Since the whole point of a republic is to express and manifest sovereignty as coming from the people, who not do it directly?

Elective assemblies are a relic from a time when it was necessary, in order for the people to have input into the making of laws, to elect someone who would physically get on his horse and ride to a central place of deliberation. Parliaments are a primitive form of information-processing technology. And constitutions are an attempt to limit the power of the Parliament to pass laws, in the name of the residual sovereignty of the people.

There is now no longer any excuse for such complicated arrangements, which even at best (and they are often not at best), can never be as representative of the people, as the people are.

The internet has removed the need for these middle-men. Barnaby Joyce said he doesn’t need to go to Canberra to vote – he can vote from home online. Well bully for you Barnaby, so can the rest of us!

How about this for a new constitution?

Each elector has one single secure online vote on any proposed law.
Any elector may propose or amend a proposed law.
If and when a proposal gets a majority of votes of all electors, it becomes law.
Voting is voluntary.
The constituency votes as one electorate.

The Parliament is phased out. The legislative sovereignty returns to its origin in the people.

The Cabinet loses its legislative, but retains its executive capacity. Each Minister remains responsible for ensuring that his Department carries out the law as enacted.

The office of Governor could be retained or abolished. Whether monarchical or republican, the Chief Executive’s role is to dismiss Ministers who don’t comply with the law.

The States could be retained or abolished.

The judiciary could be appointed directly by the people.

Now let’s see how republican the republicans are.

since women and men comprise the primary elements of community, each with different and
distinct life experience, law would be enacted if a majority of women agreed with a majority of men.

i like the idea peter...but as the replies..indicate..people arnt intrested in change...anything to do with law/govt..they run and hide

even our most articulate/opinionaters remain mute...if the media dosnt tell them what to think about...they simply refuse to think about it at all

anyhow ...as legally ...silence signifies concent
i think you have overwelming..de facto...agreement
even i can find no fault ..in your proposal

so let have the vote
all in favour....
against...

i think the yeah's have it

...division required?

ring the bells

whistler,
Your woman/man dichotomy is offensive.
Are you saying that people who don't identify as female or male are "secondary elements of community"?
Your gender dichotomism ignores the scientific reality that gender is a social construct.
There is, in fact, an infinite gender spectrum with as many facets as there are people.
Each has a "different and distinct life experience".
All of these genders should have equal representation in the new republic.
Anything less diverse would be blatant dichotomous genderism.

Peter Hume you are suggesting we “cut out the middle man”….

And impoverish those who seek to benefit by deception and exploit the gullibility of the electorate.

It sounds like an excellent idea to me.

Certainly the tiers of government we have and the vested interests who populate them are a waste of effort, a drain of the real “wealth creators” of the nation and the servants who are so ensconced deserve to be destitute, if their “skills” cannot be redeployed from sucking the life blood out of the real economy.

My only concern is the appointment of ministers to oversee their portfolios and I suspect the ombudsman’s dept and the auditor generals areas should be beefed up (to keep the bastards honest, since the democrats are a long time spent force).

Publically appointed judiciary (along with so many other “public chairs”, occupied by unelectable bums) is another excellent suggestion which will keep the incumbents in line with public expectations.

Maybe include a referendum pole process which could be tested on the topic of the reintroduction of the death penalty.

And since, under the rules of universal suffrage, where women and men each get equal vote, Whistlers daft notions (of parallel universes) would never be needed

And like you observe, the role of “Head of State” could be either an elected or appointed president or an hereditary monarch, since the role would be purely ceremonial and separate to the process of “government” (as it is pretty much now).

Australian law recognises women and men as primary steakholders of community, thus the
mandatory, yet changeable, designation of gender on birth certificates.
a claim by one gender that gender is inconsequential is an obvious attempt to eliminate the influence
of the other gender in favour of the claimant's gender.
a claim by a male that gender is inconsequential is an obvious attempt to eliminate the influence of
women.
if women won't go away and men aren't prepared to grant women equal rights over their status at law,
men should pretend women don't exist, a bizarre and pernicious strategy.
if women and men collectively can be convinced to reach agreement that there are no women and men,
then there are no women and men.
good luck ... lol!