Constitution

Do you ever wonder what our society would look like if everyday people were calling the shots? If everyday people had more influence rather than a few privileged rich and large corporations? Would we have sold our public utilities? Would the centre of Melbourne look less like Manhattan; have less poorly constructed and dangerous residential towers? Would citizens be forced into selling off the backyards of family homes to pay their outrageous mortgages? Would we ever have allowed negative gearing and its looming financial tsunami?

Well we might not be able to go back in time, but citizens may have good ideas of how to fix this mess and minimise the damage of past decisions. What planning decisions should be made now? What planning proposals should be stopped or allowed now? This article presents an idea for citizens to form their own representative decision making bodies, and if we wish we can see how real democratic decision making compares with our current donation driven party based system.

All you need to start a democratic process in your own area is just 5 people. From this it can grow to include up to 2 million people. The system proposed below would be extremely difficult to corrupt. It is a system that truly allows 'rule by the people' as it consists of everyday people, not career politicians.

It would allow communities to make and express their own decisions. For example, as to whether a particular planning proposal should be allowed or not.

If you are interested read on.

Purposes of the Proposal

The proposed 'alternative' system may serve the following two main purposes:

1. Offer an alternative decision making forum where communities could make their own decisions in contrast to (or perhaps support of) the current official structures. Kind of like a community 'Shadow Parliament'.

2. Provide a community decision making framework that could be transitioned to if needed in an emergency situation.

It is intended that this system should also model a possible feasible replacement for our current representative democracy should communities ever hold a constitution convention. As mentioned above, it can start with a very small group of volunteer participants, but it is designed to be 'scalable' should it get more popular.

Basic Outline

Here is the basic idea:

That parliaments should be formed of people selected for duty in the same way people are selected for juries. No political parties, no donations needed or allowed. No political campaigning by representatives.

So here is how it would start:

All citizens over 18 years of age (defined as permanent residents of Australia - i.e living here for 2 years or more with an intention to stay at least 3 more years - verified by sworn witnesses and affidavit – the system is not linked to any current Australian authorities) are able to voluntarily register themselves on the Parliamentary roll. Once registered the parliamentary representatives are selected at random from the roll/list. The number of representatives is determined by a combination of the number of registered enrolments and discretion of the existing representatives.

The initial parliament cannot consist of less than 5 people. Parliaments must increase this number as the roll grows, annually adding (on May 1st) at least one other representative for each additional 10,000 people enrolled (to be selected by the random selection process which is described below). Once the number of registrations reaches 1,000,000 people the parliament must consist of no less than 100 representatives. If the number of registrations exceeds 2,000,000 the parliament must be split along geographical lines into two or more smaller parliaments within 2 years (otherwise the parliament is dissolved). In such cases the number of fractures and the borders are to be decided by the original parliament. Each fracture inherits all the passed Acts of the original parliament. No parliament can be subordinate to any other, although they can possibly create subordinate authorities - but as you will see in the next paragraph, they cannot do this off their own initiative.

Representatives can propose no new legislation. But any enrolled citizen who is not a member of parliament can compose and put a bill to the parliament for them to pass into law (or not), or place amendments for existing laws. The parliament can appoint a panel (consisting of any citizens) to assess whether laws are well prepared or not, the panel can reject poorly formed laws, or recommend them for improvement, but the citizen always has the right to place his or her bill before the full parliament. If such as request is made the enrolled citizen's bill must be included on the list of bills to be considered by the parliament within 3 months of the placement request being lodged (i.e lodged with the parliamentary secretary or his representatives - details below).

Thus if any area has at least 5 willing volunteers, they can compose such a parliament. Thus once formed, and as others enrol, this parliament can accept various planning proposals and make their rulings almost immediately. They maintain legitimacy by increasing the number of representatives as the enrolment grows as described in the next paragraph.

If there are only 5 members on the roll at the time of foundation, they are automatically all selected as representatives, in which role they stay until the 3rd passing of May 1 after they assumed office (i.e a maximum of 3 years), or until they resign, die or are otherwise incapacitated. Once they have completed any period of office they are ineligible to be selected for the parliament for at least three subsequent years from the date of completion, but must be added to the role within 5 years of completing their term or partial term.

