Ian Quick’s double trick

ian quick

Ian Quick’s double trick

BY T. P.

Ian Quick has long boasted that he will rewrite the Liberal Party’s constitution. In fact, he complained to Michael Kroger that a private conversation he had with him on the subject was leaked to Party members. However, Ian Quick’s memory has failed him, as a third person was privy to that conversation.

For many months Ian Quick put out “speech hate” to the Party, including at State Assembly and in Admin Committee meetings, that there was a pressing need — perhaps even a panic — to majorly change the Victorian Liberal Party’s guiding document.

Ian Quick went so far as to release a scoping document which described many of the changes he wished to make, including the insane proposition that the women’s section needed to be splayed, that a star chamber committee be set up for trying and ejecting all Party members and numerous other instances of megalomania and overreach.

Now Ian Quick has opened a second front. He has minutely examined the Victorian Liberal constitution and tried to find instances of where there are alleged “errors” and has compiled an extensive list of “secret changes”.

This argument is designed to undermine confidence in the constitution and give credence to the idea that it must be corrected by him!

For example, Ian Quick has noticed that in 3.21A(b) and 3.21A(c)(ii) the constitution uses the word “two-thirds” with a hyphen. Then, in numerous other instances throughout it states “twothirds”.

Again, 23.9 and some places have “VicePresident” with no hyphen but other places have a hyphen. One might argue that by this subverting of the language there are ipso facto two different positions, a Vice-President and a VicePresident. This goes to the overarching argument Ian Quick is attempting to make to supposedly justify revising the constitution.

It is well known in the legal profession that the existence of scrivener’s errors do not invalidate or alter the intent of the words of the law. The absence of a hyphen does not change the intention or reading of the words. If pressed, Ian Quick would admit this too. Yet the propaganda value of these inconsistencies is useful to him.

If the constitution contains a few minor inconsistencies in spelling and punctuation, is this really a strong enough reason to revise the constitution? It appears now that Ian Quick hopes you will believe it is an insurmountable problem, so as to justify his wide reaching alteration of words, paragraphs and whole sections of the Victorian Liberal Party’s constitution.

So delegates [30.1 (l)] and Delegates [30.1 (b)] do not be fooled, there are no Administrative Committees [21.5] whose judgement [24.6] is not the right judgment.

Ian Quick is no Crassus. This is obvious, as his amanuensis has written, “like all complex legal documents, the constitution ought to be published in a serif typeface rather than a non-serif typeface, as serifs guide the eyes and make it easier to read”. His transformation of the constitution exceeds the niceties of the pluperfect.

Stories, articles and news tips can be submitted to this site via the contact page.

Related Posts