The Voice

[mullokintyre]

Geezus, some of the comments here in 2023 are unbelievable.

Question: is there any thing more Australian than an Aboriginal... think about it.

As for the high court FMD really?

Hows about you let us know which of the 8 billion Abbreviations your version of FMD might stand for?
I can't imagine its Field Monitoring Device.
Mick

 

[wayneL]

Geezus, some of the comments here in 2023 are unbelievable.

Question: is there any thing more Australian than an Aboriginal... think about it.

Define "Australian". What does that mean?

 

[mullokintyre]

The love, peace and harmony from he Voice proponents knows no bounds.
Latham might be a contradictory dork, but this sort of hate speech does nothing for Langton's cause.
All she has done is go one or two rungs lower than Latham.
Its kinda ironic that giving she says she is looking for a life without hate, that she indulges in just that.

 

[SirRumpole]

The love, peace and harmony from he Voice proponents knows no bounds.
Latham might be a contradictory dork, but this sort of hate speech does nothing for Langton's cause.
All she has done is go one or two rungs lower than Latham.
Its kinda ironic that giving she says she is looking for a life without hate, that she indulges in just that.
View attachment 155011

Not nice at all.

 

[IFocus]

Hows about you let us know which of the 8 billion Abbreviations your version of FMD might stand for?
I can't imagine its Field Monitoring Device.
Mick

Apologies Mick got exasperated shouldn't have used the term, FMD translates to having sex with my brown dog.

Re the extreme high court comments and extreme further requirements to security agency's etc, the referendum is for the existence of a Voice the operation is through passing legislation hence I use "extreme"'

How about some ones opinion who is a conservative and previous high court judge and quote "one of Australia’s most respected thinkers on constitutional law."

"On July 18, the former chief justice of the High Court of Australia, Murray Gleeson, delivered a powerful endorsement of the proposal for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples through a First Nations Voice, describing it as a “worthwhile project”.

Two weeks later, another former chief justice, Robert French, wrote an essay in The Australian explaining that the constitutional entrenchment of a First Nations Voice would be part of Australians’ journey to know “who we are as a nation”.


2nd previous high court judge chimes in.

"However, it represented an important and new contribution to the current debate. It revealed, for the first time, one of Australia’s most highly respected, legally conservative mind’s understanding of why the Voice was consistent with our constitutional system, and why it should be pursued as “a worthwhile project”, as he put it.

French is also one of Australia’s most respected constitutional lawyers. Before his appointment to the High Court he was the president of the Australian Association of Constitutional Law. French was, and is, well respected across political lines. Indeed, as a young man he had run for office in Western Australia as a Liberal candidate against Kim Beazley senior.

French’s intervention in the current debate also drew on his extensive experience working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As founding member of the West Australian Aboriginal Legal Service, he was involved in many native title cases as a Federal Court judge from 1986-2008. He was president of the Native Title Tribunal from 1994-1998."

‘A worthwhile project’: why two chief justices support the Voice to parliament, and why that matters

Two former high court justices and constitutional experts have thrown their support behind the importance of a First Nations Voice to parliament.

theconversation.com

 

[Sean K]

Apologies Mick got exasperated shouldn't have used the term, FMD translates to having sex with my brown dog.

Re the extreme high court comments and extreme further requirements to security agency's etc, the referendum is for the existence of a Voice the operation is through passing legislation hence I use "extreme"'

How about some ones opinion who is a conservative and previous high court judge and quote "one of Australia’s most respected thinkers on constitutional law."

"On July 18, the former chief justice of the High Court of Australia, Murray Gleeson, delivered a powerful endorsement of the proposal for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples through a First Nations Voice, describing it as a “worthwhile project”.

Two weeks later, another former chief justice, Robert French, wrote an essay in The Australian explaining that the constitutional entrenchment of a First Nations Voice would be part of Australians’ journey to know “who we are as a nation”.


2nd previous high court judge chimes in.

"However, it represented an important and new contribution to the current debate. It revealed, for the first time, one of Australia’s most highly respected, legally conservative mind’s understanding of why the Voice was consistent with our constitutional system, and why it should be pursued as “a worthwhile project”, as he put it.

French is also one of Australia’s most respected constitutional lawyers. Before his appointment to the High Court he was the president of the Australian Association of Constitutional Law. French was, and is, well respected across political lines. Indeed, as a young man he had run for office in Western Australia as a Liberal candidate against Kim Beazley senior.

French’s intervention in the current debate also drew on his extensive experience working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As founding member of the West Australian Aboriginal Legal Service, he was involved in many native title cases as a Federal Court judge from 1986-2008. He was president of the Native Title Tribunal from 1994-1998."

