Why doesn't the Constitution mention the Prime Minister or Cabinet?

This video discusses why the Commonwealth Constitution does not mention the Prime Minister or Cabinet. It explains the history of the term 'Prime Minister' and how it was used interchangeably with other terms, such as Premier, First Minister and Chief Minister. It notes the formal title 'First Lord of the Treasury' in the United Kingdom, but that this title was not used in Australia.
The video outlines the provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution which concern the appointment of 'Ministers' (including the Prime Minister, who is a Minister) to 'offices' and to administer Departments. It mentions the Morrison secret ministry controversy, and the fact that Prime Ministers actually have quite limited legal powers (despite the fact that most people seem to think that they 'run the country').
The video explains that the Cabinet has no legal powers, and that effect is given to Cabinet decisions through the powers conferred on others, including Ministers and the Federal Executive Council. (Note that I have also done another video on the difference between the Cabinet and the Federal Executive Council: • Cabinet v Executive Co... .)
The video concludes by discussing why the framers of the Constitution were not more prescriptive in setting out in the Constitution how the executive government operates.

[@franktully3065]

Thankyou for these very informative videos, Professor. I wish many more Australians watched them.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. Yes, it would be good if they did.

[@josh439]

Please do a video on Morrison's secret appointments soon. I know in the past, here in the UK, it wasn't uncommon for a Prime Minister to concurrently serve as a Secretary of State; but that was public knowledge (as far as we're aware) and before a lot of the modern bureaucracy. So it would be very interesting to learn from the expert about Morrison and why it was so shady. And on a personal note, I love this channel. I always felt strange, even at university, when everybody else was interested in the 'he said she said' side of politics and I was up at 4am theorising about the potential for the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to destroy democracy on a minister's mere assertion that an 'emergency' could happen. But watching this channel always makes me feel I'm among friends. Lots of love and admiration from an aspiring British constitutional expert ❤

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. Much appreciated! I have deliberately let sufficient water flow under the bridge so that any video on the Morrison secret ministries would be more measured and perhaps receive fewer abusive comments. (I did an awful lot of media about it at the time, as I'm one of the few people who know about the intricacies of ministerial appointments, so it was all rather exhausting.) As we are heading up to an election in Australia soon, I may have to concentrate more on electoral matters and the formation of government in a hung Parliament. But if I get the chance, I'll slot one in about the multiple ministries issue.

[@Maclabhruinn]

Extremely fascinating; it's making me wish I could go back to Uni and study Constitutional Law. Alas, that's hardly feasible; but I can keep watching the Constitutional Clarion - just as good!!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Glad you enjoy it.

[@OliverH-v1j]

Thanks a lot for a rich and informative video about the history of the term prime minister! Your videos are enlightening. I enjoy them a lot. Prof Twomey, in light of the case of Stradford v Judge Vasta where an inferior court judge was found personally liable for false imprisonment (currently in the High Court), I was wondering whether you could consider doing a video on the inferior and superior court distinction in Australia, orders of inferior courts affected by jurisdictional error providing no lawful justification for the imprisonment (being void from the outset, yet there is still a duty to obey them), judicial immunity at common law for inferior court judges, and whether this inferior/superior distinction is still relevant in light of Chapter III of the Constitution after Kable?

[@PMcBurney]

On Cabinet Government: [Malcolm Fraser] "unquestionably was the worst chairman I ever sat under. His propensity for interrupting was unbelievable. . . . . He had not the slightest idea of listening to an argument and then drawing the various points of view together. Not infrequently he would adjourn an issue on which he could not get his way to ‘enable us to get further advice’. ” Jim Killen: "Inside Australian Politics", p. 256. (Methuen 1985).

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. That's interesting.

[@cheerytomato6196]

I am always more enlightened from watching your videos 🙂 Best thing I ever done was become a Clarion. That was an awesome story about the door at number 10. hahaha 🙂

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it. (And glad I was sufficiently non-famous that no one filmed my embarrassing inability to get in the door!)

[@johnnzboy]

"...that is why you have a Constitutional Clarion to enlighten you..." Hm, this is verging on a mixed metaphor (can a sound-producing implement provide illumination?) but the sentiment is accurate (o; I obtain both edification and entertainment from this excellent channel.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Ahh, but I do have a little lighthouse as my KZbin symbol. I was going to add a slogan of 'A s 51(vii) lighthouse in a world of constitutional darkness' - but I couldn't fit it on!

