Head of State

The HoS debate is a superficial game with words that avoids the real issue of retaining the Crown in our Constitution. What republicans are arguing, in general terms, is that what ever you call our “resident head of state” there should not be anyone anywhere in the world who is senior or superior or to whom the knee must be bent or whose ring must be kissed. No person should be more senior than the person that the people of Australia have elected to represent the nation as a single, entire entity, either directly or through some cumulative, democratic process. There is currently no word in English that expresses this concept, hence the confusion.

It might have been good strategy at the last referendum, but it would also be good strategy to divert effort into this ultimately meaningless, epistemological game, to leave the other side unprepared for the real debate, which should balance discussion on the “without superior” nature of our resident most senior person with a cost benefit analysis and a detailed examination of the Constitutional ramifications of such a fundamental change.

Australians for Constitutional Monarchy

10 December at 21:27 ·

In a learned article in the nation's most prestigious law journal, the Australian Law Journal, ''The Governor-General is Australia's Head of State'', Sir David Smith KCVO AO concludes that ''the Constitution, the Parliament, the High Court and current constitutional practice speak with one voice; the Governor-General is our head of state, and the High Court and Viscount Haldane confirm that the Queen is our Sovereign.''

For those, mainly republicans, who dispute this − and at the time of the referendum it is relevant to note that only republicans did − the appropriate course is not to make repetitive assertions.
It is to seek to rebut Sir David by submitting a learned article to the same forum, the Australian Law Journal which of course has rigorous standards relating the review of articles submitted.
To those who wonder why ACM is so concerned about this issue, there are three reasons.
First it is correct. This can be argued from constitutional grounds but also under international law.
Second, the principal argument of the republicans in the referendum was that only in their republic could we have an Australian citizen as the resident head of state.
Third, this remains the republicans' principal argument. this means that this will be the issue in the next referendum, if there is one.
Note that at ACM's 16th annual National Conference on 11 November 2015, representatives of the nation's five monarchist organisations agreed on the importance and correctness of maintaining the principle that we already have an Australian citizen as resident head of state and that we do not need to remove the Australian Crown to achieve this..

35 people reached