At present the prime minister must select his cabinet from members of parliament. There may be no member with experience or knowledge of the particular area that cabinet deals with. With a presidential system where heads of cabinet can be chosen on the basis of competence we may get better heads of the the cabinet departments.

We also need no ceremonial head of government. On important occasions the president will represent us. On less important ceremonial occasions the president can delegate a representative.

At present we are not sure who will be head of government when we elect a party to govern. The party may have the greatest number of seats, but the party head may not have won his or her seat.

With a president there will be no leadership spills. However, if the president behaves wrongly impeachment mechanisms can be set up to remove the president.

At present parliament cannot be a check on the executive as the executive controls parliament. With an elected president we would have the separate executive, legislative and judicial branches of government envisioned by Montesquieu.

I think having a president is a good idea. However, if it is a good idea that may be a reason Australia is not ready for it.

Dear 579,

It looks like our posts passed each other.
Thanks for coming into a discussion that's
not doing too well. As far as Mr Howard is
concerned - As Virginia Trioli pointed out -
"that's when you started to see a PM open,
launch, announce and be associated with
virtually everything a government did. A PM
who did more media interviews, more talkback
radio than any other before or since;
a PM who overshadowed all ministers and all
portfolios: a PM who was asked and gave his
opinion on virtually any topic on any day ..."

And according to Trioli "all PMs since have
followed his lead. Since then, the leader of the
Party has assumed much greater authority and
stature than even the party rooms have
completely understood."

Kevin Rudd, believed his authority came directly
from the people (President like) - and as we know
from what he states on television and elsewhere,
Tony Abbott seems to believe something similar.

So, as Trioli suggests, "why not abandon the pretence
that we vote for parties and instead elevate the one
impressive person we thin might actually have a
vision for the country?"

Of course that person will as Trioli points out -
come from and within a political party but as
she also adds - " the United States style of creating
government from a hand-selected group of specialised,
often civilian, individuals to take on policy
portfolios would be enormously attractive to an
electorate fed up with underachievers and party hacks."

I agree with Trioli when she tells us that - "large
elements in the electorate yearn for the larger than
life figure who can cut through party constraints and
lead with conviction."

Who that figure is we have yet to find out - but at least
it is worth thinking about.

Dear David F.,

Thank You for coming into this discussion.
You have stated the arguments for a
Presiency so well. Much better than I could
have done. And as I stated earlier - it really
is something that Australia needs to think about.
Surely as a country we should be mature enough
to at least have a discussion on the topic.
Especially if our Prime Ministers continue to
behave like Presidents.

What a total waste of money,

Please tell me one nation that has a President that does not have, one of the big 5 problems? That is major Violence (France and USA)major poverty (at least half the world)civil war (at least a tenth of the world)Lack of education (South America, Africa)lack of a health system.

Yet, for all its problems the Westminster system has these problems under control (Canada, NZ, Australia etc)

Would us having a president, give us better trade terms? NO, would it give us better hospitals? No, Would it give us better control, stop civil wars, give us better education? NO NO NO.

WHEN and only when we have no homeless in Australia, zero crime, max employment. The best education standards in the world, then and only then, you can waste billions on becoming a republic.

In 1999, the ATO estimated it would cost 2.5 billion to change to a republic (so that means at least 10 billion as any government department cant count) The cost to change our currency, all stationary, all high court documents, all election material, all government and semi government bodies, coat of arms, our constitution , the list is endless

Talk about pissing money up against the wall for nothing.

There is another solution to the problem of the instability of the Prime Ministership.

That is: Let's get rid of the position altogether!

It's been a long time since I've read the constitution, but if I remember correctly it doesn't mention specifically the office of Prime Minister. It is only by convention that we have one, not a constitutional requirement. So it should be possible to remove it without to much bother.

So how does the country run without a PM?
Well, instead of having the PM give statements about any and everything: if the matter is a question for the executive, then cabinet minister responsible for the appropriate department makes comments/deals with it. Or, if the subject matter refers to a internal party matter then a party spokesperson makes the comment. In the case of wining and dining dignitaries from foreign governments then the Govern General handles it or the appropriate minister.

At the end of the day, as it is at the moment, the job of PM is not really a job at all-- they don't really do anything. So let's just give up this charade and get rid of it. It would save us taxpayers a lot of money if we abolish this office.

I think you missed my point Foxy. I wasn't aiming to spout a Republican viewpoint (as an expat American I can honestly say I never voted Republican in my life).

What I was trying to point out is that even with a charismatic leader with the best ideas and intentions, the whole system can be stymied by the opposition. One problem with all democratic government is if they win by a slight majority you still have almost 50% of the population unhappy, unforgiving and uncooperative.

It doesn't if the Leader is called President or Prime Minister if the people aren't willing to follow. If the Leader's idea of what's best runs against the grain of the general populace, (in Obama's case border protection) once he looses their faith in him/her he no longer has their support.

We are seriously lacking any dynamic charismatic visionary politicians in this country.

I hope you are still following this thread Foxy.