A coalition of Tasmanian legal experts, including two former state solicitor-generals and former Tasmanian governor Kate Warner, have sought to clarify misrepresentations over the legislative power a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament would yield. The nine legal experts on Wednesday released an open letter in an effort to clarify inaccuracies that have been raised over the course of the referendum campaign on whether or not an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament should be included in the Australian Constitution. The letter stated parliament would determine the powers of the Voice through the ordinary legislative process and the Voice would not cover all areas of government activity. READ MORE: Trails set out to provide wild west showcase They said the government at the time and parliament would not be legally required to act on any representation from the Voice if the referendum was to pass. "As with other provisions of the Constitution, the proposed amendment is simply worded and does not seek to define the powers, structures and composition of the Voice," the letter said. "As with at least 80 other provisions in the Constitution, such details are left to be determined by the democratically elected Australian Parliament." READ MORE: New polling shows Tasmania only state leaning towards YES Former Tasmanian solicitor-general Leigh Sealy said he and the others were compelled to write the letter after they became aware of a document hitting Tasmanian mailboxes which listed 10 reasons to vote 'no' in the referendum. He said the document had been endorsed by five Tasmanian federal parliamentarians. "We were concerned because the document appeared to us to contain a number of legal errors and some other contentions which I suppose are matters of opinion," Mr Sealy said. READ MORE: Alleged cult leader pushed woman and baby down stairs, court hears "We felt compelled to correct it on the basis that it's not possible for people to make rational decisions about this matter unless they've got accurate information." Former law dean Tim McCormack said one of the points raised in the document was that the Voice was legally risky and that the High Court would determine the content of the Voice. "Ultimately, we think that's disingenuous, especially for members of the federal parliament to say, because what will happen is the High Court may be asked to determine whether any legislation to give effect to the voice is constitutionally valid," he said. "The parliament itself, including both houses of parliament that these people who've co-signed the letter represent, will be responsible for the legislation about the content of the Voice - the structure, process composition of this particular entity." Mr Sealy said any perception of a legal risk from the Voice would come, if at all, when legislation was made by parliament. He said then it may be challenged in the High Court. "But that happens all the time," Mr Sealy said. "The High Court hears anywhere between half a dozen and 15 constitutional cases every year." Liberal senator Jonathon Duniam said everyone was entitled to their opinions on the Voice proposal and he respected those of Kate Warner and others "Just like I respect the opinion of other lawyers, like former High Court Justice Ian Callinan, who has stated that the powers of the Voice to Parliament would be up to the High Court to decide, and that the Voices scope could extend to almost everything," he said. Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:
