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.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with anybody, even Bill shorten, proposing free elections to decide whether there is popular support for changing the Australian constitution. Although why Libs or Labs have never applied that principle to important things like Islamic Immigration, a more discriminatory immigration program which selects people from cultures which can fit in, the death penalty, signing away Australian sovereignty to sundry UN agencies, or many other things is hardly a mystery. The ruling classes have a system of democracy which gives them the upper hand to decide what is enacted into law, and they don't want the peasants to change that.

What Shorten is in fact proposing is to find a way to entrench Labor power forever. And of course he presents that in the highest ideological terms of "inclusion" and "fairness" and all that crap. The Foxy's and Aiden B's of the world lap it up.

What is he proposing?

That one particular race will have different voting rights to the rest of the electorate. This equates to dividing the nation into two nations on racial grounds This is the customary leftist anti white racism which buys the aboriginal vote.

The republic, is a recurring Labor theme which sells well to ethnic minorities, by implying that white Europeans are cutting their ties to their European identity to embrace an unknown "multicultural" one, whatever that is. This buys a chunk of the ethnic vote, who think that diluting the British Australian identity is just wonderful.

Allowing foreign citizens to serve in Australia's military is about a insane as you can get. Any foreign power planning to invade Australia could embed their own soldiers and spys in the Australian Armed Forces, even at a senior level. Still it could buy another chunk of the ethnic vote from ethnics who would love their former homelands to take over this country. To hell with Australian security.

Shorten's last proposal, to go from 3 year terms to four is actually not a bad idea. Put that to the people and he should be able to sell that one

Calwest: Take your point about two centuries! But amend so as to say a constitution written when coal-fired steam trains were the fastest thing on wheels during the latter part of the 19th century has little if any relevance today during the early part of the 21st!

The original constitution allowed any British citizen i.e., one who had the same head of state as us, to stand for parliament! No if buts or maybes, but under the modern and, I believe, fallacious REINTERPRETATION by the high court, who are so equipped as to know the minds and intent of those early writers so as to arrive at a black letter REINTERPRETATION of our constitution, that the then Deputy PM ejected because one of his parents was born in NZ! ?

And other duly elected New Australians, though sharing the very same head of state, ejected because they failed to renounce Canadian or NZ citizenship.

Even though at the time when our constitution was crafted they were not only eligible but could have been promoted to the very highest position in the land!

Today, one could be expelled under the new interpretation for having an Irish grandparent!

As for a bill of rights removing already existing rights!? An entirely irrational illogical absurdity!

First Australians refers to all indigenous natives as you well know! And entirely irrelevant argument by you for its own sake!
Alan B.

Alan B.,

s44 of the constitution is written in plain English. The High Court certainly did not reinterpret it.

"44. Disqualification
Any person who:
(i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a
citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or
(ii) is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence
punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer; or
(iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or
(iv) holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable during the pleasure of the Crown out of
any of the revenues of the Commonwealth: or
(v) has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth
otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting
of more than twenty-five persons;
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives..."

Nobody has been "expelled" for having a grandparent from Ireland or anywhere else. Those disqualified had failed to renounce foreign citizenship.

Nobody but you has suggested that a bill of rights would take away existing rights. But a bill of rights written today may well omit/not deal with some circumstance which might arise in the future. You have argued that very point in relation to s44.

As for "first Australians" - who would sign a treaty on their behalf? The original occupants are all long gone, so we're now talking about our contemporaries. Names will do. What qualifications or standing would they have which would set them above and beyond other Australian citizens?

The risk would be that "advice" would be seen as a directive to the parliament.

If the "advice" of the "voice" is not taken, what would happen? A continuous divisive bunfight, I'd guess.