Login
Judge, law professors explain Voice vote ‘not constitutionally risky’
A week out from the Voice referendum, a former High Court chief justice, law organisations and university professors have addressed some of the arguments and concerns from “No” campaigners.
Naomi Neilson
In a speech to the National Press Club on Friday (6 October) and shared to media, former chief justice Robert French rejected common arguments from campaigners, such as Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, that the Voice to Parliament would divide the country.
Referring to the more vocal arguments, Justice French said the Voice would not “give rise to any constitutional legal obligation for the Parliament or the executive to accept or be bound” by the advice.
“Nor is there any available reading of the constitutional change which would bind the Parliament to have regard to representations from the Voice about a proposed law,” Justice French said.
As for the campaign of “if you don’t know, vote no”, the former chief justice said this “invites us to be resentful”.
The same day, more than 70 law professors from across Australia signed a letter to “clarify some issues that are causing confusion” in an effort to assist Australians “sift through what they are reading and hearing” from both sides of the referendum debate.
Addressing the concern that it would be constitutionally risky to introduce the amendment into the Constitution, the professors wrote that the “vast majority of expert legal opinion” disagrees.
“These views are supported by careful argument, drawing on precedent (that is, previously decided cases) and a deep understanding of the court’s approach to constitutional interpretation,” the letter from the professors read.
In order to ensure Australians better understand the context of the referendum, the letter goes on to explain the history of the Constitution and clarifies that the framers “were all white men” at the time and many people outside of that group “had limited or no voting rights”.
They said the framers “race” within the Constitution “as they intended for the new Commonwealth Parliament to be able to pass laws that discriminated against people on the basis of race”.
“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,” they wrote.
“The racial divide has always been there.”
Also adding their support to the vote ahead of the referendum, the Asian Australian Lawyers Association (AALA) issued a statement commending the amendment “as a major step towards achieving justice and equality for all Australians”.
“AALA encourages its members and [the] broader legal community to actively support the referendum and establishment of the Voice.
“We believe that the legal profession has an important role to play in fostering understanding and promoting justice for all Australians, regardless of their background or heritage,” AALA said.
This statement from AALA follows announcements of support from the Law Council, the NSW Law Society, and the SA Law Society.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
