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

[mrcalkin]

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.

Britain gave up powers on colonies in 1934, and in 1941 Australian parliament accepted it, when Singapore fell, so it could ask for US assistance.

Also we need a head of state as queen is useless

 

[Cool-dude]

Britain gave up powers on colonies in 1934, and in 1941 Australian parliament accepted it, when Singapore fell, so it could ask for US assistance.

Also we need a head of state as queen is useless

lol, the assistance from the US was just a military alliance, the British are not dumb to just to give up their own powers. No countries in the world would give up their powers. More troops was needed in Europe, where the real war is. leaving Australia defenseless. Australia then asked the US for assistance.

Singapore fell to Japanese control and when liberated by the US, the US now has control over Singapore and created it as an independent country.

If the british was to just give upAustralia today would be a republic.

More powers were handed to their own federal governments but still under British control. eg Australia and Canda. And we are slipping away, because there are growing interest for Australia to turn into a republic and break away from British influence.

 

[Lentern]

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?

Well in regards to symbolism you could argue that not having one individual supposedly embodying all that is "Australian" would reflect the incredible diversity. I certainly wouldn't say Queen Elizabeth or Quentin Bryce could be said to stand for all that is Australian.

I reckon your dignified, sophisticated Gai Waterhouse kind of folk would have a problem if say Paul Keating was said to symbolically stand for all that is Australian and similarly your blue collar workers would probably feel that Malcolm Turnbull is a pretty lousy representation of them. We are far too diverse a society to really have a head of state that symbolises all that is "Australian". I guess it really extends beyond Australia too, what role do heads of state, separate to heads of government, play that is really neccessary? Someone might say what if independants crossed the floor in parliament? I see no problem, the "opposition" can just pass bills with the majority irrespective of whether the so called "government" likes it or not, I don't see the need to appoint a new government, just say whichever party gets the most HOR aye's forms government.

 

[zstar]

What is government for?

What good do they do?

 

[georgefren]

Is this a republic question?

 

[Lentern]

Is this a republic question?

No, read the first post on this page.

 

[impervious182]

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.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[impervious182]

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.

Personally, I think you've got this all wrong.

It was no great tragedy, that Gough Whitlam was dismissed. In fact the people that think that the dismissal was a 'tragedy' are almost solely confined to the free-loaders who benefited from Whitlam's mismanagement and teachers. In fact, it's these same people that have tried to rewrite history and who conveniently, write the books on the dismissal. Take a look at your school textbook on this subject and no doubt you'll here the outcry that occured; then ask your grandparents and you'll probably get two very different reactions.

I think that there was great disillusionment with Whitlam when he was dismissed. Scandal upon scandal, his complete incompetence when it comes to managing the economy and his inability to get the supply bill passed all created anger amongst those who had elected him.

The Governor-General is vital; because he/she should ideally be a figure, who is relatively objective to party politics and acts only in the best interests of Australians in extreme circumstances (as a last resort) where the elected government have a vested interest not to do so... i.e. self-preservation.

The problem at the moment, is that our Governor-General, chosen by Rudd, is not even slightly objective and dips her toe into petty party politics that it would be best for her to keep out of.

 

[Lentern]

Personally, I think you've got this all wrong.

It was no great tragedy, that Gough Whitlam was dismissed. In fact the people that think that the dismissal was a 'tragedy' are almost solely confined to the free-loaders who benefited from Whitlam's mismanagement and teachers. In fact, it's these same people that have tried to rewrite history and who conveniently, write the books on the dismissal. Take a look at your school textbook on this subject and no doubt you'll here the outcry that occured; then ask your grandparents and you'll probably get two very different reactions.

I think that there was great disillusionment with Whitlam when he was dismissed. Scandal upon scandal, his complete incompetence when it comes to managing the economy and his inability to get the supply bill passed all created anger amongst those who had elected him.

The Governor-General is vital; because he/she should ideally be a figure, who is relatively objective to party politics and acts only in the best interests of Australians in extreme circumstances (as a last resort) where the elected government have a vested interest not to do so... i.e. self-preservation.

The problem at the moment, is that our Governor-General, chosen by Rudd, is not even slightly objective and dips her toe into petty party politics that it would be best for her to keep out of.

Just because Whitlam was unpopular it did not mean the crisis was a good thing. John Howard was very unpopular in late 2000, I suppose he should have been dismissed then, or Bob Hawke in 1991? At any rate whether or not the dismissal was fair or not is not the issue. What positive role does a head of state, president, governor general, monarch, emir or otherwise have in a parliamentary democracy. It is not a republic question, it is not even neccessarily an Australian question although I perhaps mistakingly specified Australia. Abolish the need for royal ascent, introduce set dates for elections, 3 year terms, empower the high court to strike down unconstitutional acts...what does the head of state do? If Nothing, why have one?

 

[furiousteddy]

Singapore fell to Japanese control and when liberated by the US, the US now has control over Singapore and created it as an independent country.

lol what?
Singapore got its independence in 1965 from Malaysia, the only country on earth that got its independence against its will.

 

[bshoc]

I would like to remind all in the thread that our current democracy is fully functional.

 

[Lentern]

I would like to remind all in the thread that our current democracy is fully functional.

And a contributing factor to that is that the head of state does not intervene despite being empowered to do so. Their intervention disrupt this fully functional parliamentary democracy so why not abolish them?

 

[Trefoil]

And a contributing factor to that is that the head of state does not intervene despite being empowered to do so. Their intervention disrupt this fully functional parliamentary democracy so why not abolish them?

Because it will lead to a restructure of our democracy (namely between the executive and legislative branches). which may well be less stable.

 

[Lentern]

Because it will lead to a restructure of our democracy (namely between the executive and legislative branches). which may well be less stable.

Why does it need to be rid of them? They are like an appendix in the body of state, remove them and all the functions of government can continue as if nothing has happened without the ever present threat of someone doing a Hindenberg act.

 

[xeuyrawp]

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

I agree with you... I'd always opt for the simplest functional form.

To be honest, the thing that'll personally annoy me will be the resulting 'ohh, so the Australian President isn't important?' conversation when I'm overseas. :-/

 

[Trefoil]

What does functional mean?

Sure, we are not in a state of chaos. Neither is China, or North Korea.

I would say that it is functional but still deeply flawed.

Because of our lack of constitutional rights our democracy is basically a dictatorship of the majority. In fact its not even the majority, most governments only receive around 40% of the primary vote.

Oh boy, what a flamebait post.