Peter Crayson read the FAQs and has some criticisms of SA that have been passed on to me:
Peter Crayson: I think there are quite a few problems. One of the risks is that its simplicity could lead to constitutional challenges regarding interpretation (especially of conventions such as the PM "writing" to all voters). Another risk is that establishing a system of electing Governor-General without becoming a republic could actually result in complacency and possibly less enthusiasm for moving to a republic. Another problem is that since this is not a true direct election (it's more of a referendum on choice of GG), it will be rejected by the majority of the population, who clearly favour a direct election. Another problem would relate to the outcome of the confirmation vote – what if the vote is lost, or what if the vote is very low or a bare majority? The legitimacy of the GG would then be in question. A lost vote could result in a constitutional vacuum.
MP: I don’t think it’s possible to mount a constitutional challenge to a convention. That’s supposed to be their virtue: not justiciable. Of course, they are open to argument so if you have an argument please state it.
Less enthusiasm for moving to a republic? Than now? You’re kidding.