[@Goldy-zw7fp]

Yes I do feel more enlightened, thank you.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I'm much obliged.

[@john_g_harris]

It wasn't just "Prime Minister" that started as an insult or jibe. The party names "Whig" and "Tory" came from dialect words meaning crook or hooligan. Tory is still in common use, especially by anyone criticising the Conservative party.

[@saimoncole]

Yes, Professor, I feel enlightened 😊

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I'm so glad!

[@trunkage]

If you do the Scomo incident, can you explain why there were no legal repercussions. That made no sense to me and seem like a loophole that someone can use to become a dictator

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Shall do.

[@MarkHyde]

I love the practical a detailed explanation of our Constitution as a living document you have made in this video - changing as times change but still from the outset comprehending the legal reality of convention AND reading of the text itself - a role set in it fulfilled by our High Court of course. Thank you.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You're most welcome.

[@gregessex1851]

Now it all makes sense. Thanks Anne

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Terrific. Glad it helped.

[@gregessex1851]

@ Even Civil Engineers can understand constitutional law.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Of course they can, because they have logical minds!

[@garethaethwy]

The leader of the devolved Welsh Government is known in English as the First Minister, but in a lovely bit of subversion the title in Welsh (Prif Weinidog) is the same translation of Prime Minister. And since the Assembly re-named itself as the Senedd, in English members use MS as postnominals, whereas in Welsh they use AS, which causes a bit of confusion as MPs in Westminster also use AS whenever they come into contact with the Welsh language!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. Yes, different languages can definitely add to the confusion and a bit of mischief-making.

[@ivanb52]

Always wondered about this topic, and thanks for the excellent explanation. In the mix of FOI etc, and given the lack of mention of a "cabinet", is it safe to assume the special provisions for "cabinet document secrecy" is justified by laws passed by parliament rather than anything deriving from the constitution ?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes - while collective ministerial responsibility is based on the principles of responsible government, the specific exemption from FOI is based upon statute, which specifically refers to the Cabinet.

[@robertvose2644]

Thank you, Professor Twomey! I enjoyed your summary and it is worth noting verbatim: "As a matter of pride, it was accepted that everyone knew about Prime Ministers and Cabinet and how they operated in the Westminster system and that specifying this in the Constitution would make Australians look rather foolish. To understand the Constitution, you need to do more than just read the words on the page. You need to understand that history. You need to understand convention, and constitutional principles, and even constitutional jurisprudence - which was an assumed basis for a lot of the Constitution. You need to understand all of this to get the full picture." I still have heaps to learn, and it is a work in progress. But I agree that an argument for changing the constitution, based on an assumption that it should spell everything out in detail is rather misguided and foolish. That line of argument has actually been put forward by some republicans as a reason for modifying the Constitution. Thank you again, and I look forward to viewing more of your enlightening videos!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. After the 1975 controversy in Australia, many Pacific nations, when they achieved independence, opted for prescriptive Constitutions which set out everything in detail. But this proved problematic when unanticipated events occurred and there was no flexibility in the Constitution to cope with it.

[@Zygon13]

I do get so annoyed that eveytone in an election thinks they're voting for the PM. Regardless of the electorate they live in.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Me too!

[@DylanSargesson]

In the UK we've never had a "Department of the Prime Minister". The PM also takes on two other ministerial titles, "Minister for the Civil Service" and "Minister for the Union". It is through the PM's role as Minister for the Civil Service that they have the most power personally. The closest thing we have to a Prime Minister's Department is the Cabinet Office. But, we have had an "Office of the Deputy Prime Minister" which was a fully fledged Government Department for a few years under the late John Prescott. That Office eventually became the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government - which interestingly is the Department that the current Deputy Prime Minister (Angela Rayner) is the Secretary of State for.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks - that's interesting. Most Australians only know about the UK system by watching 'Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister', but it is a bit out of date now (although the humour and the perspicacity remain excellent).

