Voice to Parliament: Constitutional law expert Greg Craven slams Anthony Albanese

A constitutional law expert has criticized Anthony Albanese’s Voice before parliament as a “ruthless, fatally flawed scam”.

On Thursday, the Prime Minister finally unveiled the details of the referendum and the question Australians will vote on.

Mr Albanese was on the verge of tears on at least five occasions when he announced the question, emotionally calling on Australians to “do this”.

However, Professor Greg Craven, a constitutional lawyer who was one of the experts behind the original proposal for an Indigenous Voice, has criticized Mr Albanese’s proposal as a “scam”.

He said: ‘I think it’s fatally flawed because what it does is withhold the full range of executive action review.

“This means that Voice can comment on everything from submarines to parking tickets.

“We will have periodic judicial interventions,” he warned.

speaking to Ben Fordham on 2GBProfessor Craven explained how the Voice had been ‘colonized’ by ‘left-leaning ideologues’.

“Originally it was a conservative proposal,” he said. ‘It was really designed to recognize indigenous peoples without risking judicial activism.

“Over the last year, it has really been colonized by left-leaning ideologues from this community, trying to convert it from a model that was not run by judges, to one that absolutely guarantees judicial intervention.

‘The reality is that there will be a situation where anyone who wants to create difficulties for a government over their decisions now may end up going to the High Court.

“It will be very, very difficult for the government to operate, either because it will be constantly behind schedule and tied up in knots, or because the courts will end up directly intervening in decisions.”

Opinion polls have indicated Australians are sharply divided on whether to support the referendum, and Professor Craven believes a ‘No’ vote is inevitable.

writing on the aussie, said: ‘It’s a ruthless scam. It is directed at the Australian people as a whole and at the adoring media barely literate in constitutional reality.

It puts the last bullet in the head of the referendum. The polls already show a sick referendum. It is now terminal.

The professor also warned that the inclusion of ‘preliminary principles’ was another source of alarm, as it could lead Australians to vote in the referendum without knowing specifically in which areas the Voice might apply.

“The idea is that instead of actual details or architecture for the referendum, we are supposed to be reassured by maternity statements so vague they mean nothing,” Professor Craven wrote.

‘Look at the principles enunciated by Albanese: the voice will be proactive, representative, elected by local communities, transparent and cooperative.

‘What the hell does this really mean? It could cover any Commonwealth body, from the Australian Defense Force to the ABC.

Speaking to ABC, he added: “I’m not very frustrated, I’m incredibly frustrated.” I think the government has made multiple process errors here, one of which is a complete lack of clarity.

“So this alteration was designed in a black box, we don’t know who designed it, now it’s been reviewed in a black box, there has been no attempt to engage broader opinion.

“And I think the total disaster is that we already have a referendum that is heading south in the polls, even before this, it was describing the typical arc of a losing referendum.

“Now, with this, I think, first of all, you will have a bad proposal and that will be even worse for the referendum.

“But the most powerful argument, surely for the ‘no’ side, will be: ‘Even your own Attorney General and your own Solicitor General said that this proposal should not advance the words of the executive government, and now you are trying to sell us that. “. I mean, if the ‘no’ case needed another argument, it has a real wonder.

His words come after Attorney General Mark Dreyfus warned of significant consequences for the future of reconciliation should the Indigenous Voice referendum fail in parliament.

Dreyfus said a ‘no’ vote would lead to long periods of inaction on reform.

‘It would be a long time before we returned to any question of recognition. I think it would be a tremendous setback for relations with our Original Peoples,’ he told ABC Radio on Friday.

“I am focused on success because the consequences of failure would be dire.”

A new section would be placed in the constitution, recognizing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as ‘Australia’s First Peoples’.

The proposed question to voters is: ‘A Proposed Act: amend the constitution to recognize the First Peoples of Australia through the establishment of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voice. Do you approve of this proposed amendment?

The laws establishing the referendum will be submitted to parliament next week, with voting taking place between October and December.

The Liberals have yet to outline their position on whether to support the voice, but opposition leader Peter Dutton has urged the government to publish legal advice put forward by the attorney general.

Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney said there was nothing to fear from the referendum and urged coalition support.

“The liberals are looking for excuses, and I think they’ve almost run out of excuses,” he told ABC Radio.

“My real hope is that (Dutton) provides bipartisan support in the way that he did this week on the machinery bill…if there is no bipartisan support, that would be unfortunate, but it won’t stop the referendum.”

Prominent ‘no’ advocate Warren Mundine said the prime minister’s announcement of the question had not allayed his concerns about the proposal.

‘It’s like being asked ‘do you want cake with your coffee?’ We like to know what’s on the cake before we say yes,” she told ABC TV.

“It’s not going to change one iota of anything in the field of Aboriginal people.”