Batty Bill can dabble all he likes; he can't touch the Constitution without our say say, and we usually say NO to politicians’ attempts to change the Constitution. Bill seems unaware that Australians would have to throw aside their dislike of special treatment for 'special’ groups chosen for blatant political reasons by politicians they have never trusted and who they trust even less as the self-servers reveal their increasing arrogance and stupidity. Who does this cranky idea of an aboriginal voice “sound appealing” to, by the way? A few elitist, aboriginal-industry urgers and people who already vote Labor.

“Shorten admitted it was a proposal that had arrived abruptly…”

Yeah. That's what is called a 'brainstorm’, usually suffered by mad people.

A republic? Already done and dusted. Bill probably thinks that his obsession with mass immigration and multiculturalism gives his republic mania a filip; but the fact is that not many immigrants these days are coming from monarchies, and being well aware that we are a monarchy without any cost, they might very well fully approve of it.

There is much more to be apprehensive about a Shorten government than Constitutional antics, which is one of the few things where we voters have more power than politicians.

1. Nothing like a pre-Federal Election bogus-scare article by lobbyist, David Alexander, working for Lobby Firm which has been hired by the Coalition.

2. The author, David Alexander "was one of the most senior advisers in the office of the Hon Peter Costello

during [Costello's] time as Treasurer of Australia. [Alexander] was part of the famous Tax Reform Implementation Unit

which oversaw the introduction of the GST in the Howard Government’s largest and most important

economic reform, and worked for the Treasurer until the end of the Howard government in 2007.

http://bartondeakin.com/our-people/

3. David Alexander, works for Barton Deakin Government Relations.

Barton Deakin Government Relations is "openly partisan and works only with Coalition governments..in Australia..."

Barton Deakin Government Relations "employs staff with ties to the Liberal Party of Australia and National Party..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barton_Deakin

Well, why not! The constitution, our constitution was written over two centuries ago and is no longer relevant in the very different and rapidly changing 21s century.

And ought to be modified so as to reflect the will and intention of those who crafted it!? Rather than some alleged, black letter interpretation by the high court?

There also needs to be a ratified treaty with the first Australians written into it along with a bill of irrevocable rights for all Australian citizens.

In any event, what Bill wants will has to travel successfully through both houses and then acquire royal consent! None of which are in any way shape or form, a given!

Neither is a win in the next election nor majority government!
Alan B.

Confirmed! Shorten really is as thick as 2 planks.

He was close enough to the ratbag KRudd to see the results of "off the top of the head" type government. Doesn't he even realise we are still struggling with some KRudd bright ideas like the national Broadband Network.

If he was half intelligent he would have at least learned what NOT to do, but obviously, he is not even half intelligent. Cunning for sure, but intelligent, no way.

>>"...The constitution, our constitution was written over two centuries ago and is no longer relevant..."<<

The constitution came out of the series of constitutional conventions held in the 1890s. That's not "...over two centuries ago..."

And its current relevance is no more than personal opinion.

>>"And ought to be modified so as to reflect the will and intention of those who crafted it!?"<<

So how do we know what they intended? Read the constitution, I guess. Or just go ahead and "modify" what they wrote and agreed after years of negotiation.

>>"There also needs to be a ratified treaty with the first Australians written into it along with a bill of irrevocable rights for all Australian citizens."<<

Which particular "first Australians" are we talking about?

https://www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-country/our-people

According to the government publication linked above, "There were over 500 different clan groups or 'nations' around the continent, many with distinctive cultures, beliefs and languages." There was no single "authority" with whom one might sign a treaty. Still isn't.

As for a bill of rights - if you write one, by definition you limit the rights to what has been written.

What an insubstantial article by David Alexander. To see several parts of our Constitution as requiring change is merely common sense, not 'dabbling'. Shorten is an experienced politician who knows well the difficulties of reform, and will have considered all the pitfalls. You can't expect him to acknowledge them in every utterance he makes.

I disagree with the Voice to Parliament, agree with a republic if its the Advancing Democracy model, agree re s.44 and disagree with 4 year terms. But I see no need to denigrate those (like Shorten) who disagree with me.

It is blatantly obvious that our Constitution is not fit for purpose. Not one section of it is worth retaining in its present form. It provides no guarantees of democracy, as we found in 1975. Most importantly, it fails to provide stability and certainty. If it did, then there would be consensus about whether what occurred in 1975 was constitutional. The fact that there is no consensus shows the rules are so unclear some people can't tell when they've been broken.