Paul Kildea (@paulkildea) header
Paul Kildea (@paulkildea) profile picture

Paul Kildea

@paulkildea

Associate Professor @UNSWLaw @gtcentre. Public law, elections & referendums.

 Sydney, Australia
law.unsw.edu.au/profile/paul-kildea
Joined May 2009
  • Tweets800
  • Following804
  • Followers773
29Media
Photo by Paul Kildea (@paulkildea)Photo by Paul Kildea (@paulkildea)Photo by Paul Kildea (@paulkildea)Photo by Paul Kildea (@paulkildea)Photo by Paul Kildea (@paulkildea)Photo by Paul Kildea (@paulkildea)Photo by Paul Kildea (@paulkildea)Photo by Paul Kildea (@paulkildea)Photo by Paul Kildea (@paulkildea)Photo by Paul Kildea (@paulkildea)
Just out in in @sydneylawreview, I write about the 56 referendums run by Australia’s states and two mainland territories. It’s an area that has long been neglected. The article takes a detailed look at how they have been used and regulated since 1901. sydney.edu.au/content/dam/co…
4
14
3
72
Really enjoyed this chat with @benraue and @DrDreHistorian about all things referendums. It's the first in a series, with other topics and guests to come.
The Tally Room (@thetallyroom) profile pictureThe Tally Room@thetallyroom8 Sep 2023
Today’s podcast is with @paulkildea and @DrDreHistorian about the history of Australian referendums. Check it out! tallyroom.com.au/53442
Podcast #102: A history of Australian referendums

Podcast #102: A history of Australian referendums

Ben is joined by Paul Kildea and Andre Brett to discuss the history of Australian referendums. We discuss the historical origins of referendums at both the state and federal level, the dynamics of …

tallyroom.com.au
5
8
2,771
Is the Voice a race-based proposal? No. @justine_nolan explains why in this great thread.
VoiceReferendumQ&A (@referendumQandA) profile pictureVoiceReferendumQ&A@referendumQandA15 Jun 2023
Shadow Attorney-General Michaela Cash argues the Voice will give rights to Indigenous peoples in a manner that would normally breach Australia's discrimination laws b/c it is based on race. Prof Nolan explains the Voice is not based on race & will not amount to discrimination 1/
Image from VoiceReferendumQ&A (@referendumQandA)
1
5
657
More Friday facts on the #Voice. Here @Gabrielle_J_A explains why the 'Canberra Voice' slogan gets it wrong. In reality the proposal is for a broadly representative body with members chosen in line with the wishes of local Indigenous communities.
VoiceReferendumQ&A (@referendumQandA) profile pictureVoiceReferendumQ&A@referendumQandA8 Jun 2023
Opposition MPs have called the Voice a ‘Canberra Voice’, implying it would be unrepresentative of regional & remote communities. Prof Appleby explains that this misrepresents the proposal, which is for a Voice chosen by, representative of & accountable to Indigenous people 1/
Image from VoiceReferendumQ&A (@referendumQandA)
3
260
Prominent No campaigner Warren Mundine claims that the Voice is not needed, because Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander people already have voices. Prof Appleby explains that there is currently no individual or organisation that will perform the functions of the proposed Voice 1/
Image from VoiceReferendumQ&A (@referendumQandA)
4
15
6
26
5,775
Great to see an account devoted to Voice FAQ! Part of getting reliable facts is knowing where they come from - can I ask who is posting to this account and what are your affiliations?
Voice FAQs (@TheVoiceFAQs) profile pictureVoice FAQs@TheVoiceFAQs31 May 2023
A community account posting FAQs on the upcoming Voice referendum. We hope our Qs will be answered to assist those who are unsure while also stimulating meaningful debate on an important issue. You can read the proposed constitutional amendment here: voice.gov.au/referendum-2023…
1
1
4
1,476
Great thread by Lucas Lixinski @IntHeritageLaw. #Voice proposal is not based on race, but on "the internationally recognised right of self-determination of Indigenous peoples"
VoiceReferendumQ&A (@referendumQandA) profile pictureVoiceReferendumQ&A@referendumQandA29 May 2023
Last week, Peter Dutton claimed that the Voice would “re-racialise” the Constitution. Today Prof Lixinski explains that this misunderstands the nature of the reform, which is not based on race. Tomorrow Prof Appleby will address the current place of race in the Constitution 1/
3
6
660
Get some Friday facts on the Voice referendum. Here I explain why Scott Morrison's claim that there are "no limits" to what the Voice will speak on is incorrect.
VoiceReferendumQ&A (@referendumQandA) profile pictureVoiceReferendumQ&A@referendumQandA25 May 2023
Scott Morrison has claimed there will be “confusion and uncertainty” because there are “no limits” on the ambit of what the Voice will be able to speak on. A/Prof Paul Kildea explains why this is incorrect 1/
2
6
9
2,268
Our first post is up - here @Gabrielle_J_A responds to claims that the reference to the Executive in the proposed wording is 'risky'. In a nutshell: the vast majority of expert legal opinion says it isn't.
VoiceReferendumQ&A (@referendumQandA) profile pictureVoiceReferendumQ&A@referendumQandA24 May 2023
There are claims that proposed s 129(ii) & its reference to the Exec are constitutionally “risky” as a Court may imply an enforceable obligation on Govt to take into account the Voice’s views. Prof Appleby explains this is inconsistent with the vast majority of legal opinion 1/
2
203
Excited to be part of this new #voicereferendum initiative with colleagues from @UNSWLaw. We'll be responding to questions & addressing common misconceptions.
VoiceReferendumQ&A (@referendumQandA) profile pictureVoiceReferendumQ&A@referendumQandA24 May 2023
Launching today @referendumQandA provides the views of 5 experts (public law, parliamentary & government practice, electoral law, referendums, human rights & Indigenous rights) on issues arising in public debate about the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Voice & referendum 1/
150
The word 'Canberra' is a mainstay of NO campaign slogans. From past referendum pamphlets: ☒ Say NO to Canberra Control. [1974 Local Gov] ☒ No More Power to Canberra: Vote No. [1977] ☒ No More Power to Canberra: Vote No. [1984 Senators Terms] 1/2
3
13
2
30
10,068
'Canberra' especially villainous in 1988 pamphlet: ☒ Tell Canberra NO. ☒ Don’t Be Deceived By Canberra [Parl Terms] ☒ No More Power to Canberra. Vote No. [PT] ☒ Don’t Let Canberra Run Your State. [Fair Elections] ☒ Stop Canberra’s Power Grab. [Local Government]
2
5
1
15
2,172
It has been claimed the voice will enable Indigenous Australians to change any decision made by parliament by taking matters to the High Court. This is highly misleading. Experts @ProfGWilliams, @Gabrielle_J_A and Anne Twomey are in agreement. #AusPol aap.com.au/factcheck/high-co…

