Part of Parliament Refuses to Be Part of Parliament

TWAKI has a post, “Governor General not interested in Australian democracy”, which quotes a letter from the Governor-General’s office:

Her Excellency has asked me to reply to you on her behalf.
I have taken note of your views.  However, in a parliamentary democracy, these are matters for the Parliament to resolve and it would be inappropriate for the Governor-General to intervene.
You may wish to bring your views to the attention of your elected representatives.

According the Australian Constitution, the Governor-General (representing the Queen) is an integral constituent of the Parliament:

1. The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called “The Parliament,” or “The Parliament of the Commonwealth.”
2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him. 

58. When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen’s name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen’s pleasure.
The Governor-General may return to the house in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation.

61. The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

The Governor-General, effectively, is bizarrely stating, “it would be inappropriate for the Governor-General to be involved in matters which the Governor-General, the Senate and the House of Representatives must resolve.”
The Governor-General has a moral duty, just as Senators and Members of the House of Representatives each have a duty, to ensure that all proposed laws are just, enforceable, and in the national interest.  Unfortunately, the present, pretentious, partisan, pusillanimous Governor-General wants to enjoy all the perquisites of her position (and then some), apparently, without actually bothering with the hard task of checking whether legislation passed by the Senate and House of Representatives ought to receive royal assent.

See also “May the Governor-General Dissolve the House of Representatives?”

UPDATE:  Some have unjustly censured our gracious sovereign for not attempting to stop our incompetent Government ruining the country further.  HM the Queen has quite rightly refused to intervene because all her powers, constitutionally, are vested in the Governor-General who does have the power (as I mention above)—as well as the moral duty—to intervene.  All the Queen may do under our Constitution, since the passage of the Australia Act in 1986, is appoint the Governor-General, on the advice of the Prime Minister.

May the Governor-General Dissolve the House of Representatives?

According to § 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, the Governor-General may dissolve the House of Representatives at any time:

The Governor-General may appoint such times for holding the sessions of the Parliament as he thinks fit, and may also from time to time, by Proclamation or otherwise, prorogue the Parliament, and may in like manner dissolve the House of Representatives. 

The approved website of the Governor-General provides an official acknowledgement of the Governor-General’s power both to dismiss a Prime Minister and to act contrary to a Prime Minister’s advice:

While the reserve powers are not codified as such, they are generally agreed to at least include:

1. The power to appoint a Prime Minister if an election has resulted in a ‘hung parliament’;
2. The power to dismiss a Prime Minister where he or she has lost the confidence of the Parliament;
3. The power to dismiss a Prime Minister or Minister when he or she is acting unlawfully; and
4. The power to refuse to dissolve the House of Representatives despite a request from the Prime Minister.

In addition, the Governor-General has a supervisory role to see that the processes of the Federal Executive Council are conducted lawfully and regularly.

Despite those calumniating commentators who accused participants in the “Convoy of No Confidence” of ignorance by their petitioning the Governor-General to sack the Prime Minister, dissolve the House of Representatives, and call a new election, the current Governor-General, with or without advice from the Prime Minister, may dissolve the House of Representatives immediately, if she think it right to do so.  She won’t, of course, because she supports the incompetent administration of, inter alios, her son-in-law, Bill Shorten, but she clearly has that power.

UPDATE I (6 September):  see Potemkin’s Village on Bill Shorten, the Governor-General and the Heiner Affair. 

UPDATE II (16 September):  I should add, perhaps, that, whilst the Governor-General has the right and power to call an election against the wishes of the Prime Minister, the Governor-General, conversely, may also reject a call for an early election.  The Governor-General  may refuse the Prime Minister’s request for an early election (as the Governors, too, in the States may refuse the request from a premier), and insist that the PM continue governing or, if that leader lost the confidence of the House of Representatives, ask the Opposition Leader to form a government.  Unfortunately, across the land, Governors and Governors-General too often meekly accede to the demands for early elections—sometimes very early, such as after only eighteen months of a four-year term—whenever premiers and prime ministers and consider it to their advantage to call them.