These programs should be on the free to air ,,all channels for all off Australian citizens to know which way they want to vote . We deserve to know all aspects of this referendum.
Of course it should....bloody disgusting to go to UA-cam to get an unbiased news feed.....and even then,only sky let you comment.....Australian media is more corrupt than our politicians.
Yes, a great deal of people don't watch UA-cam, but also main stream media seem to always sway to the left view of things, well, that's what I myself has observed.
@@GlowingTube It's still the same point isn't it? There can't be anywhere near enough people watching Sky or reading their papers either based on recent history.
@@leandabee Really? Obviously your definition of a left view differs from the dictionary meaning. In Australia the mainstream media is a grand version of the shopping channel.
Just look at the Australian parliamentary website.... Australian government sucks up the arse of big business and foreign governments... Australian people and the country have been sold out for years,,, government would love to run the country like China,,A dictatorship.. That don't care about anyone ,black,white ..they don't care...just gave themselves a pay rise when already being paid too much..while the rest of us are going homeless and broke..
In 1967 the people of Australia voted very clearly in a referendum voting to remove discrimination towards Aboriginal people , to the tune of 90.77% . So section 127 was removed, which was discriminatory, and the word "Aboriginal" was removed from section 51(xxvi). So from 1967 the Aboriginal people have been on an equal status as everyone else in the Commonwealth of Australia. In 1969 there was a treaty signed by the Commonwealth government eliminating all forms of discrimination , so we the people need to ask why is this Labour bunch of criminals attempting to throw us back to the dark ages by asking us to vote yes to discrimination.
They’re trying to destroy the established system so they rebuild it how they want it…….. the Voice is their first step at dissolving democracy and dividing the population so we’re weakened by infighting. That in conjunction with ruining our power system to starve of the looming “climate catastrophe”. It’s all playing out how they want it to so far but surely there’s more Australians with a bit of common sense that can see through the destructive nature of the current leadership and vote them out 🤞🏼
The constitution before 1967 had granted the government power to “make laws for the peace, order, and good government” with regard to “the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;" …rather than removing the entire clause and treat everyone as Australians, only ‘other than the aboriginal race’ was taken out… this clause was necessary for race-based ‘affirmative action’ after all.
Yes which leads to the Treaty signed in 1969 which dealt with eliminating all types of racial discrimination. The current question is racial and a breach of pretty much every article in the treaty.
Because, as Ken Henry said in the Sydney Morning Herald (18/01/2023),: "Generations of Australian politicians have had all the power and apparatus of the Australian state at their disposal, yet have merely borne witness to their own failure to prevent the ever-worsening tragedies of Indigenous child protection, incarceration, and suicide; and shamefully persistent gaps in Indigenous life expectancy, employment, educational attainment, poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, mental and physical health outcomes."
Having travelled extensively around Australia since I was young, I am very big supporter of improving the lives of our most impoverished, many of whom are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. The "She'll be right mate attitude" is romantically known as a great Australian attitude, but is not one that should be adopted or accepted for this referendum. I have not heard a single person concisely define what the voice will be, how it will work or how it will affect Australian citizens. Or, if I have heard that, it has been contradicted by people in their very own party or organisation. It is a no vote for me. There are far more effective ways of helping Australia's most impoverished.
exactly right rob. I'm just an old lefty ('I didn't leave the left - the left left me') - many people need support/ help in oz. this IMO, is best done through wealth distribution, not through, what I think, is radical changes to our constitution - just so some wankers in the leafy suburbs can have something to virtue signal at their next dinner party !
The whole point of the voice is to make sure this "wealth distribution" is done effectively by ensuring that the Federal government and legislature listens to First Nations peoples. There have been many examples of the Federal government intervening in the lives of First Nations people with the apparent intent of making their lives better but they don't succeed because of mistakes that could have been avoided if they had just listened to First Nations people.@@haydenwalton2766
Here you go: ~ "what the voice will be" - The Voice will be an ADVISORY body giving advice to Parliament and Executive Government on "matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and matters relevant to the Australian community, including general laws or measures, but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently to other members of the Australian community." ~ "how it will work" - it will provide advice ~ "how it will affect Australian citizens" - it is expected to benefit those Australian citizens who are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders
@@haydenwalton2766And that "wealth distribution" has been going on for at least 56 years but most of the Closing the Gap targets are not being met and some are going backwards. We need to address these differently and the Voice could help us do that.
There are over 250 tribes / mobs within Australia. To have a fair voice wouldn't each tribe need to vote for their own representative - 250 voices. They were 250 individual tribes, never a unified nation. In fact, the concept of "nationhood" is not in their culture.
There are way more than 250 tribes/clans etc. I think you will find it’s closer to 3,000. Albo said there will be 250 representing all indigenous Australians, This in itself will cause huge problems
@@tawnydi perhaps if you googled him you would find out how much he knows about constitutional law he has a publication on the"constition of a federal commonweath;the making and meaning of the australian constition" maybe you should read it
No, it won't. 1. The Solicitor-General has provided his official Opinion that proposed s 129(iii) will empower the Parliament to legislate to specify the legal effect of representations of the Voice. Proposed s 129 would not pose any threat to Australia’s system of representative and responsible government. 2. The Solicitor-General also said "“The suggestion that a consequence of empowering the Voice to make representations to the Executive Government will be to clog up the courts, or to cause government to grind to a halt, ignores the reality that litigation concerning the validity of decisions of the Executive Government is already very common, and that it does not have either of those consequences.”
....I'm a Kiwi who has spent a great deal of time in Australia over a lot of years. I've not heard of 'The Voice' but based on what has happened in NZ with the local moaris and their imaginary treaty I would say that anything at all that has the potential to divide the country by race to appease a minority group of any sort is a recipe for disaster. Australia is not bi-cultural, it is multi-cultural. By all means find ways of taking care of minority groups but not by divisive means. NZ is fast becoming a ruined country because the radicals now have money and power, it's a fu*king nightmare and is not even good for the moaris in general.
Albo : " Your a racist if you vote NO to the Voice referendum " Journo to Albo : " Other than the first page have you read the rest of the entire document that details your Voice referendum " ? Albo : " No why would i " ?
~ Albanese did not call anyone racist - you are deliberately spreading disinformation. ~ The journo did NOT ask "have you read the rest of the entire document that details your Voice referendum". The journalist you refer to is, I'm guessing, Neil Mitchell in his interview with Albanese on 16 August. Mitchell asked whether Albanese had read the "other 25 pages" of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Uluru Statement from the Heart does not "[detail the] Voice referendum". Albanese said the other pages are a "record of meeting" but that the Uluru Statement is one page and that is the important document.
I have travelled around most of Australia and have found the biggest problem being that the parents don’t support their kids education and give very little guidance I have seen this on many occasions The aboriginal community needs to take responsibility for its own lack of action any money would just be wasted They need to be incentivised to catch up with the 21st century
....yep, as a Kiwi who has spent a great deal of time in Australia over a lot of years, I've not actually heard of 'The Voice' till now but based on what has happened in NZ with the local moaris and their imaginary treaty I would say that anything at all that has the potential to divide the country by race to appease a minority group of any sort is a recipe for disaster. Australia is not bi-cultural, it is multi-cultural. By all means find ways of taking care of minority groups but not by divisive means. NZ is fast becoming a ruined country because the radicals now have money and power, it's a fu*king nightmare and is not even good for the moaris in general.
@@cspace1234nzit’s too late mate, the contagion of bias in the foundations of every institution of The Crown/governance has already worked to divide the countries colonised by the UK.
@@DaGoyDidGood ....wow, I've got a lot to learn about what's happening in Aussie. I was based over there for several years till Covid hit and am heading back for an extended period in a few months time. In a very different way I have watched Aussie going seriously downhill in so many ways over the last 40 years compared to NZ but ultimately both countries atre headed on a downward spiral towards the same place. I suppose that's happening all over the planet but it's hard when it's the countries you know and love the most.
@@AnotherDougOh yes it can. 'Advice not taken? Right, see you in court.' Activists picketing the offices of Ministers or administrator demanding that they, 'listen', to the Voice: endless delays and expense, decisions done and redone. Prime opportunity for political blackmail, not at all likely to be rejected.
@@sandrajohn9837 The Voice will not be able to challenge Government decisions in High Court - the legislation will be written to prevent this (as per the Solicitor-General's formal Opinion a formal Opinion (www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ea88212c-eccc-45d2-822c-8578fa96895c&subId=740367). Others may attempt to invoke the High Court but 1) it will be at their cost, not the Government's and 2) even if the High Court agrees, all it can do is send the decision back to the Government for re-assessment. The High Court can't overturn the Government on these matters.
I my family's and friends will be ... Voting No ... Final ... We are the builders and taxpayers who funds this country for all Australians as a ... Collective 🇦🇺
Great discussion which everyone should listen to. Instead of spruiking nonsense in stores they should be playing THE SEEKERS “I AM AUSTRALIAN”. I will be voting NO. I’m a migrant to this great country and want to remain a first class respected citizen because I helped in my little way to build it up, not for me alone but FOR ALL AUSTRALIANS. AMEN.
What’s your answer for the people who lived here for 10’s of thousands of years and were profoundly disadvantaged by australian governments. Not by the people but by the government.
WHOSE VOICE TO PARLIAMENT WILL BE HEARD, WHICH OF THE HUNDREDS OF GROUPS?, WHICH TRIBE?, WHICH CLAN?, WHICH FAMILY GROUP? DO WE ALL GET A VOICE TO PARLIAMENT OR IS IT ONLY GOING TO BE A FEW PEOPLE? THIS ABORIGINAL WILL BE VOTING NO
Everyone will be able have input. And like the parliamentary system that we have, representatives will put forward the wishes of the aboriginal community.
An interesting discussion. It is my view that the Referendum is not primarily about a voice but about sovereignty. Once the Voice is written into the Constitution then the Voice will automatically achieve a measure of sovereignty. Here is how it works. If the referendum is successful in entrenching the Voice in the Constitution then it is a simple matter to appoint the Voice to the position of Governor General. This will happen on 1 July 2024. This provides the Voice to use the provisions of Sections 62 and 63 of the Constitution, the power to call and use Executive Council, and to access to the provisions of Section 58 of the Constitution, the power to withhold assent and to return any proposed law with amendments and recommendations. The overall effect is the transfer of sovereignty from the Crown to the Voice.
Yes. I see that as the outcome sought by this referendum. And there is nothing 'proxy' about it. We are being sold the sympathy vote while the Yes campaign omits to mention its real purpose. It can go further in future if there is a referendum to replace 'Queen' with 'Voice" within the Constitution. @@chadjcrase
except you can control a republic but can you control a group with more power that have not been elected, they will be "chosen" not elected as Senator Burney has stated.@@chadjcrase
Because the Department of Indigenous Affairs is mostly non-Indigenous staff who do not live on country. The Voice will represent A&TSI peoples - not those in Canberra.
