"A Proposed Law to alter the Constitution

to recognise the First People of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice"  "Do you approve this proposed alteration?"

Like the Leader of the Opposition I would very much like to see the Solicitor-General's advice. I find it difficult, indeed impossible, to believe this form of words was wholeheartedly approved.  

Just what are we being asked to approve here? It sounds reasonable until you start to answer some questions, questions to which there are no answers.

It is my belief the vast majority of us would have no problem with simple recognition. If we were being asked to simply recognise that there were people here before white settlement there would be almost no debate. The only real debate there would be how to word the recognition. Even that might not be too much of an issue. We could get that through but we are being told this is not enough.

This is something entirely different. It is not just asking us to recognise a group of people but to recognise them in a specific way - through a "Voice". This Voice is so poorly defined it has the potential to have a much greater impact than the one we are being told is intended.

Our Constitution is a remarkably precise document in many ways. It sets out the powers the Commonwealth (the states and territories as a group) has. It leaves everything else to the individual states. Over the past one hundred and twenty-two years there have been very few changes. The High Court has found some ways of expanding the powers of the Commonwealth through the existing Constitution. (The use of the "external affairs" power in the case of overturning the right to the building of a dam in Tasmania marked a major extension of Commonwealth powers.) 

Our present Constitution does not give an ill-defined group of people a "voice" or what might be ill-defined powers to "advise".  We need to know  who those people might be and if that "voice" is going to give "advice" because, in law, the idea of "advice" is very different from that of the everyday advice we often give one another.  One of the main roles of the High Court is to interpret the Constitution. It is not there to make laws. It can attempt to bend and stretch the law within the bounds set by parliament but it cannot take away rights granted in the Constitution. If we grant those rights then we need to be very clear what rights we are granting.

The current wording is so vague that we cannot have any idea what rights we would be granting.