RIP Bob Hawke. A true visionary that left an incredible legacy. A politician that united the country and wanted what was good for everyone.

There is no valid reason to be paying former politicians after they have left the job.

You may have written that as an authoritative statement from on high that we mere mortals must accept or risk being called nasty names.....  but in the real world, that is just your opinion... no more and no less, regardless of your nasty name calling. You have the same authority to make your statement than we mere mortals have to ignore it.

Tomorrow, regardless of opinions various vested interests have tried to shove down my throat in this election campaign, I will vote for someone who cares about our country, rather than the profits their mates in other countries can make at the expense of us Australian. I had worked out my vote many weeks ago. Put simply, it will not be for an extreme party but instead will be for middle Australia, and that generally means I sometimes swing between either Liberal or Labour, although I won't reveal which on any public forum.

My political 'values' were formed during the Fraser years and strengthened during the Hawke years.

We can be aspirational without this obsession with what's in it for me. Anything different is not a threat.

Vale Bob Hawke.

So you didn't vote for the guy who cared about the union's income more than the workers they are supposed to represent. Good move, I'm sure those cleaners will appreciate you thought of them.

No, Parliamentarians are remunerated for the job they’re doing whilst they’re doing it - no issue with that whatsoever, although they are somewhat overly highly paid considering their job is not especially arduous or even held to a reasonable sense of accountability.

There are no private sector jobs I can think of where performance evaluations and opportunities for ‘being held to account’ only occur once every 3-4 (or worse 6) years.

There is no valid reason to be paying former politicians after they have left the job.

However their performance evaluation is absolute, you either continue or loose your job.

Which is why parliament should be fixed term, 4 years for both houses, same super as the rest of us. Salary is reflective of their short term contract nature.

So you didn't vote for the guy who cared about the union's income more than the workers they are supposed to represent. Good move, I'm sure those cleaners will appreciate you thought of them.

I take it you voted for the guys that cut penalty rates

So you didn't vote for the guy who cared about the union's income more than the workers they are supposed to represent. Good move, I'm sure those cleaners will appreciate you thought of them.

I take it you voted for the guys that cut penalty rates

Well, which side, both have cut rates, although I haven't actually voted since 2013.

However I support the implementation of the Fair Work commission under the ALP and its decisions made since.

Do I support the completely unrealistic value of penalty rates that excess 150%, no, never, there is no justification for such a penalty.

In a way, I have suffered a death in the family.  I am distantly related to Robert James Lee Hawke, although I do not know how distantly related I am.  I will not go into detail. but I consider "Uncle Bob" has been the best Prime Minister during my lifetime.

He has left us all a memorial to him.  Grab your wallet.  Pull out your Medicare Card.  Bob Hawke is the reason you have that card.

Vale Bob.

Geoff

So you didn't vote for the guy who cared about the union's income more than the workers they are supposed to represent. Good move, I'm sure those cleaners will appreciate you thought of them.

RTT, if you read all my post you would have noticed the last sentence; (Put simply, it will not be for an extreme party but instead will be for middle Australia, and that generally means I sometimes swing between either Liberal or Labour, although I won't reveal which on any public forum)

I can reveal I did not vote for Palmer or One Nation or similar rabble, as I voted for one of the major parties with a proper organisational structure, as I see the organisation, not the politicians, as the ones who really set the tone and ethics and manage policy development, as well as the promotional of 'new blood'. RTT, bit like that mining industry or what ever you work in; the decisions made in the top management as a whole, not just the CEO, set the tone for the middle managers who set the tone for how the lower level managers operate the manufacturing plant. The politicians promote the policies developed by the party organisation. The politicians come and go but the organisational structure can outlast a politician.

Some may say in QLD Joh served while he had the confidence of the Queensland Nationals president Robert Sparkes and when he lost it Sparkes was part of his removal. In the same way, it is the party than can organise the party poll that is now needed to replace the leader. Parties would not have had the troubles they had with various candidates who needed to drop out due to scum bag histories, if the organisational wing had been more efficient. You can bet the organisational wings of each proper party will now be checking past histories as well.

