I agree with the main point that Australia needs to overhaul our out-dated constitution. But we should be looking way beyond Brown's exciting proposals to find the best system of Government for the next millenium.

There are billions to be saved annually by introducing a unicameral system to replace our broken 3-tier system of government.

A streamlined two tier system with one body of law for all Australians will overcome the blame game, inefficiency and the leakage of money into 8 state and territory legislatures and the civil services.

Our system of justice can take a quantum leap by adopting the European model that is focussed on seaching for the truth through inquiry rather than our seriously flawed and costly adverserial system.

Appointment of government ministers should be opened up to non-elected experts for the positions.

Engaging the population through e-consultation would help ensure that policy making does not become so heavily skewed towards the well connected.

Is Rudd up to that kind of challenge? Time will tell just how dynamic he will be - and whether he can reign in the dictatorial precedent for the Prime Minister's Office set by Howard.

A referendum to remove the state governments and divide their powers
between the local councils and the Australian government is long overdue.
It would solve lots of arguments and save lots of money.
As the senate would no longer be relevant as the states house it could
also be removed.

I cannot see the parties agreeing to this as much of their largess to
the party officials would disappear. How we get such a referendum
without the co-operation of the parties, I have no idea.

Bazz
You may not have noticed but the senate has not been a house for the states for a very long time, it is all about the parties.

When the people decide and stop voting for the liberal and labor parties and place them last then change will come.

Vote independent

Well of course Tapp I was aware that the parties rule in the senate.
I usually do vote for a different party or independent but the
preferential system means that you finally get down to the last two.
I am very much in favour of the preferential system but not keen on
the optional preferential. Thats just for lazy voters.

"with the aid of party discipline"

There in we find the problem. Your local member represents their party first (or their financial backers/donors) and you a very far second.

Voting for a party you don't belong and cannot influence is just too easy and too silly. Unfortunately, few parties allow for that kind of involvement and too few of us care.

I did notice;
George Williams is the Anthony Mason Professor and Director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law at the Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales.
.
Well to me neither he or those who placed a comment seem to have any understanding what the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) stands for.
.
The British system is one of a "sovereign” Parliament whereas since federation neither the States and certainly not the Commonwealth of Australia are "sovereign" Parliament as they are "constitutional" Parliaments.
.
The democrats ill conceived 2003 Bill is precisely that as constitutionally the Governor-General for the Monarch has the prerogative powers to declare war or peace. Nothing to do with the Prime Minister.
.
Constitutionally the Governor-General appoint a judge, upon recommendation of the Federal executive, as the Framers of the Constitution intended, this is why we have so many incompetent High Court of Australia adjudicating in cases because they haven’t got any competence in certain constitutional matters before the Court.
.
If the article reflects George Williams perception of what is constitutionally applicable then I have concerns as to those he teaches. He may do better to spend some time reading the books I have published in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series about certain constitutional and other legal issues as well as my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH and my website at http://www.schorel-hlavka.com.
.
I may have expected such an article from a first year law student but to me some of the nonsense in it should not come from a Professor and Director!
.
As for the real power with the federal executive, this always was so where the Governor-General is the head of the federal executive, but the problem is that we do not have a validly appointed Governor-General!
.
As a "CONSTITUTIONALIST" I can state that "OUR" Constitution is not at fault, it are the people misusing/abusing powers where the problems lies.