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?