So the Solicitor General says" The “essence” of the system of responsible government is, as Gageler J observed in Banerji,23 “‘that the actual government of the [Commonwealth] is conducted by officers who enjoy the confidence of the people’”.
So how do fewer than 4% get an extra go at it based on racial descent when they are overrepresented in the Federal Parliament already , based on racial descent.
I am trying to imagine people have read the solicitor generals recently requested opinion - the previous one having never been disclosed - and thinking that it is anything other than an if but and or maybe -
perhaps I can get myself on the High Court while Albo still loves my latest opinon.
"...operating only as an advisory body to those two branches of government. The Voice clearly has no power of veto." The S.G. is correct to take a strictly legal view on the two very limited questions that he was asked.
But it is just not the way that the blakactivists will work it in practise. Ask the likes of Lidia Thorpe how she will use every tool she has to pursue her racist (as her father says) goals.
S.G. No mention of the High Court case of Love. in which they said Aborigines had something, which amounted to rights that superced the ordinary rights of Australian Citizenship that the rest of us do not.
Instead he goes politically left in support of the Prime Minister's political aims and brings in a fully circular argument that uses the political objective to justify the political objective.:
"...enhancements of that kind, insofar as they remove distortions to the system that might otherwise allow the wealthy to drown out the voices of others."
and,
"...it seeks to rectify a distortion in the existing system. For that reason, in addition to the other reasons stated above, in my opinion proposed s 129 is not just compatible...but an enhancement of that system."
So it is an enhancement because less than 4% of the population gets more access to government policy even though they are already over represented at the highest level of Australian Government. ! If that's not political I don't know what is.
When the media reports that the SG says the voice is an enhancement to the Constituion it is a purely politcal point of view. Not a legal opinion.
"...even if decision-makers do have to consider some representations of the Voice in certain contexts, all that would mean is that the decision-makers must (within the bounds of rationality and reasonableness)"
And it is the High Court that decides that. It will be left to Lidia Thorpe and the like to go the the High Court to get them to decide the elected government and bureaucratic decision makers were not being reasonable.
Media today rightly says... a body representing Indigenous Australians, and them alone...political entrepreneurs will emphasise what distinguishes Indigenous Australians...not least by demonising a common enemy...radicalisation rather than reconciliation, deepening racial fractures...