do is mutter […]”

            LOL – is that how you characterise my manner of discourse – as “muttering”? What rarefied heights of expression have you displayed in your writing, Noel? What sublime grasp of the English language and what masterfully nuanced powers of expression have you betrayed in the way you have crafted your comments here? I see that you are a fan of the one-word sentence – “Wow.” Shakespeare is green with envy, Coleridge is struck dumb, and Wordsworth gapes in slack-jawed amazement at your heretofore unequalled linguistic genius! Seriously though, if you want to write comments, you should first learn to write. Otherwise, you will always present as just another loud-mouthed left-wing blow-hard – an ill-educated boor whose sense of self-importance is in inverse proportion to his powers of understanding, and who finds impossibly abstruse those things that are axiomatic to those who possess common sense.

          5. Dear Morrie,

            I don’t give as toss who your relatives were, or how they were employed, or how many of their medals you have borrowed.

            I am interested in what you stand for. And what you think.

            You have said, clearly, that you do not want Australia to have an Australian as our head of state. Because you do not trust Australia. And you do not think we are good enough.

            You think a foreign monarch should reign over us, which you think should be the perpetual birth right of a family of foreign aristocrats, to be passed on in hereditary succession.

            How you validate that is up to you, I guess.

            But that is what you stand for. And that is what you think. Because that is what you have told us.

          6. “I don’t give as toss who your relatives were, or how they were employed, or how many of their medals you have borrowed.”

            Of course you don’t, because you are too ignorant to be able to understand the import of such matters. We already knew that, of course, but it’s interesting that you have gone to the trouble of explicitly pointing it out – you are one of those rare individuals who sticks his head into a meat-grinder and then proceeds to turn the handle himself. It’s very funny to watch you doing this (left-wingers are invariably unimaginative ignoramuses, and this becomes abundantly clear whenever they try to engage in debate, in which situations they get quite confused and, ultimately, very angry).

            “I am interested in what you stand for. And what you think.”

            Rubbish. You’re an insignificant pea-brained idiot who is so full of himself that there’s simply no room to consider what other people think, or why. You are rusted on to an ideology that is intellectually, morally, and spiritually bankrupt, and it’s pathetic to behold.

            “[…] that is what you have told us.”

            Actually I’ve told you next to nothing – have you ever read that it’s not wise to cast pearls before swine? Probably not, I imagine. I wouldn’t waste my time explaining anything to you, because you have neither the inclination to listen nor the wit to comprehend. It seems that you have constructed a dialogue in your own imagination, which would be entirely consistent with your political bent.

            And […] But […] Because

            These words have two things in common:
            (a) They are all conjunctions, and
            (b) Following on from that fact, they are words with which one should not start a sentence.

            The foregoing is taught at *primary school* – perhaps you missed out on that part of your education. In any case, I already advised you that before you write comments, you should learn to write, period – it seems that you are very, very slow on the uptake. You’re like a man who couldn’t land a punch to save himself, but who wants to step into a boxing ring nonetheless – and, what’s more, in full view of a big crowd.

            I’ll say this again: left-wingers are complete and absolute morons. You have neatly showcased this fact with your contributions here, and you serve in particular as an exemplar of the closed-minded and wilfully ignorant dupes who abound among those who continue to flog the dead horse of republicanism in this country.

          7. So you do not back Australia because you do not want an Australian to be our head of state.

            You think a foreign monarch should reign over us as a birth right.

            But you will not tell us why you think that.

            Instead you launch again into an unhinged rant about pinkos and lefties, like some embarrassing idiot drunk uncle at Christmas who everyone tries to ignore.

            Got it. Thanks.

          8. “But you will not tell us why you think that.”

            Comprehension really isn’t a long suit for you, is it? I’m not going to waste my time making the same point several times over in the vain hope that it might somehow permeate the fog that clouds that little mind of yours. I therefore suggest that *you* spend some time poring over what I have already written, to see what you can glean. On the evidence available thus far, it appears that this might be an exercise that could fully consume your time for several weeks (you may wish to enlist the aid of someone who is literate, if you actually know anyone like that).

            “[…] like some embarrassing idiot […]”

            I’m sorry Noel, I’m really at a loss here, and you’re going to have to help me out: which portion or aspect of my writing, exactly, betrays an inferior intellect on my part?

            “[…] who everyone tries to ignore.”

            It’s ironic that you should say that, Noel, because you yourself seem unable to ignore me. You’ve publicly humiliated yourself, and you have, in turn, been publicly humiliated. Although you would at least show a modicum of discretion if you just quietly faded away into obscurity with your tail planted firmly between your legs, you seem to be having terrible trouble letting go.

