Do any of the erudite contributors to the Forum have any interest in discussing whether or not a new constitution for Australia may be of some benefit?

Australia needs a new Constitution because one half of the population, women, remains under the perpetual supervision of the other half, men.

The Constitution provides for men's legislatures and a men's jurisdiction at law only, to which women have been invited under the weight of public opinion.

Women are denied the opportunity to govern in their own right.

The solution is a Constitution with provision for women's and men's legislatures presided over by elders accompanied by courts of women's and men's jurisdiction.

Smart government extends equal rights to all Australians.

Whistler,
I suggest you compare the current rights of women in Australia with other National constutions and see If our current constution is actually supressing women. If such is the case then the Governor General needs to be notified that womens rights are being denied by the current constitutional powers.

Philo, absent provision for women's legislatures and a jurisdiction at law, every national Constitution is suppressing women.

Since the Governor-General can only act on advice from men's legislatures, notification that women's rights are being denied by the current constitutional powers would be noble but not equitable.

The power to enact a new Constitution remains with the people.

There is a need for a new constitution , which presumably would mean not simply amending certain provisions of the current constitution , but replacing it with an entirely different constitution . The prospects of a successful referendum to achieve this aim are close to non - existent , given the previous failure of referenda to make very minor amendments . There is nothing in the current constitution which discriminates against women . Some fundamental considerations would be whether to abolish the state governments and , whether or not that is done , whether to recognise , and confer powers on , local authorities - apart from having an Australian head of state [ the lastmentioned being relatively minor , though important ]. Recognition of the prior sovereignty of the aboriginal peoples would also be symbolic , but important .

Despite the difficulty of achieving any significant amendments and , in particular , persuading State governments to accept a constitution which abolished , it is important to begin the difficult process .

> There is nothing in the current constitution which discriminates against women

... apart from the absence of women's legislatures and a women's jurisdiction at law.

Recognition of the prior sovereignty of aboriginal women's business and men's business is important.

The prospects of a successful referendum to achieve equal rights for women is a no brainer.

I suppose it may have been wishful thinking to expect a discussion that actually related to the question, and didn't include rants on a favourite hobby horse and counter rants, or comments suggesting that it's all a waste of time.
However, if there IS actually anyone who is interested in a discussion and not a rant, then I'd still like to read what people think about this matter.
Thanks

Yes ConsRmad there is someone here with a sensible comment.

I am generally of the mind that if it isn't broke don't fix it.
However what is broke is the states.
The states should be deleted and the responsibilities and rights that
are held by the state governments should be divided between local
government and the Commonwealth government.

The states were necessary in 1901 whe a trip to WA took two weeks at
a minimum. These days with teleconferencing and air travel all those
reasons are long gone. The parochialism of those times has almost
gone except in WA.

We have too much conflicting legislation, different road rules even.
Ever notice the Victorians making U turns at traffic lights ?
Different building standards etc etc etc.

To say nothing of hundreds of unnecessary politicians.
Now that should stir up some activity and comment.

I feel that it would be rather healthy to
have a discussion on the benefits of a new
Constitution in Australia. There are questions
that I'd like to see answered, for example:

1) Should the Australian Constitution have an
entrenched Bill of Rights?

2) What kind of Federal model or arrangement
between the national and regional entities is
desirable for the country?

3) Why are judges selected in their current
particular manner?

4) Does Australia need a monarch and particularly
a British monarch as Head of State?

5) Does Australia need a Governor-General?

Just to name a few...

My understanding is that any changes to the Constitution have to be approved by the people.

I wonder how many powers have been transferred between the States and the Commonwealth (one way or the other) directly contravening the Constitution over the past century.

There is room for improvement in the separation of powers between the states and the Commonwealth. As Bazz pointed out there is much confusion in the lack of uniformity even in the most basic of regulations - road rules, actions that would constitute a criminal offence, school regulations, transfer of qualifications in some areas like trades, entitlements for pensioners, business regulatory regimes and the list could go on forever.

Not to mention duplication of processes in some areas.

The Australian Constitution was put together as a Commonwealth of States, so first we must get all States to agree to be abolished. That if we want to abolish State Governments. The only other way to have all States agree is a civil war where State Parliaments are overthrown and the military seize power and write a new Constitution. You tell me when State Parliaments are willing to relinquish their powers?

The Constitution of Australia Act was passed by a Parliament which prohibited women.

No woman spoke or voted on the Bill.

It is preposterous to assert that the Parliament which passed the Constitution of Australia Act was comprised of anything other than men's legislatures.

