Max, this is the most dreadfully defeatist article I've read about a republic.

You acknowledge the reserve powers are not precisely or comprehensively spelled out and that they were abused in 1975. Yet you accept their continuation as if this is the best we can do.

Dissatisfaction with the amateurish state of the republic debate should not prevent us from devising a better system - one without reserve powers, and one which has very clear rules which are based on democratic principle, not outdated royalist crap.

As a practical lawyer who focuses on practical solutions for a living, I have already written this better system. It's called the Advancing Democracy model, and you will find it at www.advancingdemocracy.info.

Rather than pretending all we have is a choice between the current system and something imported from overseas, read the proposal which would allow us to take a major step forward and adopt a system in advance of those anywhere else.

I'm sorry Max but completely disagree, with your fatuous and empty argument; having a foreign monarch, from a foreign land as head of state, has in no way limited, moderated or prevented corruption, nepotism or abuse of power! And right back to settlement and the Rum Corp.

Would gentle and kind Dr Haneef been sumarily incarcerated by order of an official, in a republic, where the citizens were protected a bill of irrevocable human rights?

The only folks against becoming a republic, I contend, are power hungry control freaks determined to avoid the diminution of of their own power? And the useful idiots that agree with them?

Even so Max, we are a so called democracy, and apparently ruled by the will of the people? Or should that read the subverted/manipulated will of the people? And given we are a "democracy" what can be wrong with puting the question to the people?

And let's not get the cart before the horse as we did last time and simply ask, do we or don't we want to be a republic?

And then having decided that question, sort out the most favoured method of achieving the clearly expressed will of the people, rather than, like last time, subvert it!
Rhrosty.

Third time lucky. I DO agree with the gist of this article. As long as Australians persist in re-electing really stupid people to make the same mistakes they always have, we do not need another politician as head of state.

Max,
The problem with our present system is that the Governor General is, in effect,chosen by the presiding government. The Crown is impotent in Australia and has made it clear it intends to stay that way.

NSW was lucky in 1932 when Jack Lang was sacked before he could ruin the financial credit of Australia. the Governor, Sir Phillip Game, saved us from that. Australia's credit was in the balance in 1975 when Kerr overcame his upbringing and left wing roots enough to sack Whitlam.

Those two occasions showed the necessity of having someone to resolve a political crisis. It 1932 it was a stand off between the Commonwealth and the State Governments. In 1975 it was between the House and the Senate.

In both cases the questions was answered overwhelmingly by the people in elections called because of the actions of Governor and Governor General.

We need some person or group of persons with express power to do what Game and Kerr did. i.e. refer the crisis to the people in an election for the people to decide.

That person or group of persons should not be the appointee or appointees of a single government.

That person or those persons need to be elected direct or preferably elected by the Chief Justice of each State and of the High Court.

We came close to chaos in 1932 and 1975. We may not be so lucky next time.

Come on Old Man, you want to give a bunch of lawyers control of who becomes President/Governor General, you've got to be kidding.

I can't imagine a bunch of people more likely to get it wrong, or who I would trust less.