Good Grief.
Beelzebub, please tell me you're kidding.
"The plural (i.e. "PM and her relevant Ministers") may have escaped your attention. Perhaps if the President were multiply schizoid ..."
Not only does the 'set of remarkable responsibilities' already exist; not only does the PM and her ministers already exist, but the Ministers departments already exist, as do the public servants who work in those departments.
I'm typing as slowly as I can. I do hope it helps.
When I wrote that the President should be in charge of Legal aid, I didn't mean to imply that he/she should personally represent all the impoverished clients in court personally. I didn't mean when I wrote that the Pres., should be in charge of all Ombudsmen that he/she should BE all ombudsmen.
In short, I don't imagine a President being a lonely bloke perched all by himself on a stump somewhere.
Although all changes in bureaucracy inevitably result in a larger bureaucracy (strangely) all I'm suggesting is the relevant departments work for an apolitical President, in front of whom 'the buck stops'.
What we (still, desperately) need, is someone to 'keep the bastards honest'.

Thankyou Grim

Beelzebub
"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."
How are these people put in government?

That aside, Beelzebub your entire definition of a government is entirely stuck in a definition of a stratified system with an all-powerful ruler/house of rulers; the possibility of constitunionally-dominant governance by the voting public directly, has clearly eluded you- despite being in practice in some Republics already in existence.

A Republic can be absolutely anything (except a true monarchy), you are only comparing the USA and Plato's Republics.

> the relevant departments ... 'the buck stops'.

OK, so the buck has stopped, it's landed on the President's desk; what then? Of course I don't imagine that he would be 'all Ombudsmen', but he must have their respect and loyalty if he's to be an effective leader. Such respect is never gained by mere election, only by relevant professional competence. The role of ombudsman is inevitably one of the most legally contentious and conflicted, so considerable expertise and a proven track record are essential. A president without such experience could neither advise, consult, oversee nor judge in such matters. What, therefore, is his role and purpose?

> Not only does ... departments.

I did not dispute this. What I am questioning is the ability of a single individual to possess both the appropriate personality and character traits, AND the knowledge and experience needed to arbitrate in matters so diverse as military matters and indigenous affairs. Using your example, I would not dispute Noel Pearson's ability to debate Aboriginal interests, but doubt his ability to gain any professional respect from military men. It is why we have such a plurality and plethora of organizations and individuals, as regrettable as this might be. It's all very well to dream up the ideal 'national father figure' who can right all wrongs, but you'll have the dickens of a job finding him (or her), at least until the Second Coming.

> What ... 'keep the bastards honest'.

SomeONE can never do that. Even a dedicated group would have difficulty. The root of the problem lies in the attitudes and expectations of the general public, hence Prof McGorry's call for national maturity. Electing the Wonder Boy as President may appeal as a quick fix, but is unlikely ever to happen. Changing public attitudes is a slow, difficult, uncertain process, but ultimately the only lasting solution.

> I'm typing as slowly as I can. I do hope it helps.

Funny, no. Your ideas still seem absurdly impractical to me. Perhaps if you changed to a typewriter ...

> the possibility of constitunionally-dominant governance by the voting public directly, has clearly eluded you

No, Your Majesty, I'm aware of the theory, and having spent the best years of my life in Singapore I'm also aware of the possibility of its practical realization, even if only partially. I never mentioned Plato, and the US only in passing. I'm also aware of the etymology of the term in 'res publica', which is precisely why I'm criticizing the attempt to define the role of a single 'Mr Fixit' (see posts by JMCC and Grim). It's the 'publica' who should occupy more of the discussion.

> How are these people put in government?

And if you'd taken the time to actually read my previous post (an unwarranted civility, I'm sure you'll say) you'll notice my emphasis in 'The first stage CANNOT be political'. These people must elect themselves, NOT (please note emphasis) to govern, but to discuss, debate, and decide. The next step would then be to open a dialogue with those elected to govern, and with a view to establishing a process of consultation and public debate. Sorry if this is all getting a bit too complicated. I know that Ozns much prefer the quick fix.

Actually Beelzebub that was precisely what I assumed you were implying- a body of "experts" that somehow elects itself, with an en-defined role to which their 'discuss, debate and decide' actually affects government.

-Which corresponds closely to Plato's hierarchy of a republic, and your only alternative is a US-democracy style of an elected all-powerful sovereign;

Neither of which corresponds remotely to what I have actually been talking about, and unfortunately, I get the impression you haven't actually noticed.

Too complicated indeed.

Nah!

A republic is just an excuse for Type 'A' personalities to widen $THEIR$ gap between RICH and poor.

That ain't no myth!

Look at Barangaroo. Some republicky ex polititians have got their grubby mits all over public property even while we live in this purely token monarchism.

Why put any label at all on our basic politic0-economic system. What we really want is to narrow the rich V POOR gap and let the rest of the world know we are truly a DEMOCRACY and not just a pretend one run by a bunch of shifty pr$cks always trying to legislate more available women, crappy AFL style circuses, Beer and basically get one up on their fellow countrymen.

Meanwhile republican IMMIGRATIONISM is turning our cities violent, crowded, gridlocked and unresponsive. Pro-republicans ignore this reality and declare immigrants are a perfect 'NATION BUILDING' tool. Hellooo! Immigrants and costing us a fortune in electricity bills alone to pay for new power stations to serve THEM, not US.

Republicans would Nation Build current Australians into early graves to make way for THEIR kind of foreign voters, friends & relations. They savour our demise & make the incessant Labor & Liberal immigrant sell-out of Australian citizens look like the Mickey Mouse Club.

But based on the naked violence in our cities, Beware REVOLUTION! Civilisation as portrayed by Naive Federal polititions and 'la la land' feminists is SUCH a thin veneer.