Hirst proposes that the best mechanism to manage change while still keeping the present functions intact is to adopt a system similar to Germany's and India's. This is where the ceremonial executive, or Governor-General in our system, is elected by both the federal and state legislatures. This effectively establishes an electoral college where half the voting power is in the federal legislative and the other half in the states.

The appointment of state Governors would be handled by:

At present the governors of the States, like the Governor-General, are appointed by the Queen. Since the States would be involved in the election of the Governor-General, the Governor-General would become an appropriate person to appoint the governors. He would act, as the Queen does, on the advice of the Premier.

I think the morality of democracy in Australia has probably passed this proposal now, as a newspoll before the 1999 republican election showed when half responded that they wanted to elect the President.

Rather than doing spaghetti modifications on the current Westminster system, we should embrace the changes that would allow the expression of democratic morality which it seems is popular - maybe enough to pass a republican referendum.

Currently that means a model with a directly elected President and the changes that entails. In this area, in my opinion, that will mean a separate executive. I think such a model will be an improvement as a separate legislative will be able to improve oversight of the executive. Something that is lacking from a Parliamentary system.