Roundtable Seminar - Reforming the Constitution

This week on Thursday 1 May I'll be participating in a Roundtable Seminar on Reforming the Constitution at Parliament House in Canberra.  This is the media release:

Committee roundtable to discuss constitutional reform 
Federal-State relations, a constitutional preamble and issues of citizenship will be on the agenda at a roundtable on constitutional reform on Thursday 1 May 2008 at Parliament House, Canberra. 

Chair of the House of Representative’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Mark Dreyfus QC, said the aim of the roundtable is to explore the current debates surrounding constitutional reform.

“The need for reform of the Australian Constitution is a persistent theme in academic, political and public debate, and some good ideas were produced by the governance group at the 2020 summit last weekend,” Mr Dreyfus said. “The Committee is hoping to build on some of these ideas through the roundtable, giving us a clearer idea on areas in which change is feasible in the near future“.

Issues to be discussed on the day include:

• the process for amending the constitution;
• election terms and qualifications of parliamentarians;
• federal-state relations in relation to constitutional powers; and
• the inclusion of a constitutional preamble.

As well as the Committee Members, participants will include Professor Larissa Behrendt, Peter Black, Professor Tony Blackshield, Professor Hilary Charlesworth, Professor Greg Craven, Professor David Flint AM, Peter Hanks QC, Professor Michael Lavarch, Professor Kim Rubenstein, Professor Cheryl Saunders, Ms Khatija Thomas, Ms Anne Twomey, Professor George Williams, and Professor Leslie Zines.

The roundtable will be held in Committee Room 1R4, 1st floor, Parliament House, Canberra on Thursday 1 May 2008 from 9.00am - 5.05pm.

Members of the public are welcome to attend the roundtable discussions, or listen to the broadcast on FM 97.1 in Parliament House, and via webcast on the APH website: http://webcast.aph.gov.au/livebroadcasting/

More details, including the Roundtable program and the focus questions that will be guide the discussion, is available here.  If you have any thoughts on these issues or the focus questions, let me know by leaving a comment or send me an email: p2.black@qut.edu.au.

Comments

[Pseudonym]

Two suggestions.

First: Fixed terms, possibly four years, with known election dates. States are going that way, it makes sense for the Federal government to as well.

Second: There are some fairly recent bills of rights, such as the Canadian Charter and the European Convention. These are definitely worth a look. It might be worth looking at the criticisms of them especially to see if there's any good tweaking to be done.

[Sam Clifford]

I agree with the idea of fixed terms. It's been defeated every other time it's been put to the people in a referendum, though, and there's always the problem of Senate terms. Four years does away with the idea of a Senate less responsive/influenced by the whims of the people and eight years is just far too long.

What I'd really like to see is an acknowledgement of local government so we can avoid things like Kennett and Beattie amalgamating councils against their wishes.

As for the process of amending the constitution, I'd like to see the possibility of citizen-initiated referenda which may not so much be constitutional referenda but plebiscites which guide the government in its decision making. Given that only the government has the power to call a referendum, it's possible for things like 1999's Republic referendum to be rorted by politicians who are against the idea. If the people could get the signatures to trigger a plebiscite, the idea of a Republic could've received a definitive "Yes" vote and then the models put to another (preferential voting) plebiscite and the most popular model put forward at a referendum.

[Harry R J Bremner]

Prior to reformation of the Constitution. I reccommend the policing of the Constitution we have. Namely the disregard for the tenets of the Consitution in that it is the "Rule Of Law" to protect Australian citizens from those that would abuse it.
I have an agenda, yet this is not the forum, yet it goes to the point that the Constitution has and is being abuse by state, federal Politicians, Commissions, all Australians I have approached involving my agenda in that as an Australian, particularly one in a position to defend the Constitution, whom does not.
To abuse the Constitution, to allow it to be abused in my belief of "What is a Constitution" and that is, as said the belief in the rule of law with the Constitution as sworn to be upheld under oath by some I speak of, as the basis of the rule of law.
I just put this queston to you. The "Conscience Vote" whereby The Previous Prime Minister "allowed" the executive Government to vote on their conscience relative to the use of stem cells in research.
It was voted on, was pased and to my mind became an official "Act" of Parliament.
The Member of the Executive Government, the Minister whom has the Port Folio of "getting the Party Re- elected. did not like the outcome and therefore, having mixed too much with the President of the United States, was delusional. Believing he had the legal "Power of Veto, with out referendum.
Where were the Politicians either side of the fraternity house they call Parliament to correct that Gentleman and enlighten him to the fact that he was merely a Member of Parliament [not any longer] one with all the political skills to do his Portfolio justice, yet was not a President, hadno legal power of Veto, and the worst of it was he did it without censure, from any member of Parliament.
In considering your Constitutional changes I would reccommend that members presenting for election, at least must have read it and have a basic knowledge of the content and the reason for having it.
I name the Western Australian Government members of it, members of their Juficiary, their Commissions, Federal institutions drawing wages [Salary] yet not doing a thing for it in so much as many of them have been advised of the breach of the Constitution, those bothering to answer my charges all claiming no power of ofice to amend the wrong.
My only capacity to do what they can do would make of me a 6pm news item of some mirth for a day, yet there are at stake a mans life, Justice in adherence to the United Nations Rights of The Child, welfare of already abused children, psychologically and deterrants to their social needs to become "good citizens "in a Country without a Policed Constitution, a Paramount "Rule of Law". What can it be expected from those children when they become adults and are legally bound to adhere to the rule of Law?.