DMaxer wrote:

---

That is true. However, we know that the leader of the party at the time of any election is going to be PM if that party has a majority or support on the floor to form a government.
If bills were law once they passed both houses and did not need royal assent then really the head of state is just ceremonial. A vote of no confidence will also remove a government. Amend the constitution to require an election if that occurs and there you go.

---

Cuppa wrote:

---

Why do we need a head of state at all?

---

Same reason we have  "forums" like this so members can make clowns of themselves, just like the heads of state,  politicians and the monarchy   

DMaxer wrote:

---

That is true Dogbox. However, if the guy (or girl) who is PM is deposed because they are a dud or the party has lost confidence then the newly elected one takes over.

Let's face it. The head of state doesn't do anything that requires any great cerebral horsepower.

---

Gundog wrote:

A Head of State should be bipartisan above party politics.

---

 Of course.    It's the position that's important, in a functional sense.    The current process requires the GG to ask for assent from the Royal to pass completed legislation into Law.    It's a formal process only and no more than getting the completed legislation rubber stamped.    Dump the rubber stamp procees with one that stops in country and Robert is your mother's brother.   Appointing a HoS in an Australian Republic could be as simple and efficient as requiring a 2/3 majority of elected reps to agree to a nominee.   Removing or replacing a HoS could use the same process, even it the existing HoS was naughty and needed to go.    Requiring a 2/3 majority is pretty close to Consensus and removes politics from the appointment.   

A HoS is also needed for things like swearing in elected officials and for somone to live in that house on the shores of Sydney Harbour.   There's a whole lot of other things but the list could start with a look at what the current GG does.

Gaylehere wrote:

---

I am currently watching the coronation. Cheers.

---

 +1

Izabarack wrote:

---

Gundog wrote:

A Head of State should be bipartisan above party politics.

---

 Of course.    It's the position that's important, in a functional sense.    The current process requires the GG to ask for assent from the Royal to pass completed legislation into Law.    It's a formal process only and no more than getting the completed legislation rubber stamped.    Dump the rubber stamp procees with one that stops in country and Robert is your mother's brother.   Appointing a HoS in an Australian Republic could be as simple and efficient as requiring a 2/3 majority of elected reps to agree to a nominee.   Removing or replacing a HoS could use the same process, even it the existing HoS was naughty and needed to go.    Requiring a 2/3 majority is pretty close to Consensus and removes politics from the appointment.   

A HoS is also needed for things like swearing in elected officials and for somone to live in that house on the shores of Sydney Harbour.   There's a whole lot of other things but the list could start with a look at what the current GG does.

---

Then the reason for changing is???? 

Putting the monarchy or republic issue aside.

In about 2007 I saw, at the time the possible state coach at Sydney, Manly, North Head in a fairly tired shed. 

At the time I thought this a dead end for Australian craftsmanship regardless of the skills that went into building the new set of wheels. Thought it would just rot away.

I am surprised it is actually being used. 

Would have been happy to see some solar panels on the roof, but obviously it has an undated battery to power the electric windows & air conditioning.

RickJ wrote:

---

Then the reason for changing is???? 

---

 Because a King who lives in England has no relevence in my life.    Because the country is a Big Boy/Girl now and I have no need to be subservient to some foreign bloke.   Because it's an opportunity for people to unite under a common narrative of how we got here, today.    Because its time that the colonisation of Australia by the Brits is no longer the major defining event in Australia becaming a mature and independent nation.   

Izabarack wrote:

---

RickJ wrote:

---

Then the reason for changing is???? 

---

 Because a King who lives in England has no relevence in my life.    Because the country is a Big Boy/Girl now and I have no need to be subservient to some foreign bloke.   Because it's an opportunity for people to unite under a common narrative of how we got here, today.    Because its time that the colonisation of Australia by the Brits is no longer the major defining event in Australia becaming a mature and independent nation.   

---

 Iza you are listening to wrong people to much BS, furfies and red herrings from the ARM. That King is the King of Australia we are already a free, mature and independent nation.

At her Coronation on 2 June 1953, The Queen swore an oath to govern the peoples of Australia and her other realms "according to their respective laws and customs."

In very general terms, British legislation no longer applies to Australia either federally or at state level.

After the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942, Australia was independent from Britain but the states were still subject to some aspects of British law. Despite the changes that had taken place at the national level since Federation, certain state bills still required the monarchs approval and they could disallow any state law within 2 years. States gave advice to the monarch through the British Foreign Minister, not an Australian minister.

The Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth) was the final step in Australias constitutional independence from Britain. This Act and the 6 similar Acts passed by the state parliaments, made all Australian law independent of the British Parliament and legal system. It also stopped appeals from state courts to the British Privy Council. Together with the Australia Act 1986 (UK), the 7 Acts brought the states in line with the Australian Governments relationship with Britain.

There may be remnants of British legislation that have been adopted as Australian law, either federally or at state level; however, the British Parliament has no jurisdiction over law as it applies in Australia. You would need to undertake a substantial research project to identify these laws.

RickJ wrote:

---

Izabarack wrote:

---

Gundog wrote:

A Head of State should be bipartisan above party politics.

---

 Of course.    It's the position that's important, in a functional sense.    The current process requires the GG to ask for assent from the Royal to pass completed legislation into Law.    It's a formal process only and no more than getting the completed legislation rubber stamped.    Dump the rubber stamp procees with one that stops in country and Robert is your mother's brother.   Appointing a HoS in an Australian Republic could be as simple and efficient as requiring a 2/3 majority of elected reps to agree to a nominee.   Removing or replacing a HoS could use the same process, even it the existing HoS was naughty and needed to go.    Requiring a 2/3 majority is pretty close to Consensus and removes politics from the appointment.   

A HoS is also needed for things like swearing in elected officials and for somone to live in that house on the shores of Sydney Harbour.   There's a whole lot of other things but the list could start with a look at what the current GG does.

---

Then the reason for changing is???? 

---

 Then the reason for retaining is????

Gundog wrote:

---

 Iza you are listening to wrong people to much BS, furfies and red herrings from the ARM. 

---

 And you are assuming things not in evidence.   I am, actually, capable of independant thought.

I grew up in a time when we referred to ourselves as British subjects, there was a picture of the Queen and the Duke in virtually everyone's hall or lounge room. At school there was a similar photo in each classroom and all public halls, libraries, you name it, there was Liz. I thought the Queen was a very special person and an inspiration to all of us. Unfortunately, with her passing, I no longer hold those thoughts about the heir and his siblings.

I think there very sound reasons why the Queen did not abdicate or even step back to allow Charles to either assume the monarchy or have a more forward role. I reckon for those of us that support a Republic will not have to wait for too long until he and his family completely get the whole show off the rails to the point where we will be only too eager to rid ourselves of this lot. 

Perhaps you monarchists might like Andrew to come out and be the next GG.