Arguments FOR and AGAINST Entrenching a First Nations Voice in the Constitution | AUSSIE LAW
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лип 2024
- A Referendum to entrench an Indigenous Voice in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution is on its way! The Uluru Statement from the Heart claims that a First Nations Voice in the Constitution would be a progress towards reconciliation, but some say the lack of detail about this Voice is worrisome. In this video, we summarise some arguments for and against enshrining the Voice in the Australian Constitution.
0:00 - The Voice and the Uluru Statement from the Heart
3:22 - 'Yes' Arguments
5:56 - 'No' Arguments
9:25 - Referendum
// This video does not provide legal counselling or opinion about cases. This channel was created for educational purposes only. //
SUBSCRIBE: ua-cam.com/users/AussieLaw?s...
BECOME A MEMBER: / @aussielaw
*****
PLAYLISTS:
- Australian Case Law - • Australian Case Law
- Constitutional Law - • Constitutional Law
- Constitutional Interpretation - • Constitutional Interpr...
- Constitutional Provisions Explained - • Constitutional Provisi...
- Federalism in Australia - • Federalism in Australia
- Australian Government (Executive) - • Australian Government ...
- Australian Parliament - • Australian Parliament ...
- Australian Law and History - • Australian Law & History
*****
RELATED VIDEOS:
- The Principle of Terra Nullius - • The Principle of TERRA...
- Laws of the Australian Colony - • The LAWS of AUSTRALIA ...
- Colonial Laws Validity Act - • The Colonial Laws Vali...
- Australian Federalism Explained (Structure, Institutions and Powers of States and Cth) - • Australian FEDERALISM ...
- Constitutional Amendment I: How to Change the Australian Constitution according to s 128 - • CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDME...
- Constitutional Amendment II: Referendum and Plebiscite in Australia - • CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDME...
- Constitutional Amendment III: Stats & Facts about Altering the Australian Constitution - • CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDME...
- Express and Implied Rights in the Australian Constitution - • EXPRESS and IMPLIED RI...
*****
LINKS:
- The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act : www.legislation.gov.au/Detail...
- Uluru Statement from the Heart: ulurustatement.org/the-statem...
- Garma Speech : www.pm.gov.au/media/address-g...
- Peter Dutton’s Letter : / 1611919809880666112
*****
TWITTER: / renatosmcosta
ACADEMIC PROFILES:
law.uq.edu.au/profile/11028/r...
www.uq.academia.edu/RenatoSaeg...
#auslaw #australianconstitution #voice
SUBSCRIBE: ua-cam.com/users/AussieLaw
BECOME A MEMBER: ua-cam.com/channels/loahlV-M4A0LIc14rmfNnw.htmljoin
0:00 - The Voice and the Uluru Statement from the Heart
3:22 - 'Yes' Arguments
5:56 - 'No' Arguments
9:25 - Referendum
Everyone on both sides of this debate knows full well its powers will increase over time.
@@nikkideanmusicif it has no power, then why is it so important ? Power obviously exists beyond legislative authority
I think before permanently changing the Constitution we should have a trial run of how the voice would operate. So much hidden information how can people make an informed decision.
So atlest it would be easy to make changes as needed.
feels like a scam. Just a lot of vague platitudes. I'm guessing even more scaming and missmanagement if they got in. Sacred lands leased to the chinese for example.
Do the Australian people receive the YES and NO booklet before the referendum?
The Constitution sets out certain rules that must be followed in order for a change to be approved.
A proposed change to the Constitution must start as a bill - proposed law - presented to the Australian Parliament. If the bill is passed by the Parliament, the proposal must then be presented to Australian voters in a referendum. The referendum must take place between 2 and 6 months after the bill is passed.
Before the referendum is held, members of parliament prepare arguments for or against the proposed change. These are sent to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), which is in charge of running federal elections and referendums. The AEC arranges for the 'Yes' and 'No' cases, along with a statement of the proposed change, to be posted to every Australian on the electoral roll.
Except the AEC is already biased. They're already advertising to Aboriginals. "It's not the votes that count, it's who counts the votes".
