The Centre for Democracy and Dialogue (CDD) says fewer than 45 per cent of the Constitution Review Commission’s (CRC) recommendations have been fully incorporated into the Government’s Draft Constitution, challenging claims that approximately 75 per cent have been adopted.
In a statement, CDD said its quantitative assessment of 116 recommendations found that only 52, or 44.83 per cent, were fully reflected in the Government Draft Constitution.
A further 33 recommendations, or 28.45 per cent, were partially incorporated, while 31 recommendations, representing 26.72 per cent, were omitted or reversed.
CDD said although 73.28 per cent of the recommendations appeared in some form, presenting this as full adoption was misleading.
“When partially adopted recommendations are assigned half-weight, the Government Draft reflects approximately 59% of the substance of the CRC’s recommendations,” CDD stated.
The organisation said its greatest concern was not the percentage adopted but the removal or weakening of safeguards intended to limit executive power.
Among the significant departures identified were the removal of the CRC’s proposed two-term limit for Prime Ministers and the proposed constitutional ceiling of 15 Cabinet members.
CDD also raised concerns over the composition of the Constitutional Offices Commission, saying the Government Draft restored significant Prime Ministerial influence over appointments to independent institutions.
It said other weakened or omitted safeguards included independent judicial appointments, electoral boundary determination, parliamentary financial oversight, campaign finance regulations and elected local government.
The organisation also criticised the retention and expansion of immunity provisions, despite the CRC’s primary recommendation to remove the existing immunity regime.
CDD argued that these changes undermined the Commission’s intention to distribute constitutional power more widely and strengthen institutional independence.
It said the Government Draft retained much of the 2013 Constitution’s concentration of executive authority while introducing a five-year parliamentary term and additional Prime Ministerial influence over Senate appointments.
CDD acknowledged that the Government Draft incorporated positive proposals, including improvements to the Bill of Rights and protections for customary land and indigenous rights.
However, it maintained that these improvements did not compensate for the removal of key checks and balances.
“The fundamental question is not how much of the CRC Draft has been copied into the Government Draft, but how much of the Commission’s intended constitutional reform has survived,” CDD stated.
The organisation concluded that the Government Draft failed to deliver the CRC’s proposed reforms to meaningfully reduce the concentration of political power and strengthen institutional accountability.
