High Court judges do not

"comment" or "talk" to people about contentious issues. They can't. To do so would be very dangerous indeed. There is always the possibility that they will be called on to hear a case concerning those contentious issues. They may have to make a judgment on related matters put before them. That said of course they do discuss things among themselves and there are a very small number of other people in the legal fraternity they will consult at times - but such things are rare.

That makes it very unlikely indeed that the Prime Minister is correct when he says he has talked to High Court judges about the proposed "Voice to Parliament". If he has even mentioned it then any discussion would have been quickly deflected. He may even have been told outright, "We can't discuss that." What seems more likely is that such remarks are an underhand way of trying to suggest that the High Court supports the proposal. It doesn't. It has no opinion because it cannot have an opinion.

It is also clear that the Prime Minister has not sought the advice of the Solicitor-General. This is so even when it is the S-G's role to advise on matters related to the Constitution. Is this arrogance or uncertainty? 

The idea that we are being asked to add something to the constitution without full and proper legal advice is cause for genuine concern. At very least the S-G's department should have been consulted about the wording. The words matter. How the words are put together matters too. 

At least one former High Court judge, now being retired, has expressed reservations about the Voice to Parliament. I know two Silks with long experience in Constitutional law who have expressed similar private reservations to me. They have indicated there are other members of the legal profession with similar reservations.

When we are making our own decisions about the issues surrounding this topic we need to be aware of these things.