Five Things To Know About The Australian Constitution

In this excellent new book, Helen Irving delves into the mystery that is the Australian constitution by discussing the major national debates of recent years. Many people want to understand and take part in the debate about constitutional issues but they face a significant hurdle: the constitution is almost unreadable. It does not mean what it says, and nor does it say what it means. There are many myths in circulation about what the constitution says and as many assumptions about what it does. Helen Irving, one of this country's foremost constitutional experts, puts various constitutional confusions to rest, and invites a general audience into an understanding of the issues that were once reserved for experts.

Consistently with the aims of the series, the book canvasses the Australian constitutional system in a way that explains its form and operation, provides a critical evaluation of it and conveys a sense of the contemporary national debate. The chapters deal with the foundations of Australian constitutionalism, its history from the time of European settlement, the nature of the Australian Constitutions, the framework for judicial review, the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, federalism and multi-level government and rights protection. Running through all chapters is the story of the gradual evolution of Australian constitutionalism within the lean but almost unchanging framework of the formal, written, national Constitution. A second theme traces the way in which the present, distinctive, constitutional arrangements in Australia emerged from creative tension between the British and United States constitutional traditions on which the Australian Constitution originally drew and which continues to manifest itself in various ways. One of these, which is likely to be of particular interest, is Australian reliance on institutional arrangements for the purpose of the protection of rights. The book is written in a clear and accessible style for readers in both Australia and countries around the world. Each chapter is followed by additional references to enable particular issues to be pursued further by readers who seek to do so. 'The Constitution of Australia' has already been cited in a High Court of Australia case: Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 (8 September 2011)

Despite the Australian Constitution having been one of the most stable since its commencement in 1901, it is becoming fatally flawed. The Naked Australian Constitution examines these flaws and the lack of public appreciation of those defects. This is due to several serious errors, including the racial basis of its origin, and the misleading nature of its text—with the High Court having interpreted it in a remarkably subjective manner, undermining the few express requirements and freedoms in the Constitution while also applying concepts that are not required by the constitutional text. As a result, the Constitution is now what the High Court says it is, instead of what it was expected to be by its drafters. Most Australians have no knowledge of the Constitution or its operation, but with the growing subjective application of the Constitution, this constitutional digression requires remedy by a Constitutional review. Ian Killey argues that without review, the Australian people will eventually see the Australian Constitution for what it is rapidly becoming—an Emperor with no clothes.

This book looks at responsible government under the Australian Constitution. It undertakes a detailed examination of the history leading to the incorporation of responsible government into the Constitution, examining the political history and constitutional ideas which informed the framers' views. It draws on this history to develop a theory of responsible government and explore its implications for the interpretation of the Constitution and the structure of modern government in Australia. The book fills a major gap in our knowledge of the intellectual background of the Australian Constitution by explaining the constitutional ideas that have shaped the text and structure of the Australian Constitution. It contributes to worldwide debates about constitutional interpretation by showing how rigorous use of history can lead to novel interpretations of constitutions without being tied to the 'dead hands of the founders'.

This book provides an engaging and distinctive treatment for anyone seeking to understand the significance and interpretation of the Constitution.

Constitutional Odyssey is an account of the politics of making and changing Canada's constitution from Confederation to the present day. Peter H. Russell frames his analysis around two contrasting constitutional philosophies – Edmund Burke's conception of the constitution as a set of laws and practices incrementally adapting to changing needs and societal differences, and John Locke's ideal of a Constitution as a single document expressing the will of a sovereign people as to how they are to be governed. The first and second editions of Constitutional Odyssey, published in 1992 and 1993 respectively, received wide-ranging praise for their ability to inform the public debate. This third edition continues in that tradition. Russell adds a new preface, and a new chapter on constitutional politics since the defeat of the Charlottetown Accord in 1993. He also looks at the 1995 Quebec Referendum and its fallout, the federal Clarity Act, Quebec's Self-Determination Act, the Agreement on Internal Trade, the Social Union Framework Agreement and the Council of the Federation, progress in Aboriginal self-determination such as Nunavut and the Nisga'a Agreement, and the movement to reduce the democratic deficit in parliamentary government. Comprehensive and eminently readable, Constitutional Odyssey is as important as ever.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the "public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.