As an indigenous man voting No the conversation I would like to see take place would be the necessary reduction of government intervention in the lives of aboriginal people. The dependency state created through government policy towards disadvantaged aboriginal people has done tremendous harm and has distorted the culture. If the government really wished to help, then eliminate those policies that treats us as if we were some special social experiment and allow us to be incentivised to join the rest of our Australian countrymen in making our way in life.
I'd vote yes for THAT policy. Nobody I mix with thinks Albo's vote is a good idea, and I mix with a very wide range of people from very different social, economic, cultural and educational backgrounds. My gut feel is this is a huge waste of time and will achieve nothing but wasting 360 odd million taxpayer dollars.
I’ve lived and worked in the NT in towns and remote areas for almost 40 years. I completely agree with your summary and wish I had the expertise to express this as well as you. I don’t believe the voice will improve lives here and I feel it is just symbolism. Real action needs to occur to help Aboriginal people improve their life outcomes.
The Voice is not just merely symbolism. It introduces racial segregation into constitution, one race is held higher and have an extra “voice”. What happens to everyone’s equal before the law? If this is not the most racist thing a country can do, I don’t know what is.
It's more than symbolism, it's cushy jobs for those with connections who identify a certain way. I came from extreme poverty, have a university education, and swam in these circles for a long time. It's the same thing as their venomous "white patriarchy" (which is a fallacious argument) - "jobs for the "boys" * (always a human failing), just different "boys". * metaphor.
It's clearly designed to divide people even more than they are already while the govt continues to jettison human rights & allow the complete corporate takeover by those who aim to control the masses and corrale us all into pens & who have no loyalty to anything other than seizing all the power and all the resources. Those people have absolutely zero interest in helping anyone in Australia get ahead. Don't be fooled- it will be a stupendously expensive money sink of report writing by "consultants" for absolutely no gain. The govt has no vision & it certainly has no solutions.
I fully agree with your statement. First what we need is to vote NO to the Voice. Second, get rid of all of the agencies, and bureaucrat's that is sitting in the government for aborigines. Third, Fix the problem that we have now, why the money is not getting to the bottom of the food chain. What we need to do is stop being the nice guys and force the aborigines to earn the money, set standard like all kids are to attend school, adults are to be employed. To finish off , you can't help anybody that won't help themselves.
Yes I agree, If you paid taxes, then you are entitled to the dole. if not you get nothing. Why is it that for a country that is short of labour , we have so many people on the dole. Think about it.@@alsmith9853
They had ATSIC, with billions of dollars of taxpayers money, and ended up in a unanimous decision on both sides of the political aisle, to get rid of it, because of the gross negligence, mismanagement, and corruption, and it was run by aboriginal elites. Now we have NIAA, again, billions of dollars of taxpayers money, with no real accountability, or results for indigenous Australians.
John Anderson says it very well. It recognises the indigenous population of this country at the same time giving better insight into the problems facing remote communities and suggestions to the cause and offering suggestions how this can be improved. It does NOT NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE as the PM is proposing. And John Anderson’s makes do much more sense. VOTE NO!!!
The change to the constitution is optional, but it would make the recognition of the indigenous sovereign states easier and permanent, like, say, NSW or WA.
Very well said John. As you have said in another episode, the activists have a ongoing incentive to promote Indigenous hardship and may well be on a payroll of well paid salaries to do this.
And who gives them that money? We do, as payment for taking their land off them. They have never asked for a red cent from us. That's the point of the referendum. They get a say in what they need vice us continually giving with one hand & taking with the other.
@@shaneedmonds2079Never asked for a red cent??? Who are you kidding? You need to apply for funding whether individually or as a group. And so yes, they’ve asked, demanded and received money.
@@boitmecklyn4995 that's your call. I find that incredibly selfish in that you are fine living in a country which has benefited of land basically stolen from first nations people.
@@shaneedmonds2079 Why should I pay for something I had no involvement in? It's not like this is a special case, the british did it to the chinese when they took over Hong Kong, or when Japan took over most of China during WW2, do you see me demanding reparations from them? No. The time for asking for reparations is over and that money can be better spent elsewhere.
I’d love to hear a genuine plan to address the real issues addressing the underprivileged people of our nation and implement generational solutions properly tested and funded towards positive outcomes. The post modern marxist’s ideologues investment in power grabs only serve to destroy goodwill amongst the Australian people as a hole, it’s very selfish and short sighted.
Such a plan already exists. It's called getting an education and then getting a job and it's available to anyone that's willing to put in a bit of effort. Unfortunately we live in an era where many people believe that they should be rewarded for doing nothing and then there's of course the leftist politicians who are happy to pander to those people in order to secure their votes and consequently some cozy high-paying government job. Meanwhile, the people who are putting in the work and taking responsibility for their own lives are just repeatedly getting kicked in the nuts.
I strongly urge you to go and read some Marxist thought on how to meaningfully address indigenous plight. If you do you will find well researched, well informed discourse that centres indigenous voices in creating effective, community lead, sustainable outcome, not some old white man behind a desk tell Aboriginal peoples to be quite and let their white saviours sort it out cos we know best.
I've asked many of the most strident YES campaigners how they think The Voice will solve the problems John outlined so well - all I get is crickets or abuse.. Pathetic really.
All the indigenous bodies that we’ve been dedicating millions upon millions to every year have done nothing to close the gap. Why would creating more layers of what is in effect just more indigenous bureaucracies to achieve anything like closing the gap? I agree that these bodies aren’t solving the real problems these marginalised communities suffer through domestic violence, absent fathers, alcoholism etc. The first thing the Labor government did as soon as they were elected was to abolish the cashless debit card. To quote Dutton ‘it allowed the rivers of grog to reopen “. So why would we trust this government that this so called Voice was just a generous offer. It’s just a big hot mess this whole divisive Voice creating anguish for many.