            “Got it.”

            On the contrary, we can all see that you’re the sort of individual for whom the penny will never drop. You provide a good example of why we’ll always have socialists in the world.


            You’re most welcome. Please let me know if you’re going to keep on digging; I’ll see if I can arrange the delivery of a new shovel.

          9. Morrie, the best I can glean from your contributions to date is that you do not trust Australia to replace a foreign monarch with one of our own.

            But then again, unpicking your dribble has been challenging, so I’ll give you another chance.

            Do you think Australia deserves an Australian as head of state? Why/ why not?

            Please tell me your views.

            It need not take long. A few sentences will suffice. For a man of your literary ability, a concise summary should be straight forward.

            Also, it might be better if you hold off ranting about lefties while you explain your views. However, if you are unable – if lunatic partisan ranting is really all you’ve got – then so be it.

            Ok, let’s hear it.

          10. F Hugh Eveleigh,

            The colonial constitution was to designed to give the British government, via the British monarch, control over a British dominion, and ensure the self-governing colony of Australia never acted against Britain’s interests.

            The monarch has immense powers over Australia, including the right to veto any law, for any reason.

            Now Ms Windsor might be too gutless to use those powers – we witnessed her spineless silence in 1975 – but her cowardice does not change the constitution. Nor do monarchist lies. The constitution means what is says.

            Allowing a foreign entity to maintain such immense controls over Australia’s governance is not consistent with Australia’s claims to be an independent country.

            Any Australia with any pride, or dignity, or national self-respect knows this.

            Until we have an Australian at the top, our nation is incomplete.

        3. The governor-general of Australia is the representative of the monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II, in Australia. The governor-general is appointed by the monarch on the recommendation of government ministers in cabinet, and therefore the prime minister.

          The governor-general has formal presidency over the Federal Executive Council and is commander-in-chief of the Australian Defence Force. The functions of the governor-general include appointing ministers, judges, and ambassadors; giving royal assent to legislation passed by parliament; issuing writs for election; and bestowing Australian honours.

          In general, the governor-general observes the conventions of the Westminster system and responsible government, maintaining a political neutrality, and has almost always acted only on the advice of the prime minister or other ministers or, in certain cases, parliament. The governor-general also has a ceremonial role: hosting events at either of the two official residences—Government House in the capital, Canberra, and Admiralty House in Sydney—and travelling throughout Australia to open conferences, attend services and commemorations, and generally provide encouragement to individuals and groups who are contributing to their communities.

          When travelling abroad, the governor-general is seen as the representative of Australia, and of the Queen of Australia. The governor-general is supported by a staff (of 80 in 2018) headed by the official secretary to the governor-general of Australia.

          1. A head of state is considered the diplomatic equal to other heads of state.
            But the Governor General is not a peer and not an equal to other heads of state, such as the UK’s head of state.
            Because the Governor General is appointed by, and acts for, and answers to the person who is the UK’s head of state.
            Such is life in the colonial half-way house.

          2. The Australian Governor General is selected and appointed by The Australian Government, the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Queen of Australia must accept.

          3. Is that so. Can you please show me where in the constitution it says the GG is appointed by the Government? Or in any legislation?

            Because I can show you where it says the GG is appointed by the monarch to represent the monarch, and serves only at the pleasure of the monarch.

          4. Governor-General

            The Governor-General is covered in this chapter as a constituent part of the Parliament. However, it is a feature of the Westminster system of government that the Head of State is part of both the Executive Government and the legislature. The relationship between these two bodies and the role of Governor-General as the Head of the Executive Government are discussed in the Chapter on ‘House, Government and Opposition’. The Governor-General’s official title is Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia.[9] Governors-General since 1901 are listed in Appendix 1.


            The Governor-General is appointed by the Crown, in practice on the advice of Australian Ministers of the Crown.[10] The Governor-General holds office during the Crown’s pleasure, appointments normally being for five years, but some Governors-General have had extended terms of office, and others have resigned or have been recalled.

            The Governor-General is appointed pursuant to Letters Patent issued by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth as Queen of Australia, which deal with the appointment of a person to the office of Governor-General, the appointment of a person as Administrator of the Commonwealth, and the appointment of a person as a Deputy of the Governor-General.[11]

            The Letters Patent provide that the appointment of a person as Governor-General shall be by Commission which must be published in the official gazette of the Commonwealth.[12] They also provide that a person appointed to be Governor-General shall take the oath or affirmation of allegiance and the oath or affirmation of office. These acts are to be performed by the Chief Justice or another justice of the High Court. The ceremonial swearing-in of a new Governor-General has traditionally taken place in the Senate Chamber.


