Do we need a head of state? (1 Viewer)

[Lentern]

What are they for? We haven't seen them do anything really since Kerr, and he was a contraversial bugger, we have a very functional and effect form of government in our bicameral parliament.

Any active role in government from our current head of state would be quite wrong of them. We are a democratic nation and they are not elected, should we elect someone with similar powers to the governor general into a presidential position they would then be able to justify a more active role that could lead to a real disruption of the current, functional system.

If we had very clear constitutional outlines of the parliaments authority and set election dates then the role of the head of state would become obsolete.

Can't we get someone else to cut ribbons and host tea parties? Do they need to effectively be able to block legislation, sack governments and enjoy hundreds of thousands of dollars in their allowance?

 

[annabackwards]

Heads of State should only have ceremonial powers... Kerr is one example supporting this argument.

Republic all the way!!!!

 

[Rainie]

Simply put, we don't even need one. Peter Hollingworth was a shame, Kerr..meh..just fired Whitlam/abused his power etc debacle. Instead of having a head of state, why not just consult the Queen directly? At least it saves us money from their ridiculous allowances

 

[banco55]

Leaves a rather big hole in the constitution if you don't have one. They are a good check on power.

 

[bigb0yjames]

Simply put, we don't even need one. Peter Hollingworth was a shame, Kerr..meh..just fired Whitlam/abused his power etc debacle. Instead of having a head of state, why not just consult the Queen directly? At least it saves us money from their ridiculous allowances

yeah, she really gives a shit.

 

[Cool-dude]

Yes we do, If we were a republic like the US we do not need a head of state. But because we follow the monoarchy (British) we need a head of state in the parliamentary system. The head of state are chief representative of the monarchic. To answer your question, the head of states has limited of power to govern the country, as we all know that the cabinet or Prime minister has the power (Federal). The head of state has a SYMBOLIC role, symbol of the unbroken continuity of the state and monarchy and british control and rule.

The head of state are chief diplomatic officers, they accredits his or her country's ambassadors, High Commissioners. THey do this by sending formal letters etc.

There are several more, but most of the roles are not used here in Australia. As we are a nation that provides for ourselves. Also like Canda.

Moreover, most of british former and current colonies are slipping away.

Again, Yes we do need a head of state but their roles and influence are slipping away.

As we continue to follow the monarchy we must have a head of state the symbolise the british control, rule and influence.

If we become a Republic then the Head of state have a more greater role.

 

[Graney]

Excuse me If I'm misunderstanding, but isn't the question a bit retarded?

Except for some sort of anarchist system, every political state needs a head of some sort? You can't govern by collective.

 

[morganforrest]

Excuse me If I'm misunderstanding, but isn't the question a bit retarded?

Except for some sort of anarchist system, every political state needs a head of some sort? You can't govern by collective.

Yes, you are very clearly misunderstanding.

There is a difference between a Head of State (Governor-General, Queen, President etc) and the Head of Government (in our case the PM)

 

[Rafy]

Make the Prime Minister head of state and government.
You'll need to codify a few things.
High court effectively ends up with some of the reserve powers.

 

[morganforrest]

And yes, I think we do need a head of state, but we certainly need a revisal of their role.

In the current form, I think the President of the Senate could fulfil the role (though this does pose problems in terms of the government dismissal powers).

Additionally, whether it was the President of the Senate, or an elected/appointed President/G-G they should, in conjunction with the Minister for Foreign Affairs represent Australia's interests abroad. They should have observer status in Cabinet meetings, allowing the PM to remain in AUstralia and focus on domestic issues.

 

[Graney]

Yes, you are very clearly misunderstanding.

There is a difference between a Head of State (Governor-General, Queen, President etc) and the Head of Government (in our case the PM)

I realise that.

However, the question does not say "should we keep the current head of state". Under any of the proposed systems, there is a head of state. Taken literally, the question implies the possibility of a state with no head.

I stand by the retardedness of the question.

 

[morganforrest]

Heads of state are not required.

 

[morganforrest]

But only if Australia was to relinquish statehood and become a different form of nation

I.e. a protectorate

So it's highly unlikely such a thing would ever occur.

Technically a head of state is the person who represents Australia to the rest of the world. However this is clearly not what many heads of states do.

But I think the context of the question is do we need a head of state in the traditional understanding. It's perfectly viable for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to be our technical head of state without having anyone whose sole purpose is to be a head of state - if that makes sense

 

[Graney]

I think the question is basically "should australia become a republic". Which is already a thread.

 

[banco55]

Make the Prime Minister head of state and government.
You'll need to codify a few things.
High court effectively ends up with some of the reserve powers.

Are you joking? I can't think of any Government that has the PM as head of state (and for good reason). Giving the HC some of the reserve powers will do wonders for the separation of powers.

 

[Lentern]

I think the question is basically "should australia become a republic". Which is already a thread.

No it is a very different question. The issue of republic sparks the question of presidents, revised parliamentary procedures etc, in essence it is about whether or not he or she whom is head of state should be decided in a different fashion.

My question is if we had set elections, A high court empowered to strike down unconsitutional legislation, a bicameral parliament as we have now and if we removed the need for royal ascent, then aside from symbolic, does a head of state have any role in a parliamentary democracy? I can't think of a damn thing that would go wrong if we just abolished the notion entirely. I do however see the possibility of a constitutional crisis being reduced greatly and at the same time saving a fair bit of taxpayers money.

 

[Graney]

Fair enough, I now see what you're getting at, thanks for clarifying.

I suppose symbolism is pretty important, an individual who embodies "the spirit of the nation". Where's Iron when you need him?

 

[bigb0yjames]

it doesnt really effect me.

 

[Trefoil]

Make the Prime Minister head of state and government.
You'll need to codify a few things.
High court effectively ends up with some of the reserve powers.

Yes. Abolish the head of state and give the reserve powers to the High Court. So basically like it is now minus the monarchy.

Whatever we do, I hope we avoid creating a President, but 80% of the population wants that. Probably because it sounds 'cool'.

 

[Zionist]

Our Queen should at least stay for 3 months in Australia, 3 months in NZ, 3 months in Canada and 3 months in the UK. She neglects her australian subjects too long and this created disconnect between the monarchy and the citizens of the commonwealth.