From a legal standpoint, there is a difference between a state and a territory, and for some that justifies giving territory voters less say over changes to the national constitution.
Academic rigor, journalistic flair
Articles on Australian Constitution
Displaying 1 - 20 of 117 articles
A Voice to Parliament would advise the “executive government” – that is, ministers and the public service – on issues that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
The last time the country voted in a referendum on Indigenous affairs was in 1967. Advocates for the ‘Voice to Parliament’ say it is the best way to remedy a long legacy of failed policies.
Outgoing New Zealand MP Jamie Strange used his valedictory speech to propose a trans-Tasman political union. Wondering how that might work reveals just how different the two countries really are.
Mis- and disinformation about the Voice to Parliament proposal are rife. Here, experts address 10 of the most common myths.
The solicitor-general said the model is compatible with responsible government, and an ‘enhancement’ of the system.
Legislation is an unsatisfactory way to institute a Voice to Parliament because, among other reasons, it would make the body insecure and vulnerable to the whims of different governments.
Voters will justifiably ask why they should vote for a form of recognition opposed by the people who are to be recognised.
In the lead-up to the Voice to parliament referendum, we’re seeing constitutional change is possible. If the Voice is successful, Australia could next consider separating us from the monarchy.
Here’s what the question says, what’s new and what happens next.
A Voice to Parliament will not fix every problem facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. But it is an important step towards moving the nation to truth telling and beyond.
The Voice to Parliament is an advisory body, which means neither parliament nor the government is legally required to give effect to its representations.
The current draft wording is the model most consistent with Australia’s current and historical constitutional practice.
This constitutional reform process may be ‘unorthodox’, but it’s entirely appropriate.
An expert group formed to advise on the Voice to Parliament finds it will not give any group of Australians special rights over any other.
The Albanese government wants to change the way referendums work ahead of the Voice to Parliament vote. There are still flaws, but it is a step in the right direction.
The Yes/No case has long been flawed and the government is right to dispense with it. But it will need to replace it with something else to counter misinformation – and do so with great care.
Some Australians have dismissed a Voice to Parliament as inconsequential. That argument is mistaken.
Legally, there does not need to be anything done in Australia to result in the change from queen to king. That happens automatically.
The High Court found the NSW laws were not unconstitutional – but there is still much room for reform.
Top contributors
-
Professor emerita, University of Sydney
-
Professor, UNSW Law School, UNSW Sydney
-
Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra
-
Dean and Professor of Law, UNSW Sydney
-
UNSW Sydney
-
Associate Professor, Law Faculty, Monash University
-
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney
-
Visiting Professorial Fellow, UNSW Sydney
-
Associate Professor, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland
-
Senior Lecturer in Australian Politics, Monash University
-
Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, and Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt University
-
Senior Lecturer, The University of Western Australia
-
Lecturer in Law, Murdoch University
-
Professor of Law, The University of Queensland
-
Senior Lecturer and Programme Director - Comparative Tribal Constitutionalism Research Programme, The University of Melbourne