‘A worthwhile project’: why two chief justices support the Voice to parliament, and why that matters

Two former high court justices and constitutional experts have thrown their support behind the importance of a First Nations Voice to parliament.

theconversation.com

Yes, a few constitutional lawyers are having their say, and one of them is Greg Craven, who has been a part of the process from the start. He supports a voice and having it in the constitution but admits it's been hijacked by a few Aboriginal elites who have ensured there's a route to litigation in the High Court if The Voice is not listened to and the government does not do as it says. Even the AG admits that. It's a trojan horse for lawfare against the elected parliament and our democracy.

 

[mullokintyre]

Apologies Mick got exasperated shouldn't have used the term, FMD translates to having sex with my brown dog.

Re the extreme high court comments and extreme further requirements to security agency's etc, the referendum is for the existence of a Voice the operation is through passing legislation hence I use "extreme"'

How about some ones opinion who is a conservative and previous high court judge and quote "one of Australia’s most respected thinkers on constitutional law."

"On July 18, the former chief justice of the High Court of Australia, Murray Gleeson, delivered a powerful endorsement of the proposal for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples through a First Nations Voice, describing it as a “worthwhile project”.

Two weeks later, another former chief justice, Robert French, wrote an essay in The Australian explaining that the constitutional entrenchment of a First Nations Voice would be part of Australians’ journey to know “who we are as a nation”.


2nd previous high court judge chimes in.

"However, it represented an important and new contribution to the current debate. It revealed, for the first time, one of Australia’s most highly respected, legally conservative mind’s understanding of why the Voice was consistent with our constitutional system, and why it should be pursued as “a worthwhile project”, as he put it.

French is also one of Australia’s most respected constitutional lawyers. Before his appointment to the High Court he was the president of the Australian Association of Constitutional Law. French was, and is, well respected across political lines. Indeed, as a young man he had run for office in Western Australia as a Liberal candidate against Kim Beazley senior.

French’s intervention in the current debate also drew on his extensive experience working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As founding member of the West Australian Aboriginal Legal Service, he was involved in many native title cases as a Federal Court judge from 1986-2008. He was president of the Native Title Tribunal from 1994-1998."

‘A worthwhile project’: why two chief justices support the Voice to parliament, and why that matters

Two former high court justices and constitutional experts have thrown their support behind the importance of a First Nations Voice to parliament.

theconversation.com

So if eminent legal people put out a statement endorsing your views that's ok, but other eminent legal people who put dissenting legal opinions is racist and extreme.
The bottom line is that none of them , I repeat none of them, know how the High court will react.
The separation of powers means, among other things, that the High court can only rule that an action or law is illegal. It cannot make laws.
The converse is that the governments of any level, state or Federal, cannot legislate or proclaim that any law is non contestable.
It is solely a decision by the high court as to whether someone is given leave to appeal a decision under the constitution.
Nothing to do with parliament, the executive or any other body.
French, and the other High court judges cannot possibly pretend otherwise.
I go back to a question I posed very early in the debate.
Namely, Why can we not just have a voice to Parliament legislated without the reference to the constitution?
The federal government could have had the framework of the voice in a bill ages ago if they really wanted to.
By now we could have had elections for the members of the voice committee.
But when you consider subtle differences between an appeal to the high court based on a piece of legislation versus a contestable reading of the constitution the reasons are quite obvious.
It gives power to the High court to determine the outcomes of the voice, rather than parliament.
And that is the part that makes a lot of people extremely wary.
If parliament makes a law that sections of the population are not happy with, you dump the government , put in a new lot and get it changed. has happened every change of government. Think the Building Watchdog, medicare changes, submarines, climate change targets conscription etc.
How many decisions of the high court have ever been reversed?
Mick

 

[macca]

Yes, a few constitutional lawyers are having their say, and one of them is Greg Craven, who has been a part of the process from the start. He supports a voice and having it in the constitution but admits it's been hijacked by a few Aboriginal elites who have ensured there's a route to litigation in the High Court if The Voice is not listened to and the government does not do as it says. Even the AG admits that. It's a trojan horse for lawfare against the elected parliament and our democracy.

View attachment 155019

Does this imply that "the Voice" basically has a veto for any law made by our elected Federal Govt ?

If they don't like it can they take it to the Court and delay any law?

Maybe we could do away with all politicians and just have "the Voice" make decisions, be a lot cheaper.