Each initial parliament can determine its own boundaries of authority provided no existing community parliament already claims coverage of that geographic area. Under the rules no new parliament can initially claim an area that contains more than 1,500,000 people who are eligible to enrol. Parliaments can vote to merge or break up as they please within the rules. Parliaments can pass acts that include agreements with other parliaments or sovereign bodies, but no such act can ever reduce or remove the sovereignty of the enrolled citizens or it is invalid. Citizens of parliaments can lodge a dispute. If the number of enrolled citizens is greater than 100 a dispute can only be lodged if it is signed as approved by 9 other citizens. Disputes between parliaments or citizens and parliaments are to be decided by a citizen jury consisting of at least 3 and up to 12 people (must be 12 if the jury roll allows for 12). In these cases, the parliament(s) involved in the dispute can draw from citizens on the roll of other parliaments or can initiate the construction of a roll specifically for the purposes of solving the dispute (which would essentially rely on volunteers from other areas). The citizen jury roll should be comprised of volunteers (the call for which can be advertised by the parliamentary secretary or his or her nominated representative). The roll can include any citizen from outside the areas of authority involved in the dispute, as long as those citizens are over 18 years and have not been residents of the areas involved in the dispute for at least the last 10 years. All volunteers of sound mind must be added to the jury roll. Jurors are selected by lot by a selection panel which can be composed of any 3 enrolled citizens. The jury must be selected within 3 months of the dispute being lodged with all affected parties. If parliaments are disputing each other, the parliament lodging the dispute must organise the jury. The selected jury must provide each party in the dispute with the jury's selected process for reaching a decision within the first month following their selection. All jury decisions (i.e including on process) must be passed by a simple majority. A jury's decision can be appealed once, in which case the entire process must be repeated with another citizen jury. The parties to dispute must be notified within 7 days of a jury's decision being reached, appeals must be lodged within 14 days of a decision. The jury must provide each party to the dispute with two copies of their decision transcript signed by all jurors. The transcript must include minutes of all decisions made by the jury. The minutes must include the voting majority for each decision on process and the outcomes of the dispute. A jury must provide its final decision to all the parliaments/citizens involved in the dispute within 3 months of its selection. The jury decision must obeyed by the parliament.

How it works

Here are some details clarifying the above:

1. To propose legislation, a citizen must be on the roll. Once the number of registered citizens on the roll exceeds 10,000, citizens require the signature of 9 other enrolled citizens (who are not selected representatives in parliament) to propose legislation. Any revisions also require the signatures of all 10. Bills must be presented to the secretary or his nominated representative. They are marked as received on that date and time and must be added to the list of bills to considered by parliament.

2. If the number of people on roll is exactly 5, these 5 can form a parliament -see Point 9) below. If there are more than 5 on the roll, the selection of representatives is to be done by a panel of any three people who are not on the roll. Any random analogue device can used eg: die rolls. These three people on the selection panel must not have any family relationship that is less than 4 times removed (eg: 3rd cousins are out).

3. Legislation cannot be retrospective. Acts can be repealed retrospectively if appropriate legislation is introduced in the parliament following the process in 1) above. Thus 'bad' laws can be undone as if they never existed.

4. The selection panel must provide four copies listing the elected representatives and the date and time of the selection: one to the secretary and one to his or her second (once they are appointed) and one to each of two randomly selected members of the parliament. If there are disputes regarding the creation of a parliament these are to be resolved using the inter-parliamentary dispute mechanism described above. All four copies must be signed by all members of the selection panel. The secretary or his or her second or nominated representative must honour at least the first request to see his or her copy received after 9.00 am on Monday of each week. If the secretary or the second resigns, dies or is incapacitated the parliament must select another secretary or second from its ranks at its next meeting. If the secretary position becomes vacant from any of these circumstances, the second assumes the role of the secretary until the next parliamentary meeting.

5. Other selected representatives who are not given a copy of the list, must produce their own copy which is to be verified as accurate with the signatures of no less than 4 of any of the other elected representatives.

