F Aires54,

Your ignorance of the issues is almost complete. If the voice was simply "Well another advisory group makes representations to parliament about issues that affect them. Just like the dozens of lobbyists do on an almost daily basis now." Then there wouldn't be the backlash from conservatives.

If an ex-high-court judge says that the proposed legislation could very well give activists the ability to challenge every piece of legislation and even regulations, then the "voice" becomes a veto at every stage of government

SM,

High Court judge? Hummm, which one, maybe its that Liberal toady from WA, you were referring to recently, he wasn't a HC judge. That's right you're a Hight Court judge yourself, claiming to be a "man of legal letters" and all that.

BTW, why the capital 'F' before Aries in the guys 'nick'. We know what it means don't we.

Pauliar,

I see that you are being a LIAR and a FRAUD again. High court judges are not known for making partisan statements.

As for the "F" I am almost certain that you are clueless.

P.S. have you been allowed near schools?

SM,

Your claim about a HC judge opposing the Voice is a lie. In fact ex HC Judge Kennith Hayne's has backed the proposal as not being a legal problem.

Not all High Court Judges are Labor Stooges.
"Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue’s written opinion, PUBLISHED ON FRIDAY, was proclaimed by Labor and Voice advocates as further confirmation the Constitutional change was legally sound, but it failed to allay the concerns of the Coalition which demanded the full legal advice provided to cabinet be released." dated 17/04/23.

Particulary written as a political opinion to support Labor's yes, other High Court solicitors say unless the Voice has access to the High Court the Voice is useless.

http://www.afr.com/politics/federal/the-high-court-judges-split-over-the-voice-20230227-p5cnzq

Former High Court judges have emerged as valuable currency in the debate over the Indigenous Voice to parliament.

The current score is two for and one against – at least when it comes to the current wording for the referendum and whether it will lead to “a decade of litigation”.

And the interpretation of lawyer Frank Brennan – then former chief justice Murray Gleeson (1998-2008) might also be concerned about it being more than an advisory Voice to Parliament.

It will have its own section in the Constitution and that fact means it is up to the High Court to interpret it in any cases of dispute. It is more than just recognition of aboriginals in the Constitution.

Pauliar,

It's not a lie. Not the same judge. Idiot.