A few days ago Peter FitzSimons wrote an article about Prime Minister Scott Morrison not being at the Centenary of Armistice Commemorations in Paris.
Peter’s view is that the PM should have been there.
Interestingly, he didn’t actually give any reasons why the PM should have been there.
Or why the PM was a better choice than Governor-General.
All I can say is I hope that it wasn’t a subtle way of pushing his republican agenda.
That being said, I think the PM did the right thing by not going and allowing the Governor-General to represent Australia.
And here’s why.
The Governor General is the Commander in Chief of Australia’s military forces.
The Governor-General is the representative of Australia’s Head of State (the Queen of Australia).
The Governor-General as the representative of our Monarch gives bills Royal Assent, making them law.
The Governor-General is also able to dismiss the Prime Minister.
And so on.
So, why not the PM?
In Australia, the Office of Prime Minister holds no special weight or authority.
It isn’t a dedicated role that is publicly elected.
They aren’t even the Leader of the House of Representatives.
All the PM is, is the leader of the Party (or coalition) that has a majority of members in the House of Representatives, and is able to form government.
Yes, I know the Governor-General isn’t a publicly voted role either and is nominated by the PM, though that doesn’t change the importance of the position.
What do you think?
Should Scott Morrison, as PM have gone to Paris to represent Australia?