Thread by @chrisrudge

#thevoice A recent former Chief Justice of the High Court (and technicality mastermind) co-authors an article with Emiritus Prof of constitutional law. As you'd hope and expect, they run through the amendment's language in a methodical manner. It also answers two important qs.

Why put it in the Constitution when we already have a race power? There's a three part answer. I'd also add a fourth: namely, that the race power has discriinatory origins. It is unconscionable to use it, in my view. The second question they answer is about detail. The answer ...

... is great. It is to the effect that there would be no real point, because it will be a matter for parliament to felsh out the detail anyway: 'the most that government can sensibly do is to indicate in broad terms the model it favours.' The authors also...

... make the point that, even if the government expressed an intention to embrace and adopt the co-design model already set out by Langton and Calma, that would have no constitutional legal effect. the article is extremely powerful and, if the referendum is not successful, ...

... I think yes voters will look back at this kind of explanation and reassurance and wonder what we were thinking. Lastly: What's at the heart of the the apparent fear of litigation? Why do people fear the application of law? We're lucky in Aus to have a robust judicature.

The article: afr.com/politics/feder…

*Emeritus, etc. Spelling/me on Twitter = 🥴

A perusal of the Hon French's Wikipedia biography will turn up some great insights. Before law, he ran as a Liberal candidate but lost to Kim Beazely. Humbling, he suggested. On appointment to the CJ of the High Court, he said the following on Indigenous people:

The entry also includes a long quotation in which the former Chief Judge concedes falling into error as Pres of the Native Title Tribunal when not registering certain land. Perhaps example of what Carol Dweck called a 'growth mindset.' Qte fr [9] here: www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdo…