Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Lambie calls for detail on Indigenous Voice to Parliament" video.

You misunderstand political representation with constitutional recognition, they are not the same. Indigenous people have political representation, but are denied constitutional recognition as they were explicitly left out of federation by being made non citizens and denied voting rights
2
You misunderstand political representation with constitutional recognition, they are not the same. Indigenous people have political representation, but are denied constitutional recognition as they were explicitly left out of federation by being made non citizens and denied voting rights
1
@generaldissatisfaction5397 A voice and constitutional recognition simply restores equality. Absolutely white Anglos are represented just look at the makeup of the first parliament, although the possibility does exsist some other ethnic/cultural groups were not considered, as the constitution was written (Section 51) so it could explicitly discriminate on this issue, and so aboriginals were made non citizens and denied voting rights in our constitution. This is uncontroversial and historical fact. Didn't you learn about federation at school?
1
You misunderstand and confuse political representation with constitutional recognition, they are not the same. Indigenous people have political representation, but are denied constitutional recognition as they were explicitly left out of federation by being made non citizens and denied voting rights
1
You misunderstand political representation with constitutional recognition, they are not the same. Indigenous people have political representation, but are denied constitutional recognition as they were explicitly left out of federation by being made non citizens and denied voting rights
1
@presidentxijinpingspoxdoct9756 You don't understand Australian history. Indigenous people are denied constitutional recognition. They were explicitly made noncitizens and denied voting rights when we federated. A voice merely restores equity it gives nothing extra at all.
1
@advanceaustralia4861 You clearly have no understanding of Australian history. Section 53 of the constitution clearly gives the Commonwealth power to create legislation based on race, which it did and denied aborigines voting rights. They were also made non citizens and denied any input into federation. This is just common knowledge and historical fact. Claiming they were British subjects is just fallacious nonsense as they were completely denied any of those rights. You may be happy with our constitution remains racist, I suggest most wouldn’t.
1
@presidentxijinpingspoxdoct9756 No, that is a fundamental misunderstanding of section 53 of the constitution. Changes to the constitution after the 67 referendum made some practical changes. It most definitely did not restore equality or provide recognition. The origins of a voice to parliament are in a 1936 petition to the King by indigenous people the Labor party had nothing to do with it. Again have you any knowledge of Australian history?
1
Would that be the virtue signalling of legislation passed by the parliament and constitutionally allowed that made aborigines non citizens and denied them voting rights. Yeah completely worthless is exactly the attitude that was taken by our parliament when considering indigenous peoples.
1
@gulaggreens296 Nope a clear and precise comment, you clearly don’t understand they are different either. Thanks not my fault.
1
@gulaggreens296 Yes you make a legitimate argument for continual constitutional reform. I agree with you, the constitution which is a living document should be constantly reviewed and amended as required to meet the demands of an maturing nation.
1
@gulaggreens296 In principle the constitution should in my opinion be constantly reviewed to check if it is fit for purpose. Are you still using a 286 computer?
1
@creditelectric Everyone in my suburb says “Yes” to a voice
1