Skyring wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:00:19 +1100, csherlock@ljh.com.au csherlock@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...?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=republic
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