John a very good presentation . Of course a NO vote is the only way to end the racial discrimination being promoted by the YES vote. I am a Constitutional researcher of some 20 plus years and at this point in our history I must point out that there is an elephant in the room regarding referendums held since 1915 in the Commonwealth of Australia. That elephant is found in the third paragraph of section 128 of the Constitution specifically the use of the word "suffrage". The meaning for that word can be found in section 41 of the Constitution which covers voting at elections. Suffrage means exercising a right to take part in a referendum or an election. As such in 1915 the Commonwealth created the Compulsory Voting (referendums) Act 1915 which has carried over to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 . Compulsory voting and compulsory registration on the electoral roll are clearly without a HEAD OF POWER for any Parliament , State or Federal to provide. The inherited laws of England provided since 1828 also deny the King to force anyone to take part in any election. So the people of Australia have been placed under duress to take part in any election or referendum since 1915 and there is no authority to bring in any such laws. Australia please wake up.
Mr. Anderson, you have said few strange things during Covid but you are very much on point here. Measured, informed, rational, calm and more importantly willing to do the hard work of understanding what is truly about to happen.
My problem with "the gap" as a concept: Allowing self determination for Indigenous Australians is non-negotiable; Expecting first-world health, education and employment outcomes for people enjoying their self-determined choice to live hundreds if not thousands of kilometers from schools, hospitals and centers of economic activity. We're left with being beaten with shame either way. Either we force first world conditions upon people against their free will (tried that, was horrible for all concerned, had to apologise), or we accept that traditional cultural and economic practices reap traditional health, employment and education outcomes. Looks like option 2 is the most sane and humane option to my mind.
“We tried that, we had to apologise”. Is that what you call putting indigenous people in first world conditions? Stealing their children and killing their culture is what that is. And if the reason is that they willingly choose this life then how come indigenous populations in cities like Sydney also live in significantly lower conditions that the rest of the population?
I think the problem is believing they are one homogeneous group with one homogeneous attitude. There are many people with aboriginal ancestors living and working in modern society. They may even refer to their history but it doesn’t mean they want to go bush and become nomads.
So yeah, not all the same people, even when they are the same people. I'm just wondering how having their own unelected sub-parliament is going to magically help people who don't see themselves as the same on any level, who don't even speak the same language?
@@jacobshaftoe8326 That is a very reasonable response if one considers this a reasonable attempt to materially better the lives of Indigenous Australians. It isn't, though, it's the pre-revolution equivalent of 'dipping one's toes in the water'.
Decisions should not be made on the basis of emotion but on facts. Thank you Mr John Anderson for shedding light on this important topic. Hopefully common sense will prevail on the day of this vote.
This won't be a referendum on an indigenous voice to parliament, it will be a vote on the level of success of the Albanese government's handling of the economy and the country's housing crisis. Vote NO to Labor Wokism.
@@banta-pd8zj He didn’t say that the housing crisis started in May 2022, but the on going housing crisis. And woke is an adjective derived from African American vernacular, meaning “alert to racial prejudice, and discrimination, woke, to wake up. It also came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequality.
It would be interesting to know, numerically how many disadvantaged people there are among other sections of Australian community. Compared to number of aboriginal population
Good question. I would also like to know exactly how much is being spent on this campaign by all governments and corporates. How many social houses, food for foodbanks and other worthy causes would this fund. That is the issue that is disgusting me the most.
@@johnnichol9412 your dig at 'gov benefits' - Putting people down in same sentence, makes it real hard to give you compassion 🤔 remember TogetherWeAreStronger🫂 I'm sorry your on so little & hope that you have reached out to your community. So many amazing people out there. Good luck to us all
Australian Aboriginals are recognised in the Preamble of Our Constitution, as am I, with the first 4 words. They being “ Whereas the People of…” Unless of course Australian Aboriginals are not people, which I do not believe.
Equality. If we separate society based on race, than this will ripple and became a bigger problem. Cultural problems can not be solved with forced laws. We do not need more law or division, but unification.
How can you truly fix, as a society, problems in the middle of whoop whoop? We can't force people to work in the middle of nowhere to help address these problems. Nor does forced relocation of these communities present as a viable option.
Has there been an accounting of all the money that have gone to indigenous causes? Did the money get to the right people and make a difference? It wasn't funnelled elsewhere was it?
I to am voting No. There are too few details in Labor's 'Voice'. The Voice is divisive and it would give vast power to a few aboriginal elite. The city elite are very well off - let's face it. The huge amount of money we have thrown in their direction has had to land somewhere! It has not landed in remote communities
In what way are Aboriginal people not recognised? They're equal citizens with rights to education, vote etc. Yes there's dysfunction in some areas but maybe the constant focus on victimhood is exacerbating the problems? Just a thought. BTW many of the comments are really sensible as was the video. If we vote No, it's NOT because we're uncaring or heartless. It's that we're concerned that nothing will change.
Absolutely John A. PREAMBLE recognition, the perfect place for acknowlwdging First Peoples of Australia.👌 I will vote NO to this current upcoming Yes/No referendum. There are already many govt departments and agencies and expenditure for Aboriginal affairs, which evidence the lack of progress for indigenous issues.
If the No vote wins, we will be voting to continue the same approach that we have followed for the past 67 years that has resulted in "the lack of progress for indigenous issues." Voting Yes will enable the Voice to advise the Government how to make progress in indigenous disadvantaged communities.
I am concerned that this is so much more than just a distraction. I feel it may be a trojan horse for something worse that will only benefit the few at the top of the pyramid. It will be bad for most Australians including the indigenous. How can we suddenly trust a government that has syphoned billions of dollars away from those communities that the money was for?
Cant believe I missed this 2 weeks ago . The activists want to continue to enshrine victimhood deeply into the psyche of the indigenous. As they continue to teach and indoctrinate guilt , via the education system and the younger generation. They have achieved this outcome to a large degree and now we the adults in the room must attend to this as a matter of urgency. Thank you John Anderson .
Great statement. After voice will come treaty, paying the rent, once we pay the rent we acknowledge that we are tenants of our own property. Then we will really understand what this is all about.
The Voice will provide ADVICE only. The Government can ignore that advice if it suits them. The Voice will not be allowed to negotiate or demand treaty or rent, etc.
I don’t see how voting no will help at all. Nothing changes. Change is NEEDED. Vote YES to give HOPE. Focus on Health, Education, Housing and Justice. That is what is behind the intention of Voice. We have been asked to walk together with First Nations people for a win/win outcome. I’m voting Yes for a better future.
