How The Voice Erodes Citizenship | Nicholas Aroney
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 вер 2023
- In this interview, Prof. Nicholas Aroney discusses the divisive outcomes of constitutional changes proposed by the Voice. He explains the ways this change will undermine universal citizenship, eroding the equality and unity innate to the constitution's initial design.
Nicholas Aroney is Professor of Constitutional Law at The University of Queensland and an External Fellow of the Centre for Law and Religion at Emory University. He has held visiting positions at Oxford, Cambridge, Paris II, Edinburgh, Durham, Sydney, Emory and Tilburg universities.
Professor Aroney has published over 150 journal articles, book chapters and books in the fields of constitutional law, comparative constitutional law and legal theory. He has led several international research projects in comparative federalism, bicameralism, legal pluralism, and law & religion, and he speaks frequently at international conferences on these topics.
Professor Aroney is a former editor of The University of Queensland Law Journal (2003-2005) and International Trade and Business Law Annual (1996-1998), and a past secretary of the Australian Society of Legal Philosophy. He is a past member of the Governing Council and the current Co-Convenor of the Queensland Chapter of the Australian Association of Constitutional Law. He is also a member of the editorial advisory board of the American Journal of Jurisprudence, Public Law Review, Australian Journal of Law and Religion and International Trade and Business Law Review. He has made numerous influential submissions to government and parliamentary inquiries and in 2013 undertook a review of the Crime and Misconduct Act for the Queensland Government with the Hon Ian Callinan AC QC, a former Justice of the High Court of Australia. In 2017 he was appointed by the Australian Prime Minister to an Expert Panel to advise on whether Australian law adequately protects the human right to freedom of religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversations feature John Anderson, former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, interviewing the world's foremost thought leaders about today's pressing social, cultural and political issues.
John believes proper, robust dialogue is necessary if we are to maintain our social strength and cohesion. As he puts it; "You cannot get good public policy out of a bad public debate."
If you value this discussion and want to see more like it, make sure you subscribe to the channel here:
/ @johnandersonconversations
And stay right up to date with all the conversations by subscribing to the newsletter here: johnanderson.net.au/contact/
Follow John on Twitter: / johnandersonac
Follow John on Facebook: / johnandersonac
Follow John on Instagram: / johnanderso. .
Support the channel: johnanderson.net.au/support/
Website: johnanderson.net.au/
Podcast: johnanderson.net.au/podcasts/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
law.uq.edu.au/profile/1098/ni...
/ nickaroney
/ nicholasa. .
I like it how the 'No' voters have kept their comments open and yet others like the ABC have turned their comments off.
That action of not listening to comments is a real telling point. The YES promoters do not want to anyone's view if it is different from theirs!!
Indeed!!!
I live in a Brisbane inner city “Green Party” voting suburb.
I live in a suburb full of “yes” signs in front yards.
My “vote No” sign was stolen within 2 days!!! I made sure it was fully located upon our land so they had to trespass to steal it.
After that I painted my own sign on a 200kg steel sheet.
It’s still there!!! I also put up a warning sign that “smile you’re on camera “ next to it.
But imagine that … having to go to a 200kg one for it to stay.
One afternoon I drove into our street to see a lady trying to pull it… 😂😂😂she looked terrified when we made eye contact… and quickly ran into a neighbour’s property.
I never touch vandalise nor steal their “yes” signs… why not? Because I’m not an antisocial bigot like they clear are!
Giving "them" "their" own chapter different to "ours" to bring us together is like.
Giving them their own water fountains to bring us together.
Right. .......... WE are one, but WE are many
And from all the lands on earth WE come
WE'll share a dream and sing with ONE VOICE
"I am, you are, WE are Australian"
VOTE NO!
That's a great analogy! I might steal it with credit to you.
Every thought I've ever had someone has had before me so no harm no foul friend :)@@brinhaerycammel3467
@Jim-zd6mn I feel like the historical references to US Segregation or SA Apartheid went over your head...
@Jim-zd6mnWhat about their own police force? Or their own army?
I agree with John Howard where we could recognise indigenous people in the preamble of the constitution and leave it at that without having the voice enshrined.
Rejected by Referendum in 1999 and by the Constitutional Convention in 2017
The Voice to parliament will not divide us, as it will not pass the referendum, I have faith in the intelligence of the Australian people, to not to give a blank cheque to any politician, to not vote for something that has had no details provided, and to not be stampeded or browbeaten into doing something that is just plain wrong. Vote 'NO' to the voice to parliament, to keep Australia united.
Do u believe that the Aboriginal activists, who created The Voice, will graciously accept a NO vote? Or will those Aboriginal activists i(Marcia Langton, Noel Pearson, Gary Foley) mmediately start claim that Australians are racist and that Australia is a racist society?
If this is really about helping disadvantaged Indigenous communities, then what is the reason we a even voting on this proposal?
Politicians and adminstrators can listen to Indigenous communities NOW
I am not as hopeful.
To many people will vote with their heart.
Yes it will. This PM is so stood. He doesn’t know what he’s doing.
I read in the Sunday’s paper - The Prime Minister said, I quote, I know the yes vote is failing , but it will pass. And he wasn’t smiling when he said it.... The deep state is here.
*NO DETAIL until after the referendum - VOTE NO*
Nothing needs change in the constitution however….there needs to be a Royal commission into where billions have been spent with no improvement for aboriginal people overall. Apparently the river of money has soaked into certain ponds where the boar wallow
It’s all the extra money they get from Centrelink while living in government housing and not having to work a day in their life
It has all gone into funding the lifestyle of the friends of the politicians. No mystery here.
Will the Voice divide us? Too late, it already has, and regardless of the Referendum result we'll be living with the fallout for a long time to come. Very sad state of affairs.
Not if we vote YES
@AnotherDoug you're kidding yourself - based on the polling to date, if it's even remotely accurate, the best the yes campaign can hope for is a narrow win, close to a 50:50 split. You think that's unifying do you? Madness.
