Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.Debate continues to ramp up over details of Indigenous Voice to Parliament.abc.net.au/news/constitutional-expert-indigenous-do-not-release-voice-details/101872124A new year has seen political debate over an Indigenous Voice to parliament ramp up, with the federal government confirming a referendum will be held by December.
However, constitutional law expert Anne Twomey says it would be inappropriate for the government to release draft legislation ahead of the vote."If you start putting out a detail with the bill, et cetera, people will think that that's what they're voting on in the referendum." Professor Twomey — who is one of the experts advising the government on the constitutional change ahead of the referendum — said there was confusion about what the referendum would actually achieve.
"So it's the words that say — there shall be this body, it has the function of making representations to parliament and we have to leave parliament to decide the rest."
Typical arrogant lawyer… you don’t understand but it will be alright, just trust me. Ummm, yeahhh, nah.
We all know what a ‘expert’ is, x is a unknown quantity,a spurt is a drip under pressure.
Is it that bad? Giving over the top rights to a section of our society over the rest of us ?
A constitutional change is not required to implement the Voice. Parliament already has the power. The constitutional change is just virtue signalling.
She doesn't want to confuse the public with detail...what a cynical and arrogant perspective.
How about this person also resigns like other autocratic people in recent days. They have no part whatsoever in a democracy. Who appointed this clown
Seriously what is wrong with these people, indigenous and non-indigenous need to know what may be coming their way! the answers are in the details and if a lawyer does not want anyone to know then WE have OUR answer!🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄Why is everyone so bent?
This lady truly knows what she is talking about. Listen to her Dutton.
This is bull*&! How are we ment to know how this vote will effect the constitution & other minorities? Sorry but if i dont have this in black & white with an indepth constitutional evaluation; i & others will be voting no! Also bad actors will peddle false info eroding trust!
I remember a huge amount of fear during the Mabo case. Some claimed catastrophe for the quarter acre block and even the Australian way of life. Post decision nothing changed for nearly all of us. Although a great wrong had been righted.
If what this expert is saying is true, then there is no reason to have the Voice in the constitution. It is already there for every Oz citizen, and nothing atm is changing the ability of parliament to enact the same laws as she says the Voice will empower.
Is .gov saying to indigenous people…”we’re giving you a voice in the constitution but will decide and let you know what “voice” you’re given”. isn’t that sort of governing a very colonial/dictatorial approach? No discussion, no detail, just do as told
Not sure that the 'trust me I am a politician' approach to details on the Voice is reassuring.
Please read the Uluru statement all the details are there.
Funny that so many people think they are part of the 1%
The invisible hand of Head of ABC's News & Political Affairs, Justin Stevens, fermenting uncertainty & doubt, typical of Murdochian framing.NotMyABC
So maybe we could get an expert to explain it to us in terms we all understand ? But first those details would need to made available to the expert.
If this expert is correct, she should also advise that no one should make a decision until it is released and Albo should not waste $320 million promoting a Yes vote. As that isn't the case, the details should be released. What does the expert have to say about that?
Seriously lady: u need your head examined
Hard disagree with the professor on this
Cover up from the start - how dodgy.
She's entitled to her opinion. As are the millions of Australians who consider it normal to properly understand a proposal before deciding to support it or oppose it.
Yes yes... Sign that blank cheque! We promise we'll only fill in the agreed amount!
Then I’m not voting for it.
LOL.....Left Wing Racist yes voting ABC.....cherry picking their experts. No surprises there!
She seems to miss the point that Albo not providing more detail of some sort - whatever that looks like - increases the risk of the NO vote prevailing. So it’s in his interests to do something! (Langton Report is NOT it - too long and Labour haven’t endorsed it yet.)
How can l vote for something l have no details on. Interesting how the ABC finds one Constitutional law who agrees with Albo, to sell the voice vote. VoteNo
What a joke that labour want write a law after the fact Sorry folks th3 hourse has already bolted on the open check
Her reasoning is that 'people will think that that's what they're voting on in the referendum' and that'we have to leave parliament to decide the rest'. All I seek is the parameters in which parliament can decide the legislation to be stated - no blank cheque from me.
Agree. This is the best way to ensure a NO vote.