@@AnotherDoug not even close, they will be appointed, self-appointed and they will be the boss man or boss woman lording it over the little people like Yunupingu
Jesus, why doesn’t anyone raise the obvious issue with the question? The wording purports to give the parliament powers to give the Voice body any “powers” that it sees fit. THAT is the main problem. The amendment purports to give the parliament the power to decide to grant whatsoever powers it so chooses, to the Voice body. That circumvents the restrictions of the Section 51 powers of the constitution and could result in parliament giving this external unelected unaccountable body power to run the country without restriction if it so chooses.
The reason why no-one is raising "the obvious issue with the question" is because it is NOT an issue! You need to read the proposed Constitutional change a bit more closely (voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment). It does not propose to give the Voice "any powers" at all - other than to make representations..
I worry that some trick question will be on referendum...why not just a plain, yes or no, without any other questions which could trick people into voting for what they don't want.
This entire conversation seems to be about the 'how, why, where and when' of creating a workable autonomous 'nation state' within an already existing autonomous 'nation state'. The premise of the conversation seems to be that such a creation is an already established and accepted reality by the Australian people, yet, IT'S NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE. It would seem that you are determined to 'rationalize', 'justify' and 'legitimize' TWO SEPERATE NATIONAL FLAGS FLYING OVER THE ONE PARLIAMENT HOUSE..... THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE SAY "NO" !!!
That is precisely the question being discussed, albeit obliquely, and precisely the agenda being pursued by proponents of the, 'Voice'. The voice is a stepping stone to treaty and treaties imply sovereign states as parties. It isn't hidden. Anyone can google the information.
This referendum is a moment where I step back and realise how lucky we are; to still be in that period before government reaches that critical mass of authority and massive bureaucracy from which there is no return to conservative, liberal values. Also lucky that we still have a say in the outcome. I just hope that enough people actually inform themselves before voting.
John's bringing up the question about an emergency rings true, if we needed to implement emergency conditions would be more alarming if the Voice idiots were to go to the courts to rescind an emergency order that would help our defences. That rescinding should not be allowed. Best way for that situation to not happen, is to get in early, and vote NO!.
So many voice unanswered questions, how can any sensible person sign off on the voice. Of course self interest is involved and that seems to be a powerful voice motivator.
@@AnotherDoug You don't seem to understand how the law operates. It's never finalised and is always open to interpretation on a case by case basis. Particularly where it is so vague like here.
@@FairladyS130 The legislation has not yet been written - so no-one, including you and these people in the video, cannot comment on how open to interpretation it is. That would be scare-mongering
I would vote 'No' if I could. As an Australian citizen living abroad, having been out of the country for more than six years, I am NOT ALLOWED to vote. I do not have dual citizenship with any other country, and I do intend to return to my homeland Australia. But I have been disenfranchised. How's that for justice?
@@johnphelps9788 Of course you can vote at an embassy/consulate if you are registered. But if you have been overseas for six years you lose your right to vote, and you cannot re-register with an overseas address. It is totally unjust.
*I'm voting "No". Why? Because this "Voice" is sounding increasingly like **_"You have to vote to pass the proposal to find out what is in the proposal"_* (or change to the Constitution as the case may be) It also sounds like *_a Consultant's Dream Come True,_* where the consultants (to the Voice) will be able to do absolutely nothing (except publish obscure reports that no-one wants or will ever read) and get paid a fortune at Taxpayer's expense.
.....you really only have to look to NZ to see what happens when racial divide is encouraged. Absolute and growing nightmare beyond what most people can begin to imagine. It's a trough for 'victims' who end up with their snouts constantly in it
" Power without authority is....the anti christ ". It leads to the impeimentation of the regulated group mind . thank you both for bringing us this conversation.
Some of which, are dumbly going to vote Yes. The namby pamby peachy and rosy versions, who, up with fairies, plainly wouldn't know drama if it hits them in the face. The drama being the ramifications for Australia if the Yes vote wins. I was brought up in mainstream down to earth Anglican society of old, well the 50's/60s We had commonsense. And that commonsense has told me to vote an emphatic no!. This voice thing won't help any of the aboriginals Albo reckons it will. There you have it. One old fashioned, (but in tune with todays reality), conservative style Christian voice. Not sure if that's the paticular Christian thinking you wanted. But it's definitely ny thinking, and I won't back down.
It will also lead to civil wars as does happen in banana republics like Venezuala at the moment. Socialusm is killing that country. If it hasn't already. Mind you a civila war against a reoublic like that, usn't such a bad thing, if you can at the end of it, bring in a western style democracy. The only priblem in that, is the wrong people get hurt to achieve that, the citizens who want peace, to be able to wandrr around freely without asking each day from the powers that be, to do so, each day.
As citizens of Australia, they already have a way of "sending a message". This is the same way everyone else has by voting. In Rural and remote areas, the Aboriginal populace is a significant number. If they bother to vote, then they have a representative to raise their concerns.
So why are most of the Closing the gaps targets not being met? It is not about members of parliament - it is about specific issues adversely affecting A&TSI peoples being heard at the federal level - not filtered via individual MPs (who have to represent everyone in their electorate - not just the A&TSI peoples.)
@@AnotherDoug There is a strong belief in the old ways and great suspicion about the white persons ways. Proper medical care is REFUSED, laws are DISRESPECTED, education in schools is NOT VALUED, women are NOT EQUAL and lots more. The heart and kidney disease and diabetes begins in their childhood - no medicine on earth can close the gap in under one generation of ALL aborigines doing ALL the good health things for themselves AND their children. The Voice is political power grab by lawyers who identify as Aboriginal elite leaders.
@@AnotherDougGood question. Why not ask those administering the billions of public funds devoted to that end? P.S. everyone's concerns get 'filtered', through Parliament. It's called democracy. That said, Aboriginal people do have a dedicated Minister and Department, NIAA and countless land councils welfare agencies and lobby groups. I don't doubt outback communities are not being heard but this is not about listening to them.
@@sandrajohn9837 If outback communities aren't being heard, then it is because their voices are not loud enough. The Voice would amplify their concerns
@@AnotherDoug It might if the Voice reps consult them adequately but the Voice would be very much more distant than the local land councils and NIAA already exists as a central agency for the purpose of 'amplifying', the Aboriginal voice.
I AM OF ABORIGINAL HERITAGE, AND I'M DEEPLY TROUBLED, THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT ALL THE WASTED MONEY FOR ABORIGINALS, AND NOW THEY WANT TO GIVE US A VOICE, BUT WHOSE VOICE, NOT EVERY ABORIGINAL WILL BE ASKED FOR THEIR OPINION
I want the original people to have a voice but I'm not signing a blank contract. I'm also questioning why should there be an us and them politically. Why not all?
I'm 71 yes old have voted Labor all my as have my family. After the appalling corrupt years of the LNP particularly under Morrison it was like a ray of hope when Labor won the election. Labor supporter put so much faith in Albanese to steer this country out of the darkness into a country we can be proud of once more. The the hammer fell, The Voice. It is total insanity.I'm am disgusted and totally disallusioned with the party. Then to ad insult to injury they gave themselves a 4% pay rise when the country is struggling with the out of control rising cost of living, housing and homelessness. You have driven a knife into the heart of Labor supporters. I will be voting NO,NO,NO for the voice and at the next election state and federal I will not be voting at all. You can put me in jail I don't care. There are no decent politicians to vote for in any of the parties
I'm voting NO . But after seeing 7 news tonight, I'm worried. I get the impression SA could swing it to a yes win. I received the information book today, and it looks pro-Yes . The other thing this is the first time I believe we have had to write no or yes , not just tick a box. This I feel could discriminate against those with severe dyslexia in an attempt to give a bias .
So we don't actually get the clear facts about the proposal. If people don't get clear accurate information on the proposal how do they make informed consent. A lawful agreement requires informed acceptance for it to be binding I thought. The lack of clarity makes it impossible to give informed agreement.
Section 51 subsection xxvi, which presently gives the Federal Government the right to make laws and regulations on the basis of a citizen's race, should be amended to specifically prohibit Governments at all levels throughout the Commonwealth from making laws and regulations that discriminate on the basis of a citizen's race or gender. It is intriguing to me that no politicians seem to be interested in this but most people I meet agree this change is necessary.
A religious act now opens Parliament (smoking ceremonies). A prayer is prayed at many public functions (The Sorry Prayer without opportunity for forgiveness). I travel and am reminded I am entering stolen country that I didn't steal. And places I've known since birth are being renamed in another language. Not even dual names. But this is not a takeover. One nation. Focus on all those who are impoverished, meet their needs to raise all of them up out of poverty regardless of individual personal characteristics.
The constant "welcome to country" or "acknowledgement of country" is getting old. Every meeting at work. Multiple times a day. It's even worse than the LGBT stuff. At least the mostly just stays as a few lines in an email signature. (Before anyone makes accusations, I'm a lesbian. Those flags in signatures and declarations of allyship don't mean anything. They're virtue signalling. Just treat people normally).
You do know that the Lord's Prayer is read at the beginning of each day in both the House of Representatives and Senate - why aren't you complaining about that?
@MsAussieSheila I'm straight and don't give two hoots if you're a lesbian or any other minority My main focus with the voice is we are all Australians and no one should get preference over another
Reminds me of John Hewson in 1992 trying to explain to Mike Willesee (tv anchor) whether the GST would apply to a birthday cake. There was a long winded answer and finally Willesee said he had no hope explaining it to the people.
The proposed s129 voice does not even make it clear that members of the voice must be indigenous nor even Australian citizens. S44 states MPs must be citizens and cannot be dual citizens. But nothing in s129.
That is a level of detail that is not needed in the Constitution. The Voice Principles (voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles) articulate that Voice members must be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. If the Referendum is successful, the legislation to create the Voice will include the requirement that "Members of the Voice would be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, according to the standard three part test."
Sounds like A LOT of power afforded to a group of self- appointed people who represent all of MAYBE 5% of the nation's population... Don't worry though, it won't be used to feather the nests of a select few people... 😉😉
@FitmanFatty I don't know how these committees operate, but the big difference, surely, is that they cannot make appeals to the High Court using the Constitution if the government doesn't do what they want.
@@AnotherDoug Wrong! The Voice is bigger than just a few seats at Parliament. It goes right down to Local electing one or two representatives to speak for the majority. In some cases those 'selected' representatives wont even be Men belonging to the Local Tribal Group. These men will have Authority to approve clearings of Lands, whether they are of the Tribal Group or not. I was there at the meetings with the Government Officials trying to push this, I spoke against it at the time with was like 6-7yrs ago when the Government Officials came around with their Cheque Book trying to Bribe people to make this happen. This is not an Aboriginal Grass Roots Movement, this is a Top Down Initiative that the Government wants and none of you have a clue what they have planned for all of us Black and White Alike!
Ok, lets take this a step further - put the actual mechanism aside: what happens when 'Parliament' agrees with the Voice? And then what happens when Parliament tries to DISAGREE with the Voice? On what grounds can it disagree with the Voice after any initial instance where it agrees with the Voice? How can you acknowlege Indigenous people as 'First Inhabitants' or 'First Owners' & then disagree with them on policy that 'Affects Them' (according to Labor's language)? Basic property rights - how can you acknowledge somebody else as the rightful owner of something but legally deny them their own say on how to manage it?
