David Smith is wrong . Section 1 of the Constitution provides that the legislative power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and the Parliament .

S.61 of the Constitution provides that the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor General as the Queen 's representative . S.126 provides that the Queen may authorise the Governor General to appoint deputies .

Although the Constitution does not mention the term " head of state " it is clear , from ordinary usage , that it is the Queen . It cannot be the Governor General because she can be appointed only by the
Queen .

The Constitution also does not mention the term " sovereign " which is an irrelevant term in the republican debate .

The monarchy is as irrelevant and archaic as a knighthood and needs to be deleted from our Constitution in the interest of national self -respect .

Who the H*ll cares who the head of state is, it's a total irrelevance in todays world. It would be a good idea to transfer little Julia into the job, she could not do much damage there.

However jaylex has a real problem. Any one who's national self respect depends on changing our constitution, with the attendant great cost, & confusion the legal fraternity would generate, has a serious ego problem. This is one problem to which the thousand year test should be applied.

It would be nice if these people would find a more worthy cause to pursue.

A better cause would be to promote a new law prohibiting any Governors General from ever again wearing a pastel coloured suit.

Even better, a law preventing any woman, in public office having access to hair dye, punishable by banning from TV.

What appalling nonsense!

Allegedly, "the unanimous judgment of the High Court of Australia on 8 August 1907 in The King v The Governor of the State of South Australia. ... They ruled that the Queen is the Sovereign and that the Governor-General is the constitutional head of the Commonwealth of Australia."

Fortunately it is possible to look up that case, it's at
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1907/31.html

It doesn't even mention the word "Queen" (not surprisingly, since there was a King, not a Queen, at the time). It mentions the word "Sovereign", but says nothing about who that was (not surprisingly, since it's hard to see how there would be any argument about it).

More importantly, although it describes the G-G as the "Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth" this is not key to the decision, but rather it is just describing the context of the legislation in question - specifically comparing/contrasting his role with that of the Governor of a state. And the legislation in question referred to the "Governor-General". In short it didn't matter to the decision whether he was "Head of State" (of the Commonwealth) or not. What lawyers call "obiter" - not decisive of an issue because it was not the issue that the court, and the counsel arguing the case, were concentrating on.

Further, mostly the court used the (analogous) phrase "Constitutional Head of the State" (ie, State like South Australia) for the state Governor. If the court was saying what Smith thinks, it was also saying that the Governor was the "Head of State" of South Australia. Given that elsewhere Smith relies on Australia (Commonwealth) having been different from New Zealand and Canada, this seems unlikely, to say the least.

Sir David Smith,

It does no ‘porch’ nor ‘Light’ to me, ordinary working man, if the Queen or Sovereign or her Governor General are the head of the Australian State.

It doesn’t matter to me if Australia has a Constitution or hasn’t as, so far, nobody has told me why I need a ‘constitution’ and what the ‘State’ is’.

I typed ‘constitution’ on my search engine and got a long script that I tried to read but found it hard to understand. I tried few times, but somehow in the middle of my efforts I had to give up; not enough brains in my head, I thought.

But then from the media I gathered that it wasn’t only me brains ‘not up to it’, many other university graduated, in fact many luminaries and academics could not make head or tale of it.

Sir David Smith,

When you get some time free from the work you are doing now, kindly tell the people who read this ‘On Line Opinion” what the constitution is, what the State is and why we need to have them.

Before we become a republic,we need now to work out a real constitution that defines rights and responsibilities of individuals,Govt and corporations.

The USA used to have a great constitution,but the Corporate Banking/Wall St interests have dismantled it.In 1913 with the instigation of the Private US Federal Reserve, began an era of looting and wars that still continue to this day.The Central Banksters have absolute power over our Govts and corporations.

It seems clear to me that Elizabeth II is the Head of State of Australia and that the Governor-General assumes this mantle when acting as her Representative.

The present Gov-Gen. may well be our First Lady as the Queen is ranked as a Monarch and not a Lady.

Yours' pedantically,

Is Mise.

