Well i believe in the end it should be removed but then again our government couldnt really care less about the constitution, and to that the people of australia wouldnt even know the true purpose off;

a senator

a house of reps member

Until the people get this right how can anything else they do be right.

We are told and dictated to, well its about time the people started to understand and learn what responsibility they really have and what these people in government are suposed to do.

Australia has never had a Constitution of it's own, instead we have a borrowed constitution, namely "the Australian constitutional 'ACT' of the British Parliament.

If Senators did their jobs as representatives of their states...
need I say more?

That said perhaps what we should aim for is membership of the EU?
We have members of foreign parliaments resident in Australia so perhaps they could do something to help.

Re our constitution, one would know that the Australian Constitution was written by Australians for Australians, voted on by referendum by the people.

With regards to the senate
yes if they did their job, and where not bound to obey party rules and regulations which in itself is an illegal and unconstitutional act.
Once people read the constitution debate at the parliament house website and understand the why then we will have real government for the people, and not just a claytons.

One should look at this blog.

http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_Q

This is an interesting idea Comunicat, one that I think would be popular with ordinary Australians.

Germany a few years ago lobbied for Uraguay to be a surrogate member of the EU as so many there have German ancestry.

The UK has never offered or called, or even asked Australia if we would like them to express interest for a similar status on the EU.

Maybe Ireland, Malta and Greece are more likely to lobby for Australia's inclusion to the EU than the UK, if we show an expression of interest.

What do we benefit? More trade to start with. More work visas and in some cases: no work visas needed at all. More cultural exchange and so on.

Australia would pass easily on economic grounds and social rights standards compared to other EU members. The only reason why we could end up being "surrogate" member is that geographically, we are not in Europe.

As we approach APEC, we could ask in another thread: would we prefer this in priority to the APEC and ASEAN memberships. If we go one direction, the other direction will, no doubt, close a few doors as the others open, or older doors re-open.

This could end up putting some free trade agreements like the ones with the US and India on review as the EU would put us in another category. To so many, that would be a relief.

Did we really want to be a part of Asia in the first place?

In trade, we have to join a trade block and we need to be smart in working out which one we belong to.

The question isn't really whether we should replace a foreign Queen as our figurehead with something more home grown, the real question is whether we should tamper with the fundamental's of our political system when so few people seem to understand them.

People have this idea that electing someone to the position can only be a good thing because, after all, elections are always a good thing. Freedom, democracy, all that.

Not so.

Our constitution deliberately splits power very carefully and cleverly between the executive, the judiciary and the monarchy. Part of that aportionment of power reflects the fact that only the executive is elected and therefore has a popular mandate to make policy. The other arms have powers that in theory over-ride the executive, but are restrained from action, except in the most compelling circumstances, because they have no popular mandate.

If you leave the powers as they are, but elect your head of state
you will find that head of state using its supreme powers far more often than they do at present, with dire consequences for real democracy.

As the sacking of Gough Whitlam shows, our head of state has the power to remove the prime minister and all the ministers and replace them as he chooses. Kerr's decision to sack Gough Whitlam will remain very contraversial, but at least we can be sure he didn't do so lightly. Imagine how unstable our system would be if the governor general held his position by popular mandate. Such a head of state would likely feel it was his/her right/duty, to be involved in government decisions, and as presently drafted this single individual would have over-riding dictatorial powers over Parliament.

This would fundamentally change our system of government and should not be entertained lightly.