Australia day approaches and maybe there will be some discussion about the old question of Australia becoming a republic. When the referendum was put under the Howard government, to the people, they didn't say yes in large enough numbers. The proposal, you may recall, was that everything would stay pretty much the same, but the Governor-General would be replaced by being called the President. He/she would have no day to day political power, and presumably would just do the things which the GG now does. I think the mode of appointment was to be by way of a decision by the incumbent politicians at the time of appointment.

The Prime Minister would still remain the main figure in political terms. At the time of the referendum I said to one of the republic supporters at the polling booth that I thought the people should be able to vote for the President. This suggestion outraged the republic cause lackey. Oh no, that would be like America, a horror to be avoided at all costs.

A recent letter writer in one of the Sydney papers suggested, whilst pondering the complexities of the American system of deciding on Republican party candidates, that for all the drawbacks of their systems, they never get to a point where the position of President changes because of a back room party decision.

Another reason I would suggest, why a President should be voted for by the people. There is of course, little chance that any politician would put to the vote of a referendum the question of whether the people of Australia should be able to vote for a President. The simplest model would be to abolish the concept of a Prime Minister (which shouldn't be hard since it doesn't exist in the Australian constitution) and instead install a President who is voted in by the people.