[@DylanSargesson]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Absolutely. YM/YPM is a classic. Another little tidbit I'd give on this is that the role of Deputy Prime Minister is just an honorific. It doesn't always exist. It's more of a political designation, so depends more on the personal relationships and party dynamics. When we don't have a Deputy Prime Minister, other titles are used by the de facto No.2, such as "First Secretary of State" or "Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster" or "Minister for the Cabinet Office" or some combination of those roles. This came to pass during the Coalition Government 2010-15. The Deputy PM was the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, but they also appointed a First Secretary of State so the Conservative Prime Minister could have a No.2 from his own Party. Sir Oliver Dowden was the Deputy Prime Minister until July 2024, he was also the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but he also had the unique title of "Secretary of State IN the Cabinet Office". This gave him the same legal powers as any other SoS, but it was strange because every other one is the "Secretary of State FOR (Department)"

[@TheRealBobSmith.]

I feel more knowledgeable every time you upload

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. That's great to know.

[@mitchellnewell8078]

I have to admit I was always under the impression the reason why the Prime Minister was never mentioned because it was handed to us under convention used in Westminster

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes, it was accepted that as a matter of convention that the leader of the government was called Prime Minister. No one seemed to think it was necessary to declare this in the Constitution (see the end of the video).

[@mjguerin63]

Does the Governor-General receive "red boxes" like HM and does the PM have regular meetings with the GG?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

@@mjguerin63 No.

[@mjguerin63]

@constitutionalclarion1901 thanks.

[@garethaethwy]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 does Brian get Australian red boxes? Or is there no requirement to keep him (or his representative in Australia) informed on matters of government? Is that the same with the states and governors?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

The monarch (at least in the past, and probably not so much today) would get sent regular despatches from the GG and the State Governors outlining political, economic and social developments. The monarch would not get official government papers from Australia, unless the matter concerned the monarch directly (eg the monarch's royal style and title, etc). The Governor-General and State Governors receive executive council minutes in advance, and can peruse them and raise concerns prior to the Executive Council meeting. But they don't normally receive Cabinet documents or cables on foreign affairs, etc, in contrast to the monarch in the UK.

[@andrewjgrimm]

I think I heard this seemingly sinister factoid in the episode “Vulnerable to Attack” of the Hollow Men.

[@jimdiment7146]

Is there a risk that a Minister given a power to decide something by a statute would be acting under dictation if there decision reflects the outcome of a cabinet meeting? Or would the courts accept this, because of the long history of cabinet convention?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

There was a case about this, but I can't remember the details. If it comes back to my mind (probably at 3am), I'll refer you to it.

[@williamsutter2152]

I've already heard the reason for this, so I'm going to state it before I watch your video. It's because the Constitution federated a heap of British colonies that were very familiar with the Westminster system of responsible government and it was understood that this system would be followed on the federal level too. So a lot of these details were left to follow unwritten conventions, which are a lot more malleable to the times and needs of the people than a doubly entrenched constitution.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes - you got it.

[@michael5265]

​​@@constitutionalclarion1901I was wrong I saw the words prime minister and cabinet and it took me back to June 1967 and visiting the prime minister Harold Holt with my father. Who after we left said that PM only needs one cabinet and that's a drinks cabinet. Don't tell your mother I said that son it's our secret. I did like your number 10 story though 😀

[@dylwithglasses]

Even when I think I already know the answer, I may not know the fascinating constitutional history behind it. These videos are always enlightening!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.

[@ArthurDonnelly-p3e]

Excellent coverage as usual. I did walk down Downing St prior to its closure and was concerned at its lack of security but saddened when it occurred. P.s., lovely family photo. Cheers

[@don_juan_DeMarko]

Hey Anne, Have you ever thought of a move onto the bench, particularly in the high court, if it were offered?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Haven't been offered the High Court, but have been offered elsewhere and turned it down. I think I'm more useful explaining constitutional law to all and sundry.

[@noahmcvay1281]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 I think you'd make a great judge, Professor. Are judges allowed to teach in Australia on an adjunct or guest faculty basis like they are here in the States?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes, some judges do teach in Australia - usually for free.

[@Know_It_All]

Thanks

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You're welcome.

[@jonmce1]

Funny how commonwealth countries bubble around to establish their own but extremely similar political systems. I beleive, however, in my country prime minister was used from confederation on in 1867.

[@braytongoodall2598]

banger vid

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks!