Ideological wokeness seems to trump following the path to the logical conclusion

 

[Sean K]

Does this imply that "the Voice" basically has a veto for any law made by our elected Federal Govt ?

If they don't like it can they take it to the Court and delay any law?

Maybe we could do away with all politicians and just have "the Voice" make decisions, be a lot cheaper.

Ideological wokeness seems to trump following things to their logical conclusions

My understanding is that The Voice must be consulted early and be able to make representations against any legislation that affects them. The government doesn't have to accept those representations and could push through anything it wants under the current system. But, if the legislation was significant enough in that it affected Aboriginals directly in some way, and they did not approve, or did not think they were adequately consulted, then yes, they could go to the High Court to claim they have not been sufficiently considered under the constitution Chapter 9.

The other part to the new wording is that The Voice can make representations to the executive government including public servants that they think xyz should happen. The government then must consider that and provide a response. If that is not adequate for The Voice, they could claim because of xyz the government has not listened to them according to Chapter 9 and take it to the High Court for a ruling.

 

[IFocus]

My understanding is that The Voice must be consulted early and be able to make representations against any legislation that affects them. The government doesn't have to accept those representations and could push through anything it wants under the current system. But, if the legislation was significant enough in that it affected Aboriginals directly in some way, and they did not approve, or did not think they were adequately consulted, then yes, they could go to the High Court to claim they have not been sufficiently considered under the constitution Chapter 9.

The other part to the new wording is that The Voice can make representations to the executive government including public servants that they think xyz should happen. The government then must consider that and provide a response. If that is not adequate for The Voice, they could claim because of xyz the government has not listened to them according to Chapter 9 and take it to the High Court for a ruling.

Where is any of that in the constitution proposal?

Are you not describing how the voice will work or operate?

How it will operate is decided by the parliament subject to changes from the government of the day.

Are you saying that any high court action won't result in changes by government?

 

[mullokintyre]

Where is any of that in the constitution proposal?

Where is what?

Are you not describing how the voice will work or operate?

No I am not. I am describing how the activists will use the High court to get what they want either by paralysis or by judicial overeach.

How it will operate is decided by the parliament subject to changes from the government of the day.

No, if its described in the constitution, it may well be decided by the high court.
It is entirely up to the judges as to what they even allow to be heard, then how it is adjudicated.

Are you saying that any high court action won't result in changes by government?

No, I said nothing of the kind.
All options are open, including the high court doing absolutely nothing.
The Government can change laws as they see fit.
However, they cannot change the constitution, except with the approval of the plebs.
And if the high court decides that the executive has not taken sufficient notice of the Voice, then they have to restart the process, or abandon it altogether.
Mick

 

[SirRumpole]

There are a multitude of groups that get consulted before decisions are made, unions, business groups, the AMA, the Pharmacy Guild , ACOSS etc and that's fine, but none of them have a Constitutional right to be consulted, and that's right too because in the end it's the Parliament that makes the laws.

Why should Public Servants have to consult a representative body ? Public servants don't make laws they carry them out. All consultation should have been done with Parliamentarians before the laws are made.

And who decides whether laws "affect" ATSI people ? That could be almost anything. So are we going to get hung up on whether a proposed law affects ATSI people and that they therefore have to be consulted ? eg the cashless welfare card. Yes it affect ATSI people , but it also affects a lot of others. Why should the Voice be consulted and no one else ?

And why not release the Solicitor General's advice ? This isn't a security issue. I'd like to know what he said if I have to vote to change the Constitution.

 

[Sean K]

Where is any of that in the constitution proposal?

Are you not describing how the voice will work or operate?

How it will operate is decided by the parliament subject to changes from the government of the day.

Are you saying that any high court action won't result in changes by government?

Under the current wording, that's how Greg Craven, amongst others, has described how it could work. The Voice will be able to make representation against any legislation that they think affects them. The parliament will have to negotiate on any changes The Voice wants. What happens if The Voice doesn't get what it wants?

 

[Sean K]

There are a multitude of groups that get consulted before decisions are made, unions, business groups, the AMA, the Pharmacy Guild , ACOSS etc and that's fine, but none of them have a Constitutional right to be consulted, and that's right too because in the end it's the Parliament that makes the laws.

Why should Public Servants have to consult a representative body ? Public servants don't make laws they carry them out. All consultation should have been done with Parliamentarians before the laws are made.

And who decides whether laws "affect" ATSI people ? That could be almost anything. So are we going to get hung up on whether a proposed law affects ATSI people and that they therefore have to be consulted ? eg the cashless welfare card. Yes it affect ATSI people , but it also affects a lot of others. Why should the Voice be consulted and no one else ?