That is another good illustration of the ambiguity of the whole thing. I don't think Parliament could ever be legally bound to act in any way, as long as they received the advice, because the Voice is not a legislative body. Even lawyers and experts don't really know for sure, so it's very ill-conceived.
1. "what happens when 'Parliament' agrees with the Voice?" - everyone is happy 2. "what happens when Parliament tries to DISAGREE with the Voice?" - the Voice is unhappy 3. "On what grounds can it disagree with the Voice after any initial instance where it agrees with the Voice?" - let's hope we have voted smart people into Parliament who can make their mind up and not have to change their mind later. But, the short answer to your question is the same as 2. above: the Voice is unhappy 4. "How can you acknowlege Indigenous people as 'First Inhabitants' or 'First Owners' & then disagree with them on policy that 'Affects Them'" - easily if the advice is poor or there are other priorities that require the Government to disagree with the Voice's advice. 5. "how can you acknowledge somebody else as the rightful owner of something but legally deny them their own say on how to manage it?" - voting for the Voice does NOT acknowledge anyone's ownership of anything.
@@AnotherDoug I would respectfully posit that once something is in the constitution, the future practical effects are unknown by anyone, especially given that even once those individuals are long gone, the chapter is still in the constitution and always vulnerable to re-interpretations. As for your five points, they seem quite reasonable to me, but they all seem to make the assumption that the members of the Voice are actually going to act in good faith at all times, and always work for better outcomes.
It's already happening to a lesser degree. Land rights legislation is enabling Aboriginal groups to lock off areas of the country on the grounds they are culturally significant or sacred sites.
"Every member of parliament would read it"? Really? Albo hasn't even read the Uluru statement. "Why would I"? Was his answer when asked if he had read it.
Misinformation. Albanese was asked had he read the extra "25 pages" that someone didn't find on the Referendum Council website where they had been sitting in plain view for 6 years. He has read the Uluru Statement from the Heart - just not those pages which are a "synthesis"/summary of the Regional Dialogues.
Its only power will be as specified in the Constitution: to "make representations [give advice] to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples". That is it
Agree. The current socialist/communist government seems to be heading towards a Republic. Was listening to an article from America and Albanese was called a communist. My thoughts for some time. Big NO to the voice rubbish and hope the big A and labor don't push it through regardless. No trust in our government, sadly
Nothing good will come of a YES vote for anyone involved. This is ludicrous, different rules for different people(ethnic backgrounds)were tried in South Africa and it was a disaster.
@@ACDZ123they are normally wealthy people who don't have to worry about everyday problems so they find other things to worry about like Climate change and poor people . Just human nature I guess.
A person affected by a decision can initiate proceedings to have a decision re-assessed - as the law stands now. Potentially allowing a further body to come into existence, compared to the several which already exist, and that body taking a litigious or aggressive approach is so pie in-the sky. That unlikely scenario could easily and sensibly be avoided by the drafting of appropriate legislation defining the powers and limitations of any new body.
The Solicitor-General has given a formal Opinion that the Voice will not be able to challenge the Government in the High Court. "That unlikely scenario could easily and sensibly be avoided by the drafting of appropriate legislation defining the powers and limitations of any new body" - that is exactly what will happen when the Voice legislation is written
The catch is....Aboriginal people are already eaqual in status as Australians.....which means ANY legislation requires their participation because it involves them
Nope - the Attorney -General has said that the Voice can only advise on "matters SPECIFIC to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and matters relevant to the Australian community … but which AFFECT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples DIFFERENTLY to other members of the Australian community.”
The voice will be able to give advice to Private businesses, Parliament, state governments and councils. All company boards will need to have a voice representative as well. Look at what is happening to the Redlands Shire Council. Write NO to the Independent Commonwealth Entity know as the voice.
@@destinyridge The Voice will not be able to use the courts to delay or challenge any Government decision. See the Solicitor-General's official Opinion on the proposed change to the Constitution (www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ea88212c-eccc-45d2-822c-8578fa96895c&subId=740367). Paragraphs 18 and 19 are the relevant bits
I'm confused , why do they not know what the wording is . The AEC says the proposed changes to the constitution says - 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.
There has been a Constitutional Expert Group consulted with since 2015 why is one person questioning the consultations and advice of this group.This bipartisan appointed Referendum Council has given the now opposing LNP plenty of opportunity up until now to raise concerns but there has been none just suggestions which usually have little to no factual basis.
As an ex military veteran who has served some 20yrs and served and fought overseas for my country were l was born too, lwill vote NO because l see this as a racist piece of work for some people who has been on government handouts all their lives yet want more money. They have a voice because they have people in Government on both side ,soo why do we need " the Voice " ?
If the Voice gets up then any Australian Government, before enacting any Bills or Laws, will have to consult "The Voice" before they can be presented to the Parliament. This will make "The Voice" a higher Authority than the Government. Think about that. If the Voice gets up then that will open the floodgates for all sorts of other Groups wanting a Voice. like the refugees from the Middle East. Looking at the Original; The Uluru Statement from the Heart. Specifically at Section 2.1. First Nations Dialogue. Page 2.1.2. Assessment of Reform Proposals Pages 11,12,13. I don't mind if there is a simple recognition of prior occupation put in the Preamble. In the Australian Constitution the following Amendments could be made without a Referendum. In Chapter 1. Part III. para. 25. line 1 after "persons" Delete "of any race are." In Chapter 1. Part III. para. 25. line 3, after "persons" Delete "of the race." In Chapter 1. Part V. para 51. sub. para. xxvi. Delete sub. para. xxvi. As for amending or adding a sub. para. 116a. (116. i.) to Chapter V. para. 116. Definitely not.
~ "If the Voice gets up then any Australian Government, before enacting any Bills or Laws, will have to consult "The Voice": this is utterly INCORRECT. There will be no requirement that the Voice is consulted by the Government. ~ Anyone can have a Voice (not in the Constitution) - but they would need to get organised like the A&TSI representatives, work for 10+ years to get the support of a major political party. Nothing is stopping them - but no-one, other than A&TSI peoples could ask for Constitutional recognition. ~ Nobody is proposing any of the Constitutional changes you have listed
If the voice goes thru, government will have no way to govern properly, it will have so many matters that others think are important to them but not considering the importance or otherwise to the rest of Aus, this would be chaos, the beginning of the end! We need to be One not divided, how many times do we have to say sorry, will the next generation have to go through the same thing. We can only pay for our sins once, any more & its just grsndstanding. 'Look at me! Look at me!'
She elect politicians to run the country on our behalf. Not have a separate group tell the government what to do who will not be elected based on race or partial racial heritage.
Then you had better abolished the Business Council of Australia, the Pharmacy Guild, the Australian Medical Association and each of the hundred other lobby groups that exist to advise the Government.
Great analysis of implication of legal standing of Voice! It is not as simple as it appears! Perhaps the saying, "give them one finger and they grab the whole hand" is true! It is far better to reject the proposal than to have a multitude of problems as a unintended consequences
Except ... all the legal issues discussed here will be eliminated one the Voice legislation is written. The Solicitor-General has said that the proposed Constitutional change clearly and unequivocally give Parliament the power to legislate everything to do with the Voice; there will be no ability for the Voice to challenge the Government in any court. www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ea88212c-eccc-45d2-822c-8578fa96895c&subId=740367
Question: what is the difference in terms of effectiveness or persuasion with respect to corporate lobbyists advising Government on policy compared with the voice? IE: Qantas lobbies government to not introduce new competitors to the airline industry which results in maintaining higher costs for flights. These outcomes affect all Australians and also has a broader impact on standards of employment and wages. Why is there no deep analysis on these matters which in many ways reflects what the voice may be representing?
we dont want to hand more decisions to a court that recently decided that in emergencies we should follow germany's example and suspend the constitution. because strangely the example that lead to WW2 i would think is a pretty good argument not to throw away law when panic sets in.
the issue i have with "the voice" is this, every bit of legislation proposed or passed by the government affects the indigenous people of Australia, this is a BAD idea and i'll be voting NO
The Attorney-General clarified this months ago. The Voice will only be able to offer advice on "matters SPECIFIC to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and matters relevant to the Australian community ... but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples DIFFERENTLY to other members of the Australian community."
Sorry, I need to clarify: I studied contract law in Business school (yes, I know, just enough law to be dangerous) - this is property law 101. You need a contract lawer, not a constitutional lawyer - the constitutional nuts & bolts of this thing are the least of your problems. And don't think there aren't Aboriginal people all over this like a suburban lawyer on a TAC claim. If the 'Yes' vote goes through this guy is going to have to get another job or start learning Indigenous Law (& Lore), because our Constitution will be about as relevant & useful as week-old bread (read: it will have some value, but not a lot).
What I see happening if the Voice passes is that every bit of legislation proposed by parliament will have to be approved by the Voice. The Voice will be linked to United Nations treaties/agreements. The Voice could end up having its own political party and politicians.
"every bit of legislation proposed by parliament will have to be approved by the Voice" - that is simply not true but is used in the No Campaign as fear mongering. The proposed wording of the Constitutional change says that the "Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;" ~ "make representations" means "give advice" ~ "on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples" means the Voice can ONLY give advice on laws or policies that specifically impact A&TSI people. This further means the Voice CANNOT comment on every "bit of legislation" as most legislation does NOT specifically impact A&TSI people in a way different from all other Australians. " the Voice will be linked to United Nations" - no, it won't. It is a body to give advice to the Australian Government. UN is NOT involved. "could end up having its own political party and politicians" - the Voice is an ADVISORY body, it is not political nor will it have politicians.
@@AnotherDoug Will Parliament be able to ignore any advice the Voice gives it? Or will the Voice have International treaties to back it up that Australia has signed up too?
@@Mark-v9y8w Parliament and the Government will always have the absolute right to ignore any advice provided by the Voice. The Voice has no power other than to give advice to the Australian Government. The Voice cannot "have international treaties" with any one or anything. Any treaties that Australia has signed (are there any?) bind the Government, not the Voice.
Section 127 of the Constitution was titled 'Aborigines not to be counted in reckoning population' and stated: 'In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted.
It was removed in 1967. So what is your point? Do you know the history of s127? They were counted in the census as far as practicable for a nomadic people living in remote areas. They were not counted for constitutional purposes eg per capita tax as it was deemed unfair States to pay for people who were not contributing to the state's coffers. It was deemed too expensive and difficult to count the very remote ones. Remember the Darwin to Adelaide highway was not complete until ww2 What takes an hour to drive today took weeks in 1900. At no stage did s127 discriminate against aborigines nor did it discriminate in favour of whites. It was a money saving section. When circumstances changed it was removed.
@@mattmcguire1577 In a 1967 referendum, over 90% of Australian voters agreed to change our Constitution to give the federal parliament the power to make laws in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and to allow for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be included in the census. Included in the Census to Vote NOT to be recognised in the Australian Constitution as a Citizen . Prior to this White Women where allowed to Vote in NSW. But not Aboriginals ? The Racism still exists and still proudly accepted by 'the Entitled Australians" living on the Continent of Aboriginal Australia if the Discriminatory and Race Based Laws and Acts in Commonwealth State and Local Government.