The Head of State is the person carrying out the duties and functions of that office. If it was the Queen the republicans would be demanding she carry out those functions and duties, as they would have demanded the previous King do the same.
Phew!

Admit my republican sympathy finds no problems that the Queen is our Sovereign and the Governor-General is our Constitutional head of state.

A constant reminder on the importance to us all, of the need to recall history, to avoid repeating mistakes

Dear Hasbeen,
Do I detect a degree of misogyny in your post?,if so, you have offended me. There are many capable women in high ranking positions across the globe, perhaps you would prefer women to be bare-footed, pregnant and in the kitchen. You may not of noticed that we are in the 21st Century, and women are not altogether stupid.
NSB

i see the PC, Thought Police from Matriarchal Closet Communist Regime are out in force as usual ranting & off topic as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JihQw39hyG0 even many so called lawyers are ignorant about the law, have been under educated on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Act_1986 & don't forget this little piece of closet communist treason either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd3fH9P8394 there have been similar moves at state level against the state & federal constitutions.

The majority of Australians have not yet reached the level of mentality required to form a workable Republic.
Stop wasting all our time & much needed resources with this nonsense debate. Concentrate on righting the wrongs of the recent past instead. It'd be way more beneficial to this country than any idealistic waffling on at the cost of something we can't afford.

Now you are talking noisy! Sounds good to me.

Hang on, I'm a stop the population growth type, so the pregnant bit will have to go, although I do think we should keep practicing, just in case we do need to boost the population some day.

Actually, apart from purple hair, & inappropriate dress, I'm all for anyone, of either sex, achieving their full potential, but it must be done on ability.

Women have a huge hump of objection to live down, due to the ridiculous affirmative action policy of the Labor party.

A very large part of the decline into terminal incompetence of our public services is due to this policy alone. You only have to look at Health & Education, 2 of the earlier feminized departments, to see this.

Even if such an unfair system was a good idea, they tried to do it too quickly. Where there was a tendency to promote men into their first or 2Nd level of incompetence, with a small pool of experience to chose from, many women were promoted to their 5Th or 6Th level. Catastrophe ensued, as you would expect.

Competent women are going to spend many more years than they would have had to, gaining the respect they crave, & the positions they deserve, due to this.

I wish there were a few more Maggie Thatchers out there. God knows we need some leaders with the balls to do what they think is right for their country, rather than what they think will buy a few lousy votes.

Paul Kelly is wrong to assert that Australia's G-G is not its head of state, while David Smith's arguments - which few responders seem to have understood - are clearly and convincingly set out.

Perhaps the confusion arises because nowhere - not in the Australian constitution, nor anywhere else - are the concept of an Australian head of state, and the powers pertaining to the role, defined.

But we have an excellent practical worked example to study, which lays - to rest the central question - is our head of state the G-G or the Sovereign? It is the dismissal in November 1975 of PM Whitlam by G-G John Kerr.

In that situation, Kerr dismissed a PM who commanded a majority in (‘enjoyed the confidence of’) the House of Representatives because a crisis arose in which the PM could no longer guarantee lawfully to meet the expenses of the Commonwealth.

It should be noted that the crisis was not constitutional, as many have erroneously stated, because the constitution was never violated; but political, because it was the politics of actions by both sides of the dispute that were vigorously debated.

By his action in dismissing Whitlam, Kerr demonstrated – and was endorsed within a few weeks by an overwhelming majority of the Australian electorate - that:

- the G-G has the power to dismiss a government commanding a majority in the House id that government proposes to fund the expenses of the Commonwealth by unlawful means; and

- when his decision was appealed to Buckingham Palace, the reply explicitly endorsed the power of the G-G to resolve the matter in accordance with the Australian constitution, and implicitly asserted that the Sovereign had no role to play.

If the concept of Australian head of state encompasses the power to dismiss a government, commanding a majority in the House, which proposes to fund its operations unlawfully; and that such an action complies with the constitution - and by any definition the concept must encompass both - then the G-G is unarguably the Australian head of state and the Sovereign is not.

Ham