Or that the legislatures the Act enables are anything other than men's legislatures, to which women have become acquainted.

A Convention in the Parliament with the Senate a Women's Caucus and the House of Representatives a Men's Caucus should resolve the situation of the States.

consRmad, absent any substantive argument to the contrary from the erudite to whom you appealed, it would appear that the consensus of this Forum is that the Constitution of Australia is a blatantly sexist, offensive and easily altered instrument of government, a relic from an era the nation left behind long ago.

Australian women should have the same rights and privileges Australian men enjoy, in particular the right to their own legislatures and jurisdiction at law.

States which decline to implement equal rights should be governed by the Commonwealth pending the implementation of equal rights Parliaments, as a successful Referendum would confirm.

Does this satisfy your query?

Whistler,
Do I understand you correctly? Are you advocating that the Senate be made up of women only and the House of Reps,men only. Or only that there should be designated seats for women.

Either way, it is a stupid idea. Bit like having designated seats for various ethnic groups. Next someone will be wanting different laws for different groups. Now that would be proper multiculturalism.

Parliamentarians need to be elected on their merits.

A few rejoinders to the points made so far;
I agree, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. But I think that is indeed broke.
Despite the rant, whistler has a point to, women were excluded from the original effort to write our selves a constitution.
I think the states should be abolished and the local governments made much more meaningful, and I s’pose powerful. Dividing the various powers between though is a tad difficult. Of course 800 or so state politicians who think they are absolutely essential to the governance of the country will scream. So!? As the states replaced the colonies it was perhaps logical way back then to simply transfer themselves into the constituent states, but they are well past their use by date now.
We do need a “bill of rights” but it should be a “bill” which also includes a “bill of government responsibilities, duties, restrictions and limits.”
With the abolition of states, there should be perhaps 35 to 40 local governments which have entrenched powers to deal with local matters. We can all argue about what they are and how they would work, but I think that’s a start.
We just copied the way the British appointed judges and I don’t see anything particularly wrong with it, with a few adjustments. I don’t think we should go to electing judges, or term limits on judges tho’.

Speaking as one who has been a dedicated republican since my teens I obviously don’t think we need either a monarch or a deputy monarch in the person of a gg.
The Constitution can only be altered by referendum following a bill passed in Parliament, and approved by a majority of the electors in a majority of the states.

As far as the transfer of powers between the Commonwealth and the states, I was under the impression that a section of the Constitution dealt with that, but all I can find is section 51(xxxvii) and (xxxviii). I may have been wrong in my assumption. However, the states do transfer powers from time to time, ie income tax during of after the 2nd world war, and the proposal to transfer hospitals, that is current now.
In my opinion, one of the major needs in writing a new constitution is the proper distribution of powers between the local and national governments. And yes, that list goes on and on.
On a matter now mentioned just yet, I think there should only be one Commonwealth judicature, not 9! If any one wants to discuss that more, I’m happy to comply.
As with the uncertainty as to how to establish a republic, I would suggest that the acceptance of a new constitution would not necessarily have to be constrained by the state parliaments. After all, if, for example, all 6 states voted in a referendum for the writing of a new constitution, what could the state parliaments do about it. Just a point.
Whistler, I would suggest that instead of a female senate and a male reps, that each house be made up of equal numbers of men and women.
”perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom” (John Payne) “While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.”(Joh Stuart Mill”). I think it is vastly more important than “symbolic” to recognise our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Peoples as citizens and to deal with them appropriately.
I guess that’s it for now. Thanks for all your comments.

Banjo ethnicity is contingent upon gender.
Without women and men there is no ethnicity.
Achieve equity between women and men and ethnicity follows.

consRmad,
Firstly the states are sovreignties so they are going to fight to the death to lose their position and power. Any Republican movement that discloses they want to be rid of the states may well find a lot of opposition. Secondly You may well find that for us to become a republic it would require a majority of votes in ALL states to acheive that. As I said states are sovreignties in their own right.

Are you serious in advocating half the seats in both houses be designated male and female? What happened to merit?

Whistler,
Any Australian citizen can stand for election in local, state or federal elections. The idea that designated seats be set aside for specific genders or ethnicities is abhorrent and ridulous. Who determines the gender of bi-sexuals or she-males and the ethnicity of those with mixed heritage.

Again, there is nothing to stop females or persons of any ethnicity getting involved in the political process now if they so wish. That is what is meant by equal opportunity.

absent women's legislatures, equal opportunity means being governed by men.