Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "The Voice is a step ‘well beyond’ what is appropriate: Angus Taylor" video.

@dfor50 Nope it is as clear as a bell. "May make representations to government and the the executive". Look up the meaning of representation in any dictionary you like. There is no ambiguity at all other than that being peddled mischievously in an attempt to create doubt.
2
@dfor50 So what you have described is normal parliamentary business. Cabinet decisions on policy don't necessarily mean legislative change, and let's count on how many times government legislation has been stopped or amended by the Senate. It is just normal business as usual.
2
So firstly a voice gives no special or extra rights. Unless you have a constitutional lawyer who says so as Anne Twomey this country’s foremost expert on our constitution says it doesn’t. Secondly who mentioned race or skin colour other than you. A voice recognises the original inhabitants of Australia in our constitution, not a race of people. We are all the same species, Homo sapiens.
1
What accountability do you what from an advisory body. It advises the government either adopts the idea or doesn’t. If the idea works all good, if it doesn’t, we learn from the mistake and adjust.
1
@monteforae8077 Your $33.4 billion figure has been throughly debunked and was from a 2014 productivity commission report that proportionally divided all federal expenditure to the indigenous population. So that 33.4 billion included, defence spending, industry assistance and subsidies, money spent on roads, schools, and hospitals. The fact you have used it as a recent review displays to me how utterly little knowledge you have of the issue. The actual current figure is $4.2 billion allocated to the NIAA which is 0.6% of the federal budget significantly less than the 3% of the population indigenous are. All you have done is copy a false trope without doing your own research. Quite embarrassing on your part.
1
@buildmotosykletist1987 Nope factually wrong again. The operation of the voice will be guided by legislation put before and voted by the parliament this can be changed at anytime. This particular provision is explicit in the wording of the constitutional amendment and is common public knowledge.
1
@buildmotosykletist1987 So you are playing a black and white fallacy argument here. Yes an advisory body can work either way, however by enshrining ir in the constitution you kill two birds with one stone by acknowledging indigenous people in the constitution (which the overwhelming legal opinion is they currently are not) and providing an advisory body which is what the indigenous community asked for via the Uluru statement. I mean this is again all common public knowledge and I'm surprised it needs explaining. I personally don't understand why anyone would have an objection to recognition and an advisory body, that has no veto, no legislative capability, and no financial delegation. It is completely harmless.
1
@monteforae8077 How is it a blank cheque?
1
@monteforae8077 I understand you are terrified of indigenous recognition, just explain why? Just being scared shitless is not an argument it is just being a snowflake.
1
@buildmotosykletist1987 That is certainly a workable solution however the indigenous community have asked for recognition in a meaningful way something they feel is important. A constitutionally enshrined voice does that. It provides a certain veritas that a legislated body can't. Why are you so terrified of a constitutionally enshrined voice?
1
@monteforae8077 I can't take any of your data seriously after your comically inept first attempt. Sorry other far more sensible people to discuss with.
1
@dfor50 No factually incorrect. Any voice input into legislation is advisory only and not compulsory. This is the explicit wording of the constitutional amendment. Legislation is created amended and dissolved in federal parliament on a regular basis, once again you are factually incorrect.
1
@ch33psk8 After your first comically inept attempt to quote data I can’t take seriously any funding data you present. You have some agenda that you are pushing mischievously with false data. I don’t know if you are doing the knowingly or whether it is stupidity. Sorry, far more sensible people to discuss the voice with.
1
@dfor50 So all your argument is is one of ignorance, and an attempt to sow fear. It’s a good tactic stick to it, it is very effective.
1