Yes, the separation of powers doctrine (while not perfect) is a very, very important part of our democracy and tampering with it is done at our peril. Monarchies under this doctrine also provide a head of state above politics and also provide a unifying function - it does not matter whether the person is a bit of a fool (although the current monarch happens to be anything but as HM is also considered to be an astute if untrained constitutional lawyer) it is the idea of the monarchy and what it stands for rather than the individual which is important. The power to advise and warn but not interfere is a very clever balance indeed.

The current understanding of the Australian Constitution is a sham unless you have read the Constitutional debates.

These can be found at http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/results.aspx

For those that believe in this then this is where one should get the reasons behind the constitution and how it was written.

Until such time when people get a handle on this then all we have is constitution ineptiveness in government.
Also what does not help is the australian electoral office and the govenor general.
We can then top this off with queens councel who do as they are told by corrupt and fraudulant party practices.

Under the American system there is a balance of power between the Presidency, the Congress and the Supreme Court.

In terms of the removal or impeachment of a PM or a GG, there does need to be a better process of impeachment.

Perhaps the High Court of Australia could be incumbent to charge more power asking a GG or a PM to to resign in serious circumstances. Not withstanding the request for impeachment of the hypothetical PM, the High Court could demand that Party in the Government at the time, replace the cabinet, if the PM refuses to resign on grounds of serious national security. This does not make it necessary for the balance to change the actual Government per se: just the cabinet leadership. This way, the democratically elected Party does not change, just the leaders who cause a serious mistake.

Similarly, the High court could be given the power to ask the GG to stand down if they are lowering the decorum of the position of GG to the point of endangering security. If the GG refuses to resign, the High Court could then demand that the Lower and Upper House of Parliament resolve the situation.

With a balance of power, there is no reason to bring the Crown into this matter even if the person representing the Crown needs to be impeached.

To clarify a balance of power, this does not need the change of the position of the Crown or Head of State at all. We just need to strengthen what we have with more clear balances protecting democracy and fairness.

No Government should be above the law and sometimes, the law could be of more use.

Saintfletcher's proposals (brief and lacking in details as they are, are an indication of the complexity of the issues which need to be dealt with before we can sensibly change the rules for selecting a head of state (which is what replacing our monarch with an elected head of state will require). Whilst it isn't brain surgery, it is way beyond the average punter's understanding. My enduring fear is that people will vote yes to a referrendum which promises a republic without sufficient regard for the detail. The details are crucial in this because it will fundamentally change the who and how of the nations political decisions from what we have today.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. There's far too much at stake to mess with a system that has served us so well over some niave idea we would be a better country if we had a different head of state.

Most Australians have no idea what rights they have been given under the Australian Constitution or they would not be so easy to persuade into a republic.

Qld has removed the Aust Constitution from their government and installed the Qld Constitution 2001. As the Aust const states that it can only be changed via referendum and there was absolutely no referendum in QLD, it is up to the people of that state to bring the matter to question in the High Court. Which is currently being done.

Beattie removed all the entrenched provisions when making his own version. These provisions all relate to common law, so essentially there is now no common law in Qld, there is only civil or government law. Hence every public servant is now able to judge, adjudicate and punish on the spot.

The removal of the common law has also removed the law of equity, hence no one in QLD now owns their property, whether land, home, car, bank account or kids toys. Mr Beattie owns the lot depending on his latest law.

The judicial system has been brought under the state govt and must judge all under govt law, not criminal law. In essence, in every case, Mr Beattie wins, Qlder's lose.

And all because Australians don't know what rights they have and have lost the ability to protect them.