don't we already have an aussie head of state in the governor-general?
The Australians for Constitutional Monarchy (ACM) are expending a lot of energy in an attempt to have the Governor-General recognised as Australias Head of State. They are urging supporters to write to the Prime Minister asking him to declare that the Governor-General is our Head of State. Their reasoning is that the Republicans main thrust is that Australia should have an Australian Head of State so if they (ACM) can establish that we already have one, Republicans have no case.
They state that "A supporter is spending most of his time on this, and so far got the agreement of Government House to remove the word Head of State from the website. Earlier it was used to apply to the Queen."
During the lead up to the Republic Referendum in 1999, the Queens own website was amended, replacing the term Head of State with Sovereign in reference to her role in Australia. Monarchists began using this reference to argue their case soon after the change. Did they influence the royal site as they did the Government Site?
However, there is ample evidence from the Queens own words and on her website to imply that she still regards herself as our Head of State.
Also if our Governor-General is our Head of State should he not take an Oath to serve us, the Australian people? Instead, his Oath of Office and Oath of Allegiance refer only to the Queen.
From our own G-G's site http://www.governorgeneral.gov.au/html/fset_role.html the oaths our G-G took
Finally, if the Monarchists campaign is successful and the term Head of State is officially used in Australia to refer to the Governor-General then where on earth does that leave the Queen? She is already impotent as Head of State but if not Head of State she has absolutely no role here at all.
should be sacked!!