From: ajw@squid.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (Andrew Waugh)
Subject: Re: Choosing the Prime Minister and the Ministry
Organization: CSIRO, Division of Information Technology, Melbourne
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 03:07:53 GMT

In article <dyfl.714702129@munagin> dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam) writes:
>mrj@moria.cs.su.oz.au (Mark James) writes:
>
>>The Australian Constitution states that the ministry is appointed
>>by the Governor-General, and it has been formalised that the
>>GG should take advice from the Prime Minister alone.
>>But who chooses the Prime Minister?  Does/Can the Parliament act to choose
>>the PM and hence the ministry?
>
>Well, Parliament does not actually choose the PM,

It does, actually. The Prime Minister (or Premier) is the person
who can demonstrate (to the Governer's satisfaction) that they control
an effective majority on the floor of the lower house.

It is very rare, of course, that the lower house actually votes for
a Prime Minister. Normally, the lower house is divided into factions
and there are de jure and de facto leaders of each faction. After
an election the various factions negotiate and eventually settle
on a person who is to lead the lower house. The Governer then
commissions the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister then chooses
a cabinet.

If it is demonstrated that the Prime Minister no longer has the
support of the majority of the members of the lower house, the
Governer can recall the commission and a new Prime Minister is
chosen. Normally, the demonstration that the Prime Minister has
lost the confidence of the house is by a formal motion of no
confidence. The Prime Minister, however, can regard any lost vote
as a motion of no confidence and resign.

Note that there does not have to be an election if the Prime Minister
looses power; the tenure of the Prime Minister is quite independant
of the tenure of the lower house. (Some of the media comments
towards the end of the Greiner premiership showed that the media,
at least, didn't understand this point!)

>but (the House of
>Reps, that is) has the power to effectively remove a PM by passing a
>motion of no confidence.  Under some circumstances (e.g. Whitlam),
>the Senate may be able to do the same, but that is contested, and, in
>any case, extremely rare.

No. Formally, the Senate (or any Upper House) cannot ever remove 
the Prime Minister. However, one of the reserve powers of the
Governer (General) is to resolve dead locks between the two houses
by forcing an election. Consequently, in practice the Senate can often
force an election (and get a new Prime Minister of the Lower House)
by blocking supply. History (in the state parliaments) has shown,
however, that this is not always successful. Often the election merely
confirms the composition of the Lower House and the deadlock has
to be resolved in another manner.

The powers of the various players involved -- the Lower House, the
Upper House, and the Governer (General) --  are ambiguous. In '75,
for example, if Parliament had not been prorogued after Kerr had
installed Fraser as Prime Minister, the ALP could have passed a
motion of no confidence in Fraser on the floor of the house. Kerr
would then have been forced to choose a new leader of the Lower House.
Tactically, the ALP played November 75 very badly.

>Practically, the PM is the leader of the party or coaltion of parties
>which has a majority of seats in the HoR.  I don't think there will
>be any problem in determining who the next PM will be: it's either
>going to be the Labor leader of the Liberal leader.
>
>Theoretically, all sorts of interesting questions can be raised.
>What if no one has a majority and no one is willing to form a
>coalition.  What is Parliament is prepared to support more than one
>PM?  What if Parliament decides to express no confidence in
>everybody?  What if the PM refuses to resign after a vote of no
>confidence?  Is the GG still going to follow the advice of his
>ministers.

Many of these theoretical questions have actually occurred. Try
reading 'A People's Counsel' by Raymond White for examples of
the problems which have actually occurred in the Parliament of
Victoria.

andrew waugh
Newsgroups: aus.politics