@@netwarrior1000 If the Yes vote wins, why would there be any "fallout"? No-one will be worse-off with the presence of the Voice.
@@AnotherDoug Its not going to win and given the six stage strategy and the stated aims there will be very serious impacts on the country. The aims are clearly stated "A TREATY could include a proper say in decision making, the establishment of a TRUTH commission, REPARATIONS, a financial settlement (such as seeking a PERCENTAGE OF GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, RECOGNITION OF AUTHORITY and CUSTOMARY LAW" (from page 19 of a 26 page document released under FOI from the National Indigenous Australian Agency, page 1 is titled Uluru statement from the heart [centre justified]) "Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda" from the Uluru Statement from the Heart (page 1). So its very clear not only is the Voice an assault on democratic principles, not only does it introduce race/cultural identity into the constitution, its part of an agenda that the Prime Minister himself promotes VOICE - TREATY - TRUTH.
For the record the NIAA has an executive order to close the gap - iii. to lead and coordinate the development and implementation of Australia’s Closing the Gap targets in partnership with Indigenous Australians; C2019G00474 Federal register of legislation and has been in force since 1st July 2029.
You are ill informed.
Will you feel more divided based on the outcome of the referendum? Are your views going to become more or less racist towards Aboriginal people?
How can it not divide us?
Vote NO 🇦🇺
WE are one, but WE are many
And from all the lands on earth WE come
WE'll share a dream and sing with ONE VOICE
"I am, you are, WE are Australian"
VOTE NO!
How would it divide us?
How would it divide us? I'm speaking about the everyday Aussie. Hypothetically if the voice did get voted in, would everyone become more racist?
@@AnotherDoug🍆 head...
If you can't see that it would, then you need to better understand what is behind the push for the voice.
The Voice will not divide us, as everyone will vote NO!
The Voice Referendum writing is on the wall and it reads “NO”.
The “ use by date “ for the Voice to Parliament concept is the 14th of October and by the 15th of October the value of a “YES 23 T-SHIRT” will be zero $dollars and zero cents!
🇦🇺💯%
Of course the Voice will divide us, that's why they are doing it.
WE are one, but WE are many
And from all the lands on earth WE come
WE'll share a dream and sing with ONE VOICE
"I am, you are, WE are Australian"
VOTE NO!
I reckon more and more ppl are seeing now there being played the only division I see is the ppl and the governments it's gonna be so fun to see
No
Think about that. Just pretend for a moment, that the Opposition had decided to follow previous policy and side with the yes vote. What division would there be? (There would be no fearmongering, there would not be a No campaign at all)
@@chrimbus71
No - we would be agreeing with what the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander peoples want: recognition in the Constitution as the First Peoples of Australia by creating an advisory body to the Government on A&TSI matters
If it passes I'll seriously consider leaving the country.
There are other reasons to consider leaving. Many are already.
@@Design_noGood. More housing for the rest of us.
@@CollectiveConsciousness1111Dear oh dear. So far down the rabbit hole
@@AnotherDoug l listen to hours of court hearings of good people trying to highlighting the evil. To say lve gone down a rabbit hole states how unwilling you are to hear new evidence. Your the problem, your still Brainwashed.
@@AnotherDoug lol they let 700k people in in 2 years, you want my house have it lol
A "yes" vote will make Australia an "animal farm"--where everyone is equal someone will be more equal! 5:13
WE are one, but WE are many
And from all the lands on earth WE come
WE'll share a dream and sing with ONE VOICE
"I am, you are, WE are Australian"
VOTE NO!
Spot on and should be our anthem
Our history good or bad includes and acknowledges everyone
The referendum should be two questions, not one. The first question would relate to indigenous recognition in the constitution. The second question would relate to embedding a Voice in the constitution. These two separate issues have been wrapped up together as one issue, which I believe is wrong.
Agreed. Albanese too clever by half and it could be his undoing. Recognition in a preamble to the Constitution would have romped in.
@chrismiddleton9088 Albanese isn't that smart nor sneaky
The Labor bureaucrats and advisors have learned from their mistakes with Rudd and Gillard
I would have voted yes for recognition but the Aboriginal activists have put me off.
VOTE NO TO THE RACE BASED VOICE
I don't get the "recognition" thing. Indigenous people already have recognition in the Constitution-alongside every other race of people.
WE are one, but WE are many
And from all the lands on earth WE come
WE'll share a dream and sing with ONE VOICE
"I am, you are, WE are Australian"
VOTE NO!
I knew The Voice was a terrible TV show, but I had no idea that it was eroding citizenship in Australia.
That's because neither Voice will "erode citizenship" - Prof. Aroney did not say anywhere in this video that the Voice would "erode citizenship".
Everyone is equal.
Some people are more equal than others.
Four feet good, two feet bad 😂
Yes, 3% of Australians are less equal. That is what the Voice is hoping to correct.
How will it achieve that?@@AnotherDoug
@@ballaratboy1 By providing good advice to the Government on key issues facing A&TSI communities
An old saying: 'There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals!!'
When the constitution was written, there were still groups of aborigines who had never seen white people. There was no way to count indigenous people people in a census, so it was decided that they need not be counted for purposes of determining representation. It was not racism, it was practicality.
I am descended from one of the stolen generations. My indigenous forebears who lived in towns and cities filled in census forms and voted like everyone else before 1967.
My grandfather was a career RAAF officer prior to and during WWII. His ancestry is apparent in his service photograph, but he did not 'identify' as aboriginal, so he is not recognised as the first aboriginal officer in the Australian armed forces. That honour is accorded to Reg Saunders, an army lieutenant in WWII.
Very interesting. Thank you for sharing that.
