Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "PM 'confident' Australians will show 'generosity' and support an Indigenous Voice to Parliament" video.

  1. You forgot a foreign born family and some kid named George who will be our head of state one day.
    3
  2. Who said anything about race. You have raised race, why? This is about constitutional recognition for the legally recognised original owners of our land
    2
  3. Individuals elected to a seat in parliament represent their electorate not any specific cultural group within such. Why mention race? Do you see race as an issue? Constitutional recognition is about equality for a cultural group very specifically left out of the original document.
    2
  4. No special rights at all. Just constitutional recognition which was denied when first written.
    2
  5. Constitutional recognition is not dividing it is providing equity. The indigenous population were not included in the original 1901 constitution.
    1
  6. Hello there self
    1
  7. Why? Why was a constitution written in the late 19th century CE that was very specific in leaving out the indigenous population not divisive?
    1
  8. You misunderstand constitutional recognition.
    1
  9.  @raecarver2382  Have you read the 500 page document outlining the detail. Clearly your answer is No I wish to remain as ignorant as possible.
    1
  10.  @johnstewart3846  Nice try, but fail. Constitutional recognition removes the racism inherent in our constitution. Did you study any Australian history at school?
    1
  11.  @SolracNexus  constitutional recognition is not special treatment it is equal treatment as the indigenous population was ignored and unable to contribute to the forming of it 130 years ago.
    1
  12. A nations constitution is its heart. If it is flawed which it is, as it very specifically denied the indigenous population a say, it needs to be fixed.
    1
  13.  @dustintacohands1107  We are already divided by a racist constitution. The amendments will remove that inherent racism.
    1
  14.  @dustintacohands1107  I can be more or as specific as you want.
    1
  15.  @ayianaarthur2551  complete nonsense without a shred of evidence and with all the legal opinion against you. Constitutional recognition merely acknowledges the original owners of the land and provides a voice to parliament that is not binding.
    1
  16.  @dustintacohands1107  When our constitution was written is expressly denied indigenous people a voice as it deemed them non citizens and denied them a vote. They were also denied a vote and any input into federation. Upon Federation the Parliament enacted legislation to make Australia all white only, and immediately restricted immigration to white Europeans only. So racist was Australia at that time that indigenous soldiers who fought in the Boer War were denied entry back into the country in 1901 despite being born here. I mean do you know anything of our history?
    1
  17.  @dustintacohands1107  Having little knowledge of our constitution and history you now mischaracterise a voice as a seat. The voice will have no veto power or legislative ability. There is nothing divisive about it. This is just a right wing talking point you heard and it’s just being repeated and has no basis in fact.
    1
  18. Except they are not. The indigenous people of this country were deliberately excluded from our constitution when it was written. Time to fix it and actually make it equal.
    1
  19. It appears a little history lesson is required. When the Australian constitution was written section 51(xxvi) and section 127 were explicitly racist and the legal opinion at the time was "aboriginal natives and half castes were not to be counted as Australians in any census. This issue was partly fixed by the 1967 referendum, but not entirely. What is required is constitutional recognition of the original inhabitants to the legal right of ownership of the land. Again partly fixed by the Mabo and Wik decisions by the HighCourt. With just a mildly inquisitive brain and sample reading of Hansard from the early years of Parliament reveals racist language used by our then political leaders. The indigenous population were not consulted or involved in anyway in Federation and specifically made none citizens. Time to fix that injustice.
    1
  20.  @lifelongmotorcycling  I gave exact references to the racist components of our original constitution and you just glibly ignored them and then create a strawman about property rights, which has already been dealt with by the Mabo and Wik high court decisions, it is as if you are being deliberately obtuse.
    1
  21.  @mtscott  If you had of read and understood my second comment all your questions were answered there. You just didn't like the answer.
    1