[@MrNedkelly11]

Australia is a sovereign nation recognised as such by the UN & the other nations of this world. A sovereign nation needs a written Constitution that has been drafted by members of its population & considered, debated & approved by the general population in a proper referendum. That has never been done. The document claimed to be Australia’s Constitution was drafted in the I9th century as a colonial form of governance unifying a collection of British colonies. It was legislated as part of an imperial British statute by the British Imperial parliament. It specified that the legal Head of the government was the Governor-General (G-G) acting for and on behalf of the British monarch. The G-G was empowered by that Imperial statute to appoint an Executive Council to assist the G-G to exercise the powers of governance that the G-G was authorised to perform for the British monarch. When Australia became a sovereign nation & ceased to be a collection of colonies unified & governed pursuant to that Imperial statute, the nation should have undertaken a national Convention process which considered, debated, determined & approved a national Constitution. Instead, a cabal of politicians, lawyers & others have spent a century pretending that a defunct colonial document is the valid constitution of our sovereign nation. It isn’t. THAT is why the Prime Minister & Cabinet are not mentioned in our defunct Constitution & why governments & commentators say that the apparent anomalies, inconsistencies & defects in our governance arrangements are somehow covered by unwritten conventions that apparently vary depending on the desires of the Prime Minister of the moment, like “Scomo”. Australia is under unlawful belligerent political occupation which accounts for why the population is steadily being impoverished, the housing crises is dire, homelessness is much worse even than in California & the local population is unable to replace itself such that the government conceals that fact by importing hordes of refugees & migrants from alien cultures which exacerbates the housing & cost of living crises. See eg: ronchapman.substack.com/p/australia-is-under-belligerent-occupation And: ronchapman.substack.com/p/australias-homelessness-crisis-outpaces

[@auspseudolaw]

I don't know why you keep posting links to this ronchapman site, nobody can access it, as Microsoft has it listed as unsafe.

[@peterroach3377]

Dear Professor Twomey. I am sorry that your informative videos attract such cooker rubbish as the above post

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Oh dear - that must mean that the United States is not a sovereign nation, as there was no referendum to approve its Constitution. The United Kingdom would not be a sovereign nation and nor would Canada, or New Zealand, or... Wait, are there any sovereign nations in the world? Perhaps you might have to reconsider your self-proclaimed definition.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

New Zealand is not a state in the Commonwealth of Australia. That is just a myth spread by people who misunderstand covering clause 6 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. New Zealand was, for a time, part of the colony of New South Wales. I have done a video about it if you want to know more. Australia is a sovereign nation. It has complete control over its Constitution and could choose to make anyone head of state. It retains King Charles as head of state because there are insufficient people who would vote for a change of sovereign in a referendum. That is their sovereign choice.

[@peterroach3377]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 I would humbly suggest wilfully misunderstand.

[@peteregan3862]

We should think of cabinets as sub-committees of the Executive Councils.

[@alanbrookes275]

A question that may be constitutional or political. The number of ministers that may be appointed to cabinet. I remember a certain kerfuffle about numbers lasting through the Whitlam and Fraser governments and when the Hawke government introduced junior ministers and parliamentary secretaries. Are you able to shed any light on this?

[@almango873]

The number of Ministers is decided by Parliament. The number of Departments is decided by the Governor General on the advice of the Executive Council. Sometimes there may be a conflict between those numbers.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes, there was a kerfuffle about parliamentary secretaries and whether they could be ministers and paid. It's probably a bit too 'niche' to do a video about it, but if you want to know, I have explained it in this paper at pages 35-7: www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/Research/Research_Papers/2017-18/OfficeofProfit.

[@almango873]

@ Thanks for the info and link

[@neilgarrad4931]

Thanks.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You're welcome.

[@peteregan3862]

A better way to think of it in my view is that the G or GG invites the person most likely to pull together a team of ministers that will obtain the confidence of the House of Representatives. On the basis of recommendations by the person, the G or GG appoints the relevant people as ministers and members of the Federal/State Executive Council, with rescinding(?) the appointments of previous ministers and executive councillors. On the advice of the 'person' one of the Executive Councillors is also appointed Vice President of the Council. The G/GG is the president of the Council??? I must check the Clarion video on this. In the UK, they Refer to the "King in Council". Has our monarch ever attended/presided over a meeting of a Federal or state executive council, thus the meetings were King/Queen in Council???? In the UK, people remain members of the Council (Privy Council???) for life once appointed. But only the government Councilors are selected to advise the King. I think in Australia, only one Councilor need be present to formally advise the G/GG - usually the vice president.

