Why have one at all. Mr Howard as PM proved that the GG is not needed. The only role I can see for the GG is the swearng in of parliament ministers and the calling of elections. . This can be done by a part time board appointed for those functions. Think of the money saved. No more hangers on kept for life as today.

I agree Flo- the GG is a superfluous waste of money.

The GG is the official formal entertainer for foreign govt; bodies.

Quentin Bryce has another 3 years as Governer General.

Why 3 years. Why not 3 weeks. To date she has done nothing, and while Governer of QLD, she also did __ nothing.

She has not produced anything, made no changes to anything, and any of her speeches could be made by a high school student.

She has now spent many years living off the taxpayer to do __ nothing.

When Quentin Bryce finishes, the public should also do __ nothing, and not have any more Governer Generals.

Perhaps, given recent political history, we should consider something totally radical and get rid of the PM rather than getting rid of the G-G. It would have its benefits.

1) It would demolish our current "personality cult" electoral power-plays, and Australians could do what our system was set up for us to do: vote for the local candidate who offers the best for our community.

2) It would preserve some sort of dignity for our nation's leader, who would be unable to descend to the scandalous muckraking of our politicians, even if he/she wanted to.

3) It would allow Parliament to make legislation within its enclosed little world, while still allowing our executive to hail from another part of the "real world". Obviously, this would require the selection of a G-G from outside the political sphere.

I know there are many arguments against what I have proposed. Nonetheless, if one thinks a little laterally, it isn't wholly implausible. After all: we currently have two leaders, neither of whom holds any significant power. One is a frequent cause of frustration and rarely gives reason for admiration. The other is a bit of a "ghost" - does her job quietly, rarely seen and rarely heard. If I was to choose one to keep and the other to toss, I'd keep the G-G any day.

Is the PM mentioned in the Constitution? I think the Founding Fasthers may have got it right. We have allowed too much power and glory to be invested in the PM. A hung parliament brings this home. The only thing tat matters is the vote on the floor of the parliament. The power in this hung parliament is spread wider, as it should be. The PM main role is to represents their party, as does the opposition leader.

Or better still, we could scrap the PM, GG, Parliament, and have the executive branch composed entirely of independent ministers directly elected into their respective portfolios, to ensure the representative truly does reflect the public in their field (instead of the "least worst package deal" system we have.
We can leave parliament as nothing more than an additional house of review, if we don't scrap it outright.

My sentiments Otokonoko. I wish to add that a journalist would be a dangerous alternative working within a high profile government role; a role in which carries far more weight and responsibilities contrary to both public discernment and the author's comments.

Most government roles advertise or only touch upon some of the duties involved in these positions

We need elect the Governor-General using optional preferential voting.

Our popularly elected Governor-General then selects her/his Ministers for the Executive from popularly elected Parliamentarians (Senate or House of Representatives) which ensures the Executive branch is always answerable to both Legislative and Judicial branches.

Expect reduced Executive Government attempts to enforce compliance before actual legislation both introduced and passed.

Sadly current executive activists do NOT want accountability to Australians through choosing who Governs,,,

polpax if we elect a GG, that gives them real power. Do we need that? At the most it should be a cermonial post, which the main role is to swear in the parliamentarians and administer election writs. We do not need it to have other powers. The power to govern should remain on the floor of the Lower House.

GG's don't do what they need to do when it is needed. They are here for the people yet are not listening to the people.

Sure a GG job is to signoff of revisions, bills and writs ect. but maybe they lose sight of their main purpose 'the people'.

I recently sent a letter to the governor general over the election and in return received a response from the Deputy Official Secretary to the Governor-General just giving me the results rather than answering my questions in relation to the constitution act and citizens handbook.

Personally I intend to send a legal letter with this letter to the Queen direct outlining the people and their right to employ without manipulation outcome of the government.

BrettH. I am a little confuse by what you mean. I was under the impression the GG was there to stand in for the Queen.