We had responsible government in the colonies along Westminister lines, we took the idea of federalism from the United States, joint sittings came from Norway and we borrowed referendums from Switzerland. And as they fail, one after another, they map the gaps in the powers of national government. In the last century, Canberra has been refused power over monopolies and trusts, over all corporations at all stages of their existence, over prices, incomes and rents, over communists, over gerrymanders, the length of parliamentary terms, guarantees of rights and freedoms, and the replacement of Her Majesty by an Australian head of state. Nowhere is the rhetoric of the document more opaque. Civilians who plunge in, putting all cribs aside, determined to make sense of their nation's basic law, would be forgiven for thinking we live in a near absolute monarchy.
Ministers are there but no mention of a prime minister or cabinet.
Responsible government doesn't get a nod. Instead, the governor-general is said to command all executive power on behalf of the Queen who can veto any law passed by the Australian parliament. This looked ridiculous even in the 1890s and was savagely criticised throughout the long federation campaigns by liberal spirits such as Deakin and hard-headed men such as George Reid. Samuel Griffiths, principal draftsman of the document, warned darkly that London would reject any such attempt. So the old Queen's newest possession, Australia, opted to follow the tactful English device of securing democracy through vague conventions while maintaining the formal pretence that Victoria Regina was all powerful still.