6. Legislation that is approved by parliament must be signed by all voting representatives. No less than 80% of representatives must be present for legislation to be passed. The proposer must provide three copies. One copy is kept by the parliamentary secretary (selected from among the ranks of the representatives - item 7 below - the term of the secretary and his second is one year). The other two copies are to be kept by the citizen who initiated the legislation. All three copies are to be signed by all representatives who voted, and also a list of current representatives at the time the legislation was passed is to be provided to the citizen who proposed the legislation. This list is to be signed by no less than 5 representatives. In effect, it is up to citizens to ensure copies of the act are retained, if no copies signed as above can be produced on request within 30 days of a such a request (i.e by the end of the 30th day including the day the request was lodged) by the parliament or another citizen, the act is null and void. The parliamentary secretary can and must produce his copy if is in existence and is requested, as must the citizen who proposed the law, but in each case only the first request for a particular law received each week, as of 9.00 am each Monday, is required to be honoured. New copies can be made on request by any citizen, with no one requesting a copy more frequently than every 5 years, and no more than 5 copies of the same Act being provided in total each calendar year. Copies are to be validated in the same way as the passing of original legislation, i.e signed by all members present when the request was presented to parliament by the secretary, which must be at the first meeting following the request, and a certificate of representatives as of the date of voting also provided signed by 5 representatives. The secretary can nominate one or more representatives (assistants) from anyone on the roll (i.e these could be representatives) with the clear written consent of the nominees. This must be treated in the same way as introducing a bill into parliament. Such a bill must be passed.

7. Parliament can sit to a schedule of its own devising, but must ensure a rate of voting on legislation that allows for at least 100 bills to be voted on each year. Any bills that have not been voted on within 3 months of being lodged with the secretary, his second or representatives, must be placed in a prioritised list in order of introduction. Bills can be reintroduced if voted against, in such cases they are treated as new bills. Once selected, on their first sitting, parliament must make arrangements for a secretary and his second. This can be voluntary or through a process of nomination, or some other process determined by parliament. No one can be secretary for two years in a row, no one can be second for three years in a row. The secretary must take responsibility for the storage of all laws passed, current, future and past and the provision and making of copies for citizens as required above and at his or her discretion in other cases (i.e to replace decaying laws, or to make backup copies).

8. If a member of the parliament dies, resigns or is incapacitated, then a new member must be appointed within 3 months. A member who does not attend parliamentary meetings for 12 months, other than for reasons of poor health, must also be replaced. All new appointments should follow the process in 2) above. Members may resign in writing only, resignation must be provided to the secretary, his second or a representative. Resignation takes place immediately upon receipt.

9. The role is maintained by the secretary, his or her second or a nominated representative. Any 5 or more people forming an initial parliament can appoint a secretary and a second from their members using whatever process they wish. The minutes must record this. Minutes must be dated and signed by all 5 or more members with the time of the meeting conclusion recorded. The parliament is recognised and authorised from this point on.

10. Once a Parliament is formed under this constitution, the constitution cannot be modified. The constitution must be noted as “Community Parliamentary Constitution” in either the minutes of the initial formation of the first parliament, or on the list of selected parliamentary representatives by the first selection panel. Once formed no other “Community Parliaments” can be later formed or recognised for the same geographic area. If a particular Community Parliament with at least 100 representatives and 1000 enrolments should pass an Act affirming the sovereignty of the Community Parliament formed under this constitution, the Parliament shall be recognised as the only sovereign authority for those enrolled and their descendants. This allows for a natural transition in times of emergency or should a peoples’ constitutional convention endorse this constitution.

11. All documents must be hard copies. Signatures provided on hard copy documents must be made in person and in the presence of at least one witness. No digital signatures are to be recognised under this constitution.

Why the limit on 2,000,000 people?

For a parliament to be really responsive to the community it must share the concerns of the community and it must understand the unique features of the community. It might be difficult for example, for a very urban population to appreciate the problems faced in rural populations. This could create unnecessary tension in the parliament and slow down, or prevent the passing of, good decisions. For organisation required over larger areas and between areas, there is always the possibility of setting up agreements between parliaments, eg: for defense. But having small jurisdictions has other benefits. For example, a financial collapse is less likely to be as extensive if each area is managing its own banking (with perhaps a shared currency, or perhaps not. There are critics of 'legal tender' money, and perhaps a return to silver and gold based currencies will prevent the massive printing of money - and debt - that we have been experiencing over the past 150 years).

Localness has the additional benefit of low costs, as selected members can stay living in their local communities (i.e in their own homes) and travel to parliamentary meetings is likely to be much less onerous than travel to a distant capital.