As we get ever closer to the referendum the true scenario is emerging.. the elephant in the room is the Aboriginal culture that must finally make the choice to accept modernity and take responsibility for itself.. that’s what they are supposedly asking for here, but as John points out, more bureaucracy is not the way to do it.. we can all join in and support them, but you can only lead the horse to water.. many commentators are dancing around this issue, as John does here, but until reality is faced, nothing will change.
Spot-on! Support, respect, value, and share our right to be equal Australians who will give everyone "a fair go". No Albo activist apartheid insulting Voice vilifying Aussies to pay Land Tax on their own land and be ruled by undemocratically elected Aboriginals (do they have to look like Albo?). Albo says he can't pay the Age Pension, so how's he going to pay $23.6 Billion each year for Treaty Reparations?
So much money has been spent on trying to get the black fellas, especially out in the sticks to go to school and get a decent education. But the problem of grog comes into and then the associated violence. The grog aspect is a tough challenge because I don't know how that can be tackled without the obvious offending of peoples rights. Glue/petrol sniffing is also a problem, the only way for these things to change is from within their own communities and I've got no idea how we'd tackle that as a nation.
Well articulated John. I agree. I can't vote yes to something, or anything without knowing exactly what it is I'm voting for. Predictably, the discussion has already degenerated into accusations of racism. As you've said, there's many, many indigenous communities out there, and I'm sure they don't all agree on a whole range of matters. I would actually go a step further and say that it's a form of racism to assume that all members of the indigenous population would act, and think alike.
"without knowing exactly what it is I'm voting for" That is how most (if not all) of the Constitution was created - by people voting for the concept with the details following. For instance: income tax. All the Constitution says is "The Parliament shall ... have power to make laws ... with respect to ... taxation; ...". It doesn't talk about rates of tax or the structure of the Australian Taxation Office or how much the staff will be paid or any of the "fine print" that makes up our taxation system. The Constitutional recognition of A&TSI peoples is the same as this: we are being asked to vote on the concepts; details follow. Having said that, the Government has released some of important "fine print" about the Voice here: voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles. Nobody has said that "all members of the indigenous population would act, and think alike." - that is why there would be more than one member of the Voice who are required to represent the communities that select them.
The Voice is part of a six stage strategy, the Voice itself is stage 5 and stage 6 is Makarrata. The aims are clearly stated "A TREATY could include a proper say in decision making, the establishment of a TRUTH commission, REPARATIONS, a financial settlement (such as seeking a PERCENTAGE OF GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, RECOGNITION OF AUTHORITY and CUSTOMARY LAW" (from page 19 of a 26 page document released under FOI from the National Indigenous Australian Agency, page 1 is titled Uluru statement from the heart [centre justified]) "Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda" from the Uluru Statement from the Heart (page 1). So its very clear not only is the Voice an assault on democratic principles, not only does it introduce race/cultural identity into the constitution, its part of an agenda that the Prime Minister himself promotes VOICE - TREATY - TRUTH. He even has the T - shirt.
@@AnotherDoug The word advisory does not appear in the three clauses to be added to the constitution in Section 129. Here are the clauses: - i There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Voice ii The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. iii The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. So you are wrong, lying or ignorant - the Voice is a representative body and part of a six stage strategy. Stage six being makarrata. In the words of Thomas Mayo “presenting the strategy going forward, which was simply that, first we would pursue a voice so that we could have the best possible say on the makarrata commission”. Please educate yourself and don't lie to the Australian people.
@@VK6AB- Quite possibly, the education needs to begin with you. "make representations" means give advice. Thomas Mayo (if he said that) is just another opinion among 25 million Australians - he has no power over the Referendum or the Voice.
@@AnotherDoug No it doesn't, representations in this context means advocacy - this is basic stuff, literally what is known as black letter law. If they meant advice or advisory thats what they would have proposed in the clauses. Thomas Mayo is an advisor to the Voice, hard left, MUA unionist and activist. Again more untruths from yes campaigners that don't understand constitutional law or basic honesty. Seriously speak to a solicitor or get some meaningful education in civics or law. Just another con artist. As Greg Craven put it in the Australian "it is a ruthless con job".
@@VK6AB- ~ "Make representation" means "give advice". The Oxford Dictionary says "advocacy" means "public support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy" That also means giving advice. ~ No-one is an advisor to the Voice because the Voice does NOT EXIST. Mayo/Mayor was one of 20 members of the First Nations Referendum Working Group. However, that Group has been disbanded as its job is done. ~ You are quoting Professor Craven from march this year. Since then he has changed his mind: "Professor Craven said he was “apoplectic” about the quote [in the No Pamphlet] and accused the No side of being incapable of showing constitutional sophistication. “The thing that infuriates me about it is that it has been well known for months that I’m in favour of the Voice and would campaign for it,” he said." www.afr.com/politics/federal/constitutional-expert-apoplectic-over-no-case-quote-20230718-p5dp33
Always nice to hear some measured sanity injected into controversial topics. Any honest government would either split the referendum into 2 separate questions, or get recognition into the preamble, then legislate the voice, and work on making it permanent *after* proving it's a good idea worth keeping, via legislation.
As John said only 14% OF ABORIGINE children attend formal schooling, so how are these children going to compete in a competitive world where even a degree does not guarantee a job. The voice may feel warm and fuzzy to some people but the model put forward will not improve this ancient culture irrespective of the voice.
Great 'representation' made, and No 'Voice' needed. I just had the thought...how much of this whole debate is also just about a lack of basic information, whether via education or informative news?
Were is the elected representatives from the government of this country that represent the people! If thay aren't doing there job for the people of this country!Get rid of them and elect new representation of the people.All people of this country are Aboriginal Because we are Born here.
We don't need to spend huge sums of money on yet another TALKFEST in Canberra. Linda Burney has already identified the 4 main problem areas: Health, Education, Jobs and Housing. Use the money to fix these.
Oh! my friend you omitted one issue, yes one main issue here. The breakdown of the Aboriginal FAMILY. Where there are multiple fathers to a single family. One 9 year old told me at her mums birthday, her three (3) fathers were coming???????????? I could go on for ever on this issue at my home town in mid west NSW. Don't they get free housing??????? NO from me.
There should be a new broom to sweep clean all those govt departments assisting indiginous people and bring in fresh faces and ideas ensuring each dollar goes to those who need it and not wasted on bureaucratic tripe and duplication. Spot on John Anderson.
