Sense- not a bad proposal!

-Absolutely 100% agree about scrapping the GG and making the Prime Minister the "President"- also agree that the GG IS nothing but an anachronistic link to feudal lords and parliaments. In fact, I personally find a separate HOS to the Prime Minister to be a useless anachronism in itself.

-Get ready for hordes of people jumping on about "oh no, not the American system- it's worse for some reason!"- ignoring that Westminster is also exceptionally bad as far as "democratic" systems go.

-Extra impressed about electorates being the entire nation- I think that government should in fact be entirely composed of separately-elected reps via a federal electorate to fill their respective ministries (health, commerce, environment, housing)- so I must actually disagree on the other appointment/election methods. The HOS should simply get whatever parliamentary responsibilities, regulatory roles needed to ensure public accountability and the ability to override sub-ministries by putting proposals as referendums (and ONLY referendums).

-Another note- Question time should be open to all registered parties (not just the opposition)- who each get a few questions to put forward each session.

Signed- someone who wants MUCH more than a minimalist republic!

JMCC,

I was thinking along the lines that the ACT and the Northern Territory would one day become States. If and when they became States the minimum requirement would only change marginally anyway. I suggest from the current calculation of 25 seats for the H.Reps and 13 for the Senate to 24 for the H.Reps and 12 seats for the Senate. I take your point, but there is very little difference in it.

When you talk about a head of state being the thread that binds the nation, you are actually talking about a British institution not an Australian one. Australians do not see the Governor General as a Regal figure, even though GGs may follow the script and pretend to be one of the Royals.

If you choose to mention Zimbabwe, then I choose to mention Japan.

I am certainly not talking about eliminating the states, every large country on earth has some form of Federal system.

On the contrary, I think a change to a republic should be a comprehensive all encompassing affair where the States are modified at the same time.

As such, this model could also be mirrored for each of the States, the Premier and State Governor could also be fused into one role.

The ballot paper for the lower house, in NSW for instance, could be considered as an electoral college for the candidate NSW Governor.

Note, the example of the infamous florida ballot,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Butterfly_large.jpg

The chambers could renamed to the NSW House of Representatives and the NSW Senate. To check the power of a State Governor I think each State would need an upper house, sorry Qld.

There maybe some temptation to keep the current titles of Prime Minister and Premier, but they historically cannot assent to legislation. I also think that a name change would, like at the time of Federation, signify a new beginning for this country.

JMCC,

I do agree with you that there does not need to be a name change to the country, it should remain the 'Commonwealth of Australia'. The Americans do not call their country the Federal Republic of the United States, its simply the United States of America. In fact, without checking, I think the word republic only occurs once in their constitution - when referring to the states.

I think all of Australian politics need a massive overhaul.

Why just focus on the GG/monarchs- merely one cumbersome anachronism in a system that is nothing BUT a cumbersome anachronism?

On the note of states- scrap the old ones, if necessary make a bunch of smaller new ones- that are actually created to reflect consistent geographical/local issues and affairs, and not the random colonial territorial land dispute we have now. For example, if a fertile, flood-prone region, a dry, arid region and an urban region were separate states, I'd imagine a LOT more would get done by people a little more familiar with the workings of these areas- accountable ONLY to people of those areas. In other words, more like local councils.
We should also ask ourselves if we need three tiers of government at all?

In less than a dozen posts it has become clear why we have a very long journey ahead, before Australia becomes a republic.

Everyone sees the process, the methodology and the outcome, differently.

What we need is a leader.

Fat chance of us agreeing on that either.

Hazza,

I agree with you that the country would be better off with more States, which is catered for in the Constitution under Chapter VI.But am still a strong supporter of 3 tiers of government. But if you throw that into the mix the change will be far too big, nothing will happen, we'll be back to square one, nothing will change for decades.

You need to stick with the simple issue of making the Prime Minister the President the Deputy Prime Minister the Deputy President and replacing the ballot paper for the House of Reps with a Presidential Ballot paper.