@pshehan, I suspect it was both practicality and racism. There is no doubt that at its drafting the Australian Constitution was a deeply racist document but it was more concerned with ensuring the white Australia Policy than it was with the Aboriginal issue - that was largely left to the States. I knew Reg Saunders when I worked with him in Canberra in the 1970s. He was an absolute gentleman. Alas dead now and there is no way of knowing for sure but knowing him as I did I think he would have voted "Yes"
@@alanramsey2761 I interviewed veterans of the 2/14 Battalion AIF. Reg Saunders. brother Jambi was a member of the battalion and was killed at Gona in New Guinea.
All the veterans i interviewed are also sadly gone .
Very interesting point you made.
How can you count something that exists but are unaware of?
There were also issues in wanting to preserve the tribal culture by means of non-interference. People were required to have special permissions to engage with those tribes or go to jail if found out. This was up to the 1950's.
The expansion of city development overtime means that it isn't possible to let tribes be. Something had to give. You end up having to absorb those tribes into society.
@Jim-zd6mn No. My ancestor was stolen to save the local squatter embarrasment when his fiance arrived from England.
Every time a stone-age culture has met a more advanced culture, the result has been uniformly disastrous for the original inhabitants. But I cannot see how it could have been different. That great violence and dislocation was done to them is undeniable. But there is no going back to some mythical "happier time", where aborigines lived "at one with nature". Aborigines do have a special status, and if they wish to keep the old ways alive, that's great. But to make that special status a part of the constitution seems to me to be bad *for them*, because it set them apart as specal only because they were recently a stone-age culture, like a quaint museum exhibit. They should aspire to be special because of their accomplishments, not because of their ancestry. It may be hurtful to say so, but I think that the stolen generation was an honest response to the scope and seriousness of this problem, an attempt to rip off the bandaid, make a clean break, and gift the descendants of aborigines a positive way forward rather than an sad and impotent obsession with past wrongs.
What would have happened if Imperial Japanese colonized Australia? Ask the 20Million Chinese/Korean/Philipienos/Indoneasians etc who died in WWII.
What would have happened if Imperial Russia colonized Australia? Ask the Chechens or Ukrainians.
What would have happened if China colonized Australia? Ask the UIghurs or Tibetans.
What would have happened if the French colonized Australia? Ask the Algierians or Vietnamese.
What would have happened if Imperial Spain colonized Australia? Ask the natives of South America.
What would have happened if the Portuguese or Dutch colonized Australia? Ask the Brazilians or Indonesians.
The British Empire was one of the most moral colonisers - ask the Maori, the Nigerians, the Malays, the Indians or the South Africans. Everywhere the British went peace and prosperity soon followed. We have human rights today because of the British influence - not the Russia, Chinese, Indian, Aztec, Mongol, Ottoman, Zulu etc etc
It is what it is, it's time that we stop leaving our first people behind.
I believe you are correct in your view that 'there is no going back' but that is not what the proposal seeks. You are also correct to point out the 'great harm' that was done to their society by colonisation and that continued well into the 1970's. From my perspective, the proposal does not seek to re-establish a vanished society but it does seek two important things. 1. It seeks to recognise in our country's founding charter the special place of the indigenous people as the original, pre-colonial owners of the land and 2. It seeks to provide a specific head of power in the Constitution for the Commonwealth Government to legislate for an advisory body to allow the descendants of those original people to have their views considered in laws and polices we make for their governance.
We should remember that all the persons who have come to this country since 1788 have done so voluntarily (apart from the early convicts) and with implicit knowledge and agreement of the laws that would govern them. As a group, all of these people and their descendants have done remarkably well in this new country. Only the indigenous people and their descendants have had a foreign law imposed on them without their agreement and, as a group, they alone have done poorly in post 1788 Australia.
Finally, I think it important for Australia's future for us to acknowledge our pre-1788 history. It will contribute to our on-going national maturity as our own country and not as an outpost of European colonialism. That is, a "Yes" vote in this referendum is as much for "us" as it is for "them".
"Special because of accomplishments"? What accomplishments? 40,000, 60,000, 80,000 years to discover fire?
@@cameronhickey7771 What have you accomplished.
The fact that we don’t know how it will be written into the constitution is the issue I have. Trusting it to be done correctly AFTER it’s approved is unacceptable.
We know exactly how it will be written into the Constitution. It is in the booklet sent to every household by the Government and AEC in the last week. You can also look at the wording here voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment
But we do, It's been public knowledge for months
Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”
@@JaneTee-dc6si big oof
@@GarryAndrews_ Hope that helps answering your question
@@JaneTee-dc6si it doesn’t. But thank you
A very considered analysis by the guest on this episode.
Pity he doesn't answer the question posed in the video title (but that is not the Professor's fault)
@@AnotherDoug Agreed. He discusses the effect of putting the voice in a separate chapter and creating an extra chamber right near the end. I can see how this changes citizenship, but you are correct. He does not address the title of the video. My guess is that the title of the video came after the discussion and does not nail the crux of the discussion.
@@Want0nS0up
To be clear, his mention of an extra chamber is in the context that the Voice would NOT be third chamber in Parliament.
Yes, I agree the title was added later which is why this it is a dog-whistle to people susceptible to fearmongering
@@AnotherDoug Greg Craven was not dog whistling.
it only benefits one group of people,they already have a voice in parliament,for 3.2% of the population they have a 4.8% of members in parliament.
~ It will help some of the most disadvantaged communities in Australia.
~ Indigenous members of Parliament represent all people in their electorates - not just the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander peoples.
@@AnotherDoug What does the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to then? Isn't this their bailiwick?
vote NO!
WE are one, but WE are many
And from all the lands on earth WE come
WE'll share a dream and sing with ONE VOICE
"I am, you are, WE are Australian"
VOTE NO!
In addition, Stuart Wood AM KC, "It is unconscionable that a government would, with full knowledge, put forward a seriously deficient and misleading question, in an attempt to misinform the Australian people at a referendum as critical as the one ahead" (IPA, 12th September, 2023).
Suggest you read the Solicitor-General's official Opinion on the proposed Constitutional change - rather than a barrister who has been publicly rebuked by the Victorian Bar association over earlier comments about the Voice.
