• ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻@aussie.zoneOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I decided to do a bit of research on the wording and came across this AAP articel which lead me to the explanatory memorandum for the constitutional amendment bill which uses the term “make representations” extensively.

    1. A representation is a statement from the Voice to the Parliament or to the Executive Government, or both. A representation would communicate the Voice’s view on a matter relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Parliament or the Executive Government may decide what action, if any, to take in response to a representation by the Voice. The Parliament may provide for the procedures to be followed by the Voice in making a representation
    1. Under s 129(ii), the Voice ‘may’ make representations. It is not obliged to do so in relation to any particular matter. While the Voice would be able to make representations on a broad range of matters, it would be both impractical and unrealistic to require or expect the Voice to make representations about all matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
    1. Subsection 129(ii) would not require the Parliament or the Executive Government to wait for the Voice to make a representation on a matter before taking action. Nor would s 129(ii) require the Parliament or the Executive Government to seek or invite representations from the Voice or consult it before enacting any law, taking any action or making any decision. Subsection 129(ii) would also not require the Parliament or the Executive Government to furnish the Voice with information about a decision, policy, or law (either proposed or in force) at any time.

    With respect to your concerns:

    If me (and many others) can interpret “make representations” as potential extra seats in parliament, there’s always the risk of this phrase getting reinterpreted later for political reasons to actually give extra seats.

    That is certainly possible but I assume it would require someone else (likely the opposition) to not challenge it in the High Court. To get past that the judges who would have extensive knowledge of the constitution and legal language to approve whatever the parliament tries to do