Constitutional concrete

Fellow citizens,

There has been much public discussion recently about making several amendments to The Australian Constitution.

Indigenous recognition, fixed four year federal parliamentary terms, changes to Section 44, and an Australian head of state.

Immediately, of course, the calls come out "it's all too hard".

This is true. Well, not all too hard, but very hard.

To achieve a majority of votes across the nation and in a majority of states is simply too onerous. Hence why we have had so few amendments passed. Eight out of forty-four. Fewer than 20%.

We need to have one referendum to once and for all change The Constitution to enable Australia to change its constitution.

Using the United States Constitution as a guide,

We could have the following system to pass an amendment to our Constitution:

1. A 75% majority vote of a joint sitting of the House of Representatives and The Senate, followed by,

2. A simple majority (of both houses except where there is only one chamber) in 75% of the state and territory parliaments = six out of the eight. 

Yes, I'm aware there will be immediate cries of "you can't trust politicians" and "too much power to politicians".

However, this just doesn't stack up.

John Howard took Australia to war in 2003, to war! One man made that terrible decision.

Does anyone believe he would have been able to do so if he had to pass the hurdles outlined above?

Surely we can trust our hundreds of political representatives across the nation and political landscape to make collectively sound judgements with respect to changing our Constitution.

The alternative of maintaining our current arrangements is not a viable or practical option any longer.