> A bad PM can be ousted in a day

1 person, appointed by the Queen. In this case it isnt a "slippery slope" where technically it could happen etc it happened.

"The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, also known simply as the Dismissal, culminated on 11 November 1975 with the dismissal from office of the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), by Governor-General Sir John Kerr."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional...

Later it was alleged that Kerr had acted for the United States government in dismissing Whitlam.

There is actually a lot to one day come out about that interesting period of time.

>There is actually a lot to one day come out about that interesting period of time.

This was when Australians lost their sovereignty and became a puppet state of US corporations and intelligence agencies.

Just like Germany.

Also just like the UK, one could say.

By the House (of Representatives), or in extraordinary circumstances by the head of state (currently the regent of the Commonwealth) but typically that requires the former to formally seek such a remedy from the latter.

I believe by convention the deputy PM in Australia is necessarily a member of this group (also called the Lower House), though our PM could in theory be a member of the upper house (aka the Senate). I don't believe that's ever been the case, though.

Fascinatingly our constitution mentions the role of Prime Minister precisely zero times -- it was assumed to be understood.

Going purely by our Constitution, technically all Ministers of State - that's all 42 people currently listed at https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_depart... - equally share Executive power (and technically they themselves have no power, they can only advise the Queen, and her representative, the Governor-General, who are the ones with the actual power).

However, as with everything in the Westminster system, the written law is only part of the picture, and by convention, we have one Minister to rule them all, and he/she exercises actual Executive power.

> By whom?

Haha. You could ask:

Gough Whitlam

Kevin Rudd

Julia Gillard

Tony Abbot

Malcolm Turnbull

Technically speaking, by Queen Elizabeth.

I.e. by an unelected foreigner who asserts dominance through custom and tradition.

I don’t know how long such arrangements can persevere, but it’d be delightful if they didn’t survive past Lizzie and Charlie.

I mean, it’s the 21st century. If we have no gods, then why do we still have masters?

Ontologically speaking, sovereignty in a secular nation can have no metaphysical assertions (“divine right to rule”), so there can be no legitimate claims of primacy over other humans.

But this is well known. Perhaps it’s the invisible and inactive nature of British monarchy that permits it to survive: they do next no nothing publicly, so they don’t step on toes.