The Shoosh: Let me do the talking, frustrated Albo tells blacks

Posted on 22 June, 2023 by C.L.

Anthony Albanese seeks to place legal limits on Aboriginal voice amid debate over Australia Day.

This entry was posted in Federal politics, Left-wing extremism, Legal affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to The Shoosh: Let me do the talking, frustrated Albo tells blacks

C.L. says:

22 June, 2023 at 9:51 am

Anthony Albanese is seeking to place legal limits on the scope of the Indigenous voice to parliament and executive government by assuring Australians its remit would be restricted to issues that “specifically or differently” affect Aboriginal people.

The Coalition accused the government of “desperately trying to retrofit its narrative” as the Prime Minister attempted to turn the political attack on the opposition, amid a divisive debate over whether the voice could advise on changing Australia Day.

With falling support for the voice in the polls and confusion around how it will work and what it will advise on, Mr Albanese said Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus’s second reading speech on the government’s Constitution Alteration Bill would have “legal consequences” for any High Court interpretation of what the voice can advise on.

“I urge people to look at the words that are being put forward that make it clear the primacy of the parliament,” the Prime Minister said.

“I urge people to have a look at the second reading speech of the Attorney-General that has legal consequences, speaking about matters that affect Indigenous Australians differently.

“And I urge people as well, those opposite, to listen to the words of the person that this Leader of the Opposition appointed as shadow attorney-general (Julian Leeser): the voice is advisory. It won’t be Moses handing down the tablets from the mountain. The parliament will still be the democratic centre of our national life. The parliament will still be supreme in matters of policy and law.

“I say to all Australians, parliaments pass laws but it’s people that make history and we have an opportunity to advance reconciliation in the last quarter of this year. I sincerely hope and call for Australians to vote Yes.”

If a legal case is brought against the voice, the High Court may consider materials such as the Constitution Alteration Bill’s explanatory memorandum or Mr Dreyfus’s second reading speech, as well as the parliamentary debate and various opinions on the proposed amendment.

In March, when introducing the Constitutional Alteration Bill to parliament, which outlines the government’s referendum question and constitutional amendment establishing the voice, Mr Dreyfus provided more detail on the matters on which the advisory body could make representations to parliament and executive government.

“‘Matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ would include: matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and matters relevant to the Australian community, including general laws or measures, but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently to other members of the Australian community,” Mr Dreyfus said.

The law on its own – passed by parliament this week – says only that the voice may make representations on “matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”.

Constitutional law experts said the voice’s scope could not be restricted to matters that directly or differently affected Aboriginal people and it could in fact advise on a broader range of topics.

University of Sydney constitutional law expert Anne Twomey said the Prime Minister was correct to say the High Court could take into account Mr Dreyfus’s speech, but it was impossible to say definitively how the court would interpret the wording.

“It will look at the second reading speech but it’s not conclusive,” Professor Twomey said. “It will go beyond that. The fact that it has the word ‘include’, it does include those two phrases (specific and differently) but it is possible it could mean something further.

“In the second reading speech, when the Attorney-General described what would make up matters relating to Aboriginal people he did so in an inclusive way, but he didn’t exclude the possibility of other things falling in that category. So the High Court would take into account that word ‘include’.”

University of NSW constitutional law expert George Williams said the second reading speech was unlikely to limit the scope of the voice, noting it would ultimately be up to the High Court to interpret the wording.

Both Professors Williams and Twomey said the broad scope of the voice would make High Court challenges less likely.

“It is much better to be broad than end up with legalistic distinctions,” Professor Williams said. “It is a political body, it is only advisory and it has a broad remit to make decisions.”

Opposition legal affairs spokeswoman Michaelia Cash said any suggestion the High Court would be constrained by a second reading speech was “highly optimistic”.

“Extraneous materials can only provide guidance if the meaning of the words on the statute are unclear,” Senator Cash said.

“The words set out in the legislation that will be inserted into our Constitution are very clear.

“The Albanese government is desperately trying to retrofit its narrative as they realise Australians are working out what is being foisted upon them – a risky, unknown, divisive and permanent body that will do nothing to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians.

“This shows why Mr Albanese should release the three secret pieces of legal advice provided to the government by the Australian Government Solicitor rather than the single piece they have released, purely for public consumption.”

In parliament, Mr Albanese accused Peter Dutton of using the same playbook on the Indigenous voice to parliament as he did before Kevin Rudd’s apology to the Stolen Generations.

After being asked by his own side in question time why it was important people avoided false campaigns designed to create fear on the voice, the Prime Minister quoted Mr Dutton from 2008: “In January 2008, the Leader of the Opposition said this: ‘I think the Australian people deserve to know the full details of the implications of this policy, including the financial ones. It would beggar belief that they’ll be contemplating an apology that could open the government up to serious damages claims without knowing what those claims would be.”

Mr Albanese said those comments were “nonsense then” and they were “nonsense now”.

“I say to all Australians, parliaments pass laws but it’s people that make history and we have an opportunity to advance reconciliation in the last quarter of this year,” the Prime Minister said. “I sincerely hope and call for Australians to vote Yes.

———————

Rosie Lewis and Jess Malcolm in The Australian
Buccaneer says:

22 June, 2023 at 10:18 am

Albo is sincere about nothing, his arguments largely consist of political wedges or sledges mixed with a sprinkling of wishful thinking that substitutes for plain descriptions of his real intention.
Pommy Al says:

22 June, 2023 at 10:27 am

Alboriginal can’t lie straight in bed.
C.L. says:

22 June, 2023 at 10:44 am

Lying, stupid… they’re not mutually exclusive, I guess.

He cannot ‘limit’ what a constitutional amendment has authorised but he keeps betting that the average schlub doesn’t know anything about legislation and law.
Roger W says:

22 June, 2023 at 10:45 am

To paraphrase Joe Biden, if you are Aboriginal and you don’t go along with Albo, you’re not Aboriginal.
As if the High Court would take any notice of a speech by a politician.
It also means, of course, that all those Aborigines on the Advisory Council are either liars or have been lied to by Albo. Oh, what a tangled web we weave…
Next, Albo will want us to believe in the tooth fairy. (Just don’t question someone who identifies as the Tooth Fairy or you might end up in jail…)
jupes says:

22 June, 2023 at 10:53 am

Hahahahaha! This is gold. On the one hand we have Albo telling us all to calm down, on the other we have someone’s aunty telling us no, we will have something to say on Australia Day.

Now imagine for a minute, that the Australian people are stupid enough to vote Yes, and then the very first piece of ‘advice’ that the ‘voice’ gives is to change Australia Day to Sorry Day, how do you reckon Albo’s government will react?
Bruce of Newcastle says:

22 June, 2023 at 11:11 am

If he really intended to “place legal limits” on it he’d put it in the referendum question.

He won’t. That’s because he wants the permanent leftist veto the unlimited Voice represents. One ring to rule us all, written irrevocably into the Constitution.
NFA says:

22 June, 2023 at 11:16 am

Reminds me of “the story” about the Biden ‘interior minister’ taking away Navajo Indian land but giving to Pueblo 19.
RacerX says:

22 June, 2023 at 12:24 pm

general laws or measures, but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently to other members of the Australian community,” Mr Dreyfus said.

That’s an interesting concept from Dreyfus, perhaps he could give some examples of laws that affect those with some aboriginal ancestory differently from those Australians that don’t have any claim to aboriginal ancestory.
C.L. says:

22 June, 2023 at 12:33 pm

Great point.
What an absolute goat rodeo.
Christine says:

22 June, 2023 at 12:37 pm

Albanese can urge away; more of his wriggling.

I hope that “We are one” song of sentiment has been banned.
Billions spent on Aboriginal issues, yet now they have a brand new need – to be treated “differently”.

The soft bullying from Burney has turned into hard-nosed lecturing; is she completely unaware of her ineptness?
And those Aboriginal spokespersons who give themselves (English) “Aunty” titles – not one is an aunt of mine.
Texas Jack says:

22 June, 2023 at 12:46 pm

Anthony Albanese – Well, it will be a consultative body. It won’t have a right of veto over the Parliament, it doesn’t change any ways in which our laws are made. It simply will have the opportunity to have a voice on those matters that directly affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Which is precisely the calculated risk Albanese’s willingly taking; a Voice stacked with Thomas Mayos will create an impossible environment for the Coalition.
Rafiki says:

22 June, 2023 at 12:50 pm

Of course, nothing said by Albo, Greypus or Birney can alter the wording of proposed section 129, but the legal situation is more complicated. The Act to create the Voice might, for example, state that advice of the kind mentioned by Greypus will be given priority, compared to other kinds of advice, in the way it is dealt with ( which could by a different process, or different time frames⁰).
But, I hear you say, will such arrangements be reviewed by the High Court? Not necessarily. There is good reason to think that the court will hold such a challenge to be non-justiciable.
So Albo might be able to lawfully. Careful and expert legal advice could get him there.
Entropy says:

22 June, 2023 at 1:03 pm

Rafiki, Realistically, wouldn’t that just depend on who is in the High Court though?

Imagine a coterie of Mordy’s and like minded.
Rafiki says:

22 June, 2023 at 1:47 pm

Yes it would Entropy. The High Court however has, and always has had, interests of its own to protect. The judges like to be seen to be prestigious people, defenders of the law against politicians who are prone to trample on our liberties, and so on. They realise however that they must try to project their role as non-political, and on occasion will find that a question of law is not for them to decide, but to resolved in the political arena. It’s not just a question of preserving their high status. Some recognise that they are not competent to resolve a dispute with polycentric characteristics.
The USA Supreme Court has developed a complex body of law in this field. I suspect a section 129 would generate quite a bit here. .

And yes, Australian governments have appointed High Court judges having regard to what their perceived position on disputes. Whether about the Constitution, or tax law, and so forth. But, as apparent in the USA, the wheel turns.
Winston says:

22 June, 2023 at 2:09 pm

Serious question – if ‘The Voice’ is in effect, meant to be a lobby group, why not create a lobby group? No other lobby group needs to be codified in the Constitution.
Rockdoctor says:

22 June, 2023 at 3:28 pm

Too little too late. That the sound of the toilet gurgling…
Ed Case says:

22 June, 2023 at 4:34 pm

Which is precisely the calculated risk Albanese’s willingly taking; a Voice stacked with Thomas Mayos will create an impossible environment for the Coalition.

Whether it’s stacked with Thomas Mayo’s or not doesn’t matter, since Thomas Mayos is just a cipher, and he’ll be taking orders from faceless men in backrooms.
Ed Case says:

22 June, 2023 at 4:45 pm

Here’s the cause of Aboriginal Dysfunction:
Adverse Childhood Experiences, to wit
#1. Sexual abuse
#2. Physical abuse
#3. Emotional abuse
#4. Physical neglect
#5. Emotional neglect
#6. Witnessing Domestic Violence
#7. A Mentally Ill person living in the home
#8. Substance abuse in the home
#9. A parent going to jail
#10. Divorce
Any 6 correlate with a 20 year reduction in life expectancy, plus a host of other negatives.

The Voice won’t be doing anything about that.
jupes says:

22 June, 2023 at 5:12 pm

That’s an interesting concept from Dreyfus, perhaps he could give some examples of laws that affect those with some aboriginal ancestory differently from those Australians that don’t have any claim to aboriginal ancestory.

Australia Day. It makes Aborgines sad.
C.L. says:

22 June, 2023 at 5:24 pm

Dutton knew which button to push today in Parliament. He recommended that the referendum be scrapped. This caused Albanese to get personal and nasty.

The Nice Albo act is very easy to expose.
Texas Jack says:

22 June, 2023 at 6:20 pm

Dutton knew which button to push today in Parliament. He recommended that the referendum be scrapped.

C.L., step by step, bringing the Opposition mostly intact with him, exposing the absurdities and inconsistencies of Albanese’s position.

Fair summary?
NFA says:

22 June, 2023 at 9:41 pm

Meanwhile, it was a lovely day in Port Keats…
Boambee John says:

22 June, 2023 at 9:47 pm

NFA

But a hellish day in Wadeye.
Buccaneer says:

22 June, 2023 at 10:21 pm

But, I hear you say, will such arrangements be reviewed by the High Court? Not necessarily. There is good reason to think that the court will hold such a challenge to be non-justiciable.
So Albo might be able to lawfully. Careful and expert legal advice could get him there.

Rafiki, let’s assume you are right about this and discard any contentiousness about the future machinations of high court judges yet to be born and educated, the question for elbow remains, will the average punter actually be able to understand this nuanced point in the light of the clear words of voice activists, who clearly believe they are being shown the money.
NFA says:

22 June, 2023 at 10:39 pm

But a hellish day in Wadeye.

Just another day in paradise!
Mantaray says:

23 June, 2023 at 5:13 am

jupes (5.12pm). It might make a few guys like Mayo sad….but not many other part-Aborigines, and not the 99% of MUA members he’s alleged to represent who are not part-Aboriginal (nor full Aboriginal).

Facts are that Australia Day is alleged by liars like the F’wits pushing this stupidity to cause “distress”, yet when the ABC gave it’s saddest of the sad Arse-hats the chance to work on Oz Day (then get another day off instead) only THREE out of about 4000 staff took the offer up. Facts also are that the salvation of the Aborigines due to the arrival of the Pommies makes hardly anyone sad…..

It’s not just that “some of my friends” are part-Aborigine: equals I ain’t racists, but that almost everywhere I go I deal with them. I have no idea why part-Aborigines who are descended from non-Aborigines: have non-Aboriginal spouses, in-laws, cousins, uncles / aunties, workmates, schoolmates, sporstmates, bosses and employees… friends etc etc need what they already have: reconciliation.

This is an inner-city trough-feeders exercise and nothing else. see Albanese as Prime Example!
Texas Jack says:

23 June, 2023 at 8:51 am

This is an inner-city trough-feeders exercise and nothing else.

Like just about every other BS issue the Greens and the ALP have the Liberals running around like frightened hares on. Two percent of the population dragging everyone through the muck and the SFL’s can’t smell a rat. They keep running.
Ed Case says:

23 June, 2023 at 10:43 am

Where do you get the 2% from, Tex?
It appears the majority of Aborigines haven’t heard of The Voice, and those that have mostly oppose it.