{"id":29,"date":"2012-01-23T11:04:30","date_gmt":"2012-01-23T01:04:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stevewatson.info\/blog\/2012\/01\/23\/where-are-the-arguments-for-constitutional-reform\/"},"modified":"2026-02-22T22:08:14","modified_gmt":"2026-02-22T12:08:14","slug":"where-are-the-arguments-for-constitutional-reform","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stevewatson.info\/blog\/2012\/01\/23\/where-are-the-arguments-for-constitutional-reform\/","title":{"rendered":"Where are the Arguments for Constitutional Reform?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Responding to no public call whatsoever, a \u2018Panel of Experts’ has prepared a proposal for constitutional reform. The proposal is for the Recognition of ATSI in the Australian Constitution<\/a>. Given that Australia is hardly crying out for this amendment, and that the Constitution with the very small number of amendments that have been made since 1901 has given general satisfaction, one might think that the Panel of Experts would feel bound to begin by providing some<\/em> argument in justification of the proposal. But this is not the case. The only arguments that we are offered for this alteration to the legal fabric of the nation are those which have been collected – as an incidental matter – from the submissions made to the Panel by those with an interest in the proposed changes. We are not told whether the Panel finds these to be cogent.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font>Before we go on to look at these offerings let’s remind ourselves of what a constitution is and what it is supposed to do. In general terms it is understood to be “The system or body of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, or body politic is constituted and governed.” (OED, sv.<\/em>) And the Expert Panel itself describes the Australian Constitution in its FAQ file as <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n

[T]he set of rules by which Australia is run. It sets out how Parliament works, what powers it has, how federal and state governments share power, and the roles of Executive Government (that is, the ministers) and the High Court. <\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/font>It is not<\/em>, therefore, a set of aspirations, feelings, declarations of appreciation, cake recipes, TV schedules, etc. or anything else not relevant to the actual constitution<\/em> of a state, nation, or body politic. Of course, it is possible to include anything at all into a document merely called<\/em> a constitution, but the dangers of doing do should be fairly obvious: this is a document that is going to be used to determine the types of laws that may or must<\/em> be made, and those laws will be as close to permanent as a legal regime can make it. It is essential that nothing goes in except what is absolutely required and that it says exactly and no more than what is explicitly intended by those who are to live under the laws thus authorized.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font> <\/font>So, what arguments for amendment are offered? Well, on p. 68 we find these bullet points:
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/p>\n