Board room talks. People sitting at meetings. People discussing issues at meetings. We do allot of talking...yet the talking and talking never reaches the needy where they are needed. Administration, administrators dont fix issues....they record issues, then carry out spreadsheets recording the statistics of the issues. These administrators use taxes to travel, expenses....then write more reports on the issues. 💸💸💸💸💸💰💰💰💰💰💸💸💸 Children with safe homes, safe life to get to schools. Children who can read, can think and be healthy....they will develop skills for life. Skills to cope with Dysfunctional families. Have mothers who are safe and healthy. Until children can learn, play and be sociable... Will the voice ..The Voice.... We don't need talking "The Voice " We need action where actions can achieve well balanced children in remote communities. 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
It’s no more than an advisory committee. The resources advocates do so every day. This just makes sure that the executive has a conduit from those affected by their policy decisions
John, thanks for your efforts to inform Australians about "The Voice" proposal. I appreciate your analytical, evidence based presentations. I'll be voting no. I am concerned that the debate has degenerated into a contest with phrases commonly in use like, "We must WIN this!" I don't think it's in any way a competition and terms like winning and losing have no place in the debate.
Regarding fatherlessness: "It is chiefly in the ghetto that the black family is disintegrating. As early as 1965 Moynihan, then an assistant labor secretary in the Johnson administration, explained why in a report so glaringly true that it all but blinded most analysts who read it. The black family was breaking down because female jobs and welfare payments usurped the man’s role as provider, leaving fatherless families that tended to repeat themselves from generation to generation." - Gilder, George. Men and Marriage (p. 116) That was written way back in 1973 and although the circumstances and demographics are different, there are some parallels to be drawn. The common theme is the recognition that family structure and socioeconomic factors can play a crucial role in the well-being of individuals and communities. Addressing the fundamental issues within those structures will be more effective in improving outcomes than constitutional changes or policy initiatives.
Taking a lesson from history this is the current labour regime “enabling act”. We are voting for a 21st century version of what occurred in Germany in the 20th century, do a search for enabling act, you will understand what I mean!
ever since assimilation initiatives were abandoned, esp. in remote areas, the gap has widened. Audit the wasted $$$$ & failed initiatives, build evidence based solutions & in the interim vote no!
The 'Truth Telling' element of The Voice may help if it it also used to focus on aboriginal people themselves, i.e. the issues and problems that exist within aborignal society are discussed openly and frankly without interferrenace or restriction from political correctness. Aboriginal people are the only ones who can do this and they need to own those issues that are theirs to own and be prepared meet at least halfway, those who genuinely want to help.
Aside from the fact that the constitution is simply the 'meta-rules' for how government is organized, the Voice proposal is not to 'recognize' Aboriginal Australians, it is to give them a priority over all other Australians. It is a means of extending a governance privilege on the basis of 'race' to a sub group of citizens who, it appears from the rhetoric, are not even elected by their constituents. It is the first step to fascism writ large. However, if it does get up, and survives High Court challenges, at least subsequent governments could fence it in with sufficient law to make it a wooden duck. And, while we are at it, the provision of the constitution that the Cwth can make laws relating to Aborigines has got to go.
~ "is not to 'recognize' Aboriginal Australians" - literally, the first sentence of the Constitutional change is "In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia ..." ~ the Voice will provide ADVICE, not "priority". ~ Members of the Voice will be selected by their communities. ~ The Voice is not fascist ~ The Voice legislation will prevent the Voice members from challenging the Government in any court.
As an indigenous man voting No the conversation I would like to see take place would be the necessary reduction of government intervention in the lives of aboriginal people. The dependency state created through government policy towards disadvantaged aboriginal people has done tremendous harm and has distorted the culture. If the government really wished to help, then eliminate those policies that treats us as if we were some special social experiment and allow us to be incentivised to join the rest of our Australian countrymen in making our way in life.
Well said. 👍
I think that is very much Noel Pearson’s philosophy.
I'd vote yes for THAT policy. Nobody I mix with thinks Albo's vote is a good idea, and I mix with a very wide range of people from very different social, economic, cultural and educational backgrounds. My gut feel is this is a huge waste of time and will achieve nothing but wasting 360 odd million taxpayer dollars.
Exactly but do they listen to you…No and you understand what they are doing wrong and how to fix it.
Very well put, thank you.
Mr Anderson is a sane voice in an ever increasingly crazy world .
These videos are brilliant. Clear, well-produced and most of informative. All in a tone of careful and reasoned consideration. Thank you!
100%
'Statesmanlike', one may say I think.
This should be on main stream television.
Thank you John. The voice is just a distraction. Vote NO.🙏🇦🇺👍
New Zealand at the same time is pushing co- governance ???????
And what distraction is that?
To the OP: I agree, it's a distraction from how bad the economy is going.
@@alsmith9853 So use our first people as a smokescreen, come on now really.
As always, the voice of reason. I hope enough people are listening.
Very well said
If Burnie wanted wanted to help "close the gap" she would do it as the Minister...why do we need aparteid??? VOTE NO in this farcial referendum
Wise, yes I agree, `vote no thanks`!
I’ve lived and worked in the NT in towns and remote areas for almost 40 years. I completely agree with your summary and wish I had the expertise to express this as well as you. I don’t believe the voice will improve lives here and I feel it is just symbolism. Real action needs to occur to help Aboriginal people improve their life outcomes.
The Voice is not just merely symbolism. It introduces racial segregation into constitution, one race is held higher and have an extra “voice”. What happens to everyone’s equal before the law? If this is not the most racist thing a country can do, I don’t know what is.
It's more than symbolism, it's cushy jobs for those with connections who identify a certain way. I came from extreme poverty, have a university education, and swam in these circles for a long time. It's the same thing as their venomous "white patriarchy" (which is a fallacious argument) - "jobs for the "boys" * (always a human failing), just different "boys".
* metaphor.
It's clearly designed to divide people even more than they are already while the govt continues to jettison human rights & allow the complete corporate takeover by those who aim to control the masses and corrale us all into pens & who have no loyalty to anything other than seizing all the power and all the resources. Those people have absolutely zero interest in helping anyone in Australia get ahead. Don't be fooled- it will be a stupendously expensive money sink of report writing by "consultants" for absolutely no gain. The govt has no vision & it certainly has no solutions.
