One Australian should be voted in as the social superior? You want an American style social system? oh thank you Mr President for allowing me to bath in your magnificence; then there are the Billionaires, Congressmen, then Senators, then Millionaires, and finally blue collar workers and the rest of the plebs on the street.

Why are you so worried by what people in China think, and not worried by what Canberra is doing? It is SHAMEFUL that Australia has wanted and been granted a Security Council seat when we continue to aid what looks like genocide across the 5% of the Australian continent that is under Indonesian administration, West Papua.

The US does not have global standing because of having a President, nor because of any good behaviour; its standing came from the fact that it was able to economically benefit from World War One and Two. It went from depression to full scale employment fueling the war, servicing the European clients trying to re-build their nations, and then profiting from the Cold war and war on terrorism.

Do you know the world's biggest gold mine is in West Papua? Do you understand that the effect of the 1975 Indonesian invasion of East Timor was that the Portugal Oil company project became a Conoco Phillips oil project.. Certain companies don't care about human rights, they just care about their own profits. Do you understand that the effect of the United Nations & Indonesian occupations of West Papua in 1962 and 1963 was that the Freeport corporation got its mining license and the Bechtel corporation got to build that mine and a hundred other projects under the control of the Indonesian Generals?

Australia and our region has been shaped by the most immoral businessmen in the world, and you want us to emulate them?

The author hasn't learned the obvious lesson from the United States. The obvious lesson is that there is absolutely no need for a head of state in addition to a head of government.

If the ceremony is important enough the head of government can attend. If it is not some other member of government can attend. A head of state merely serves the same function as a constitutional monarch. A head of state is a superfluous mouth feeding at the public trough.

If Australia gets rid of attachments to the crown and becomes a republic it should also get rid of a head of state.

I agree that the head of the elected government should be the principal representative of Australian citizens.

We still do need an executive council to decide disputes, such as that which arose in the Whitlam Dismissal, and to sign legislation into existence, but those functions could be served by say three members of the High Court or the Chief Justices of the individual states. Sir John Kerr and the Chief Justice of that time didn't, however, do all that good a job in 1975.

If you give proper consideration to Australia’s situation, Lo, you will realize that by an accident of history, we are a constitutional monarchy, a system which works very well for us.

The reason the US is the mess that it is, in this regard, is that while they tried to emulate the English, in setting up their Parliamentary system, they were at the time, very negative in their attitude to the English, as a result of the Revolution, and resorted to the work of a Frenchman, Montesqieu, on the English Constitution, instead of the exposition of an English scholar.

Our system emulates the English system, and came about empirically. Politics is not a science, and develops on history and experience, not specious, bright ideas. Our system is as good as is available, being tried and found true. Only those who have not studied its history and operation wish to “improve” it.

Your nitpicking criticism consists of empty words, of no substance. It is prompted by remarks by people ignorant of our constitution and its workings, and not by any proper consideration of it.

...God save the Queen, the Governor General and China: They are inextricably linked, and we have a national addiction to opiates to prove it.

The author puts forward a perfectly sound case. But it presents only half the argument. Only when both sides are considered and sound judgement applied can there possibly be a sensible decision.

That other side is to do with how the head of state would be appointed. If it is by election then the appointment is fraught with dangers. The primary danger is the potential for conflicting political views between government and head of state. Bill Ferris fixed on the idea of the Australian head of state as a national business promoter, barracking for example at Asian venture capital and private equity conferences. But the government, or different interest groups, might have very different priorities. Such activities by an elected head of state could quickly become divisive. Imagine if the conference were on asylum seekers rather than venture capital.

The whole point about our present model is that the head of state is a traditional symbol, kept at arm’s length and with no practical functions that might clash with the democratic running of the country. A smart business person might see this as a perfect role to outsource rather than elect. And where better than a distant respected family with a long history of calm operation and non-interference, which even chooses its own successor. The Windsors would win the job hands down.

Part 1 of 2: At the risk of boring those who’ve seen my posts on other articles, I will make some comments on my Advancing Democracy proposal to change the Constitution, and attempt to please you all. The proposal is at http://www.advancingdemocracy.info

1. Jieh-Yung Lo is correct on this point - it is absurd and embarrassing to have a foreign head of state. Advancing Democracy would deliver a local one.

