Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Media Watch appears to side with Peta Credlin on Uluru Statement fact check finding" video.

Explain to me how an advisory body with no ability to create legislation could possibly get (rent & reparations) through the parliament.
1
@VK6AB- You don't understand english do you. "May make representations" that's an advisory body
1
@knight2425 So I dont think you understand how legislation in the Parliament works. As clearly explained no government be it Labor or LNP would be obliged to act on any advice as it is advice only, but just say hypothetically the voice advised that reparations be paid, the legislation to do that would have to be passed through both the House of Reps and the Senate and then it would be liable at any time to be reversed, dissolved or amended by any succeeding government. Also just because one indigenous person recommends reparations that doesn't mean that the voice would agree with him.
1
@joetesta5730 Your argument about high court challenge has been debunked by a Chief Justice of the court three other ex high court judges and the solicitor General. That legal opinion outweighs any of your bush lawyer skills.
1
@joetesta5730 Kenneth Hayne and Mary Gaudron, and Robert French were all justices on our High Court and all have dismissed concerns about the voice hindering government working. Remember the high court hears about 30 cases a year that involve or require rulings on the constitution, so yes anything is possible. You can try and take any issue to court, doesn’t mean you will be successful.
1
@Coops777 How? You are just making shit up. How would an advisory body that has no legislative ability enact a Treaty. A treaty is with a minimum of two parties that are willing how is an indigenous body going to create a treaty with itself. The whole idea is imbecilic. A Makarrata doesn’t need a voice to exist to be created. All its needs is legislation passed through the parliament. Again your argument against the voice on this point is nonsensical. Could you please be honest and just state the real reason you are against it.
1
@joetesta5730 Again, how is an indigenous body that sits outside of parliament and the High Court going to create legislation. The High Court can’t create legislation. When the High court ruled in favour of an indigenous group in the “Wik” decision the Howard government just entered 293 amendments to the Native title act and effectively nullified the court’s decision. This is how our democracy works. There is nothing to be fearful about in constitutional enshrined voice.
1