            The method of appointment of the Governor-General was changed as a result of the 1926 and 1930 Imperial Conferences.[13] Appointments prior to 1924 were made by the Crown on the advice of the Crown’s Ministers in the United Kingdom (the Governor-General then being also the representative or agent of the British Government[14]) in consultation with Australian Ministers. The Balfour Report stated that the Governor-General should be the representative of the Crown only, holding the same position in the administration of public affairs in Australia as the Crown did in the United Kingdom. The 1930 report laid down certain criteria for the future appointments of Governors-General. Since then Governors-General have been appointed by the Crown after informal consultation with and on the formal advice of Australian Ministers.

            Administrator and Deputies

            The Letters Patent relating to the office and the Constitution[15] make provision for the appointment of an Administrator to administer the Government of the Commonwealth ‘in the event of the absence out of Australia, or the death, incapacity or removal of the Governor-General for the time being, or in the event of the Governor-General having absented himself or herself temporarily from office for any reason’. An Administrator is in effect an Acting Governor-General. As with the Governor-General, the Administrator is required to take the oath or affirmation of allegiance and the oath or affirmation of office before the commission takes effect. The Crown’s commission is known as a dormant commission, being invoked only when necessary, and more than one commission may exist at any one time.[16] Pursuant to the Letters Patent an Administrator’s commission is activated, depending on the circumstances, by the request of the Governor-General, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister or most senior available Minister.[17]

            An Administrator is not entitled to receive any salary from the Commonwealth in respect of any other office during the period of administration.[18] The Administrator may perform all the duties of the Governor-General under the Letters Patent and the Constitution during the Governor-General’s absence.[19] A reference to the Governor-General in the standing orders includes an Administrator of the Commonwealth.[20] There is a precedent for an Administrator calling Parliament together for a new session: Administrator Brooks did so in respect of the Third Session of the 23rd Parliament on 7 March 1961.[21]

            The Constitution empowers the Crown to authorise the Governor-General to appoint Deputies to exercise, during the Governor-General’s pleasure, such powers and functions as the Governor-General thinks fit.[22] The Letters Patent give this authority and specify the manner of appointment and powers of Deputies. State Governors considered to be more readily available in cases of urgency have been appointed as Deputies of the Governor-General with authority to exercise a wide range of powers and functions, including the making of recommendations with respect to the appropriation of revenues or moneys, the giving of assent to proposed laws and the making, signing or issuing of proclamations, orders, etc. on the advice of the Federal Executive Council.[23] These arrangements ensure that urgent matters can be attended to in situations where, even though the Governor-General is in Australia, he or she is unavailable. The Governor-General also normally appoints the Vice-President of the Executive Council to be the Governor-General’s Deputy to summon meetings of the Executive Council and, in the Governor-General’s absence, to preside over meetings.[24]

            The Governor-General traditionally appoints a Deputy (usually the Chief Justice) to declare open a new Parliament. The same judge is also authorised to administer the oath or affirmation of allegiance to Members.[25] Sometimes, when there are Senators to be sworn in as well, two judges may be commissioned with the authority to administer the oath or affirmation to Members and Senators.[26] The Governor-General issues to a Speaker, once elected, a commission to administer the oath or affirmation of allegiance to Members during the course of a Parliament.[27]

            Official Secretary

            In 1984 the Governor-General Act was amended to provide for the establishment of the statutory office of Official Secretary to the Governor-General.[28] The Official Secretary and his or her staff provide administrative support to the Governor-General and administer the Australian honours and awards system. Annual reports of the Official Secretary have been presented to both Houses since 1985.[29]

          5. John,

            Yes, that is correct: the monarch appoints the GG. (As opposed to your previous effort where you said the government appoints the GG, which is wrong.) The monarch can take advice from whomever they want. They are under no obligation to accept it.

            The role of the GG – as the appointed representative of the monarch – is part of constitutional measures designed to give the British government, via the British monarch, control over the British dominion Australia, and ensure Australia never acts against Britain’s interests.

            Allowing a foreign entity to maintain such controls over us is not consistent with Australia’s claims to be an independent country.

          6. 0n advice just means that he must act on that advice. Either agreeing to ascent or deny ascent if he feels it breaches the constitution or is repulsive to our way of life.

Comments are closed.