[@almango873]

Executive Councillors are normally appointed for life although only current Ministers attend. I can only think of one who's appointment was rescinded.I don't think the King/Queen has a role in the Executive Council in Australia. I think the quorum for an EC meeting is 3 (including the Chair) and the GG doesn't have to attend.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

@peteregan3862 No - that's not quite right about how government is formed. There is no blank page after an election with the Governor-General 'inviting' someone to form a government. The incumbent PM remains in place and the GG only gets to act if the PM resigns (or in extremely rare circumstances, is dismissed). I will do some videos about the formation of government in the lead-up to the next election.

[@lzappa9109]

10/10! As a lay person, thank you.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

You're most welcome!

[@stevegeorge7773]

Have we a way of suggesting a subject, if relevant, that you may put into your pool of video essay topics?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes, people make suggestions in the comments all the time. I do already have a long list, but without any particular order of priority. I tend to do videos on what is currently relevant first, and then what seems to be causing confusion for people.

[@QldTechie]

HISTORY 😮 and she's even been to #10.

[@garethaethwy]

I've been to Number 10. Well, outside it on the doorstep. Some time in the late 80s. Downing Street was generally closed to the public but uniformed youth groups such as cubs were allowed in, which is how I managed it. There is somewhere a photograph of me there, but I don't think I've ever seen it!

[@Nozinbonsai]

I used to live at #10 .

[@andhewonders]

Seems the title Prime Minister is still about apportioning blame.

[@Don.Challenger]

And by not mentioning any of that we confuse the heck out of those pedantic AI who can't seem to tease those threads loose.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes, there is certainly a good argument that a Constitution should be easier for people to understand without having to know a lot about extrinsic material. Mr Carruthers made precisely this point in the Constitutional Convention on 19 April 1897. He said that it would be better for the Constitution to 'clearly express what it is intended to effect; do not let us have to back it up by quoting whole pages of Dicey. This is a Constitution which the unlettered people of the community ought to be able to understand.' Carruthers did not win on this point, however.

[@Don.Challenger]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Yes, generally some few do want to throw in a kitchen sink too.

[@ianport2185]

Would be fascinated to here your views on the potentially awkward position for the King if two or more of his governments adopted very different foreign policies. Thinking of the current situation of governments dealing with Trump's bizarre policies. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d3abnJykermgZpIsi=WSQ4-iymF42fs3nw

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

There have been problems in the past - eg WWII, where the King was at war in some Realms, but not in others at different times. Another example is Fiji, where the Queen was asked to implement a constitutional change that would have discriminated against Indo-Fijians, against the wishes of India, which remained part of the Commonwealth. There was also the controversy in Australia about who owned the seabed around Australia in the early 1970s - with conflicting views at the UK, Commonwealth and State levels. The bottom line is that the monarch always gives the UK view priority if a clash arises, because the monarch is British and lives there. But the Palace tries very hard to keep the monarch out of matters where conflicting policies exist.

[@ianport2185]

The Indo-Pakistani war of 1947-1948 was another & rather more extreme example with the King of India and the King of Pakistan being at war with each other - poor old George VI.

[@robertvose2644]

You have written many books on the topic, and you are the leading constitutional expert on the Crown in Australia. If you could record a 15 to 20 minute summary on what you think we should know about the Crown in Australia in 2025, that would be great. While the Constitution is very difficult to change, the Crown has gone through a full 180 degree revolution since Federation. It is now completely different from the old British Crown of 1901. Yet, very few people realise that the Crown in Australia today is no longer the old indivisible Crown of the British Empire. Some politicians still rail against it as if it were still the old Crown, without there being any public questioning of this assumption. How do you think we could best approach an understanding of this elusive Australian chameleon?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. Yes, I'll do some videos on it in the future. Just need to finish a new edition of the relevant book first!

[@AlexBaz143]

I'm feeling illuminated

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Excellent. I hope you are glowing!

[@paulhwbooth]

Lord Salisbury was prime minister without being First Lord of the Treasury.

[@Wahistorian]

It was easier to get his nephew Arthur Balfour to hold the office. Salisbury preferred being Foreign Secretary.

[@andyinsuffolk]

Interesting .. but rather disappointing that the Australian Constitution is quite so 'woolly'. I assumed our (UK) lack of formal constitution was probably much bettered by the commonwealth. I see no means of running a true democracy without a constitution that constrains the political class; defining the scope of their powers. In Britain our politicans divide us into arbitrary demographics to enable state discrimination and sign us up to rule by 'foreign princes' etc etc - tyranny that should be excluded by any democratic constitution.