@@AnotherDoug The solicitor general was laughed at because of the 2 questions he was asked to answer. I much prefer an independent opinion. The reality is simple the Voice is now known to be a con as its part of broader plan that was never disclosed to the electorate and you can drive a bus through the three clauses as most readily acknowledge. Stuart Wood is a well regarded Kings Council, being rebuked by the bar association is irrelevant given the rebuke was in relation to commenting that lawyers would make money from the Voice - which is very likely - He provided a full opinion to the Institute of Public Affairs which anyone can read.
Not surprisingly its similar to Greg Cravens comment in the Australian, "it is a ruthless con job". Just more flowery in terms of its language "It is unconscionable that a government would, with full knowledge, put forward a seriously deficient and misleading question, in an attempt to misinform the Australian people at a referendum as critical as the one ahead" (IPA, 12th September, 2023).
The No campaign will win in most states, because a lot of people have looked into the full background of the Voice. So when you say its a simple question, most are now aware the question is simply part of a broader plan as people like Thomas Mayo have fully acknowledged “presenting the strategy going forward, which was simply that, first we would pursue a voice so that we could have the best possible say on the makarrata commission” which is also consistent with the Uluru statement from the heart - "Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda". The agenda of which is "A TREATY could include a proper say in decision making, the establishment of a TRUTH commission, REPARATIONS, a financial settlement (such as seeking a PERCENTAGE OF GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, RECOGNITION OF AUTHORITY and CUSTOMARY LAW"
All of this information is available in the public domain but its good you raise questions - you now need to open your eyes and look at the voice in the round.
@@VK6AB-
~ "was laughed at" by who?
~ "because of the 2 questions he was asked to answer" - laughed at because of the questions or because of the answers?
~ "independent opinion" - in what way is the S-G not independent. He is not a member of parliament and was appointed by the LNP in 2017.
~ "known to be a con" - by who?
~ what "broader plan"?
~ "as most readily acknowledge" - who exactly? Not even the No campaign have objected to the S-G's Opinion.
~ "Institute of Public Affairs" - is not an unbiased organisation
~ Even if the Voice is voted down in October, there is nothing to stop discussions on treaty and truth-telling. (Money is already being spent by the Government on the makarrata Commission.)
@@AnotherDoug If the government tries to put it in place the Voice by stealth - the Governor General will become involved.
Examples:- Greg Craven called the Voice "a ruthless con job" in the Australian.
Thomas Mayo said the following:- “presenting the strategy going forward, which was simply that, first we would pursue a VOICE so that we could have the best possible say on the makarrata commission”. (four way video conference with Kerry O'Brien, Allegra Spender, Nicole Abadee).
The broader plan has a road map titled unsurprisingly road map and consists of six stages these are (1) Uluru (2) Following Uluru (3) Garma (4) Following Garma (5) Establishing the Voice (6) Towards Makarrata (NIAA FOI/2223/016, Roadmap p 21-23).
Aims "a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law" (NIAA FOI/2223/016, p19).
The reasons why people literally laugh at and ignore the solicitor generals opinion are (1) because of the two questions asked and (2) he's a committed yes voter.
Your team have lost because they are dishonest, obnoxious, rude, wrong and incredibly ill informed. You want to fossilise disadvantaged aboriginal Australians in the perpetual soft bigotry of low expectations.
The voice will unit every property owner with a council reparations tax of 1-2% initially. And for non-property owners can expect their rents to go up. Well...can't say it won't unify the country
This is completely false.
The Voice will have no power other than to give *ADVICE* to the Government - that's it.
@@AnotherDoug really? that is your assumption. Try in Canada
"Other taxes specific to First Nations and Aboriginal Governments
Some band councils or other governing bodies of First Nations have passed their own laws imposing:
the First Nations Goods and Services Tax (FNGST) which replaces the GST or the federal part of the HST
the First Nations Tax (FNT) on listed products
There are exceptions to the application of the GST/HST to Yukon First Nations. For more information, see GST/HST Notice 143, Application of GST/FNGST to Yukon First Nations and their Members." - already happening in Victoria and you can expect Australia to mirror what is happening in Canada
@@SR-pr2xz Not an assumption. Read the wording of the proposed Constitutional change: "...Voice may make representations ..."
"Make representations" means "give advice". The proposed Constitutional change does NOT say the Voice has any other power. That means the Constitution itself will stop the Voice from doing anything else.
@@AnotherDoug I will be voting no for a multitude of reasons, but you go ahead and enjoy voting day and your yes box. I am comfortable with noting the mistakes others have made in this regard and don't intend to make the same. no need to try and convince me
@@AnotherDoug Poor mis-guided person that you are!!
Yes! and you can thank Albanese! When it was becoming so Divisive, he should have acted like a Prime Minister, and called it off, then got together with the opposition ,then ( listen to the people) come up with something every one could agree on,.
This will be the third time I've voted on a federal level since becoming a citizen. I see a lot of people compare the voice to apartheid, though indigenous people are the minority here, whereas black and mixed South Africans are a majority population.
Thinking about the end of apartide and modern South Africa, I fear this differentiation could be used to discriminate against indigenous people in a not so far off future. One less sympathetic to the plight of the disadvantaged. 100 years from now, a less sympathetic government with a non indigenous majority federal constituency may have lots on incentives to remove all the privileges of the voice, leaving the legal distinction between the two groups. In that case, you do not want a majority who resents you to the point that they will ignore your interests and issues due to a century(s) of advantage.
The indigenous are not disadvantaged.
For 99.7% of their time in this land mass they had carte blanche on development. If there are not enough houses, schools, hospitals, factories etc to meet their needs then 99.7% of the blame lies with that community. The Aboriginal peop l e had sole control of this land for about 59,800 years. White people for about 200 years. Why is it white people's job to provide for what the Aboriginal society has not built?
The Voice is the complete OPPOSITE of apartheid.
