Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
Offline
Australian Politics
Posts: 83830
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: 
|
Thticking to the thubject for a change:- https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/voice-to-parliament-constitutional-law-expe..."A constitutional law expert has slammed Anthony Albanese's Voice to parliament as a 'fatally flawed ruthless con job'.
On Thursday, the PM finally released details of the referendum and the question Australians will vote on.
Mr Albanese appeared on the verge of tears on at least five occasions as he announced the question, while emotionally calling on Australians to 'get this done'.
However, Professor Greg Craven, a constitutional lawyer who was one of the experts behind the original proposal of an Indigenous Voice, has slammed Mr Albanese's proposal as a 'con job'.
He said: 'I think it's fatally flawed because what it does is retain the full range of review of executive action.
'This means the Voice can comment on everything from submarines to parking tickets.
'We will have regular judicial interventions,' he warned.
Speaking to Ben Fordham on 2GB, Prof Craven explained how the Voice had been 'colonised' by 'left-leaning ideologues'.
'It was originally a conservative proposal,' he said. 'It was really designed to recognise indigenous people without risking judicial activism.
'Over the past year, it's really been colonised by left leaning ideologues from this community, trying to turn it from a model that was not run by the judges, to one that absolutely guarantees judicial intervention.
'The reality is that you will have a situation where any person who wants to create difficulty for a government over its decisions can now end up going to the High Court.
'It will be very, very difficult for government to operate either because it will be constantly delayed and tied up in knots, or indeed because the courts end up intervening directly in decisions.'
Opinion polling has indicated Australians are very divided on whether to support the referendum, and Prof Craven thinks a 'No' vote is inevitable.
Writing in the Australian, he said: 'It is a ruthless con job. It is aimed at the Australian people as a whole and an adoring media barely literate in constitutional reality.
'It puts the final bullet through the head of the referendum. The polls already show a sick referendum. It is now terminal.'
The professor also warned that the inclusion of 'draft principles' were another source of alarm as it could lead to Australians voting on the referendum without specifically knowing what areas the Voice could apply to.
'The idea is that instead of actual detail or architecture for the referendum, we are meant to be assuaged by motherhood statements so vague that they mean nothing,' Prof Craven wrote.
'Look at Albanese's enunciated principles: the voice will be proactive, representative, chosen by local communities, transparent and cooperative.
'What on earth does this actually mean? It could cover any commonwealth body from the Australian Defence Force to the ABC.'
Speaking to ABC, he added: 'I'm not pretty frustrated, I'm incredibly frustrated. I think the Government has made multiple errors of process here, one of which is a total lack of clarity.
In an emotional press conference, Anthony Albanese implored Australians to vote yes in the Voice to Parliament referendum later this year.
'This moment has been a very long time in the making. It's a simple matter from the heart,' he said.
'Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in our Constitution is the best chance this country has had to address the injustices of the past and move Australia forward for everyone, the best way to do this is to give people a voice.
'This is a modest request. I say to Australia; don't miss it. This is a real opportunity.
'This is a risk, having a referendum. Usually they don't succeed. But the people here can't wait. They can't. They've waited so long. They've waited a long time for justice, this is something where they're making such a modest request. I do feel a responsibility.
'On the May 21 I began my prime ministership with a declaration about a referendum.
'I knew what I was doing, I knew the weight that was there and I knew how that would be received by people. I also knew I had my party completely behind me.
'I'm not here to occupy the space, I'm here to change the country. There's nowhere more important in changing the country than in changing the constitution to recognise the fullness of our history.
'I want this for all Australians. We'll feel better about ourselves if we get this done. The truth is, Australia will be seen as a better nation in the rest of the world. Our position in the world matters.'
'So, this alteration was designed in a black box, we don't know who designed it, now it's been revised in a black box, there's been no attempt to engage wider opinion.
'And I think the total disaster is we've already got a referendum that's heading south in the polls, even before this it was describing the typical arc of a losing referendum.
'But the most potent argument, surely for the 'no' side, will be, "Even your own Attorney-General and your own Solicitor-General said this proposal should not go forward in the words of executive government, and now you're trying to sell us that." I mean, if the 'no' case needed another argument, it's got an absolute humdinger."(cont) (yes - he is).....
|
Forum
Pages: 
The Aboriginal Voice referendum (Read 91164 times)
