Where Governors and Governors-General are always Australians I cannot see any advantage and a heck of a lot of extra expense in changing the system that is NOT broken.

There are many other priorities for which money is never available, such as replacing those single lane bridges on Highway 1.

I think Tony would make a great first president of Oz.

Not so sure you would like it Foxy.

On the other hand I would definitely throw up if we had the disgusting Rudd, or the even worse Turnbull.

Do give serious thought to the idea. Imagine how disgusting it would be like the yanks with a raving ratbag like Obama in the post.

What appeals to me about the Presidential system
is the fact that there's a stronger separation
of powers between the Executive and the Legislative.
In the Presidential system the Executive and the
Legislative are two separate bodies. The Legislative
being the main body for creating policy whereas the
Executive is the main body for implementing that polcy.

I find it a bit baffling that under our system we have
committees and inquiries - but these are limited by
what the majority party will allow them to inquire into -
protecting the Executive. Also these Committees often
contain members of the Executive cabinet - thereby
making checks and balances rather difficult.

This poor separation of powers is one of the biggest
problems of a parliamentary system.

579: just a small note, when you say "Could bills be posted and then introduced into the chamber by the speaker for debate and formation before going to the senate for final, legal + amendments. Then signed off by the President."
Do you realise that with the current system bills can be introduced in either house (except for a bill of supply which can only be introduced in the lower house)?
With a president (which personally I'm not yet convinced is better then what we have now) would you still allow the Senate to introduce bills?

By-the-way, where you question if we still need a PM under a presidential system: as I've said in a previous post, we don't even need a PM at-the-moment with the current system. If we got rid of the office of PM then politicians and especially the media could concentrate on issues that actually matter. Also, it should cost us taxpayers less since we eliminate a whole administrative department (in addition we save a little bit extra since we don't pay the PM's juicy salary package and pension).

Foxy, as a republican I am naturally in favor of sending the reprobates from Britain along with their representative the GG, packing.
I believe the position of President, should be an elected one, but I see it more or less as a ceremonial roll, with very limited powers. More or less. limiting the presidential powers to opening school fetes, and giving meritorious awards to resourceful Woodchucks. I would favor the election of a non political person, thus excluding ex-polititions and radio shock jocks, like a certain former PM, like Little Johnny Howard, and Al Jones, and Archy Pell, Archy's not a former PM, or a shock jock, just shocking, but anyway I just don't like Archy! But, not excluding former Aussie cricket captains, preferably winning ones, and I would not allow political parties to "nominate" candidates, even if they were a former Aussie cricket captain, even a winning one. I may even go as far as allowing the nomination of non-people, a much loved former, (naturally winning, no one wants to back a looser) racehorse, one springs to mind. Possibly to avoid any hint of political controversy the nomination of an inanimate, but prestigious, iconic object for president could be in order, the Big Banana at Coffs Harbour does spring to mind, winning in a close vote over the Big Pineapple from the Sunshine Coast, not a hint of politics in that one. How am I going on this? If need be, I'll get back to you later with more brilliance on the subject. Cheers for now.

No bill introduction in the senate, touch up and legalities only.
No more party politics, no more question time. no more PM.

I say the house of reps would function far better than the bun-fight we have now. Elected members would have a far better interest in their electorates. All members would have a say. All debate would be public. No more block voting. All votes are conscience votes. No more party room deals. No more sponsor support for legislation. All candidates put forward why they should be elected, with equal funding for advertising.

Public and businesses invited to talk in the house on their particular concerns.
Armed forces invited to put their wants; to the members and public, years in advance.
All settled legislation enacted with 12 months delay, so appropriate funding can be identified and accounted for. ETC.