Hilarious. This article amounts to an argument to subvert the sovereignty of the people in order to save postage stamps, and to trim a few pages of obsolete verbiage off the Constitution. Only a technocrat could see any merit in the suggestion.

By Mr McConvill's logic, we should save even more money by getting rid of all those expensive politicians and just leave everything to Dear Leader, who knows best.

Mr McConvill probably enjoys a good sneer at "elitist" progressive-types, yet here he is sneering at the entire Australian populace for apparently not knowing what's good for 'em. How elitist can you get?

I seem to recall reading a recent OLO article relating to how the business community was constantly pushing for government reform in the interest of streamlining the process and reducing red tape.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5033

I thought it summed it up quite nicely. It's all very well to go slashing legislature in the interest of efficiency, but there's a reason why the process is slow and demanding - accountability. A process which is always at risk of being subverted, what's more, those who need to be held accountable the most almost always hold a genuine belief that their being scrutinised isn't necessary.

The only "PP" that have contrained the constitution is the managerial elite who have had and are in the "P" of position to change it.

Why would the rich and famous really want or need the average citizen in their world?

If people are as disinterested in the Constitution as McConvill claims - and the claim is probably true - that is enough for me not to want any change. If people are disinterested now, they will be no more interested after a change, and with the suggestion that a majority in Parliament should make constitutional changes and, note well, “divert the power of constitutional change from the people to their elected representatives..” then that would be very dangerous.

McConvill talks about not “succumbing (to) forces of partisan politics”, relying on the lack of any party having a sufficient majority to force it’s will. This is about the now. What about the future?

Is there a guarantee for the future? Even people not interested in the Constitution or in politics per se know that politicians think of themselves as being different from other people. When they get together, irrespective of party, it’s more “them” and us (the voters) than people realise. They are a club, irrespective of party, which they prefer belonging to rather than mucking in with the rest of us. They all see themselves as “statesmen” who need to guide us in our ignorance. Remember, politics is about power (even if some politicians sincerely believe that they want it to help people) and the power is over us: the people.

We should stick with the current Constitution and with referenda. Better still, we should have real power over our elected representatives (who are really representing their parties to us, not the other way around) of Citizen Initiated Referenda

I find it interesting that Dr McConvill fails to make the case for why we need a completely new constitution. If it is to fix various sections that are now out of date, using his example, to make section 51(v) reflect the modern technologies of radio, television and electronic media, and to remove redundant provisions, then why could we not have a referendum on that? I doubt even the most conservative voter will object to these seemingly simple changes.

I am not convinced that the examples he has provided for us constitute the need to give more power to our elected representatives, since the constitution is the only document we can use to keep them in check. Giving them the power to change the document is analogous to giving them the power to decide on their salaries and superannuation payments, and those decision have had a overwhelmingly been decided in politician's favour. Why would this system of constitutional change be any different?

"given that it is only on rare occasions that a political party will have a sufficient majority at a joint sitting to force through their desired constitutional amendments"

Apart from the parliaments of 1993 and 1996, every government since 1949 (at least) would have had an absolute majority in a joint sitting.