But that is one of the problems: the Prime Minister has for many months instructed the electorate that there is only one answer.
yes campaign has no contact number. They want ur vote but wont talk to you. If don't support them ur a racist. just childish.
@@johncater7861 yes, it seemed so off that the Govt was so clearly partisan'
Aren't their already aboriginal representatives in parliament ?
Yes 11 of them currently.
They are slightly over represented based on their proportion of the population.
Reconciliation for and what about? We one nation and this is divisive, not two separate nations at war!
They don't want to live in the white man's western world.
Reconciliation is with the crown as Australia is a constitutional monarchy. If Australian became a Republic & rewrote its constitution, the voice and variations would be a mute point.
If Australia is not my land as a fifth generation Tasmania then where do I belong in my own country? The Aboriginal people have a voice in parliament with 8 Senators and 3 Members.
This is the hidden agenda behind the voice - Their land. Their laws. I wouldn't surprised if later in the future, the Aussie flag will change, we will probably pay some Indigenous payment which goes towards their housing, education, sport, domestic violence issues, legal services, way of life etc.
According to Marcia Langton anyone who votes NO is not welcome to country 🙄, I'm sure it's Hell NO from me
I think we need to give support to first nations people and do it in a better structured economical way that gets results on the ground and gives opportunities to aboriginals who want to better them self. A look into the 4.5 Billion wasted on self serving committees that have delivered very little help to regional first nations people would be a start.
- We need the detail that the government is being tight lipped, Why?
- Giving constitutional power will lead to a group of unelected people that can over turn any decision a government of the day makes, which will cause issues with the democratic operation of government.
- Voice has become so hot of a topic that it looks to be a front for socialist/ communist reform.
- We have said sorry and reconciled and still the minority powers want more than the kitchen sink. What next treaty ?
- This will divide our nation which at this time is not what we want, if we want to ensure stability in our nations values we need to seek a system that unites us all like when the Constitution came into effect in 1901.
- We need to all comes together on honesty family driven values where love and respect are the driving forces. Show consideration for one another and be at peace.
We need to vote NO and put a stop to the segregation and divisive minorities destroying the fabric of this country. England came and colonized the lands. We made a lot of good decisions that brought trade, roads and industry to form this nation. We have also made some deeply poor decisions that is apart of our history. I can't wait for this to pass at the end of this year and we move on and forward to a better future for Australia.
@@nikkideanmusic And why does everyone else seems to know more about the details except the Prime Minister himself? Bloody do your job and say it. It's that simple. Is he hiding something?
@@nikkideanmusic "Why should I", Albo's reply when asked if he's read the details. This is the person running this country for God's sakes. So how do you expect everyone to read it when this useless arrogant PM refuses to read it himself? I bet you haven't even read it yourself either.
@@nikkideanmusicgood question, why are Aboriginal outcomes worse, but you didn't answer it. Is it racism? I kinda doubt that because millions of migrants are doing well thanks. Is it that government is not doing enough? Billions is spent annually. I fear the answer is not easy nor palatable. I don't think calling one group of people special victims is helping.
@@alsmith9853 Hmmm, You seem to have conveniently forgotten to mention, the genocide of a people, the forced abduction of their children and the taking fo their land, not to mention the ongoing discrimination that ATSI people face and have faced since colonisation, just to name a few reasons.
Migrants weren't the victims of a genocide by the Australian government were they?
They didn't have their children stolen from them by the government did they? They didn't have their land stolen by the state did they?
Interesting that you have completely elided these most important issues to make your rather crude point.
@@alsmith9853it’s because of the generational trauma they still experience. I can go into this but this is only part of a larger problem.
The Australian Constitution came into effect on 1 January 1901, establishing the Commonwealth of Australia. It is a living document - which continues to shape Australia - and is notoriously difficult to change. Since 1901, 19 referendums have proposed 44 changes to the Constitution; only eight changes have been agreed to.
On 27 May 1967, Australians voted to change the Constitution so that like all other Australians, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would be counted as part of the population and the Commonwealth would be able to make laws for them. A resounding 90.77 per cent said ‘Yes’ and every single state and territory had a majority result for the ‘Yes’ vote. It was one of the most successful national campaigns in Australia’s history.
On 27 May 1967, Australians voted to change the Constitution for a positive, and meaningful change.
