andy...I stand completely corrected....the whole of executive power is assigned to the GG and can be exercised ONLY by him. This is certainly not common knowledge in the australian ethos.
I read up a bit on all this this afternoon following briter's post
[ No. 9855...australia soon to be a republic "it will be done by stealth and subterfuge with the one main object of tearing up the constitution - there is no other reason." "they cannot completely surrender australias sovereignty until the constitution is watered down to an ineffectual status" ]
http://www.ourconstitution.org/more_power.php Republic? More Power For Politicians (10 of 11)
P. 5 Section 2 of the Constitution establishes the office of Governor-General as the "Queen's representative in the Commonwealth" to exercise such powers of the Queen as are assigned to him. In fact, by virtue of s. 61, the whole of the executive power is assigned to the Governor-General and can be exercised only by him. Although it is "the Queen's power" she has no authority to exercise it even if she is present in Australia. The Governor-General does not receive and cannot legally be given any directions (or even advice) by the Queen and he does not and cannot legally account or report to her. It might seem strange to someone who does not understand the historic basis of government that the Governor-General is expressed to be the Queen's representative and the executive power is expressed to be the Queen's power although he receives no directions from her and although he alone can exercise the power. The point is, of course, the Governor General represents the Queen in his responsibility to fulfil the requirements of the Coronation Oath, and the executive power he exercises is limited by the principles of government expressed in that Oath.
P. 6 The Queen has no power or function in or in relation to Australia except to appoint the Governor-General and formally to terminate his appointment if ever that became necessary on the advice of the Prime Minister. Neither she nor the British government nor anyone in Britain chooses or recommends the person to be appointed Governor-General. The Queen makes the appointment on the advice of the Prime Minister of Australia alone and termination of appointment would also be on his advice alone.
P.3 In ancient times the power of government in England rested in the King. The King was regarded as God's representative for ruling the nation. He was not unfettered in this responsibility but was required to govern lawfully, justly and mercifully, to maintain God's law and to regard the Bible as the rule for the whole of life and government. These requirements, though often forgotten or disregarded, were incorporated into the 'coronation oath' at least by 973 AD and have remained as part of the coronation oath ever since. In 1688 these requirements were 'entrenched' in the law by statute (Coronation Oath Act, 1 Will. and Mar. c. 6). These promises were (of course) incorporated into the undertakings given on oath by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as part of her coronation ceremony.
In addition to the King, in the historical structure there was also a parliament and a judicial system. The duty of parliament was to advise the King but he did not have to act on the advice if he believed it was contrary to his responsibilities. The judicial system had a responsibility to adjudicate disputes about whether the King had acted within or outside his responsibilities. The idea was that the King was subject to "the law" (i.e. God's measure of right and wrong) rather than to the parliament. The parliament, too, was subject to the same law and was required to tender advice on the basis of the Bible being the rule for the whole of life and government. The courts, also, administered (and were themselves subject to) the same law. Within the governmental structure each of the three arms of government (the king, known as the executive arm; the parliament, known as the legislative arm; and the courts, known as the judicial arm) had powers and responsibilities to apply the same law but were separate from and independent of each other. This principle is known as the 'doctrine' of separation of powers. Each arm of government was able to monitor and correct "unlawful" actions by the other arms. This is commonly referred to as the system of checks and balances. It is this system of checks and balances that is meant when we speak of "the Westminster system".