So you didn't vote for the guy who cared about the union's income more than the workers they are supposed to represent. Good move, I'm sure those cleaners will appreciate you thought of them.

RTT, if you read all my post you would have noticed the last sentence; (Put simply, it will not be for an extreme party but instead will be for middle Australia, and that generally means I sometimes swing between either Liberal or Labour, although I won't reveal which on any public forum)

I can reveal I did not vote for Palmer or One Nation or similar rabble, as I voted for one of the major parties with a proper organisational structure, as I see the organisation, not the politicians, as the ones who really set the tone and ethics and manage policy development, as well as the promotional of 'new blood'. RTT, bit like that mining industry or what ever you work in; the decisions made in the top management as a whole, not just the CEO, set the tone for the middle managers who set the tone for how the lower level managers operate the manufacturing plant. The politicians promote the policies developed by the party organisation. The politicians come and go but the organisational structure can outlast a politician.

Some may say in QLD Joh served while he had the confidence of the Queensland Nationals president Robert Sparkes and when he lost it Sparkes was part of his removal. In the same way, it is the party than can organise the party poll that is now needed to replace the leader. Parties would not have had the troubles they had with various candidates who needed to drop out due to scum bag histories, if the organisational wing had been more efficient. You can bet the organisational wings of each proper party will now be checking past histories as well.

So you didn't vote for the guy who cared about the union's income more than the workers they are supposed to represent. Good move, I'm sure those cleaners will appreciate you thought of them.

RTT, if you read all my post you would have noticed the last sentence; (Put simply, it will not be for an extreme party but instead will be for middle Australia, and that generally means I sometimes swing between either Liberal or Labour, although I won't reveal which on any public forum)

I can reveal I did not vote for Palmer or One Nation or similar rabble, as I voted for one of the major parties with a proper organisational structure, as I see the organisation, not the politicians, as the ones who really set the tone and ethics and manage policy development, as well as the promotional of 'new blood'. RTT, bit like that mining industry or what ever you work in; the decisions made in the top management as a whole, not just the CEO, set the tone for the middle managers who set the tone for how the lower level managers operate the manufacturing plant. The politicians promote the policies developed by the party organisation. The politicians come and go but the organisational structure can outlast a politician.

Some may say in QLD Joh served while he had the confidence of the Queensland Nationals president Robert Sparkes and when he lost it Sparkes was part of his removal. In the same way, it is the party than can organise the party poll that is now needed to replace the leader. Parties would not have had the troubles they had with various candidates who needed to drop out due to scum bag histories, if the organisational wing had been more efficient. You can bet the organisational wings of each proper party will now be checking past histories as well.

Well, I tend to think I'm more focused on middle Australia too and have at times not voted the way some people think I might because I thought the choice was crap. They have to earn my vote (when I voted), its not a rubber stamp. I'm glad I didn't vote in 2016 as no way in hell could I have voted for MT and likewise BS.

I work in primary aluminium production, but came from mining and previously worked in CQ, now Dubai but 2010 was in India. Was supposed to be a 3 year expat adventure that has rolled into the usual Dubai 3 year stay that just keeps repeating itself because it is a good life and experience and good for kids too.

While I agree with you most of the decisions are made near the top, not at the top, in Politics public perception is that there is a single point of accountability and they hold that person to that. It wouldn't be the first time a leader has fallen due to mistakes by those beneath him/her, not them themselves. ie Browyn Bishop, Barry O'Farrell to name a few.

Billy enjoyed too much loyalty by the ALP, he should have been dumped/resigned after 2016. Albo is the people's choice and has been for a few years, but the ACTU didn't allow it. The lesson for the ALP is to stop pandering to the unions, they are no longer the core of the party support. Something like 15% of the working population is a union member and not all of them vote ALP, maybe 75% at best. So that means the union support in the ALP is around 20-25% of its support base, tops and declining.

While I agree with you most of the decisions are made near the top, not at the top, in Politics public perception is that there is a single point of accountability and they hold that person to that. It wouldn't be the first time a leader has fallen due to mistakes by those beneath him/her, not them themselves. ie Browyn Bishop, Barry O'Farrell to name a few.

