Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Voice referendum a ‘complete con’ and ‘surrenders’ to extreme demands" video.

Personally I think Wuper is being to kind. I have read repeated comments like this one and I’m tending to think they are deliberately mischievous and Roger here knows exactly what apartheid is and is being intentionally deceitful.
4
@johnwoodrow8769 There can be no genuine concern when the explicit wording of the constitutional amendment specifically prevents it. It is as if you don’t understand how words work either.
2
@Design_no Firstly the funding for the. NIAA is approximately $100 million annually and I cite the current budget paper as evidence. Prior to that the LNP budget allocation was approximately $50 million annually. If you what a sensible discussion you must first agree on the facts.
2
That’s a classic slippery slope argument and a logical fallacy, making you entire comment illogical nonsense.
1
Look up the meaning of “representation” in a dictionary. A constitutionally enshrined advisory body would by definition unable to instruct anything. You don’t quite understand how words work do you?
1
@JoeyJoJoJrShabbado That is a nonsensical question. Do you mean legislation the government will bring to the parliament to enact a voice if there is a yes vote? If so the government has declared this publicly, read it for yourself.
1
@Design_no A Makkaratta commission was explicitly mentioned in the Uluṟu statement. It has been common public knowledge for 6 years. The indigenous community having been expressed their desire for a treaty for over 50 years and longer. Neither can be made law by an advisory body that can only make representations. What don’t you understand about the English language?
1
@JoeyJoJoJrShabbado Yes that would of being one way of doing it. However acknowledging the original inhabitants of our country in our founding document is another way.
1
@JoeyJoJoJrShabbado I am not worried because the wording in the constitutional amendment is clear. Any attempt by legislation to change that into something you talk of would be stopped by the Federal court. You don’t really quite understand how our system of government works do you?
1
@JoeyJoJoJrShabbado Yes it can. Legislated advisory bodies to parliament are common.
1
@JoeyJoJoJrShabbado Your entire argument seems to be based on fear and ignorance. The wording for the referendum is clear and the wording of the constitutional amendment is clear. A voice is an advisory body only. It has no veto power, no legislative capability, and no financial delegation. It can only make representations to parliament and the executive. It can’t create a truth commission and it can’t legislate a treaty. It is impossible without the consent of the Australian people.
1
@lokai7914 What a crock of shit. The entire system is designed around giving you a voice. The constitution was written by and for a bunch of privileged white men. Your protestations are comical at best, deliberately mischievous and sinister at worst. Crying racism about a advisory body designed to give a voice to the original inhabitants of our land who previously had been virtually ignored is laughable. I treat it with the contempt it deserves.
1
@karenvecsei4217 What was the question? My comment was a month ago.
1