Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Dodson highlights importance of establishing a Voice to Parliament for Indigenous People" video.

You are confusing constitutional recognition with legislation. Once constitutionally recognised the operation of the voice will be decided by parliament and legislation. The legislation can be suited to whichever flavour of politics. The High court of course could intervene in legal disputes as it doses on other constitutional matters and any issues could again be resolved by further legislation, exactly how our parliament has worked for 123 years. What is the big deal? There is nothing to be frightened of. This is how a mature democracy works. I still haven’t heard a sensible argument against a “voice”.
1
@johnwoodrow8769 And in your reply you immediately reiterate your complete inability to understand the fundamental difference between political representation and constitutional recognition. You never will. The actual design and functionality of the voice will be legislated, fine tuning of the voice will be done democratically via the parliament. You don't even understand how our parliamentary democracy works and again never will. You are merely trying to spoil in whichever manner you can. You offer nothing constructive at all.
1
@johnwoodrow8769 Not one for originality are you. Accurate comment on your statements are not insults. Sections 25, 51(xxiv), and 127 of our original constitution explicitly made aboriginal natives non citizens and removed them from having any voice in our constitution. You don't even know your own constitution and clearly are unable to understand this. The current constitution is still explicitly racist in section 25. This racist element needs to be removed and the original inhabitants of this land need to be recognised.
1
Thankyou homers7777 for so succinctly putting the case for why the indigenous people of this country need constitutional recognition. Your argument is the best I've heard for a YES vote.
1