High Court claim misleads on power of the voice

Opponents of the proposed Indigenous voice to parliament say it will lead to High Court challenges to change laws.

aap.com.au
1
23
42
4,817
Legislation is an unsatisfactory way to institute a Voice to Parliament. Among other reasons, writes constitutional law expert @paulkildea (@UNSW), it would make the body insecure and vulnerable to the whims of different governments. #auspol bit.ly/3onjLWZ
Why can’t we just establish the Voice to Parliament through legislation? A constitutional law...

Why can’t we just establish the Voice to Parliament through legislation? A constitutional law...

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.

theconversation.com
2
10
1
14
4,806
"Don't Know? Find Out." This is a pretty good place to start. theconversation.com/your-que… via @ConversationEDU
Your questions answered on the Voice to Parliament

Your questions answered on the Voice to Parliament

We asked readers what they would like to know about the Voice to Parliament. We’re asking our experts, and will post their responses here.

theconversation.com
1
124
Lots of good reading here, including observation that this referendum is probably the first to combine “universal second-tier support and a lack of federal bipartisanship” insidestory.org.au/peter-dut…
Peter Dutton’s no-pay-off gamble • Peter Brent

Peter Dutton’s no-pay-off gamble • Peter Brent

Neither result in the Voice referendum will benefit the opposition leader

insidestory.org.au
2
352
Coming up on #Auswide 🌀@michlstan says #CycloneIlsa expected to cross land at category 5 this evening 🎙️It's been 24 years since Australia's last referendum in 1999. Are we out of practice? @paulkildea on campaign funding, endorsements, ads, blackout periods and pamphlets
Image from Sinéad Mangan (@SineadRMangan)
2
2
768
Disappointed in The Oz today Albrechtson again misleadingly using my scholarship on Voice as part of a scare campaign. @RonWLevy & I have already replied to this before. I hope people will take the time to read us explain how the Voice offers promise for our democratic system 🧵
25
194
27
526
85,832
It appears that the Opposition is now asking for *less* detail on the Voice… “The Liberal frontbencher [Julian Leeser] said the referendum would have a greater chance of success if the second clause of the proposed amendment was deleted.” smh.com.au/politics/federal/…
Growing chorus of Liberals want conscience vote on Voice referendum

Growing chorus of Liberals want conscience vote on Voice referendum

The Coalition’s Indigenous Affairs spokesman said the idea of a referendum this year was an “artificial timetable” and the nation should revert to a slower approach.

smh.com.au
1
4
513
Today I wrote about the referendum machinery bill: - Bipartisan consensus on bill is great news - Sadly we're stuck w/ flawed pamphlet & weak $ disclosure rules - Neutral civics campaign is welcome if run well theconversation.com/the-refe… via @ConversationEDU
The referendum rules have been decided. What does this mean for the Voice?

The referendum rules have been decided. What does this mean for the Voice?

The bill that has passed through the Senate provides for a robust referendum, although there is still room for improvement.

theconversation.com
1
1
4
2,614
Load more