A matter of minutes after Kevin Rudd was rolled as PM for Australia there were comments flying about how we were robbed as a nation, of the choice to vote in or out the leader of this country.
Here’s a fact – unless you live in the electorate of the PM, you don’t have that vote anyway.
We are governed under the British Westminster system in a constitutional monarchy, which means the Monarch is the real boss, then the Governor General, then the PM and so on down the political food chain.
There’s been a great irony this week with comments from the likes of Tony Abbott.
He is a seasoned and strong supporter of the monarchy, however he made a big song and dance about the recent ousting of a prime minister “elected by the people of Australia.”
Hang on Tony (his official title is the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition – not the leader of the Opposition of the People of Australia) – as a monarchist you should know better.
The PRIME MINISTER is exactly that – first among the ministers. The PM is appointed by the Governor General after the party they lead has won the most seats in the House of Representatives.
Interestingly our constitution doesn’t actually mention the role of the Prime Minister as such, as the Westminster system has a kind of automatic understanding that the leader of the party is the PM.
NOWHERE in the Australian constitution is there any reference to the Prime Minister as elected by the Australian people.
These are the rules we have as a constitutional monarchy, so if Tony Abbott doesn’t agree perhaps he should rethink his position on the nation becoming a republic, with the associated more presidential-style elections.
Then we really would have a leader elected by the Australian people (unless of course the president is “appointed” by the person leading the party which wins the general election…)
So - which one do you want more, Mr Abbott?
Posts
In a sense Tony is right. While we don't directly elect the leader, opposition leader, ministers or their shadows the people influence who the party does elect and retain. Wait until the pollsters ask, "And if you don't think the PM is a good leader who do you think should be leading the party?" or the parties take more notice of social networks. #AD4PM
ReplyDeletejust one small annoying point...the people in the seat the PM resides over aren't actually voting for the "Prime Minister". They are simply voting for their local member as well.
ReplyDeleteotherwise... yeah... abbott is a gaping asshole. Kerry tore him a new one on the 7:30 report the other night. it apparent that shafting turnbull was kosher, not so much when poor old kruddy cops it in the tailpipe. man you'd love to be a greens candidate this election. poor old ray exited too soon...
jg
Each electorate votes for their representative MP and it should be those elected representative MPs who vote for their Prime Minister, not party hackers. Unfortunately the party system places itself above the people and it's the party system which has instigated adverse legislation which has derailed the British Constitution and the rights of the Australian people. Rudd over-stepped his political boundaries into affairs of the Monarch, just as the Queen's representative GGs have become answerable to State premiers and work with and for the PM - Is this what our constitution was intended to do? No, read the book at www.aussieswannakiss.com and sign the petition. Rachel Emmes
ReplyDeleteanonymous (jg)
ReplyDeleteVery glad you clarified my point about voting for the local MP in the local electorate. I certainly didn't explain it as well as I should have so I appreciate you taking time to do so. Thank you, and hopefully you'll be back to comment on other posts too.