The inoffensive constitution.(Letters)(Letter to the Editor)

SIR: Assume for the sake of David Alexander's and John J. Howard's arguments (Letters, January-February 2005) that Major General Jeffery was correct in stating the Queen is Australia's head of state (there have been sufficient arguments put forward in the past to consider him misinformed). Both writers are wrong elsewhere.

John J. Howard alleges "not a few Australians ... worry that the criteria for holding our nation's highest office are unrelated to merit and excellence, but reside rather in birth, sex and religion". Apart from the quibble that six could constitute "a few" and if there are twelve who worry his statement is literally correct, it is probable that most Australians would not consider this a problem.

In the Age of the Common Man, merit and excellence need not be criteria for holding a ceremonial post. Indeed, that the occupant of the position of head of state is not determined by political favouritism, alleged merit or excellence, or worse, could be considered a positive advantage. It is unfortunate if this makes the Constitution "deeply offensive" to John J. Howard and his supporters, but all other Australians are ...