CONGRATULATIONS all round. An excellent point for discussion regardless of your leanings, well done OLO editors.
Well crafted starting point, "A" for the author.
One can only hope that respondents will be as thoughtful and not simply trash the topic with tired emotionally charged rhetoric.
I think point 3 needs more work but more later.

A very interesting and well written article indeed!

I particularly like the historical examples you cited and how they COULD occur here, particularly random was the Easter Crisis of 1920, where the King dismissed the PM just becuase he 'felt like it', like our GG can here.

I think the author has been able to take the monarchists head on and argue that the Republic v Monarchy debate has (a) little to do with the Queen and everything to do with the Governor General and more importantly (b) the debate is about (future) efficiency as opposed to just symbolism relating to being a true blue Aussie who believes in a fair go and merit.

This is obviously a weighty article

Unfortunately, I got stuck at the "why we should bother" bit. The examples (are these all there are?) were to me supremely unconvincing.

"First, the drafters of the present Constitution had what Republicans have today: hindsight to alter the American and British Constitutions"

That, I'm afraid, is not a reason. It might be an explanation why we might not screw it up as much, were we to build one, but it certainly is not a justification in itself.

"Second, the same argument could have been used to prevent us becoming a constitutional monarchy: the federation before 1901 didn’t break so why fix it? This is akin to arguing that just because the candle works, we shouldn’t use a light bulb."

Sorry, that doesn't wash either. If the house has no electricity, it is a perfect reason to use a candle over a light bulb.

"According to Popper, just because something has worked up to now, does not mean it will work into the future"

Using the candle/light bulb analogy, it also does not mean that an alternative must be better.

At this point I have to confess my own bias, which is that Australia should become a Republic. Unfortunately, if we rely upon arguments such as this, we will continue to get absolutely nowhere.

And the examples (sorry AustralianWhig89) are equally lazy.

The 1920 Easter crisis in Denmark was over a serious issue, where Parliament had made a decision that involved ceding Danish territory to Germany. I would hope that our GG would act similarly, if parliament decided that Bondi should become part of New Zealand.

Far from there being a "crisis" in Belgium in 1992, (or 1990-1993, to be more accurate) there was a series of challenges that highlighted why it is essential to have a courageous and principled head of state.

I'm sure I would have enjoyed the rest of the article, but I simply couldn't get past the "why this, why now" problem

Steven Spadijer's proposed model honestly addresses the fundamental issue for republicanism: the people only want an elected president, yet an elected presidency is a major structural change in Australian democracy. Most republicans try to gloss over this problem and pretend it doesn't exist. To his credit, Steven deals with the problem by embracing it and working through some of the consequences. In doing so he highlights how serious the problem is. His proposed model is ten times the amount of change the Australian electorate would ever agree to in a referendum.

Pericles, the point is that hindsight allows one to reflect on previous problems; this is exactly what the drafters of the present Constitution DID. As such, it is true that the model won't necessarily be better, BUT it CAN be better, in terms of efficiency & legitmacy due to retrospectivity. The reason is modernity & historical precedent; true the light bulb might go out when there is no electricity but it is infinitely efficient when in use; there are always backs up yes.

As for the Easter Crisis, again the issue is about present LEGITMACY: the people voted the PM. The King, however, is NOT accountable. Indeed in central Schleswig the situation was that 80% voted for uniting with Germany & 20% for Denmark! Why have an onslaught on democracy? There is a geographical justification for what happened with the Easter Crisis: most people happened to regard themselves as German (we are isolated & as such such a problem would not occur here). Likewise, in Belgium, you think the Head of state was courageous? You mean the fact the bloke RESIGNED for a DAY is courageous? The point again is LEGITMACY. A better approach would of been,'freeze the bill and discuss it more' rather than let confusion prevail. Regulation, without overriding democracy, Pericles.