Just say that only 10% of Aboriginals vote yes for the voice, then 90% of Aboriginals have voted no, then imagine that 70% of Caucasians vote yes, and the rest vote no, that means the voice will be passed, and Australia will have forced 90% of Indigenous people to follow a change they don't want.
@@andhewonders
The Voice will not force anyone to do anything!
The Voice will be an ADVISORY body - it will have no power other than to advise.
@@AnotherDoug Of course, and what advice would you like on running your business, and can you tell me where you heard that, I've seen no detail?
We are divided already.
The Voice also attacks and undermines Multiculturalism ...
now Indigenous activists want Indigenous v Non- Indigenous (as distinct from one culture with many contributors)... The Vouce sees those, no matter how obscurely, descended from the original people , as separate from all those who have come here later in history...
No longer all cultural backgrounds contributing their best to our one community .. BUT the Voice wants TWO separate communities and one with special rights and privileges
The Voice does not attack or undermine multiculturalism. This is fearmongering
@@AnotherDoug The Voice sees Indigenous people as separate from the non-Indigenous community and emphasises a special considerstion for those people claiming descent from those people living here prior to 1788.
The Voice To Parliament is like an Aboriginal Senate acting to advise and review legislation and its there to ensure special consideration to people identifying as Indigenous.
Aboriginal activists present themselves as separate from and sometime hostile to the broader Australian community.
@@glennmason9949
~ Creation of the Voice is requested as recognition that Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander peoples are descended from the First Peoples of Australia.
~ That "special consideration" is simply an ADVISORY body that can guide the Government in how to help A&TSI peoples improve their standards of living so that it gets closer to that enjoyed by most other Australians.
~ The Voice will NOT be "like an Aboriginal Senate" - the Voice will have no powers other than to advise. Advice that the Government can ignore if they choose to.
~ "Aboriginal activists" can say whatever they like, it is a free country. They have nothing to do with the Voice or the advice it provides.
I’m not a constitutional expert but the highest independent law officer on the subject has stated “The voice is not just compatible with the system of representative and responsible government prescribed by the Constitution, but an enhancement”
@@JaneTee-dc6si "indecent law officer"???????
Everyone I know , including my one aboriginal niece in law are voting NO, please ensure you tick both boxes as No and please pass the advice to others you know x
There is only one box on the ballot form. It is recommended you write the word - either "YES" or "NO". That's it. You might like to read the brochure sent by the government to every household in the last few days
My kids are getting bullied at school because they said I will be voting NO.
The school does nothing about it.
You notice the whitewashing of history and pushing of guilt to the kids is disgusting.
If this was done after 2030 it would pass, due to the education system. Hearing the we respect so-so group on which we are on. At Assemblies and more.
Kids not hearing about tribal conflicts. It is about guilt and rewriting history.
@@nobledarkmoon
Seems unlikely
Even better. Both these questions are asking "Are you a Racist Bigot?" So make sure to answer NO to those questions (unless of course you are a racist).
@@AnotherDougnot really, when you consider that spitting harridan yes activist is a professor at an Australian uni.
It has already divided us to some extent. The referendum is a total waste of money.
Grand finals divide us as well. But no footy fan feels they are a waste of money.
@@AnotherDoug Grand finals do not divide the whole Country. This is entirely different.
@@ballaratboy1The country is NOT divided. That is just fear-mongering by the No side.
People are allowed to disagree with each other but it leads to nothing more than debates; which will all disappear after 14 October.
Ok. So the constitution is not racist because it doesn't discriminate or mention race. So lets put another paragraph, chapter, how ever it's decided to be added, and make it about race. Got it. 👍 Vote no.
Not about race at all
It already has!
Its already creating division.
How is it doing that.
@@beepbeep6861 look around - activists, mainly white, going around trying to convince the indigenous they are treated unfairly compared to all other Australians - a complete lie - Australia is one of the few countries where all are treated relatively equal - you certainly won't find it better anywhere else, or in any other point in history. The Indigenous already get many benefits above and beyond - what they dont need is white people seeking to use them to gain power by telling them they are weak and that a "gap" exists - A gap that Marxist toting activists are offering to "fill". The tactics being used are no different to what the Austrian painter man did in the 1930's by spreading racial divide - he then enslaved the entire population. Enacting raced based law. I think we know who the actual fascists are. I look at the actions, not the words or signs they carry.
It’s already divided us.
I love to consider myself as a citizen of the universe. But that is not how government structures operate.
One HAS to be a citizen of a certain nominated nation/country, usually the one of birth, or the nation/country that one permanently resides in. How great would it be if one could nominate “ planet earth” as the place one seeks to take citizenship in?
@@chrimbus71 we do just about that anyway, without regard of how to accommodate all those “citizens”, and maintaining the lifestyle that attract folks to move to Australia in the first place.
@@chrimbus71 open borders and planetary citizenship are two entirely different concepts. You appear to be confused!
And where precisely would you imagine these half a billion people would take up residence in this country?
Now if they were the build the Bradfield system and fertilise the great desert, it might just be viable.
Of course The Voice will divide Australians. That's the whole point.
Incorrect - where is your evidence?
Really? Have you read the "statment from the heart"? If not, please do. The goal is aboriginal sovereignty as stated under the "new law" and I quote 'We have never, ever ceded our sovereignty.' The Voice IS division according to "them". There is no "them", it is us (Australians). @@AnotherDoug
@@AnotherDoug Poor AnotherDoug. You will have to get used to the fact that the YES vote will not win, as it is loosing more ground every time a YES person opens their mouth.
It already has divided us otherwise the split would be 95% for.
Of course it will...
I am struggling to see how the voice would make any real change. Whatever it is that needs to be done to "close the gap" could be being done right now. Though I fear there are no magic bullets.
The fact that 11 of the Close the Gap targets are NOT closing and some are getting worse, means that what we are doing now is NOT WORKING. The whole concept of the Voice is to give advice from A&TSI people with direct knowledge of the issues to help close the gaps.
