The Governor-General made the appointments with the assumption that it was going to be communicated properly. Also, the law allowed for these secret appointments, so the Governor-General didn’t have the ground to refuse Scott Morrison’s advice.
Remember, the Governor-General can only dismiss a Prime Minister on these rules:
The Governor-General dismisses the government because it no longer has the support of the majority of members in the House of Representatives
The Governor-General dismisses the Prime Minister because they have broken the law or due to another extreme circumstance
What happened in 1975 was that there was a blockage in budget supply bills in the senate for a second time within a year, and the PM wasn’t going to call a proper election to end it, because they knew that they would lose. Was an extreme circumstance.
Apart from stuff like the Morrison’s saga, I believe that it has served us well, both then, and now as a modern day country. Also, remember, people don’t like too much change - that’s why only a small number of the referendums held have actually been successful. Selling it as the same system of Government, apart from how we elect the new President/Whatever we call it, will ensure it get’s passed.
However, I am willing to hear any alternative models, from anyone not just @bacco007.
Unfortunately it won’t happen. Most conservative views will want it to stay the same as they feel comfortable with the current system. Any massive changes to accommodate another form of government will be used politically and scare people to the unknown. It won’t pass.
We just need to relinquish ourself from the monarchy. Replace the Governor General’s role in Canberra as the President of Australia. This will be the best solution of Australia becoming a republic. Keep it simple.
I would put myself in the camp that supported retaining the monarchy as long as the Queen was around.
Now that milestone has passed I am more open to the idea of a republic, dependent on it being done in a way that the President is apolitical and focused on ceremonial duties (like it is now).
Can’t say I’m keen (certainly at this stage) on any model that sees the President take an active role in day to day politics.
Australia doesn’t like radical change and looking overseas, I’d argue Australian system and politics is actually the best.
Australians like norms and stability. More so than anywhere else really. That’s why I’d argue even changing the title to President would scare too many people.
If S44 is going to be retained for politicians then yes, it should also apply to our head of state. Its not an unusual requirement for the head of state in a republic
Its (potentially) a provision that if the constitution was easier to amend, would have been changed. It made sense in the 1900s (dual citizenship wasn’t a thing), but its somewhat anachronistic in a modern society.
FWIW - we didn’t allow Australians to retain their Australian citizenship if they took a second until 2002
Yes. I agree. You have to wonder about the idiots who framed the constitution. They included ridiculous clauses like s44 and counting first nations people as livestock… and made it incredibly difficult to change. These same people also made our national day Jan 1. What were they thinkin’…
You’ve got to remember that it was a vastly different time when the constitution was written and largely reflected the prevailing attitudes of the day. If you were writing a new constitution today, it would be a very different thing but possibly not immune from similar criticism by future generations.
Having some rigour around the process to amend the constitution isn’t necessarily a bad thing - but our rules do make it incredibly hard to get changes across the line (even a cursory glance of the history of amendment referenda shows that)
It doesn’t matter whether it was reflective of the prevailing attitude in the UK, New Zealand or even the Moon or not, it is a document written for Australia that reflected the attitudes of Australia at the time.
Surely there were fair-minded people living in Australia at the time who believed that your treatment of first nations people was abhorrent. I’m thinking about South Australians and the like.
Baccy is right. For example, until the 1950s, virtually all Australians supported the White Australia policy (even the socialist wing – see the ALP’s 1905 Socialist Objective which mentions maintaining racial purity). That’s why the recent fuss about the new Arden Station or the Henty family in the Western District is so asinine – showing no regard for his different circumstances and engaging in abhorrent hindsight bias.
Rajiv Gandhi’s widow (Italian-born) wasn’t able to become PM of India because of the heavy stigma.
As Baccy says, it’s highly unlikely S44 will ever be amended in the foreseeable (Faruqi et all would make it DOA in the small states).