Memo to the Greens: Julia Gillard is not Head of State
A member in the US tipped us off on this gaffe by Green Party co-leader Russel Norman, who has taken issue with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard addressing New Zealand's Parliament:
"We think it is really important to maintain the democratic sovereignty of New Zealand's Parliament, if we allow one Head of State to address a sitting session of Parliament, then we will inevitably allow other visiting dignitaries to do the same."
Be that as it may, Russel is wrong to call Julia Gillard "Head of State". Gillard is not Australia's Head of State - that's Queen Elizabeth II. Gillard is Australia's Head of Government. Sure, we're being pedantic, but they're called CHOGM meetings for a reason - they're meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government. Now the confusing bit is sometimes states combine the offices of Head of State and Head of Government into one (as is the case in republics like the United States and monarchies like Saudi Arabia).
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
Comments
There's also a perfect opportunity here to highlight one of the most undemocratic aspects of monarchy:
Is that not a contradiction in terms? In a true democracy it is the people who are sovereign, not the legislature - or indeed any branch or institution of government. The sovereignty of parliament under the status quo exists courtesy of the Crown, and is therefore not democratic sovereignty at all.
That's correct Anon. According to Lord Cooke in The Suggested Revolution Against the Crown, the establishment of a republic requires a positive vote in a referendum to create the republic's legitimacy - that legitimacy comes from popular consent, sovereignty is said to be "popular sovereignty". That contrasts with the status quo of parliamentary sovereignty.
Note though that parliamentary sovereignty is not the same as parliamentary supremacy, people often confuse the two. Parliamentary supremacy simply means statues passed by parliament are superior law to all others (e.g. regulations, Orders in Council).
I have to question whether "parliamentary sovereignty" is the status quo in New Zealand. In New Zealand law the monarch is sovereign even if in the popular perception parliament is sovereign, and in the popular imagination the people are sovereign.
In consequence parliament can legally override the will of the people, and the Crown can legally override the will of Parliament, but there are circumstances in which the people will defy the law to assert their own diffuse claim to sovereign authority. In other words the legal sovereignty of the crown, and the perceived sovereignty of parliament is constantly constrained by the threat of revolution.
Post new comment