As to Nick, I think people would CERTAINLY support this model: it is BETTER THAN the status quo as it is more LEGITMATE & avoids ABUSES of power and makes impeachment more flexible (depending on the term). It is cost efficient; the GGs residence would be given to charity, make the President Min. of Foreign affairs. Plus, people WANT a bill of rights (or prohibition on government powers...80% in fact), people WANT clear accountability on healthcare & education & a directly elected Australian, people WANT to participate in Question Time, people WANT to be rewarded on MERIT. They can BENEFIT from this model, their civil liberties, accountability between the State and Federal levels of government. The last Referendum the vote was 45% with a horrible model, I think this model is better than the status quo.

As a conservative, even I must admit this model quite interesting and tempting! I particularly, liked the prohibitions on executive and judicial power as well! Nice!

Also, let me just make some comments about the above comments.

Firstly, Pericles I do not think the analogies were supposed to be taken literally or to be ontologically equivalent (I think they were emblematic of human progress and potential). Still, I think Mr Spadijer DOES quench your point ‘why this, why now’ and that is this: why not? If you bothered reading further and more deeply. Why wait to see the day when a democratically illegitimate Head of State vetos a bill due to the ‘abuse’ of power? Why not just let him regulate it? Why wait to see the day when he REFUSES to dissolve Parliament? Why wait to see if the GG dismisses the Cabinet? Why risk possible disorder and confusion? Why not codify the powers and SET them in law. I rather avoid possible crisis than await one. Furthermore, in Belgium the issue could have been dealt more effectively if regulation (but not veto) was there (btw, the crisis happened in April 4, 1990); the Easter Crisis didn’t mean overreacting and dismissing the ENTIRE cabinet. Anyways, to quote Robert Kennedy specifically (forgiving him for his liberalness), ‘if not us, then who? If not now then when?’ Pericles, you are simply wrong about the issue here. It is about progress and democracy itself. And I’d check your fact if I were you, regarding the King of Belgium (and how he went about vetoing the law) and votes of the people before the Easter crisis; no point of forcing people who were once German to be part of Denmark, I think. :)

Secondly, (sorry Nick), I DO think such a model would persuade ALOT of Australians who want to (1) fix up the issues of federalism. Give over entire portfolios rather than parts. Accountability must be CLEAR; (2) want to choose who their Head of State is; (3) want a bill of (negative) rights. No more buck passing between Canberra and the States! I think the Australian people have an eye for the future, and I think this model, with a FEW clarifications and modification has the right idea... right enough, I think, to get Republicans over 50% and even over 60% in all states. It has also the benefits of the status quo: efficiency (avoiding possible confusions), legitimacy (as to the Head of State and his decisions), upfrontness and accountability (for the President) and rights and privileges set in stone. It has many good ideas and we Australians invented the Referendum, we might as well invent THE grandest constitution ever devised.

ps don't argue that the GG is above politics; the GG generally acts on the PMs advice anyone; just a waste really and if he is then if he does something s/he should be held accountable and his office legitmate).

Where is the real argument for change? That we need a president? That the governor-general is a relic? (Try telling Quentin Bryce she's a relic!).

The "link to the Crown" that so offends Australian republicans is symbolic and has been for years. In effect, in that well-used phrase, we have always been a Crowned Republic.

If we must tinker, at least let's do so with a mind to minimise change. We need a head of state (we have one, the governor-general) and we need a prime minister. Washminster doesn't wash, whether variant I or II.

We could call the governor-general the president, abolish the historical fiction of "advising the Queen", and find some other way of appointing the occupant of a ceremonial post.

Erm, Scribe, you have failed to state why Washminister II does not stick, failed to actually critique the model presented; indeed have failed critique whether its efficient or its symbolic value. I think it is significantly better than the status quo. Plus we are really a Crowned Republic AFTER the Australia Act (the fact we already are a Republic means we should formalise the process anyways).

As the article points out the GG, an institution of the Crown can STILL interfere with policy. THUS, the argument is that a person who is undemocratically chosen (and therefore illegitimate, at least compared to the alternative) has no right to have the potential to (1) veto parliament, (2) decide who should be head of government, (3) refuse to call an election. As such it is an efficiency and legitimacy issue. Most Republicans do not want to RISK the possibility of vetos gone wild , refusals to call elections and random dismissals etc. Why wait for confusion to occur? That is the argument.