@@arboghast8505well not really, it will only be a small group of aboriginals given that privilege
I fully agree with your statement. First what we need is to vote NO to the Voice. Second, get rid of all of the agencies, and bureaucrat's that is sitting in the government for aborigines. Third, Fix the problem that we have now, why the money is not getting to the bottom of the food chain. What we need to do is stop being the nice guys and force the aborigines to earn the money, set standard like all kids are to attend school, adults are to be employed. To finish off , you can't help anybody that won't help themselves.
I'd apply that to everyone on welfare
Yes I agree, If you paid taxes, then you are entitled to the dole. if not you get nothing. Why is it that for a country that is short of labour , we have so many people on the dole. Think about it.@@alsmith9853
They had ATSIC, with billions of dollars of taxpayers money, and ended up in a unanimous decision on both sides of the political aisle, to get rid of it, because of the gross negligence, mismanagement, and corruption, and it was run by aboriginal elites.
Now we have NIAA, again, billions of dollars of taxpayers money, with no real accountability, or results for indigenous Australians.
@@Invictus357 And now we could get worse with the Voice
John Anderson says it very well. It recognises the indigenous population of this country at the same time giving better insight into the problems facing remote communities and suggestions to the cause and offering suggestions how this can be improved. It does NOT NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE as the PM is proposing. And John Anderson’s makes do much more sense. VOTE NO!!!
AGI Will be man's last invention
The change to the constitution is optional, but it would make the recognition of the indigenous sovereign states easier and permanent, like, say, NSW or WA.
Very well said John. As you have said in another episode, the activists have a ongoing incentive to promote Indigenous hardship and may well be on a payroll of well paid salaries to do this.
The left wants to keep them set as museum pieces.
No Details No Costings No Vote!
This is the most balanced response to the whole voice concept that I have seen thus far.
thank you John
Very well said John.
Voting against the voice, means you want the indigenous representative groups who receive 40 billion a year to be accountable.
And who gives them that money? We do, as payment for taking their land off them. They have never asked for a red cent from us.
That's the point of the referendum. They get a say in what they need vice us continually giving with one hand & taking with the other.
@@shaneedmonds2079Never asked for a red cent??? Who are you kidding? You need to apply for funding whether individually or as a group. And so yes, they’ve asked, demanded and received money.
If canada's attempt is any indicator, I will be voting no. My taxes will not fund the government's "reparations tax".
@@boitmecklyn4995 that's your call. I find that incredibly selfish in that you are fine living in a country which has benefited of land basically stolen from first nations people.
@@shaneedmonds2079 Why should I pay for something I had no involvement in?
It's not like this is a special case, the british did it to the chinese when they took over Hong Kong, or when Japan took over most of China during WW2, do you see me demanding reparations from them? No.
The time for asking for reparations is over and that money can be better spent elsewhere.
I’d love to hear a genuine plan to address the real issues addressing the underprivileged people of our nation and implement generational solutions properly tested and funded towards positive outcomes. The post modern marxist’s ideologues investment in power grabs only serve to destroy goodwill amongst the Australian people as a hole, it’s very selfish and short sighted.
Such a plan already exists. It's called getting an education and then getting a job and it's available to anyone that's willing to put in a bit of effort. Unfortunately we live in an era where many people believe that they should be rewarded for doing nothing and then there's of course the leftist politicians who are happy to pander to those people in order to secure their votes and consequently some cozy high-paying government job. Meanwhile, the people who are putting in the work and taking responsibility for their own lives are just repeatedly getting kicked in the nuts.
I strongly urge you to go and read some Marxist thought on how to meaningfully address indigenous plight. If you do you will find well researched, well informed discourse that centres indigenous voices in creating effective, community lead, sustainable outcome, not some old white man behind a desk tell Aboriginal peoples to be quite and let their white saviours sort it out cos we know best.
To copy another comment here: "As always, the voice of reason. I hope enough people are listening."
Exactly Write no ✌️
Or is it a tick, or a cross, or a thumbprint? Nyet, nein, non? the scrurineers will be up for a fun time.
At least this dude sounds like a real prime minister, not the activist we have now
Activist? Or Communist? Considering Thomas Mayo, one of the authors of the Uluṟu statement, and the voice, is a rabid communist himself.
I've asked many of the most strident YES campaigners how they think The Voice will solve the problems John outlined so well - all I get is crickets or abuse.. Pathetic really.
It's what Labor always does, distract people.
All the indigenous bodies that we’ve been dedicating millions upon millions to every year have done nothing to close the gap. Why would creating more layers of what is in effect just more indigenous bureaucracies to achieve anything like closing the gap?
I agree that these bodies aren’t solving the real problems these marginalised communities suffer through domestic violence, absent fathers, alcoholism etc.
The first thing the Labor government did as soon as they were elected was to abolish the cashless debit card. To quote Dutton ‘it allowed the rivers of grog to reopen “. So why would we trust this government that this so called Voice was just a generous offer. It’s just a big hot mess this whole divisive Voice creating anguish for many.
Thank John Anderson and my vote is NO.
John a very good presentation . Of course a NO vote is the only way to end the racial discrimination being promoted by the YES vote. I am a Constitutional researcher of some 20 plus years and at this point in our history I must point out that there is an elephant in the room regarding referendums held since 1915 in the Commonwealth of Australia. That elephant is found in the third paragraph of section 128 of the Constitution specifically the use of the word "suffrage". The meaning for that word can be found in section 41 of the Constitution which covers voting at elections. Suffrage means exercising a right to take part in a referendum or an election. As such in 1915 the Commonwealth created the Compulsory Voting (referendums) Act 1915 which has carried over to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 . Compulsory voting and compulsory registration on the electoral roll are clearly without a HEAD OF POWER for any Parliament , State or Federal to provide. The inherited laws of England provided since 1828 also deny the King to force anyone to take part in any election. So the people of Australia have been placed under duress to take part in any election or referendum since 1915 and there is no authority to bring in any such laws. Australia please wake up.
#VOTENO
TogetherWeAreStronger🫂
So we'll said, thank you, John.
Mr. Anderson, you have said few strange things during Covid but you are very much on point here. Measured, informed, rational, calm and more importantly willing to do the hard work of understanding what is truly about to happen.