And why not release the Solicitor General's advice ? This isn't a security issue. I'd like to know what he said if I have to vote to change the Constitution.

Yep.

Every single piece of legislation affects ATSIs. How could it not? This Voice is going to be a $100m + branch of the Parliamentary system analysing every piece of paper flowing through both houses to see how it can be tweaked to favour ATSI.

It's likely that even the FIRB will have to consult with The Voice to get approval for foreign investment in the country. Imagine the money The Voice is going to milk out of that process, especially in mining and property developments on any native lands - that would include in the City of Melbourne or Sydney.

Albo keeps saying the best legal minds in the country have put this together. Has he named one?

And, he keeps saying this is a 'modest' change. This is potentially the single biggest change to our constitution since Federation.

 

[IFocus]

Under the current wording, that's how Greg Craven, amongst others,

Craven is one of the few eminent academics that's taken this stand there is a wall of others at his level and higher disagree.

The Voice will be able to make representation against any legislation that they think affects them.

Correct

The parliament will have to negotiate on any changes The Voice wants.

No it is not the case the voice has no power.

What happens if The Voice doesn't get what it wants?

The government of the day will have to publicly justify its case if it chooses to nothing more.

 

[rederob]

My understanding is that The Voice must be consulted early and be able to make representations against any legislation that affects them.

The powers of the Voice are determined by Parliament.

The government doesn't have to accept those representations and could push through anything it wants under the current system. But, if the legislation was significant enough in that it affected Aboriginals directly in some way, and they did not approve, or did not think they were adequately consulted, then yes, they could go to the High Court to claim they have not been sufficiently considered under the constitution Chapter 9.

Incorrect. Chapter 9 makes no such provision.

The other part to the new wording is that The Voice can make representations to the executive government including public servants that they think xyz should happen. The government then must consider that and provide a response. If that is not adequate for The Voice, they could claim because of xyz the government has not listened to them according to Chapter 9 and take it to the High Court for a ruling.

Again incorrect as there is no such provision.

This Voice is going to be a $100m + branch of the Parliamentary system analysing every piece of paper flowing through both houses to see how it can be tweaked to favour ATSI..

Really?
States will have their versions of the Voice feeding into policy affecting first nations.
At the federal level there will be a streamlining of inputs into ATSI policy involving functional transfers, so the Voice may be cost neutral.

It's likely that even the FIRB will have to consult with The Voice to get approval for foreign investment in the country.

Complete fantasy. Matters affecting investments etc are covered by very separate legislation.

This is potentially the single biggest change to our constitution since Federation.

Cloud cuckoo stuff.
Should we recognise our first inhabitants?
Should we provide a mechanism that enables matters affecting them to have their input?
We are talking about a small fraction of our population and a miniscule amount of money.
Compare that to the Constitutional change creating a federal social security system, or allowing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be counted as part of the population and the Commonwealth being able to make laws for them.

 

[SirRumpole]

Should we provide a mechanism that enables matters affecting them to have their input?

The same mechanism that allow unions, business groups, disability advocates et al to have their say.

ie , they form a lobby group and take their concerns to the politicians through the usual channels.

 

[Sean K]

No it is not the case the voice has no power.


The government of the day will have to publicly justify its case if it chooses to nothing more.

Architects of The Voice have said they will take matters to the High Court if they're not satisfied with the government's response to representation, so if the government does not at least negotiate, it's litigate.

A simple solution to this would have been to have a clause in the proposed Chapter IX stating, 'after consideration of The Voice's representation, decisions of the Parliament can not be appealed to the High Court', or similar such legalistic terms.

Even so, there will be huge pressure on the government of the day to bow to the wishes of The Voice because if it does not the very noisy far Left minority will go tropo. The way governments are kowtowing to minorities at the moment is frightening.

 

[rederob]

The same mechanism that allow unions, business groups, disability advocates et al to have their say.

They are not first nations and have not been systemically disadvantaged for over 2 centuries.
The unique cultures of the various indigenous groups are seldom considered in broad brush policies.
The idea that each distinct culture forms a lobby group is beyond silly.
Successive governments have not been effective in "closing the gap" and the Voice ensures that there is a pre-emptive and proactive process to policy.
In the case of existing policies that are not well targeted the Voice may directly advise the executive of potential changes.
The Voice does NOT affect you unless you are a first nations person.

 

[SirRumpole]

The unique cultures of the various indigenous groups are seldom considered in broad brush policies.

The Voice is likely to be dominated by city dwelling elites who can't possibly represent all the tribes of the ATSI population