Talk:Constitutional Convention (Australia)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Australia / Law (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Constitutional Convention (Australia) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian law.
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.

The 1999 model was complex. Kerry Jones for the "no" case: If you vote yes to this question, you are really supporting complex constitutional change. Our 'no' case is supported by eminent constitutional lawyers from across Australia who consistently have stated and written that not only is it complex constitutional change, it is change that would weaken the working democracy here in Australia as we know it. Clearly this is a fundamentally flawed republic on offer, it is half-baked, it was hobbled and nobbled and cobbled together at the Constitutional Convention through the wheels and deals of the politicians. [1]

Judging by the results, the people agreed with Kerry Jones.

In point of fact, the referendum included far more amendments than any other proposed alteration. The complicated nomination and appointment process attracted particular criticism. Skyring 01:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and cannot be stated as a fact. I found the proposed changes perfectly simple, but that is my opinion, and I wouldn't insert it in the article. Adam 01:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's actually Kerry Jones' opinion. Skyring 01:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then state it as such. Adam 01:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did. See the quote? Skyring 02:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I mean in the article, idiot. Adam 03:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Charmed. I wanted to see what the reasoning was behind your edit. I don't particularly care that much. Skyring 03:53, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sick of your stupid word games and I now intend treating you as a malicious editor. So get used to it. Adam 04:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


There were several conventions which are completely absent from this record - most notably the 1976-1978 and 1983-1986 ones (the latter of which I understand may have been two separate ones), as well as others - I see evidence of one in 1962 also. Furthermore the coverage of some of those on here is rather non-neutral. Orderinchaos 02:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the sections so they correspond with the years the conventions were held. --LJ Holden 06:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've change the author of the 1891 draft constitution from Sir Samuel Griffiths to Andrew Inglis Clark on the basis that while Sam Griffiths did rework (badly) Clarks draft, as La Nauze points out of 128 sections of the final constitution 86 are visible in Clarks original draft "The draft of 1891 is the Constitution of 1900, not its father or grandfather." (See La Nauze, note 11 at 78.) Papafox —Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)