The 2023 proposed change to the Australian Constitution. The Voice. Is an intolerant, narrow-minded (critical race theory) power grab.
The Voice fails to represent all Australians.
The Voice will embody structural racism.
The Voice will serve as structural racism.
The Voice will in conjunction with these clear liabilities fail to represent the many different and distinct Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups, each with their own culture, language, beliefs and practices.
Genuine accurate facts are not dishonest scaremongering.
Disagreement with any change that is not democratic, and is not representative, and will be discriminatory. This is now deemed racist?🤔
Why yes let us as a proud multi-ethnic nation Australia, undermine our modern representative democracy in favour of divisive, popular, crowd-pleasing, and overt virtue signalling?
Why would we allow this?
How afraid and intimidated have we become in Australia?
“We believe that all 26 million Australians are equal and they have an equal voice through the 227 voices in that parliament through the House of Representatives or through the Senate.
The echo chamber that has created ‘The Voice’ in its current form needs to take a long hard look at themselves; and their shameful, unjust, and discriminatory doctrine of critical race theory.
And instead of pronouncing: racism, discrimination, unfairness, and bigotry upon any Australians who stand against ‘The Voice’ in its current form. They should examine the structural racism they intend to widen and inflate with the same furious incrimination.
The Voice is exclusive and race based, and has no place in a modern democratic, representative political system.
In the constitution, all Australians should have the same rights and should share the same responsibilities.
Race has no place in the Australian constitution.
(to be clear I, as most Australians would be more than happy to include the many, hundreds of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups, each with their own culture, language, beliefs and practices in Australia’s constitutional preamble it’s appropriate, true, and it’s important. It is of such importance that accuracy is almost equally meaningful. We as a nation need to take this important step towards harmony and recognition accurately and correctly, the fabrication of a ‘First Nation’ should not be included.
The Voice won’t solve the real and serious problems Aboriginal people face, including high rates of violence and sexual abuse, especially against women and children and the breakdown of law and order. That should have been solved yesterday.
Well said!
I cannot support this referendum as it is currently proposed.
All Australians, regardless of how long you have called this land,
your home, should all be looked upon as equals.
Does it mean we are all equal?
Of course it doesn't!
That however, has less to do with race, as it does with an individuals circumstances
and this is how Australians should be treated or helped, by their circumstances.
If you think we can eliminate racism, by highlighting race, you're a fool.
You only divide a nation and further arm true racists with this approach.
Further, whatever mistakes this country has made in the past,
will not be corrected by making a bigger mistake now.
We can all feast on the statistics regarding our Indigenous people's,
incarceration, life expectancy, education levels, domestic violence and deaths in custody rates
but look at the situations, not just the figures.
Do they break the law more often?
Eat and drink poorly or live in remote communities?
Not value education or send their kids to school?
Lack morals?
Commit suicide in jail?
Much of the above could be said for Non Indigenous Australians from less fortunate backgrounds as well.
I don't know but just quoting these figures without ALL the information,
or looking at the root causes will not help solve these problems.
If we look too hard, we may not like what we see.
@@imanenigma3348well said
Thank you. I was undecided until I read your comment.
It amazes me the astronomical level of mental gymnastics these people (‘First Nations’ activists) try to pull to avoid any responsibility and accountability for their actions. Australia has managed through comprehensive indulgence (giving hundreds of billions to thousands of clearly corrupt groups, and literally more than 50% of Australia to less than 2.5% of the population.) to foster generations of entitlement and privilege into this deeply corrupt ‘First Nations’ industry.
Undermining Australian Unity, equality, egalitarianism, and fairness we have disengaged multiculturalism, and have instead separated Australia by Race. Through our favouritism, bias, and prejudiced ‘Truth’ telling, lies, deception, and falsehoods.
1)‘First Nation’ = fabricated lie.
2)Hundred's of Regional Tribes = fact-based.
End the propaganda, and embrace (verified, definite, existent, factual,) history there is no ‘First Nation,’ that Aboriginal peoples of Australia are not a nation* are not an homogeneous group and are made up of many (hundred’s) of different language groups and cultures.
