When Treasurer Wayne Swan and Opposition frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull tried to revive the republic debate this week, the body gurgled a little salt water, rolled its eyes a bit and then fell back dead on the beach.

They, and then Prime Minister Paul Keating, went about it the wrong way. The debate has been about the defects in the monarchy and the need for a president.

They should have started with the defectiveness of the appointment and removal of the Governor-General.

We were reminded of that in the mini-series on Gough Whitlam this week which rebroadcast the famous quote: “Well may we say ‘God save the Queen’, for nothing will save the Governor-General.”

No government appointment in Australia has so little formal requirement or procedure in its making or so little requirement or procedure in its undoing.

Very simply, the Prime Minister of the day can without any process choose whomever he or she wants as Governor-General. No qualifications are required. The Prime Minister just makes a phone call to the Queen and it happens.

Similarly, the Prime Minister can sack a Governor-General with just one call to the Queen. Nothing can save the Governor-General. If Whitlam had won the 1975 election nothing would have saved the Governor-General.

The Queen is different. God saves the Queen. The Queen holds her position through divine right. In the English system, it is presumed that God ordains the next monarch through hereditary. If God had wanted someone else then He would have provided different offspring.

Parliament, of course, has asserted itself over the Monarchy, but the fundamental of birthright, or divine right, remains.

This English monarch technically appoints our Governor-General, but always on the say-so of the Australian Prime Minister.

A good first step would be to democratise that appointment, instead of wringing hands about the difficulty of getting referendum passed.

The Keating, Rudd or Gillard Government could very easily has passed a law through Parliament saying that the Prime Minister shall not put a name to the monarch for appointment as Governor-General, unless that person has been approved by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of Parliament. Similarly, the Prime Minister could not recommend the removal of a Governor-General without a similar vote. No referendum would be needed.

Lots of laws lay down what ministers or prime ministers can or cannot do. Further, joint sittings already make appointments – that is the way replacement territory senators are chosen if one should die or resign. And the Parliament has the power to dismiss – at present it can dismiss High Court judges.

So, such a process for choosing the Governor-General would not be alien.
And it would be seen to be a far superior and more democratic process than the present one. A newly elected Tony Abbott could chose his cycling trainer as the next Governor-General – and Abbott is known to do some way-out things without consultation. Or in the case of John Howard, the Prime Minister chose his favourite archbishop.

With a two-thirds approval process, the need for a further stamp of approval by the Queen would seem superfluous at best, and demeaning at worst.

Moreover, if the Governor-General (who could easily be called “President” without a referendum because the Governor-General happens to also be President of the Executive Council) has to be approved by a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting, you can bet your life that the Labor Party and the Liberal Party would prevent a political opponent getting the job.

But if the position were directly elected, you can bet your life that there would be a Labor candidate and a Liberal candidate and one or other would be elected.

Once the two-thirds process had been put in place by legislation and voters saw that the sky was not falling in, Australia could remove the hereditary, foreign head of state from our system with a referendum. And by all means continue to admire Queen Elizabeth for the sterling job she does for Britain and British trade.

And the people of Port Douglas might well approve. I looked up the polling booth results in the 1999 referendum. In the seat of Leichhardt Port Douglas had the highest 'Yes' vote (48.4 percent) of any of the 50 polling places in the electorate other than two very small polling stations who voted 'Yes'.