@@mattmcguire1577 Until 1967, Indigenous Australians were excluded from being counted as amongst 'the people' in the Australian Constitution, by s 127. That section was deleted by referendum. However, s 25 remains in the Constitution, and allows for the reintroduction of such exclusion. Now what's s25? Where you even around in 1967 Did you stay for 1974 or 1975?
It is important that we are not too distracted by the voice. The real questions should be asked around pages 17 and 18 of the full Uluru Statement. The voice is simply once of the ways, if not *the* way that an autonomous indigenous parliament or government would communicate with the Australian parliament. I say this because on pages 17 and 18 it describes the reason why a voice and makarrata (defined as treaty) was selected: On those pages it is stated that the options of a voice and treaty were viewed as the best way to achieve recognition of indigenous people and their "self-determination", autonomy and sovereignty, i.e., it hints to a separate Indigenous state with its own laws, government, etc. Indeed, in the "Dialogue" meeting minutes, one thing that was very clear was that the indigenous that were consulted in the dialogue wanted recognition of their own state with their own code of laws, schools, etc.
@@AnotherDoug but you need to understand what the fundamental and expected purpose of the voice is, according to those who came up with it. According to page 17 of the Uluru Statement it is quite clear what it is and why it was even selectsd as an option for a referendum. Why not some other option? Why a voice? It is all there in black and white on page 17. As for Treaty, well, we're getting that it seems and we're not even voting for it!
@@karlm9584 If you are reading "page 17" then you have gone past the actual Uluru Statement from the Heart. What you are reading is a "synthesis" (or summary) of various ideas that came up during the 12 Regional Dialogues that were held before the Constitutional Convention produced the Statement from the Heart. The only ideas adopted were those in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The rest just remain ideas. The fundamental and expected purpose of the Voice is to provide advice to the Government - that is all. (Some of that advice could be about Treaty - if that ever becomes an issue for discussion by the Government. But the Voice can only advise and the Government can ignore that advice if they wish to.)
@@AnotherDoug Not at all. Pages 17 and 18 are fundamental to understanding why the voice and makarrata (treaty) were even selected as options for the Uluru Statement summary. Page 16 shows a handy picture of the various other options that were available, and how well they met each of the 10 "Guiding principles". A detailed account of the Guiding Principles appears on pages 8 - 14. But, quoting from page 17: "A constitutionally entrenched Voice to Parliament was a strongly supported option across the Dialogues. It was considered as a way by which the right to self- determination could be achieved." Keeping in mind that a voice supported ALL of the guiding principles we move to page 18: "The pursuit of Treaty and treaties was strongly supported across the Dialogues. Treaty was seen as a pathway to recognition of sovereignty and for achieving future meaningful reform for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Treaty would be the vehicle to achieve self-determination, autonomy and self-government" I'm not seeing much about giving advice in that...
@@karlm9584 It does not matter what you are finding in the "synthesis" of the Regional Dialogues, the Constitution itself will (if the Referendum is approved) say the Voice can only "make representations" (that is, provide advice). Anything else in the "synthesis" is wishful thinking.
Therefore every law put before the lower house could go before the VOICE committee for consideration before being past, plus before the VOICE again if the upper house makes changes. Lordy, lordy what a catastrophe no no no. NO I said.
No - every law will NOT go before the Voice. The Voice will only be able to look at matters that specifically affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples or affect them differently to the rest of Australia. The Voice will not delay legislation if the Government does not allow it.
@@AnotherDougThat's not what the referendum question says. It doesn't say matters affecting Aboriginals exclusively or as a race. There is no such qualification.
@@sandrajohn9837 The proposed Constitutional change says at clause (iii): "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;" The Attorney-General said back in March that "Matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would include: • matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and • matters relevant to the Australian community, including general laws or measures, but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently to other members of the Australian community." ministers.ag.gov.au/media-centre/speeches/constitution-alteration-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-voice-2023-speech-30-03-2023
It’s an advisory body. They can only make suggestions. They have no power. FFS, even a royal commission can only make “suggestions”, but it can’t force the government to act upon the recommendations.
THE VOICE appears to be an introduction, not a comclusion. Here follows a few lines out of the very extensive and detailed studies done by Marthe Lauverjon. They are about 'animist', more or less influenced populations, facing rural, social, legislative, economical and religious hurdles. Racial, religious, endoctrinating, academic, ideological, esoteric prejudices have masked the potential of an Australian Tradition, within Australia. If widening boderless concepts are helpful, roots of non partisan solutions can be based within adopted parameters. Visions from outsiders have more chances in being remote from passionate debates that alter a neutral pragmatism and the mutual respect required. What we can see as religious or Spiritual contents of Aboriginal, also called First Nation People,have been ignored. The aim is to bring further to light the importance of the topics mentioned here, so they get followed up in professional consultative ways, and made available and accessible to the Public. Arts, not just words, are to be associated with such a task, being careful not to overstate Western views. We are standing on an edge, either going towards Humanism or robitisation, the later being a science overtaking Humanism, and not taking into accounts the wider and detailed capacities of Nature, which is the earthen language of Universal Values (as demonstrated by DNA Science). A consistant non partisan approach can turn this work into an Australian anthology. The participants should actually aim at disappearing behind expressed realities on the ground. Without respect, interpreters and understanding, Elders cannot be heard: understanding requires exposure, not just on purely academic or political stands.Those ruling intend to be attached to their own values and logistics which is altogether necessary and a major hurdle in 'scientific' non partisan studies. In depths reports reduce drastically costly trials and errors associated with quickly pushing through Legislations set in concrete. Reminder: bridging is about having footings on both sides. Inspired by the Work of Marthe Lauverjon Anthropologist and Lawyer based in Africa.
These programs should be on the free to air ,,all channels for all off Australian citizens to know which way they want to vote . We deserve to know all aspects of this referendum.
Of course it should....bloody disgusting to go to UA-cam to get an unbiased news feed.....and even then,only sky let you comment.....Australian media is more corrupt than our politicians.
Yes, a great deal of people don't watch UA-cam, but also main stream media seem to always sway to the left view of things, well, that's what I myself has observed.
@@leandabeeUnless it is Sky and the Murdoch owned papers.
@@GlowingTube It's still the same point isn't it? There can't be anywhere near enough people watching Sky or reading their papers either based on recent history.
@@leandabee Really? Obviously your definition of a left view differs from the dictionary meaning. In Australia the mainstream media is a grand version of the shopping channel.
I love how the Voice has boomeranged into an own goal, exposing to the Australian public how we have too much government & too many politicians.
"boomeranged" good one.
It's like watching the slowest own-goal in history. Kind of like watching Biden lose all of his faculties. Sad.
The LNP follow that. They want to cancel and outsource everything.
Just look at the Australian parliamentary website.... Australian government sucks up the arse of big business and foreign governments... Australian people and the country have been sold out for years,,, government would love to run the country like China,,A dictatorship..
That don't care about anyone ,black,white ..they don't care...just gave themselves a pay rise when already being paid too much..while the rest of us are going homeless and broke..
I think it’s given racists another chance to demonstrate to the world that we’re still a colonialist backwater full of rednecks and deads***s
In 1967 the people of Australia voted very clearly in a referendum voting to remove discrimination towards Aboriginal people , to the tune of 90.77% . So section 127 was removed, which was discriminatory, and the word "Aboriginal" was removed from section 51(xxvi). So from 1967 the Aboriginal people have been on an equal status as everyone else in the Commonwealth of Australia. In 1969 there was a treaty signed by the Commonwealth government eliminating all forms of discrimination , so we the people need to ask why is this Labour bunch of criminals attempting to throw us back to the dark ages by asking us to vote yes to discrimination.
There’s no “Labour” party in australia
They’re trying to destroy the established system so they rebuild it how they want it…….. the Voice is their first step at dissolving democracy and dividing the population so we’re weakened by infighting. That in conjunction with ruining our power system to starve of the looming “climate catastrophe”.
It’s all playing out how they want it to so far but surely there’s more Australians with a bit of common sense that can see through the destructive nature of the current leadership and vote them out 🤞🏼
The constitution before 1967 had granted the government power to “make laws for the peace, order, and good government” with regard to
“the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;"
…rather than removing the entire clause and treat everyone as Australians, only ‘other than the aboriginal race’ was taken out… this clause was necessary for race-based ‘affirmative action’ after all.
Yes which leads to the Treaty signed in 1969 which dealt with eliminating all types of racial discrimination. The current question is racial and a breach of pretty much every article in the treaty.
Because, as Ken Henry said in the Sydney Morning Herald (18/01/2023),:
"Generations of Australian politicians have had all the power and apparatus of the Australian state at their disposal, yet have merely borne witness to their own failure to prevent the ever-worsening tragedies of Indigenous child protection, incarceration, and suicide; and shamefully persistent gaps in Indigenous life expectancy, employment, educational attainment, poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, mental and physical health outcomes."
Having travelled extensively around Australia since I was young, I am very big supporter of improving the lives of our most impoverished, many of whom are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.
The "She'll be right mate attitude" is romantically known as a great Australian attitude, but is not one that should be adopted or accepted for this referendum.
I have not heard a single person concisely define what the voice will be, how it will work or how it will affect Australian citizens. Or, if I have heard that, it has been contradicted by people in their very own party or organisation.
It is a no vote for me. There are far more effective ways of helping Australia's most impoverished.
exactly right rob.
I'm just an old lefty ('I didn't leave the left - the left left me') - many people need support/ help in oz. this IMO, is best done through wealth distribution, not through, what I think, is radical changes to our constitution - just so some wankers in the leafy suburbs can have something to virtue signal at their next dinner party !
The whole point of the voice is to make sure this "wealth distribution" is done effectively by ensuring that the Federal government and legislature listens to First Nations peoples. There have been many examples of the Federal government intervening in the lives of First Nations people with the apparent intent of making their lives better but they don't succeed because of mistakes that could have been avoided if they had just listened to First Nations people.@@haydenwalton2766
I now identify as aboriginal, prove that I am not
Here you go:
~ "what the voice will be" - The Voice will be an ADVISORY body giving advice to Parliament and Executive Government on "matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and matters relevant to the Australian community, including general laws or measures, but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently to other members of the Australian community."
~ "how it will work" - it will provide advice
~ "how it will affect Australian citizens" - it is expected to benefit those Australian citizens who are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders
@@haydenwalton2766And that "wealth distribution" has been going on for at least 56 years but most of the Closing the Gap targets are not being met and some are going backwards. We need to address these differently and the Voice could help us do that.
Mr Anderson is a great Australian & one of the few politicians ,former or present who has my respect & admiration.
Same. He is a great man. Was a very good leader.
There are over 250 tribes / mobs within Australia. To have a fair voice wouldn't each tribe need to vote for their own representative - 250 voices. They were 250 individual tribes, never a unified nation. In fact, the concept of "nationhood" is not in their culture.
So true. One mob won't be told what to do by another. It will cause more problems.
No. There are thousands of suburbs in Australia. One suburb won't agree with another. It causes problems.
Exactly
There are way more than 250 tribes/clans etc. I think you will find it’s closer to 3,000. Albo said there will be 250 representing all indigenous Australians,
This in itself will cause huge problems
Not every suburb gets it's own voice either.@@janemassuger8346
Sounds a lot more involved than the PM would have us believe.