Plus, as for the GG, well...

Firstly, why have an unelected GG, generally former politician that can play match maker?

Secondly, why bother having a GG (whom little people know and can hardly lead)? A Head of State should be known and they should define the character of the country by engaging with debate.

Thirdly, why DUPLICATE an office? We can set election dates. Set triggers. The Americans have NEVER EVER had a Constitutional crisis of elections not being called etc. The PM does most of it anyways. Waste of time and money. Hence the GG is a relic of our antidemocratic tradition and is superfluous. He shouldn’t refuse elections and the crisises listed shouldn't be allowed to happen AGAIN!

As for your tinker point, why must change be minimal even when it’s NECESSARY? So you oppose prohibitions on government power and (negative) rights? You're saying people want government to intervene in their lives? Oppose clarity between State and Federal governments? You're saying people want no accountability? Oppose an Australian as a SYMBOLIC as opposed to constitutional head of state? You're saying you want a foreigner as your symbolic head of state? Oppose the OPTION of decentralisation? No point of being minimal if it is not going to make things better. People are smart enough to know what the stuff ups are. Republic should be PRACTICAL reforms, not symbolic ones (another point of the article)

So, scribe, my question to you is: what is YOUR point? That you disagreed with the minor points but couldn’t critique the major ones, that is of efficiency and legitimacy? This model obliterates the status quo without saying.

The author of this article seems to lack a basic knowledge of how our system of government works, and particularly, as with most republicans, a knowledge of what we think of politicians.

Just look at his scenarios:

1. The G-G installs Nelson as PM. The only problem with this plot is that Nelson would be unable to pass supply, which must originate in the Reps, and would thus be unable to govern. The constitution provides that no public moneys may be spent except by appropriation made by law.

2. The G-G refuses to give assent to a bill without a valid reason. The G-G holds his office during the Queen's pleasure, and in such a case as a last resort Rudd could advise the Queen to terminate his commission, something that I am sure would happen.

The constant omission from this and almost all other republican rants is the attitude of the people (yes, the group who have to approve any change) to politicians. Most people LOVE seeing politicians humiliated, and and a considerable number (possibly not in Victoria) loved seeing Gough and Keating dismissed by Her Majesty's representative. Some years ago, politicians were compared to used-car salesmen, and the salesmen complained at the invidious comparison, and they had to be compared to snake-oil salesmen.

There is a compelling case for asserting that politicians are not human, as least while in office. You only have to look at the toilets in parliament house (men, women, members) for evidence to support this proposition. Until we get real electoral reform, which would include the right at elections to vote that the seat should be left vacant, as well as action to cut the salaries and expenses politicians enjoy, this opinion will continue.

Those who want constitutional reform should realise that the only way to achieve it is to introduce citizen initiative referendum, as has been practiced in Switzerland for over a century. If the people are allowed to frame the question, they are far more likely to approve it. At the moment, the politicians put 'em up, and we knock 'em down.

Plerdus, reading some of the comments here you have failed to state what is bad with the model itself. Rather, you simply did was say what we should add on. In doing so, YOU look like the one lacking any basic knowledge of how our government works and worse historical precedent of Her Majesty’s inaction (arguably impotence) in times of crisis. Worse still, you strengthened the arguments of the article. Let me explain.

The scenarios are perfectly foreseeable. With scenario one there is nothing preventing some loony doing what was described (I think someone else said ‘why risk it’? True is is unlikely, but not impossible). The money bill scenario you described in the House of Representatives, I think, raises Mr Spadijer PRECISE point: what if some loony did exactly that, what then? What would happen to the money supply? This adds to the argument, despite being a remote point. Indeed, analogous events have happened in the past (as in Canada). Also, let us change the fact a little bit. What if there is a hung Parliament but Labor still had most of the votes? What then also? Hence the valid point in the article that ‘statisticians should debate a model which has MORE representation’. In short, a complete and undemocratic abuse of power CAN occur. While a Liberal supporter, in 1998 Kim Beazley had a higher popular vote than John Howard, but still had less than half the seats in the House of Representatives. It can be reckless. It can be undemocratic. Convention is simply not binding. Why give so much power to one man the right to choose who should be Head of Government? It is about legitimacy.

Likewise, Scenario Two could occur with or without a valid reason; the point is there would be confusion that would occur if the GG did so as in Belgium. Perhaps the article should have pointed out, that her majesty, in her letter of patents and declarations etc, essentially declared she does NOT get involved in any decision the GG makes.

This is furthermore reiterated in her letter to Gough Whitlam in 1975 when his advice her to reverse Kerr’s decision was dismissed under the ground of ‘not my business...I don’t get involved’:

http://whitlamdismissal.com/documents/letter-from-queen.shtml

So Plerdus who is lacking history now? She may act, but historically she has NOT done so (even in other countries). Your counter examples in fact present serious problems if they were to occur. So, codify the GGs power. Eliminate the possibility of having an unelected Head of Government or man vetoing bills. While the chances are remote (low probability of the event occurring) they can have very serious outcomes (high gravity of the situation given possible confusion and chaos the might arise). Oh and you also failed to discuss the GG refusing to call an election, another antidemocratic possibility.

As for the politician bit, well I like the idea of Presidential Question Time and PEOPLE asking questions during it. I would say a President being impeached in his or her second term is downright humiliating. I also don’t think pay cuts, electoral reform (whatever that might entail) and citizen initiated referendum are not mutually exclusive from this model and I think seem like a nice complement to Presidential question time, to make the model ever better. I also feel that the model presented provided an INCENTIVE not to choose a politician as President. In India, for instance, true most of the initial candidates were pollies but popularity for scientists and sport stars also occurred. Again your point is right but for all the wrong reasons: people don’t like pollies, hence the point: they don’t necessarily have to choose a pollie for President (even if they probably will the first few times that are perfectly normal).

Overall, an interesting mixture of the Washington an d Westminster system, particularly, correlating impeachment with the term of office. I don’t see many problems with the model itself. Though I concede, I agree with Plerdus add on pay caps and citizen initiated referendum.

I think that will top it off.

I've given it some thought, turnright.85, and and I genuinely cannot accept that the answer to the question "why this, why now" can legitimately be "why not?"

For a start, it is simply answering a question with another question, which is fundamentally lazy, and a complete cop-out.

If I had for example similarly questioned your (imaginary) intent to re-introduce the death penalty into Australia, would you regard "why not?" to be an adequate response?

Given an issue as complex as turning Australia into a republic, or as emotional as bringing back hanging, "why not" simply demonstrates an unwillingness to engage with the topic.

I stick by my original position.

If the reasons given here are the best that the republican movement can come up with, we will be stuck with the status quo for ever.

A handful of examples, gathered over an eighty year period, and from countries with highly idiosyncratic problems - Belgium (Flemish/Walloon divide), Denmark (post-war reconstruction), Fiji (Island tribal/Indian immigrant divide) - is singularly unconvincing.

Even the Canadian example - from 80-plus years ago, mark - was an example of a muddle, involving technicalities such as "should the G-G go ahead and dissolve parliament when a no-confidence motion is pending", that literally cannot be prevented from occurring.

We are going to have to do much, much better than this.

liberty.apples,

You said:

"What if there is a hung Parliament but Labor still had most of the votes"

Presumably you mean that although labor did not have a majority it had more members that any other party.

This would still mean that they were unable to obtain supply, and they would be obliged to resign. If they did not, they would be liable to be dismissed just like Gough was. As the incoming PM would also be unable to obtain supply, this would mean an immediate election as in 1975, with the people having the opportunity to decide the outcome. I consider this a very democratic outcome, and illustrates the ability of our current constitution to cope with all problems. Its 107 year record of governmental stability leaves all republican systems for dead.

You did not comment on the public perception of politicians. The best ever comment I ever heard on a republic came from a broken hill miner in 1993 (when Keating was PM and Hewson oppostion leader).

His comment was:

"I would have to vote NO. What an opportunity to stick it up Keating, without having to elect Hewson."

I think that says it all.

Pericles, you are clutching at straws. The ‘why not’ was quantified (I notice you did NOT engage with the quantified propositions) ie why should one man have the power to decided who the Head of Government should be, even if it is not analogous to the described scenarios ie if he simply does it randomly or on some absurd pretext? How is this more efficient or moreover legitmate than codifying the laws? The answer is that it is not. Nor do you address the fact ‘why risk it or wait for an analogous scenario to occur here’. The reasons might be debatable, but the model itself is not. A few stutters every few decades vs no stutters is the issue (automatic buffers dont mean refusals or question marks or CONFUSION at the time the crisis occurs). Furthermore, you argue that ‘I hope the GG refuses to give Bondi to New Zealand’ that was the point: Denmark was once part of Germany, or at least, excuse me, had ethnically and cultural Germans living there. As such, your previous point is dismissed. As for your Canada example (which CAN occur again) is that if in 2003-4 the Nats randomly break away from the Libs federally, and join Labour, Mark Latham should be in charge (as he had the majority). It is plain annoying and random; an election not the GG should sort the issue. In your view, one man should override the entire country. You have failed on all counts. Failed to show how the alternative is less efficient, failed to show why one man should have that power, failed to justify why we should wait and cope with such confusion. As such, your views are meaningless. Again you did not address the issue ie efficiency with legitimacy; or indeed how correlating impeachment with the term of office is flexible.

Plerdsus , I think the point is that more people voted labor in 1998 less voted liberal yet in the Parliament libs had more representation (as the Malta example cited in the article: the preferential system). I think the one man, one vote principle is a reasonable one (*perhaps* the President should be the person who has a majority in the House of Reps, and if the Parliament is hung the President is determined by who has the highest raw popular vote). Nevertheless, I think there can be a better system, and that is left for mathematics to decide. You must concede that the system can be perfected or made better. Furthermore, such a trigger, I assume would be in a new Constitution; keep in mind America never had a constitutional crisis regarding calling an election, despite the results of an election . As for politicians, turnright85, I think you are right about an incentive to choose someone who is not a politician. Mind you, I don’t think that is a bad idea: they worked to get there, so what? Perception is not reality. In a Presidential system we have had Jimmy Carter (peanut farmer), Reagan (unionist and actor), Bush (oil driller), Clinton (sax player and Rhodes scholar), Eisenhower (war hero), maybe Obama or McCain etc etc I think if you look at history, Plerdsus, perception doesn’t mean reality. Even in India you have had philosophers and scientists are President. I think that speaks more about your ignorance or incredulity of politicans Plerdsus, than the general population (nor do you address the issue that many GGs have been politicans, arguably without as much merit or diversity as Indian and US Presidents!)

Well put, AusWhig89.

Whoa, there are people here who believe, democratic legitmacy and avoiding future confusion or inaccurate representation aren't reasons. Who would of thought.

I encourage Pericles to submit his own article which discusses how an Australian Republic would look like and what he regards as necessary reforms and an efficient system ie his or her ideal system.

Good luck!

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

>>I encourage Pericles to submit his own article which discusses how an Australian Republic would look like and what he regards as necessary reforms and an efficient system ie his or her ideal system.<<

It is in my view a complete waste of time until and unless there is a substantial basis of common understanding upon which to build.

Right now, all we seem to have as a rationale is "why not?"

And for all your waffling on about quantification, AustralianWhig89, that is still the sum total of your argument.

By the way, love your debating style.

>>Furthermore, you argue that ‘I hope the GG refuses to give Bondi to New Zealand’ that was the point: Denmark was once part of Germany, or at least, excuse me, had ethnically and cultural Germans living there. As such, your previous point is dismissed.<<

You are aware, of course, that the above doesn't make sense?

Even ignoring the snotty tone of voice.

