Talk:Constitution of Australia

message: Our article, in the "History/After Federation" section, reads  Considering that we do not, in that section, discuss the various times the Constitution was actually amended, nor the republican movement of the 90s culminating in the 1998 Constitution Convention and subsequent referendum, mere fleeting calls for a new constitution hardly seem worth mentioning. The sentences read like an afterthought. Is anybody particularly wedded to this passing glimpse? Maybe it could be stuck in the "Alteration" section, where more significant changes are discussed. --Pete (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Scrapping the States has been suggested several timesI recall, in particular by Gough Whitlam and Wayne Goss.  It might be in Tony Abbott's book Battlelines.  There has also been at least one report on whether the States are worthwhile. So, when this comes from Hawke, it is not a mere afterthought.  However, it is not currently debated.  The mention of Hawke could be bolstered with brief mentions of the others, but not more.  The "Alteration" section is inappropriate, since this requires a new constitution. Errantius (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There was certainly debate about amending the relevant provision, I don't recall any mainstream debate about scrapping the entire constitution. I would say abolishing the states is raised often enough to warrant a brief mention in the article. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wowsers, in another discussion at another place, I'm being told that the states are virtually sovereign states & now this? 2021 has been a strange year. GoodDay (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Nothing came of it. People are always talking about changing this and that in the Constitution. I don't know how one would go about rewriting it entirely. Can't use s128 to do that because it would be clearly outside the original intent of the founders. A lot of the authority - moral if not legal - of the document stems from the fact that it was bashed into shape by popularly-elected delegates at a people's convention, and subsequently approved by the people themselves before it was even submitted to the British Parliament. Changing it completely by referendum would be like turning a school into a department store, and way beyond what was originally approved in setting up an "indissoluble" Commmonwealth. Maybe there will be some changes made when HM's reign comes to an end and we have another go at a republic. We can address the matter then. --Pete (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Hawke, Constitutional founder 

message: We claim "s80 guarantees trial by jury for indictable offences against the Commonwealth" but this is misleading. Subsequent legislation determines what are crimes "on indictment" and so there is no absolute guarantee to a trial by jury because crimes could be reclassified by Parliament through the regular processes. This is often seized upon by those claiming to discover a "Bill of Rights" in the Constitution and I'm not sure I want to feed these people ammunition, albeit flawed. --Pete (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read an interesting summation of section 80 case law not long ago, I'll see if I can find it. That's my understanding as well, the court has always held that parliament determines what is "indictable", although there has been pretty vocal dissent on occasion. This is a weaker form of the equivalent provision in the US constitution. Agree we should make it clear that this is the case and there is no absolute guarantee. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, by Justice Bell: . Definitely enough scope for a separate article on section 80, it currently just redirects to the article on Chapter III which doesn't even mention trial by jury. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Trial by their media 120.17.80.173 (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trial by jury 

message: My edit to remove capitals from the words "state" and "territory" has been reverted due to its "introducing ambiguities". I don't understand this.
state is not a proper noun, so why capitalise it? Proper nouns would be words like "Victoria" but not the general word state.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun
What is the reason for this reversion?
Marchino61 (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My reason to revert was not about proper nouns, but about ambiguity.  I agree that these capitalisations should be avoided, but  only after making sure that the change does not produce ambiguity in a phrase such as (off top of head) "state power" or "territorial border". Errantius (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation of Nouns