I doubt he understands it. At this stage he is simply a puppet of the woke left and the WEF.
He just doesnt want us to know how disenfrachaised we will become not belonging to our own country
Perhaps it’s because he doesn’t understand the depth of the issue. What’s his background in Constitutional Law?
@@tawnydi perhaps if you googled him you would find out how much he knows about constitutional law he has a publication on the"constition of a federal commonweath;the making and meaning of the australian constition" maybe you should read it
Correct spelling constitution
This is so, so uncomfortably wrong on so many levels. I must and will be voting a capital NO. Thank you for your explanation.
You were never voting yes because your mindless intellectually deficient bigotry would not allow you to. Stop with your nonsense.
Once the courts get hold of the voice it could become anything.
...you only have to look to NZ to see what happens when any sort of racial divide takes place, it's a nightmare. Australia will be utterly ruined
Submarines to parking tickets
No, it won't.
1. The Solicitor-General has provided his official Opinion that proposed s 129(iii) will empower the Parliament to legislate to specify the legal effect of representations of the Voice. Proposed s 129 would not pose any threat to Australia’s system of representative and responsible government.
2. The Solicitor-General also said "“The suggestion that a consequence of empowering the Voice to make representations to the Executive Government will be to clog up the courts, or to cause government to grind to a halt, ignores the reality that litigation concerning the validity of decisions of the Executive Government is already very common, and that it does not have either of those consequences.”
@@AnotherDoug leftist speil
@@AnotherDoug the solicitor general is a cuck. So what.
....I'm a Kiwi who has spent a great deal of time in Australia over a lot of years. I've not heard of 'The Voice' but based on what has happened in NZ with the local moaris and their imaginary treaty I would say that anything at all that has the potential to divide the country by race to appease a minority group of any sort is a recipe for disaster. Australia is not bi-cultural, it is multi-cultural. By all means find ways of taking care of minority groups but not by divisive means. NZ is fast becoming a ruined country because the radicals now have money and power, it's a fu*king nightmare and is not even good for the moaris in general.
If the Voice stuffs up Australia, Kiwi's will have nowhere to go. Vote No to help our Kiwi cousins. 😀
Kiwi's in Australia should vote No then if they don't want Australia to be farked..
Voting yes only creates division,us and them! We are ALL Australians! I am voting NO full stop!!!!
Albo : " Your a racist if you vote NO to the Voice referendum "
Journo to Albo : " Other than the first page have you read the rest of the entire document that details your Voice referendum " ?
Albo : " No why would i " ?
I’m voting NO
You sure you quoting albo correctly? I don't remember him saying anything about racists.
@@drzdeano His ministers & leftie hench mob have said as much representing him.
~ Albanese did not call anyone racist - you are deliberately spreading disinformation.
~ The journo did NOT ask "have you read the rest of the entire document that details your Voice referendum". The journalist you refer to is, I'm guessing, Neil Mitchell in his interview with Albanese on 16 August. Mitchell asked whether Albanese had read the "other 25 pages" of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Uluru Statement from the Heart does not "[detail the] Voice referendum". Albanese said the other pages are a "record of meeting" but that the Uluru Statement is one page and that is the important document.
@@drzdeanoNo - he is not quoting Albanese correctly at all.
I have travelled around most of Australia and have found the biggest problem being that the parents don’t support their kids education and give very little guidance
I have seen this on many occasions
The aboriginal community needs to take responsibility for its own lack of action any money would just be wasted
They need to be incentivised to catch up with the 21st century
Do not divide Australia by race, vote "No".
Its against the law, Criminal Code 1995, Volume 2, Apartheid.
@@locustsandhoney486 Vote NO to InVoice
....yep, as a Kiwi who has spent a great deal of time in Australia over a lot of years, I've not actually heard of 'The Voice' till now but based on what has happened in NZ with the local moaris and their imaginary treaty I would say that anything at all that has the potential to divide the country by race to appease a minority group of any sort is a recipe for disaster. Australia is not bi-cultural, it is multi-cultural. By all means find ways of taking care of minority groups but not by divisive means. NZ is fast becoming a ruined country because the radicals now have money and power, it's a fu*king nightmare and is not even good for the moaris in general.
@@cspace1234nzit’s too late mate, the contagion of bias in the foundations of every institution of The Crown/governance has already worked to divide the countries colonised by the UK.
@@DaGoyDidGood ....wow, I've got a lot to learn about what's happening in Aussie. I was based over there for several years till Covid hit and am heading back for an extended period in a few months time. In a very different way I have watched Aussie going seriously downhill in so many ways over the last 40 years compared to NZ but ultimately both countries atre headed on a downward spiral towards the same place. I suppose that's happening all over the planet but it's hard when it's the countries you know and love the most.
I can imagine a lobbyist nightmare where radicalised individuals rock up to any and all government agencies and cause mayhem. It's a hard no
"radicalised individuals" ??? An ADVISORY body cannot cause "mayhem"
I am in favor of giving corporate lobbyists "nightmares"
@@AnotherDougOh yes it can. 'Advice not taken? Right, see you in court.' Activists picketing the offices of Ministers or administrator demanding that they, 'listen', to the Voice: endless delays and expense, decisions done and redone. Prime opportunity for political blackmail, not at all likely to be rejected.
@@sandrajohn9837 The Voice will not be able to challenge Government decisions in High Court - the legislation will be written to prevent this (as per the Solicitor-General's formal Opinion a formal Opinion (www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ea88212c-eccc-45d2-822c-8578fa96895c&subId=740367).
Others may attempt to invoke the High Court but 1) it will be at their cost, not the Government's and 2) even if the High Court agrees, all it can do is send the decision back to the Government for re-assessment. The High Court can't overturn the Government on these matters.
@@sandrajohn9837 Sounds like pretty standard lobbying activity, aka business as usual in the capital. Except nobody's getting paid. 🤷♂
I my family's and friends will be ... Voting No ... Final ... We are the builders and taxpayers who funds this country for all Australians as a ... Collective 🇦🇺
Exactly 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻❤️
Ignorance is bliss..
So every first nation's people mustn't do their share.
I don't think it matters how any of us vote, the government has predetermined that the answer will be yes.
@@beth1979 That's what they would like you to think. It's a referendum. They can't fix it. Just vote NO.
Great discussion which everyone should listen to. Instead of spruiking nonsense in stores they should be playing THE SEEKERS “I AM AUSTRALIAN”. I will be voting NO. I’m a migrant to this great country and want to remain a first class respected citizen because I helped in my little way to build it up, not for me alone but FOR ALL AUSTRALIANS. AMEN.
Written by Bruce Woodley - not by the Seekers
What’s your answer for the people who lived here for 10’s of thousands of years and were profoundly disadvantaged by australian governments. Not by the people but by the government.
WHOSE VOICE TO PARLIAMENT WILL BE HEARD, WHICH OF THE HUNDREDS OF GROUPS?, WHICH TRIBE?, WHICH CLAN?, WHICH FAMILY GROUP?
DO WE ALL GET A VOICE TO PARLIAMENT OR IS IT ONLY GOING TO BE A FEW PEOPLE?
THIS ABORIGINAL WILL BE VOTING NO
Read the Voice design principles voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles
Good on you mate. Money always seems to end up in the pockets of very few, instead of for the benefit of the entire community.
Everyone will be able have input. And like the parliamentary system that we have, representatives will put forward the wishes of the aboriginal community.
An interesting discussion. It is my view that the Referendum is not primarily about a voice but about sovereignty. Once the Voice is written into the Constitution then the Voice will automatically achieve a measure of sovereignty. Here is how it works. If the referendum is successful in entrenching the Voice in the Constitution then it is a simple matter to appoint the Voice to the position of Governor General. This will happen on 1 July 2024. This provides the Voice to use the provisions of Sections 62 and 63 of the Constitution, the power to call and use Executive Council, and to access to the provisions of Section 58 of the Constitution, the power to withhold assent and to return any proposed law with amendments and recommendations.
The overall effect is the transfer of sovereignty from the Crown to the Voice.
Exactly
Vote no
So, it's essentially a republic referendum by proxy then? It would certainly align with Labor's views on forcing that issue.
Yes. I see that as the outcome sought by this referendum. And there is nothing 'proxy' about it. We are being sold the sympathy vote while the Yes campaign omits to mention its real purpose. It can go further in future if there is a referendum to replace 'Queen' with 'Voice" within the Constitution. @@chadjcrase
except you can control a republic but can you control a group with more power that have not been elected, they will be "chosen" not elected as Senator Burney has stated.@@chadjcrase
Why do we need a Voice to Parliament when we already have a Ministry of Indigenous Affairs that reports to Cabinet?
Because the Department of Indigenous Affairs is mostly non-Indigenous staff who do not live on country. The Voice will represent A&TSI peoples - not those in Canberra.
@@AnotherDoug not even close, they will be appointed, self-appointed and they will be the boss man or boss woman lording it over the little people like Yunupingu
Jesus, why doesn’t anyone raise the obvious issue with the question? The wording purports to give the parliament powers to give the Voice body any “powers” that it sees fit. THAT is the main problem. The amendment purports to give the parliament the power to decide to grant whatsoever powers it so chooses, to the Voice body. That circumvents the restrictions of the Section 51 powers of the constitution and could result in parliament giving this external unelected unaccountable body power to run the country without restriction if it so chooses.
The reason why no-one is raising "the obvious issue with the question" is because it is NOT an issue!
You need to read the proposed Constitutional change a bit more closely (voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment). It does not propose to give the Voice "any powers" at all - other than to make representations..
Vote NO don’t divide our country by race 😢😢
How is it your country?.
They stated OUR country as in shared by ALL Australians 😉
@@SpectreOZ Tell me, how is it your country.
@@beepbeep6861 Does Australia belong to the Kangaroos, Koalas and Goannas?
@@SpectreOZ Like Midnight Oil sang.
"It belongs to them, we're going to give it back".
Referring to the first inhabitants.
I worry that some trick question will be on referendum...why not just a plain, yes or no, without any other questions which could trick people into voting for what they don't want.
The question is already out. You can read it, and practice where you put your mark.😊
@@youbigtubershipwhere?
@41srn google referendum question and it's right there.
@@41srn voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment#:~:text=On%20referendum%20day%2C%20voters%20will,you%20approve%20this%20proposed%20alteration%3F%E2%80%9D
@@41srn Just Google it. The Australian Electoral Commission has it, lots of places. UA-cam usually removes links which take users off-platform.
You must write either YES or NO in English in the box for a valid vote - no ticking or crossing.
This entire conversation seems to be about the 'how, why, where and when' of creating a workable autonomous 'nation state' within an already existing autonomous 'nation state'. The premise of the conversation seems to be that such a creation is an already established and accepted reality by the Australian people, yet, IT'S NOT, AND NEVER WILL BE. It would seem that you are determined to 'rationalize', 'justify' and 'legitimize' TWO SEPERATE NATIONAL FLAGS FLYING OVER THE ONE PARLIAMENT HOUSE.....
THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE SAY "NO" !!!
Next will be the rainbow flag
You should watch the video again - no mention at all of "nation states", autonomous or otherwise.
That is precisely the question being discussed, albeit obliquely, and precisely the agenda being pursued by proponents of the, 'Voice'. The voice is a stepping stone to treaty and treaties imply sovereign states as parties. It isn't hidden. Anyone can google the information.
This referendum is a moment where I step back and realise how lucky we are; to still be in that period before government reaches that critical mass of authority and massive bureaucracy from which there is no return to conservative, liberal values. Also lucky that we still have a say in the outcome. I just hope that enough people actually inform themselves before voting.
You are not being informed by watching videos like this one.
@@AnotherDoug My point about informing oneself stands independently of this video, but what do you think is wrong with this one in particular?
@@chadjcrase It is scare-mongering by re-hashing issues that have been answered months ago by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General
@@AnotherDoug I'm glad you are reassured by that, but a great many clearly are not.
@@chadjcrase What are you scared of? In what way do you envisage the voice to parliament negatively affecting your life?
John's bringing up the question about an emergency rings true, if we needed to implement emergency conditions would be more alarming if the Voice idiots were to go to the courts to rescind an emergency order that would help our defences. That rescinding should not be allowed. Best way for that situation to not happen, is to get in early, and vote NO!.
The Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General have both said that, as an ADVISORY body, the Voice cannot delay the operations of government.
@@AnotherDougBy which they can only mean that it has no formal power (implied or explicit) to do so. Then there's, 'real politic'.
So many voice unanswered questions, how can any sensible person sign off on the voice. Of course self interest is involved and that seems to be a powerful voice motivator.
All the questions raised by this video were answered 5 months ago by the Solicitor-general and the Attorney-General.
@@AnotherDoug LOL.
@@FairladyS130Yes, I know right - why did they make a video about stuff that has already been resolved. LOL, indeed.
@@AnotherDoug You don't seem to understand how the law operates. It's never finalised and is always open to interpretation on a case by case basis. Particularly where it is so vague like here.
@@FairladyS130 The legislation has not yet been written - so no-one, including you and these people in the video, cannot comment on how open to interpretation it is. That would be scare-mongering
It’s important that we don’t make Australia. A split nation. Vote NO.
I would vote 'No' if I could. As an Australian citizen living abroad, having been out of the country for more than six years, I am NOT ALLOWED to vote. I do not have dual citizenship with any other country, and I do intend to return to my homeland Australia. But I have been disenfranchised. How's that for justice?
That’s shocking.
That seems like a very archaic rule.
cant you vote at an Australian Embassy or Consulate?
@@johnphelps9788
Of course you can vote at an embassy/consulate if you are registered. But if you have been overseas for six years you lose your right to vote, and you cannot re-register with an overseas address. It is totally unjust.
This is our Brexit moment, equal in impact. A NO vote is a must in it's current ambiguous form.
*I'm voting "No". Why? Because this "Voice" is sounding increasingly like **_"You have to vote to pass the proposal to find out what is in the proposal"_* (or change to the Constitution as the case may be)
It also sounds like *_a Consultant's Dream Come True,_* where the consultants (to the Voice) will be able to do absolutely nothing (except publish obscure reports that no-one wants or will ever read) and get paid a fortune at Taxpayer's expense.
.....you really only have to look to NZ to see what happens when racial divide is encouraged. Absolute and growing nightmare beyond what most people can begin to imagine. It's a trough for 'victims' who end up with their snouts constantly in it
Thank you John
" Power without authority is....the anti christ ". It leads to the impeimentation of the regulated group mind .
thank you both for bringing us this conversation.
So disappointed by the silence of my fellow Christian"s.......
@@kaylenehousego8929 that's because you are unhinged
Some of which, are dumbly going to vote Yes. The namby pamby peachy and rosy versions, who, up with fairies, plainly wouldn't know drama if it hits them in the face.
The drama being the ramifications for Australia if the Yes vote wins. I was brought up in mainstream down to earth Anglican society of old, well the 50's/60s We had commonsense. And that commonsense has told me to vote an emphatic no!. This voice thing won't help any of the aboriginals Albo reckons it will. There you have it. One old fashioned, (but in tune with todays reality), conservative style Christian voice. Not sure if that's the paticular Christian thinking you wanted. But it's definitely ny thinking, and I won't back down.
It will also lead to civil wars as does happen in banana republics like Venezuala at the moment. Socialusm is killing that country. If it hasn't already. Mind you a civila war against a reoublic like that, usn't such a bad thing, if you can at the end of it, bring in a western style democracy. The only priblem in that, is the wrong people get hurt to achieve that, the citizens who want peace, to be able to wandrr around freely without asking each day from the powers that be, to do so, each day.
...the church is the anti-Christ
Thank you for educating those willing to enquire. Programs such as yours should be shown on free to air.
We are not taught about our own constitution. This has brought to light that Australian's dont know our rights or how to enforce them.
I’ve met very little to no people that want to vote yes. Most people I speak to are outright against it.
Yet somehow it'll win!!
As citizens of Australia, they already have a way of "sending a message". This is the same way everyone else has by voting. In Rural and remote areas, the Aboriginal populace is a significant number. If they bother to vote, then they have a representative to raise their concerns.
So why are most of the Closing the gaps targets not being met? It is not about members of parliament - it is about specific issues adversely affecting A&TSI peoples being heard at the federal level - not filtered via individual MPs (who have to represent everyone in their electorate - not just the A&TSI peoples.)
@@AnotherDoug There is a strong belief in the old ways and great suspicion about the white persons ways. Proper medical care is REFUSED, laws are DISRESPECTED, education in schools is NOT VALUED, women are NOT EQUAL and lots more.
The heart and kidney disease and diabetes begins in their childhood - no medicine on earth can close the gap in under one generation of ALL aborigines doing ALL the good health things for themselves AND their children. The Voice is political power grab by lawyers who identify as Aboriginal elite leaders.
@@AnotherDougGood question. Why not ask those administering the billions of public funds devoted to that end? P.S. everyone's concerns get 'filtered', through Parliament. It's called democracy. That said, Aboriginal people do have a dedicated Minister and Department, NIAA and countless land councils welfare agencies and lobby groups. I don't doubt outback communities are not being heard but this is not about listening to them.
@@sandrajohn9837 If outback communities aren't being heard, then it is because their voices are not loud enough. The Voice would amplify their concerns
@@AnotherDoug It might if the Voice reps consult them adequately but the Voice would be very much more distant than the local land councils and NIAA already exists as a central agency for the purpose of 'amplifying', the Aboriginal voice.
If I was an aboriginal person I would be deeply troubled that the voice will be chosen - the Chosen Ones - we know not how.
I AM OF ABORIGINAL HERITAGE, AND I'M DEEPLY TROUBLED, THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT ALL THE WASTED MONEY FOR ABORIGINALS, AND NOW THEY WANT TO GIVE US A VOICE, BUT WHOSE VOICE, NOT EVERY ABORIGINAL WILL BE ASKED FOR THEIR OPINION
Another great video John, you need to share these more on social media !!
What was good about it? 🤔
I want the original people to have a voice but I'm not signing a blank contract. I'm also questioning why should there be an us and them politically. Why not all?
In other words it's a massive nightmare awaiting us with limitless consequences.
I'm 71 yes old have voted Labor all my as have my family. After the appalling corrupt years of the LNP particularly under Morrison it was like a ray of hope when Labor won the election. Labor supporter put so much faith in Albanese to steer this country out of the darkness into a country we can be proud of once more. The the hammer fell, The Voice. It is total insanity.I'm am disgusted and totally disallusioned with the party. Then to ad insult to injury they gave themselves a 4% pay rise when the country is struggling with the out of control rising cost of living, housing and homelessness. You have driven a knife into the heart of Labor supporters. I will be voting NO,NO,NO for the voice and at the next election state and federal I will not be voting at all. You can put me in jail I don't care. There are no decent politicians to vote for in any of the parties
I'm voting NO . But after seeing 7 news tonight, I'm worried. I get the impression SA could swing it to a yes win. I received the information book today, and it looks pro-Yes .
The other thing this is the first time I believe we have had to write no or yes , not just tick a box. This I feel could discriminate against those with severe dyslexia in an attempt to give a bias .
How will it give a bias? Surely, it will be easier for dyslexics to write "NO" than "YES"? (Try not to find too many conspiracy theories in one day)
@@AnotherDougyou are racist. Go away.
@AnotherDoug I thought they may use a cross, which could be counted as a yes.
Yes I have been told before at work not to over think thing's.
@@chuckmaddison2924The Australian Electoral Commission has come out today to say that an "X" on the Referendum vote will NOT be counted at all.
🤣 How dyslexic do you have to be to not be able to write NO? As long as everyone understands not to use a cross it will be fine. Stop worrying.🥰
So we don't actually get the clear facts about the proposal. If people don't get clear accurate information on the proposal how do they make informed consent. A lawful agreement requires informed acceptance for it to be binding I thought. The lack of clarity makes it impossible to give informed agreement.
Section 51 subsection xxvi, which presently gives the Federal Government the right to make laws and regulations on the basis of a citizen's race, should be amended to specifically prohibit Governments at all levels throughout the Commonwealth from making laws and regulations that discriminate on the basis of a citizen's race or gender.
It is intriguing to me that no politicians seem to be interested in this but most people I meet agree this change is necessary.
A religious act now opens Parliament (smoking ceremonies). A prayer is prayed at many public functions (The Sorry Prayer without opportunity for forgiveness). I travel and am reminded I am entering stolen country that I didn't steal. And places I've known since birth are being renamed in another language. Not even dual names. But this is not a takeover. One nation. Focus on all those who are impoverished, meet their needs to raise all of them up out of poverty regardless of individual personal characteristics.
The constant "welcome to country" or "acknowledgement of country" is getting old.
Every meeting at work. Multiple times a day. It's even worse than the LGBT stuff. At least the mostly just stays as a few lines in an email signature. (Before anyone makes accusations, I'm a lesbian. Those flags in signatures and declarations of allyship don't mean anything. They're virtue signalling. Just treat people normally).
You do know that the Lord's Prayer is read at the beginning of each day in both the House of Representatives and Senate - why aren't you complaining about that?
@MsAussieSheila
I'm straight and don't give two hoots if you're a lesbian or any other minority
My main focus with the voice is we are all Australians and no one should get preference over another
@@deanhays6115 Sure - so when the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples catch-up with the rest of Australia, we can abolish the Voice
@@AnotherDoug and you really think the voice is about aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders "catching up" 🤣🤣🤣
Reminds me of John Hewson in 1992 trying to explain to Mike Willesee (tv anchor) whether the GST would apply to a birthday cake. There was a long winded answer and finally Willesee said he had no hope explaining it to the people.
and the GST did end up applying to a birthday cake unless you baked it yourself.
And yet we now have GST.
The proposed s129 voice does not even make it clear that members of the voice must be indigenous nor even Australian citizens.
S44 states MPs must be citizens and cannot be dual citizens.
But nothing in s129.