The oldest evidence of humans in Australia is 47,000 y.a. Mungo Man. But he was from an earlier migration than today's native Australians.
Today's native Australians started arriving from Papua 30,000 y.a. and have been arriving ever since. Some "Aboriginal" ancestors arrived after the first fleet.
Native Australians are not indigenous, all humans evolved in Africa and they are not aboriginal, Mungo Man's people were the original Australians. Today's natives are just another wave of migrants.
But instead of us unifying under this historical fact, we’ve chosen to make this a race concerning race? Those here first are somehow better than those that arrived here more recently. Because this is how we should judge the quality of human beings? Additionally we should also group all people ethnically, because this is also now the most important element of a human being's character?
There was no genocide, indeed there was understanding, collaboration and association. There was at the same time conflict. (genocidal campaign?) Hardly. Historical Truth telling. More Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have died throughout history at the hands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders than at the hands of villainous white Colonialists. Millions, tens of millions. This is human history. We are violent, we are ruthless, and we are not universally generous and charitable.
Why is there no mention of this in our school's, and universities? If historically it is so fundamentally important to examine every conflict, war, and encounter since Colonisation?
If indeed there are grievances that will never be forgiven and forgotten, grievances that won't let bygones be bygones. Then Australia, and Australians will be forced to to wake up to this revelation. The inability for activists, and objectors to allow clemency, or reconciliation is obvious, and straightforward, it simply does not serve them. There is no benefit, advantage, asset, perk, or upside in growth, and unity as far as they’re concerned. Clemency, or reconciliation would end many activists, and professional objectors very profitable careers/positions. And at best (in their bigoted eyes) even if it didn’t outright end their benefits it would open the floodgates to competition.
The problem, it seems to me, extends largely from the invasion of the academic and intellectual world by activist groups who do not take the trouble to learn enough to know what they’re up against but nevertheless define their position in terms of political agendas. These political agendas are all about belonging together in a salvationist group: we save ourselves because we believe the right things, and we’re looking everywhere for those poisonous presences which are trying to exclude us from possession of our rightful heritage.
The opinion that the colour of your skin, or the antecedents of an individual are the defining factors is narrow-minded, backwards, bigoted, racist, discriminatory, prejudiced, unfair, and insulting. Yet it's been the dominant thinking in the Australian government, universities, media, (particularly the ABC) and general public discourse for decades. This retrogressive, confused, righteous stupidity has to be walked back. We’ll be burning witches again if this continues.
Bring Australia together. Australia is for all Australians equally, with objectivity, fairness, impartiality, and even-handedness.❤🇦🇺🦘
@@nikkideanmusic
The generational attack, offensive,assault on muti-cultural Australia has left us divided, and embarrassed of Australia’s wonderful past. All to serve the self seeking, selfish interests of a very small militant, embittered and clearly corrupt organisation. The goal of separatism seems to be this small ‘elite’ group within an equally small group's agenda. This small ‘elite’ group has garnered a great deal of power, and influence thanks to some very clever, and less than honest use of every available manipulation available to them, especially the weaponization of race.
Our nation's genuine history has been entirely subverted throughout the last two decades with: ‘truth’ telling that there is now virtually only one Australian hero, the innocent, entirely virtuous Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander’s who were wronged by ‘white men throughout their innocent, and entirely virtuous histories.
The echo chamber that has created ‘The Voice’ in its current form needs to take a long hard look at themselves; and their shameful, unjust, and discriminatory doctrine of critical race theory.
And instead of pronouncing: racism, discrimination, unfairness, and bigotry upon any Australians who stand against ‘The Voice’ in its current form. They should examine the structural racism they intend to widen and inflate with the same furious incrimination.
Entrenching disadvantage by presenting the system as an unscalable wall that is beyond the capacity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians to ‘climb’ while new emigrants (multi-ethnic emigrants) somehow, miraculously manage to both ascend this ‘unscalable wall’ and indeed thrive under Australia’s ‘restrictive’ ‘repressive’ ‘system’ and the lie, the falsehood of ‘disadvantage’ and the hopeless, unscalable wall might have the largest contributing influence on entrenching an assumed disadvantage.
Victimhood culture has taken over the Australian political landscape.
