Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Voice ballot paper 'misleadingly' emphasises recognition, 'hides detail' of bill's purpose" video.

I’m astounded why any normal person would what to vote No to the voice.
2
@suepaterson8948 I haven’t heard a single legitimate reason to vote no, but please attempt to provide one.
1
@netwarrior1000 So a couple of points there. An advisory body is not political representation so you are factually wrong on that concern. There are already multiple advisory bodies to government. The productivity commission, the solicitor general, the Chief of the ADF, an ingenious body would be no different. I have no idea why you would raise the issue of an individual that is just a non sequitur and is fallacious nonsense. Lastly a Treaty literally has nothing to do with whether a yes or no vote gets up. A treaty can be negotiated separately by any government at any time, does not require a referendum and requires nothing more than parliamentary approval. It is a non sequitur as well, completely irrelevant to the discussion.
1
@mrman1536 Could you be more specific than just “better” a voice does not make anyone “better” it just recognises indigenous people as the original custodians and provides an advisory body to the parliament and government, of which there are many.
1
@suepaterson8948 I have read extensively on the subject. Emjois and yelling achieves what?
1
@tadstertrolley7770 1. According to the Solicitor General the wording is clear and specific. You are factually wrong. 2. Cite or reference a specific lie otherwise this is dismissed as a non sequitur. 3. Yes it is. However it was designed to be amended as required. Our constitution as originally written was explicitly racist. Do you wish it to remain as such? 4. Reparations and compensation as you correctly point out are mentioned in the attached document as these were items that were discussed by individuals and rejected from the signed statement. You misunderstand the attached documents as I doubt you have read them. Secondly and Reparations or compensation can take place without any need for constitutional recognition. Indigenous people have already received millions of dollars in compensation for state governments for illegally garnering wages. You are factually wrong on this point. 5. Compensation has already been paid and is continuing to be paid, your point on this is a non sequitur and dismissed as nonsensical.
1
Just a general fact check here for those arguing about compensation payments, the Queensland government has already agreed to pay $190 million for illegally garnering wages of indigenous workers. Other class actions are before various state governments. Your claim of compensation payments is just factually wrong. It is already happening. A voice is not required for this to happen.
1
@mrman1536 There is literally no evidence whatsoever of your claim. All the archaeological and DNA evidence is to the contrary.
1