Reply to thread

I agree, no politician will try to use the constitution, to achieve something that could be achieved through normal channels.

If Albanese GAF, he could achieve exactly the same outcome through normal channels, the fact he threw in the towel would indicate to many he actually doesn't GAF.

To establish a representative lobby group to parliament, doesn't require a change to the constitution, having a melodramatic meltdown doesn't change that fact.

If indeed it was imperative that a representative group was formed, it still can be, if one isn't formed it indicates that was never the underlying driver in the first place.

What the general public were wary of IMO, was that a sector of the population get special dispensation, that isn't afforded to everyone. That isn't what most people think a constitution should be used for, it isn't there to provide welfare, training modules, and housing.

The referendum IMO has also put the Republic debate back years, as it highlighted the question are we better served by politicians that have very defined limits, or do we think our politicians should be given greater scope to mould our society.

The referendum brought that to the fore and I think they were shocked, that Australia isn't as apathetic and compliant as they presumed.