Oh Pericles! Let me remind you the context of the why no you so often quote.

"....why not? If you bothered reading further and more deeply. Why wait to see the day when a democratically illegitimate Head of State vetos a bill due to the ‘abuse’ of power? Why not just let him regulate it? Why wait to see the day when he REFUSES to dissolve Parliament? Why wait to see if the GG dismisses the Cabinet? Why risk possible disorder and confusion? Why not codify the powers and SET them in law. I rather avoid possible crisis than await one...It has to do with democracy ... itself"

1. I think there were several more propositions to the 'why not'. There is the issue of legitmacy. Democracy. Efficiency and avoiding confusion (which while rare can entail alot of gravity to them). So, there is why not AND several other propositions attached to it (naughty boy, you quote one line without even bothering addressing democracy or legitimacy of the 'why not'). So, you are clutching at straws that out of all the propositions you listed, you picked one part of it, a part which was simply a prelude to the Kennedy quote "Some men dream things as they are and say why, I dream things that never were and say why not." Congratulations. You're so critical, even on literal and allusionary meanings. You failed to address the issue at hand. And you accuse me of waffling; at least I and perhaps to an extent AusWhig89 don't ignore the issue at hand!

2. I think you have failed to seize the moment like Mr Kennedy: if not us, now to seize the opportunity to make history, then who? PLEASE quote the why not in context, perhaps, though, it should of been why wait? So. I'll give you that much. I think its nice that our generation shall be sealed in the history books forever.

Also, I think it was pretty clear: the point was Bondi beach and Denmark are by no means equal geographically, culturally, historical or socially as Denmark and Germany.

A weighty article. I feel like I way out of my depth.

Actually, I am. I do not know how to judge what is being proposed. "Looks very reasonable" is the best I can say. Fortunately I don't think I have to. A republic is an idea whose time will come. When it does I have faith that you Whig's will savage each other until you get it roughly right. Two things spring to mind though.

A republic might be a foregone conclusion, but a bill of rights (or a bill of wrongs, or whatever is in favour right now) ain't. It really worries me that some of the things I think are fundamental to our democracy aren't in there. Freedom of speech was "read in" and could just as easily be "read out" again. The current penchant for keeping legal proceedings secret in the name of state security is all well and good, until it gets so bad you can't hold public officers accountable for their actions because you don't know what they are doing. In other words, there is a line in transparent governance that must not be crossed. And, as I understand it, there is no requirement to treat all races, religions, and so on equally. These things are critical to how our democracy operates, yet aren't mentioned. We have had articles here on OLO criticizing a bill of rights that bans torture, or greatly expands human rights. To me that is all beside the point. Lets just get the basics in there - like a guarantee of being allowed to talk about it. So when the article mentions a "bill of rights", I hope that is what it is intending, otherwise it doesn't have a hope of getting up.

Secondly, this talk of "questions from the people". I don't see how it is practical. There are roughly 10 million adults. Who gets to the ask the question. Who gets to decide what is asked. Has this been done somewhere else?

This is becoming bizarre, turnright.85.

Almost hallucinogenic.

>>Let me remind you the context of the why no you so often quote... "....why not? If you bothered reading further and more deeply. Why wait to see the day when a democratically illegitimate Head of State vetos a bill due to the ‘abuse’ of power?...etc. etc.<<

What is still - massively - unclear to me is this:

By what means, exactly, might these - very isolated, and idiosyncratic - incidents have been prevented?

It is all very well saying "codify the powers and SET them in law".

But what law, what code, would have prevented these events?

Are you, for example, suggesting that there should actually be no powers above those of parliament? That there should be no right of veto, prevention, delay, go-back-and-think-again or even a slightly mild "I say, chaps..." that represents the broader, non-political picture?

If so, Australia doesn't trust politicians enough for that to happen.

If not - what power do you believe ought to exist at that level, and who should be their custodian.?

