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!