@@AnotherDoug I don't think thats true (re: the voice helping to close the gap). The proposal for the voice says nothing about actually doing what you've said - it is very ambiguous.
Creating a taxpayer funded lobby group that only benefits taxpayers with the right genes, with no details of the implementation, or how much it will cost, or for how long, or who "gets" a voice in the voice, and no way to ensure the voice cannot be corrupted by lobby groups and other vested interests, and with no way to remove it from the constitution later if its shown not to work, and an implementation that sets it in stone, in perpetuity even after it somehow miraculously accomplishes its unstated goals... No. a common sense view of it shows that whatever it is, a consitutional change is NOT the way to do this.
Alternative idea: Create the a real working entity via a normal Act of parliament, put it in place, prove it works over a generation, ACTUALLY close the gaps, show that the entity cannot be corrupted, and demonstrate to the Australian people that is a change that benefits ALL of us. And if it doesn't work, or ends up being just another funnel siphoning money out of the public purse - then end it, via another Act of parliament. You can't do that with the current proposal.
Constitutional changes should pass with overwhelming support, and unite - not divide. The voice is a tool for division. It just is.
Yes it will.
Nothing in this video supports that.
It wont divide us because it wont happen .. Vote NO
You are looking at a tactical element of a broader plan rather than the strategic framework as a whole - this make you both seem extraordinarily naive.
WE are one, but WE are many
And from all the lands on earth WE come
WE'll share a dream and sing with ONE VOICE
"I am, you are, WE are Australian"
VOTE NO!
Curiously, New Zealand government is trying to push similar changes
Are they? They already have Māori seats in Parliament - much, much more powerful than is being proposed in the Voice.
Oh wow, so it's even worse?
There are already special benefits and special priv to the tune of billions. The referendum has already created a great divide. There are 11 indig parliamentarians, if that's not democratic and equality....
I still dont get it... 😅
This video does not answer the question posed in its title. Nowhere in this video is any mention that the Voice erodes citizenship. Or is the title of this video just a dog-whistle?
The video description says it "Prof. Nicholas Aroney discusses the divisive outcomes of constitutional changes proposed by the Voice. He explains the ways this change will undermine universal citizenship, eroding the equality and unity innate to the constitution's initial design."
I wonder if Prof. Aroney agrees with these two sentences. No mention is made of any "divisive outcomes " nor does he explain how the Voice will "undermine universal citizenship" Perhaps, I need to ask him.
Sitting and drinking .. yes drinking with my abo friend on a friday night watching the football.... he is voting yes.. as gets free stuff.. can't fault him on that..I would too.. also .. when I asked .. so has being an abo ever stopped you doing anything... answer no and thats my answer too
"Abo" is no longer an accepted term and many would consider it a racist term.
Albo has said that if the referendum is a no then he will just push it through anyway.
and we'll make him a 1- term PM.
A PM who is not willing to listing to the majority of the people is not a Leader, but a Dictator!! Everyone has a constitutional right to have their own views, but the majority will win. This is Democracy in a civilised world. We are not living in North Korea!!
The Voice has already divided us.
We have learned about how much better off aboriginals ALREADY are. $33 billion per year, many thousands of land rights yet to be processed when aboriginals already 'own' over half of our nation
So there is a simmering bitter taste here already
The 'race clause' is in accord with the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which permits temporary 'positive discrimination'.
Surely the High Court would not try to limit Parliament from helping people temporarily?
Half a glass of milk:
Optimist "glass half full"
Pessimist "glass half empty"
Marcia Langton "milk is racist".
Aborigines loose more than they think and Labour loose trust of Australian people. This comes into very fast end of Labour
I agree that only John Farnham is entitled, constitutionally speaking, to "The Voice" and no amount of Linda Burney grovel will change John's right to his voice.
And Farnham, willingly and without charge, allowed the campaign to use the song.
You don't seem that familiar with the history of this country or the anthropology. The major movement out of Africa was around 72,000 years ago. However thats not the whole story, its well understood divergence of both Papuan and Australian aboriginal groups occurred around 58,000 years ago and further Papuans and Aboriginal Australians diverged about 37,000 years ago perhaps indicating the Sahul was effectively closed off to humans for a period of time. By about 31,000 years ago communities became genetically isolated and then seemingly out of the blue there was a large scale internal migration about 4,000 years ago probably as a function of another migration which resulted in the spread of the Pama-Nyungan linguistic family. The migration 4,000 years ago was likely the result of a rapidly changing climate (not man made), as there was a warming phase that lasted about 1500 years (coinciding with the Egyptian, Minoan and Caral civilisations). Moreover, in detail there are 250 to 400 linguistic groups and up to 800 dialects - so which was the first nation, and given there was no concept of nation it becomes moot.
Bottom line Australia is a continent of migrants both older (land bridges) and newer (boats) and recent, planes. To be frank the Voice is little more than neo-marxist drivel, promoted by people such as Marcia Langton who was in fact known, in the mid-1970s, as a member of the national committee of the Communist League, and later the Socialist Workers Party, into which the Communist League merged in 1977. (Head, 17th June 2020, WSWS.org). Know who you're dealing with.
Voting on the RACE biased is not good. We've seen what happened in Germany. We are supposed to all be equal not a law based on Race. Indigenous? What percentage of 'aboriginalality' does this law help? LAWS based on RACE is diversive and effect all negatively.
Not based on race at all
It already has.
Already has.
Aroney ignores that in 1901, the attorney-general, Alfred Deakin, provided a legal opinion on the meaning of section 127 of the Constitution of Australia. Section 127 excluded "aboriginal natives" from being counted when reckoning the numbers of the people of the commonwealth or a state.His legal advice was that "half-castes" were not "aboriginal natives".
It already has...
The voice doesn,t seem quite as unifying as the Prime Minister hoped. What a surprise. Writing NO is the go.
Anyone else think this was Kochie at first look of the thumbnail?
