Australia’s Constitution is not Sacred

In an interesting article outlining the history and development of our Constitution in the lead up to Federation in 1901, Julianne Schultz explains why the current version of our “foundational” law, largely unchanged since then, is not sacred or set in stone. She says that without change, it will ossify. WfaAR comment: with only 8 changes made since Federation, this law is hopelessly out-of-date and now fails to serve Australian citizens in the 21st century. For instance, it contains race-based provisions, allows the British monarch to change laws passed by our federal parliament at whim and has no rights provisions: those that do exist eg freedom of speech and association are implied and were determined later by the High Court. She goes on to explain that “constitutional renewal defines many of the most successful nations that have jettisoned foundational flaws” while adding, “To occur, it demands that citizens pay attention and equip themselves with the civic knowledge to unpick fear-laden language.” Very true but hard to achieve. South Africa, which conducted Truth Telling at the same time, drafted a new constitution in just two years. Let’s be aspirational: Australia can do that too but we can’t even get started due to political inertia at the federal level and timidity in the face of the complex referendum processes to make changes set out in s128 while the task gets bigger and more demanding with each passing year. This article is worth a read for context and history. [“Australia’s constitution is not a sacred document. Without change it will ossify” by Julianne Schultz, The Guardian online, 9 July 2023 – published on our annual Constitution Day]