Queen appoints former army chief Cosgove as new Governor-General of Australia

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10601110/Peter-Cosgrove-is-next-Australian-governor-general.html

Peter Cosgrove is next Australian governor general

Australia taps army chief as next governor general


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02804/Peter-Cosgrove_2804087b.jpg
Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the Queen had approved Peter Cosgrove's recommendation


Peter Cosgrove, the former head of the armed forces has been appointed Australia's new governor-general, representing Britain's Queen Elizabeth II in the constitutional monarchy.

Cosgrove, 66, had long been considered the conservative government's preferred candidate to replace outgoing envoy Quentin Bryce, whose term expires in March.

The retired general, who stood down as Australia's defence chief in 2005, commanded the international peacekeeping force that oversaw East Timor's transition to independence and also served as a platoon commander in Vietnam.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the Queen had approved Cosgrove's recommendation, describing him as someone who had "dedicated his life to serving and supporting the Australian community".

"Throughout his life he has demonstrated a commitment to our country and a commitment to service. He has given service of the very highest order to our country," Abbott told reporters.

"I am confident that in this new role he will continue to deliver to a grateful nation leadership beyond politics."

Cosgrove said he was honoured and humbled to assume one of the "great constitutional offices of our democracy".

"With the government's blessing I hope to visit widely and often, I hope to meet as many of my fellow Australians as possible," he said.

The governor-general's role is to maintain direct contact with the Queen, who is Australia's head of state, and the British monarch delegates executive power to them in almost every respect.

They have powers to open and dissolve Australia's parliament, commission the prime minister and appoint ministers, rubber-stamp laws passed by parliament and appoint judges and diplomats.

Though the role is largely ceremonial, the governor-general can intervene in Australia's government.

In 1975, then governor-general John Kerr famously dismissed the Gough-Whitlam Labor government amid a constitutional crisis over deadlocked budget bills in one of the most dramatic episodes in Australia's political history.

Debate periodically flares about Australia becoming a republic, but republicans failed to win a national referendum on the question in 1999.

Ahead of national elections last September, state broadcaster ABC polled more than 1.4 million people on the monarchy and found 40 percent disagreed with a republic, 38 percent were in favour while the rest were neutral.

Both Abbott and Cosgrove are avowed monarchists, but the new governor-general said he would be guided in his new role by "the will of the people",

"I would say I'm a very staunch Australian," Cosgrove said.

"I've served a particular system since I was a lad and if the Australian people retain that system, that will be my guiding light, and it is now. If they ever change at some future time, then the will of the people will prevail."

Cosgrove's predecessor Bryce stirred controversy in November by expressing support for Australia becoming a republic - the first such remarks by a sitting governor-general - in a speech in Sydney.

At the time Abbott said Bryce was entitled as a "governor-general approaching the end of her term to express a personal view on a number of subjects and that's what she was doing".

Good.

If you ask me, outgoing Governor-General Bryce disgraced herself opening her mouth whilst she was still in an office that she doesn't agree with. She may be allowed to say that, but it's not very dignified is it? The office of Governor-General after all is not supposed to be a political one and it's pretty low of her to say that as a parting shot even if she's entitled to hold that view.

There were rumours a few years ago that many touted Prince William or Harry as future Governor-Generals of Australia, although it was knocked back by the then-Howard Government as I suspect they feared creating a stick for the republicans to beat them with. It'd be nice if Abbott would go further (although he's ruled it out for now) by bringing back the Australian titles such as Sir, Lord etc which were abolished a few decades ago. The Canadians have done a good job in cementing royalty in again - they recently re-added the prefix 'Royal' to their armed forces (again).

Thoughts?

[The Don]

Why exactly would you want more peerage titles? We should be moving away from anything related to aristocracy, not dishing out more hereditary titles to further reinforce the idea that people are born better than others without having to work for it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why exactly would you want more peerage titles? We should be moving away from anything related to aristocracy, not dishing out more hereditary titles to further reinforce the idea that people are born better than others without having to work for it.

Why should we move away from it? And whom said we should?

Peerages and titles are an excellent way to reinforce tradition and are a great honour for valuable services/acts of charity. Besides, who said titles have to be hereditary? Most of the awards/titles issued are merely life peerages/awards which expire on the death of the individual.

As it happens I favour the more hereditary titles anyway but support all: CBEs, Knighthoods, peerages etc etc.......

[The Don]

Why should we move away from it? And whom said we should?

Peerages and titles are an excellent way to reinforce tradition and are a great honour for valuable services/acts of charity. Besides, who said titles have to be hereditary? Most of the awards/titles issued are merely life peerages/awards which expire on the death of the individual.

As it happens I favour the more hereditary titles anyway but support all: CBEs, Knighthoods, peerages etc etc.......

