Ted Mack accuses the Constitutional Convention of supporting a republican model closer to that of the Third Reich, China and Saddam Hussein than to that of Ireland, Switzerland or the United States.

Lets deal first with Ted's political science. The President of the Germany who appointed Adolph Hitler Chancellor (Prime Minister) on 30 January 1933 was Field Marshall Hindenburg who had (in accordance with the 1919 Weimar Constitution) been directly elected by the German people in a popular election on 13 March 1932. The President of China is chosen by the National Peoples Congress (Article 62). On the other hand, the President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, was directly elected by the people (with a 99.47% majority!) on 15 September, 1995. So in two out of three of the regimes he unflatteringly compares with the Convention model, the President was directly elected by the people.

Turning to the three Constitutions he seeks to contrast with the ARM model, two of them (Ireland and the United States) have a directly elected President (although with very different powers), but the third, Switzerland, has a President chosen pursuant to Article 98 of the Swiss Constitution, by the Federal Assembly; the Swiss national Parliament.

The threshold issue for the Constitutional Convention was not how the President should be elected, but what the President's role should be. Should the President be an essentially ceremonial figure, like the Governor-General, with real executive power being held by the Prime Minister? Or should the President be the head of government, the nation's chief executive, like the President of the United States?

On occasions Ted Mack has favoured a US style system and, in that context, advocated the President be directly elected. Nobody would disagree. If we were to move to a US system with a President actually running the country, clearly that President should be directly elected.

But it was clear at the Convention, and it is equally clear in the electorate at large, that there is virtually no support for a US style system. Australians want to retain their parliamentary system where the Prime Minister runs the country and he or she is chosen by the party or coalition of parties that has a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. This Westminster system, so-called because it derives from the United Kingdom's "mother of Parliaments", is by far the most widely used system of Government in the world today.

Once you have decided that the head of government will be a Prime Minister responsible to the House of Representatives, it follows that the President should not be a competing source of authority. Rather the President, like the Governor-General, should have a largely ceremonial function and, most importantly, be able to serve as a constitutional umpire in times of constitutional crisis; such as an impasse between the House of Representatives and the Senate.

A President of this kind should not be directly elected by the people. Why? Because a directly elected President will undoubtedly be a political partisan. The Labor Party will run a candidate, as will the Coalition. From time to time an independent may win; but in our very partisan political culture we would undoubtedly wind up with a partisan President; perhaps elected with a mandate to oppose the policies of the Prime Minister. In time we would find ourselves with a Prime Minister and a President each claiming a popular mandate. It is a recipe for chaos.

For all of these reasons the Convention resolved on a model which was pretty close (minus the Queen) to what we have today. The new President would have the same powers as the Governor-General; like the Governor-General he or she would be expected to act impartially and be above party politics.

But the Convention model did effect a number of very important improvements: First, the President will be chosen in a bipartisan fashion. Following a process of public consultation the President will be appointed by a two thirds majority of a joint sitting on the motion of the Prime Minister and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition. So there will be no more party hacks appointed to Yarralumla. Ted Mack denounces partisanship, but the Convention model puts an end to partisanship; it ensures that our President will be someone who commands respect across all of the political spectrum, and is not simply the nominee of one political party or the other.

It is all very well for Mr Mack to denounce the "two party families", but the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Australians (in excess of 80%) cast their first preference votes for either the Labor Party or the Liberal/National Party Coalition. The failure of new parties and independents to make a significant mark on our political system is not a consequence of anything other than a failure of the electorate to vote for them in sufficient numbers. Mr Mack's own experience is a salutary one. He was a popular independent member for North Sydney, but when he decided to retire most of those electors who had voted for him returned to vote for the major parties.

Because our system requires the Prime Minister to be the head of government, it follows that, so long as the Prime Minister is complying with the law and retains the support of the House of Representatives, the President (or Governor-General as at present) should act on the Prime Minister's advice. It equally follows that if the two officials cannot work together, the Prime Minister should prevail.

At present the Prime Minister can appoint and dismiss the Governor-General. Mr Mack makes much of the fact that formally the appointment and dismissal is done by the Queen (on the advice of the Prime Minister). But there is no question that the Queen must comply with the Prime Minister's advice and it would be a shameful violation of our independence if the Queen were able to ignore the advice of a duly elected Prime Minister of Australia.

The Convention model does, consistent with the present arrangements, enable the Prime Minister to dismiss the President. But there are two very significant refinements. First, the Prime Minister can dismiss the President, but he cannot appoint the new President. That must be done by bipartisan majority and with the support of the Opposition. The casual vacancy created by the dismissal of the President will be filled by the senior (ie longest serving) State Governor. Second the Prime Minister would be obliged to present his decision to the House of Representatives for ratification for 30 days. If the House did not approve his conduct, he would be forced to resign.

Sacking a President is a very, very serious matter. It would have enormous political consequences for the Prime Minister. But most importantly, no Prime Minister has anything to gain as he cannot appoint a more pliable President in the place of the one he has removed.

The Convention model can be tested this way. How would we react if a Prime Minister said: "In future I undertake that I shall not appoint a Governor General other than with the support of the Leader of the Opposition." We would all applaude this as being a generous (albeit rare) sign of bipartisanship. If the Prime Minister then went on to say; "Furthermore I undertake that if I were ever to recommend the removal of a Governor-General, I would not appoint the replacement other than with the support of the Opposition and the casual vacancy would be filled by the senior State Governor." Again we would applaude.

Mr Mack's claim that the Convention model concentrates more power in the hands of the Prime Minister is simply false. The Prime Minister will cease to have the power, by himself, either to appoint or remove the President. The Convention model reduces the power of the Prime Minister.

The real question for Australians next year is whether they want an Australian citizen as their head of state. The debate on the model is over for the purposes of the referendum next year. The Convention's recommended model will be put to the people in the referendum and our choice is to vote Yes for that change or No and keep the monarchy.

We recognise that for many Australians the reforms do not go far enough. But the real question for measuring the merit of political change is not whether it goes far enough, but whether it is a step in the right direction. If the amendments proposed next year are approved, there will be opportunities in the future to effect further change. Mr Mack and those who support him need to ask whether they are serving Australia, or respecting Australians' desire to have an Australian head of state, by opposing the referendum. The greatest lesson from our political history is that political reform is incremental. We may want the whole loaf, but we will only get it one slice at a time. Those who want the whole loaf, all at once, or nothing will inevitably get nothing.