My problem with "the gap" as a concept: Allowing self determination for Indigenous Australians is non-negotiable; Expecting first-world health, education and employment outcomes for people enjoying their self-determined choice to live hundreds if not thousands of kilometers from schools, hospitals and centers of economic activity. We're left with being beaten with shame either way. Either we force first world conditions upon people against their free will (tried that, was horrible for all concerned, had to apologise), or we accept that traditional cultural and economic practices reap traditional health, employment and education outcomes. Looks like option 2 is the most sane and humane option to my mind.
“We tried that, we had to apologise”. Is that what you call putting indigenous people in first world conditions? Stealing their children and killing their culture is what that is. And if the reason is that they willingly choose this life then how come indigenous populations in cities like Sydney also live in significantly lower conditions that the rest of the population?
I think the problem is believing they are one homogeneous group with one homogeneous attitude. There are many people with aboriginal ancestors living and working in modern society. They may even refer to their history but it doesn’t mean they want to go bush and become nomads.
So yeah, not all the same people, even when they are the same people. I'm just wondering how having their own unelected sub-parliament is going to magically help people who don't see themselves as the same on any level, who don't even speak the same language?
@@jacobshaftoe8326 if you can't fix the problem, hold meetings and reorganise: looks like something is being done.
@@jacobshaftoe8326 That is a very reasonable response if one considers this a reasonable attempt to materially better the lives of Indigenous Australians. It isn't, though, it's the pre-revolution equivalent of 'dipping one's toes in the water'.
Decisions should not be made on the basis of emotion but on facts. Thank you Mr John Anderson for shedding light on this important topic. Hopefully common sense will prevail on the day of this vote.
A measured, calm voice of reason.
I agree, but you say that like that will certainly successful in the current climate. I don't think that is the case.
I agree wholeheartedly, real solutions to real problems.
This won't be a referendum on an indigenous voice to parliament, it will be a vote on the level of success of the Albanese government's handling of the economy and the country's housing crisis.
Vote NO to Labor Wokism.
2 questions.
Did the housing crisis begin in May 2022?
What does woke mean?
@@banta-pd8zj
He didn’t say that the housing crisis started in May 2022, but the on going housing crisis.
And woke is an adjective derived from African American vernacular, meaning “alert to racial prejudice, and discrimination, woke, to wake up.
It also came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequality.
It would be interesting to know, numerically how many disadvantaged people there are among other sections of Australian community. Compared to number of aboriginal population
Good question. I would also like to know exactly how much is being spent on this campaign by all governments and corporates. How many social houses, food for foodbanks and other worthy causes would this fund. That is the issue that is disgusting me the most.
@@johnnichol9412 your dig at 'gov benefits' - Putting people down in same sentence, makes it real hard to give you compassion 🤔 remember TogetherWeAreStronger🫂
I'm sorry your on so little & hope that you have reached out to your community. So many amazing people out there. Good luck to us all
Spot on. Thanks for your insight and clear presentations John.
Voices like John’s are so important in days like these
The return of the Pagan gods, Chaos, Confusion, and Calamity. This is what is happening in Aboriginal Australia. Good luck Oz.
Finally some common sense on this issue... thank you John for your clarity and insight on this issue.
Australian Aboriginals are recognised in the Preamble of Our Constitution, as am I, with the first 4 words.
They being “ Whereas the People of…”
Unless of course Australian Aboriginals are not people, which I do not believe.
Equality. If we separate society based on race, than this will ripple and became a bigger problem. Cultural problems can not be solved with forced laws. We do not need more law or division, but unification.
Exactly, we learnt the extreme folly of White Australia in the 'other' direction.
Courage to discuss the disadvantages of the indigenous honestly....well stated. Excellent post,
Well said John. The Truth. Where has all the Millons of dollars gone?
How can you truly fix, as a society, problems in the middle of whoop whoop? We can't force people to work in the middle of nowhere to help address these problems. Nor does forced relocation of these communities present as a viable option.
Has there been an accounting of all the money that have gone to indigenous causes? Did the money get to the right people and make a difference? It wasn't funnelled elsewhere was it?
If you can think of ways The Voice will be manipulated or corrupted, so can the manipulators and corrupted.
Well said John, keep up the good work.
Sanity is still here, thank you John Anderson.
With or without the voice, I'll stand with our first people.
Excellent
I to am voting No. There are too few details in Labor's 'Voice'. The Voice is divisive and it would give vast power to a few aboriginal elite.
The city elite are very well off - let's face it. The huge amount of money we have thrown in their direction has had to land somewhere!
It has not landed in remote communities
No Tax paid as well.
In what way are Aboriginal people not recognised? They're equal citizens with rights to education, vote etc. Yes there's dysfunction in some areas but maybe the constant focus on victimhood is exacerbating the problems? Just a thought. BTW many of the comments are really sensible as was the video. If we vote No, it's NOT because we're uncaring or heartless. It's that we're concerned that nothing will change.
Thank you for your explanation, I wasn't sure where I stood but this video helped clarify my stance.
Make sure you share!
Vote NO! Albanese has done a lot to divide Australia by race! Voting NO will help destroy his divisive ambitions.
No is my vote
Nobody even knows what they're voting for. What a joke.
Keep these videos coming.
Absolutely John A.
PREAMBLE recognition,
the perfect place for acknowlwdging First Peoples of Australia.👌
I will vote NO to this current upcoming Yes/No referendum.
There are already many govt departments and agencies and expenditure for Aboriginal affairs, which evidence the lack of progress for indigenous issues.
If the No vote wins, we will be voting to continue the same approach that we have followed for the past 67 years that has resulted in "the lack of progress for indigenous issues."
Voting Yes will enable the Voice to advise the Government how to make progress in indigenous disadvantaged communities.
I am concerned that this is so much more than just a distraction. I feel it may be a trojan horse for something worse that will only benefit the few at the top of the pyramid. It will be bad for most Australians including the indigenous. How can we suddenly trust a government that has syphoned billions of dollars away from those communities that the money was for?
Almost like the whole "voice" is a smokescreen for the recent 4% politician wage rise amongst other things.
Closing The gap is the never ending story, along with giving native title.
Cant believe I missed this 2 weeks ago . The activists want to continue to enshrine victimhood deeply into the psyche of the indigenous. As they continue to teach and indoctrinate guilt , via the education system and the younger generation. They have achieved this outcome to a large degree and now we the adults in the room must attend to this as a matter of urgency. Thank you John Anderson .
