Before all the republicans get their knickers in a twist about our new GG making moves for a republic, there may be a couple of things to consider.

Firstly, it seems the role of the GG has been diminished by pollies, particularly PMs, getting in on anything where there could be good publicity and photo shoots. Like welcoming troops/athletes home, send off for the Para Olympians, etc.

This seems to have reduced the role, and influence, of GG somewhat.

Secondly, the republicans may be putting the cart before the horse, in that the States may have to become republics before Australia could do so. We have a poster here on OLO that seems to be somewhat knowledgeable on our constitution, Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlarka, I think. If I read his last post correctly, and if he is right, he maintains that Australia is not a country. It is a commonwealth of 6 sovereignties. Thus being unable to become a republic until the States do so. That could pose a bit of a problem if one or more States decided against the idea.

I would like to hear more from Mr Gerrit, and others, on this.

Sorry Foxy if this seems a little off topic, but part of the GGs role is to uphold the provissions of the constitution.

I for one says she should be the last GG for ever. Australia needs to stand alone. Australia needs to be counted as a whole, and not a half. It's about time Australia was given the key to the door, so we can enter by the front door and not the night carters door. If any-one wants to know my persuasion in this matter please ask.

Thanks everyone for your inputs.

I agree with Pericles.

I don't think that things will
change quickly.

Banjo, I too am waiting for Mr Gerrit to come
into this thread. His expertise would be
of great value here.

I hope that we'll get some input from him.

I've got a question...

I know that the Governor General of
Australia is the official representative
of the Queen as Head of State. That, she's
been appointed by the Queen on the
recommendation of the Prime Minister for a
current term of 5 years. That she acts on the
advice of the PM and his Government. That
almost all of her constitutional duties are
performed on the advice of the Government.

However, if there is a future proposal for
turning Australia into a Republic, which would
depend on a National Referendum. What would
happen to the position of Governor General?
Would it be totally abolished or a position of
President created in its place?

Australia voted No, at the last National Referendum.

Foxy,

As I understand it, if and when we move to a Republic we replace the G-G with a President, who then becomes our head of state. A lot of the paraphernalia of the British Monarchy will also disappear if it hasn't already.

As for the term of the G-G, it's not set in concrete. Witness what happened to Peter Hollingworth's term which got cut short (to about 2 years) and Michael Jeffery and Bill Deane who both had theirs extended by a short period if I remember correctly.

So, in other words, if the Government thinks the time is right for holding a Referendum on a Republic, and if it was successful, the G-G's term would be cut short. There's no tenure any more, even in that job.

Foxy, we voted no to the model that was presented. Personally I am inclined to err on the side of caution and stick with what we have. Its not too broke, and it could be much worse (particularly if the Constitution comes up for a re-write - think of what havoc vested interests might stir up, not to mention throwing out 100 years of law development).

However, if we were to venture down this path, I'd like to think that this high office retains a sense of dignity which I think it currently has. Governor or Governor-General is to me a much more dignified term than President. "President" might be a term that is poisoned by the way US Presidents act - certainly I hope that our system will remain significantly different to theirs, so the name of the head of state should be different too.

I would not like to see the head of state election devolve into popular elections. This basically ensures that the office becomes achievable only for those rich enough and slick enough to catch the public's interest, and could easily be swayed by media portrayal. I'd prefer the option that saw someone with certain creditials chosen by a set percentage of both Houses of Parliament - maybe 75% majority or something like that. I'd also like to think that politicians be banned from ever being eligible, thereby removing more politics from the role.

I also feel that the role should be mostly restricted to being the rubber-stamp of parliament, staying out of law-making. However, where an imbalance of power is blocking effective law-making by the Parliament (such as a hostile Senate), the GG/Pres should first issue a public warning, then move to dissolve both Houses. The function should be as a aid to facilitate the effectiveness of the other arms of government.