Some may say the same matter of foolish underlings undone Gough Whitlam, especially that fool who was trying for loans with or without approval from the bureaucrats whose job it was to ensure legal probity. There also were a few loose cannons in Gough's team with egos that considered themselves more important than the combined team.

On another topic, I suspect Barnaby Joyce might want his Deputy PM job back, despite the fact another National hold that position.

While I agree with you most of the decisions are made near the top, not at the top, in Politics public perception is that there is a single point of accountability and they hold that person to that. It wouldn't be the first time a leader has fallen due to mistakes by those beneath him/her, not them themselves. ie Browyn Bishop, Barry O'Farrell to name a few.

Some may say the same matter of foolish underlings undone Gough Whitlam, especially that fool who was trying for loans with or without approval from the bureaucrats whose job it was to ensure legal probity. There also were a few loose cannons in Gough's team with egos that considered themselves more important than the combined team.

On another topic, I suspect Barnaby Joyce might want his Deputy PM job back, despite the fact another National hold that position.

ah Gough, the PM that was sacked twice. First by his I believe friend who I believe he appointed and the 2nd by the people in a big dumping. Yet for some reason he achieved hero status in the faithful.

BJ has proven the naysayers completely and utterly wrong and now has his position in the NAT's and LNP cast in stone.
- ALP tried to get rid of him using Section 44, he was voted back with an increased majority
- LIB tried to get rid of him because he had his old fella in his office secretary and the moral outcry, usually by those who are of equal guilt, he was voted back in with increased majority.

If we have learnt nothing from this election, then we should at least learn that the people of Tammworth want BJ as their local MP and to hell with any legal or moral BS that others tried to throw at him. The man is untouchable and yes I'm sure he wants his Leadership position back and rightly so, it was taken from him incorrectly. However, its likely that BJ will speak with SCOMO and find some compensation for the incumbent.

ah Gough, the PM that was sacked twice. First by his I believe friend who I believe he appointed and the 2nd by the people in a big dumping. Yet for some reason he achieved hero status in the faithful.

That whole saga is an interesting case.
First; the Senate did not reject the Appropriation Bills. The Senate refused to vote on the Bills, by passing motions to defer the vote.
The Senate had become hostile due to one State Premier refusing to appoint the ALP's nominee to fill a casual vacancy in the Senate; a custom which had stood for years, and has since become law. ALP Senator Bert Millner died, and the NSW Premier appointed his own man. Subsequently, in a botched plan, DLP Senator Vince Gair from Queensland was persuaded to accept an appointment to Ireland. Whitlam failed to monitor this properly and, without going into huge detail,  Bjelke-Petersen completely outplayed him and nominated Albert Field as the replacement. Field was later described in Canberra as "looking like an artificially inseminated cow - knowing that something wonderful was happening but without the slightest idea how."

Second; Whitlam completely underestimated Kerr. Kerr was very concerned about his own importance and his role. He was a very vain man. He became quite put out by Whitlam's continued insistence that the Governor-General must act on the advice of his Ministers. Fraser, on the other hand, knew how to flatter Kerr's ego by reminding him about the Reserve Powers he had. There is a good deal on record about Kerr's ideas of his role, expressed to many foreign Heads of State among others.

Had he acted impartially, he would have requested the Senate to actually vote on the Appropriation Bills. He could not force the issue, but a request may have been interesting. There is no doubt at all that Kerr had conspired with Fraser, and that Whitlam was caught completely, and failed to take appropriate action immediately.

Whitlam achieved hero status "among the faithful" firstly because he led the ALP out of 23 years in the wilderness, and secondly because of various social reforms he championed. Many of his colleagues were undisciplined (including the "fool trying for loans" - to wit Rex Connor.) One former ALP parliamentarian ( I'll have to look up who it was), said to the ALP veteran Fred Daly, that "Gough will take you into office, and he'll take you out again." Prophetic words indeed.

