I think the quotation is relevant as they are saying that the referendum process is not effective in making changes to the constitution, which is true only 8/44 have been successful.
That assertion makes no reference to the quotation at all. The quotation is not talking about its effectiveness to make changes.
"The Commonwealth Constitution is too rigid and this makes it an ineffective mechanism for protecting human and democratic right" Yes, I can see how a referendum could be discussed since it's within our constitution, but in terms of protecting human and democratic rights -- I'm not too sure how that relates.
Wait, you could explain how referendums have been passed to protect the rights of groups of individuals, I guess and reference the 1967 (equal citizenship for Aboriginals) referendum. That would make much more sense actually.
Generally however, I'd expect something such as referencing the express rights and the structural protection of rights instead. Unless you could discuss the referendum in terms of structural protection of rights. However, for the purpose of this question, I think that quotation is quite irrelevant.
Okay sorry i was had a bad structure,
Question----> The Commonwealth Constitution is too rigid and this makes it an ineffective mechanism for protecting human and democratic rights.’
1. Evaluate the process of changing the Constitution as outlined in Section 128
for this question here is it asking me to state the strengths and weaknesses of a referendum process or is it asking me to outline the referendum process such as 1. passing of a bill and so on? sorry for the consuion
Ahh, that makes much more sense. This question is asking you 'evaluate' the process, therefore a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses is required. As a way of framing your answer, you could use the elements of the process as a basis for exploration of such strengths and weaknesses (i.e Double Majority requirement) Here's an example of how I'd do it:
Generally, section 128 provides an effective process for change to the constitution; however, it is also undermined by certain weaknesses which ultimately hinders its ability to do so.
One strength associated with the referendum process is its ability to ensure that smaller states are protected (i.e Tasmania) from being dominated by the more populated states (i.e NSW and Vic). If we only had a national vote to change the constitution, Victoria and New South Wales could act to together and override the wishes of other states and territories. The double majority provision under section 128 of the constitution requires a collective 'in favour/yes' vote from the majority of states (4/6 states) and an 'in favour/yes' vote from the majority of voters within Australia, in order to protect and safeguard the interests of the states. Despite this, the complexity of proposals and level of voter understanding can effectively mitigate the processes ability to amend the constitution. Referendums are generally complex and usually expressed in technical language. Lack of understanding of the process and the arguments being raised may lead to confusion and therefore voters will feel much more inclined to vote 'no' in order to maintain the existing state of affairs. This is reflected in the failure of the 1999 referendum for the establishment of a republic of Australia, where many voters cited the confusing language of the question as the reason for its failure.Edit: Yikes, that's terrible English. Some sentences are a bit awkward.
Alright, not a great response, but hopefully that will give you an idea of how you might answer that question.