For further arguments in favour of smaller communities please see Small is Beautiful: Economics as if people mattered by E.F. Schumacher and related ideas at the Schumacher Institute

Over recent centuries in the history of the West government has been about people and people’s rights. This led to some progress – at least formally, if not in practice - in relation to the rights of individuals. Such civic protections have been enshrined in systems of law and legislature i.e in formal constitutions which limit the power of leaders/rulers over the people. Formal constitutions often follow a tradition of establishing representative parliaments, an independent judiciary and an executive (in Australia, the Government’s cabinet) or some variation thereof and linked to the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta tradition is about protecting people from summary execution, or summary jailing or confiscation of property.These protections were sometimes far from perfect. Property rights were certainly not well protected for many English villagers who were removed from their land during the period of enclosures and industrialisation. Others such as Habeas Corpus – protection against arbitrary detention – have been somewhat weakened with recent anti-terrorist laws. The main point here is that for a past few hundred years (at least) the focus of constitutions for western governments has been on protecting the rights of people (and property rights).

But with the damaging effects of industrial corporate capitalism now very clear the need for protections for land, for Country, is being increasing recognised. Active long-term environmentalists, such as Jenny Warfe, seem now to be realising this. This is particularly important for Australia, as the driest continent with poor soils and a record of serious degeneration since European settlement. As noted by Charles Massy in his PhD research, many farmers are undergoing a fundamental transformation in their perception of Australia as a natural system and of their farming practices. Increasingly Australian farmers are coming to see properties as less of a farm and more of a part of the large and complex continent of Australia, as part of a “’nourishing terrain’ which gives and receives life; is a timeless entity; and which must be carefully managed for perpetuity”. These same farmers are coming to appreciate and acknowledge the “deep and rigorously-tested natural science” of Australia’s Indigenous cultures and in doing so appreciate the need for reconciliation with these same people for past injustices.

The truth is we need to start taking care of this precious continent. We need to start regenerative practices that reverse the environmental damage done over the past 200 years. This type of deep ecological understanding to which Australian farmers are now awakening is not unique to Australia’s Indigenous people. Indigenous groups around the world share a similar understanding; an understanding that has evaded western thinking European colonists for too long. Ecuador is one nation that has entrenched its native people’s deep connection to the land in a new constitution which passed referendum in 2008.

Perhaps it is time to radically rethink our relation to our land. To redesign our constitution so as to properly recognise Indigenous peoples and to protect not just people (and their property rights) but the very land itself. In this regard, perhaps we also need to reconsider our state boundaries and organise these not just around human communities, but along natural systems, much as Aboriginal nations were organised. A logical organising principle for the world’s driest continent is around water, and river systems in particular. Significant progress has already been made in this regard, with the FOWTOR state proposal. So let us begin the preparatory work to create a new Australia – one that addresses the injustices and ignorance of the past, a new constitution and a new arrangement, a constitution that recognises Australia for the delicate and complex land it is. A constitution that will support the Australian people and the Australian landscape in perpetuity. Perhaps a constitution less about government as we have understood it in the past and more about transient stewardship of the land as something to be shared with future generations. And hopefully in a better, not worse state, than we inherited it.

See also: http://www.earthlaws.org.au

Will our sovereign rights be signed away with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (the TPP) Agreement? Matthew Mitchell examines the likelihood in this article. Originally posted on the Australian Independent Media Network

Currently our government is negotiating the TPP with America (and other nations) in a secret process. This process and many proposed elements of the agreement have been universally condemned by civil society. In particular the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system, which the Abbott government has indicated it may accept. The ISDS has been protested against by over 30 civil society organisations in Australia (in a letter published by AFTINET) and also by judges, lawyers and academics globally (in an open letter) arguing that it:

“threatens to undermine the justice systems in our various countries”

And that:

“the increasing use of this mechanism to skirt domestic court systems and the structural problems inherent in the arbitral regime are corrosive of the rule of law and fairness.”

In fact, if agreed to, the ISDS would effectively sell out our sovereignty over our nation as described in the Huffington Post:

“From leaked drafts, terms of the Trans-Pacific deal have come under fire for proposing to grant corporations the political power to directly challenge government regulations in international court. This sovereignty issue has long been a sticking point for both conservatives and progressive members of Congress, as the right to challenge government rules had been restricted to sovereign nations under World Trade Organization pacts and other deals.”

How is it that a government of a democratic country with a constitution can consign its populations to a system of law that sits above the country’s own constitution and legal system? Effectively signing away the democratic and constitutional protections that people thought they had, and believed could only be changed by referendum?

The answer is: Through treaties. And, as I will argue, this is a fault (or loophole) in our current constitution.