Anthony Albanese needs to be held accountable for the Massive social unrest and potential Violence, that this unnecessary Referendum will cause , What ever did He think was going to happen, He's not fit to be Prime Minister
That's its purposed.
The indigenous didn't ask for this the majority don't even know anything about it,
this is something that has demented theology behind it and has nothing to do with helping the indigenous people,
I ,like the majority of Australians want the very best for the Australian indigenous 200% Australian don't need a referendum for that, reducing the bureaucracy in Canberra 63% of all indigenous funding goes to Canberra indigenous wages, that is descusting when the real indigenous only dribble down 37% that's not good enough, a lot of people going payed for doing nothing related to the indigenous those people need to be weeded out and cut off, this would be great start to help indigenous with out this dividing referendum.
" 63% of all indigenous funding goes to Canberra indigenous wages" - what is your source for this claim?
so we're does the funding go , there needs to be an inquiry because a lot is not going to the indigenous people, funding scabs need to be cut off, we don't need a referendum if goes to the real indigenous not the innercity indigenous waiting for hand outs for nothing that happened to them.
@@peterjames174 OK, so you just made it up.
no not made up fact.
@@peterjames174 If you can't quote a reliable source for this "fact", then ...
So you see New Zealand as a divided country? They seem far and away better able to support their indigenous culture, why is that?
This voice will devide thats why we must VOTE NO Australian's 💞
How will an ADVISORY body divide anyone?
And we don't know if it will be its own chapter 🤔
NO
Yes, we do. You might try reading some of the information supplied by the Government
@@AnotherDougso what is Prof. Nicholas talking about from 4:00
ua-cam.com/video/7fyboMCRVik/v-deo.htmlsi=8XHEoeAE5qEs5A2U
@@beauzo9965
Yes, I wondered why he is talking about it as if the words have not been published. I found that quite odd.
But the proposed Constitutional change clearly labels the section "Chapter IX - Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples"
If it's racist then it's perceivably insofar as being created at a time when indigenous peoples were well known of as what we would call first nations-keyword being First, people that were here prior to European settlement-but viewed as less than human, hence 'terra nullis', and thus not mentioned in the constitution. That is a simple acknowledgement, without talking about race. Many people would surely side for such recognition but not for what it has been tied up in vis-à-vis the Voice, which is actually an exercise in equitable outcomes concerning the modern social construct of the term, but the Yes campaign purposely don't use these words.
Precisely.
WE are one, but WE are many
And from all the lands on earth WE come
WE'll share a dream and sing with ONE VOICE
"I am, you are, WE are Australian"
VOTE NO!
The error in referencing that song is, whilst it acknowledges first nations peoples, it's sung from a non-indigenous euro-centric standpoint, which may not be shared by indigenous communities. It would be akin to your neighbour walking uninvited into your house and claiming that 'we have a nice home', but it isn't their home, they don't share the house with you. For non-indigenous people telling indigenous people that they are Australian with all of us is a form of simping through song. The narrative of the song should be the other way around.
The voice hasn't decided us but the wounds left unattended for generations has. Revealing them now we sadly see an infection that's formed that's rather scary for many to try and address. The devide is weather we're strong enough as a society to admit our past failings and work effectively to provide the proper aid to mend such a deep cut in Australian society.
You'll find the issue is not aid, vast amounts have been spent on that, but what has happened to that funding over a long period of time. The fixes have to start on the ground by stopping bullying, cronyism, nepotism, corruption and abuse. This is both endemic and systemic. Moreover, the Voice is not an honest construct as has been well publicised. Furthermore, why should a 1st generation migrant have a different level of access to government and resources to an Aboriginal Australian.
Do you understand the Voice? if not its worth noting the Voice is part of a six stage strategy, the Voice itself is stage 5 and stage 6 is Makarrata.
The aims are clearly stated "A TREATY could include a proper say in decision making, the establishment of a TRUTH commission, REPARATIONS, a financial settlement (such as seeking a PERCENTAGE OF GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, RECOGNITION OF AUTHORITY and CUSTOMARY LAW" (from page 19 of a 26 page document released under FOI (FOI/2223/016) from the National Indigenous Australian Agency, page 1 is titled Uluru statement from the heart [centre justified]) "Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda" from the Uluru Statement from the Heart (page 1).
So its very clear, not only is the Voice a planned assault on democratic principles, not only does it introduce race/cultural identity into the constitution, its part of an agenda that the Prime Minister himself promotes VOICE - TREATY - TRUTH. He even has the T - shirt.
Moreover, the National Indigenous Australian Agency (now under Linda Burney) has had executive authority to close the gap since 2019. (e) specify the functions of the National Indigenous Australians Agency be as follows: iii. to lead and coordinate the development and implementation of Australia’s Closing the Gap targets in partnership with Indigenous Australians; (Federal register of legislation, C2019G00474).
I note, life expectancy for Indigenous men increased from 56.6 years in 1999 to 65.6 years in 2018 (change, 9.0 years; 95% CI, 7.9-10.0 years) and from 64.8 to 69.7 years for Indigenous women (4.9 years; 95% CI, 3.2-6.7 years); Med J Aust 2022; 217 (1): 30-35. || doi: 10.5694/mja2.51553
Moreover the three clauses to be inserted into section 129 of the constitution do not include the words advice, advisory or advise: - i There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Voice. - ii The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. - iii The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice (AEC).
Clearly unique access based on race/cultural identity to all levels of government. Vote NO "it is a ruthless con job" (Greg Craven, The Australian).
@@VK6AB-
~ We are NOT voting on "a six stage strategy" - we are ONLY voting on Constitutional recognition and an ADVISORY body called the Voice.
~ We are NOT voting on a treaty or "truth commission" or reparations or any of this other stuff you list
~ "the Voice [is] a planned assault on democratic principles," - how can an ADVISORY body assault anything, let alone democracy?
~ "make representations" means "GIVE ADVICE" (check your dictionary, also the Solicitor-General's speech on 31 March and the Attorney-general's Opinion on the Constitutional change - all say "advice"!
