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.