Felix the Cassowary . # .

Constitutional change:

The \'bearded men\' wrote a poor constitution that is static to change except in the hands of the High Court. It is an inferior constitutional model.

Well, that\'s not exactly true now, is it? High Court decisions leave the wording of the constitution exactly the same, but change the way it is interpreted. But because it is so distant from the intended practice, it allows for a lot of flexibility. The office of Prime Minister is not included, but surely it is a constitutional role: And it can change whenever we get a new government. So ... either the High Court can change the constitution, and it can be changed in other ways, too; or the High Court can\'t change the constitution, and it\'s relatively static.

And furthermore, our constitution does have a mechanism for change, and that\'s via referenda. When proposals don\'t get through, it only means we were unwilling to agree to politician\'s proposals. If we\'re unsure of the value of the particular proposal, why should we have let the government over-rule us? I\'ve heard this objection many-a-time, but I\'ve never understood it. (Then there\'s also the option of following the approach of the Australia Act, which (it seems to me) changed our constitution without changing the Constitution.)