Off with our head

Do we need a head of state? In the context of a revival of discussion about Australia becoming a republic there is consequently a revival of the debate about how the replacement head of state should be selected, given disagreement on this derailed the last attempt to become a republic.

However taking a step back I think the question needs to be asked, "Why do we need a head of state?" What do they actually add to the functioning of government? Is the argument of elected versus appointed one worth having when we could just do away with the whole concept altogether, abolishing this vestige of monarchy that serves no real purpose.

In our system the Governor-General, or the monarch on those rare occasions they deign to drop by, as head of state swears in ministers and sign bills into law but really that is just ceremonial, as our the rest of their duties, and none of it is really necessary. They are by convention only meant to act on the advice of council, making the head of state more of an unnecessary appendage.

Once a bill has passed parliament why does it need to be signed by someone else? Being passed by parliament should be sufficient, and in a republic we don't need royal assent. Couldn't parliament just appoint ministers? That would in fact be preferable as it would highlight they are meant to be accountable to parliament rather than the stand-in for some absentee landlord. This would assist parliament to get some power back over the executive.

So why don't we just make parliament sovereign, subject of course to the constitution (preferably with a bill of rights) and as much as possible the people, but in the sense that the parliament fulfills the functions of a head of state like appointing ministers or declaring bills to be ratified as laws. There is no role currently performed by the head of state that would not be more democratic if taken over by the parliament. So off with our head in true republican style.