There are several reasons why it would not be appropriate for a sitting High Court justice to publicly weigh in on the Voice to Parliament referendum debate:
1. Separation of powers. The High Court is an independent branch of government that interprets and applies the law, including the Constitution. By commenting on a proposed constitutional referendum, a sitting justice risks blurring the separation between the judicial and legislative branches. This could undermine public confidence in the Court's impartiality and independence.
2. Institrituional integrity. The High Court as an institution must remain neutral and impartial on political and policy debates. Comments by a sitting justice could be perceived as the Court taking a partisan stance, damaging its institutional integrity.
3. Appearance of bias. If a sitting justice were to publicly endorse or oppose the Voice proposal, this could create an appearance of bias if the High Court were later required to rule on any legal challenges relating to the referendum or its implementation. This could call into question the fairness and impartiality of any future judgments.
4. Compliance with judicial norms. Custom and convention dictate that sitting justices should generally refrain from participating in political debates. Public comments risk dragging the Court into the political arena, contrary to established judicial norms.
In summary, while retired justices are freer to express their personal views, public comments by a sitting High Court justice on a current political referendum risk undermining the separation of judicial power and the Court's institutional integrity. Such conduct would likely constitute an inappropriate breach of the apolitical and impartial role of the judiciary.