Constitutional experts reject claims the Voice would have veto power or invite legal action

 
This is forwarded as a national issue when in fact it’s a UN agenda that’s been ongoing for years, that is pro-gloablism and against nationalism 
 

Constitutional experts have rejected claims the proposed Indigenous Voice would be able to veto the decisions of the parliament or open the government up to legal challenges in the High Court.

The arguments, advanced by former prime minister Tony Abbott and shared by some in conservative ranks, are an early sign of the challenge facing supporters of the Voice, as critics also seize on the lack of detail about how the body would operate.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at the Garma festival in East Arnhem Land in July, where he outlined three sentences that could be added to the Constitution to establish the Voice if a referendum succeeded.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at the Garma festival in East Arnhem Land in July, where he outlined three sentences that could be added to the Constitution to establish the Voice if a referendum succeeded. CREDIT:AAP

Abbott, who led the “no” case against the 1999 republic referendum, has emerged as one of the chief opponents of enshrining the Voice in the Constitution, arguing it is “wrong in principle”, would have “something approaching a veto” over the decisions of parliament and “leaves government action more open to legal challenge”.

But constitutional lawyer Greg Craven, a former vice chancellor of Australian Catholic University and a key conservative figure in favour of the Voice, dismissed Abbott’s characterisations as an “eccentric legal view”, saying the amendments to create the body amounted to a “conservative insertion into a conservative Constitution”.

 

“There is no veto power. There is no capacity for the Voice to amend or stop legislation. There is nothing for the High Court to enforce, and the Voice was specifically designed in that way,” said Craven, a co-director of Uphold & Recognise, which advocates for constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians.

Kevin Rudd says his criticisms of Josh Bornstein are not to do with personal attacks.
 

Rudd rebukes Abbott for ‘stoking anxiety and fear’ over Voice to parliament

“It is utter and irresponsible nonsense to suggest that the amendment would produce legal challenges. The Voice would facilitate a public conversation, not set up legal roadblocks.”

At last month’s Garma cultural festival, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese outlined three sentences that could be added to the Constitution to establish the Voice if a referendum succeeded. He has since clarified that parliament will debate what form the body would take before a national vote, which the government has indicated it would like to hold before the 2025 election.

The first sentence proposes to enshrine a body to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; the second sets out its ability to “make representations to parliament and the executive government” on matters relating to Indigenous Australians; and the third empowers parliament to make laws on how the Voice would be created and function.

University of Sydney constitutional law professor Anne Twomey said it was “bizarre” and “constitutionally wrong” to suggest the amendments would give the Voice legislative power, which is vested in the parliament by section one of the Constitution.

“This attempt to try and talk it up into a third house of parliament again is, and always was, nonsense. All it can do is make representations,” Twomey said.

 
 
 

 

Voice to Parliament with Chris Uhlmann

 

 
Catholic leadership play with Australian Constitutional indigineous voice which is a UN push

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *