Yes that is true but what people are forgetting is that if they go against advice etc from the voice, the voice cant change but challenge it in parliament and still be ignored, the law gets passed and then the voice can challenge it latter in the high courts.Originally Posted by ReginaldBubbles
It's the fine print. The high courts can't intervene and influence parliament with a law that's being proposed and passed in parliament as its was passed via a democratic vote in the senate - "the high court will not intervene in the INTERNAL WORKINGS of parliament" which means its cant do anything whilst the change is being proposed during its representation, after its introduced in legislation then it can be challenged in the high court where its states on the yes side of the pamphlet.
The two main points are:
1- high court challenges regarding representations to the parliament which are ignored by the voice in parliament will not have the high court intervene. Ie, discussing the law internally and ignoring the voices advice whilst making it a proposal for legislation
2- high court challenges regarding representations to the executive that ignored the voice or refused its representations may have the high court direct the executive to reread everything relevant to the decision and remake the decision.
Parliament makes the legislation, executive enforces the legislation and the judicial interprets the legislation.
The voices can simply challenge a law after its introduced, passed and then enforced in the high court and change the outcome of the law, but they can do the exact same thing whilst the law is being proposed in parliament and still fail but can't have the high court intervene in that process.
