|
See our selection of videos from across the world:- |
|
|
|
AussieCrownTV - ACM's own TV channel: |
|
|
|
Self Funded Monarchy |
 |
|
Royal Finances |
 |
|
Diamond Jubilee 2012 |
 |
|
Head of State |
 |
|
Prince Philip |
 |
|
Special Caribbean Report: Crown & Commonwealth |
|
 |
|
The Commonwealth |
 |
|
Prince Harry |
 |
|
Prince Andrew |
 |
|
Knights & Dames |
 |
|
The King's Speech: read the book, see the film. |
|
|
|
Watch the 2010 Neville Bonner Oration: Tony Abbott. |
|
|
|
Royal Commissions |
 |
|
Opinion Polls |
|
|
|
Plebiscites |
 |
|
2020 Summit |
 |
|
Orthodoxy & Monarchy |
 |
|
Constitutional Monarchy in the Muslim World |
 |
|
Mate for a Head of State |
 |
|
Racist Republic? |
 |
|
A People's Republic? |
 |
|
Keating Turnbull Republic: The Nineties |
 |
|
Crowned Republic |
 |
|
Head of State
The only serious argument republicans make to advance their cause is that "we need an Australian as Head of State".
It was argued nine times in the official Yes case sent to all electors in the 1999 referendum. Malcolm Turnbull told the Parliamentary Committee investigating the referendum bill that replacing The Queen with an Australian citizen as Head of State was the most important part of the change.
There is overwhelming evidence that the Governor-General is Head of State. We have posted a large number of articles on this website dealing with this question, including republican attempts to deny that the Governor General is Head of State. If you wish to point friends or family to this section, they can click on the icon "Head of State" in the left hand column of our frontpage at www.norepublic.com.au A selection of our reports and videos follow. The most relevant outside links are:
- Quadrant: Head of State debate resolved Further discussion of the decision in R v South Australia with an account of republican attempts to ignore the overwhelming argument that the Governor-General is Australia's Head of State.
|
|
Head of State
|
|
Written by Professor David Flint AM
|
|
Tuesday, 21 May 2013 |
|
While our Constitution does not say who the Head of State is, there is no doubt that under international law that the Governor-General is Head of State. And in 1907, the High Court, consisting of our founding fathers, described the Governor-General as the ” Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth.”
That is why ACM has consistently argued that the Governor-General is the Head of State, while describing our monarch as such or as the 1907 High Court bench of Founding Fathers did, as the Sovereign.
In any event, Parliament has declared the Governor-General to be Head of State, as our government does when advising other governments and the United Nations.
This arose in the context of an important international treaty, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents.
The Convention, or treaty, was incorporated into Australian law in 1976 under the Crimes (International Protected Persons) Act.
Article 1 of the Convention provides that “the term ‘internationally protected person’ means (a) a Head of State, including any member of a collegial body performing the functions of a Head of State under the constitution of the State concerned...”
The article then goes on to refer to other officials including a “Head of Government”. Readers may wonder at the extended definition of “Head of State” to include members of a collegial body. This is to encompass those countries which do have a collegial body as a Head of State, for example the Federal Council in Switzerland or the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
The term “Head of State” would no doubt include the Heads of State of countries which have more than one. One example is Andorra where the co-Princes are the King of France, or his successor - the President of the Republic of France along with the Bishop of Urgell, and England under King William III and Queen Mary II.
...declaration...
The declaration of the Governor-General as Head of State may be found in subsection 3A(1) of the Crimes (International Protected Persons) Act which provides that “... (1) For the purposes of this Act, the definition of ‘internationally protected person’ in paragraph 1 of article 1 of the Convention has effect as if the reference in that definition to a Head of State included, in relation to Australia, the Governor-General...”
So there we are. The Governor General is the Head of State. Our governments and Parliament say so.
|
|
|
Head of State
|
|
Written by ACM
|
|
Wednesday, 09 May 2012 |
Why must we change our constitution and trash our flag? The republicans purpose is certainly not to improve the way we are governed. They're just determined to get rid of our oldest institution.
First they said a Republic was inevitable; we said why the rush. Then they said it was to become independent; we pointed to Canada. Then a string of celebrities gave all sorts of unlikely reasons – ending the recession, liberating artists, increasing immigration, stopping the Indonesian dictator from being confused, and allowing the Irish editor of the Sydney morning Herald to condescend to take up our citizenship.
Looking more than foolish, they then hit on what they were sure was their magic bullet. An obscure diplomatic term. The're still arguing it . The fact is, Australians aren't lying awake at night wondering who their head of state is.
David Flint explains - click here |
|
|
Head of State
|
|
Written by Professor David Flint AM
|
|
Sunday, 11 March 2012 |
 The is a report in the section, Head of State , on the ACM site.
