I do not support a constitutionally entrenched Bill of Rights and I do not see any need even for a non - constitutional statute of that kind .
However , I find it difficult to understand how even conservative - voting Australians can be comfortable with retaining the British head of state , an hereditary foreign aristocrat ,as our head of state . To argue that it is better to leave the present monarchical system in place just because it is there ,ignores the fact that it is an insult to Australian national self - respect .

The referendum on the republic failed because of an unholy misalliance between cashed up monarchy worshippers and well - meaning , but misguided , direct election republicans , not because of a real preference to retain the foreign monarchy .

To say that , because a referendum to change the monarchical system was unsuccessful previously , there should never be another referendum posing the same question , is like saying that , because you failed an examination once , you should never again be allowed to sit the same examination .

Why have another election when the people have already expressed their preference at the immediately previous election ?

Each time a Professor’s mouth is open; we expect a lesson.

This one is a good one; on ‘Constitutions’ or, pointedly, on the Australian Constitution.

The word prominent in this article is ‘Slaughtered’ as used in abattoirs.

A Professor is meant to be impartial. Professoor James Allan is passionate.

‘Constitution and Human rights’

If we had a Constitution “where each one of us is counted equally” would we need other scripts as the one under the title ‘Human right’?

Why do we have to send our kids to learn from Professors the art of war, slaughter, is the question that should bugger every parent.

oh Dear. I think this post could be much shorter perhaps " I hate the Greens and everything they stand for".

I found this post to be funny but it's when I read the proportional voting bit that the tears started coming.

Jaylex in reply to your comment regarding the Constitution Acts 1900.
The Mornarch is no longer our head of state. Although in the Constitution still refers to the monarch.
The Constitution Act 1900 guarantees and safe guards our Rights and Freedoms which most of us take for granted.
Parliaments, Governments and the Judiciary do their utmost to ignore its existance and they rely on peoples ignorance as many of the people of Australia are not aware of it. They dont want the people aware of it as this would stop many of the oppressive practices they use today, such as selling our utilities, farms, mines, water, and industries, to foreign investors investors and some of those are to foreign powers. We must ask ourselves WHY. At the rate this is occuring soon Australia will just be another state of a foreign power.
Our Governments are beginning to worry because more people are learning of our Constitution and are waking up to the fact we are not free as we have been led to beleive.
Why do you think the Federal government refused the people a vote by REFERENDUM concerning the carbon tax? The Labor/Greens did not want the people to have a say on the issue and this is in breach of our the peoples Constitution, this indicates that they operating as a Dictatorship Government and is in a direct breach of section 128 of the Constitution. Prior to January 2010 I did not have a clue, but fortunately thanks to computers and the ability to research my eyes and brain were opened. Now I never assume anything is right or wrong until I research, weigh it up and then form an opinion.
Australia governments refer to Australia as the Australian Federation of the States and Territories, not the Commonwealth of Australia as is our heritage. We need our Constitution 1900 because without it we will forfeit our Democratic Rights.

Concerns about the greens come from every side of politics and from both sides of the Republican debate.
Can we separate our views on such?
Not sure but I have noted if you genuinely hold views we would be better without greens you will be targeted.
If it is your view, shared by many, most Australians resent greens,you must stand by to be confronted.
But if OLO is any rule to measure public feelings about this minority group those concerns are shared too by more than some wish.

Of the plethora of Green-bashing articles that have been published here lately, this would have to be one of the worst. Apparently, according to the good Professor of Law, the Greens are responsible for the push for a Bill of Rights, and also for the republican movement in Australia.

If only it were true - but the reality is that, while they are indeed official Greens policy, according to Prof Allan's own figures support for both initiatives is much wider in the community than just among the Greens. Indeed, most people who support a Bill of Rights and/ or a republic vote for parties other than the Greens. Hardly radical stuff, is it?

Eventually Allan briefly mentions policies that are distinctly Green, one of which is Proportional Representation - under which parties win seats in the Lower House in proportion to their vote, e.g. With 12% of the vote, the Greens would win 12% of the seats. Sound fair? That's because it is, which is why his only argument against it is that it shouldn't be adopted because it would favour small parties like the Greens.

On the question of lowering the vote to 16, I actually agree with Prof Allan in opposing it. However, no party's perfect - not even the Greens :)