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.