[@bigdavecoxy]

Australians are generally quite comfortable with their Constitution, so much so it has been resilient to change. What you need to understand is that the Australian States each have their own Constitutions, which deal with most day to day matters of government. Where the federal Constitution is silent, authority automatically devolves to the respective State ministers. The State Constitutions are very much a colonial legacy from pre-federation times when they were self-governing entities, but have since been modernised through change processes that are generally much simpler and achievable than the "double majority" requirement of the Commonwealth Constitution. (btw "Commonwealth" is not a reference to the Commonwealth of Nations, but is the title of the Constitution referring to the Commonwealth of the States). I agree that the geographic division of electorates can be arbitrary when it comes to political issues, but it does compel voters to consider some of the common good. That's just part of the equality value system of this country. Voting in federal elections here is compulsory. The electorate is judge, jury & executioner.

[@andyinsuffolk]

@@bigdavecoxy - Thanks Dave interesting again. My focus is seeing how modern democracy is being implemented constitutionally. I've come to the conclusion that constitutions need to be entirely separate from current political office holders otherwise they are prone to changing the scope of their own powers - which is a logical absurdity, and leads to the sort of over-reach that the world suffered a couple of years back. Compulsory voting seems highly dubious - to make a free choice the poll would have to include at least one 'I don't care' option which then makes compulsion redundant. I suspect this is part of the democratic deficit where politicians really don't understand that democracy = people power. The UK situation is considerably worse where they mostly make it up as they go and block all constraints.

[@bigdavecoxy]

@@andyinsuffolk There are many flavours of democracy, and all are flawed in some way. Our 3 year terms contrast with your 7 year terms, making the government face the electorate more often but encouraging short term decisions. It's easy to be cynical, and here the level of trust in politicians is insufficient to support longer terms. The "don't care" attitude is valid, and not the same as apathy. Here there is a resurgence of independent political candidates, and the two major parties now command less than one third of the primary vote each. However I believe that the wisdom of the commons will give the political class a clear message if they give in to the distraction of grasping power for the sake of it.

[@almango873]

@@andyinsuffolk In effect we do have an "I don't care" option. As its a secret ballt you simply place your ballot paper in the box unmarked.

[@andyinsuffolk]

@@bigdavecoxy - I'll point out, just to continue the thread, that any fixed term of office for our employees to prove their mettle is anti-democratic, it's all aristocratic hang-over. We don't guarantee other providers a contractual commitment without get-out clauses. The normal first counter to this - 'they need a chance to prove themselves' again assumes that having different management teams swapping in & out is efficient, we don't run anything else like this unless there's a catastrophe. I say 'we the people' should be able to change our representative whenever we choose. In the UK the last Govt changed the term of their own office - this is analagous to Putin changing the rules to extend his presidency. I suggest we need real democratic thinking, the old-ways have had generations and don't work.

[@user-qx2jq5zi6h]

It dose , no groups block or party are hold a sit in the government only independents are you using the Australia act and not the constitution, we voted no to the Australia act in 1999

[@Madeline77-e7j]

No, the 1999 constitutional referendum was a question about Australia becoming a parliamentary republic. It wasn't about the Australia Act 1986.

[@auspseudolaw]

It appears you've read neither the Constitution or the Australia Acts, nor understood the proposal that was put to referendum in 1999. The proposals were (1): "To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament." and (2): "To alter the Constitution to insert a preamble." The referendum was not carried, so the status quo remained.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Not only did the republic referendum in 1999 have nothing to do with the Australia Acts 1986, but neither of them had anything to do with whether Members of Parliament could belong to political parties or be independents.

[@davecoleman409]

No political parties either. Party lines often override electoral wants is why.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Parties were mentioned when the Constitution was amended in 1977 in relation to the filling of casual vacancies.

[@surturz]

Antony Green wrote a good article on Senate Casual vacancies some years ago

[@davecoleman409]

1977 isn't 1901​@@constitutionalclarion1901

[@meri7108]

@@davecoleman409 yet the 1901 Constitution provided for its amendment

[@qwertyTRiG]

Ireland is, perhaps, an interesting contrast, as our system is also based on the Westminster system, but it actually is all laid out in the constitution. That said, our Senate is weird, and its basis on the House of Lords is clear.

