CONGRATULATIONS all round. An excellent point for discussion regardless of your leanings, well done OLO editors.
Well crafted starting point, "A" for the author.
One can only hope that respondents will be as thoughtful and not simply trash the topic with tired emotionally charged rhetoric.
I think point 3 needs more work but more later.

A very interesting and well written article indeed!

I particularly like the historical examples you cited and how they COULD occur here, particularly random was the Easter Crisis of 1920, where the King dismissed the PM just becuase he 'felt like it', like our GG can here.

I think the author has been able to take the monarchists head on and argue that the Republic v Monarchy debate has (a) little to do with the Queen and everything to do with the Governor General and more importantly (b) the debate is about (future) efficiency as opposed to just symbolism relating to being a true blue Aussie who believes in a fair go and merit.

This is obviously a weighty article

Unfortunately, I got stuck at the "why we should bother" bit. The examples (are these all there are?) were to me supremely unconvincing.

"First, the drafters of the present Constitution had what Republicans have today: hindsight to alter the American and British Constitutions"

That, I'm afraid, is not a reason. It might be an explanation why we might not screw it up as much, were we to build one, but it certainly is not a justification in itself.

"Second, the same argument could have been used to prevent us becoming a constitutional monarchy: the federation before 1901 didn’t break so why fix it? This is akin to arguing that just because the candle works, we shouldn’t use a light bulb."

Sorry, that doesn't wash either. If the house has no electricity, it is a perfect reason to use a candle over a light bulb.

"According to Popper, just because something has worked up to now, does not mean it will work into the future"

Using the candle/light bulb analogy, it also does not mean that an alternative must be better.

At this point I have to confess my own bias, which is that Australia should become a Republic. Unfortunately, if we rely upon arguments such as this, we will continue to get absolutely nowhere.

And the examples (sorry AustralianWhig89) are equally lazy.

The 1920 Easter crisis in Denmark was over a serious issue, where Parliament had made a decision that involved ceding Danish territory to Germany. I would hope that our GG would act similarly, if parliament decided that Bondi should become part of New Zealand.

Far from there being a "crisis" in Belgium in 1992, (or 1990-1993, to be more accurate) there was a series of challenges that highlighted why it is essential to have a courageous and principled head of state.

I'm sure I would have enjoyed the rest of the article, but I simply couldn't get past the "why this, why now" problem

Steven Spadijer's proposed model honestly addresses the fundamental issue for republicanism: the people only want an elected president, yet an elected presidency is a major structural change in Australian democracy. Most republicans try to gloss over this problem and pretend it doesn't exist. To his credit, Steven deals with the problem by embracing it and working through some of the consequences. In doing so he highlights how serious the problem is. His proposed model is ten times the amount of change the Australian electorate would ever agree to in a referendum.

Pericles, the point is that hindsight allows one to reflect on previous problems; this is exactly what the drafters of the present Constitution DID. As such, it is true that the model won't necessarily be better, BUT it CAN be better, in terms of efficiency & legitmacy due to retrospectivity. The reason is modernity & historical precedent; true the light bulb might go out when there is no electricity but it is infinitely efficient when in use; there are always backs up yes.

As for the Easter Crisis, again the issue is about present LEGITMACY: the people voted the PM. The King, however, is NOT accountable. Indeed in central Schleswig the situation was that 80% voted for uniting with Germany & 20% for Denmark! Why have an onslaught on democracy? There is a geographical justification for what happened with the Easter Crisis: most people happened to regard themselves as German (we are isolated & as such such a problem would not occur here). Likewise, in Belgium, you think the Head of state was courageous? You mean the fact the bloke RESIGNED for a DAY is courageous? The point again is LEGITMACY. A better approach would of been,'freeze the bill and discuss it more' rather than let confusion prevail. Regulation, without overriding democracy, Pericles.

As to Nick, I think people would CERTAINLY support this model: it is BETTER THAN the status quo as it is more LEGITMATE & avoids ABUSES of power and makes impeachment more flexible (depending on the term). It is cost efficient; the GGs residence would be given to charity, make the President Min. of Foreign affairs. Plus, people WANT a bill of rights (or prohibition on government powers...80% in fact), people WANT clear accountability on healthcare & education & a directly elected Australian, people WANT to participate in Question Time, people WANT to be rewarded on MERIT. They can BENEFIT from this model, their civil liberties, accountability between the State and Federal levels of government. The last Referendum the vote was 45% with a horrible model, I think this model is better than the status quo.

As a conservative, even I must admit this model quite interesting and tempting! I particularly, liked the prohibitions on executive and judicial power as well! Nice!

Also, let me just make some comments about the above comments.

Firstly, Pericles I do not think the analogies were supposed to be taken literally or to be ontologically equivalent (I think they were emblematic of human progress and potential). Still, I think Mr Spadijer DOES quench your point ‘why this, why now’ and that is this: why not? If you bothered reading further and more deeply. Why wait to see the day when a democratically illegitimate Head of State vetos a bill due to the ‘abuse’ of power? Why not just let him regulate it? Why wait to see the day when he REFUSES to dissolve Parliament? Why wait to see if the GG dismisses the Cabinet? Why risk possible disorder and confusion? Why not codify the powers and SET them in law. I rather avoid possible crisis than await one. Furthermore, in Belgium the issue could have been dealt more effectively if regulation (but not veto) was there (btw, the crisis happened in April 4, 1990); the Easter Crisis didn’t mean overreacting and dismissing the ENTIRE cabinet. Anyways, to quote Robert Kennedy specifically (forgiving him for his liberalness), ‘if not us, then who? If not now then when?’ Pericles, you are simply wrong about the issue here. It is about progress and democracy itself. And I’d check your fact if I were you, regarding the King of Belgium (and how he went about vetoing the law) and votes of the people before the Easter crisis; no point of forcing people who were once German to be part of Denmark, I think. :)