What do you mean "whom said it"? I'm stating my opinion on this, can't see in my post where I implied otherwise. Some traditions we're better off without and hereditary titles oppose everything democracy stands for. Why should somebody have an elevated status simply because their great-great grandfather was friendly with those in power?

[-:Undertaker:-]

What do you mean "whom said it"? I'm stating my opinion on this, can't see in my post where I implied otherwise. Some traditions we're better off without and hereditary titles oppose everything democracy stands for. Why should somebody have an elevated status simply because their great-great grandfather was friendly with those in power?

Well you say it as if it's a fact when as far as I can see, it's not an established fact that we 'should' abolish titles. As for democracy and the hereditary principle - is that so? If you sit and watch a session of the House of Lords (unelected, partially hereditary) you'll see that the debate and examination of legislation is a thousand times more intellectual than that of the (elected) House of Commons. Why does something being elected automatically make it better? Most of our MPs are simply de facto selected anyway by top-down politcal parties after which they are then elected in tribalistic safe seats. The potential abolition (which I used to support) of the House of Lords has opened my eyes to the ghastly prospect of having another gang of monkeys merely seeking re-election sitting in our revising chamber.

And besides, principally if you are against the hereditary principle then you must also be against Monarchy?

[The Don]

Well you say it as if it's a fact when as far as I can see, it's not an established fact that we 'should' abolish titles. As for democracy and the hereditary principle - is that so? If you sit and watch a session of the House of Lords (unelected, partially hereditary) you'll see that the debate and examination of legislation is a thousand times more intellectual than that of the (elected) House of Commons. Why does something being elected automatically make it better? Most of our MPs are simply de facto selected anyway by top-down politcal parties after which they are then elected in tribalistic safe seats. The potential abolition of the House of Lords has opened my eyes to the ghastly prospect of having another gang of monkeys as our revising chamber.

And besides, principally if you are against the hereditary principle then you must also be against Monarchy?

Are you truly suggesting that there aren't people equal to/more competent than those with hereditary titles in the houses of lords? Pretty silly if that is what you're suggesting. I'm confused about you saying "Why does something being elected automatically make it better?", Do you not frequently complain about the EU being too undemocratic? Yet here you are suggesting something being undemocratic is good. I do not think peerage titles, particularly hereditary ones, are healthy, and I also think they represent everything we should be moving away from as a society. Nobody is better than someone else simply because of something their long dead ancestor did, and titles reinforce this idea.

To answer the monarchy question, my views have changed a number of times. Based on principle, I am against the monarchy.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Are you truly suggesting that there aren't people equal to/more competent than those with hereditary titles in the houses of lords? Pretty silly if that is what you're suggesting.

Pretty much so in my comparison to the House of Commons. I urge you to watch both chambers when sitting (BBC Parliament has something on nearly everyday) and you'll see exactly what I mean. The House of Commons is increasingly stuffed full of complete airheads looking for their next PR stunt/phrase to get them mentioned along with party rivalism being apparent in the bills proposed, the voting and so on. In a way, that's kind of the point of the House of Commons - but do I want that for our revising chamber? No. I was cool-headed people who will often vote across party boundaries and will spend time analysing the legislation.


I'm confused about you saying "Why does something being elected automatically make it better?", Do you not frequently complain about the EU being too undemocratic? Yet here you are suggesting something being undemocratic is good.

We've been through this before in the difference between the Crown/House of Lords and the European Union/Commission and Ryan (GommeInc) explained it perfectly - http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=793855&p=8083410#post8083410


I do not think peerage titles, particularly hereditary ones, are healthy, and I also think they represent everything we should be moving away from as a society. Nobody is better than someone else simply because of something their long dead ancestor did, and titles reinforce this idea.

Why should we move away from our traditions and parliamentary system which is probably among the best in the world? The Westminster system has served us perfectly well for hundreds of years. Just look at the State Opening of Parliament (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsTmlCx_2PM) with the symbolism that is represented and has been itself shaped by history: Blackrod knocking on the Commons door to symbolise the supremacy of Parliament over legislation rather than the Crown and so on and so on. It's a fantastic system and more importantly: it works.

Those sitting in the House of Commons are elected and are firstly thinking about how to next be elected, secondly their political party being re-elected whereas the country comes behind those. In the House of Lords, a hereditary peer (or a life peer for that matter) is not constrained by those same factors and thus is more likely to put the country first rather than political dealings. Not always I grant you, but much more likely.


To answer the monarchy question, My views have changed a number of times. Based on principle, I am against the monarchy.

Well then we fundamentally disagree. That's why i'm a reactionary whereas you are a radical. Fundamental polar opposites. :P

[The Don]

Pretty much so in my comparison to the House of Commons. I urge you to watch both chambers when sitting (BBC Parliament has something on nearly everyday) and you'll see exactly what I mean. The House of Commons is increasingly stuffed full of complete airheads looking for their next PR stunt/phrase to get them mentioned along with party rivalism being apparent in the bills proposed, the voting and so on. In a way, that's kind of the point of the House of Commons - but do I want that for our revising chamber? No. I was cool-headed people who will often vote across party boundaries and will spend time analysing the legislation.