That whole saga is an interesting case.
First; the Senate did not reject the Appropriation Bills. The Senate refused to vote on the Bills, by passing motions to defer the vote.
The Senate had become hostile due to one State Premier refusing to appoint the ALP's nominee to fill a casual vacancy in the Senate; a custom which had stood for years, and has since become law. ALP Senator Bert Millner died, and the NSW Premier appointed his own man. Subsequently, in a botched plan, DLP Senator Vince Gair from Quuensland was persuaded to accept an appointment to Ireland. Whitlam failed to monitor this properly and, without going into huge detail,  Bjelke-Petersen completely outplayed him and nominated Albert Field as the replacement. Field was later described in Canberra as "looking like an artificially inseminated cow - knowing that something wonderful was happening but without the slightest idea how."

Second; Whitlam completely underestimated Kerr. Kerr was very concerned about his own importance and his role. He was a very vain man. He became quite put out by Whitlam's continued insistence that the Governor-General must act on the advice of his Ministers. Fraser, on the other hand, knew how to flatter Kerr's ego by reminding him about the Reserve Powers he had. There is a good deal on record about Kerr's ideas of his role, expressed to many foreign Heads of State among others.

Had he acted impartially, he would have requested the Senate to actually vote on the Appropriation Bills. He could not force the issue, but a request may have been interesting. There is no doubt at all that Kerr had conspired with Fraser, and that Whitlam was caught completely, and failed to take appropriate action immediately.

Whitlam achieved hero status "among the faithful" firstly because he led the ALP out of 23 years in the wilderness, and secondly because of various social reforms he championed. Many of his colleagues were undisciplined (including the "fool trying for loans" - to wit Rex Connor.) One former ALP parliamentarian ( I'll have to look up who it was), said to the ALP veteran Fred Daly, that "Gough will take you into office, and he'll take you out again." Prophetic words indeed.

Thanks
I was only 6y old at the time so I remember basically zip. The TV miniseries "The Dismissal" may make a good history lesson if it was done correctly, I have no idea if it was.

Was Kerr right or wrong to fire Gough? No idea.

However the process basically put decision to the people and the people in a landslide gave it to Fraser. So for me, right or wrong the people where given the choice and democracy played it out from there. So for the hero worshipers, do they oppose democracy? And if Gough was outplayed (again no idea), then that's politics and people need to accept this.  

Of interest, if anyone remembers the Qantas A380 with the engine that blew up. Well the RAAF representative to Kerr at the time was actually that same pilot (title is a french term, I cannot remember). In his book, he briefly talks about the events of the day of the dismissal and it was basically a race between Gough and Kerr on who was going to fire who first. As you said, Gough was outplayed.

Of interest, if anyone remembers the Qantas A380 with the engine that blew up. Well the RAAF representative to Kerr at the time was actually that same pilot (title is a french term, I cannot remember).

You are thinking of Captain Richard Champion de Crespigny ( "Champion" is sometimes omitted), who was in command of flight QF 32. It was on its climb out from Singapore when the number two engine blew itself to bits, taking hydraulic and electrical systems with it, and punching holes in the wing and a fuel tank. There were also two Check Captains on the flight deck - Harry Wubben who was being trained as a Check Captain, and David Evans who was the trainer. Evans took the PA and made the famous announcement, in typical Qantas understatement, "I do apologise; by now you will be aware that we have a technical issue with our number two engine." That's a bit like saying that there was a small detonation over Hiroshima.

Was Kerr right or wrong to fire Gough? No idea.

I concur with this.

I would suggest that it is likely that the full picture will never be known, as so many of the principle participants are now dead (it is coming up on 44 years since the events) and there was a good amount of 'fog of war' which meant nobody involved knew the whole story.

I don't think this is remotely close to being the most important part of the event though. The main lesson should be don't get so close to the edge that the reserve powers might come into play.

However the process basically put decision to the people and the people in a landslide gave it to Fraser. So for me, right or wrong the people where given the choice and democracy played it out from there. So for the hero worshipers, do they oppose democracy? And if Gough was outplayed (again no idea), then that's politics and people need to accept this.

It is for this reason that I consider that the dismissal of the Whitlam Government was not a constitutional crisis.

It was actually a demonstration that one of the crucial 'safety valves' in the constitution worked as designed. It was not only the fact that it worked which matters, but also that the method of its working hinged on passing a short term budget extension just to cover the time needed to refer the issue back to the people at an election.