The Productivity Commission’s 2010 Trade Report explains the process of joining treaties. The report indicates that an agreement is signed before being tabled in Parliament with the approval of Cabinet (Chapter 15, p 298):

“The power to enter into treaties is an executive power within Section 61 of the Australian Constitution and accordingly, is the formal responsibility of the Executive rather than the Parliament”.

But even though Cabinet has approved the Prime Minister to sign the treaty, Australia is not formally committed until the implementing legislation is passed as is explained in the report: “However, the power to implement treaties is a legislative power, conferred on the parliament by section 51(xxix) of the Constitution.”

This same process is described by DFAT as follows (bold emphasis my own):

“Once the parties agree on the final text of the TPP Agreement, the Government will make the agreement available publicly and open to scrutiny before the Parliament considers passing it into law.

After Ministers table the final TPP text in the Parliament, the Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties will coordinate a public review of the agreement.

The Committee can then invite submissions and evidence at public hearings, to help determine whether it should recommend to Parliament that the TPP be ratified.”

Thus once the required implementing legislation is passed by Parliament, the treaty is ratified and comes into effect. There are two important catches here. These are explained by AFTINET and I will include AFTINET’s explanations below (bold emphasis my own):

“The Trade Minister presents the text to the Cabinet, which is made up of the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers. The decision to sign the text is made by Cabinet, not the whole Parliament.

The text cannot be changed after it is signed.”

“Parliament only votes on the implementing legislation, not on the whole text of the agreement. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), for example, has 29 chapters and only a few of these will require changes to legislation.”

“However, many other chapters will restrict the ways in which current and future Australian governments can legislate, but will not require legislation. For example, the inclusion of the right of foreign investors to sue governments over domestic legislation (investor-state dispute settlement or ISDS) does not require a change to Australian legislation. Other changes, like changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, could be done by changing regulation rather than through legislation.

In other words, Parliament may never see, or vote on, the Investor-state Dispute Settlement system. And perhaps there are many other nasties hidden in the agreement that Parliament will never see or debate. Just a fraction of the treaty will pass through Parliament, but once that happens all the others aspects come into play as commitments we will have made, including elements that may diminish, restrict or penalise the actions and powers of our own Parliament.

Now, this may not always be a bad thing. Australia has made a commitment to be part of the UN, and has signed UN treaties on human rights and other issues. These also give up elements of our sovereignty, requiring our government to meet certain international standards and obligations. There is of course, an important different in being held to account by a body run by other sovereign and (mostly) democratic nations rather than a tribunal convened, run and filled by corporate lawyers – such as the ISDS would require. But in relation to signing away sovereignty the two are similar. The main difference is that in one case our rights are protected, in the other they are weakened.

So how do we ensure that our sovereign rights are only signed away when it benefits citizens? In relation to this, perhaps keep in mind that constitutions are a mechanism to restrict the powers of governments (so as to protect the rights of the people governed). If we had a perfect constitution and government that completely represented the will of the majority of people, then perhaps no other protections would be needed. But the experience of the world is different, often governments do pass legislation that deprives people of their rights and of justice (and the TPP is perhaps an example of that). So what can be done to ensure that the only treaties that are signed are those that are approved by the people? I suggest that requires a change to our constitution. If governments are going to sign away our sovereignty at least let that depend on the result of a referendum. I would suggest that this would be appropriate following the signing (so that it clear what is agreed and proposed) during what is now the public review conducted by the Joint Standing Committee of Parliament.

Of course, even with the addition of a referendum, the success of this process would depend on the public having full and reliable information on what is being signed, and its implications. This requires a somewhat unbiased and open press, reaffirming the need for public broadcasters such as the Government owned ABC, and perhaps other alternatives also. Given our highly concentrated media ownership, access to unbiased information is an issue Australia needs to address, and perhaps a system of grants to support independent media (based on readership) may be something to be considered as an option here.

Further reading: TTP Australia

I am leveling the following charge against our Australian constitutional system: Everyday Australians must follow the rules, but they cannot change them. Australians have no real say over their own system of government, at either state or federal level.
If this accusation is correct the implication is that Australians are not free, they are subjects of the Elite.

Do we need to change our Constitution? Considering that it is over a century old and not a Constitution for the ‘people’, Matthew Mitchell, in this post says “yes, we certainly do”.

