Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Welcome to Country elites get a ‘welcome to reality’ with Voice defeat" video.

Yes you are correct Australians overwhelmingly rejected indigenous peoples their culture and their history. Why they thought they felt entitled to a fair go is beyond me.
8
What a wonderfully racist comment. Thankyou for displaying the intellect required for a no vote.
2
The simple fact you are unable to recognise yourself the racist implication of connecting alcohol and an indigenous person is clear evidence of your inability to read between the lines.
1
@josephsharp5678 No, dimwitted ignorant racists need to be called out continuously. You are clearly comfortable with racism, and that’s fine just be honest about it.
1
@@trudybarton4150 And your evidence of this claim is? The returns from the remote polling booths in the NT proves beyond a shadow of doubt the overwhelming majority of indigenous people in remote communities in the NT voted Yes. This is straight from the AEC own data.
1
@ianian9078 I don’t know what your point is. I asked for evidence of the majority of indigenous people voting no. I provided evidence of the vast majority of indigenous people in the NT living in remote communities voting Yes. I didn’t say anything about polling in QLD.
1
@ianian9078 Just did some quick research. Some regions in Queensland, where only 31.3% of the state’s population voted yes, showed a similar break away trend for communities with a high Indigenous population. Polling results from Queensland showed on Palm Island, where the population is 93% Indigenous, three in four voted yes. On Mornington Island, where 77% of the population is Indigenous, McCarthy said 79% voted yes. And in Lockhart River, where almost 80% of people are 66% voted in favour. So yes it appears the same for remote indigenous communities in Queensland too.
1
@ianian9078 No that was just one particular result I read that contradicted the initial claim of the majority of indigenous people voted no, of which nobody has provided evidence for. I have now included further evidence of similar voting patterns in Queensland. I’m not being disingenuous just stating fact, something you and the initial comment have failed to do.
1
@ianian9078 So now I have results from WA remote indigenous communities. Fitzroy crossing, Halls creek, Broome, Leonora as these polling booths returned 80% yes votes. You obviously have trouble comprehending english. I made no comment about the overall result. I asked for evidence the majority of indigenous people voted no. I have now provided evidence from the remote polling in NT, Queensland, and WA that are predominantly indigenous populated that proves indigenous people in remote communities overwhelmingly voted yes. I never questioned the overall vote only the claim the majority of indigenous people voted no. I changed no goal posts and just provided factual data. I have no idea why you are so upset about a simple fact.
1
@lappo2534 Thankyou for your comment and a true telling of your intellectual capacity.
1
@staggeringdeath8479 No need to shout. Indigenous peoples do not receive any more benefits than all Australians are capable of receiving. Due to remote locations many indigenous live in this certainly increases the cost of providing the same services people in cities receive. Just a basic understanding of any report written in the last 50 years on indigenous living standards shows beyond all doubt indigenous people have a lower LEB, higher infant mortality, worse rates of unemployment, health, Home ownership, education. The only stats they lead on are rates of custody. Your comment on privilege and entitlement is ludicrous at best mind numbing stupid at best.
1
@allangibson8494 So why would you mention race, when indigenous people are the same race as you and I. Our DNA is exactly the same. Our genealogy is different and our culture is different, but you will have to explain to me how an advisory body in the constitution equates to a race based superiority. No offence but I find your comment just illogical nonsense. Our constitution currently has two sections that are explicitly racist. Sections 25 and 51(xxiv) which allow the federal government to make laws for specific races. Section 25 required and entire act of parliament just to nullify it. That legislation could be dissolved by any government. You don’t seem to have much of an understanding of our constitution or Australian history.
1
@allangibson8494 So your argument is one of envy. No problems. Thanks for your honesty. This I can understand and makes a lot more sense than some of the other illogical nonsense I have read.
1
@nobody6056 You don’t quite understand the processes involved in and or the history of our constitution. Race based powers were inserted into the constitution because the states, in particular WA had laws that prevented certain races (African and Chinese) from owning property. At Federation it was assumed indigenous people would die out, they were not consulted or involved in any way with the formation of the constitution. There is significant data that supports the Howard government intervention (that required the racial discrimination act to be suspended) that used section 51(xxiv) caused irreparable trauma and harm to numerous indigenous people.
