Premium
The Head of State Debate: A Response to Sir David Smith and Professor David Flint
Author(s) -
Patmore Glenn
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
australian journal of politics and history
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.123
H-Index - 23
eISSN - 1467-8497
pISSN - 0004-9522
DOI - 10.1111/j.1467-8497.2012.01635.x
Subject(s) - queen (butterfly) , state (computer science) , the republic , law , governor , politics , political science , sovereignty , philosophy , theology , hymenoptera , botany , physics , algorithm , computer science , biology , thermodynamics
In the 1990s political leaders debated a constitutional amendment that would make Australia a republic. That debate continues to the present day. Republicans believe that becoming a republic means having an Australian as head of state instead of the Queen. Constitutional Monarchists see no need for Australia to become a republic since Australia, they argue, is already an independent nation‐state. They contend that the head of state, the Governor‐General, is an Australian citizen and has been since 1965, and that the Queen of Australia is the Sovereign. The purpose of this article is to provide a republican response to recent arguments of two leading Constitutional Monarchist, Sir David Smith and Professor David Flint.