Save articles for later
Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.
Pro-Voice Liberal MP Julian Leeser says a crucial parliamentary inquiry into the referendum must act like the High Court and test the wording of the constitutional amendment in a bid to find a compromise and ensure the vote succeeds.
As the inquiry prepares to hold its first hearings on Friday, NT Country Liberal Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is firming up for a promotion as a shadow assistant minister or special envoy campaigning against the Voice – rather than securing a shadow cabinet position.
The opposition’s spokesman for Indigenous affairs Julian Leeser announced his resignation from the frontbench on Tuesday. Credit: Brook Mitchell
The committee’s hearings set the stage for a legal showdown between Voice proponents who want the body to have a constitutionally enshrined power to advise executive government and those who fear this will bury government decision-making in High Court challenges and risk the success of the referendum.
On Thursday, Dutton spent a second day in Price’s hometown of Alice Springs, where the pair discussed the possibility of her taking an expanded role in campaigning against the Voice.
The Liberal leader needs to fill the shadow Indigenous Australians and shadow attorney-general portfolios vacated by Leeser, who resigned from the frontbench this week in order to campaign for a Yes vote.
NT Country Liberal Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price.Credit: Alex Ellinghausen
Leeser will seek to appear before the committee over the course of its six-week inquiry into the constitutional alteration bill to argue the case for his alternative model, which would delete clause two of the proposed amendment, which empowers the Voice to advise the executive as well as the parliament. He believes this would eliminate concerns about the Voice’s potentially disruptive impact on government and make it easier for more Australians to support the referendum, including Coalition voters, but has said he will vote Yes regardless of whether his model is adopted.
“The committee needs to stand in the shoes of the High Court and test the reasonable arguments that can be made about the words that are proposed to go into the Constitution,” Leeser said in an interview with this masthead.
“Because at the end of the day, lawyers will be briefed by clients to make arguments about what those words mean. It’s important that the committee on behalf of the parliament hears those arguments and tests them the way the court would do.”
The Voice’s ability to advise the executive branch – that is, ministers and the public service – has been furiously opposed by some constitutional conservatives and lawyers on the grounds it would hamstring government decision-making by creating an avenue for High Court litigation if the Voice was not properly consulted.
Constitutional expert Anne Twomey, who will give evidence at Friday’s hearing, said the inquiry was the first time the public could learn about the debate over the wording in public.
Twomey has argued in her submission to the inquiry that the High Court would not draw the implication that the advice of the Voice must be listened to by the government, as feared by some conservatives.
But she said it would be a positive thing if the committee came up with an additional set of words to ameliorate the concerns of conservatives without diminishing the power of the Voice.“We need to be open to that kind of discussion,” she said in an interview.
The committee chair, Labor MP Nita Green, told the ABC some matters related to the draft wording deserved scrutiny but there were other concerns that were “really unnecessary [and] designed to bring [the Voice] down.”
Victorian Liberal MP Keith Wolahan, deputy chair, said its focus must be on identifying constitutional risk in the wording.
“We all have a duty to approach that task in good faith and with an open mind. It may be the last chance to prioritise meaningful compromise,” he said.
Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney said on Wednesday the government would listen to concerns about the amendment, but added that “many constitutional lawyers say that the words that we’ve ended up with are very sound.”
As speculation mounted on Thursday about Price’s possible promotion, five Liberal MPs, who asked not to be named so they could speak freely, told this masthead that she would be a good choice for the post of shadow minister for Indigenous Australians.
But two other MPs said it was more likely that Dutton would promote her to a special envoy or assistant minister’s role because she has been in parliament for less than a year, with a specific brief to campaign against the Voice.
At present, the Nationals have six of 22 posts in the shadow cabinet, which is proportionally more than they are entitled to, and promoting Price would take that number to seven posts and potentially trigger disquiet in the Liberal Party.
Nationals leader David Littleproud warned he would not surrender any frontbench positions to make way for the prominent Voice opponent.
“There will be no change in our shadow cabinet line-up, we are settled. I am more than happy with our shadow cabinet line-up,” he said.
Shadow ministers Michaelia Cash, Paul Fletcher and Michael Sukkar are being discussed as options to take over the shadow attorney-general’s post, while shadow health minister Anne Ruston could take post of Indigenous Australians spokeswoman.
Dutton is expected to take the weekend to consider how to reshuffle his deck and announce the changes no sooner than Monday.
Earlier on Thursday, Price said she and Dutton had discussed her taking on the Indigenous Australians portfolio.
“It certainly has come up in discussion. It can’t not come up in discussion with these current circumstances,” she told Sky News.
Price, Fletcher, Cash, Sukkar, Ruston and Dutton were contacted for comment.
A series of key pro-Voice Indigenous figures will give evidence at the hearing in Canberra, including Professor Marcia Langton, unionist Thomas Mayor and Professor Tom Calma. A group of jurists will appear to give expert legal advice.
They include barrister Louise Clegg, who has raised issues with the current proposed wording, former judges Kenneth Hayne KC and Douglas Drummond, constitutional silk Bret Walker and academic George Williams.
Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis from Jacqueline Maley. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter here.
Most Viewed in Politics
From our partners
Source: Read Full Article
