During the lead-up to the referendum that would decide whether Australia would remain a monarchy or become a republic, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, uttered the immortal phrase 'If it's not broke, why fix it?' Four years after that referendum was defeated the Hollingworth saga has proven once and for all just how broken the system is.

Under the Australian constitution the Head-of-State is Queen Victoria of Great Britain, her heirs and successors. The current monarch is Queen Elizabeth the second. The monarch is represented in Australia by the Govenor-General, whom performs all the duties and roles that the monarch would if she could be bothered travelling half-way across the world to the colonies. While the Govenor-General is officially 'assigned' by the monarch, for all intents and purposes he (as there has yet to be a female GG) is chosen by one man - the Prime Minister of Australia. Very often this is done without any consultation.

The Republic referendum was essentially lost because the proposed republican model didn't allow the direct election of the President. It would have had the President elected by a two-thirds majority of both houses of parliament. The majority of the Australian population were unwilling to give the politicians that much power. Instead, we are stuck with a system where one man chooses.

The selection of Peter Hollingworth as Govenor-General - and the seventeen-month furor that led up to his resignation - have proven the not only is the system broke it is fundamentally flawed. There is no allowance for the Prime Minister or the parliament to dismiss a Govenor-General unless he, while serving as Govenor-General, did something to warrant his dismissal. This theoretically could mean that a war-criminal could be appointed GG and, short of an unprecedented intervention by the monarch, unless he broke the 'rules' during his tenure as GG could not be dismissed. This is clearly unacceptable. The howls from the media and the populace have proven that. An alternative must be found.

So, what are the alternatives? There really are only two: choice by the parliament or choice by the voters. Both have their problems and their benefits. The main problem facing parliamentary choice is that the voters remain unconvinced that it is not a further power grab by the politicians. On the other hand, direct election could result in a mandate for the president which might bring him (or, hopefully one day, her) in conflict with the parliament or Prime Minister. The politicians are unwilling to support this option because of this.

During the referendum I heavily supported the republican model favouring parliamentary choice despite loving the romance of electing my own head-of-state. I was swayed by the idea that a conflict stemming from presidential mandate was a bad thing. The Hollingworth incident has nullified that arguement. Bad things will happen no matter who makes the choice and I would rather that I made that choice directly rather than have it made for me.