On 21/02/2013 8:22 PM, Tim Hamilton wrote:
[1] http://www.religiousword.com/2012/04/the-1975-victorian-constitution-is-inva...
Did you watch that video? Aside from the strong religious background of the Australian Constitution and emphasis in basic Christian values being reflected therein, there are many points that need to be considered. One being that in my school life, there was ZERO education about the Australian Constitution and I would say that would be true of a great majority of the population today. Anybody under 45 years of age whom went to Victorian state schools are very unlikely to have any real knowledge of the Constitution via their state school eduction, myself included. My learning on these matters is post graduate. In relation to Aboriginal recognition in the constitution, well, they are recognized already as subjects of Australia, period. I know my kids were heavily brain washed in matters Aboriginal in primary school -- I have no reason to believe that hasn't taken place for all children educated in the last 15 or so years. This kind of brain washing together with a lack of education on matters that really matter puts us in great danger to have too many voters today having no idea as to the weight of risk associated with changes to the Constitution. I am not racist in any way. I don't believe ANY race, Aboriginal, white Australians or any other Australians for that matter are above any other racial denomination, we are all Australians, all subjects to the Australian Constitution. All Australians born in recent times have no need for positive or negative discrimination against any other Australian. Sure Aboriginals have been disadvantaged in the past, but I don't think that is the case any longer; I think that any measures that try to offer reverse discrimination are unjust and not necessary today. There may be areas where Aboriginals need extra support, but that is also true of every other group of Australians whom make up our population today.
Ignoring your arguments about local government, concerns which in some respects I share, I must take you up on your claim that *any* change to the Australian constitution puts the entire document at risk.
This claim patiently absurd and shows little understanding of the Australian political system.
The big problem is that the vast majority of Australians of voting age today have very little idea as to what rights they have as detailed in the Australian Constitution and what effect agreeing on a change via a referendum will likely interfere with those rights [or possibly make the entire Constitution worthless].
Since Federation, Australia has seen forty-four proposals to change the constitution go to referendum. To change the constitution, a referendum needs to pass the relatively high hurdle of a 'double majority' (majority of voters in the majority of States). Due to this, of the forty-four referenda held, only eight have been carried. None have resulted in the constitution, or our political system, being 'endangered' in any way.
In history, I believe that even 20 years ago, a greater majority of voting age persons had a better understanding of the Australian Constitution (from their education) and were far better informed to be able to make reasonable assessment of the possible impact. Today, I am very sure that too many Australians have no clue on these matters.
In addition, the double majority requirement means that to be carried, a constitutional amendment really needs bipartisan political, as well as popular support. A contentious change to the constitution is unlikely to reach this hurdle. And, in fact, none have ever done so. I would imagine if, as you claim, a proposed change to the constitution is dangerous in any way, it would fall at this hurdle. As was a similar proposal to recognise local government in July 1988.
1988 was 25 years ago, times have changed significantly -- I do believe that it will be far easier to get through referendums in the current environment that we are facing; ie with many voting Australians being totally unaware of the consequences of voting YES to any amendment and the brain washing that gives people the "educated view" that they must specifically single out Aboriginals for recognition in the Constitution as well as legitimizing the local councils; it will be easy to do a snow job given the lack of knowledge that most people have in this area today....
You also ignore the role of convention within our political system. It was the breakdown of convention that was largely the cause of the only 'constitutional crisis' this nation has faced. This crisis had little to do with the document itself and much to do with the actions of certain people. It had certainly nothing to do with the kinds of changes you hold up as examples. If we are to face another crisis, it is more likely to be the result of a breakdown in convention than changes to our constitutional document.
At the end of the day, if one Government can get through change that significantly helps their type (politicians), then they will stick together on such matters. You don't see many politicians refusing their extremely generous retirement benefits (superannuation in particular).
The most recent constitutional change illustrates this point nicely. Carried in 1977, it changed the rules surrounding the filling of casual Senate vacancies (along with two other changes, both also carried), an issue that, in part, led to the crisis of 1975. Contrary to your claim that any changes to the constitution endanger the document, this change actually strengthened our system of constitutional government by not allowing a shift in numbers on the floor of the Senate without an associated election.
There can always be exceptions, but again, that was in 1977 which is totally different situation to 2013 in terms of voter knowledge on constitutional matters.
Finally, I suggest the exact opposite of your assertion is true. For our constitution to remain relevant, stable and enduring we must have the ability and courageousness to change it. If not often, when it is necessary. The second example you cite, the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians, is exactly a case in point.
I absolutely disagree. An Aboriginal is an Australian just like you, me and every other Australian -- we are all subjects to the Australian Constitution already. No change is required to "fix" this or anything else at this time.
Indigenous Australians have long been marginalised in this country and they have *not*--in the strongest possible terms--*not* been adequately protected by our constitution; before or after the changes to the document made in 1967.
That may very well be quite true of 1967 and before that, but now we are seeing reverse discrimination, that is just as bad for the rest of the Australian people, if not also bad for Aboriginals themselves.
The current proposal, however, is different. It calls for Indigenous recognition via a non-legally binding preamble to the constitution. That is, even though it would require a referendum, the reality is any change would be a largely a symbolic measure. Nonetheless, there remains a strong case for constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians within the legally binding body of the document. I do not believe that such a proposal would in any way endanger the constitution, our political system or our way of life. Again, I assert the opposite, any debate on the subject can only strengthen our polity and our nation.
As I understand it, the preamble changes that are in the works, will significantly effect the validity of the document for it's originally intended purpose, mainly to protect people from government actions that are unjust or unreasonably limit our freedoms unnecessarily. It will put a nice fluff on paper [to add a special recognition of one type of Australian group], but at the same time, it will take away the rights as defined in the very well written original constitution. I haven't seen any actual proposed preamble, but I am 100% certain that no change is necessary and the risk of any change is far too great to accept. If Aboriginals were not subjects to the Australian Constitution, then there might be a case, but they are subjects so it is a mute point to suggest a change is necessary -- it clearly is not necessary to change anything today (in this regard [Aboriginal recognition] or any other consideration). Again if local councils are doing the wrong thing in any way, then they need to be held accountable (we have enough laws already to deal with fraud, corruption and other matters that local councils may be party to) -- giving local councils any kind of governmental powers is not the answer. Kind Regards AndrewM