The Reserve Powers in Times of Political Crisis: The Dutton/Turnbull Leadership Challenge and Royal Assent to the Medevac Bill and Brexit Bills

Q3 Social Sciences Federal Law Review Pub Date : 2020-11-25 DOI:10.1177/0067205x20973485
A. Twomey
{"title":"The Reserve Powers in Times of Political Crisis: The Dutton/Turnbull Leadership Challenge and Royal Assent to the Medevac Bill and Brexit Bills","authors":"A. Twomey","doi":"10.1177/0067205x20973485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The period of 2018–19 threw up political crises in Australia and the United Kingdom that raised circumstances in which the reserve powers of the Queen or the Governor-General might have been exercised. This article discusses in depth the 2018 challenge to Prime Minister Turnbull’s leadership, including how the Governor-General should have responded if he had been asked to dissolve Parliament in the midst of the challenge or if he had been advised not to appoint Dutton as Prime Minister due to concerns about his eligibility to sit in Parliament. The second part deals with the question of whether royal assent should be refused, upon ministerial advice, to a bill, such as the Medevac Bill in Australia and two Brexit delay bills in the United Kingdom, which were passed against the wishes of the relevant government, including when procedural or non-justiciable constitutional requirements were breached in the passage of the bills. It concludes that the best way of resolving such issues is to resort to the application of fundamental constitutional principles.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"49 1","pages":"96 - 121"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0067205x20973485","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Federal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205x20973485","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The period of 2018–19 threw up political crises in Australia and the United Kingdom that raised circumstances in which the reserve powers of the Queen or the Governor-General might have been exercised. This article discusses in depth the 2018 challenge to Prime Minister Turnbull’s leadership, including how the Governor-General should have responded if he had been asked to dissolve Parliament in the midst of the challenge or if he had been advised not to appoint Dutton as Prime Minister due to concerns about his eligibility to sit in Parliament. The second part deals with the question of whether royal assent should be refused, upon ministerial advice, to a bill, such as the Medevac Bill in Australia and two Brexit delay bills in the United Kingdom, which were passed against the wishes of the relevant government, including when procedural or non-justiciable constitutional requirements were breached in the passage of the bills. It concludes that the best way of resolving such issues is to resort to the application of fundamental constitutional principles.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
政治危机时期的后备权力:达顿/特恩布尔领导的挑战和对医疗后送法案和英国脱欧法案的皇家批准
2018-19年期间,澳大利亚和英国爆发了政治危机,引发了女王或总督可能行使保留权力的情况。本文深入讨论了2018年对特恩布尔总理领导层的挑战,包括如果总督在挑战中被要求解散议会,或者由于担心达顿是否有资格参加议会而被建议不要任命他为总理,他应该如何回应。第二部分讨论了是否应根据部长的建议,拒绝批准一项法案的问题,如澳大利亚的Medevac法案和英国的两项脱欧延期法案,这些法案是违背相关政府的意愿通过的,包括在通过法案时违反了程序性或不可审理的宪法要求。它的结论是,解决这些问题的最佳方式是适用基本宪法原则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Federal Law Review
Federal Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
No Place Like Home? Alienage, Popular Sovereignty and an Implied Freedom of Entry into Australia Under the Constitution Traversing Uncharted Territory? The Legislative and Regulatory Landscape of Heritable Human Genome Editing in Australia Foreign Interference and the Incremental Chilling of Free Speech Reviewing Review: Administrative Justice and the Immigration Assessment Authority Managing Ownership of Copyright in Research Publications to Increase the Public Benefits from Research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1