Moo
Premium Platinum
I find it astonishing that the constitution we started with in 1901 remains largely intact. This partly reflects the difficulty in riding roughshod over the initial intentions of the framers of the document, because of what they wrote, and how they covered their arses. This is as it should be. The founding fathers' (yes, they were all male) efforts have given us a political stability which is the envy of most of the rest of the world. The system as it stands is probably in need of revision, but as Roylion has so eloquently put, the replacement for the system we currently have must, at the very least, be as good as the one we enjoy now.
To have a popularly/directly elected head of state would be a catastrophe of monumental proportions, given the Prime Minister enjoys no such direct, popular acclaim, because he/she is (functionally) elected by members of his own political party. If the events of 1975 were to arise again, our head of state under this proposed model could (rightly) claim a more popular, competing endorsement compared to that of the Prime Minister.
The reason given during the previous referendum for not depending on our parliamentary representatives to choose a head of state was that politicians can't be trusted. If this be the case, this is a complete rejection of the democratic process which elected these people to parliament. If they were so untrustworthy WhyTF were they elected? Is this actually an assertion that the electorate can't be trusted? That this particular notion is one for which I have some sympathy is of no account.
For those who might be interested, I'm fiercely in favour of Australia having an Australian as head of state. Until the republican movement can agree among themselves as to what they want us to embrace as a replacement system, they will remain the irrelevance they proved themselves to be at the previous referendum.
That they chose that illiterate charlatan and plagiarist Peter Fitzsimons as their public face defies belief and is symptomatic of a profound desperation. They are still an impotent, risible and shambolic confection.
How dare you insult the great Australians lifting debate on both sides