Labor lawyers admit they have no idea where the Voice will lead

This entry was posted in Fake news, Legal affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Labor lawyers admit they have no idea where the Voice will lead

  1. Morsie says:

    All academic lawyers are now Labor or Green.There is uniformity of opinion to an astonishing degree.
    All their students come out indoctrinated.

  2. C.L. says:

    Never heard of him.

  3. Lee says:

    As if I am going to be swayed to vote Yes by the opinions of a bunch of lefty (if not Marxist) lawyers.

  4. Graham says:

    The link is to an ABC report. Their ABC is determined to cheerlead for The Voice until the last minute. If it goes down (as I hope and will help with my own “No” vote) I imagine there will be despair at the ABC and black armbands mandatory.

    A good rule of thumb is that if 70 legal academics are in favour of something then you should do the opposite of what they recommend.

    They know full well that if the Constitution is amended to provide for a body to have the right to make representations to Parliament and to Executive Government, then the High Court is inevitably going to reason that there must be a correlative duty on Parliament and the Executive Government to consider and respond to the representations. Ignoring what they say is not an option.

    This means that anything the Government does that in any way affects people who claim to be Aboriginal and is the subject of The Voice representations (which is almost everything) is the potential subject of litigation.
    That will tie up Government decision making forever.
    There are already huge pots of money available to Aboriginal organizations and there will be even more money for litigation if The Voice gets up.
    Can you imagine trying to open a mine, build something or even carry on existing operations post referendum if our indigenous overlords are displeased by it.

  5. Harpo says:

    I’m sure that in the future The High Court of Australia will be finding a lot of odd things “emanating from the penumbra” of the constitution.

  6. Dunny Brush says:

    I happened upon one of these academic lawyers talking about this on ABC Soviet – grim Melbourne branch – radio this morning. She/ Xir was trying to claim that because 70 “lawyers” (any conveyancing solicitors among them) signed it, it was some sort of revealed truth.

  7. Buccaneer says:

    The letter says that the No campaign has argued that the Voice would lead to “dysfunction and delays” in government but that would not necessarily be the case.

    “Certainly, it is impossible to predict exactly what the High Court might say in the future — this is the case for all constitutional and legal provisions,” the letter says.

    “But we know that the vast majority of expert legal opinion agrees that this amendment is not constitutionally risky.”

    It takes quite a bit of chutzpah to put forward such a collection of contradictory assertions and then ask ordinary Australians to hand their power embedded in the constitution to a government that has been purposely deceptive and opaque about what legislation they will table that executes the change.

    The only conclusion to come to is that the majority of the lawyers that have made that assertion have no respect for your rights as citizens or recognise that you should be allowed to exercise them. Disgusting.

  8. Christine says:

    Robert French’s piece in The Australian.
    It begins with
    “the intricate lacework of the age-old stories of the Dreamtime”

    More and more, our betters must talk-up the traditions of the Aboriginal people and claim that we can “take pride in their culture”. Is that true?
    Trudge on, and the gist is: this push for power is not about race, rather historical status. And there’s nothing to fear.
    I think he wasted his time; anyone impressed will already be voting Yes.

  9. Entropy says:

    The letter says that the No campaign has argued that the Voice would lead to “dysfunction and delays” in government but that would not necessarily be the case.

    Every. Single. Zac Caninet Submission, every single scheme or subordinate legislation will have to demonstrate it has taken into account The Voice. At the very least to see if it interested, and of course even more so if it is. That would mean every government agency at federal and state level will have to have a dedicated unit/branch (depending on size) to undertake this task. Mirrored of course, by the equivalent in the agency(ies – eg each state) that will have to be created to support The Voice and handle all this mountain of paperwork.

    Local government of course is not immune to this either, particularly land use decisions. A lot of rural councils will struggle to resource it.

  10. Entropy says:

    Robert French’s piece in The Australian.
    It begins with
    “the intricate lacework of the age-old stories of the Dreamtime

    counterposed with Ergas’s excoriating of noble savage fetishism.

  11. Buccaneer says:

    Every single meeting is already prefaced by a welcome to country, no one that is being honest believes that the voice won’t add more palaver to everything.

  12. NFA says:

    But what about The Kangaroos?

  13. Rafiki says:

    A major benefit will be the capacity to cause delay in the processes of policy formulation and its implementation in statue and subordinate law. Delay may ( and often does) cause loss of various kinds, and creates a space for political manoeuvres. And of course the Voice controllers could be bought off.
    Of course the High Court could – now or any time the Constitution survives – make the advice process more complicated. But just as it stands, even on a narrow reading, the Voice can cause delay. This is the source of the power Albanese (contradicting Mr French) said today would be vested in the Voice.

  14. Rafiki says:

    If the phrase “the Executive” in proposed section 129 is read (as it should be) to mean the same as it does in other parts of the Cinstitution, it refers to the Governor- General acting with the Executive Council. A right of centre government might read it this way.

  15. Winston says:

    Doesn’t every Australian currently have the right to make a representation to Parliament via their local MP?

    Doesn’t every Australian currently have the right to make a representation to Parliament via correspondence with Ministers of Government?

    Are there not already many lobby groups who’s role is to make representations to Parliament?

    What need is there for a Constitutional Amendment to ‘make representations to Parliament’?

  16. Bazinga says:

    Most lawyers beclown themselves.

  17. Bazinga says:

    BTW if it cannot be empirically proven then it’s mythology. Mythology has no standing.

  18. John says:

    Were the Voice to pass, don’t people think that “the vessel of the Constitution [will be] steered clear of the Rock of Democracy, and [plunged into] the Whirlpool of Arbitrary-Power?

    The electorate should demand a Charybdis around the penumbra of the Constitution!

  19. A reader says:

    What Rafiki said. I always assumed that’s what executive government was: the Executive Council which is King In Council or Governor-General in Council

  20. and says:

    Hear ye! Hear ye!

    Jane Carosene and some of her “older women” buddies invite you to a yap-yap-yapfest.

  21. Lee says:

    Highly offensive Australian Financial Review cartoon compares Jacinta Price, Warren Mundine and Peter Dutton with Nazis, specifically Hitler:

  22. B'wana Sahul says:

    The Letter from The Faculty of Law Geniuses

    We understand that Australians can find it difficult to assess the merits of the more technical information, particularly where there are different legal views.

    Unlike the original draft of the Constitution, the amendment will be decided by a referendum of all eligible Australian voters

    That’s a bit sneaky, to say the draft wasn’t voted on.

    as such, whether or not we agree that the Constitution should continue to embed this concept, it is wrong to frame the Voice as introducing a racial divide into the Constitution. The racial divide has always been there.

    These experts
    These experts
    These experts

    Many signatures, pages of them, yet no references to expert legal opinion. For a bunch of academics to not even feign a couple of references is pissweak.

    The guts seems to be that horrible racists made the Constitution, so this very generous Voice is to even up the score. Get racism flowing both ways, which will double GDP, no doubt.

  23. C.L. says:

    It’s hard to believe the Fin – a paper that poses as sophisticated – would publish that cartoon. And then there’s the fact that the artist can’t caricature to save himself.

  24. and says:

    Thankfully there’s only a week to go. 🙂

    Tonight on Das Projekt there appeared an expert in Constitutional Law – Madeleine Chiam of LaTrobe Puniversity. She was representing 70 experts in Constitutional Law wanting to “debunk” mis/disinformation on Voice to Parliament. The contention of the “70 experts” is that the legal risks of the VTP are minimal… minimal as in trivial, not a worry.

    The expert was asked by one of the hosts if her perspective was biased by “Yes” or “No” to which she replied that she had no commitment to “Yes” or “No”. Her and her expert buddies weren’t pushing any side: Their motivation was purely altruistic, benevolent. The “experts” just wanted to ensure that the public was not deceived by mis/disinformation.

    Constitutional Law Experts Debunk Misinformation On Voice To Parliament

    It only took a few-second search to find the following. She is a signatory to:

    A call to the Prime Minister and Australian Parliament

    We support First Nations peoples to have a voice. We call on the Australian Parliament to make this a national priority.

    She’s a signatory to government adoption of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, i.e., Voice Treaty Truth™.

    The experts debunking mis/disinformation, my assteroid!

  25. and says:

    Can also check out what she “likes” on her linkedin page.

  26. NFA says:

    I like Miss Disinformation… she obviously uses Mayo on her word salads.

  27. Roger W says:

    The letter also seems to misrepresent the Constitution by not indicating the 1967 amendment effects. Strange that so many law academics failed so conclusively.

  28. twostix says:

    90% of Australians don’t give the slightest shit what retarded academic ticks that infest the australian ‘legal’ system say outside of the ones in the local criminal court sentencing the local drunk dickheads and murderers.

    Basically view the whole thing as the grown up highschool lunchtime chess club but, instead of just being dorky autistic kids, the adult version is full of literal autistic parasitical retards and ideological whackos making daily life ever more irritating and annoying.

    For about 1/3 of the population the feeling is triply so since they showed their complete and utter highschool d&d chess-dork level worthlessness when the jocks came and beat the shit out of everyone in the country. This despite all the millions of laws and courts and lawyers and a hundred years of lisping promises “myeth myeth truthst usth, the courts with the million legal rules that we annoy and oppress you with daily, will protect you when it really matters”…then very much deliberately didn’t.

Leave a Reply

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