This blog is now closed
More than 70 constitutional and public law teachers have signed a letter saying the voice to parliament “is not constitutionally risky” in a bid to clarify “misunderstandings and misconceptions” among Australian voters.
Here is an excerpt from the letter:
In law school, we teach our students techniques to assess competing legal opinions, which include looking at the evidence that the author is using to support their opinion, and the author’s experience working in the specialised field. This skill is important, for instance, in assessing the stated concern of the No Case that the proposed amendment is constitutionally ‘risky’ and, in particular, that it might lead to dysfunction and delays in government.
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. But we know that the vast majority of expert legal opinion agrees that this amendment is not constitutionally risky. 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. These experts also agree that the proposed Voice provision is consistent with the Australian constitutional system.
We did have a disturbing incident this morning where our crews had to respond to a water rescue in the Bairnsdale area, where two males entered the water in a car and subsequently got carried away, or the vehicle got carried away. They had to be rescued from the roof of their vehicle.
… It is a salient reminder never [to] enter flood waters, always choose an alternative route.
Continue reading...