Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Voice to Parliament is 'a bad idea': Credlin" video.

Except they aren’t. Was the indigenous community consulted or opinion sort when our constitution was written. Answer No. Time to fix it.
3
@gavinbottcher9174 If the Indigenous community spent four years of consultation and put all the effort into presenting a statement from the heart expressing what they request the rest of Australia can do to bring about reconciliation. Why is it a waste of your time and money?
2
Where was the indigenous communities voice sort when our constitution was written? Answer nowhere. You had your say time they had theirs.
1
@gavinbottcher9174 No a truth and reconciliation commission is another part of the Uluṟu statement. A voice is merely an advisory body to parliament with no legislative capacity or veto power. Nothing to be scared of.
1
@gavinbottcher9174 No they haven’t and it has nothing to do with individual personal responsibility. It is to acknowledge past wrongs. ie why were indigenous people not even allowed to vote until 1962. Makes it a bit hard to have had say in our constitution don’t you think.
1
@gavinbottcher9174 just reading the thread here and there is no suggestion anybody has recognised anything.
1
@samopalvampirenvonbutlegin8603 Unfortunately you have little understanding of British law at the time. Under the British and international law at the time they did. They were ignored.
1
@dantemachiavelli4803 Factually wrong. Incorrect assumptions made by the British and consequent High Court rulings prove your statement utterly false.
1
@mikespike2099 Sorry exactly how many indigenous people voted for federation and the constitution?
1
@samopalvampirenvonbutlegin8603 Absolutely none of those questions are relevant. None of those things existed in the 6 colonies either when they sort independence. Each colony had its own government of sorts, none had any indigenous representation.
1
@buildmotosykletist1987 British colonial law in 1788 had a law “terra nullius” which essentially means the land is not owned. That law was used by the British right through the 19th century even though by the mid 18th century in the America’s property rights had been granted to native Indians. Subsequently it was proven in our own High court that the British use of terra nullius to obtain land rights was fundamentally wrong and illegal. If we had of declared war and taken the land by military force then a whole set of different laws would have applied, but they didn’t.
1
@mikespike2099 I’m not judging anyone, Burt if clear injustices were committed surely we should attempt to fix what we can.
1
@samopalvampirenvonbutlegin8603 Yes I agree, if they did, but they don’t. You ignore or discount they right they had to participate in federation. They don’t have equal representation until that inequity is fixed. Constitutional recognition is that equity.
1
@samopalvampirenvonbutlegin8603 But they didn’t until 1962. That 62 years of no voting rights is required to be addressed. I understand you don’t think it does but the indigenous community do and so does a large percentage of the rest of Australia. Put it to a referendum what have you got to lose? If your right it will be voted down.
1
@samopalvampirenvonbutlegin8603 I understand your point, however the first peoples here have a unique situation, and they were and continue to be denied voice in the constitution. And yes if I were you I would be supporting a new constitution and republic that included all our recent immigrants.
1
@samopalvampirenvonbutlegin8603 As the original inhabitants and having their land taken illegally and without any input into the creation of the country. Yes they most definitely have a unique situation.
1
@dopermeen2432 Why should illiteracy in English be a roadblock to political representation? Your point simply makes no sense.
1
@samopalvampirenvonbutlegin8603 Your statement is factually wrong. It has been established through the courts that they did and still do. The “Mabo” ruling by the High court proves this. You may disagree with it but you are wrong.
1
@dopermeen2432 So the British also had a Stone Age. It still fails to follow why being in a Neolithic stage of human development this prevents a culture from participating in a political process. Yes it would be somewhat more difficult or problematic any issues could have been solved.
1
@samopalvampirenvonbutlegin8603 And you are perfectly free to appeal the high court decision using your legal skills or resources to argue in court and have the decision reversed. Until then you are still factually wrong.
1
@samopalvampirenvonbutlegin8603 Well that’s a different issue, but yes I probably tend to agree with you on that. You do understand that when our constitution was provisioned, it was for a very specific ethnic group. White Anglo males.
1
@samopalvampirenvonbutlegin8603 I have absolutely nothing against white Anglo males, being one myself. I’m not even sure what you mean by a false agenda of indigenous recognition, and fail to fathom how advocating for fairness is hypocritical. Indigenous recognition in the constitution will not detract from anybody else’s rights under our constitution.
1
@samopalvampirenvonbutlegin8603 As explained yes there is, due to the absence of their input into the original constitution and as a group this was completely neglected in the original writing. This does not give them anything other than equality now, nothing extra. As to hidden agenda you would have to provide evidence of this.
1
@samopalvampirenvonbutlegin8603 It's not special land rights it's just normal land rights of the original inhabitants.
1
@samopalvampirenvonbutlegin8603 At the time of Federation, Aborigines were excluded from the rights of Australian citizenship, including the right to vote, the right to be counted in a census and the right to be counted as part of an electorate. In addition, they were not subject to Commonwealth laws and benefits in relation to wages and social security benefits such as maternity allowances and old age pensions. Your comment about citizenship is just factually wrong.
1
@samopalvampirenvonbutlegin8603 I agree those wrongs have now been fixed, however past injustice’s have not been.
1
@samopalvampirenvonbutlegin8603 The relatives of those dead most certainly do care.
1
@samopalvampirenvonbutlegin8603 I understand you don’t, but polling suggests you and your opinion are in the minority.
1
On a side note, currently there is a class action before the WA courts in regards to thousands of aboriginal women who had up to 75% of their wages garnered when they were in Catholic institutions as young girls and women back in the 60s. If only all citizens were equal before the law.
1
@dopermeen2432 While acknowledging that property ownership was once considered to be the basis of political power, this is no longer the case. Currently In Australia a homeless persons vote counts for the same as James Packer, however at the time of our constitution that was not the case. Aboriginal peoples had no voting or citizen rights.
1
@dopermeen2432 And these are issues that in your opinion should be used to deny people constitutional recognition. That is a senseless argument. It does however clearly demonstrate the real issues surrounding this discussion. Thankyou.
1
@dopermeen2432 Once again property ownership is not required in a modern democracy. I am lucky enough to be financially independent. What does that prove? I have no idea what virtue signalling you are talking about. Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders were denied representation in our constitution. The error needs to be fixed.
1
@dopermeen2432 I just admitted to owning all those things.
1
@dopermeen2432 Constitutional recognition has nothing to do with property rights. Mabo and Wik decisions by the High court have already addressed this issue. WTF are you talking about? but you have made clear the difficulties in passing a yes vote to Constitutional recognition at a referendum.
1
@dopermeen2432 No factual content at all in your reply. As I said before constitutional recognition is required for equality and this was what was asked for in the Uluru statement.
1
@dopermeen2432 I honestly haven't a clue what you are talking about now. Local councils, Julia Gillard WTF has any of that got to do with constitutional recognition for indigenous peoples?
1
@dopermeen2432 No lies. Only factual information.
1