As mentioned in a previous reply —

I disagree that the republicans couldn’t agree on an election process.

The upshot is — the people want a say.

And in some respects the title is important. The title “President” can confer a range of powers I would prefer our Head of State not to have. I’m not sure if there is a reason we can’t simply use “Head of State”, but I’d be happy with Govenor General.

Maybe we could vote on the title as well.

1. Head of State
2. Governor-General
3. President

Have a happy May Day

BTW are you any relation to the Peter Lalor from the Eureka Stockade who went on to become the Speaker??

I believe that many of the people who voted against a republic in the referendum did so not because they support a monarch as HoS, but because there’s no huge flaws in the practicality of the system (until you go back to 1975, I believe). The “no” box may as well have been “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

So with that in mind, what is so completely wrong with the minimalist option?: no monarch as HoS and GG remains the same (call him/her what president or whatever you like, the name doesn’t really matter), being chosen by the PM at the time.

Personally, I have no particularly strong inclinations to a specific election model. I’m just pointing out that minimalism by nature cannot be the absolute least popular choice.

While it could be possible for the HoS to take the initiative and dissolve parliament, it would only be when supply was blocked by the opposition and a strict protocol was followed in an attempt to mediate the two parties, as outline above.

I think an interesting thought is that the Head of State usually is asked to open major events such as the Olympic Games etc. Some debate that the PM should open these functions, and that is open for debate…

Here is an interesting quote from Wikipedia…

The event was officially opened by Governor General Sir William Deane, the Australian representative of Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia. This was the first occasion that a Summer Olympics held in a Commonwealth realm was not opened by the monarch or a member of the Royal Family, and the first Summer Olympics since Melbourne in 1956 not to be opened by the head of state.

I am still not sure whether we were snubbed by our Head of State (HRH QEII) or not??

Great Question Zakk! What role do you see the HoS having??

David, thank you for an indepth contribution. I see a few issues that could occur the most awkward would be the fact that the Prime Minister would also be the GG or as you term it President, which would mean some major reconsiderations of the Westminster system.
I feel very uneasy with the HoS being in control of the Military — I would prefer the House of Reps & Government to be involved in any major decision rather than by a single person
Also, how are the people involved in the selection process of the President?

In the model presented on this website, the people elect the candidates for the politicians to chose — rather than the other way around. The idea behind this is so that the people aren’t stuck with two choices of the politicians which are both political puppets.

Do you think a system where the people of each state first elect a candidate to represent their State and then the final selection of HoS by the Houses of Representatives is a workable model?

Note: I particularly avoid the term president because we do not require a ‘president’ to lead us — that is the job of the PM. We require a HoS to sign off on laws, and act as an arbiter in cases where politics gets ugly. The HoS can always turn to the High Court for Constitutional advice while speaking with leaders of both parties.

I will respond to your comments in each section:

Firstly I don’t see the HoS as ‘ruling’ anyone. I see them as the final arbiter, the person who ‘rubber stamps’ and signs of on law changes by the government — where the real power lies.

Next, I am sure the GG has voted for a political party at some point. Does this make them a Part hack? We already have ‘conscience votes’ where the House of reps and Senates are not required to vote along party lines.

In my proposal I encourage the sitting government and political parties to put forward candidates, which I feel is more open and above board. Even though the GG is not a member of a political party, do you have any idea what her political proclivity might be?

Secondly: yes it does put power in the hands of the States. But the States also represent the people.

I have to disagree – I don’t believe one state can simply push through their party’s nomination for a range of reasons. First of all numbers: NSW, the largest state has 93 seats, Queensland has 89 and Victoria has 88. Any other State combined with Queensland or Victoria would thwart NSW. Or a few of the smaller states could also thwart a larger state.

Second, would a NSW Liberal vote for a Victorian ALP candidate?

Thirdly, the Federal House of Reps are also included, AND if necessary the Senate will break the deadlock in the event of a tie.

What would happen if the senate was called in to break the deadlock on an ALP backed candidate from NSW. Or the Victorian Government’s candidate – selected by all parties? Or an independant conservationist from Tasmania? Or an aboriginal candidate from the Northern Territory?

Would all the states vote together? Again I simply don’t see Liberal candidates voting for a Labor candidate just because they are in their state. On the other hand, if that person is of high enough quality, I can see people ‘crossing the floor’ to vote for that person regardless of Party or State.

It’s an interesting situation that you raise, would the Labor States, which had a majority of reps that belonged to the ALP in their respective state’s houses (but remember that each house had an opposition that were not ALP members) be able to band together to elect an ALP president?

I feel that this will make politicians cross State and Political boundaries to choose the best candidate from the country.

I am sure there would be back room deals done. But, by keeping the voting secret many of the back room deals may not come to fruition.

To me the key is to ensure four things.

Firstly the Prime Minister (and Government) does not get the only say in the HoS, as is the case now with the current GG or minimalist position.

Secondly, we do not have a national “Presidential’ Style election where one person has the popular vote of the nation. That will create too many political issues.

Thirdly, the people have a say in the process at the start, rather than having a HoS thrust upon them. Our representatives – all the representative politicians in the country choose from our list – not the other way around.

Finally, we have an Australian as Head of State.

If Prince Charles would like to naturalize as an Australian, he’s more than welcome to toss his hat into the ring and see if he’d get elected.

Thanks again!

Problems:

The spelling of the page is shoddy. You might want to fix that up.

This gives far too much power to the States. Considering that they are questionably relevant as it is, giving the candidate selection rights and rites to them is somewhat iffy. But there is a bigger problem: all the administrative talent is in Federal politics, yet the most important job in the country beside the Prime Minister will be chosen from eight people popular among the states.

Federal parliament will be drowned out in the selection process. This is an even bigger problem then it appears, because what if one of the States has an especially large assembly? To get the NSW candidate elected, all Nsw needs to do is vote as a bloc and they will get in. Or the other states will vote strategically, and our President will be a rightwing nut job from Tasmania by literal process of elimination: each state parliament voting out the most popular until the least popular gets in.

There is a problem with partisanship. What if this theoretical election were held in 2007, before the federal election? Labor had a majority in every State lower house, and would have elected a Labor president during the reign of a Liberal PM. There would be sparks flying.

What if the people elected candidates with legislative agendas?

How long would a presidential term be?

How would we have an impartial presidency with partisan based elections at all?

That’s all I have for now. You’re following me on Twitter already; send me a tweet if you have a response. I look forward to hearing from you.

My first point, and, admittedly, my most nitpicky: there are a lot of spelling errors and typos in this that you might want to fix up.

As for the substance of what you are saying, there is a serious problem that could develop in circumstances where partisan heads of state rule over governments they are opposed to. The governor general now, for instance, cannot BE a member of a political party for precisely this reason.

Secondly, this proposal puts far too much power in the State system. Say a state had a lower house with an membership far in excess of the others, by proportion or by sheer numbers. How do you stop a state doing this? Banning it from changing the size of its houses? Combined with the state parliaments, the Federal government has almost no say. It is even more likely that the combined states would vote in a President opposed to the government.

Consider in 2007, shortly before the election. Labor had all seven states while the Liberals under Howard had Parliament.

Another problem is that there would be very little ibc