My point is that there are fully capable people without hereditary titles that could do much the same as those in the houses of lords, and quite a lot of people no longer have hereditary titles in the house of lords so that's a moot point.



We've been through this before in the difference between the Crown/House of Lords and the European Union/Commission and Ryan (GommeInc) explained it perfectly - http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=793855&p=8083410#post8083410

Then your argument about the EU being undemocratic=bad isn't correct since what ryan said isn't about it being democratic or not but about people in the UK making decisions for the UK, which has nothing to do with it being democratic or not so the point still stands that you can't complain about the EU being undemocratic when that's clearly not your problem with it.


Why should we move away from our traditions and parliamentary system which is probably among the best in the world? The Westminster system has served us perfectly well for hundreds of years. Just look at the State Opening of Parliament (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsTmlCx_2PM) with the symbolism that is represented and has been itself shaped by history: Blackrod knocking on the Commons door to symbolise the supremacy of Parliament over legislation rather than the Crown and so on and so on. It's a fantastic system and more importantly: it works.

We're talking about hereditary titles specifically not the parliamentary system :P and we can still have the same parliamentary system without hereditary titles which is what's happening in the house of lords.



Those sitting in the House of Commons are elected and are firstly thinking about how to next be elected, secondly their political party being re-elected whereas the country comes behind those. In the House of Lords, a hereditary peer (or a life peer for that matter) is not constrained by those same factors and thus is more likely to put the country first rather than political dealings. Not always I grant you, but much more likely.


Life peers who have earned their title perhaps, hereditary not really. The house of lords can still function smoothly without hereditary peers... I don't really have a problem with a title being earned, I do with it being passed down though :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

My point is that there are fully capable people without hereditary titles that could do much the same as those in the houses of lords, and quite a lot of people no longer have hereditary titles in the house of lords so that's a moot point.

Yes, and the Lords in my opinion is worse off after the House of Lords Act 1999 with the removal of most of the hereditary peers and their replacement by political appointees. But my point is that even with the second chamber now with the likes of Lord Mandelson and Prescott within it, it's *still* a better revising chamber than a potentially elected one would be which would end up looking more like the House of Commons.

My view for a revision chamber is hereditary peers > appointed peers > elected chamber.

The issue I take with appointed peers in place of hereditary peers is that, again, political dealings are likely to come before the revision of legislation and the interests of the country. A person, usually political anyway, who is awarded a life peerage will likely want to reward the political party that put him/her there. An hereditary peer does not have this concern and can be much more independent.


Then your argument about the EU being undemocratic=bad isn't correct since what ryan said isn't about it being democratic or not but about people in the UK making decisions for the UK, which has nothing to do with it being democratic or not so the point still stands that you can't complain about the EU being undemocratic when that's clearly not your problem with it.

Uh yes it is? The point is that your comparison of the Crown/House of Lords with the European Union is flawed because the House of Lords and the Crown do not propose legislation whereas the Commission does propose legislation similar to the House of Commons and the Commons is rightly elected whereas the Commission is not elected. A body that proposes legislation should be elected - the European Commission fails this test whereas the House of Lords passes it.

The second point is very simple: that those sitting in the House of Lords are British subjects, swear an oath of loyalty to the Monarch and are likely to put British interests first. A foreign Commissioner in Brussels is not likely to put the interests of this realm first.

If I was placed in a position where the interests of this realm came up against those of the French republic, who's interests would I be likely to defend and support? It's a no-brainer.


We're talking about hereditary titles specifically not the parliamentary system :P and we can still have the same parliamentary system without hereditary titles which is what's happening in the house of lords.

Remove the hereditary principle and you'll have a party-political President, a revising chamber ('Senate' in Clegg speak) full of party-political peers and the current House of Commons full of ever-worsening quality MPs.

The House of Lords, as I explained earlier, has already been damaged enough by the removal of the hereditary peers and their replacement by politically appointed peers. Remove those peers and replace with an elected system and it'll get even worse.


Life peers who have earned their title perhaps, hereditary not really. The house of lords can still function smoothly without hereditary peers... I don't really have a problem with a title being earned, I do with it being passed down though :P

I thought you were against titles and peerages altogether? It's the impression I have from this:


I do not think peerage titles, particularly hereditary ones, are healthy, and I also think they represent everything we should be moving away from as a society.

[The Don]

I thought you were against titles and peerages altogether? It's the impression I have from this:

I'm all for rewarding people and recognising them for their contributions. I'm against the idea of them being related to the queen or any royal aspect and instead awarded by the government. I should've made myself clearer in my earlier posts!