Kerr did an important service to the nation in this part of things. Any future GG faced with a similar deadlock (unlikely, so long as the lessons from the first one are remembered) will be able to rely on this precedent of taking it to an election.

Of interest, if anyone remembers the Qantas A380 with the engine that blew up. Well the RAAF representative to Kerr at the time was actually that same pilot (title is a french term, I cannot remember). In his book, he briefly talks about the events of the day of the dismissal and it was basically a race between Gough and Kerr on who was going to fire who first. As you said, Gough was outplayed.

Whitlam was always going to get outplayed on that particular part of things, as the Queen had been advised to delay getting involved as long as possible.

Firing a GG is something that I'd like to be difficult, but I think we do need a better speed bump than hoping the Queen will delay getting involved.

In the event that Whitlam did win the race and fire the GG, he would have turned the parliamentary deadlock into a full blown constitutional crisis. Sir Roden Cutler was the longest-serving state Governor who would have served as the Administrator of the Commonwealth (the title of the acting GG) in the event of the GG getting fired. He later said that he would have let the parliament resolve it – easily said afterwards to avoid controversy, but impossible to know whether he could have made that decision when he was in the hot seat.

Of interest, if anyone remembers the Qantas A380 with the engine that blew up. Well the RAAF representative to Kerr at the time was actually that same pilot

Whilst de Crespigny certainly served as RAAF Aide de Camp, it was not with Sir John Kerr (18th G-G) The two Governors-General whom de Crespigny served were Sir Zelman Cowan (19th) and Sir Ninian Stephen (20th).

Of interest, if anyone remembers the Qantas A380 with the engine that blew up. Well the RAAF representative to Kerr at the time was actually that same pilot (title is a french term, I cannot remember).

You are thinking of Captain Richard Champion de Crespigny ( "Champion" is sometimes omitted), who was in command of flight QF 32. It was on its climb out from Singapore when the number two engine blew itself to bits, taking hydraulic and electrical systems with it, and punching holes in the wing and a fuel tank. There were also two Check Captains on the flight deck - Harry Wubben who was being trained as a Check Captain, and David Evans who was the trainer. Evans took the PA and made the famous announcement, in typical Qantas understatement, "I do apologise; by now you will be aware that we have a technical issue with our number two engine." That's a bit like saying that there was a small detonation over Hiroshima.

Yes, they are the guys.

Well, you don't really want the Captain coming across

"ahhh F---k, I assume you saw the F'n No.2 blow the crap out of the wing and now leaking fuel"

You'll end up with a scene out of Flying High with the cabin in chaos. As my pilot friends say, they train, train, train, train in the Sim so much that if it happens in real life they just go to auto pilot (mentally) to work the problem. Yes for the QF32 event, there was no training for that level of failure, but training tells them to work the problem.

Of interest, if anyone remembers the Qantas A380 with the engine that blew up. Well the RAAF representative to Kerr at the time was actually that same pilot

Whilst de Crespigny certainly served as RAAF Aide de Camp, it was not with Sir John Kerr (18th G-G) The two Governors-General whom de Crespigny served were Sir Zelman Cowan (19th) and Sir Ninian Stephen (20th).

I don't have his book anymore, so I won't argue the point. But from memory he talks about being in the GG's house at the time Fraser came to visit and that was his job.

It is for this reason that I consider that the dismissal of the Whitlam Government was not a constitutional crisis.

It was actually a demonstration that one of the crucial 'safety valves' in the constitution worked as designed. It was not only the fact that it worked which matters, but also that the method of its working hinged on passing a short term budget extension just to cover the time needed to refer the issue back to the people at an election.

Kerr did an important service to the nation in this part of things. Any future GG faced with a similar deadlock (unlikely, so long as the lessons from the first one are remembered) will be able to rely on this precedent of taking it to an election.

Of interest, if anyone remembers the Qantas A380 with the engine that blew up. Well the RAAF representative to Kerr at the time was actually that same pilot (title is a french term, I cannot remember). In his book, he briefly talks about the events of the day of the dismissal and it was basically a race between Gough and Kerr on who was going to fire who first. As you said, Gough was outplayed.