Treat all Australians equally.
Great statement. After voice will come treaty, paying the rent, once we pay the rent we acknowledge that we are tenants of our own property. Then we will really understand what this is all about.
The Voice will provide ADVICE only.
The Government can ignore that advice if it suits them.
The Voice will not be allowed to negotiate or demand treaty or rent, etc.
There’s a great channel called “centre for indigenous training” that delves a bit deeper into this issue.
Let us shake off the COLONY mentality of the LNP. Vote YES for LIBERTY EQUALITY and FRATERNITY
I don’t see how voting no will help at all. Nothing changes. Change is NEEDED. Vote YES to give HOPE. Focus on Health, Education, Housing and Justice. That is what is behind the intention of Voice. We have been asked to walk together with First Nations people for a win/win outcome. I’m voting Yes for a better future.
Well said John.
Vote NO to Apartheid, Division and Racism. NO
As we get ever closer to the referendum the true scenario is emerging.. the elephant in the room is the Aboriginal culture that must finally make the choice to accept modernity and take responsibility for itself.. that’s what they are supposedly asking for here, but as John points out, more bureaucracy is not the way to do it.. we can all join in and support them, but you can only lead the horse to water.. many commentators are dancing around this issue, as John does here, but until reality is faced, nothing will change.
Spot-on! Support, respect, value, and share our right to be equal Australians who will give everyone "a fair go". No Albo activist apartheid insulting Voice vilifying Aussies to pay Land Tax on their own land and be ruled by undemocratically elected Aboriginals (do they have to look like Albo?). Albo says he can't pay the Age Pension, so how's he going to pay $23.6 Billion each year for Treaty Reparations?
So much money has been spent on trying to get the black fellas, especially out in the sticks to go to school and get a decent education. But the problem of grog comes into and then the associated violence. The grog aspect is a tough challenge because I don't know how that can be tackled without the obvious offending of peoples rights. Glue/petrol sniffing is also a problem, the only way for these things to change is from within their own communities and I've got no idea how we'd tackle that as a nation.
Well articulated John. I agree. I can't vote yes to something, or anything without knowing exactly what it is I'm voting for. Predictably, the discussion has already degenerated into accusations of racism. As you've said, there's many, many indigenous communities out there, and I'm sure they don't all agree on a whole range of matters. I would actually go a step further and say that it's a form of racism to assume that all members of the indigenous population would act, and think alike.
"without knowing exactly what it is I'm voting for"
That is how most (if not all) of the Constitution was created - by people voting for the concept with the details following.
For instance: income tax. All the Constitution says is "The Parliament shall ... have power to make laws ... with respect to ... taxation; ...". It doesn't talk about rates of tax or the structure of the Australian Taxation Office or how much the staff will be paid or any of the "fine print" that makes up our taxation system.
The Constitutional recognition of A&TSI peoples is the same as this: we are being asked to vote on the concepts; details follow.
Having said that, the Government has released some of important "fine print" about the Voice here: voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles.
Nobody has said that "all members of the indigenous population would act, and think alike." - that is why there would be more than one member of the Voice who are required to represent the communities that select them.
The Voice is part of a six stage strategy, the Voice itself is stage 5 and stage 6 is Makarrata. The aims are clearly stated "A TREATY could include a proper say in decision making, the establishment of a TRUTH commission, REPARATIONS, a financial settlement (such as seeking a PERCENTAGE OF GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, RECOGNITION OF AUTHORITY and CUSTOMARY LAW" (from page 19 of a 26 page document released under FOI from the National Indigenous Australian Agency, page 1 is titled Uluru statement from the heart [centre justified]) "Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda" from the Uluru Statement from the Heart (page 1). So its very clear not only is the Voice an assault on democratic principles, not only does it introduce race/cultural identity into the constitution, its part of an agenda that the Prime Minister himself promotes VOICE - TREATY - TRUTH. He even has the T - shirt.
The Referendum is ONLY about Constitutional recognition and creation of an ADVISORY body. That's it.
@@AnotherDoug The word advisory does not appear in the three clauses to be added to the constitution in Section 129. Here are the clauses: - i There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Voice
ii The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.
iii The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
So you are wrong, lying or ignorant - the Voice is a representative body and part of a six stage strategy. Stage six being makarrata.
In the words of Thomas Mayo “presenting the strategy going forward, which was simply that, first we would pursue a voice so that we could have the best possible say on the makarrata commission”.
Please educate yourself and don't lie to the Australian people.
@@VK6AB- Quite possibly, the education needs to begin with you. "make representations" means give advice.
Thomas Mayo (if he said that) is just another opinion among 25 million Australians - he has no power over the Referendum or the Voice.
@@AnotherDoug No it doesn't, representations in this context means advocacy - this is basic stuff, literally what is known as black letter law. If they meant advice or advisory thats what they would have proposed in the clauses. Thomas Mayo is an advisor to the Voice, hard left, MUA unionist and activist. Again more untruths from yes campaigners that don't understand constitutional law or basic honesty. Seriously speak to a solicitor or get some meaningful education in civics or law. Just another con artist. As Greg Craven put it in the Australian "it is a ruthless con job".
@@VK6AB-
~ "Make representation" means "give advice". The Oxford Dictionary says "advocacy" means "public support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy" That also means giving advice.
~ No-one is an advisor to the Voice because the Voice does NOT EXIST. Mayo/Mayor was one of 20 members of the First Nations Referendum Working Group. However, that Group has been disbanded as its job is done.
~ You are quoting Professor Craven from march this year. Since then he has changed his mind: "Professor Craven said he was “apoplectic” about the quote [in the No Pamphlet] and accused the No side of being incapable of showing constitutional sophistication.
“The thing that infuriates me about it is that it has been well known for months that I’m in favour of the Voice and would campaign for it,” he said." www.afr.com/politics/federal/constitutional-expert-apoplectic-over-no-case-quote-20230718-p5dp33
I would like to hear what the Aboriginal people think about this issue. Citizen of the USA here.
Only the half cast are the ones making the noise.
Half cast= 1/2 white and 1/2 Aboriginal.
The full blooded Aboriginal don't care!