Twomey is currently on the panel to design and implement the Voice … do you think she may have a slightly partisan view and personal interests on this subject? 🤷🏾♀️ VoteNo NoToApartheid BeBetter
Asking me to vote for constitutional change, without defining exact details... is a good way to get a NO from me.
Why not ?
I too think we shouldn't know the details of the referendum or the consequences of of answering it. It's best to just spend millions and never know what happens. Politician's are our most trustworthy citizens after all.
Fine.. No it is ..
This is is starting to become concerning, we should have the details explained and then we vote
VoteNo to labor’s racist segregation bill
The public aren't the administrators of public policy ,we elect a body to do that ! Which is what the referendum is about !
We wouldn't want to be confused... on something we are expected to support and vote on, of which we know no details.
We always vote no to anything stinking of a parasitical agenda to appropriate more power to the political class and their apparatchiks in the public service. Leave well enough alone else the lion of public ire be roused out of its slumber and spells out justice wth bloody claws!
The old 'Drag Out a Stooge' trick.
Interestingly, the ABC found a law expert who was on a UNSW panel regarding “the crisis in accountability in Australian Government” yet now expects us to trust the politicians., because they know best. voteno VoiceToParliament Referendum2023
giving someone, anyone a voice in Parliament that isn't elected by the people is asking for trouble, if the Government of the day opposes what they say they'll claim racism. Vote NO until such time as we have a clearly defined idea as to what it means and what powers they have
This person is representing the fascistic opinion of a maniacal sociopath with delusions of superiority over the citizens of a whole nation!
Hence, the constitution is not the inappropriate for the voice.
Changing the constitution first then sorting the details out later seems like a bad way run the country and get voters on board.
Well done Dana Morse, at last a journalist not relying on what our politicians say and giving them a platform to manipulate public opinion but actually going to an expert on a subject and getting some credible information.
Constitutional change needs to be fully transparent, so it can be debated openly & fairly. If not i dont see how it can be legitimate.
So release the final version?
And you wonder why nobody trusts our judicial system.
We have our own constitutional law experts and all of them say the Voice is by definition racist and anti democratic. Would you like to interview them about why we should see very precise legislation before we even think of enshrining racism in our constitution?
Who is she?
If you don’t understand how it will work VoteNo.
Sounds reasonable so long as the government can be trusted. Albo's backing for NATO in Ukraine shows he can't be trusted in anything. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
We need to understand the limits of future legislation. For example could the Voice later gain veto power? Dont just hand wave and say 'trust us'
Indigenous Voice should not be allowed. You can thank the activists for this remark!
THE WOMAN IS A LOWLIFE . WHAT ARE THEY HIDING FROM THE PEOPLE
The constitution makes it virtually impossible for a referendum to be successful. Ironic that a govt advocating for something such as the voice would limit information making it harder for the referendum to be successful.
Not sure Aussies will put a tick on a blank sheet of paper. VoteYeahNah
An elitist statement effectively saying that the public are to ignorant to comprehend details.
Vote NO....indigenous are already significantly advantaged over all other Australians....and by and large they're bloody lazy
Makes sense. There must be scope to amend the body over time to keep it relevant to the day. Locking it will make any government of the day hamstrung if changes are required, for whatever reason.
Yikes - big fat No from me
I would like to understand the implications to Australian law as a result of incorporating the Voice in the constitution in relation to future claims for compensation that may be made by some First Nations folk in future.
VoteNo keep the people in the dark. Flexibility? What does that mean? We think we’re saying yes to details in the 260 page report for the legislation to be “flexible” enough to give us something different Not signing a blank contract for used car dealers to fill in later.
What's the alternative?
We didn't need to see legislation before SSM marriage bill, because we already understood what marriage was and that the only thing that would change would be more people having the option to marry. This is not like that.
Rubbish
Non sense absolute rubbish
This is such a strange thing for the professor to say, not to mention she's insinuating that Aussie's are dumb. Hopefully Albo will ignore her. I would be happy if Albo just tells us what the indigenous voice will cost per year?
They need to have an open discussion about the plan before asking people to vote on it. I’m sure lots of people will not feel happy about signing up for something where the details are not spelled out.
'Just sign the legally-binding contract without reading it.'