Whitlam was always going to get outplayed on that particular part of things, as the Queen had been advised to delay getting involved as long as possible.

Firing a GG is something that I'd like to be difficult, but I think we do need a better speed bump than hoping the Queen will delay getting involved.

In the event that Whitlam did win the race and fire the GG, he would have turned the parliamentary deadlock into a full blown constitutional crisis. Sir Roden Cutler was the longest-serving state Governor who would have served as the Administrator of the Commonwealth (the title of the acting GG) in the event of the GG getting fired. He later said that he would have let the parliament resolve it – easily said afterwards to avoid controversy, but impossible to know whether he could have made that decision when he was in the hot seat.

Thanks for this, informative

I believe the Queen no longer has no power and cannot fire the GG? Or to do so would see the country become a Republic overnight.

The issue this has left is a interesting situation where
- The PM hires the GG (clearly a case of conflict of interest, although it worked in 1975 because Whitlam didn't realise Kerr's political views had changed from his ALP days when he was appointed)

- The GG is able to fire his/her recruiter, would this happen in the corporate world, no. Also note Kerr suffered greatly by some ALP supporters for the rest of his life and basically moved to the UK to try and escape and by all accounts the rest of his life was miserable.

With the Queen no longer a further safety valve, the appointment of the GG should have been reallocated, but it never was and for me this has left a potential "risk" for the future, which hopefully never happens. Hence the hiring and firing of the GG should be changed to one of a number of options. Also remember if I recall correctly the GG is actually held in position with the support of the military, ie they report to him/her (?).

- Joint sitting of the house, maybe not hiring but certainly firing.

- Committee of the rest of the countries state Governors

- Popular vote . The issue with this is then it becomes a risk of a Presidential campaign for someone with minimal input to day to day running of the govt and should have no policy, political bias etc and if you look at most of our former GG's, few would even know who they were, all for which has a large cost to appoint. So back to one of the other options.

I was 31 at the time and remember it vividly. I was ready to man the barricades but Whitlam was the one who told us to be calm. Labor had made so many much needed changes in society yet was opposed by the conservatives at every step. I went overseas in 1974 for 6 months and when I returned my teacher wages and conditions had improved immeasurably. I have an economics degree and do admit that Whitlam was no economist. There was so much that needed doing and it would have been better had Labor won in 1969. The world oil crisis arrived and there were some reckless people in the ministry which is why Fraser was able to scare the population. I idolised Whitlam and would have done anything he called for. I have never idolised another politician since although Jacinda Ardern comes close.
I was visiting NZ in 2008 when Helen Clark lost to John Key and I wondered if I was doing the right thing in emigrating (actually in 2010). However while I did not agree with Key economically he was not the social neanderthal that Howard and Abbott and possibly Morrison are. There was an item on our news last night that hits on the NZ immigration website went up 5 fold from Australia over the weekend just like from USA after Trump was elected. I made the best decision of my life and as some of my many friends here commiserated with me this week, I, as always, replied I am Aussie by birth but Kiwi by choice.
I no longer have a vote in Australia ,even though I go back to visit relatives and friends twice each year, but have voted in NZ after I had been a resident for one year. Now  that I am a citizen, I will be able to vote in NZ as long as I visit back once every 3 years. However I have no plans of ever leaving although, by my mother's wishes, my will states that my ashes are to be returned to our family plot at Rookwood.(LOL)

Nice  Brian

I don't have his book anymore, so I won't argue the point. But from memory he talks about being in the GG's house at the time Fraser came to visit and that was his job.

I do have the book and I quote from Chapter 5 "Aide de Camp", page 49:-

"I reported to Government House in February 1982 armed with a new wardrobe - uniforms with aiguillettes, business suits, white mess dress, black tie and tails - ready and eager to take my career in an entirely new direction.".........

" I served during the terms of Sir Zelman Cowen and Sir Ninian Stephen, two remarkable yet very different people who had reached the pinnacle of their careers. It was an honour to work with two such distinguished governors-general."