That is a level of detail that is not needed in the Constitution. The Voice Principles (voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles) articulate that Voice members must be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. If the Referendum is successful, the legislation to create the Voice will include the requirement that "Members of the Voice would be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, according to the standard three part test."
Good point.
Sounds like A LOT of power afforded to a group of self- appointed people who represent all of MAYBE 5% of the nation's population...
Don't worry though, it won't be used to feather the nests of a select few people... 😉😉
Whilst regional and remote communities of aboriginal people will continue to suffer. Vote NO.
@FitmanFatty I don't know how these committees operate, but the big difference, surely, is that they cannot make appeals to the High Court using the Constitution if the government doesn't do what they want.
The only "power" the Voice would have is to PROVIDE ADVICE. That's it.
@@chadjcrase The Voice will not be able to make appeals to the High Court either!
@@AnotherDoug Wrong! The Voice is bigger than just a few seats at Parliament. It goes right down to Local electing one or two representatives to speak for the majority. In some cases those 'selected' representatives wont even be Men belonging to the Local Tribal Group. These men will have Authority to approve clearings of Lands, whether they are of the Tribal Group or not. I was there at the meetings with the Government Officials trying to push this, I spoke against it at the time with was like 6-7yrs ago when the Government Officials came around with their Cheque Book trying to Bribe people to make this happen. This is not an Aboriginal Grass Roots Movement, this is a Top Down Initiative that the Government wants and none of you have a clue what they have planned for all of us Black and White Alike!
Shouldn't the PM remain neutral in this referendum ???
Ok, lets take this a step further - put the actual mechanism aside: what happens when 'Parliament' agrees with the Voice? And then what happens when Parliament tries to DISAGREE with the Voice? On what grounds can it disagree with the Voice after any initial instance where it agrees with the Voice? How can you acknowlege Indigenous people as 'First Inhabitants' or 'First Owners' & then disagree with them on policy that 'Affects Them' (according to Labor's language)? Basic property rights - how can you acknowledge somebody else as the rightful owner of something but legally deny them their own say on how to manage it?
That is another good illustration of the ambiguity of the whole thing. I don't think Parliament could ever be legally bound to act in any way, as long as they received the advice, because the Voice is not a legislative body. Even lawyers and experts don't really know for sure, so it's very ill-conceived.
@@chadjcrase I've made the same point elsewhere, how can you have a nation when you don't know who's actually in charge? Chaos is not a natural state.
1. "what happens when 'Parliament' agrees with the Voice?" - everyone is happy
2. "what happens when Parliament tries to DISAGREE with the Voice?" - the Voice is unhappy
3. "On what grounds can it disagree with the Voice after any initial instance where it agrees with the Voice?" - let's hope we have voted smart people into Parliament who can make their mind up and not have to change their mind later. But, the short answer to your question is the same as 2. above: the Voice is unhappy
4. "How can you acknowlege Indigenous people as 'First Inhabitants' or 'First Owners' & then disagree with them on policy that 'Affects Them'" - easily if the advice is poor or there are other priorities that require the Government to disagree with the Voice's advice.
5. "how can you acknowledge somebody else as the rightful owner of something but legally deny them their own say on how to manage it?" - voting for the Voice does NOT acknowledge anyone's ownership of anything.
@@chadjcraseLawyers and experts do know for sure: the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General both issued their advice 5 months ago.
@@AnotherDoug I would respectfully posit that once something is in the constitution, the future practical effects are unknown by anyone, especially given that even once those individuals are long gone, the chapter is still in the constitution and always vulnerable to re-interpretations. As for your five points, they seem quite reasonable to me, but they all seem to make the assumption that the members of the Voice are actually going to act in good faith at all times, and always work for better outcomes.
I fear for australia if the voice changes our constitution we will lose our country that we love and appreciate so much
Incorrect
@@AnotherDougwhere did you get your crystal ball?
@@ericrochester8835Same place nedbaker4129 got his
It's already happening to a lesser degree. Land rights legislation is enabling Aboriginal groups to lock off areas of the country on the grounds they are culturally significant or sacred sites.
@@sandrajohn9837 What has that got to do with an ADVISORY body?
"Every member of parliament would read it"? Really? Albo hasn't even read the Uluru statement. "Why would I"? Was his answer when asked if he had read it.
Misinformation. Albanese was asked had he read the extra "25 pages" that someone didn't find on the Referendum Council website where they had been sitting in plain view for 6 years. He has read the Uluru Statement from the Heart - just not those pages which are a "synthesis"/summary of the Regional Dialogues.
John, is there any way to raise the volume? It's just soft enough so that I can't hear it over the shop equipment or my lawnmower.
Since the detail is yet to be worked out we do not know what power it might have.
Its only power will be as specified in the Constitution: to "make representations [give advice] to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples". That is it
From a moral perspective why should one group, solely based on ethnicity and race, be granted a constitutionally enshrined lobby group?
If the voice suceeds is it possible they will have the power to make other changes to the constitution eg. Rebuplic?
No - the Voice will be an advisory body only. It cannot make any laws and cannot force the government to do anything.
Agree. The current socialist/communist government seems to be heading towards a Republic. Was listening to an article from America and Albanese was called a communist. My thoughts for some time. Big NO to the voice rubbish and hope the big A and labor don't push it through regardless. No trust in our government, sadly
Nothing good will come of a YES vote for anyone involved. This is ludicrous, different rules for different people(ethnic backgrounds)were tried in South Africa and it was a disaster.
The Voice is an ADVISORY body. It can not be equated with apartheid. That is simply scare-mongering
Just vote NO and all of these potential problems just go away.
Treaty and Truth Telling will remain
Thanks John
My neighbours are lifelong labor voters and thankfully they are all voting no as well ...they realise where this will lead to
Every Labor voter I know and have asked is voting no. The greens are overwhelming voting yes. Not labour. Labor is much more split.
@@MsAussieSheila I don't really know any greenies ..but it sounds about right . They all look a bit mad
@@ACDZ123they are normally wealthy people who don't have to worry about everyday problems so they find other things to worry about like Climate change and poor people . Just human nature I guess.
Positive discrimination leads to entitlement, laziness, and ultimately corruption, in addition to ‘apartheid’ being introduced. Learn from Malaysia.
A person affected by a decision can initiate proceedings to have a decision re-assessed - as the law stands now. Potentially allowing a further body to come into existence, compared to the several which already exist, and that body taking a litigious or aggressive approach is so pie in-the sky.
That unlikely scenario could easily and sensibly be avoided by the drafting of appropriate legislation defining the powers and limitations of any new body.
The Solicitor-General has given a formal Opinion that the Voice will not be able to challenge the Government in the High Court.
"That unlikely scenario could easily and sensibly be avoided by the drafting of appropriate legislation defining the powers and limitations of any new body" - that is exactly what will happen when the Voice legislation is written
Thanks for the info.
The catch is....Aboriginal people are already eaqual in status as Australians.....which means ANY legislation requires their participation because it involves them
Nope - the Attorney -General has said that the Voice can only advise on "matters SPECIFIC to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and matters relevant to the Australian community … but which AFFECT Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples DIFFERENTLY to other members of the Australian community.”
Do we have an unambiguous definition of who is and/or who is an indigenous Australian?
The voice will be able to give advice to Private businesses, Parliament, state governments and councils. All company boards will need to have a voice representative as well.
Look at what is happening to the Redlands Shire Council. Write NO to the Independent Commonwealth Entity know as the voice.
Why does giving advice scare you?
Its not an advisory body if they are keeping the council in court until they get what they want, @@AnotherDoug
@@destinyridge The Voice will not be able to use the courts to delay or challenge any Government decision.
See the Solicitor-General's official Opinion on the proposed change to the Constitution (www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ea88212c-eccc-45d2-822c-8578fa96895c&subId=740367). Paragraphs 18 and 19 are the relevant bits
I'm confused , why do they not know what the wording is . The AEC says the proposed changes to the constitution says -
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.
It sounds great, let’s vote yes.
There has been a Constitutional Expert Group consulted with since 2015 why is one person questioning the consultations and advice of this group.This bipartisan appointed Referendum Council has given the now opposing LNP plenty of opportunity up until now to raise concerns but there has been none just suggestions which usually have little to no factual basis.
As an ex military veteran who has served some 20yrs and served and fought overseas for my country were l was born too, lwill vote NO because l see this as a racist piece of work for some people who has been on government handouts all their lives yet want more money. They have a voice because they have people in Government on both side ,soo why do we need " the Voice " ?
Not racist but recognising the A&TSI peoples as the First Peoples of Australia
If the Voice gets up then any Australian Government, before enacting any Bills or Laws, will have to consult "The Voice" before they can be presented to the Parliament. This will make "The Voice" a higher Authority than the Government. Think about that.
If the Voice gets up then that will open the floodgates for all sorts of other Groups wanting a Voice. like the refugees from the Middle East.
Looking at the Original; The Uluru Statement from the Heart.
Specifically at Section 2.1. First Nations Dialogue.
Page 2.1.2. Assessment of Reform Proposals
Pages 11,12,13.
I don't mind if there is a simple recognition of prior occupation put in the Preamble.
In the Australian Constitution the following Amendments could be made without a Referendum.
In Chapter 1. Part III. para. 25. line 1 after "persons" Delete "of any race are."
In Chapter 1. Part III. para. 25. line 3, after "persons" Delete "of the race."
In Chapter 1. Part V. para 51. sub. para. xxvi. Delete sub. para. xxvi.
As for amending or adding a sub. para. 116a. (116. i.) to Chapter V. para. 116.
Definitely not.
~ "If the Voice gets up then any Australian Government, before enacting any Bills or Laws, will have to consult "The Voice": this is utterly INCORRECT. There will be no requirement that the Voice is consulted by the Government.
~ Anyone can have a Voice (not in the Constitution) - but they would need to get organised like the A&TSI representatives, work for 10+ years to get the support of a major political party. Nothing is stopping them - but no-one, other than A&TSI peoples could ask for Constitutional recognition.
~ Nobody is proposing any of the Constitutional changes you have listed
I’m voting No - too much fear of ‘Executive Government’ definition.
Had you even heard that term before watching this video?
If the voice goes thru, government will have no way to govern properly, it will have so many matters that others think are important to them but not considering the importance or otherwise to the rest of Aus, this would be chaos, the beginning of the end! We need to be One not divided, how many times do we have to say sorry, will the next generation have to go through the same thing. We can only pay for our sins once, any more & its just grsndstanding. 'Look at me! Look at me!'
The Government can choose what advice from the Voice to follow - it will not affect the Government's ability to govern.
@@AnotherDoug- sure mate, sure. Thank you Australia for voting it down. It was designed as a beachhead, a trojan horse.
It’s still a big NO for me…
She elect politicians to run the country on our behalf. Not have a separate group tell the government what to do who will not be elected based on race or partial racial heritage.
Then you had better abolished the Business Council of Australia, the Pharmacy Guild, the Australian Medical Association and each of the hundred other lobby groups that exist to advise the Government.