2. To partially endorse what David f. has said, it is not necessary to have a head of government and a head of state if the role of the head of state remains unchanged. The monarchy and current governor-general are quite simply redundant. That is why Advancing Democracy proposes a different role for the head of state - similar to the job presently done by the speaker.

3. Like Daeron, I don’t want the head of state to be someone who is thought of as socially superior. Social status is a hangover from monarchy. Advancing Democracy focuses on function - what role should the head of state play? The person selected would have the same status as a member of Parliament.

4. Foyle is concerned about dispute resolution and mentions 1975. The 1975 crisis only occurred because of royal power. The minority which lost the previous election but controlled the Senate was able to use royal power to throw out the majority which had won. Royal power is not used for royal purposes - it is always manipulated by local politicians for their own ends. If, as Advancing Democracy proposes, you transfer the power to appoint governments and call early elections to the House of Representatives, then the Senate has no incentive to block supply. The minority would instead be forced to use democratic methods to regain power; either:
# convincing members of the House of Representatives to vote out the government, which has been done numerous times: see http://www.advancingdemocracy.info/pdf//Trust%20Your%20Representatives.pdf
# or convincing the voters to change their representatives at the next election.

Part 2 of 2:
5. Leo Lane says the article is nitpicking. I wouldn’t say that, but I do agree that identity is actually quite a minor issue. Where I take issue with Leo is the assertion that our Constitution works very well. This is only true when all sides to a dispute play by the rules in the democratic constitutional conventions, which is most of the time. We saw in 1975 that these conventions were not binding - the undemocratic rules in the written constitution prevail. So any time there is a dispute where it suits one side to rely on the written rules instead, we have a crisis. For possible crises we may face very soon: see http://www.advancingdemocracy.info/cmspage.php?pgid=58&pid=7.
Our Constitution is a bit like a home in Queensland which is built very well, but not, unfortunately, well enough to withstand cyclones and floods. Most of the time the house remains standing. Is that really good enough? This is the issue of real substance - how to avoid another 1975? The Advancing Democracy does that.

6. I agree with Tombee that there would be great danger in electing a head of state under our current rules, but surely the correct approach is to decide the job we want done first, then work out a method of selection. That is what every sensible employer does. The problem with the republic debate is that it still fails to focus on the role and powers of the position. The role and powers under the Advancing Democracy model are explained here: http://www.advancingdemocracy.info/cmspage.php?pgid=48&pid=45. Because of the more limited role, direct election is not necessary.

I hope some of you find time to read the Advancing Democracy model. It is a new approach designed to appeal to all sides.

If you think we live in democracy then you are a fool.It is the Global Corporate organisations that run Aust.That's why we need a proper constitution that actually gives power to the people.

China has told the present Western Oligarchs that it will remain independant and not be consumed by it's debt money creation system.This is why China is now been demonised.China has won the peace and now a new arms race caused by our Western New World Order nutters has begun.

The 800,000 Chinese living here need to become more politically vocal since a war initiated by the West will see our economy collapse and Chinese people here demonised.

Unless we opt for the US model, we'd be looking at a figurehead president which is not much different from our current system. We all know that an elected president here would most likely be a retired political hack or a political crony. Think of our best Governor's-General - people like Sir William Deane, Sir Zelman Cowan - there is no way anyone of that calibre would stand for, let alone be elected, President. Its bad enough that the present Governor-General seems totally preoccupied with her wardrobe and the number of changes she can fit in during a single day (without having any idea of dressing with appropriate gravitas for her position), but at least she can be moved on quite easily.

POTUS aside, I don't think many people either know or care about other nations' heads of state or how they come to be there.

Not a particularly good example, when you think about it.

"One of them posed the question to me, 'I do not understand why the Governor General of Australia greets the Chinese President when he visits Australia. Shouldn't it be the Prime Minister, the leader of the national government?'"

When China's president Xi Jinping visits, I expect our head of state will receive him.

I expect that when China's prime minister Li Keqiang visits, I expect our prime minister will receive him.

Sorry, what was your point again?