1
Sorry to you first point. And advisory body doesn’t give indigenous people any race based right. It did enshrine in the constitution a body by which indigenous people could offer an opinion on government policy that could possibly affect them. The government has multiple advisory bodies. This element of your reply is illogical.
1
@nobody6056 I’ll let Sir Issac Issacs one of the framers of our constitution, one time Chief Justice of the High Court and our first Australian Governor General. “ Aboriginals do not have the intelligence, interest, or capacity to vote” that is a quote direct from Hansard during the debate over the Commonwealth Franchise act 1902. Your opinion about out constitution is factually and demonstrably wrong.
1
@allangibson8494 No, you are factually wrong. Many groups and individuals have direct account to the executive and government through advisory bodies. There is even a womens advisory body. It only is concerned with half the population. I’m not really sure you really understand what you are commenting on.
1
@jaedaeast768 You would have to provide evidence of your claim for it to be taken seriously. What do indigenous get more of. The certainty get incarcerated more than your average Australian. Data from our prison system confirms this.
1
@ianian9078 Your legal opinion is worthless. The Solicitor general and numerous high court judges publicly stated the exact opposite to you opinion. What legal qualifications do you have?
1
@allangibson8494 No factually incorrect. The Defence force is in the constitution and the CDF advises the government on defence and security matters. The High Court provides the country a ultimate legal avenue and it’s in the constitution.
1
@allangibson8494 No but they are both designed for specifically narrow advice of a particular kind. I see no difference in an advisory body that would have provided a unique perspective on matters involving indigenous people, and at the same time providing constitutional recognition. It’s a moot point as it’s not going to happen. The “vote no if you don’t know” was a very effective slogan, and clearly worked. The discussions here prove it.
1
@ianian9078 Yes I agree with you there were some legal academics who felt that advice that was not accepted could be taken to the high court and that is a fair comment. The High court on average hears 30 to 40 constitutional matters a year so I see no problem with that at all. Legislation in the parliament could fix any hiccups. Once again thought the overwhelming legal opinion from the SG down through to constitutional experts like Anne Twomey was this was extremely unlikely. As I commented elsewhere the “vote no if you don’t know” was extremely effective slogan as it feed into this fear and ignorance. The voter turnout also displayed a nonchalance attitude to indigenous disadvantage. We are now just determined to keep repeating the mistakes of the past.
1
@allangibson8494 I didn’t say either. I said the High Court adjudicates legal issues and the CDF provides advice. The voice would have been exactly the same an advisory body subject to the limits of the constitution.
1
@ianian9078 I already conceded their is legal opinion to suggest advice provided by the voice that was not acted on could be taken to the high court. So what? As explained earlier this already happens regularly. That is what the high court is for. Parliament ultimately decides. The Howard Government didn’t like the high courts Wik decision so it changed the law. Any issues with the voice would have been solved legislatively. If you have read some other comments being mocked is the least of their concerns.
1
@allangibson8494 No factually and demonstratively wrong. No where in the proposed amendment does it state any advice is mandatory. The wording is “may make representations. As I said earlier the “don’t know vote no” slogan was very effective. I worked perfectly on you.
1
@allangibson8494 What representatives? The voice is not happening, how can you possibly make a claim about who was going to be on the various committees of the voice when it never happened. Provide for me a list of elected and/or appointees of the voice. You can’t I know you can’t because it doesn’t exist. The voice doesn’t exist. You have now reached over to the utter absurd. You have dealt with nothing. Please try and put forward one coherent logical point as to why to voted no.
1
@allangibson8494 Aboriginal corporations are privately run companies the same as Westpac or QANTAS, and I have no idea why you would equate them with the voice. It’s like saying Mosman council is the same as Woodside Petroleum, it’s just illogical. This link provides the information for suggested structures of the voice https://voice.gov.au/resources/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report Once again I understand why the “if you don’t know vote no” campaign was so successful. You clearly made no attempt to understand the issue.
1