Don't include me in your comment. I wasn't part of it. Best to move on and to stop the hate festering and growing in your head!!!
@@lesblack413 If you are an adult citizen of Australia, then you are included whether you like it or not.
The voice WILL divide us.
Vote: NO
The concept is flawed. Vote NO.
What is the Voice? The Voice is part of a six stage strategy, the Voice itself is stage 5 and stage 6 is Makarrata. The aims are clearly stated "A TREATY could include a proper say in decision making, the establishment of a TRUTH commission, REPARATIONS, a financial settlement (such as seeking a PERCENTAGE OF GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, RECOGNITION OF AUTHORITY and CUSTOMARY LAW" (from page 19 of a 26 page document released under FOI (FOI/2223/016) from the National Indigenous Australian Agency, page 1 is titled Uluru statement from the heart [centre justified]) "Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda" from the Uluru Statement from the Heart (page 1).
So its very clear not only is the Voice a planned assault on democratic principles, not only does it introduce race/cultural identity into the constitution, its part of an agenda that the Prime Minister himself promotes VOICE - TREATY - TRUTH. He even has the T - shirt.
The National Indigenous Australian Agency (under Linda Burney) has had executive authority to close the gap since 2019. (e) specify the functions of the National Indigenous Australians Agency be as follows: iii. to lead and coordinate the development and implementation of Australia’s Closing the Gap targets in partnership with Indigenous Australians; (Federal register of legislation, C2019G00474).
Moreover the three clauses to be inserted into section 129 of the constitution do not include the words advice, advisory or advise: - i There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Voice. - ii The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. - iii The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice (AEC).
Clearly unique access based on race/cultural identity to all levels of government. Vote NO "it is a ruthless con job" (Greg Craven, The Australian).
This is complete and absolute disinformation.
~ We are NOT voting on the Uluru Statement (whether it is 1 or 26 pages) or Treaty or Truth or Reparations or any of the other things you have listed. We are *ONLY* voting on Constitutional recognition and an ADVISORY body called the Voice. That's it!
~ How can an ADVISORY body be an "assault" on anything?
~ "Race" has existed in the Constitution since 1901. This Referendum will not change that. (By the way, there is no such thing as separate "races" - we are all just part of one human race.
~ The words "make representations" means "to advise". Check your dictionary, or the Attorney-General's Second Reading Speech or the Solicitor-General's official Opinion - they all use the words "advice" and "representations interchangeably.
~ Prof. Craven changed his mind after the Solicitor-General issued his Opinion in late April. That is why Craven was very upset that his earlier words were used without permission in the No Pamphlet.
Will the vote divide us? Not if we all vote NO.
Designed to specifically divide
TogetherWeAreStronger🫂
Already has. If the vote is yes it will cause much division and trouble and hate
Why? The Voice will not affect 97% of the nation - there will be no division or trouble or hate.
@@AnotherDoug what are you talking about it already has
@@joywilliams8444 Which will disappear, like the division over a football grand final, on the day after the Referendum.
Vote NO
The voice will make the constitution racist....sir with respect the Voice will not be inserted into the constitution.
Constitution has contained "race" since 1901 - the current proposal will not add it.
The Voice is all about dividing Australia, doing a great job, so that it makes it easier for some Communist country to take us over. Indigenous rights will not be considered at that time.
Disagreement is divisive but the Voice is not. Over 97% of Australians would be completely unaffected by the Voice. No-one loses anything if the Voice exists.
No 97% of Australians would be second class citizens. Anyway, why do we have to do as we are told by Albo, Marcia, Noel et al? Are we not supposed to be a democracy? Why was there not a Constitutional referendum to work out the detail before hand? Has been for every referendum in our country. How can we vote yes in this referendum when the detail has not be worked out. Australians are very reticent to write blank cheques to politicians. Finally, how will this Voice for the aboriginal elite help those 20% of the aboriginal people doing it tough in the regions, kids and women in particular, that 90+% of Australians want to help. It will just be another ATSIC - corruptly doing nothing.@@AnotherDoug
@@evanevans1843
~ In what way will 25 million people become 2nd class citizens if the Voice is created?
~ "Constitutional referendum to work out the detail before hand" - do you mean a Constitutional Convention? There was: the 12 Regional Dialogues culminated in the Uluru Constitutional Convention and the Uluru Statement from the Heart.
~ "how can we vote yes" - by voting on the concept, like we do in all Referendums. The wording of the Constitutional change is pretty simple. Also, the Government has published the Voice Principles which will be used to guide the legislation. What more detail do you believe is critical to deciding on the concept of a Voice?
~ what do you mean by "blank cheque"?
~ It won't be a Voice for the "aboriginal elite" - it will be a Voice for the most disadvantaged communities in Australia.
~ ATSIC had problems towards the end but before that it did a lot of good. Also, the Voice will not be the same as ATSIC. The Voice will not control any funding or any projects - they will simply give advice.
Educate yourselves on what these men have deliberately ignored- see “1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals)” on Wikipedia, and read about how aboriginals were officially named as being excluded from Australias constitution
i use to like anderson but now think he is dodgy. generally they get better post political career. 🤷♂️
This interview strikes me as is either two men talking about something they don't understand - racism, OR two men who do understand racism perfectly, and are doing a sterling job of casting a thin veil over their Racist right-wing agenda. Either way, it's terrible.
Should be 3 choices yes, no and don't give fk
Terrible take given the history of European settlers in Australia. I mean giving a form of lip service to past wrongs is being presented as dividing Australians.
He's creating an argument for why the entire Constitution needs to be reviewed... and in this day and age its outdated.
Never going to happen and should not happen, just because a minority group of 3% can't accept it like the other 97% do!!
It's already has divided us . There are the ones that worked and bought their land . Then there are the ones who say they own that land on account of their colour . So yes it's racist separation and racial theft .
Semper viratus Tim
It already has!
It’s all about money and land grabbing.