. The following letter, headlined “Flint's oversight”, from Lindsay Foyle of Stanmore NSW, appeared in the high circulating Sydney Sunday newspaper, The Sun-Herald, on 4 March 2012.
 Rather than just debating the point, Mr. Foyle begins with a derogatory remark no doubt intended to challenge my professional standing, a tactic frequently adopted in the referendum campaign. “It is sad that David Flint, who has been so involved with matters associated with the constitution for so long, gives the impression he has never read the document (Letters March 4)>
"Clause 2 of the Constitution states, "A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be her Majesty's representatives in the Commonwealth, and shall have and exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign him”.
"The Queen is our head of state of the Governor-General's authority is restricted to the part of the job the Queen delegates to him or her."
The editor of the Sun- Herald graciously agreed to publish the following under “ Flint’s response” on Sunday 11 March 2012
Dear Editor, Lindsay Foyle says (4/3) that I appear not to have read the Constitution and that the Governor-General is a mere delegate of The Queen.
When Gough Whitlam was dismissed, The Queen informed the Speaker that only the G-G can appoint or dismiss a Prime Minister - she can’t. This is because the G-G's executive powers come directly from the Constitution - they are not delegated by The Queen.
Indeed, for the first Royal Visit, special legislation had to be passed (and the parliamentary standing orders changed) to allow The Queen to exercise some of the Governor-General’s powers: Royal Powers Act, 1953.The diplomatic term head of state is governed not by the constitution but by international law.David Flint |
|
|
Head of State
|
|
Written by Professor David Flint AM
|
|
Sunday, 26 February 2012 |
|
This is a report in the section, Head of State, on the ACM site.
Removing the Australian Crown is one of the most significant changes we could make to our constitutional system. And the only justifiable reason to change the constiution is to improve it.
 [ Sir John Quick ] The Crown is our oldest institution. It was involved in every significant step in our development from the foundation to self government, to federation and to full independence.
The Crown remains a crucial part of the system.
...obscure, legalistic and irrelevant...
Why then seek to justify its removal by relying on obscure legal arguments? A recent letter published in one of Australia's higher circulating newspapers, the Sun Herald, began by reprimanding another letter writer ( “Sorry x...” ). It argued that The Queen and not the Governor-General was head of state. The Governor-General, it claimed, was merely a delegate of The Queen, performing her job when she is not physically present.
A typical republican position - obscure, legalistic and irrelevant.
The determination of these questions requires the application of constitutional and international law.
The term head of state is diplomatic. Whether it is an appropriate description under the consttiution was surely settled by a full bench of founding fathers who in 1907, in a unanimous opinion, observed that the Governor-General is the“Constitutional Head of the Commonwealth.”
As to the second question,it is now established beyond doubt that the Governor- General's powers come - unusually - from the Constitution and not by delegation. So much so the imperial practice of issuing Royal Instructions was long ago abandoned.
But why the answer to either question is reason to change our constitutional system is certainly not obvious. Surely the only reason to change our constitutional system is to improve it. Our great founders, Sir John Quick and Sir Robert Garren, explained the requirements for constitutional change as ensuring that there would be proper debate and discussion and that no change would be made until the people are agreed that the change is "desirable, irresistible, and inevitable.”
Why then should the answer to two legal questions of little interest or concern to the average Australian be reason to make fundamental changes to the constitution?
Australians are far too sensible to make change merely on the answer to these two questions, or indeed, in agreeing to some blank cheque plebiscite.
They know the only justifiable reason to change the constiution is to improve it.
...answer needed...
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Head of State
|
|
Written by ACM
|
|
Thursday, 17 November 2011 |
|
The two Heads of State, President Obama and Ms. Quentin Bryce stand side by side as the National Anthems are played in Canberra, Wednesday, 16 November , 2011.
The following letter has been sent this morning to The Australian: Mr. Ngeow ( letters 17/10) says that the fact that President Obama was greeted first by Governor-General, the very elegant Quentin Bryce, does not reflect well on Australia as an independent nation.
The President is well used to this.
Whenever he visits his major Nato, Nafta and G8 ally, the very independent Canada, he is received similarly. |
|
| | << Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next > End >>
| | Results 1 - 9 of 41 |
© Australians For Constitutional Monarchy
|
|
Prince William: The Early Years |
 |
|
Prince Charles |
|
|
|
Constitutional Monarchies & Republics Compared |
|
|
|
The Succession |
 |
|
The Governor of New South Wales |
 |
|
Fiji |
 |
|
Media and Monarchy |
 |
|
Royal Yacht Britannia |
 |
|
Republic Audit: Costs of Republic |
 |
|
Reserve Powers of the Crown |
 |
|
Events |
 |
May 2013 |
 |
|
|
|
Head of State 