Great analysis of implication of legal standing of Voice! It is not as simple as it appears! Perhaps the saying, "give them one finger and they grab the whole hand" is true! It is far better to reject the proposal than to have a multitude of problems as a unintended consequences
Except ... all the legal issues discussed here will be eliminated one the Voice legislation is written. The Solicitor-General has said that the proposed Constitutional change clearly and unequivocally give Parliament the power to legislate everything to do with the Voice; there will be no ability for the Voice to challenge the Government in any court. www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ea88212c-eccc-45d2-822c-8578fa96895c&subId=740367
Question: what is the difference in terms of effectiveness or persuasion with respect to corporate lobbyists advising Government on policy compared with the voice?
IE: Qantas lobbies government to not introduce new competitors to the airline industry which results in maintaining higher costs for flights.
These outcomes affect all Australians and also has a broader impact on standards of employment and wages.
Why is there no deep analysis on these matters which in many ways reflects what the voice may be representing?
we dont want to hand more decisions to a court that recently decided that in emergencies we should follow germany's example and suspend the constitution. because strangely the example that lead to WW2 i would think is a pretty good argument not to throw away law when panic sets in.
No court will be involved with the Voice
the issue i have with "the voice" is this, every bit of legislation proposed or passed by the government affects the indigenous people of Australia, this is a BAD idea and i'll be voting NO
The Attorney-General clarified this months ago. The Voice will only be able to offer advice on "matters SPECIFIC to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and matters relevant to the Australian community ... but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples DIFFERENTLY to other members of the Australian community."
ALL laws and legislation passed by the government affect them, and if you believe what anyone in government says you're a bigger fool than most
@@andriastone3283 No, read what the Attorney-General said: the Voice can only give ADVICE on matters that specifically affect A&TSI peoples.
Sorry, I need to clarify: I studied contract law in Business school (yes, I know, just enough law to be dangerous) - this is property law 101. You need a contract lawer, not a constitutional lawyer - the constitutional nuts & bolts of this thing are the least of your problems. And don't think there aren't Aboriginal people all over this like a suburban lawyer on a TAC claim. If the 'Yes' vote goes through this guy is going to have to get another job or start learning Indigenous Law (& Lore), because our Constitution will be about as relevant & useful as week-old bread (read: it will have some value, but not a lot).
" just enough law to be dangerous" - not even. Nothing to do with property law
What I see happening if the Voice passes is that every bit of legislation proposed by parliament will have to be approved by the Voice. The Voice will be linked to United Nations treaties/agreements. The Voice could end up having its own political party and politicians.
"every bit of legislation proposed by parliament will have to be approved by the Voice" - that is simply not true but is used in the No Campaign as fear mongering.
The proposed wording of the Constitutional change says that the "Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;"
~ "make representations" means "give advice"
~ "on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples" means the Voice can ONLY give advice on laws or policies that specifically impact A&TSI people. This further means the Voice CANNOT comment on every "bit of legislation" as most legislation does NOT specifically impact A&TSI people in a way different from all other Australians.
" the Voice will be linked to United Nations" - no, it won't. It is a body to give advice to the Australian Government. UN is NOT involved.
"could end up having its own political party and politicians" - the Voice is an ADVISORY body, it is not political nor will it have politicians.
@@AnotherDoug Will Parliament be able to ignore any advice the Voice gives it? Or will the Voice have International treaties to back it up that Australia has signed up too?
@@Mark-v9y8w
Parliament and the Government will always have the absolute right to ignore any advice provided by the Voice.
The Voice has no power other than to give advice to the Australian Government. The Voice cannot "have international treaties" with any one or anything. Any treaties that Australia has signed (are there any?) bind the Government, not the Voice.
So danger is Government must inform and listen. Wow that is dangerous.
Vote NO to corruption and the labour party
Section 127 of the Constitution was titled 'Aborigines not to be counted in reckoning population' and stated: 'In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted.
It was removed in 1967. So what is your point?
Do you know the history of s127?
They were counted in the census as far as practicable for a nomadic people living in remote areas.
They were not counted for constitutional purposes eg per capita tax as it was deemed unfair States to pay for people who were not contributing to the state's coffers.
It was deemed too expensive and difficult to count the very remote ones. Remember the Darwin to Adelaide highway was not complete until ww2
What takes an hour to drive today took weeks in 1900.
At no stage did s127 discriminate against aborigines nor did it discriminate in favour of whites.
It was a money saving section.
When circumstances changed it was removed.
@@mattmcguire1577 In a 1967 referendum, over 90% of Australian voters agreed to change our Constitution to give the federal parliament the power to make laws in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and to allow for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be included in the census.
Included in the Census to Vote NOT to be recognised in the Australian Constitution as a Citizen .
Prior to this White Women where allowed to Vote in NSW. But not Aboriginals ?
The Racism still exists and still proudly accepted by 'the Entitled Australians" living on the Continent of Aboriginal Australia if the Discriminatory and Race Based Laws and Acts in Commonwealth State and Local Government.
@@mattmcguire1577 Until 1967, Indigenous Australians were excluded from being counted as amongst 'the people' in the Australian Constitution, by s 127. That section was deleted by referendum. However, s 25 remains in the Constitution, and allows for the reintroduction of such exclusion.
Now what's s25?
Where you even around in 1967
Did you stay for 1974 or 1975?
It's a NO all the way. It's not in the best interests of the tribal people.
It is important that we are not too distracted by the voice. The real questions should be asked around pages 17 and 18 of the full Uluru Statement. The voice is simply once of the ways, if not *the* way that an autonomous indigenous parliament or government would communicate with the Australian parliament. I say this because on pages 17 and 18 it describes the reason why a voice and makarrata (defined as treaty) was selected: On those pages it is stated that the options of a voice and treaty were viewed as the best way to achieve recognition of indigenous people and their "self-determination", autonomy and sovereignty, i.e., it hints to a separate Indigenous state with its own laws, government, etc. Indeed, in the "Dialogue" meeting minutes, one thing that was very clear was that the indigenous that were consulted in the dialogue wanted recognition of their own state with their own code of laws, schools, etc.
The Referendum is about the Voice only - not Treat, not Truth-telling.
@@AnotherDoug but you need to understand what the fundamental and expected purpose of the voice is, according to those who came up with it. According to page 17 of the Uluru Statement it is quite clear what it is and why it was even selectsd as an option for a referendum. Why not some other option? Why a voice? It is all there in black and white on page 17. As for Treaty, well, we're getting that it seems and we're not even voting for it!
@@karlm9584 If you are reading "page 17" then you have gone past the actual Uluru Statement from the Heart. What you are reading is a "synthesis" (or summary) of various ideas that came up during the 12 Regional Dialogues that were held before the Constitutional Convention produced the Statement from the Heart. The only ideas adopted were those in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The rest just remain ideas.
The fundamental and expected purpose of the Voice is to provide advice to the Government - that is all. (Some of that advice could be about Treaty - if that ever becomes an issue for discussion by the Government. But the Voice can only advise and the Government can ignore that advice if they wish to.)
@@AnotherDoug Not at all. Pages 17 and 18 are fundamental to understanding why the voice and makarrata (treaty) were even selected as options for the Uluru Statement summary. Page 16 shows a handy picture of the various other options that were available, and how well they met each of the 10 "Guiding principles". A detailed account of the Guiding Principles appears on pages 8 - 14. But, quoting from page 17: "A constitutionally entrenched Voice to Parliament was a strongly supported option across the Dialogues. It was considered as a way by which the right to self- determination could be achieved."
Keeping in mind that a voice supported ALL of the guiding principles we move to page 18: "The pursuit of Treaty and treaties was strongly supported across the Dialogues. Treaty was seen as a pathway to recognition of sovereignty and for achieving future meaningful reform for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Treaty would be the vehicle to achieve self-determination,
autonomy and self-government"
I'm not seeing much about giving advice in that...
@@karlm9584 It does not matter what you are finding in the "synthesis" of the Regional Dialogues, the Constitution itself will (if the Referendum is approved) say the Voice can only "make representations" (that is, provide advice). Anything else in the "synthesis" is wishful thinking.
Therefore every law put before the lower house could go before the VOICE committee for consideration before being past, plus before the VOICE again if the upper house makes changes. Lordy, lordy what a catastrophe no no no. NO I said.
No - every law will NOT go before the Voice. The Voice will only be able to look at matters that specifically affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples or affect them differently to the rest of Australia. The Voice will not delay legislation if the Government does not allow it.
@@AnotherDougThat's not what the referendum question says. It doesn't say matters affecting Aboriginals exclusively or as a race. There is no such qualification.
@@sandrajohn9837 The proposed Constitutional change says at clause (iii): "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;"
The Attorney-General said back in March that "Matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would include:
• matters specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and
• matters relevant to the Australian community, including general laws or measures, but which affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples differently to other members of the Australian community."
ministers.ag.gov.au/media-centre/speeches/constitution-alteration-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-voice-2023-speech-30-03-2023
First comes the voice, shortly followed by the invoice..
We are on Dangerous Rocky Ground.
It’s an advisory body. They can only make suggestions. They have no power.
FFS, even a royal commission can only make “suggestions”, but it can’t force the government to act upon the recommendations.
THE VOICE appears to be an introduction, not a comclusion.
Here follows a few lines out of the very extensive and detailed studies done by Marthe Lauverjon.
They are about 'animist', more or less influenced populations, facing rural, social, legislative, economical and religious hurdles.
Racial, religious, endoctrinating, academic, ideological, esoteric prejudices have masked the potential of an Australian Tradition, within Australia.
If widening boderless concepts are helpful, roots of non partisan solutions can be based within adopted parameters.
Visions from outsiders have more chances in being remote from passionate debates that alter a neutral pragmatism and the mutual respect required. What we can see as religious or Spiritual contents of Aboriginal, also called First Nation People,have been ignored. The aim is to bring further to light the importance of the topics mentioned here, so they get followed up in professional consultative ways, and made available and accessible to the Public. Arts, not just words, are to be associated with such a task, being careful not to overstate Western views.
We are standing on an edge, either going towards Humanism or robitisation, the later being a science overtaking Humanism, and not taking into accounts the wider and detailed capacities of Nature, which is the earthen language of Universal Values (as demonstrated by DNA Science). A consistant non partisan approach can turn this work into an Australian anthology. The participants should actually aim at disappearing behind expressed realities on the ground. Without respect, interpreters and understanding, Elders cannot be heard: understanding requires exposure, not just on purely academic or political stands.Those ruling intend to be attached to their own values and logistics which is altogether necessary and a major hurdle in 'scientific' non partisan studies. In depths reports reduce drastically costly trials and errors associated with quickly pushing through Legislations set in concrete. Reminder: bridging is about having footings on both sides.
Inspired by the Work of Marthe Lauverjon
Anthropologist and Lawyer based in Africa.
They have a voice, its called a "VOTE", just like the rest of us.
Why do we not have someone who has even half the brains of prof aroney as politicians ?
In other words it will be a complete legal nightmare .
No, it won't
Im researching my ancestry in the hope of jumping on this gravy train band wagon to get a slice of the action ! money will be falling from the sky !
Never volunteer without knowing what for and never vote unless you know what for 🇦🇺
An Indigenous Constitutional Lawyer in Canberra says No & Tony Mundine and others say No. So that is good enough for me.
Vote No!
Simple as that!