Pericles, codification means a constitutional trigger that occurs automatically without consent from any one individual. It places the law in an institution which transcends any one person or party: the Constitution itself. So if you set a date which Parliament automatically dissolves and set an election date on a set date every four years you will not have a scenario where a GG can say no to dissolve Parliament. If you have a trigger which says when an annual money bill fails to pass by a certain date you shall not have accusations of political bias of the GG dissolving Parliament etc. I think it says that in the article. So-Constitutional-laws-would-have prevented-the-described-events-&-be-run-by-default.

Now, firstly, as to your remark regarding the veto I think the article points out a more democratic alternative is that there is regulation as opposed to outright veto powers. The President can freeze or amend a bill and request further debated and if necessary again must be passed through the Parliament if amended within the space of a year. Why should one man veto the entire Parliament? I think the phrase used in the article is regulation without overriding the will of the people (possibly all 150 people). Concerns about accountability are addressed below.

Secondly, I think people questioning the President and Ministers is also a good idea as it keeps them directly accountable. Meh-I assume the logistics of that may be organised by people putting their or register name on a list, show up half an hour before a sitting, tick of their name say a minimum of 7 and maximum of 20 people for such a session to run and say about 30 minutes of QT is spent receiving questions from the public.

Thirdly, a Bill of (Negative) Rights removes the power of the government to impede on civil liberties. The status quo CAN allow for violation of fundamental rights even if they are rarely breached (even though some would argue otherwise!). Indeed, the status quo IS where Parliament IS the supreme body: it legislates without any prohibitions (international law not being enforceable) &-the-only institution-which-knocks-laws-down-is-the-HC-or-the-people-through-an-election.

However, negative liberties are not constitutionally guarded (free speech, bodily integrity etc). Indeed, the GG does not interfere. BUT if he does then a more legitimate and democratic alternative must be found. Otherwise Parliament generally passes what it wants (unless struck down by the High Court).

Hence the legislature keeps the executive accountable if any crimes occur (However, I personally would allow for the High Court to remove the President if he is permanently incapacitated, as in the Irish Constitution); the executive regulates the legislature as does the High Court (not to mention a free press and elections as well as the people themselves having the chance to actively keep the executive and legislature accountable in the space of four years). You can regard this as a fourth separation of power.

Finally, I remind you yet again US and Indian Presidents DO come from diverse backgrounds and if you really dislike politicians I suppose a simple solution is any person who has ever been a Mayor, Councillor, Member of Parliament (State or Federal) and Premier etc cannot run for President). Although I think that would be unfair to a Leader of the Opposition who has kept the government accountable all four years without getting anywhere). Historically, the GG has been a politician or a HC judge, so allowing politicians or the elites to assume the executive power is not that radical a departure from the status quo. The President, from the model proposed, of course, must work to get to where he or she is via a campaign and the right buddies. The GG must have the right buddies minus the hard work associated with a campaign. I support hardwork for the win.

I've tried hard, but I still can't follow your arguments, turnright.85.

>>codification means a constitutional trigger that occurs automatically without consent from any one individual... if you set... an election date on a set date every four years you will not have a scenario where a GG can say no to dissolve Parliament... a more democratic alternative is that there is regulation as opposed to outright veto powers.<<

I take it that you believe that fixed terms for parliament are good, and that every constitutional issue should be similarly codified.

But how does this work?

>>The President can freeze or amend a bill and request further debated and if necessary again must be passed through the Parliament if amended within the space of a year<<

And then what? What if the government refuses to amend? Can the pres once again delay? Would that not force the government's resignation?

But hang on, they have to wait out the whole four year term...

But the critical missing piece, to me at any rate, is this.

Whose interests are being represented here?

The history of a head of state, once it had rid itself of the absolute monarch stuff, is that they act as a check-and-balance to the highly politicized actions and activities of parliament.

Given that you seem inclined to strip the position of any power at all, who, or what, will fill the gap?

Pericles, yes, to fixed terms and similarly to codified triggers. I am glad we made that clear. I-still-do-not-get-what-is-hard-about them. Anyways...

