Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "‘Extraordinary’: Government did not seek advice of Solicitor General before Voice proposal" video.

@robbiesheppard3280 Factually and demonstrably wrong. Read section 128 of the Constitution. Plain and simple, referendum only.
2
@robbiesheppard3280 So after all that I was 100% correct and you were 100% wrong. Once I gave you the reference in the constitution you corrected yourself, well done you have learned something.
2
Did the LNP get advice from the solicitor general when it falsely accused the voice of being a third chamber.
2
@newman653 You don’t even have even an iota of what the meaning is of apartheid is to use it in the same context as constitutional recognition. It is just a word you are parroting from something you saw of heard on Facebook or instagram in an attempt to quite disingenuously attempt an argument against the voice. It is such a ludicrously stupid argument you can’t even substantiate it with one factual point.
2
The government has never changed the constitution unless with the express permission of the Australian people via a referendum.
1
@robbiesheppard3280 No, No, and No. What aren’t you getting about this? The Australian constitution can only be changed with the authority of a referendum, period.
1
@robbiesheppard3280 No you are just wrong. Your legal interpretation of the constitution and the act you quote is just wrong.
1
No I’m sure you haven’t got a clue what you mean. Research “Apartheid” it has literally nothing to do with or anything remotely associated with constitutional recognition.
1
@newman653 I have no idea what shoes have to do with anything, however your concern about the legislative shape of the voice is a legitimate issue. This is easily dealt with and has been explained numerous times by the indigenous members who wrote and signed the Uluru statement and the final report to government. A voice is enshrined in the constitution, this is merely and advisory body with literally no power. Then the make up of that advisory body will be determined by legislation put by the government of the day to the parliament. The structure of the voice can then be adjusted and refined by any side of politics that is in power and able to pass legislation in the house and senate. In this way the voice can remain relevant. One suggestion for its structure is a final committee of approx 24 members some elected some appointed from all regions and groups. Below this would be larger groups, but these would be unpaid positions and reach down into indigenous groups at a lower level, nothing to dissimilar to how our democratic process works. If this system proves infective then the government can change its structure via legislation in parliament. None of this is hard to understand.
1
@newman653 So you are clearly unwilling or unable to engage in an adult discussion. I provided a detailed explanation considering this is a YouTube comments section. It’s obvious you are unable to argue, all you can do is throw out meaningless emotional charged phrases. Best leave it at that.
1
@newman653 You throw out the word “apartheid” with no justification no substance of an argument and then have the chutzpah to talk of fools. You dimwit and we will leave it at that.
1
@newman653 Again the chutzpah in describing someone in such terms just because their opinion is different from yours and because you were caught out using a term that I proved is factually incorrect by any standard dictionary meaning. All you have to your argument is personal slurs. How clever and brave of you.
1