Victorian Bar Accused of Interfering with Democratic Process Ahead of Voice Referendum

Supreme Court of Victoria building in Melbourne, Australia, on April 18, 2012 Wikimedia Commons

Victorian lawyers who have concerns with the Victorian Bar’s vote to have a position on the upcoming Indigenous Voice referendum say the process interferes with the democratic process.

This follows concerns from a Victorian barrister who has said that lawyers who publicly oppose the Voice risk damaging their careers.

The Victorian Bar’s 2200 members will vote on whether the legal association will have a position on the Voice from May 31, with members having three motion options: for the Bar not to publicly take a position, support a “yes” vote, or abstain from voting. Voting opens online at 9 a.m. on May 31, and closes at 4 p.m. on June 4.

The results will be revealed on June 9.

Meanwhile, a seminar run by lawyers who back The Voice referendum will be held two days before online voting opens for Bar members.

The seminar is moderated by Timothy Goodwin, co-chair of the Indigenous Justice Committee, and Dan Star KC.

Other speakers at the event include constitutional lawyer Cheryl Saunders, a member of Anthony Albanese’s referendum working group, and the University of Melbourne’s Associate Dean of Indigenous Programs, Eddie Cubillo.

Seminar an Unacceptable Interference

Lana Collaris, who proposes for the Bar to remain silent on The Voice referendum, said the seminar is “an unacceptable interference with the democratic process,” reported The Australian.

“The Bar is giving the Yes campaigners an unfair advantage by providing them with Bar resources to hold a seminar that is nothing more than an advertising campaign for the Yes motion,” Collaris said.

“As proposer of the motion, that the Bar say nothing on the voice and remain independent, I have not been extended any invitation to use the Bar’s resources in this way. I will be lodging a formal complaint with the president.”

In a statement to The Epoch Times, a spokesperson for the Victorian Bar Association said that apart from the three possible listed voting choices, the Bar Council said it “did not receive a notice containing a motion that the Bar take a public position against The Voice, therefore such a question is not part of the poll.”

Additionally, in reference to the seminar on The Voice, the Victorian Bar said the purpose of the course is to “educate Victorian Bar members on the proposed amendments to the Constitution.”

“[A]s they relate to matters of constitutional law, equality before the law, access to justice, and complex administrative law issues. It was scheduled well before any proposals for special general meetings (which led to the members poll) had been made to the Victorian Bar Council on this matter,” the spokesperson said.

However, the Victorian Bar did not provide a response to the question posed by The Epoch Times as to whether the course, which is run predominantly by Yes campaigners, would interfere with the democratic process.

The Victorian Law Institute has backed the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, including the NSW Bar. Meanwhile, the Queensland Bar has said it will not take a position on The Voice referendum.

Lawyers Risking Careers if They Oppose the Voice, Former Bar Council Member Says

Former Victorian Bar Council member Lana Collaris said those who oppose The Voice are reluctant to do so because they “perceive a risk to their career.”

Collaris told Sky News that while gathering signatures for the motion calling for a special general meeting for all 2,200 members to vote on the issue, very junior members to senior members who supported the motion did not want to publicly put their names to it.

“Starting from the junior ranks, people who are developing their practices, up to senior juniors who want to apply for silk—they perceive that they might be risking that. So they want to stay quiet,” she said.

Collaris added that publicly supporting The Voice may be outside the Victorian Bar Council’s powers, as its constitution prohibits its members from exercising their power for political purposes.

“I’ve examined the bar’s constitution, and I’ve formed the view that the bar does not have that power, and I’ve put the bar councillors on notice about that, setting out my reasons and particular clauses of the constitution,” she said.

Collaris said that a line is crossed when barristers use their position as bar council members to present their personal views as those that represent the entire council.

“The reason why I’m speaking out about this is because I feel very passionate about our bar, and I want to protect its independence and its integrity, and I think that if the bar comes out and supports any political position that undermines that integrity,” she said.

Later this year, Australians will vote on whether to alter their Constitution to include a near-permanent Indigenous advisory body.

The 24 members of this body will be voted for by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders throughout the country and will have the power to make “representations” to the Parliament, the executive, and the wider public service.