Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Nothing ‘scary’ about Indigenous Voice proposal, says constitutional law expert" video.

@neilaspinall5005 So you belittle the words in our constitution but if you wish in its simplest form yes. It is merely an advisory body that restores symbolically constitutional recognition to First people. Nothing to be frightened of at all. Land rights have already been dealt with under Mabo and Wik and the resulting legislation. It is literally an idiotic assertion and in some sense deliberate obfuscation that freehold land is under threat. When you dismiss it as a talkfest then you understand what a minimalist issue it is and why would you be against it.
2
No legislative power, no financial delegation, no veto power. There will be some administrative costs similar the the PMO. This is all in the associated document with the Uluṟu statement from the heart.
1
There is literally no evidence whatsoever of any land acquisition power in a voice. In actual fact land rights has been fully addressed by the Mabo and Wik decisions and the subsequent federal legislation. So confident am I of this fact I would stake the life of my grandchildren on it. It is just a deliberate attempt by the ignorant to create divisiveness.
1
@neilaspinall5005 In the same way I assume you consider spending money on Defence or public hospitals and schools is a waste. I assume you would happily hand over your Medicare card.
1
@neilaspinall5005 As long as you of course have your constitutional right to a talking shop and then deny it to the indigenous peoples. Yep alls fair in your world.
1
@neilaspinall5005 Interesting! What government departments do you consider wasteful?
1
By definition if you had take n the time to read the associated document with the Uluṟu statement you would know the voice has no legislative ability, no veto power, and no financial delegation. It is an advisory body only. Once enshrined in the constitution it explicitly can’t be changed by the government of the day, that’s the whole point.
1