Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Voice to Parliament is ‘long overdue’" video.

@trentspackman3597 Under British law is was perfectly legal to work convicted criminals. If you truely believe you have a case for reparations then feel free to use our court system to correct any perceived injustice. Eddie Mabo did.
3
@dukdown Sure. A Elected MP represents their electorate, enacts legislation, votes on bills before the house, and spends public money via parliament, ie budget legislation. A voice in the constitution is merely an advisory body it has none of the power a MP has.
2
@dukdown And thankyou.
2
No factually incorrect. Aboriginals were specifically excluded from our founding document. They were explicitly made non citizens and denied voting rights. They were neither consulted or allowed to engage in the writing of our constitution. A voice merely restores a currently inherently racist constitution and provides some level of fairness. You seem to lack knowledge of Australian history and how our Federation formed.
2
You do understand that in a parliamentary democracy such as Australia the people don’t elect a PM, the Parliament does, almost exclusively by the party holding the most seats.
1
A modern liberal culture can have a discussion, it need not be divisive.
1
Yes white privileged men said exactly the same thing when women got the vote. Religious fanatics said the same thing when adults were allowed to marry whomever they chose. Racists said the same thing when aborigines were given voting rights. Sexists said the same thing when women entered the workforce. All it is, is fear mongering.
1
What is equal about a constitution that made aborigines non citizens and denied them voting rights in the decisions about Federation.
1
Actually GIna Rineheart is the largest owner of land in Australia. A white women.
1
No ASTIC was a legislated body, like the productivity commission. Constitutionally enshrined is fundamentally different.
1
@politenessman3901 No veto power, no financial delegation, no legislative ability, there is nothing blank about it other than its ignorant criticism.
1
You fundamentally misunderstand political representation and a constitutional voice. They are separate and completely different things.
1
@dukdown Well they probably do but in a Adhoc way and more in a political bias way. A Liberal politician most likely have a different view to a Green politician. A voice will have numerous members but will present to parliament or government unified advice on subjects related to indigenous concerns. The government of the day can chose to accept or ignore that advice. A government can't choose to ignore a vote on the parliament floor. This is a fundamental difference.
1
@dukdown Well it is want the indigenous community asked for in their statement from the heart. I agree it is a very modest request and is just request for us to hear their voice, which was denied to them at Federation. I personally don't agree with a lot of aboriginal politics or particularly have a great interest in their culture, but as the original inhabitants they must be respected.
1
What for saving tens of thousands of lives. You only need to compare US data and Australian data to see the fact of my comment.
1
@johnhoylesunvaccinatedbrot5596 vacuous gibberish.
1
@johnhoylesunvaccinatedbrot5596 Just in the US alone death rates from covid for the unvaccinated are 17 times greater than for the vaccinated.
1
@johnhoylesunvaccinatedbrot5596 No mostly doctors apologise to me when they are wrong.
1
Race is a social construct and I have no idea why opponents of the voice keep bringing it up. There is only one species of humans. Aboriginals as a group of numerous groups were simply the original inhabitants of Australia.
1
@gregsims There is absolutely nil, zero, zilch evidence of any culture prior to Aboriginal occupation approximately 70000 years ago. Otherwise reference your evidence.
1
@gregsims It is not my opinion it is scientific fact. A you tube video is not evidence. Quote the published peer reviewed scientific paper.
1
@gregsims Reference aboriginal occupation of Australian mainland 1. Human occupation of northern Australia by 65000 years ago: Clarkson, Jacobs, Merrick 2017.
1
@gregsims Yes they are mistaken. Aboriginal story telling history is extremely unreliable as they had no written language.
1
@gregsims The cave paintings you reference have been debunked years ago by archaeologists. The Gwion Gwion paintings you refer to are an interpretation by Graeme Walsh an amateur researcher who called the figures "Bradshaws" and was during a period of conservative government and received high profile media and conservatives who wished to undermine aboriginal land claims. More recent research shows that there are other images that seem to be intermediate between the Gwion Gwion figures and the Wandjinas, another group of paintings that use a different style to depict figures. This shows there is no strong evidence other than they were no more than ancestors of the people who painted the later images. DNA from Mungo man and women prove that they were humans. You are working on old and some intentionally misleading information.
1
@gregsims Also your personal experience is known as an anecdotal fallacy, and is unreliable as evidence.
1
Some may be appointed others elected, it will vary.
1
No you are describing political representation, not a constitutional voice.
1
Our constitution is racist as it specifically excluded aboriginals by making them non citizens and denying them voting rights. A voice merely squares the books.
1
By overwhelming social media do you mean the 647 views and 142 comments?
1
As a member of a minor party her ability to influence legislation is very minor. How is a voice to parliament/government that has no veto power, no legislative capacity, and no financial delegation a misleading name?
1