I am leveling the following charge against our Australian constitutional system:

Everyday Australians must follow the rules, but they cannot change them. Australians have no real say over their own system of government, at either state or federal level.

If this accusation is correct the implication is that Australians are not free, they are subjects of the Elite.

The obvious reply is that we have the ability to have referendums. Do we really? Even if a large number of citizens wanted a significant change what is the likelihood that change would occur? I claim it is zero. Referendums must first be approved by our parliament, thus any proposal is not put directly to the people, it is first filtered and modified, and likely rejected, by our parliamentary political system. The system preserves itself, and is immune to change proposals. The only ideas that even get close to referendum are proposals that entrench the status quo (eg: replacing the titular head of state); increase or preserve the powers of one or another levels of government (eg: recognition of local government), and even if well intentioned may be undermined (eg: constitutional changes proposed as part of the republic) or seen as coming from a
favoured political group. Thus it is no wonder that referendums usually fail, Australians are perhaps quite rightly innately un-trusting of any proposal that is put to referendum, suspecting that it serves one or another vested interest.

Thus Australians are not free – they have no say over what their political system is, or how it works. They are stuck with a system set up by colonial masters and elite citizens over 100 years ago. This system can only be changed with the consent of those privileged few that control the parliament (those who Govern us, the subjects) and it is highly unlikely – impossible even – that proposals from anyone who is not a member of the political or business elite will get attended to.

It does not have to be this way! In Switzerland the People are truly sovereign – they can force a referendum on any issue they choose, if they get 100,000 signatures. And they do it regularly. Sometimes more than 12 times a year! Relevant examples include:

A referendum on Immigration Quotas (to be held in February this year)

Urban sprawl, spatial planning and development

Limits on Executive Pay

Family policy

It is claimed that this ability to change the constitution makes Switzerland a more stable country compared to countries like Australia whose constitutions are now well out of date. The fact is that Australia’s Constitution (at state and federal levels) is an undeniable mess, as Peter Olney discusses below (take for example, the ridiculous invention of a Queen of Australia).

Restore our constitution, local councils are not governments

If we are going to move to a republic, which really is a concept most Australian’s would support (if they trust the changes), then why not fix the whole constitution and perhaps introduce Swiss style direct democracy at the same time?

There was a vote to federate years ago (which was not that inclusive) but really there was no choice (for the people) of what constitution they may have. Thus no vote on this, as there were no choices! In any case, if we have at least one proposal that gives us some choice: the old or the new?

However, in this day and age, people trust grass roots movements more than proposals coming from the seats of power, or what are seen as the seats of power. Thus GetUp! campaigns have more legitimacy than government proposals for referendums on local government or anything else. So a new constitution is more likely to be trusted, and voted in, if it seen to come from the people: a People’s Constitution.

And the truth is that there are already several proposals that could form the basis of new People’s Constitution:

United People Power, John Skene, Restore Australia and no doubt others also.

And perhaps this new constitution could include Indigenous people like never before and help correct some long standing injustices, such as Indigenous rights and recognition. There are also proposals to this effect such as one by UNILEX and another on Change.org.

But let us beware that in this process, there is a serious danger. It is likely that as discussion of proposals for a new constitution progresses, long brewing issues and injustices will also be highlighted. Make no mistake, there are issues that need to be discussed. They include not only Indigenous rights and recognition but also real or perceived threats to Australian values and culture from immigration and some minority groups (such as associated with the RestoreAustralia proposal).

But we must be very CAREFUL that we do not vilify immigrants who have come here under our past legal framework in good faith. If anything, or anyone, is to blame for our current situation and predicaments – it is our legal framework that may not allow sufficient democratic say on important national issues and the generations of politicians, lawyers and bureaucrats that have allowed this undemocratic system to continue for so long. In this regard I suggest we also look at Professor George William’s writing on the need for constitutional change as well as Justice Cheryl Saunders' speech on the need for a Bill or Rights.

However, there is a degree of urgency in this if we are to address pressing issues, such as growth, immigration and trade (such as signing away of our sovereignty with the TPP pact) whilst there is still time. But please let us do this with care, consideration and compassion for all who do, or may, call Australia home. Let Australians set an example of how societies can move forward peacefully – there has already been too much violence in the development of new nations like Australia and America. Time for a change!

[Ten News Sydney] Racist attack on Sydney Bus - 2/4/2013

(David Donovan and Peter Olney are acknowledged for their contribution to this article).