On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:00:19 +1100,
csherlock(a)ljh.com.au
<csherlock(a)ljh.com.au> wrote:
Interesting. However, all laws must pass through
the governor general
who is the Queen's representative.
He is only the Queen's representative in a very limited way, as set
out in the Constitution. His constitutional powers, including the
reserve powers, are given to him in his own right. Unlike other
Commonwealth realms, such as New Zealand or Canada, where the
Governor-General merely exercises the Queen's powers.
Also, a republic is a "a form of government
whose head of state is not a
monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president".
Despite what you've said, our head of state is the Queen.
And it says that where...?
See
http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/q&a/qa_hos.htm - they ARM say that:
Elizabeth II, the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is
Australia's Head of State because:
The Constitution of Australia defines the Parliament as "the Queen, a
Senate, and a House of Representatives" and vests the Federal
legislative (law-making) power in the Parliament (section 1, Constitution).
The executive power (the governing and administrative power) of the
Commonwealth of Australia is vested in the Queen (section 61,
Constitution).
If the ARM can't get this right, then I don't know who can.
The ARM quotes the Constitution, but the Constitution doesn't say that
the Queen is head of state, unlike the constitutions of other
Commonwealth realms, such as New Zealand or Papua New Guinea. The ARM
is relying on their own opinion rather than any definitive source.
The ARM is a partisan organisation promoting a one-sided view. This is
like saying that the Republican Party's views on gay marriage are
definitive.
Interesting, but unimpressive.
Find me a commentator who says we are a republic (but don't do it on the
mailing list) and then we'll talk.
TBSDY