But isn't that a bit of a superficial observation? "Republicans" and "Monarchists" are more diverse than a few spokespeople and bloggers.

Also, the Westminster system is junk; That's all there is too it, it's so horribly flawed in its structure (which arguably was not designed for democracy per-se) that absurd governing roles are required to keep it stable.

Really we would be better off scrapping Westminster entirely and investigating other political systems in the world (starting with mainland Europe).

Of course, a better arrangement of government would be instead of a President to make every major ministry (as an executive branch) a separate and independent house, to be elected in separate ballots (so we could vote for one party to sit in the ministry of finance, another for environment, another for Immigration etc to ensure a more democratically-accurate and politically-balanced system,

And of course there is CIR.

First of all the term is Royal Assent not assent.
There is a big difference, the Parliament and the Constitution provides for Royal Assent so secondly jail the fraudsters for the scamm they have conducted for the past 100+ years.
This is only one example.

Federal Court of Aust Act 1976.
2 Commencement [see Notes 1 and 2]
(1) This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives
the Royal Assent.
(2) No proceeding shall be instituted in the Court before a day to be
fixed by Proclamation as the day on which the Court shall
commence to exercise its jurisdiction.

Since the GG is the representative of a foreign queen, there is no place for one in a republic.
In the movie 'Patriot' Mel Gibson has a great line that went something like: "Why would I swap one tyrant a thousand miles away, for a thousand tyrants one mile away?"
Democracy may be the best system we have come up with so far, but it's far from perfect.
I think many Australians, myself included, don't believe the greatest threat to an average Aussie's wellbeing and security is boat people, or Muslims, or Chinese or North Koreans; the greatest threat is our own government.
I would suggest if Parliament has a mandate to represent the will of the majority, then what we need is a (popularly elected) President with a mandate to protect the welfare of the minority -right down to minorities of one.
In other words, the President would be the ultimate Ombudsman, of all government departments. He/she would be in charge of Legal Aid, to ensure all people had an EQUAL right to legal representation. He/she would take responsibility for investigative commissions; currently named 'Royal' or 'Crown' commissions.
In a world seemingly sliding inevitably into World Government, never before have the rights of individuals and local communities been more threatened.

I would seriously doubt there IS a real shift to World Government;

Even the EU comes quite short at being a government, and it's also starting to set limitations on expansion (which is THE main reason why it will never happen).

Anyway, as it seems most Australians (MOST especially those in positions to change the constitution) believe parrot-lines about forms of governance without even bothering to check these against real-life examples already in existence in the world, I'm not really thrilled about our ability to make a constitution worthy of celebration).

Hell, the fact that many Australians don't even seem to trust themselves (need democratic limits because we're a "mob"), and many of the people they would else rely upon to 'lead' us, aren't trustworthy to do the right thing either, the Republic is as much a pipe-dream as the World Government at the moment.

Seriously, 21st century, with telecommunications, internet, electronic worldwide libraries of information and communication with the whole world; we SHOULD be too advanced to need to be 'lead' at all these days. Until I see a 21st century democracy on the table I'll be going back to sleep.

The Governor General is the people's representative to administer the constitution for the people. The G.G. is not a political position as a President gaining a majority vote; they represent all the people the State as invested in the figure of the Crown. It has origins in English history when the powers of government were removed from the King / Queen. He / she was there then to make sure those with legislative powers do not pass laws to oppress or discriminate unjustly against any person in society. That is why they must give the Royal assent to any law passed by the Government before it becomes active. I ask why did the Republican Bill Hayden become a Monarchist after he became GG? Was it not because he then understood its role in good Government?

"I ask why did the Republican Bill Hayden become a Monarchist after he became GG?"
No, he understood how much of an awesome job it is to be in.
Also, the whole 'representation' thing is a crock.

I mean, do we take the title "People's Republic" in many formerly-communist nations as literally?