The Kerr/Fraser/Whitlam episode reached its climax on 11 November 1975, and Kerr was succeeded by Sir Zelman Cowen on 8 December 1977; a little over four years before de Crespigny arrived on the scene.

Thanks for this, informative

I believe the Queen no longer has no power and cannot fire the GG? Or to do so would see the country become a Republic overnight.

… With the Queen no longer a further safety valve …

Appointing and dismissing the Governor-General or a state Governor is still a power vested only in the Queen, conventionally exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister or Premier. To take any powers away from the Queen would require a Constitutional amendment.

In any case, the position of the Queen in 1975 was to delay getting involved on either side as long as possible - even going so far as having Prince Charles make that position known rather than doing so through her offices - which effectively meant she had reinforced the powers of the GG.

I can't see why the Queen would ever fire a GG without being advised to do so by the PM, what's more important is that her power to not fire a GG remains intact as the safety valve of last resort.

The issue this has left is a interesting situation where
- The PM hires the GG (clearly a case of conflict of interest, although it worked in 1975 because Whitlam didn't realise Kerr's political views had changed from his ALP days when he was appointed)

The PM does not hire the GG. The PM only recommends that the Queen appoint a GG, and the Queen makes the appointment.

This was certainly the case when the Queen appointed Major-General David Hurley as the GG designate in December last year. Even the statement from the PM's spin doctors confirmed so.

There is also precedent of the Queen refusing to appoint as recommended in the case of at least one state Premier's choice for Governor. Joh Bjelke-Peterson is the exception to the rule (as usual) as his attempt to have Colin Hannah's commission extended was knocked back by the Queen.

This is quite similar to the everyday occurrence in the corporate world where an executive officer will recommend a board appointment but it is up to the board/owner/owners/shareholders to decide on whether to make the appointment.

- The GG is able to fire his/her recruiter, would this happen in the corporate world, no.

This certainly would happen in the corporate world, when a board member recommended by an executive officer has the power to vote on firing said executive officer. If anything, it should happen more.

I am talking about the Australian corporate world, of course, and not the UAE corporate world you're used to where the difference between resignation and firing is whether the sheik has your hand chopped off.

Also note Kerr suffered greatly by some ALP supporters for the rest of his life and basically moved to the UK to try and escape and by all accounts the rest of his life was miserable.

Yes, this is well established.

Also remember if I recall correctly the GG is actually held in position with the support of the military, ie they report to him/her (?).

Yes, the GG is the commander-in-chief of the ADF. Just like the GG's power to make regulations etc, this is normally exercised on the advice of the PM.

This is normal in countries which have the head of state and leader of the government as separate roles, as the head of state needs to retain the ability to order the military to arrest the PM.

With the Queen no longer a further safety valve, the appointment of the GG should have been reallocated, but it never was and for me this has left a potential "risk" for the future, which hopefully never happens. Hence the hiring and firing of the GG should be changed to one of a number of options. …

- Joint sitting of the house, maybe not hiring but certainly firing.

- Committee of the rest of the countries state Governors

- Popular vote . (I agree with you - don't go here!)

No GG has been dismissed as yet so we don't have a real world example of how dismissing a GG would go in practice. It seems to be generally accepted that the advice of the PM is what would convince the Queen to dismiss a GG, but that there's no guarantee on how quickly the Queen would act to do so.

I'd be on board with the establishment of a convention that the PM's advice to the Queen on dismissing a GG would need to be backed by a joint sitting, and would add that it should require a two-thirds supermajority rather than the 50% +1 needed for normal legislation.

For the appointment of the next GG, better to simply rotate it among the states and appoint the incumbent Governor of the next state in line (subject to that Governor having been in office for at least two years and to that Governor not having previously been a Commonwealth Minister or federal party leader) when the office becomes vacant. The upcoming installation of Major-General David Hurley as GG (NSW Governor at the time of his appointment as GG-designate) could be used as the first example of this, with the rotation to continue from there on. It could be rotation by date of colonial proclamation (next would be Tasmania, then WA, SA, Victoria, Queensland) or it could be by alphabetical order (Queensland next, then SA, Tasmania, Victoria, WA) but NSW would be first either way.