https://theconversation.com/a-constitutional-voice-to-parliament-ensuring-parlia...

A constitutional Voice to Parliament: ensuring parliament is in charge, not the courts


However, some critics have raised concerns about “judicial activism”. They worry the High Court might interpret the provisions in unpredictable ways, creating legal uncertainty.

Careful constitutional drafting can address such concerns by making the amendment “non-justiciable”.

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2023 at 9:30pm:


The history of the courts in 'interpreting' Abo claims shows exactly that.  they will find any way to find the most amazing interpretation to suit the Aboriginal crying... fine example was those two criminals not even born here but allowed to come here because they had a drop of Abo blood... beyond ridiculous.  would I get a free pass into Sweden/Denmark/Ireland/Scotland/Germany etc on the same basis?

That second bit is a start.... but I warned you about the twin evils of mission creep and definition creep.

Mission creep dictates - and for a historical comparison look at the tenets of 'feminism' and the way those 'evolved' over the years in your social science fantasy world - that a 'voice' that will start out as a purely advisory board, whose advice the government has the discretion to reject, will morph into a body that, considering there is no equal and opposite advice even sought, gives unassailable advice which then must be accepted, and then into a body that no longer advises but dictates policy.  See Mt Warning 'stakeholders'.

Definition creep will come about from this body NOT being effective in 'closing the gaps' and 'resolving issues', and it will then be handed greater and greater 'definition' of what it can advise on and how, and eventually that will reach the Voice Nirvana of being the same as Mission Creep - the position of being able to dictate policy.

No thanks.  We've seen it far too often here in this country - which is why you see the peasants stirring right now - and long overdue.

"Voice"!  The most common terms used these days among the common folk are - "I'm sick of hearing about Abo sht!"

"Chuck!  Who the hell put that idea in the voter's heads that people with dual citizenship must not be allowed to vote in a referendum that would change the Constitution because politicians in that situation couldn't vote either?"

"Ah - that was Colonel Grappler again, sir - that NSO guy.... The Thinker... they call him...."

"Bloody hell - cut off his salary!"

"No can do, Tony - he's paid out of funds that are... you know.... well - let's say you don't know."

Jesus - who got us into this?"

"From memory....... errr..  you did, sir - at your Light House- Spreading The Warm Glow - meeting last year...."

"oh......................"

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2023 at 9:30pm:

You can't legislate to override the Constitution.
Such legislation would be justicable.

An exclusive Newspoll conducted for The Australian published as parliament returns on Monday for the first time this year, shows 56 per cent of voters were in favour of constitutional change for a voice to parliament, with 37 per cent saying they were against the proposal.
According to the special Newspoll, which surveyed 1512 voters across Australia, half of those claiming to back a voice to parliament were only “partly” in favour, suggesting a notable soft vote among supporters with the task still ahead of the Albanese government to convince Australians to support the proposed referendum scheduled for later this year.

Yet only 28 per cent of voters were “strongly” in favour, echoing a similar level of support for the Yes case in the 1999 referendum for a republic, which ultimately failed.

A total of 23 per cent of voters were “strongly” against altering the Constitution with the prevailing argument among the naysayers being a belief that it would not solve the issues facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and would favour one group over another.

The poll also coincides with Mr Albanese’s plea to Australians at the weekend to embrace the Yes case amid what he claimed was a sea of disinformation and the threat of a new culture war.

The government will seek to ­introduce enabling legislation within weeks for a referendum in the second half of the year.

“In asking Australians to support an alteration to the Constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait ­Islander Voice we are asking ­people to say yes to a modest but meaningful change,” Mr Albanese told the Chifley research conference in Canberra on Sunday.

“Not a radical proposition, a sensible one. A simple, vital and practical principle: that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a say in the policies and decisions that affect their lives.

“Not just because – as I’ve said before – it is common courtesy to consult people when you’re taking a decision that affects them. But because the practical outcomes will be better.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/indigenous-voice-earns-support-...

Do you believe him?


Many Australians have no idea of how the system of government works but at the same time are inherently decent . In their ignorance they believe they are doing the right thing . This is exactly why Albanese doesn't want to provide more detail.  He says its both a modest change, no more than an act of courtesy - but also a catastrophy if not successful. 

A commenter:

These results are irrelevant to a referendum. This methodology might work for national elections, but stratifying voters by age, gender, education level, political affiliation etc etc is utterly irrelevant. The one thing that is relevant isn't disclosed - state or territory. A majority of voters in a majority of states. That's it.  None of the preference whispering and unholy alliances of preferential voting, or any amount of industry fund super largesse channelled by the unions to Labor will matter. 32% of the vote won't count as a win in this poll. For once, actual democracy will prevail in Australia.



32% was Tennis Albo's yes vote last year.

Frank wrote on Feb 6^th, 2023 at 9:05am:


Not relevant; a referendum needs a 'double majority' to get up. That's a majority of votes in a majority of states.