Always nice to hear some measured sanity injected into controversial topics. Any honest government would either split the referendum into 2 separate questions, or get recognition into the preamble, then legislate the voice, and work on making it permanent *after* proving it's a good idea worth keeping, via legislation.
The first people of Australia are not here anymore, they have been replaced by the dreamers who don't know what part of the race they are in.
As John said only 14% OF ABORIGINE children attend formal schooling, so how are these children going to compete in a competitive world where even a degree does not guarantee a job. The voice may feel warm and fuzzy to some people but the model put forward will not improve this ancient culture irrespective of the voice.
Great 'representation' made, and No 'Voice' needed. I just had the thought...how much of this whole debate is also just about a lack of basic information, whether via education or informative news?
Were is the elected representatives from the government of this country that represent the people! If thay aren't doing there job for the people of this country!Get rid of them and elect new representation of the people.All people of this country are Aboriginal Because we are Born here.
We don't need to spend huge sums of money on yet another TALKFEST in Canberra. Linda Burney has already identified the 4 main problem areas: Health, Education, Jobs and Housing. Use the money to fix these.
Oh! my friend you omitted one issue, yes one main issue here.
The breakdown of the Aboriginal FAMILY.
Where there are multiple fathers to a single family.
One 9 year old told me at her mums birthday, her three (3) fathers were coming????????????
I could go on for ever on this issue at my home town in mid west NSW.
Don't they get free housing???????
NO from me.
No!
Well said.
There should be a new broom to sweep clean all those govt departments assisting indiginous people and bring in fresh faces and ideas ensuring each dollar goes to those who need it and not wasted on bureaucratic tripe and duplication.
Spot on John Anderson.
"bring in fresh faces and ideas ensuring each dollar goes to those who need it" - well done! That is exactly what the Voice will do.
@@AnotherDoug a load of tripe vote NO
No to racist division of Australians.
Protect our farmers, in WA they cannot dig deeper than 50 cm on their OWN land. We are next.
That law, which you clearly did not understand, has been cancelled by the WA Government.
@@AnotherDoug It is not cancelled. They are just discussing that it was "too much".
So true
VOTE NO
Board room talks. People sitting at meetings. People discussing issues at meetings. We do allot of talking...yet the talking and talking never reaches the needy where they are needed.
Administration, administrators dont fix issues....they record issues, then carry out spreadsheets recording the statistics of the issues. These administrators use taxes to travel, expenses....then write more reports on the issues. 💸💸💸💸💸💰💰💰💰💰💸💸💸
Children with safe homes, safe life to get to schools. Children who can read, can think and be healthy....they will develop skills for life. Skills to cope with Dysfunctional families. Have mothers who are safe and healthy. Until children can learn, play and be sociable...
Will the voice ..The Voice....
We don't need talking "The Voice "
We need action where actions can achieve well balanced children in remote communities.
🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
"We need action" - exactly what the Voice can help with!
It’s no more than an advisory committee. The resources advocates do so every day. This just makes sure that the executive has a conduit from those affected by their policy decisions
John, thanks for your efforts to inform Australians about "The Voice" proposal. I appreciate your analytical, evidence based presentations. I'll be voting no. I am concerned that the debate has degenerated into a contest with phrases commonly in use like, "We must WIN this!" I don't think it's in any way a competition and terms like winning and losing have no place in the debate.
So, you deplore John Howard (Anderson's old boss) from telling you to "maintain the rage"?
Rhodesia, Apartheid... Australia.
Now the ABC has John Farnham song “The Voice” onboard for the the Referendum. We could all see that coming.
Not the ABC but the Yes Campaign
Regarding fatherlessness:
"It is chiefly in the ghetto that the black family is disintegrating. As early as 1965 Moynihan, then an assistant labor secretary in the Johnson administration, explained why in a report so glaringly true that it all but blinded most analysts who read it. The black family was breaking down because female jobs and welfare payments usurped the man’s role as provider, leaving fatherless families that tended to repeat themselves from generation to generation." - Gilder, George. Men and Marriage (p. 116)
That was written way back in 1973 and although the circumstances and demographics are different, there are some parallels to be drawn. The common theme is the recognition that family structure and socioeconomic factors can play a crucial role in the well-being of individuals and communities. Addressing the fundamental issues within those structures will be more effective in improving outcomes than constitutional changes or policy initiatives.
Taking a lesson from history this is the current labour regime “enabling act”. We are voting for a 21st century version of what occurred in Germany in the 20th century, do a search for enabling act, you will understand what I mean!
ever since assimilation initiatives were abandoned, esp. in remote areas, the gap has widened. Audit the wasted $$$$ & failed initiatives, build evidence based solutions & in the interim vote no!
Hear, Hear.
The 'Truth Telling' element of The Voice may help if it it also used to focus on aboriginal people themselves, i.e. the issues and problems that exist within aborignal society are discussed openly and frankly without interferrenace or restriction from political correctness. Aboriginal people are the only ones who can do this and they need to own those issues that are theirs to own and be prepared meet at least halfway, those who genuinely want to help.
I am voting yes
Aside from the fact that the constitution is simply the 'meta-rules' for how government is organized, the Voice proposal is not to 'recognize' Aboriginal Australians, it is to give them a priority over all other Australians. It is a means of extending a governance privilege on the basis of 'race' to a sub group of citizens who, it appears from the rhetoric, are not even elected by their constituents. It is the first step to fascism writ large.
However, if it does get up, and survives High Court challenges, at least subsequent governments could fence it in with sufficient law to make it a wooden duck.
And, while we are at it, the provision of the constitution that the Cwth can make laws relating to Aborigines has got to go.
~ "is not to 'recognize' Aboriginal Australians" - literally, the first sentence of the Constitutional change is "In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia ..."
~ the Voice will provide ADVICE, not "priority".
~ Members of the Voice will be selected by their communities.
~ The Voice is not fascist
~ The Voice legislation will prevent the Voice members from challenging the Government in any court.
Just saw Albo on Channel 9 interview .... incredibly unimpressive .... all fluff and bull💩. ABSOLUTELY VOTING ""NO "".
I'm glad you saw it as I can't even stand looking or hearing ELMOR FUDD OR MAIN STREAM MEDIA glad all it was, was puff as usual👍
“There’s no such thing as group rights because there’s no such thing as group responsibilities.” -Dr Jordan Peterson