How do you describe the Constitution of one of the most successful Western liberal democracies in history?

We can be ‘justifiably proud’ a new book says, A People’s Guide to the Australian Constitution (Dixon, Partlett, 2026):

‘Our unique mix of freedom, equality, and social solidarity underpins our high level of economic prosperity [by global standards]…’

This is surely an unusually positive message. But is it enough?

A new ANU survey shows only 43.8 per cent of those under 24 see democracy as always preferable, unlike other age groups. Negative, inflammatory accounts of our history remain prevalent.

To address this the Australian method of liberty should be unequivocally taught to young people and migrants, without the endless prevarication which makes it all meaningless.

This book is not just repetitive campaigning for the usual suspects, although such campaigns are covered. But with some of the required qualifications. I am not sure it is enough to fix the problem.

There was a contrast between the ideas brought by Captain Phillip in 1788 and alternatives. We too could have had rulers as absolute as in Russia, the Ottomans, or Japan and China. Or as unstable as France. Or tribal. That is both the truth and inspiring.

The written Australian Constitution does not mention the Prime Minister and Cabinet. They are to be found in ‘conventions of the British constitutional system…’ These were ‘incorporated’ and amended.

This is our ‘system of representative and responsible government modelled on that of the United Kingdom’. Our Constitution also ‘borrows from the American system’ a federal system and the separation of powers.

The Constitution does establish the House of Representatives and the Senate, provides that each must consist of those ‘directly chosen by the people’, and that Governmental Departments must be eventually headed by a member of Parliament.

If the written Constitution uses the British constitution, and does not attempt to set out the meaning of life, what are our constitutional ‘values’?

The book says that our ‘unique constitutional identity combines elements of freedom, equality and social solidarity’. It says we give more weight to ‘the market’ than Europe does, although we are closer to Europe than the US in our ‘embrace of a social safety net that can give effect to the values of equality and social solidarity’.

The objectives selected specifically include ‘social solidarity’. But our welfare depended entirely on the market economy. Land ownership led to great prosperity. Although we did not diversify the economy enough and are geopolitically exposed over rare earths and a narrow earning base.

‘Social solidarity’ in Australia is a real thing, justified by our early experiments with the old age and disability pension (1908) and mechanisms to resolve industrial disputes (1904).

Our Constitution ‘was, for its time, a radically democratic document’, although ‘white’ people were involved. Yet ‘our Rights as Englishmen’ were also the basis of US and Canadian success. There is a pattern.

The book promotes a ‘dynamic constitutional system’. The book tells us that ‘it is the people who have the legal power to make constitutional law in Australia’ through referendum. And that ‘a constitutional amendment must have much broader popular support than regular legislation’. The last time this happened was 1977.

Better options are that ordinary legislation may ‘expand or modify existing norms to reflect constitutional values’. Further ‘dynamism’ may be found in High Court decisions, and ‘public interest litigation’. There is some enthusiasm expressed for the last. But Court decisions about ‘the future harms associated with climate change’ are surely a poor example and were quickly overturned on appeal.

Realistically, the book notes that ‘what counts as ‘better’ or ‘worse’ for constitutional democracy lies in the eye of the beholder’.

The book discusses how we developed our liberties. The ‘Chartists’ wished to amend the British Constitution and improve it for the people. As the book says, they ‘failed in Britain but succeeded in Australia’. The book does not outline how Australian parliaments evolved from the first Legislative Council established in 1824 in NSW. Or how constitutional ideas of ‘the people’ came to be important amongst British colonists. These are inspiring ideas for a time which needs more inspiration and less self-hatred.

The book discusses how women got the vote – ‘South Australian women won the right to vote even prior to the adoption of the Constitution…’ This was a two-page amendment applying the mechanisms for men voting. An Australian achievement. Logically, why not also discuss how men got the vote?

Before the Australian Constitution of 1901 there was already a system of elections, parliamentary debate, and freedom of free peoples provided in colonial Constitutions drafted by local parliaments in the 1850s.

This was not the ‘cold dead hand’ of master/servant law, as a judge described it. It lives on as the State Constitutions, which include much drafted in the 1850s.

Our 1901 Constitution was not the usual rebellion against the intolerable; rather existing liberties developed logically from what was already there.

The book refers to the ‘racist’ policies of the Australian colonies, despite Australian colonies gave all men the vote, including Aboriginal, Chinese, and German men in the 1850s.

The South Australians expressly discussed women and Aboriginal men voting. The Victorians discussed Chinese and Germans. Section 41 of the Australian Constitution protected existing colony rights to vote.

Our beneficial constitutional order is not remotely under internal threat, despite the warning that ‘Australians should be alive to the danger…’

We often showed judgement and proportion, although our politics are littered with errors. We have at best a practical outlook although a balanced budget now would help. As the High Court said: ‘A stream cannot rise higher than its source.’

This book is readable and a good introduction to part of our success. But is it enough to inspire, or change the alienation now promoted amongst young people and migrants?

The Hon. Reg Hamilton, Adjunct Professor, School of Business and Law, Central Queensland University