"Australia’s late c19th Framers were complete bowerbirds, nicking good governance mechanisms from all over the world. "

Since it is always "always about us" in the USA, when the bowerbirds were making their feature selections, was there a formal (written?) discussion about the merits and limits of the US approaches?

Would be useful (or at least interesting) for us US'ers to have some outside perspective on how others viewed our governance processes vs. their own preferences when an opportunity for a basically clean slate presented itself. (Or were the inherited heritage British practices too deeply engrained to realistically claim a truly blank sheet starting point?)

After reading Lorenzo's essay on this Voice topic, if this form of affirmative action is actually passed and "implemented", I might suggest from our US experience that it should have a sunset date (in 15 to 25 years?), both to assess success and to return all citizens to an equal legal footing. Attempting to correct past wrongs can only be pursued for so long before the past fails to become the past.

Perhaps a reading or rereading of Charles Murray's latest books might also be merited? A wise (and now perhaps deceased) commenter on another blog tells us Reality Is Not Optional.


Expand full comment
Aug 30, 2023·edited Aug 30, 2023Author

A complete record of the Australasian Federation Debates (all took place in the 1890s) is available here: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Records_of_the_Australasian_Federal_Conventions_of_the_1890s

After Federation (formally) occurred in 1901, two leading Framers (Quick & Garran) wrote an annotated guide to the new Constitution, which is available (free) here: https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/does-quick-and-garrans-annotated-constitution-have-anything-to-do-with-the-constitution-does-the-government-have-to-refer-to-it-to-understand-the-constitution/

A potted history of the above (covers the key points and is also an easy read) is Judith Brett's "From Secret Ballot to Democracy Sausage: How Australia Got Compulsory Voting".

It is probably worth noting that Australia's c19th Framers did not consider the US a well-governed country (although they admired its people). This is why Australia did not copy your Bill of Rights. One similarity between the two countries is the Australian adoption of federalism, which was copied both from the US and newly-unified Germany.

Expand full comment

No established religion, jury trials and compensation for property is as far as they went re rights in the Constitution. And only at the federal level.

Expand full comment

Continue to Rebel Australia , for ye face Cromwell’s Feral Pack descendants in New England (the US State Department) who ravages ye via proxies.

Expand full comment

Oh dear, they’ll be no Third Chamber, you’ll have Unicameral Rule with 2 withered... ah ... “sacs” hanging sterile and impotent, as it were...

“it effectively establishes a third chamber. “

It effectively puts you under Civil Rights tyranny of the Bureaucracy.

It’s called Anarcho Tyranny.

It’s both.

Wait and see.

Expand full comment

These special sign-in notices are quite annoying to a busy man who would otherwise be early up and about on his Sunday morning, eager to get on with what's important in his life, which is now over-overcrowded with such make-work debris.

In any case, whatever happened to the Olden Times when Aussies fought all the brave fights, defended their shores against Yamamoto and had the coolest tennis players in the world? Why must Australia join New Zealand as the beautiful but-now-screwed up woke capitol of the once grand English-speaking Pacific?

Probably because DemocRats flocked there in droves as their next place to screw up.

Just a thought from an old timer who remembers well "The Way We Were."

Expand full comment