I understand that John Howard made known that he will hold a referendum within 18 months if re-elected to amend the Preamble of the Constitution as to recognise Aboriginals, etc.
I understand from media reports that Kevin Rudd support this.
As a "CONSTITUTIONALIST" I do view that rather then to make matters more complicated there should be a proper debate as to what really is the current position of Aboriginals.
Also, what is the purpose of the Preamble?
And also can it be amended at all?
It should be understood that the preamble is part of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and only section 9 contains the Constitution, which does not include the Preamble.
Hence, there can be no Section 128 of the Constitution amendment of the Preamble as it is outside the powers of any referendum!
Also, the danger of placing any reference in the Preamble regarding Aboriginals may be construed that therefore land belongs to Aboriginals and then a spade of land right claims will more then likely result and many a farmer may end up bankrupt, trying to defend his/her rights against land claims.
How will we know what the future may hold and some Federal Government may then use its race powers to invoke legislation using the Preamble as an excuse to justify it?

What is the object of inserting these words?
Will it have any effect whatever upon us?
Will we need to put some other prohibition in the Constitution to prevent the preamble to be misused by future governments?


What is needed is to create an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN, a constitutional council, that advises the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts as to constitutional powers and limitations. Then issues like this could be checked out before proffered by politicians for political gain.
What is your view?

He is a Sociopath. He is glib and is superficially charming, capable of pathological lying.
He is quite smart, self centred and lacks empathy.
He is an expert in self promotion.
He is pleased with himself when he is manipulating others.
He needs to be in total control and he believes that if it comes out of his mouth it is the truth.
He displays lack of remorse, is suspicious, and antagonistic towards others.
He has always failed to accept responsibility for his own actions, very quick to blame others.
He is selfish, callous and remorselessly uses others.
He uses fear as a management tool.

The late Prime Minister Robert Menzies noted that "Politicians who cater for the shallow and prejudiced judgements of the moment" with "their eyes turned always to the next election leading to a parliament of the spineless, (where) democracy would disappear".
He warned that "our political judgement, being based on no continuing principle, will be spasmodic, uncertain and inconsistent".

And of those who ignore principle in favour of popularity and the political fix, "a more stupid and humiliating conception of the function of a member of parliament can hardly be imaged". The best epitaph for a true democrat will not be 'I tickled their ears, I got their votes, I spent their money'.

lorry, what on earth has K Rudd done to earn such ire?

"Also, the danger of placing any reference in the Preamble regarding Aboriginals may be construed that therefore land belongs to Aboriginals and then a spade of land right claims."

The notion of ownership doesn't belong to clan annimists. The land is animate and pocessed by spirits, which cannot be owned.
I have seen seventeenth century treaties [North American]. Pictorially, "life lines" are drawn through totems animals and land features and the Europeans and the indigenous peoples to show they/we are "connected". Land ownership is not an indigenous concept. It is only presented this way for financial reasons

To answer the question in the title for this topic: it is a con-job.

The Preamble to the Constitution is, as Gerrit has stated, part of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK). Simply reading it will make it plain that it records the legal and historical circumstances prevailing at the time the Australian States federated, and, in Clause 9, the Constitution under which they did so. Seeking to change it is not only pointless, but dangerous. It amounts to an attempt to re-write history.

If Gerrit is correct that Rudd has also indicated support for such an attempt, then I take that to mean that such a proposal, the specifics of which are not yet known to us lesser mortals, is bi-partisanly supported. That's good enough for me! Under no circumstance will I vote to approve any change to or around the Constitution that is bi-partisanly supported. When there is bi-partisan support it means the proposed change is good for the politicians, but most likely bad for the people at large.

I have to wonder at the nature of the advisors close to John Howard in putting this proposal. He surely can't have been so stupid as to propose it himself, could he? That aboriginal people lived in Australia before the arrival of British settlers is a well known fact of history. Has Howard stopped to think of what would happen if this stupid referendum proposal is voted down, as it will have to be if this nation is to survive? It will deliver a totally unnecessary, completely avoidable, slap in the face to aboriginal Australians.

This incessant pandering to guilt peddlars in relation to a past that cannot be changed only puts the guilt peddlars in charge of the country.

Come to think of it, Howard pushed the Preamble proposal in 1999, didn't he? Perhaps it really is his own stupid idea! What a shameful waste of public money, to conduct a referendum, to which there is only a down side for Australia whatever the result, mid-term.