The last thing Australia needs is 'Progressives' (actually regressives) rewriting the constitution. If any rewriting isneeded it should be very carefully, and minimally, done by Conservatives, not Regressives (who are intent on taking the developed world back to their pre- Enlightenment times - beliefs and dogma).

The most important section to fix (actually repeal) is Section 18c.

What a ridiculous idea. No sensible person would countenance such absurdity. Politicians, known to be idiots, don't understand their Constitutional obligations or they are so arrogant as to believe they can ignore rules a child would understand, and the screechers and bedwetters come out of their trees demanding an entire re-write of the Constitution.

As if people like that could trusted to do what this character thinks should happen; they don't respect what we have now! Given the absolute distrust of, and contempt for, Australian politicians, you really have to be off the planet to come up with such nonsense.

Talk about letting the foxes design the hen house!

As far as I can remember our Constitution has served
us rather well thus far, except now for the dual-citizenship
fiasco which is disrupting our government's ability to
govern. I'm not an expert on our Constitution nor am I a
lawyer so I can't really comment much on what aspects of it
may need to be upgraded to reflect Modern Australia, or if
it's even necessary for an upgrade. Section 44i of the
Constitution is the Section that appears to be causing all the
problems currently - and that certainly could do with a
re-examination. As for re-writing the entire Constitution?
We need to be very careful with what it's going to be replaced.
But it is worth discussing.
Definitely.

Fair comment mate! And more than timely!
Alan B.

I'd disagree that section 44 is even a real problem. When you apply to run for parliament, the AEC makes it very clear that it is your responsibility to make sure you don't have dual citizenship. A bunch of (mostly) lawyers should be able to work that out and take responsibility for that themselves. The Constitution isn't a problem; the lack of personal responsibility of parliamentarians is.

The Parliament Library says : "The Commonwealth Constitution does not say expressly who is responsible for declaring war or deploying troops. . Indeed for several decades after the Commonwealth came into being in 1901, the Australian Government itself was unsure as to whether it could even declare war against another country without British Government approval. Section 61 of the Constitution states that ‘The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen’s representative. "
-
Sloppy sentiment and copying US Presidency has given the PM a war-gamer role but she can only advise the Crown , legally. Gough Whitlam lost that one in 1975 and GG won. Cosgrove probably needs to declare war before his subs sink China but maybe not.

Just thank God that the original writers of our constitution were not nearly as perverted or dumbed down as much of academia today.

Surely the AEC should be responsible for checking up on would-be politicians as soon as they nominate. We simply cannot trust the politicians or the parties to do this.

The current disgrace is proof that Section 44 must be retained and policed. Given thinking voters' low opinions of Australian politicians, they would never agree to interfering with or abolishing Sec 44.

Anyone thinking otherwise is part of the wreck-the-joint mob.

The constitution ought to be scrapped, not replaced.

In any case, no constitution can be valid unless all the people that are to be subjected to it have consented to it.

Dear Alan B.,

Nobody's called me "mate" before so Thank You.

BTW: I'm a female.

This just sounds like a list of ideas dreamed up in a humanities department canteen at some out of touch inner city Uni.

If your going call for a new Constitution I'd want to see better argument then this one. Exactly what is being stopped by our constitution?

A bill of rights has more to do with full employment for every grad of legal studies rather then any improvement in the average Bruce's life.

"Given thinking voters' low opinions of Australian politicians, they would never agree to interfering with or abolishing Sec 44. Anyone thinking otherwise is part of the wreck-the-joint mob."

How does that work out? These are obviously foreign and voted in :

Di Natale was born in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, to Catholic Italian immigrant parents.
Xenophon (born Xenophou) was born in Adelaide, South Australia, to Theo Xenophou, from Cyprus, and Georgia, from Greece.
Penny Wong was born in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, to Jane (née Chapman) and Francis Wong a Malaysian Chinese of Hakka origin.

Well if folk are bothered by folks of foreign birth in the halls of power, why aren't they jumping in the rafters and or rattling the cage over the fact that those who penned our constitution were also foreigners! As is our head of state!

Our Constitution is older than my Dad's first car, a model T ford.

And out of its depth when asked to compete with my 1950's ford mustang.

As our Constitution would be if we had a new one, we Australians actually agreed to, before it became law! And what usually occurs in an alleged democracy!

This current constitution was one imposed on us, without our informed consent! Why? Because we were a former penal colony chock full of convict descendants/white trash and better than we lowlifes/cannon fooder, deserved.

Given we have so few real rights accorded to us by this archaic document, imposed on us from without, by foreign penmen. We need some serious penmanship applied, so the intent and purpose of the original document is at least preserved! That intent, along with our rights, properly codified!

And wouldn't then be troubled by a few folks born in former British colonies, that share our head of state!

