It couldn't be as simple as whistler's disquiet arising from misunderstanding that the use of the male personal pronoun in the Constitution merely reflected formal English grammar at the time when expressing gender neutrality?

Because it's quite clear that its constant reference to 'the people' throughout the document makes no distinction on the basis of gender in favour of anyone.

I for one am prepared to overlook the fact that no male gave the Australian Constitution Royal assent.

Personally, I was more interested in learning more details of "a women’s caucus as with a majority of modern legislatures" but I only seemed to be able to find references to Rwanda.

But if we really do need to consider structural change to the Constitution a better move would be to continue to ignore gender in lieu of disenfranchising stupid people – obviously too many of 'them' slip through the net, both into voting booths and the legislatures.

WmTrevor, in Victorian England “the people”, at law, the law which stood when the Constitution was enacted, largely meant men and the property they owned, including, in order of legal interest, land, stock and female dependents. It was very nice of the British parliament to permit female figureheads, nice of the parliament to have also legislated the same hereditary entitlement obtaining to women as obtains to men, permission I’m certain Her Majesty was most grateful to receive when announced to the Commonwealth in Perth earlier this year. Women’s caucuses, the US Congress, Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, the British parliament, Viet Nam and many more. It’s the imbalance of power between women and men at cause of the stupidity to which you refer, in my humble opinion.

Thank you for the clarification, whistler… My misunderstanding was that I thought you were referring to constitutionally enshrined women's caucuses.

Certainly many laws with respect to women (or would it be more accurate to say many laws with disrespect to women?) in Victorian England were shameful, so it's probably just as well that the wording and provisions of the Australian Constitution came from here not there.

I can't pretend to understand what your proposed referendum question, “do you support equal rights between women and men in the Constitution”, would actually change in the Constitution.

The history of obtaining successful referendum questions for constitutional change is – well, arduous at least. It might be less fraught to establish a Coalition Of Women Party in Australia.

Given the demographics, if there is the level of support you anticipate it would be guaranteed to win.

(imajulianutter, I'd be grateful if you could pass this on to whistler, when you have a moment.)

You might consider the option to stop digging, whistler, because the hole is only getting deeper.

>>... in Victorian England “the people”, at law, the law which stood when the Constitution was enacted, largely meant men<<

It was the Westminster Parliament that enacted the legislation. That is, the body of elected representatives that actually makes laws.

Interestingly, England did not have then, nor has now, a written Constitution, so your concept that "the law" meant "men" is completely incorrect. "The law" was precisely what the English Courts, through Common Law, and Parliament through legislation, decide. And in this particular case, the inclusion of women via s.41 was, categorically and explicitly, the intent of the document as passed by Parliament.

There is no question that at different times over the years, the definition of "who can vote" has changed, and will no doubt continue to change. But that status cannot be held as evidence that it has any impact at all on the legislation itself. If it did, there would be no valid laws for under-eighteens, for example.

The constitution has also been expediently re-interpreted on the fly, where it is common sense to do so.

s.2 is classic in this regard:

"A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him"

There was no mad rush to hold a referendum to change the Constitution when, for example, the "Queen" suddenly became "King" in 1901. Nor was it deemed necessary to ask the people to vote whether the Constitution should change the "him" to "her", to allow the appointment in 2008 of Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce AC CVO.

Everything that you appear to need, except the ability to enact laws via a women-only legislature, is already constitutionally available to you.

Have a great day.

WmTrevor, the genius of constitutional bicameral parliamentary democracy, albeit perhaps unintended, is that power between women and men can be very precisely balanced at the source of the reproduction of culture. My proposal, which would accompany a referendum question as described, and yes I’m confident of overwhelming majority support, is this:

The Constitution would be amended to rebadge the Senate a women's legislature with members elected by women and the House of Representatives a men's legislature with members elected by men, each with the same powers to initiate, review, amend, accept or reject legislation enacted with passage through both.

A Cabinet of an equal number of women, appointed by a majority of the women's legislature, and men, appointed by a majority of the men's legislature, reconciles the business of the Parliament and provides leadership.

With Royal assent, sovereignty transfers from the Crown to a Council of Governors-General comprising an equal number of senior women and men appointed by the Cabinet. (What greater honour than for Her Majesty to pass sovereignty to distinguished senior citizens presiding over the first women’s legislature of the modern era?)

The Courts recognise women's and men's jurisdictions.

In summary, the answer to Dr Scutt’s question, “Is a woman leader possible?”, is a resounding YES!

Of course it's yes Whistler, but only if you want failure.

Haven't you noticed that since women took more authority in the home, indebtedness has skyrocketed, juvenile delinquency has followed a similar path, & we now eat prepackaged plastic food, rather than the real stuff.

Since we got more women in parliament, government has become increasingly dysfunctional.

This could be the number of women in parliament, but it could also be that this has been accompanied by affirmative action in the public service.

Affirmative action is where no matter how poor the field to chose from, half [or more] of the senior appointments to the bureaucracy MUST be women.

Don't they come up with some doozies too. Remember that meter wide water commissioner trying to hide behind a half meter wide post.

So fall in here, & we will follow this lady down the garden path. We can join the remains of the female lead Democrats down there with the fairies.