Well she has just made my reply easy I dont sign a contract not knowing what im signing for so its a big fat NO to the voice this goverment have us marked dumb but we are smarter than the dictator albo.
I will not change my default referendum position until I am convinced otherwise.
If they don't release it then they have something to hide. The people deserve full transparency.
we dont need the leglisation. Thoughbwe need to know how the voice will work. the voters need the reports summarised down to a level that explains the voice, its role, how it is funded, i assume the members on the voice will be paid, do they have funsing for consulatation...
Some of the comments here are so stupid. Exhibits the argument Twomey is making. The legislation is NOT the subject of the referendum, it is the change in the constitution that is. 😱 we live in a society people!!
Any chance the ABC could give a bigger voice to Indigenous people involved in the process?
That won't work
Then we can’t be expected to vote
'If you start putting out a detail with the bill, et cetera, people will think that that's what they're voting on in the referendum.' So WHAT TF are we voting on? The vibe? VoteNo
Vote No and the details won’t matter.
So how about we vote on the referendum and then if it passes the government writes up the legislation then leaves it till after the next election so people have had the chance to vote on it. So far all we have voted on is holding a referendum. Sounds fair.
Hard to believe she is being so disingenuous. She know people aren't expecting the wording of the legislation but a detailed proposal. Lot of Voice Yes ppl quoting her which makes me suspicious. 'Anne Twomey said it' is not an argument.
There's details and there's DETAILS. Before every election parties release details and costing of their policies. Not the legislation but detail so they can't be accuesed of not being honest. Not with The Voice though. 'Will Hold A Referendum' was the extent of their policy.
VoteNo to racism in our constitution
Hrmmm...it's almost like the ABC has a view on The Voice
So,let me get this straight. 'No detail, because people will think that's what they're voting for' So, we'll get them to vote yes, with no detail. What could possibly go wrong, Professor?
auspol
What are you hiding?
so we should be voting a blank check Crazy It is about a parallel parliament without being transparent
What exactly are the No camp afraid of? I think their so-called arguments are 🐂💩 and they should be honest about why they have already decided to vote No.
Then she is no constitutional expert and she should be barred from holding any governmental position, period. 'If you start putting out a detail with the bill, et cetera, people will think that that's what they're voting on in the referendum. -Um yeah? That's the Fing point!
Who on earth would sign a blank document and let someone else fill in the details later. I'm voting no to the dishonest voice.
Most of those who say they want more detail have already decided to vote No regardless.
I didn't expect a compelling argument for voting 'No' from TheirABC. What's next? Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies… Rivers and seas boiling… Dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
You can’t make this stuff up 😂😂😂
Say what? Details of a referendum issue should not be released to the public?! THAT alone is reason enough to ignore it.
She’s so ugly I’m afraid to read the story.
I once had a Dr tell me that I should let her be the Dr when I asked about the drug she'd prescribed. Guess what I don't see that Dr anymore. This is a stupid stance to have.
Releasing the details would lead to a 'NO'.
Did you look for a constitutional law expert that thinks we should know more detail about the proposal?
'Trust Us' ... oh and remember you voted for reparations.
I got a car for sale. Deposit 20k into my account and I will ship it to you. I like this new way of selling stuff :-)
What utter rot
Oh ok. Knowing too much of the details is confusing is it? Ok…
Of course! Disgusting behaviour, but should ensure the success of the no vote as it’s now unconscionable to vote yes.
Do she also think you should leave your doors unlocked with a note where to find the most valuable items are ?
Very misleading headline
The constitution is a rule book for governing. It serves all Australians equally. Singling out any group, no matter how well meaning, is repugnant. We have the same voice to parliament… one vote, one value. With the details hidden until after the vote, you’d be nuts to vote yes.
Total non issue. It's just framed as being secretive.
'Professor Twomey says doing so would confuse voters and limit flexibility' - Umm what?
Every single person in the country unless First Nations needs to hand over all property and possessions and then get on a plane and get the f out of Australia. This is the only answer
Totally absurd.
No trust without transparency... VoteNo
'Our democracy' is owned by those that despise your ability to discern what is best for you and your family and neighborhood.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: FinancialReview - 🏆 2. / 90 Read more »