Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "The Voice to Parliament is already ‘falling apart’: Andrew Bolt" video.

@jackfrost2146 So an advisory body given the power only of representation (look up the meaning of representation in any dictionary you like) to perhaps make a submission to parliament, that is under no obligation at all to act on that advice is “unchallengeable power”. Tell me what comedy club do you perform at because you are hysterically funny.
2
@okcool3048 Well the benefit is constitutional recognition. That doesn't give anyone unfettered power. The parliament will have the legislative power to shape the voice so I expect a LNP will shape it differently to a Labor government but there is nothing wrong with that as that is democracy. The major point is unlike say the Productivity commission or the CSIRO the Voice can't be dissolved by legislation. In the future a LNP government could take the country to a referendum and remove the voice assuming it gets up in the first place. I'm rambling now but I hope you get me point.
2
@jeffappleton926 Well it would help in any discussion if you could make a logical coherent argument. Yes a preamble in the constitution would provide recognition, however the indigenous community have asked via the Uluṟu statement for a voice and to engage the Australian people in a conversation. A voice to parliament was explained recently by an indigenous leader as she described how each time a government changed indigenous policy changed. A voice will provide consistentency.
2
@jeffappleton926 You are just factually wrong. All individual positions on the voice will be time limited. No individual can possibly get on any gravy train.
2
@ianian9078 Polling confirms “the voice” has 80% approval amongst indigenous Australians. You don’t need 100% agreement for consensus. You are factually wrong.
2
@nobledarkmoon Absolutely none, zero, nil effect. A voice to parliament has no veto power, so it can’t stop one, and it has no legislative ability so it can’t initiate one. That was a simple question. Give me something more complicated.
1
@nobledarkmoon No, you don't understand words in English. The wording in the constitution is "may make representations" not "is required to". Your point is nonsense and literally just wrong.
1
@jeffappleton926 Polling has support for the voice at 80% within the indigenous community. Your argument that 100% agreement or total universality is required is illogical and not required for consensus.
1
@jeffappleton926 So yes I am aware of a very small yet vocal minority of indigenous leaders who are against a voice, and yet the vast majority of indigenous leaders are in favour. You are obviously ignorant of this fact so I will list them for you. Marcia Langton, Megan Davis, Noel Pearson, Pat Turner, Pat Anderson, Ken Wyatt, Linda Burney, Marcus Stewart, Geraldine Atkinson, Pat Dodson, Dean Parkin, Thomas Mayor. And you have Jacinta Price and Lidia Thorpe. So my point about popularity is matched with legal and expert opinion that not only is it a good idea it is necessary. I ignored your strawman as I suggested or implied that a voice is infallible, that’s why the wording of the constitutional amendment maintains parliamentary supremacy. You are digging a deeper hole for yourself but please continue.
1
@jeffappleton926 It was not an argument it was a fact based counter point to your point that some indigenous people are against a voice. It was yourself that mentioned indigenous people, so I limited my response to indigenous. I can easily support a voice to parliament yes vote with a string of High court judges, constitutional experts, and laws professors who are not indigenous and have no self interest. On a side note you suggestion of an appeal to authority is fallacious. Quoting legal expert opinion as evidence of the legal wording of a constitutional amendment is not an appeal to authority. On the other hand your “no” has no substance and it’s argument lacks any coherency.
1
@jeffappleton926 So stating that some indigenous people are not in favour of a voice means what then? That there isn't 100% agreement, so what. There is nothing in the proposed referendum or constitutional amendment that is ambiguous. If you have any present your evidence. My evidence is the overwhelming amount of constitutional experts that say it isn't. Even Greg Craven who has some concerns with the ability to make representations to the executive is still in support of the voice. I understand you think you are an expert on all things but your opinion is literally worthless compared to Kenneth Haynes or Anne Twomey on constitutional issues. I have no idea what vested interests you are protecting or of what you are so frightened of. I can only imagine.
1
@Fruit salad Yes it just goes to show just how illiterate poor old Bazza is.
1