[ad_1]
The government has criticised questions over whether the Indigenous voice to parliament will have input into energy policy and Reserve Bank decisions, with Anthony Albanese saying people shouldn’t look for “distractions” in the debate.
The prime minister last week unveiled the wording of the proposed amendment to the constitution, confirming the advisory body could make representations to both parliament and executive government, meaning it could have input into administrative decisions, the development of laws and the work of public servants.
In parliament’s question time on Monday, the shadow attorney general, Julian Leeser, raised questions about how the voice would advise executive government, asking the Indigenous Australians minister, Linda Burney, whether the Reserve Bank would consult the voice before altering interest rates.
Burney responded: “the last time I looked, the Reserve Bank of Australia is independent.”
In a press conference on Monday, Albanese branded a question about whether the voice would have input on climate policy as “very strange”.
“People shouldn’t look for, on the voice, distractions,” he said.
“They can ask all sorts of things about whether it will, you know, give advice on who should play five-eighth for Souths this week, but that is not what it is about.
“The voice is not about defence policy. It’s not about foreign affairs policy.
“The voice is about matters that directly affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.”
The voice’s ability to advise the executive has prompted concern from a small number of conservative critics, but numerous constitutional experts and lawyers have strongly backed the clause and rebuffed suggestions it would lead to ongoing legal challenges.
In question time, Albanese was asked by Leeser about releasing legal advice from the solicitor general, Stephen Donoghue, about the voice. The prime minister responded by saying Leeser, a longtime voice advocate, “knows full well” that critics of the voice had attempted to draw questions when they “simply are not there, are disingenuous”.
Bret Walker SC, a high court barrister, told ABC radio on Monday that he did not foresee a major potential for judicial challenges stemming from the voice.
Walker said he didn’t “think there any real possibility of challenges to executive action” other than in “sporadic, rare” cases.
after newsletter promotion
The bill containing the proposed voice referendum question and constitutional amendment will be introduced to parliament on Thursday.
The Labor government has heaped pressure on the Liberals – the only party yet to declare its position on the referendum – to decide whether it would support the voice.
Escalating questions and concerns raised by the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, has some Liberals believing the party may formally resolve to oppose the voice.
Guardian Australia understands the Liberals are unlikely to settle their position for several weeks, until or after the committee process that follows the constitution alteration bill’s introduction. The bill will not be seen before the Liberal party room meets on Tuesday.
The Liberal senator Andrew Bragg, who supports the voice, told ABC radio on Sunday he didn’t believe the party would “frustrate the passage of the referendum” by opposing the alteration bill, but the Liberals’ wider position on the voice is still unconfirmed.
Dutton last week called on the government to release legal advice from the solicitor general on the voice, after concerns from the constitutional expert Greg Craven about potential high court challenges.
The attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, said on Sunday it was not the practice of federal governments to release solicitor general advice, but said Donoghue had been “fully involved” in the process and that his advice supported the proposed wording.
Asked if the government would release the advice in a bid to secure Dutton’s support, Albanese dismissed the notion, saying there were “no signs” the Liberal leader is open to supporting the voice.
“Are you telling me it’s your view that if we release that advice, then they’ll change their position?” he asked a journalist.
“If you were me, would you think that there is any sign … other than that he [Dutton] is undermining support for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people?
“I’ve had seven meetings with him. He’s met with the referendum working group. There are no signs.”
But Albanese said he was still seeking bipartisanship. He said the government had intentionally not been “prescriptive” and left parts of the debate open to suggestions to attract more support – an offer he insinuated had not been accepted.
[ad_2]
Source link
