58. Royal assent to Bills
When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure.
Recommendations by Governor-General
The Governor-General may return to the house in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation.
<>
In theory the Governor-General acts as that very last check on the power of the parliament. In practice, this is never exercised and I can not honestly think of or find a case in Australia where the Governor-General has withheld assent.
Truth be told, if the Governor-General were to withhold assent to a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament, then there would be a public outcry. I think that there would be some very very hard stares indeed and that the Governor-General would find themselves out on the streets of Canberra even quicker than Jack Robinson would think of his own name, much less say it.
To take this point even further, Governors-General tend to be either ex-military officers, ex-lawyers or judges, and ex-Premiers. Very rarely (probably never) is a Governor-General installed because they are going to be an independent expert of the law. They tend to be very very compliant; to the point of caving into any and all demands that the Prime Minister of the day has. This will become important later in this series.
<><><><><>
59. Disallowance by the Queen
The Queen may disallow any law within one year from the Governor-General's assent, and such disallowance on being made known by the Governor-General by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, shall annul the law from the day when the disallowance is so made known.
<>
Again, I can not think of an instance when a law where the monarch has disallowed any law which has been given the Governor-General's assent. Section 59 says that such a disallowance were it to occur, would have to be presented by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament which presumably is by personal attendance to the Parliament (which would not have been an easy thing to do in 1901), or by Proclamation. Both of these would have been thunderously significant had they ever occurred.
<><><><><>
60. Signification of Queen's pleasure on Bills reserved
A proposed law reserved for the Queen's pleasure shall not have any force unless and until within two years from the day on which it was presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent the Governor-General makes known, by speech or message to each of the Houses of the Parliament, or by Proclamation, that it has received the Queen's assent.
<>
If I read this correctly, a bill which has been set aside, begins a countdown clock or two years which if it is given the monarch's assent, then becomes law. I suspect that in the days of steamship travel, that they were counting on a very long process for a bill to be passed.
If it takes six weeks to get to Britain, then time from the bill to pass from the ship to the Privy Council, then time for the Law Lords to ponder, pontificate and prance about like preening prize ponies, then time for the Privy Council to explain the significance of the bill to the monarch and why it had to be set aside, then time for the signed bill which has been given Royal Assent to go from Britain to Australia, then it might take several months. The whole machinery of parliaments can move glacially if given the chance and Section 60 anticipates that glacial speed. Let's not be too hasty here.
<><><><><>
These three sections are really the last proper vestiges of empire. In practice they do not get triggered and sit around dormant like Latin textbooks in a fish and chip shop. They might get picked up and even looked at occasionally but they don't really have very much to to with the price of fish.
In practice Australia has been independent for a very long time and given that on some issues such as voting, or the ability of upper houses to block supply, or the singular problem of Federation itself, Britain was either falling way behind or had no idea how to address these things, then Sections 58, 59, and 60, are not the magical boogeyman trump card that republicans think that they are.
And yet, I like the idea that if the Governor-General was so horrendously horrible and heinous, that the monarch could cry 'havoc' and let slip the cerberus of legislation.
No comments:
Post a Comment