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