Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Australia's Head of State has been independent since at least 1936

By David Flint - posted Thursday, 20 February 2003

Head of State issue continues

Republicans tried much in the referendum campaign to build up enthusiasm for a republican Head of State. Until then most Australians were not much aware of the term, which is essentially diplomatic. It is not used in any of our constitutions, state or federal.

What then is a Head of State? He or she is the person held out by our government to other governments and the UN as our Head of State. The Head of State receives, for example, a 21-gun salute. He or she receives the credentials of foreign Ambassadors. He or she or they (you can have more than one) may also be the Head of Government, as in the US. The Head of State may be powerless or powerful, even a bloody tyrant, as Hitler was. (Stalin wasn't, being merely the Secretary General of the Party and at times, only, Head of Government). Where there is a separate Head of Government, the Head of State usually, but not always, appoints the Head of Government, usually called the Prime Minister.

The republican argument that we did not have an Australian Head of State was undermined completely by the fact that the Governor-General is treated internationally as our Head of State. The Keating government had formally declared him to be precisely that. In other words we already have a resident Australian Head of State.


(Mr Howard refers to him as the effective Head of State).

Some constitutional monarchists think the Governor-General should actually be declared Head of State by legislation. This would not do more than recognise what is already a fact. And anyway, can you imagine what a frolic some MPs would have over such a bill, especially in the Senate?

It is fascinating to see that Bob Carr, Premier of New South Wales, (Daily Telegraph 27 January 2003) wants the Governor-General to be declared Head of State. Whether this would be by legislation or by executive decision is not clear. He sees this as a first simple step towards working for a republic, which he notes many see as inevitable.

He also suggests that instead of talking about a "republic" we should use the word "Commonwealth", "that expressive term used by republicans in the 17th century and adopted as the label for our own democracy in 1901".

During the referendum debate, even republican newspapers made fun of the ARM when it tried to ensure the words "republic" and "president" did not appear in the referendum question. They knew that both words have unfortunate connotations. Now that the nation's most prominent Premier accepts that the Governor-General is the Head of State - and wants a declaration to this effect - the arguments for constitutional change are fast disappearing. Except the argument based on inevitability. And if a republic is inevitable (which I don't believe for one moment.), you don't have to do anything about it, do you?

The Abdication Crisis

Until recently, it was generally believed that the 1936 advice from the Australian, New Zealand and Canadian governments against the proposed marriage of King Edward VIII to Mrs Wallis Simpson was given to the King through the British Prime Minister. But constitutionally, each Prime Minister was entitled to advise the King directly.


It was assumed that the full implications of the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster had not been fully appreciated in 1936.

Documents released in London on 30 January 2003 now reveal that 24 days before the abdication, on 5 December 1936, in a "most secret" telegram, Australian Prime Minister Joe Lyons advised The King that the marriage "would not be approved by my government".

According to The Australian of 31 January 2003, Lyons said The King should abdicate even if he did not marry because confidence in him and the Crown had been shaken.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

This article is compiled from the newsletters of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, a member of the National Forum.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Flint is a former chairman of the Australian Press Council and the Australian Broadcasting Authority, is author of The Twilight of the Elites, and Malice in Media Land, published by Freedom Publishing. His latest monograph is Her Majesty at 80: Impeccable Service in an Indispensable Office, Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, Sydney, 2006

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Flint
Related Links
Australian Republican Movement
Australians for Constitutional Monarchy
Photo of David Flint
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Latest from Australians for Constitutional Monarchy
 The formidable Fred Nile prevails: premier concedes
 Prorogue then intimidate
 The ‘Utegate’ affair and the constitution
 ETS: emissions trading scheme or energy tax swindle?
 Information and media manipulation par excellence

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy