Steel,

The catch with direct election, as you probably have heard before, is
the President and the P.M., both act with a mandate to strong action. There are two suns in the sky.

I recognize what you are saying about it being virtually impossible for politicians to be a-political with senior appointments. Yet,for President appointment some form of public ratification only, is, I suggest, the better system. The President has to represent everyone and make the Parliament accountable to the Constitution and the People.

With a direct political vote you grow conflicts, as now between the Houses.

The People and the Constitution must stand above the President and Parliament. Moreover, there needs to be a Bill of Rights above the Courts and Parliament. Lastly, there needs to be a vehicle for the People to ostacize invividual politicians from Office, mid-term, beyond the control of the party in power.

Another option might be to call the P.M., President, and give the G-G's powers to the High Court, collectively.

I'm happy to keep Liz until the new "best" model is developed. For Republicans, like me, I agree, we are not there, yet: We are still "a house divided" [Lincoln].

Cheers.

Kasperle,

I have to point out to you that tacitly denigrate Republican values while using those values to support your own beliefs.

To quanify: you say that the present Constitution has worked well, however you forget to mention two things

(1) the reason this Constitution has (arguably) been successful is precisely because of what Republicans today have what the drafters of the present Australian Constitution had: hindsight.

They said to themselves 'right lets look at the US and British const...ah here are the problems, this is how ours can be BETTER'. We say 'right, we should have our own Head of State, we should have limits on government power, we should clear not implied rights, we need a President who, unlike the Queen, does not have the power to veto Parliament (as Kind Edward wanted) and a Head of State who is legitmated by the Australian people, we need to get Federalism working again & a Constitution that reflects the 21st century, where we don't have stupid racist clauses in our Constitution, but rather one rooted in liberty'.

(2) You fail to mention that drafters of the present Constitution, philosopher Kings as they were, debated all night and day, and did not consult far and wide: at least ARM are asking for a plebescite. On these two counts, you stand condemned.

There is nothing wrong with debate. That is the beauty of it: a democracy that is formed without guns but by pure debate and reason. Furthermore, just because its the best does not mean it cannot be bettER (if it ain't broke doesn't fix it would mean the candle would be used instead of the light bulb, the horse carriage instead of the car). Also, as a libertarian, I think government is taking away our liberties, hence we need a Bill of Wrongs (yes, wrongs).

I also do agree with Oliver and believe Australia is not a nation in decline. Australia is an indepedent, rising nation. So to Kasperle I say 'I might be 19, but mate, you also must of been smoking something and you must of inhaled'.

Get-rid-of-the-GG. Replace-the-President-with-the-PM.

1. He would be elected in primaries: ordinary members of each political party would put up a candidate (both President and Vice President) which reflects 'the aspirations, experience and universal values of the Australian people'(just like in the US. The President must be a Member of Parliament or have a 'likely chance of winning a seat' to run, as the party chooses to define that (if he looses his seat but wins an election, I think its obvious what would happen here). The-President-represents-the-party-with-a-majority-in-the-House.

2. The President must attend Question Time (in addition to optional yearly televised debates) and handpick his Ministers. In addition everyday citizens, with preprepared questions, can ask questions during special QT sittings and such sitting would be compulsory and allow people to respond in an orderly fashion. Vice-President-becomes chairman-in-the-Senate.

3. The President's power is severly limited. S/he would have two powers: one, s/he can call a general election every three to four years (have the GGs Reserve powers if the Senate rejects money bills or any other disruption were to occur) & two, establish executive enterprise zones which must NOT breach the Bill of Wrongs (prohibitions on government power in the Constitution) OR Federal / State functions: in creating a‘splinter departments’ to trial policies s/he must have written consent of Governors of a State & that of the Mayor of the all local councils involves in such a trialed policy – the splinter department would set new regulations and applied in areas that want the new policy trialled, eg education vouchers. Such zones, however-large, can-only-be-applied-in-no-more- than-two-states.

4. However, Parliament is the real Head of State: even in military issues a majority of Parliament must give the President power to *use* the military.

5. Impeachment would occur US style; however, it would require the support of sixity percent of Parliament.

6. No pay rises shall occur while in government; financial transactions of Ministers must be transparent.

7. There would be limitations put on the judical power also: they cannot define when life begins; that is up to the legislature to decide. 2/3-majority-of-Parliament-can-veto-a-spurious-Constitutional interpretation-by-the-HC.

** Or rather should I say replace the PM with a President.