[@garethaethwy]

The thing with Ireland as I understand it is that the President has no executive power, that is all vested in the Taoiseach, mainly because when the Constitution was written, Ireland still had a king, and the Governor General acted on the advice of the Taoiseach as in other dominions: de Valera ever the republican couldn't stand the idea of executive actions being taken by the Governor General so kept everything with himself. (I won't repeat comments I've seen elsewhere which explain the odd situation by claiming de Valera was a control freak and wanted to do everything himself!) If I've understood everything correctly, an Uachtarán is comparable to a charity trustee, as opposed to a president in any other parliamentary democracy.

[@noahmcvay1281]

@@garethaethwy The Irish presidency is actually a separate branch under Bunreacht na hÉireann, with limited but important reserve powers which may be invoked to uphold and defend the constitutional order. For example, A Uachtarán, in his or her absolute discretion, appoints a plurality of the members of the Council of State and can refuse the Taoiseach's request to dissolve Parliament. Other reserve powers are exercised after consulting the Council of State, a quasi-privy council whose recommendations are not binding. This includes the power to refer bills to the Supreme Court for judicial review before granting assent, the power to refer bills to the people at a national referendum, and the power to convene extraordinary sittings of either or both houses of Oireachtas. Referrals to the Supreme Court are commonplace among Irish presidents. In most cases, the Supreme Court finds the bills so referred to be unconstitutional and thus quashes them.

[@jamesfohare]

We as Australians we do not have a Constitution as such, neither do we have a Monarchy we gave that away when we extracted our selves from the Privy Counsel in 1982 the late Queen Elizabeth resigned as official Monarch of Australia but we as a people Her Majesty as Queen of Australia not the Monachal Head of the country. The Queen or King became an Honary Title in name only which bestowed on as Honary titles The Governors General or State in the absence of Queen or King. We are NOT as yet a Democratic Republic therefore the idea of a Constitution is mute. We do have laws which resemble which our so called Respsendives in Both Houses of Parliament vote on and if approved written into Law but no longer needing appoval of the Crown, a Constitution but not recognised as such But which can get confusing even to Lawyers which shouldn't not if they studied Brennon Law to which even the Magna Carta has a principal that All men Are Sovern unto them selves as individuals.

[@peterroach3377]

Oh I wish you cookers would actually listen and understand what a real legal scholar is saying rather than figuratively putting your fingers in your ears and chanting 'Blah Blah Blah I'm not listening'

[@jaywalks9918]

Oh please, the prime minister can choose the cabinet. He has total power. If the cabinet isn't doing what he wants, he can threaten to replace them. To think this isn't happening is ridiculous.

[@grumpybastard5744]

Perhaps you had better listen again.

[@MrAnediet]

But the party can also call a spill. So the PM stakes his political career on every decision that he overrules the cabinet

[@JohnDoe-ch4ko]

You are confusing the Prime Minister's *legal* and *political* power. This video was talking about the Prime Minister's *legal* power.

[@raycochrane3971]

You've not heard of factions? A certain Labor leader requested from, and been granted by, their parliamentary party, permission to decide on their cabinet but that was an aberration.A PM with such power would have to have amassed significant political capital within their party to attempt such a thing. Almost hen's teeth.

[@scottn2046]

I doubt Bob Hawke, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull would agree with this statement. Whitlam and Sir John Kerr would probably have their own differing experience as well ...

[@dennismcdonnell7853]

You are wrong, because Australia was meant to have a Governor General chosen personally by the Monarch of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen Victoria, setting the pattern of a person in charge who would adequately reflect the authority and intention of the Monarch who is the personal representative of we, the people. A Prime Minister is a Party Puppet who does not at all represent we, the people, but represents corporate interests of foreign elite banks and their industrial cooperatives that mostly manufacture warmongering weapons, ammunitions, and the machinery that fires them. Of course they administer the support for this war machine that comes from public labour and their essentials needs to stay alive and be the labour supply....only just. So talking up the 'necessity' for the existence of these unscrupulous politicians and bureaucrats at various levels of corruption is as ludicrous as having a Constitution that is totally ignored by the unlawfully corporatised business that calls itself our government.

[@tubeymcdee]

Are you real, or an example of dead internet theory? because you sure seem to stereotypical to be real

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

The Constitution provides expressly for the Governor-General to appoint Ministers, and for the Ministers to be Members of Parliament (subject to a 3 month leeway). See section 64.