Talk:Bi-partisan appointment republican model

various earlier comments
For the information of the anon. editor, the proposed section 59 in full is the following:


 * The President shall act on the advice of the Federal Executive Council, the Prime Minister or another Minister of State; but the President may exercise a power that was a reserve power of the Governor-General in accordance with the constitutional conventions relating to the exercise of that power.

--Dlatimer (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the editor perhaps referring to an argument made by the No case? I seem to remember reading somewhere that the monarchists picked up on the use of "shall" in the section above, instead of "may". It's a nonsense argument, of course, because the Governor-General is compelled to act on the FEC's advice in any case. --Lholden (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The NO case said that the President would be the puppet of the Prime Minister, but I would understand this would be based on being instantly dismissable. --Dlatimer (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Governor-General can act contrary to ministerial advice. The proposed President would be unable to do so.

Professor David Flint cited the example of India where a similar prescribed presidential obligation to act on ministerial advice is in force. Apparently the president was once forced to sign an unwarranted declaration of emergency.

Under the current system the Queen's representative in Australia would be under no such obligation is the point.

121.216.232.15 (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Governor-General has an obligation to act on ministerial advice. The difference is the construction of the obligation (i.e. by statute or convention) --Dlatimer (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sir John Kerr
Ahem....in 1975 the Governor-General summoned Gough Whitlam and asked him how he intended to govern when the money ran out. The PM said he would use bank credit. Sir John Kerr said he was not prepared to sign the neccesary documents because the Constitution requires all expenditure to be appropriated by an act of parliament. What has changed since then?

The Governor-General doesn't even have to sign a bill to change the constitution act even if it has been approved by a majority of electors and 4/6 states.

Sir John Kerr used to boast about being the Commander in Chief of the army.

134.148.5.120 (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone is reading the constitution too closely. A GG rejecting a bill under these circumstances would be dismissed, unless the whole vote was widely considered a fraud. --Dlatimer (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If the Prime Minister asked the Queen then maybe.

The Governor-General of Australia has the power to cut the Prime Minister off in the middle of a sentence and withdraw his commsission.

121.216.232.15 (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Governor-General is obliged by convention to not do this. The Australian constitution works as per the written constitution, related legislation, the letters patent and the conventions. --Dlatimer (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Head of State
Let's substitute the term president for head of state wherever possible. 134.148.5.120 (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a poor idea. The bi-partisan appointment model does not depend on a specific title. Many people suggest that Goveror-General should be used. This article should not assume --Dlatimer (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

State count
We should mention the shellacking the proposed amendment received in state count.

It is the first level of the referendum process afterall

121.216.232.15 (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits of July 2008
The user steakknife was blocked permanently. For the record here is a list of issues with the edits: --Dlatimer (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Confuses the 1999 model with the general model which has variants
 * The model was defeated by 54.4% in 1999. The strength of the No result is adequately covered by this metric.
 * Removed chapters rationale and critique
 * The critique about instant dismissal is needlessly long.
 * Proposed section 59 is criticised in a manner inconsistent with legal commentary. It was not an issue that the President act on advice. The issue was the constitutional recognition of the conventions.

Tags of September 2009
An unregistered user placed tags on the article. Perhaps someone could explain the problem by 1-Dec-2008 --Lawe (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As of 2-Dec-2008 there have been no comments. I am removing the tag. --Lawe (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)