The fact is the Queens representative exercised her majesties powers, powers that you claim are mere formality and sacked a properly elected government in 1975. Not a fiction, not sensationalism and not doom-saying.... Those so called reserve powers do actually have teeth if when needed. As I wrote earlier everything is fine until that need arises. Let me ask you this: Under what circumstance would King Charles III be obligated to act and use those reserve powers?
The Constitution of your country gave him the authority, and in Kerr's opinion, the duty, to act as he did. The monarch washed her hands of it, insisting it was a matter for Australians to resolve themselves. She affirmed in that moment, if it was not already fully understood, that the monarch would have no direct impact on the running of Australia. What did, and does, have an impact was their Constitution. Not the monarchy, which was, and remains, solely a figurehead. As in UK. Noone at the time considered the affair to be the monarch getting involved, noone does since. That it was a representative exercising the monarch's powers is merely a technicality, and the power was enshrined in the Constitution of your country. Having teeth doesn't make them fundamental. And whether or not you wrote that everything is fine until that need arises doesn't address whether they are fundamental to those aspects of your system of government as you claimed - notably the legal/penal system. I'm still waiting for you to support that. He wouldn't be. Nor was the Queen. She left it for Australia to resolve it themselves under the Constitution of their country that they had in place. Part of that system allowed the GG to do what he did at that time. You are trying to attach more focus on the part of the monarch rather than accepting the link is a technical one, not a meaningful one in terms of responsibility.
As Malaysia is one of the many Commonwealth countries, there is still a very strong link to the United Kingdom.
No I am simply refuting your earlier claim, with evidence of QEII using her royal powers in ways that are more than mere technicality or formality. Of course Australia being a realm of the Monarchs means that the act was facilitated constitutionally for if not, the act taken by Kerr would have no legal credibility or use whats so ever, thus demonstrating the potentials involved. As you have clearly stated the British Monarch role is primarily an instructed formality, and except in situations like a hung parliament exercises typically, little to no discretion in managing government. (all secret and private consultations aside) Perhaps google Royal prerogative. and why we call the government "Her Majesties Government"
Malaysia's parliament follows Westminster system. We also have a constitutional King who is just symbolic.
Man had lost his mother the day before, was probably exhausted, stressed, freaking out, cameras in his face with millions watching. Is he spoiled? Probably yes. But put any person in that kind of situation and you'd probably get a similar reaction. I can tell you now, the day after my father died, I barely functioning mentally or physically for that matter. If I had been forced to do a meet and greet with 100 people, on camera, go through tedious ceremony after ceremony, then have to sign numerous documents with a camera in my face, I'd have started throwing chairs and screaming. Something something about the Constitution applies here. Particularly Section II of the Constitution. In short, the Constitution provided the GG powers to act. If we were a republic, the head of state would retain or have similar powers. Australia had come close to similar dismissals in the past on a couple of occasions, but to avoid a dismissal, the elected PM or leader had chosen to resign instead. So Kerr had acted within the confines and boundaries of the Constitution when he sacked Whitlam. Australians aren't comfortable with the notion of a Government having free reign to do as they please, without a built in safety mechanism. So even if and when we do finally become a republic, the head of state would probably retain similar powers. If Morrison and his secret ministerial powers and the outrage from all sectors of the political divide is any indication, people here aren't very comfortable with a government having unlimited power without any way or recourse to remove them if they monumentally screw up or if supply doesn't get through the House. And for your information, the Queen wasn't made aware of the dismissal until after it had already happened.
