Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Albanese ‘hamstrung’ over the future of Makarrata treaty" video.

@666dualsport Factually incorrect. The High Court “Mabo” decision established Native title and indigenous ownership of certain lands. It is Australian law you are completely, totally, and utterly wrong. You can’t be more wrong. It is as if you had no understanding whatsoever of recent Australian political history.
3
No factually wrong. Prior to the election Labor policy announced publicly it would institute the Uluṟu statement in full. The government got elected so it has a mandate to do what it promised. Yes you are correct though any government legislated Treaty could be dissolved by any subsequent government. The US government made numerous treaties with various Indian tribes and broke most of them, so nothing unusual there.
3
@ngilgi Correct. The land rights legislation allows indigenous people who can prove in a court of law ownership of claimed lands the right to own those lands. In the case of the Noongar people this was successfully done and they now own land that they established legally has been theirs for thousands of years. What is hard to comprehend about this?
2
@ACDZ123 Yes you are correct, free hold land is not effected by native title. Nobody was talking about freehold land. You may well as commented on the price of fish in your local supermarket for all the relevance it had to this conversation. I’m wearing black underpants at the moment makes about as much sense as you made.
2
@michaelmcclure3383 No treaty and voice are two completely separate things. The government committed to implementing the Uluṟu statement in full. It has failed on the Voice component but nothing is stopping it from legislating a Treaty. Do you understand how our political processes work. I agree a Treaty may not be politically popular and the government may wear the electoral cost of such a decision, but voice and treaty are not linked in that a no to voice means a no to treaty. Australians may be up for a national treaty with Indigenous people. It is happening at state level.
2
@michaelmcclure3383 Yeah fair enough that is a spot on comment, which I do agree with. I do believe though that a negotiated treaty would be possible but yes you are right it would be politically extremely difficult. We just don’t want indigenous people to be given a fair go.
2
Let’s petition the YouTube comments moderator that idiotic comments be removed.
1
@lee8797 Yeah that’s the reason I comment on YouTube to get as many likes as I can. Do you detect a slight mocking tone in my reply?
1
@ACDZ123 Nope the original statement is factually correct. A 20 sec search on the internet shows all you need to know about the south west native title claim. Native title doesn’t extend to certain other types of land ownership. This is where you are mistaken.
1
@rossp3699 No we spend that every three years in a federal election. The previous LNP government wasted $3 billion on a failed submarine project, prior to that the Navy spent $1 billion on a helicopter that never saw a minute of service. Do you really need me to continue on Conservative governments that have wasted money on minority groups. Maybe Bridget McKenzie allocating $36000 of your money to her gun club could be added to the list. The indigenous people of this country asked for conversation. We had it, we rejected them and their request for a voice. Time to move on.
1
@michaelmcclure3383 No you are factually and demonstrably wrong. The date given by the government to drop power bills was 2025. Last time I looked it was only 2023. Your comment is idiotic illogical nonsense of the highest order. Do I think Labor will be able to fulfil this promise, probably not, but our comment is embarrassingly stupid. I’d delete it if I was you.
1
@MrCites1 So your point is just illogical nonsense. The US continent started being colonised from the late 17th century and the US government was negotiating treaties with indigenous Indian tribes in the middle of the 19th century, well over two hundred years between events. Please provide evidence of indigenous Australians being defeated. There is no legal or practical reason why at a federal level a Treaty could not be negotiated. The states are already in this process. You are just factually wrong.
1
@ajcajc5429 Correct we said no to constitutional recognition and a voice. A treaty and truth commission are completely separate issues. We may well say no to both but that up to the Australian people. Labor took to the last election a commitment to enact the request of the Uluṟu statement. There is nothing wrong with attempting to honour that commitment.
1
@mikem9001 No it was Labor party policy before the election. The statement itself is only one page, this is just a fact, you can read it for yourself. It is supported by numerous other documents, so what?
1
@mikem9001 No you are wrong. Labor clearly states in its pre election platform the desire to have a referendum on a voice by May of 2023. Nothing was sprung on the Australian people. You obviously didn’t pay close enough attention, but this does appear to be a trait of the No voter.
1
@mikem9001 Commitment to the Uluṟu statement was clearly stated on the Labor party website prior to the 2022 election. It was not sprung on anybody who can read on Election night.
1
@Gungho1a A full bench decision by the High court can’t be appealed. It is now the permanent law.
1