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.