On the Infamous Second Clause of the Voice Referendum Question By James Reed
Opposition Indigenous spokesman Julian Leeser wants Labor to jettison the second clause to the proposed wording of the Voice. The proposed second clause, gives the Voice power to “make representations to the parliament and the executive government of the commonwealth.” The reasons are, that too many crucial question remain unanswered. “First, who can the voice talk to? Which agencies are part of the executive government?” “Second, what can it talk about? What are matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians? What does it mean to make representations? Does it imply or leave room for any reciprocal constitutional obligation on part of the executive?”
These are all good questions, that at present have not been answered, since, as I see it, the voice aims to create an open quiche which will be filled in by the elites who stand behind the referendum, manipulating events. And, if the second clause is rejected, the only purpose must be to engage in woke kowtowing, to supposedly look good for out international neighbours such as communist china. But really, does a nation engaged in an industrial-scale organ harvesting really care?
“Opposition Indigenous spokesman Julian Leeser has pushed Labor to axe the second clause to the proposed wording of the voice, saying that it could lead to the downfall of the voice referendum and give fuel to the no campaign.
Mr Leeser said the proposed second clause, which gives the voice power to “make representations to the parliament and the executive government of the commonwealth”, raised many questions which could ultimately be its undoing.
He said it was “the lead in the saddle bag” of the referendum.
“First, who can the voice talk to? Which agencies are part of the executive government?,” he told the National Press Club.
“Second, what can it talk about? What are matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians? What does it mean to make representations? Does it imply or leave room for any reciprocal constitutional obligation on part of the executive?”
Mr Leeser said the Albanese government had not considered these issues “in any depth in any public forum”.
“It is not enough to see these questions will be addressed in legislation afterwards, you cannot legislate the constitution, and I raise this issue that is not only of a technical level but as a political one as well because this course will be the rallying point for the no campaign,” he said.
“Those who want the referendum to succeed, it puts the broader constitutional question at risk.”
“I think that clause and the symbolic statement at the beginning are those things which provide the greatest risk of judicial interpretation that we haven't properly considered.
“And I think the referendum has a better chance of success without them.”
The radicals will not have a bar of that.
Comments