YepDoes that include the Governor-General?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
YepDoes that include the Governor-General?
Do you think we'd pay much more for a President than we do for a G-G?
Why not the exact same system of government we have now with a G-G? We can even keep calling that dude/dudette the G-G.
We just sever any Monarch acting above the G-G. Now as I understand the Monarch will never again interference in Australian government so it makes no practical difference.
Direct election by the Australian people or appointment by at least 2/3rds - 3/4s of the Australian parliament?
That depends. If they're appointed by parliament probably not much more. I don't know what the search cost would be. But if it was an elected president it would cost a lot more.Do you think we'd pay much more for a President than we do for a G-G?
That depends. If they're appointed by parliament probably not much more. I don't know what the search cost would be. But if it was an elected president it would cost a lot more.
I'm not against it if the Head of State remained a ceremonial position.
Yes reserve powers are vested in the office of GG in the constitution, but you are ignoring convention.The Head of State wouldn't be just a "ceremonial" position. Then whole point of a Head of State is that reserve powers would be vested in the office. Just like the pressent Head of State.
I'd just be happy with a PM that didn'tI'm good with a Head of State that doesn't believe they've been anointed by god.
Reserve powers are vested in the Queen, not the Governor-General. The Governor-General exercises these powers as the Queen’s representative.Yes reserve powers are vested in the office of GG in the constitution, but you are ignoring convention.
The Queen's powers are delegated to the GG. Do you think the Queen sacked Whitlam?Reserve powers are vested in the Queen, not the Governor-General. The Governor-General exercises these powers as the Queen’s representative.
And how exactly am I ignoring convention?
But they are the Queen's powers. Not the Governor-General's.The Queen's powers are delegated to the GG. Do you think the Queen sacked Whitlam?
I think we're done.But they are the Queen's powers. Not the Governor-General's.
What's wrong with having the elected prime minister as head of state and deleting the need for the GG and Queen.
Maybe it’s an advisory body rather than a head of state. The body has to prove in the highest court the government violated the constitution.What checks and balances do we have if the Government violates the Constitution?
Who can dissolve the Parliament or remove the government?
An advisory body would never come to a decision, and who appoints them? An elected HOS would be a disaster. An apolitical HOS state, much like we've got now is the best option.Maybe it’s an advisory body rather than a head of state. The body has to prove in the highest court the government violated the constitution.
The Queen's powers are delegated to the GG. She's HOS in name only.It is a no for me. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. I don't care if it is not Australian, so it isn't broke.
I certainly don't want an elected President. I don't want any sort of campaigning for a role this important. I much prefer the current method. A G-G/President should be beyond party politics and politics altogether.