Our lawyer friend says that "Australians are a conservative bunch who when faced with change - even positive change - that they don't fully understand, vote to maintain or restore the status quo."

Seems pretty sensible to me, except that McConvill's answer is NOT to ensure that people understand the proposed change, but to remove their right to have any say about it. You'd have to be a mug to trust a lawyer.

I too think it is hilarious that an argument for change is the fact that the Australian people have used their democratic vote in referendum after referendum to reject the particular constitutional amendments put forward. Imagine applying the same principle to elections: any election in which the people do not change the government is proof that the people shouldn't be allowed to choose the government. How arrogant can you get? Catch 22 rides again!

However, it is time we gave up the idea that the only way to change the constitution is by referendum. The High Court's extraordinary reading of the corporations power enables the federal government to do anything it likes. It seems that the express limitation of Commonwealth power in industrial relations to matters concerning interstate disputes is meaningless. If you deal with a corporation, the government can control you.

Throw in the High Court's reading of the external affairs power, and all we need is for the federal government to sign a treaty with Monaco to corporatise federal parliament and then have that same parliament pass a law abolishing itself under the corporations power.

As I understand it, even though the federal parliament can pass laws regulating corporations, it is state law that creates them. If this is so, a determined state government can thwart the federal government by abolishing corporations completely, but it had better do so before the federal government signs a treaty with Monaco declaring that the states themselves are corporations.

Chris C,

You provide, albeit in what we would all really hope to be in jest (but really probably isn't), a germ of the development of an illustration of just how wrong at least one of James McConvill's assertions could be. McConvill asserted that there was little in the Constitution to set the heart racing. In a post earlier in this thread I suggested that at some future time Section 72 (ii.) might do so. That day may be nearer than we imagine.

Section 72 (ii.) of the Constitution deals with the removal of High Court Justices. Whilst not to be entertained lightly, delivery of a decision that effectively tends toward the overthrow of the original concept of federation, and appears to fly in the face of four referendum results over the years, might reasonably be examined for signs of 'incapacity' in the Justice(s) delivering it.

Whilst it may not presently be easy to envisage, the composition of a future Parliament may be able to invoke Section 72. Read it and ponder.

Doesn't James McConvill also teach at Deakin University with that other online opinion contributor Mirko Bagaric? You know, the guy who wrote that torture article last year.
Is it just me, or does there seem to be some similarities in their logic/outlook...:-(

It is frustrating that Australia's constitution has "fallen behind the times". One University Law lecturer I had in 1993 described it as a "horse and cart constitution". This may be so. However, in no way can I justify in my mind the idea of removing the people's right to have their say on the document that underpins all government law making and activity. What McConvill is effectively advocating is a revolution. The Federal Parliament cannot pass the law/s he is advocating because such laws are Unconstitutional ! No political party in their right minds would attempt to do what McConvill is advocating - it would be political suicide ! Good intentions or not, this argument does not stick and reflects a totally masculine pyschology. I see it this way....if a party-in-government drafts a sound and worthwhile amendment to the constitution and the idea is sold correctly to the public, then such amendments stand a good chance of getting up. For a document as fundamental to society as the constitution, it should never be the case that anyone can just come along and "change it". For all its faults, it has provided the foundation for a solid democracy for over 100 years and I would expect the people would vehemently oppose the kinds of changes McConvill is suggesting.