In referring to the drive for a republic “We need an Australian head of state” is a remark often made. It puzzles me. Why do we need a head of state at all? As the monarchy in England evolved into a constitutional monarchy the monarch became a ceremonial figure, and the prime minister carried out the laws that parliament made. The head of state is a figurehead who is a presence at ceremonial occasions. In England the monarch is the head of state. An Australian head of state would serve the function that the monarch serves in England.

A republic does not need someone to take the place of the monarch. If a ceremonial occasion is sufficiently important the prime minster should be present. If it is not sufficiently important the prime minister can designate a person to represent Australia.

The office of head of state is merely another political mouth at the trough. We don’t need it.

We need an authority separate from the legislators so that in the rare circumstances where the law making process fails they can take action to rectify the problem. The Governor General's job is most of the time ceremonial but they do have reserve powers that they can use in times of crisis.

If people are so concerned that we must have an Australian head of state, then why don't we just declare the Queen to be an Australian? (It was a long time ago that I read the constitution, but as far as I can remember there wouldn't be anything in it that directly prohibits this. I'm guessing the UK laws would prevent it, but that doesn't stop us call her Australian even if they reject it.)

Personally, I don't care either way about a Monarchy or Republic. If we become a republic I'd be happy with an elected or appointed head of state: as long as we don't have the American system where the President alone is the executive branch. The Cabinet consisting MPs forming the executive works very well in my opinion.

What I do question though is: Why do we have a prime minister? Now, there's a job which is not really needed. Getting rid of it would remove a lot of distracting drama from our politics.

Hi David, I agree the need for a head of state is somewhat dubious at best.
Hi thinkabit, what you are really saying is if the democratically elected representatives of the people should get out of line. then we need an appointed member of the establishment like the GG, to return us to the straight and narrow. Democracy is fine providing it does not upset the established order of a good capitalist society that Australia must be.

When all else fails its time for fists to settle disputes as some countries do.

Paul1405, "capitalist society that Australia must be"

The Marxism preferred by the Greens would never provide them with the Centrelink benefits and health care and housing that so many of them enjoy.

It is particularly noticeable that the high-rolling toffs of the Greens 'Protest' Party live well when the taxpayer is footing the bill. What about that vacant space Larissa Waters, the Greens Nancy Reagan lookalike ('the lights are on but there is no-one at home'), with her big spend including rooftop lawn. See here,

<GREENS Senator Larissa Waters spent a whopping $414,000 to fit out her trendy Paddington office – more than any of her Queensland political colleagues at the time.

The office, on the top floor of a pristine-condition, split-level building on Given Tce, includes a rooftop patio with timber outdoor furniture and artificial turf>
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-greens-senator-larissa-waters-spent-414000-on-fitout-for-paddington-office/story-fnihsrf2-1226889449998

Dear onthebeach,

I am a Green and do not prefer Marxism.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12693 will point you to "Why so many Corpses?" which is an article I wrote on the propensity of Marxism for producing corpses. As far as I know most Greens do not prefer Marxism. I am a Green because there is a greater concern for what is happening to the environment in the Greens than in either of the major parties.

Marxist governments have committed atrocities on the environment. The old Soviet Union plowed up the chernozem in Ukraine producing a dust bowl thirty years after the US got rid of theirs. Chinese have built the Three Gorges Dam. Capitalism societies in general have shown a greater concern for the environment than Marxist societies.

I appreciate the fact that you do not feed wildlife.

Dear David F.,

I agree with Bill Shorten when he writes
that our Constitution came into
being as an act of the British government.
He then points out that
one hundred and fifteen years later our nation
has changed, our place in the world has changed,
and our Constitution should change with it.

The Republic debate is a chance for all of us to
bring our Constitution home, to vote our
National Birth Certificate into existence as an
Australian document for our times as an expression
of the sovereign will of all Australians, where
unlike in 1901 the voices of women and Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people will be heard.

Bill Shorten tells us that
it will be a great day for all of us, confident in our
Australian identity, so we can declare to the world
that we're running the place ourselves.
An Australian Republic, with an Australian Head of
State. It's an important step, long overdue.

Dear Foxy,

Why do we need a head of state? It is important that we live in a just land. I do not regard it as important whether or not that just land is attached in some way to England. Why do we need to be an independent nation? A strong national identity can lead to war and other conflict with other nations that also have a strong national identity. I prefer a lessening of national identity and a greater realisation that we share this planet with other humans and members of other species. Polluted air and water cross national boundaries.

The British government set up pastoral leases that recognised Aboriginal rights. It was the local people who ignored those rights and massacred Aborigines. I think it's important that we recognise our humanity and the humanity of others whether they are inside or outside of the political boundaries of Australia. The 'sovereign will of all Australians' is a bit of nonsense political rhetoric. I would not lament the disappearance of all political boundaries or their conversion to merely administrative boundaries.

Nationalism is the curse of the drinking classes.

Dear David F.,

I think that having a Head of State who's not
aligned or attached to any political party -
would be preferable to having a politician
in the job. That of course is simply my
preference. Many countries have a President
as well as a Head of State and it seems to
work well.

David F,

I agree with you (no, this is not a cruel joke). A 'head of state' is indeed just another snout in the trough. We need people we elect to do our bidding, plus the ability to kick them out when they don't. Any 'figure' apart from people elected by the people is surplus to our needs.

