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.