What some have said: - Quotes

Reference: http://www.statusquo.org/aru_html/html/const_safe.html

What some have said: - Quotes

Unread postby lazerzap » Thu Jan 02, 2014 8:23 pm


"It seems quite clear that the constitution can be altered by means other than Section 128 Referendum against, I'm sure, the intentions of the founders and against, I'm equally sure, the expectations of the Australian people."

Tony Abbott MP (Member for Warringah, House of Representatives)

"I find no fault in [the] logic and [the] material will credibly add to the literature on this subject." and " & I think [we] should be aware of the potential for plebiscites to fulfil the moral dictate of the popular will, but avoiding the perils of referenda and Section 128. In the scenario [that is implied], the Court and the Howard governments could fall to Labor, a plebiscite 'Do you want a republic' could get a majority, and the Labor States and Commonwealth Parliaments could then combine to vote in a Republican model similar to that which has just been rejected, with the plebiscite as authority. As a direct electionist that is not an appealing prospect to me."

Senator Andrew Murray (Senator for Western Australia)

"I read with interest the Hobson article Is our constitution safe? " and "My opinion was that the Australia Act 1986 fudged, without any convincing intellectual or logical basis, the referendum issue which its draftsmen pretended to avoid. It was assumed that the necessary referendum approvals for changing the Constitution would not be available or would probably not be available. So it was decided that the need for referendum approval could be avoided by the simplistic device of not making any new amendment of the Constitution as set out in s.9 of the Constitution Act: the 1986 Act did not say 'and the Constitution as set out in s.9 of the Act (and as hitherto amended in accordance with the prescribed amendment procedure) is further amended as follows &' Instead, the words of the constitution were left unchanged; and it was considered that amendment procedure and referendum approval were therefore unnecessary. According to that 'barrack-room lawyer's view' referendums were not required because no change was being made in the wording of the 'constitution'. That view treated form as triumph over substance. I advised and believed that, as everyone knew that the 1986 Act was making profound and fundamental constitutional change, and was intended to do so, form could not be relied on as prevailing over substance; and that the High Court would prefer substance to pathetic reliance on form. (Alas the argument was never taken to court.)"

Leolin Price QC (10 Old Square, Lincoln's Inn, London)

"This is a considerable debate now as to whether the ultimate foundation for the Australian Constitution is the will of the people. What [is] written collects much of the relevant material."

The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG (The High Court of Australia)
Last edited by lazerzap on Thu Jan 02, 2014 8:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: needs it
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 6:41 am
Location: Donald, 3840 Victoria. Australia

Return to Is our Constitution Safe?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest