"Unfortunately, under the Westminster system, the P.M. is currently and has always been the Generalissimo supremo."

That is not correct. What we call the Westminster system originated in 1688. At that time, the king still had substantial input into executive directions and the office of Prime Minister didn't exist. It came into existence in the 18th century but at first, as the name suggests, he was a minister to the king, and political parties lacked party discipline. It was only with the advent strict party discipline in the 19th century that the PM came to be the chief executive in a real sense. And in the 20th century, each partisan parliament has worked to reduce the inherited limitations on his powers, so that now the PM has more arbitrary power than the absolute monarchs ever had. They never presumed to dictate what lights people could use in their own homes, or how they should dry their clothes, or to regulate heaters - let alone exercise a complete control over the money supply.

So any movement to concentrate even more power in the hands of the PM should be regarded with suspicion as despotic.

Besides which, the Constitution is part of an Imperial Act. You can't make Australia a republic by amending an Imperial Act, because the instrument will still derive its original legal and moral legitimacy from the Crown, which defeats the whole purpose.

Good luck with the Declaration of Independence and new Constitution, which you're going to need.

Jefferson,

I stand corrected you are right about the P.M. But, I doubt the High Court would accept your view that our constitution is still part of an Imperial act. But, I am very happy to see that people do not want to give more power to the P.M. I have another Model, that you may like a lot more, I would like to get an opinion on that one from everyone.

I'll see if I can post it as a separate discussion.

Philo.
" That is why they must give the Royal assent to any law passed by the Government before it becomes active."

How do you define ROYAL assent, what is ROYAL about an autograph above a TITLE being displayed on an official document. Not even the legal name of the PERSON who is alleged to provide the ROYAL assent is displayed on the documents

Queensland legislation also requires ROYAL assent but I sorry to say the evidence of " ROYAL" displayed on the documents just does not exist. Queensland does not use the "Public Seal of the State" on any of the assent documents but they do display the red embossed seal on the Election Writ.

If there is no Royal assent issued for and on behalf of the Sovereign we dont have Laws with Force, we only have terms and conditions set out in the public policy approved by the elected members of the parliament when they vote on the Bills. If you are on the electoral roll and take part in the election you have agreed to the jurisdiction of the parliament and their public policy when you apply for all sorts of things.
Its not LAW with FORCE and they know it. It can never be that way as we are not slaves, we do have some rights.

Do you guys want an elected President? (I do.)

If so, do you want him/her to have a voice and a role to play?

Or, do you guys want the President to be a figurehead dummy?

Whether the Constitution of Australia protrudes out the arse end of an Imperial Statute is not a matter of opinion. You've only got to look at the British Act that is called "The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act": http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/comlaw.nsf/440c19285821b109ca256f3a001d59b7/57dea3835d797364ca256f9d0078c087/$FILE/ConstitutionAct.pdf

Go ahead, have a look. You will see that the first 9 sections are part of the British Act. They say, in effect, 'this is to set up a new Constitution for Australia and clear away old clutter', and then there follows the Australian Constitution. You can see that Section 1 of our Constitution is the 10th section of the British Act.

When you think about it, it must have been this way. The Australian parliament couldn't have made the Constitution because obviously the Parliament didn't exist at the time; the purpose of the Imperial Act was to bring it into existence.

The part at the beginning of the British Act, before Section 1, "Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty ... and by the authority of the same" is the operative part. It's what makes the Act law. It is *not* part of the Australian Constitution. It is part of the Act of the British Parliament.

So
a) it can't be amended by the Australian Parliament or people, because it's not part of the Australian Constitution, and
b) it can't be amended by the British Parliament without defeating the whole purpose of the exercise, because the Crown is an intrinsic part of the British legislature.

Therefore it is nonsense to talk about creating an Australian republic by amending the current Constitution, because both it, or the amendment, would take its authority from the Crown. If you do it, all that you will have is a British imperial statute with "Queen" crossed out and "President" written in.

But for the symbolic purpose of expressing sovereignty as coming from the people, an imperial act won't do. You would need to replace the old imperial act with a new act of the Australian people - in other words a Declaration.

"Do you guys want an elected President? (I do.)"
I do also- selection by politicians would make the role absolutely pointless in any practical sense. However, the President MUST have an actual role in government:

-"If so, do you want him/her to have a voice and a role to play?"
This I believe is vital; The President must, under compulsion, ensure that parliament is transparent, corruption-free, and whose powers of VETO and other interventions are instead overrides to transfer the issue to election or referendum. The ability to initiate referenda independently, and some compulsion to be required to do so in some circumstances, is also vital.
This ensures the President not only fills the supposed safeguard/umpire role, but is a democratic one, and not just a further stratification of power in a politician.

"Or, do you guys want the President to be a figurehead dummy?"
Absolutely not. It is not only a waste of money, but it is an embarrassing anachronism almost as bad as a monarch- it symbolizes a dumb nation of sheepish politically-retarded people who need a symbol, hero or figurehead (of no substance) to fawn over.