Regarding-the-veto-power.
Currently, the GG does NOT refuse to assent to a bill. So all those highly politicised decisions you speak off still occur. Consider workchoices, subsidies to various interest groups, god knows what else. That is the status quo. There always are interest groups. The GG simply acts on the advice of the PM. Signs way. Weak. He MIGHT veto it which would simply lead to confusion and a whole bunch of 'what now' and 'we did not elect him' arguments. In short, he is hardly a (1) legitimate and (2) check and balance (certainly, having a majority approval for both House of Parliament to go to a war like Iraq must be applauded as a better check and balance than the GG. It probably would not have happened with this check and balance!).

So, anyways, your assumptions are: (1)-the current check and balance is actually effective (clearly it is not), (2) people cannot make the right decision for themselves (I mean they removed Howard did they not and workchoices; I disagreed with them doing so but respect their choice to do so, plus we have a bill of negative liberties and direct QT). I do NOT even see the GG as a check and balance. Simply an individual whose role can be codified. Set terms of sessions of Parliament, set election dates and impeachment correlated with a term in office are a better check and balance really (and arguably cheaper and more efficient). Assuming, however, the GG is a check and balance I assume this would supplment him: (1) the people actively having a right to question the President, if they feel affected by what he or she does (possible scenarios noted above); (2) the High Court who shall be assigned the right to shield individual liberties (right to free speech and bodily integrity etc);(3) Transparency in campaign funding and ‘sources of revenue’ while in office (this happens anyways, eg Sophie Mirabella and her involvement with the tobacco lobby);

(3) Greater-ransparency in campaign funding and ‘sources of revenue’ while in office); (4) Election are constitutionally-set-and-(5) the President (who-must-endorse-a-middle-ground-in-most-policies-to-satisfy-various-interest-groups-in-Parliament)-and-of course, the free press and transparency are necessary, but that goes without saying; a-more-limited-role-for-Head-of-State-results.

I-imagine-the-veto-scenario-would-look-like-this. Suppose an iffy bill just passed the-Senate. President announces he wants to freeze the bill as he or she feels it is 'not-stable'. From what I can tell from the article it says the bill may not be frozen for no more than one year, and automatically becomes law if it is still frozen after a year(in fact the GG can freeze a bill like this even now). During this time period the President says 'here-are-a-few-amendments (eg-in-the instance the President might of picked up on a mistake and recommends an edit even). Let's-FURTHER-debate-it'. If both Houses agree, the new bill replaces the old frozen bill. If not, and a year lapses, the bill (the previous bill) automatically becomes law. I imagine the President can 'defreeze' the bill at any time (just like the GG can now if he were to freeze it!). Keep in mind, in America the President cannot veto a 2/3 majority of Congress (I suppose the President here could not freeze such a bill) and as such any bills frozen only have less than 2/3 of the vote.

So your questions: What if the government refuses to amend? (the article states the old bill automatically becomes law if after a year nothing is changed OR,as-I-envisage it-(more unlikely) the President can call an election if the bill does not pass after several times and he believes his decision was right OR the legislature dissolve itself with a simple majority OR even hold a referendum, depending how controversial the bill is (IF this happened to a budget bill, as noted, the Parliament would automatically dissolve and I imagine the President could freeze such bill); just-like-the-GG-does-nothing, it would-be-unlikely-for-a-President-to-do-so, but-possible; he-cannot freeze-a-money-bill-and-military-funding-bill-as-to-go-to-war-you- need-approval-from-the-Parliament-which-means-the-President assumes commander and chief) Can the pres once again delay? (I agree with the article which says no, only once during the Presidents entire Presidency; your major points have ALREADY been addressed).

Sorry, turnright.85, I refuse to respond to a post that is so chock-full of hyphens, all designed to cheat the word limit, that it becomes a labour to read.

Try to encapsulate your argument in short, comprehensible sentences. Then you won't have to cheat, and your arguments will become clearer

But, of course, hyphens make an awesome pretext to engaging in intellectual debate :)

>>hyphens make an awesome pretext to engaging in intellectual debate :)<<

I'm ready when you are

:)