You’ll have to change the Constitution to find out what’s in it

One of the things I’m trying to avoid here [is] people looking for all of the detail and saying, ‘well, if you disagree with one out of the 50 [clauses] but 49 are OK, vote no’. What I am not going to do is to go down the cul-de-sac of getting into every detail because that is not a recipe for success.”

This entry was posted in Left-wing extremism, Rule of law. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to You’ll have to change the Constitution to find out what’s in it

  1. Tel says:

    I’m not a great enthusiast of signing blank cheques … but if I was going to, then handing the cheque to Albo would be last on the list.

    Besides that, there really is no momentum behind the campaign … only the hard-left media talking heads care about it.

  2. Buccaneer says:

    Coming next, a referendum on world peace, you don’t need to know the details, otherwise you might vote against it.

  3. Lee says:

    You wouldn’t sign a contract without knowing the small print.
    How is this different?
    If there was nothing to hide, Albo would be upfront about it.
    “Trust me, I am from the government” doesn’t pass muster.
    Not that I would vote for a race-based constitution or laws anyway.

  4. rosie says:

    Energy bills going through rood, supply is getting shaky, let’s have a referendum on an Aboriginal ‘Voice’

  5. and says:

    An example of the “activists” [Lidia Warp] that demand and will hog the “Voice”.

  6. C.L. says:

    Another example in Tasmania this weekend where a “cull” of “Caucasian statues” has been called for.

  7. and says:

    “What I am not going to do is to go down the cul-de-sac of getting into every detail because that is not a recipe for success.”

    TRANSLATION: If voters know the detail of what the referendum entails, they won’t vote for it.

  8. Buccaneer says:

    It’s a no win situation, if it gets up, open slather for a government which was elected with a primary vote of a third of the nations voters. If it doesn’t all the activists call it evidence of systemic racism.

  9. and says:

    Maybe someone could ask Lidia Warp what she believes is the goal of the “Voice”.

  10. and says:

    We won’t tell you what we want until you agree to give it to us.

  11. entropy says:

    An elite group where membership is restricted to a defined % of particular genes (who am I kidding, it will just be the vibe) that will seek a veto over Every. Single. Bill.

    Because, just like every other Australian, any Bill could have an impact ATSI people.

  12. Buccaneer says:

    that will seek a veto over Every. Single. Bill.

    And if they don’t get their way, it’s racist.

  13. Baba says:

    Buccaneer says:
    31 July, 2022 at 9:09 pm
    It’s a no win situation, …. If it doesn’t (get up) all the activists call it evidence of systemic racism.

    We will still be racist whatever happens. So that IS a win in my book.

  14. C.L. says:

    It will end up in the High Court and the High Court will vibe-hype the Voice into a third chamber.

    Recollect how section 51’s external affairs power was re-interpreted in Koowarta v Bjelke-Petersen (1982).

    It would be simple for a plaintiff to argue that powers to advise over laws pertaining to Aborigines must, logically, be extended to all laws.

  15. Fred says:

    There’s no reason why Albo couldn’t legislate a voice to parliament right now.

  16. Buccaneer says:

    Legislation would require detail that could be debated. A successful referendum in theory needs either a referendum or a supermajority to be over turned. Someone needs to argue that by providing no detail, the referendum would be worthless.

  17. False Equivalence says:

    Entropy: Albanese proposes three sentences be added to the Constitution. They expressly do not allow the Voice a role of any veto. None at all.

  18. Not Trampis says:

    it cannot be a third chamber.
    It will not be able to initiate a bill, amend a bill or even reject a bill.

    Oh the irony. CL cannot detail the details he insists on viewing.

    By the way the easiest thing to forecast is the referendum will fail. Even when both parties sign up for it it can fail as in 1967

  19. C.L. says:

    By the way the easiest thing to forecast is the referendum will fail. Even when both parties sign up for it it can fail as in 1967

    You’re referring to the question re increasing the number of parliamentarians, I presume.

    Because the Aboriginal question passed with 90.77% of votes cast and majority support in all six states.

  20. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    it cannot be a third chamber.
    It will not be able to initiate a bill, amend a bill or even reject a bill.

    But it will most definitely be able to put political heat on any government that dares to ignore its advice, no matter how stupid or counter-productive that advice might be.

  21. twostix says:

    Driving down the east coast of Australia and popping into coastal and regional towns – as I’ve just done, almost every single area is now prominently signed “Welcome to XXX country” with a giant state funded sign, following on with a usually faded almost apologetic “Welcome to Clarence Rivers” lamo sign or similar.

    If all of the country is “first nations”(TM) country, which the ruling elite have spent the last ten year working their arses off to jimmy bar the concept of into the Australian apparatus – now with even parliamentarians being welcomed to our apparently occupying parliament on someone elses land, then any “voice to parliament” for aboriginal “issues” of course is immediately going to be concerned with everything that the Commonwealth does. Naturally it will be run by the class and act as a house of lords style meta-chamber, drawing its power – like the lords did, from their extra special connection to the land. Only a dimwit a liar, or someone completely disconnected from what’s been happening in Australia 2010-2022 would suggest otherwise.

  22. twostix says:

    Also it’s obvious that in many places the prominence of the “first nations” shtick – giant “We paid the Danegeld!” like welcome signs and unlimited bowing and scraping to “indigenous” natives in every nook and cranny of the area, compared to the actual number of abos in those places (50?), is simply a tool used by the local communities to lock up the region and keep interlopers and “progress” out.

    Best of luck to them, because everything modern is indeed shit and anything to halt the progress of the bugman society and retain what they have in their time-warp small towns is desirable I know…but unfortunately they simply ride the crocodile’s back, and worse, they feed it. Already they are pinched by vast tracts of expanding national park surrounding them that year by year becomes increasingly hostile essentially foreign occupied land.

  23. Old School Conservative says:

    Linda Burney’s Black Power salute in the Senate yesterday will destroy the yes vote in any “Voice” referendum.

    As long as the SFLs oppose the yes vote with passion, targeted intelligent arguments, and a take no prisoners approach.

  24. Not Trampis says:

    yes CL. A referendum that fails does not get the required votes. It appears few people remember 1967. It gave the discredited DLP a bit of air before it fell away.
    Linda Burney is not in the senate. Me thinks you are referring to that dreadful greens senator.

    Can some please say what details they need to know about.

  25. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    The referendum to change the Constitution to allow the Commonwealth to make laws in respect of aboriginals got a majority of votes in all six states. It succeeded.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.