I think also that I would have to reject outright any model that has a president that is any one- or more- of the following;

1- not elected (not democratic)

2- lacks an active participatory function in governance beyond rubber stamping (useless)

3- inhibits, rather than enhances the democratic power of the public (by holding powers to force personal input- the alternative is that the president has the power to force PUBLIC input by referendum).

4- has some binding obligations to act in the public interest (instead of sit on his arse until he really can't afford NOT to do something- like the GG does).

5- has any binding obligation to adhere to any standards beyond the Australian constitution and the will of the Australian people.

6- Has authority to override Indigenous rights, or for that matter, Australian voting rights, rights not to be conscripted, and of course referenda.

Grim suggests that the mandate of a new Australian President should include the following:

1. "to protect minorities (down to a minority of one) from the tyranny of majority rule."
2. "be in charge of Legal Aid"
3. "to ensure everyone actually is 'equal before the Law'"
4. be in charge "of so called 'Crown' commissions and enquiries"
5. "be the head of all Ombudsmen."
6. the resulting oversight and responsibilities "should include all Australian citizens, including children, the armed forces and Aboriginals."
7. and, to make sure that he/she doesn't slack off on the job, "should include the individual rights of Australians yet to be born."

And this truly remarkable set of responsibilities is to be "within the reasonable ambitions of the maximum number of Australians" - presumably, the majority. So the beer-swilling yobbos whose weekends are now taken up with football, parties, and the occasional fishing trip are now to apply for a job in the expectation of fulfilling the above duties, and without transgressing the further guidelines imposed by King Hazza.

All of which goes to prove the main point of Professor McGorry's 2010 Republican lecture - that Australians are too immature (not to mention stupid) to form an independent nation. No one in their right mind would honestly undertake to fulfil the above wish-list. You fellows are out of your trees in Lala Land.

Beezelbub you may need to get a pair of reading glasses and check our two points again, because all my "further" points rather disagree with those outlined by Grim; so being near polar opposites in our points, how can we both be wrong beyond not considering the status quo?

Also, considering our points are actually, you know, practical; so far you have not contributed a single idea.

On another note, if you are getting at the idea of compulsory referenda participation; We could always (seeing as we are changing the constitution) always make referenda participation voluntary- just like in Europe.

It is attitudes that are frightened of practical change (mostly in the ARM) that will prevent us from becoming a republic- as is an obsession with symbolic leadership; so your departing point about Australians not being mature enough for one may be correct after all.
And quite frankly, with too few people knowledgable about how other democratic systems work beyond a tiny bit of vague knowledge of Australia and America, I don't think we should be talking a Republic at all until more people with an interest in this issue get off their backsides and do some homework.

First up, Your Majesty, IMHO, a republican model is quite unsuitable for Australia. An elected President automatically becomes a sort of deified father-figure Who Can Do No Wrong. Proof of this was patent in the adulation of Americans for an inebriated half-wit like George W. Bush. A parliamentary nominee, by contrast, would be nothing more than a puppet. I'm not sure if there's a valid historical model for what I'd like to see, and given how far modern society has diverged from anything in the past, I doubt that past social models have much more than general relevance.

The first point that should be clearly recognized in any such discusion is that governments worldwide are no longer supreme national authorities; that role is now exercized - quietly, clandestinely, but very ruthlessly - but the TransNational Corporations and the International Banks. No country will admit this publicly, of course, but Rudd's ouster by international mining interests leaves no doubt in my mind (and that of many others) as to who really controls Australia's destiny. In this situation, exchanging a GG for a president is like a drag queen changing costumes, but even less edifying. See:

http://www.thecorporation.com

The second point is that most Ozns are completely unaware of many crucial facts, such as that Qld, for example, has not been a legal part of the Commonwealth of Australia since 15 July 2001, when under The Corporations Act 1990, and using the Reprints Act that allows Qld pollies to change laws simply by reprinting a new version of them, Qld was recreated as a Corporate Government known as the Brigalow Corporation. If you're not up to speed on this, visit this site, browse the material, and critique it if you can:

http://www.abpac-australia.net/

From this can clearly be seen, not only that Oz pollies are working against the best interests of the nation (as has long been traditional), but HOW they are doing so. Given this reality (and it's a most uncomfortable one), it's obvious that any remedial action has to proceed in stages. The first stage CANNOT be political, for the simple reason you'd be beaten before you started. It needs to arise from those few in society who are capable of mature, reasoned discourse about controversial matters, and from the detached perspective of the longer-term greater good, things that politicians cannot achieve, nor many others. Just what such a gathering would be, I'm not sure; the only phrase that comes to mind is a Council of Elders - a convocation of mature, respected, and experienced people whose ideas and intentions have gone beyond the adversarial puerility of modern politics, and could undertake the role that the Senate has so manifestly failed to fulfil.

The first stage in solving any problem is an accurate statement of it. As obvious as it sounds, it's far more common to find people racing around after solutions without knowing what it is they're trying to achieve. Once some sort of consensus had been reached as to what the real the problems are, solutions can be mooted. Having declared my two cents' worth, may I ask how much taxation Your Majesty requires me to contribute to your coffers in recompense?

Beelzebub, congratulations on a remarkably un-insightful post.
All of these "truly remarkable (set of) responsibilities" currently exist; including consideration for Australians yet to be born. They are currently under the control of the PM and her relevant Ministers.
How well/thoroughly/badly they are addressed is therefore currently a matter of policy; of whichever flavour Government presides.
I might also suggest you Google the word 'ambition', since you don't seem to understand it. the relevant sentence in my previous post read:
"Such a President would be elected, not for their policies or promises (to lobby groups) but for their **reputation for fairness, dedication to community service and incorruptibility.**"
But by all means, vote for a 'beer swilling yobbo' if you wish.
The point of a popularly elected but apolitical President is that the only promise he/she can make is to perform the duties specified; nothing else. The only way the electorate can judge whether the candidate is up to the task is through past performance; a dedication to causes apart from their own betterment.
People such as Ian Kiernan or Noel Pearson come to mind.
Hazza, I found your last post equally perplexing; I pretty much agree with all your points.