The debate avoidance industry, having long distracted community attention from the dangers of both presidential republic models, has lost control. The equally insidious tax avoidance industry of the eighties, at least went as deep as the bottom of the harbour. This avoidance industry has been conspicuous by its shallowness. It diverts attention by not mentioning or glossing over the dangers I identified on 1 May. Debate leaders have obvious reasons for shying away from debating which republic models would maintain and which would ruin our democracy. Most on both sides earlier dug themselves into untenable positions.
Many monarchists still say there is no safe way to a democratic republic.
The McGarvie model which transfers the Queen s remaining powers and functions to the Governor-General, who becomes actual instead of de facto head of state, is entirely safe. The Queen s one active duty, appointing or dismissing the Governor-General, will be done on the Prime Minister s advice by a Constitutional Council of three eminent Australians automatically selected by constitutional formula. If each State also had that model with its Governor its actual head of state, appointed or dismissed by its Constitutional Council on the Premier s advice, Australia would be completely a republic. The fatal flaw of the models many republicans still support, is that a President elected by Parliament or people could not be promptly dismissed. That sanction for breach, which gives binding effect to the convention of exercising the great powers of head of state as elected Ministers advise, would disappear.