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.