[this gives me awesome goosebumps]
In 2008, 107 years post-federation, a woman has been appointed as our 2-i-C.
I am so proud to be Australian today, I can hardly tell you. I type this hurriedly in my lunch break with a lump in my throat, pounding the keys in excitement and with hardly a backwards glance at my grammar, structure, punctuation. Today is a very bright day.
The Governor-General is, technically speaking, the Queen's "man" in our land. Until now an exclusively male role, the GG is given the responsibility of signing our legislative bills to make them law and, among other things, has the power to order the dissolution of both Houses of federal Parliament. Yes, the role is seen as symbolic. Yes, it would be an audacious GG to turf the elected government out (even though it has happened!). Yes, some see the position as unnecessary and nothing more than an antiquated nod to our monarchic-in-name-only system of government. However, as someone who loves the law and honours the Constitution, I can have nothing but respect for the position, the power it confers, and the opportunity it affords another human being to make a difference to our magnificent country.
Quentin Bryce is our first lady at the helm. From humble roots in farming Queensland, Ms Bryce was the first female academic to lecture at Uni of Queensland's law faculty. She has served as the federal sex discrimination commission and as Governor of her home State.
In relation to her new appointment, Ms Bryce is recorded as saying that the role is a great honour and responsibility.
I grew up in a little bush town in Queensland of 200 people, and what this day says to Australian women and to Australian girls is that you can do anything, you can be anything," she said. "It makes my heart sing to see women in so many diverse roles across our country in Australia."
It makes my heart sing too and my brain boggle at the possibilities open to me, a modern woman. These are possibilities that my grandmother would not have ever known to contemplate for women.
Riss the... bursting and proud.
PS. As a side comment to the press and Australian politicians: I will thank you to refrain from referring to Ms Bryce's attire and accessories. This is as close to head of state as any Australian will get under our constitution. Show some goddam respect.
Further, Chief Minister of the ACT, calling a woman, or any person for that matter, an "adornment to the office of Governor-General" tends to imply the person is decorative only. This chick may be decorated, but a decoration she ain't. Pull your head in.
PPS. Much of the material for this post, and photo, was obtained from The Sydney Morning Herald online. Story by Mark Davis, Political Correspondent. Photo by Andrew Meares
Comments
And while we're at it, could the Australian press please leave the PM's wife's sense of style alone! If the whole hoopla reveals anything, it isn't that she doesn't know how to dress herself, it's that there are no decent clothes for plus size women. And, oh yeah... she's not an elected official so leave her be.
It makes me soooo damned crazy.
Australia had a good day today. :)
It's sad, but after every election - or after Blair resigned, I always hope that the Queen will use her right to call whoever she pleases to be Prime minister. Especially if said person was from the House of Lords - although they have now got rid of the peers which would make it slightly less amusing.
Hehehe. It IS cool, but then I tend to be a bit of a nerd!!
The Governor-General (Sir John Kerr) did actually exercise his powers to dissolve parliament in 1975. It was a storm of controversy. The underlying reason was that the Labor government of the day controlled the House of Reps but not the Senate and were unable to get critical supply legislation through the Senate. They were effectively out of money and couldn't get any more because of the legislation block (I'm paraphrasing, but that was the essence of it). Held to ransom by the Liberal party (the Liberal opposition leader refused to allow the legislation through the Senate unless the Labor party called an election in the House and Labor wasn't polling well at the time), the PM stuck to his guns and declined to call the election, stating that the Liberal opposition leader was attempting blackmail. There was also a whole heap of other constitutionally dodgy stuff happening (a Labor member who died, I think, was replaced with a Liberal member, breaching a convention that dictated the same party be put in the empty seat).
It was all very cloak and dagger stuff. The PM has the power to dismiss the GG, just as the GG has power to revoke the PM's commission and/or dissolve parliament! The leader of the opposition parked out the back of Government House while the PM arrived out the front. In this case, the GG got in first and led to the (ex) PM, Gough Whitlam, shortly thereafter delivering one of Australia's most famous quotes... "Well may we say God save the Queen, because nothing with save the Governor-General."
We spent a spellbinding 4 hours of constitutional law lectures on the dismissal when I was at uni. Fascinating stuff.
I had not realised, but your entry set me to researching and when the Queen appointed Douglas-Home as PM in 1963 he was actually 14th Earl of Home. She chose him (the last PM to be chosen by a monarch) and he was in the House of Lords, however, he stepped down and renounced his title, then contested a by-election to be elected to the Commons so he could better serve as PM. For two weeks the Prime Minister was a member of neither of the houses.
I know the GG consulted a former High Court of Australia judge (Sir Garfield Barwick, I think) on whether he had the power to act. I vaguely recall that there was some consultation by the GG with the Queen. I think the Queen told him that it was a matter for Australia to sort out and she didn't intervene. The GG is technically appointed by the Queen (or King, if applicable) but really, it seems to be a stamp on the PM's decision. Ultimately, it's a political appointment.
Government House is the GG's house.
I don't know that the fact that the GG is the Queen's representative does complicate it that much more. The Queen seems to take a very hands off approach and lets us govern ourselves and, in practice (1975 excepted), the role of the GG is largely symbolic. The GG has a great opportunity to bring publicity to good causes, etc, so that is really where the role comes into its own. Because of the feeling that the Monarch is more a token head of state, there is a strong push to become a republic. I think a referendum on that question alone would probably be successful. The fly in the ointment is, of course, what do we replace it with? If the GG role is retained in its present or some other name, should he/she be an elected official? If so, would that inherently mean the role would have more power in practice and is that a wise concentration of power? It goes on and on.
That's a fairly honourable thing for Douglas-Home to have done, or was it more the case that the tide of public opinion was raging against him, given the nature of his appointment? Thinking that it was 1963 and the need for change was probably rumbling through the population...
Another one I wonder about, but don't fully understand is, if you become a republic what happens to the land? I may be wrong, but I believe that as well as being head of state the Queen owns the land, somehow, as she does most of Canada. Would Australia effectively have to buy itself? The article I was reading said that since in 1770 the Empire annexed Australia the Queen owns the land and could theoretically sell it. (Though it would be subject to Parliamentary approval) Maybe you know more of this?
I think you could be right about public opinion - he only lasted a year as was. In hindsight he'd probably have been wiser holding onto that peerage ;)