Serving in our parliament, because they stood before us. Argued their case and like One Nation's Senator Roberts, won the ballot, on merit and the flow of preferences! Hard to ask for fairer than that!

Even if a few malcontents, who possibly didn't bother to vote formal, got someone with a foreign parent!
Sob/whine! Alan B.

Our dear Malcolm has stated that US and Oz are joined at the hip which indicates where SSM is headed. He can then decide the big issues of the day in Parliament:

"The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase "natural born Citizen", .', meaning born of citizen parents. Every president was born in the United States; , there have been seven that had at least one parent who was not born on U.S. soil.. experts have suggested that the precise meaning .. can be decided only by Congress rather than by the judicial branch of government.
Barack Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii US . his father was a British subject from British Kenya. Indiana Court of Appeals stated," persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' , regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

Only Bill and Malcolm , joined at the lip , should decide who to adopt into their House.

If the selectors need new players when electricity shuts down and streets get blocked by tents, knives and needles they could look overseas for star pollies.
The current soccer transfer record was set by the transfer of Neymar from Barcelona to Paris Saint-Germain for €222 million (£198 million) on 3 August 2017.
rugby league current record fee was paid for Sam Tomkins, for whom the New Zealand Warriors paid £700,000 to the Wigan Warriors in 2013.
Giancarlo Stanton: Miami Marlins Baseball. 13 years (2014-2027) $325,000,000.

We definitely need a new Australian constitution and republicans should be working with the Treaty mob/Tent Embassy to develop something. We could redraw the boundaries along tribal areas in cooperation with Elders from the areas, have a new flag, a new anthem, a true democracy and a better, more egalitarian/Australian future.

Robin1942. Definitely not! Obviously you are one of these people who want to change things so you can gain from it. Our forefathers did not sit down and say we want this to be scrapped and changed in a hundred years or so. Just like the bible it is a document to fashion our lives after. It is not time relative. It is worded to guide us for all time. I am disappointed with the changes that have been made over the years. This country is a 'penal' colony, and most of the people in it are from criminal backgrounds, so it's no wonder everyone wants to change it. Well back off, leave it alone, it ain't broken, no matter what some people say. The only reason people want to change or re-write it is because they can't get away with their scumbag agenda under the current constitution.

There have been some remarkably conservative and quite uninformed responses to my article. Just for the record of those who believe I represent the views of inner city, Green thinking, I worked 22 years at Southern Cross University in Lismore, the heart of National Party politics in NSW, where I contributed to the development of that new University for the length of that period. Robin 42 believes that I have a Scumbag agenda for my own gain. What these gains might be is unclear. The author's suspicions are both uninformed and offensive. I retired from SCU in 1999 as an Associate Professor and, as a political scientist, have published three books on these issues since.

The fact of the matter remains that the High Court decision demonstrates that Section 44 meant something quite different in 1901 than what now applies. This is true in particular in respect of MPs of Anglo origin who were then British subjects but after 1949 became Australian citizens while the Brits became foreigners. The High Court "Black Letter" was UNWISE and, moreover, has now had the effect that the Parliament is in amazing turmoil for no good reason at all. Although the High Court has a conservative bias it is quite possible that the decision will result in the fall of the Turnbull Government. No danger to the state followed from the fact that several MPs, mostly unknowingly, had dual citizenship. A far more intelligent, just and pragmatic HC decision would have been to urge the MPs to fix their citizen status and recommend constitutional change as soon as possible. The governance systems of Australia are backward altogether, it is not just the archaic C. I recommend you read Peter Fitzsimmons article in today's Sydney Morning Herald about the progressive policies in New Zealand. The C. has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible. A sovereign people can of course, at any time, decide to rewrite their own ground rules. That is the essence of sovereignty.

Klaasvaak, not withstanding all your academic achievements. Considering there were NO Australians (as we know them) back when the constitution was written, I would suggest that they were British citizens and yet they were allowed to serve in the Australian Parliament. Because we have a British head of state, I would suggest that anyone tagged as a British subject, should still be eligible to serve as it was when the constitution was originally enacted. People reject any thoughts about Australia belonging to the Queen of England, and until she decides otherwise Australians would be well advised to stop talking treason by discussing a shift to a republic. A crime, BTW, punishable by death. It is not generally known because these morons called Aussie's will implode if they knew, but; every time we have an election the victor (don't know if anybody noticed) fly's to England to visit the queen. The plebs think it is some kind of gracious gesture on the part of the new PM. HAH! You idiots. He HAS to go there to ASK, yes ASK her permission for him to run this s#!thole. Now , how do you like them apples? Didn't see that coming. So before you all go 'shirt fronting' the Queen, just remember. She 'owns' you and all you possess. Got ya thinkin?