Why does the Australian Constitution need modernising?
The bulk of our Constitution was drafted in the 1890s when Australia was a far-flung and vulnerable British protectorate. Today, in the 21st century our globally connected, modern society deserves a Constitution which reflects our independent sovereignty; which meets internationally recognised standards of best practice; which sets high benchmarks for government; which both strengthens and clarifies the important role that citizens play in the life of the nation and which also mirrors faithfully our modern culture, principles, values and aspirations.
What needs improving?
There are many areas of weakness in our Constitution and many areas where Australia has fallen behind international best practice. Some of these include:
- No constitutional recognition of Indigenous peoples
- No constitutional recognition of Local Government.
- No Human Rights Bill.
- No constitutional protection of our environment and resources.
- No standards for the provision of public services.
- No constitutional regulation of the funding, activity and accountability of political parties.
- No constitutionally enforceable Freedom of Information laws.
- Lack of accountability around intergovernmental decision-making.
- Poor safeguards against official and government corruption.
- Duplicated and overlapping government jurisdictions at the Federal, State, Local and inter-governmental levels.
- No evidence-based law-making.
Modernisation will mean rewriting the Constitution. How do we know what politicians will put into it and can they be trusted?
The essential parts of the Constitution that work well and underpin our democracy will be protected. Any new additions or amendments to the Constitution will not be decided by politicians, but by ordinary Australians through public consultations and public deliberations. This broad public involvement in the modernisation process will discourage politicians from making their own changes, while keeping them “honest” and respectful of the wishes of the Australian people, or risk a significant public backlash and loss of voter support.
Why are citizen assemblies being used for the constitutional modernisation process?
It is important for ordinary citizens to make an informed contribution to the constitutional modernisation processes that will affect their future. Governing bodies usually make decisions based solely on input from experts and various organised interest groups. Citizens who are not affiliated with community organisations are generally ignored, except at election time. Citizen deliberation processes enable ordinary citizens to engage with the issues and provide well informed policy advice that considers a much wider range of perspectives.
The output of a citizens' assembly are recommendations for constitutional modernisation the government and political parties can apply with confidence to satisfy the broadest range of public, private and institutional interests.
How do citizen assemblies work?
Citizens' assemblies work a lot like juries. A large number of citizens are randomly selected from the electoral roll and invited to participate. From those who register, there is a second stage of random selection to obtain a group that closely reflects the demographic diversity of the whole community.
These participants are brought together in facilitated discussions to hear balanced expert opinions on constitutional modernisation issues, discuss different views face-to-face in small groups, test their ideas against those of people holding different views and propose and prioritise action recommendations. Importantly, there is never pressure on participants to change their preferences or political views.
In the lead up to the citizens’ assemblies, a public consultation process will be conducted on the issues being deliberated. This ensures that communities across Australia get the opportunity to have their views heard and taken notice of.
We already have a “citizen’s assembly”, it is called Federal Parliament. Isn’t it risky putting our future in the hands of uninformed people picked off the street?
Federal Parliament creates laws and manages portfolios based on the political priorities of the major party in power, not the wider public. The adversarial nature of our Westminster system of government stifles the kind of bipartisan support needed to deal with complex and long-term constitutional issues. Added to this we have competing vested interests that highjack political debate on issues and exclude everyday Australians from contributing. These problems are made worse by a media process that focuses not on sensible discussion and deliberation, but on celebrity opinions and extreme viewpoints. On the other hand, citizens' assemblies/juries are ideally suited for these difficult issues as they rely on careful deliberation and consensus reached by a broad range of ordinary people after an extensive informative process.
We can already change the Constitution through a referendum, why do we need a citizens’ assembly?
Any constitutional change that people vote for at a referendum cannot be “undone” at a later time. It isn’t like a general election that happens every 3-4 years. In an election people can “undo” their previous choices by voting in a new party or candidate. Voting at a referendum means permanent change. It is no wonder that the public will only vote “yes” for a constitutional change if it can be proven that nothing bad will happen and that by making the change there is no risk that anything will go wrong with the way the country is governed.
With voters feeling a heightened sense of responsibility during a referendum, it is easy for opposition parties and those opposed to constitutional change to sow doubt in people’s minds. The public are also less willing to vote for proposals that they have had no involvement with or understand poorly.
These are the major hurdles that deliberative process and public consultations are good at overcoming. By involving the public in the formulation of a referendum proposal before it is submitted to Parliament and again before it is put to a national vote, all of the above issues can be defused. Broad community involvement in the constitutional change being proposed also encourages multi-partisan support because it removes any political mileage that might be gained from opposing the change. Prior to any national vote, the citizens that helped formulate the constitutional change can speak on its behalf instead of the public having to take the word of closed committees and lobbyists.
Who selects the experts that advise the citizens’ assembly?
Prior to meeting together, deliberative participants are informed by well-balanced briefing material. Experts, political decision-makers, and a diverse range of other stakeholders contribute to formulating the viewpoints and pro/con arguments. Citizen assembly participants also get to select who their advisers at the assembly will be from a comprehensive list of experts of differing political and social viewpoints.
Who controls the agenda?
RETHINK AUSTRALIA sets the broad parameters and platform for the citizens’ assembly and public consultations. The initiative is driven by committed people with a range of political views and who come from all walks of life. They share in common, the desire to see citizens being in control of the direction and focus of government.
Will the citizens’ assembly recommend better solutions?
There is rarely a single “better” solution that stands out over all others. It is up to the assembly to frame and sort out the options and design a recommendation they believe most citizens will support and that complements the existing institutions of government. What the citizens’ assembly will do best is bring a wide diversity of views together and consider the widest range of options as well as weigh up the consequences of those options.
Will the views of private companies, industry representatives and lobby groups be included?
All of these groups will have the opportunity to express their points of view and share their research in the public consultation phase and in the formulation of the briefing material used to inform citizen assembly participants and the wider public. However they will not be taking part directly in the citizens’ assemblies.
How do I get to be one of the citizens’ assembly participants?
The selection process for citizens’ assemblies is similar to that for jury service. Individuals cannot “nominate” themselves or others to be participants. A random selection of the census/electoral roll determines who the participants will be. Random selection is both fair and seen to be fair by the public. Because the number of Australian voters is approximately 15million people and each deliberative forum holds no more than 150 people, a majority of people will not be able to directly participate in the citizen assemblies. That is why there will be a public consultation to capture the views of the wider community so nobody misses out on having their say.
Has this process been used before?
Citizen deliberations have been tested and proven extremely valuable around the world for over two decades. During the past five years, citizen deliberations across multiple countries have also been implemented successfully in Europe. They are excellent at putting highly complex issues under the scrutiny of informed citizens. The experience of the last twenty years has shown that when ordinary people are given the opportunity and information to contribute to complex and contentious issues, they rise to the challenge.
Isn’t this just a public meeting or talkfest?
The deliberative process is vastly more involved than a public meeting. Participants are randomly recruited, they cannot self-select. It is a highly structured process which provides balanced information to participants before asking them to deliberate. It seeks the views of the whole community through a public consultation process and promotes public awareness of political governance issues. Finally the recommendations made by citizens’ assemblies will become part of a draft Bill to change the Australian Constitution, which will be submitted to Federal Parliament prior to a referendum being held.