Dear Foxy,

Why do we need a head of state of any description? We have a governor-general and governors of the various states. They all have superb residences and extensive staffs. IMHO they are all unnecessary.

I agree Davidf, but for different reasons than you.
The Governor General is a relic of our ties with Britain.

We need a Republic as we can now stand on our own two feet and don't need Britain to 'guide' us or to 'settle disputes'.
With being a republic, we don't need to follow what other countries do, government wise. We can decide our own way of doing things.

Dear David F.,

I don't think that we need Governor-Generals.
They're a left-over from the British Monarchy.
However a position of Head of State I feel
would be good. It would be in addition to the
President and as I stated earlier would be
a more objective (not political) role, which would
add not take away from ruling our nation.

Paul1405: You said "Hi thinkabit, what you are really saying is if the democratically elected representatives of the people should get out of line. then we need an appointed member of the establishment like the GG, to return us to the straight and narrow. Democracy is fine providing it does not upset the established order of a good capitalist society that Australia must be."

This is NOT at all what I am saying. What I'm saying is that you need an independent entity with LIMITED powers (in our system of governance these are called the reserve powers of the Governor General) that can restore a functioning government when the system fails.

Here's examples of system failure:
- In 1967 the then PM Harold Holt disappeared (presumed drowned) so the GG had to appoint a temporary acting PM to replace him
- In 1975 the Whitlam Government had the supply bills blocked by the senate. The Supply Bills (aka Appropriation Bill) authorizes the Government to spend money. Without them the Government cannot function since it cannot conduct any financial activity. So the GG sacked the PM/Government and double dissolution election was held. (This was a very, very controversial event in Australian history but how else could it be resolved?)
- Hypothetical: if the Government loses its lower house majority because a(some) member(s) retract their support of it or maybe the numbers change due to a retirement or death.
- Hypothetical: the Prime Minister commits a serious crime or becomes bankrupt so can no longer be an MP
- Hypothetical: the Parliament tries to pass a bill that directly and obviously contradicts the Constitution (such as a bill declaring the Prime Minister to be the inaugural lifelong President Of The Republic of Australia)

Note that none of these examples are exclusive to "upsetting the established order of a good capitalist society that Australia must be", they could apply equally in a very socialist society.

-- continued below

-- continued from above

In your system, without a Governor General, or a President, or some other independent entity with special powers to resolve crisis situations then whats happens in these cases? How does society reestablish a working Government? Do you think that we should just resort to violence and anarchy?

I've just come across the following link
that gives one food for thought:

http://ouridentity.org.au/q%26a

Dear Foxy,

I read your reference.

The first sentence: "Becoming a republic will complete our journey to full and recognisable independence and maturity as a nation."

Individuals become mature and independent. My life and the life of most people except those whose snouts are in the public trough will not change whether or not Australia is a republic, a British possession or an American state. I regard the republic business as a non-issue. IMHO public issues are the issues that affect people's lives.

"our journey to full and recognisable independence and maturity as a nation." is to me meaningless mumbojumbo.

Dear David F.,

I respect your point of view.

However the article resonated with me.

David F, as far as Beach is concerned anyone left of himself and Genghis Khan is a bolshy, pinko, commie and worst of the worst a Green!
Spends an inordinate amount of time on the forum being a serial stalker (must check when certain forumites make their posts, time to attack). If you are seen as a "communist" by this bloke then regardless of what you post, you'll find the serial stalker jumping in with a personal attack. I can take what ever he likes to dish out, but others might be a bit more sensitive (remember Belly) and feel hurt by his personal attacks, a couple of the female posters are favorite targets of his for patronising insults.
If I put up what I think of this bloke, then I would be quick smart, back on the sidelines, whilst Beach enjoys his charmed life here. Came to the forum claiming he was a "middle of the road moderate", then talked about wolves in sheep's clothing, and soon wanted to talk himself up, with a yarn about how he had taken some city slickers for a ride with a country land deal, showed his true colours there.
p/s I can give as good as I get. Have come up against far better Stirrers than this bloke in my life, he's no problem.

@david f, Tuesday, 26 January 2016 8:37:49 AM

We agree of many issues. Hopefully Richard Di Natale can shed some of the influences I have criticised.

Sorry I am only just getting back to you. Australia Day is a family day for me.

It is quite simple really.
The republic movement wants an elected head of state.
They say the majority want to be able to elect the "President" or
whatever you call him.

That makes it a complete no no for me.
Elect a president and you get a politician.

The last person that you want to break a political constipation is
another politician. An independent breaker of stalemates is needed.

Despite all the venom thrown at John Kerr he acted like the judge he
was previously and removed the government that was acting illegally
and uncompromising and so sent the politicians to the people.
The people supported the Governor General's action.
As far as the title itself is concerned in the US their premiers
are known as Governors.
Our Head of states are also Governors and the higher ranked Federal
equivalent is the Governor General.
Quite logical actually.

Foxy,

The constitution is a document that has served us well, changes to this document can have serious unintended consequences that are near impossible to reverse.

I see Shorten and the left whingers salivating at the thought of vast social engineering opportunities available on rewriting the constitution. On recalling the litany of cock ups from recent well intentioned legislation, I would recommend touching the constitution as little as possible, and fixing issues in lower house, where amendments are possible.