Published 01/11/2011 | 11:05
• There were three primary reasons why there was insufficient meaningful debate on the constitutional amendments.
The Government chose to conduct them in the minimum time allowed by legislation for the conduct of a referendum. They satisfied the technicalities (barely) but without enabling the people, who are responsible for the Constitution, time to engage in discussion.
When the final wording was first revealed, the handful of concerned academics who independently and individually attempted to engage in debate met a media response that the 29th Amendment on judicial pay was a foregone conclusion, so it was not worth debating.