Victimhood culture is another technique in obtaining power, and silencing opposition.
The moment Australia stepped over the line from equality to a favoured group, we took a massive misstep. We must walk back this shallowness and clear stupidity.
The voice doesn't exist to do anything but stroke the egos of a select few at the expense of everyone else.
Indeed this proposal is completely self-centred, prejudiced and incredibly vainglorious, real positive change is not being implemented. So a small corrupt group can gain greater power
The Voice is not a path to reconciliation, and harmony it is a path to entrench structural racism within our nation's constitution. Something that should be abhorrent to all Australians but particularly so to Indigenous Aboriginal, and Torres Strait Islander’s. ❤🇦🇺🦘
@@nikkideanmusic
I'm a 4th generation Australian, I work in a factory with 1st generation Australians, we should have the same rights as anyone else in this country including Aborigine's, say NO to the voice as it is racist .
You missed so many reasons to say NO. Our constitution is supposed to protect ALL Australian people. Australian people inclusively. How can people of one heritage get special treatment in equality?
African people vs Asian vs middle eastern vs western European vs eastern European vs indian vs Aboriginal and pacific islanders do we all have different rights and worth in this kind of society?
All Australians. All equal opportunities and equal value. So equal and fair go.
The voice irrevocably puts law over Australia that prevents a fair go for all Australians.
I vote NO
You must be kidding. Or ignorant. The Indigenous Peoples have lived in Australia for at least 50,000 years. The British and the immigrants they allowed in only occurred in the last 235 years - and remember dispossesion, missionization, the "Aboriginal Protector" implementation, eugenics, assimilation, and the White Australian Policy. Are you lacking perspective?!!
In all fairness, we didn't commit genocide and steal the lands of any other ethnicity leading to their near extinction and extreme loss of culture, causing disadvantage for the following generations. We did that to Aboriginal people, so it's fair to help bring them out of that disadvantage.
You are just another immigrant unless you are part of the 65,000 year culture on this land.
Australia is bi-cultural, not multicultural in essence.
@@nigelmaclean8305 You must be joking - but sadly I do not think you are. Although your words are the reason the referendum will definitely fail.
Thanks for putting up 2 sides to the story. I hope enough people have the interest to really look into this topic and not pass it off as a frivolous exercise.
yes, we are at a critical time in history.. there’s a lot of smoke and mirrors going on . Brisbane where im from was only settled after the Anglo Dutch Treaty of 1825.. the British stole New Holland of the Dutch who snaffled it off Spain and Portugal.. it was all covid up .. war secrets.. 26 Jan 1910 was when Hague 4 came into effect . The real Australia Day is the last Friday in July. 👍🏻
when king charles married Catherine of Braganza the dowry included half of Australia
But it's not simply two sides to the story. There are Indigenous Peoples for-and-against, for multiple reasons, and there are non-indigenous for-and-against, for multiple reasons, concerning this proposal. While the vote is either yea or nay, that does not represent the reasoning behind the voting.
you can not let little fringe groups that stay on the outside change or control the constitution that is for everyone.
The UN Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Article 1(4) says that you can make law for a racial group to improve its position in specific human rights matters, but to make it a permanent division violates the Convention. The Voice amendment does exactly that. It would put the Commonwealth in a terrible position.
Heartbreaking though it may be, 'No' is the sensible answer to this Referendum in my view .
@@nikkideanmusic Yeah, it says what you just said, with one proviso: that the laws aren't permanent.
And that makes sense because once they've 'caught up' it turns into an unfair privilege.
I think you didn't read the whole article.
@@nikkideanmusic So if you think the legislation the government comes up with will work, why not simply legislate it?
The existence of the referendum proves they already have the power and status in Australia to get whatever they think up. Imagine if they'd put half the effort and money into building schools or something needed.
They don't need a permanent racial division to get more.
@@nikkideanmusic No fixed arrangement would be created (except a racial divide), so it'd be a tabula rasa which could be filled in by whichever government gained power. Any legislation created by one flavor could be overturned by another going forward. No democratically-elected government could shield itself from its demands if its membership developed a political bias, which it would have. A Voice could say one thing to Parliament, and another to whichever Executive branch it wanted in order to destroy a government's plans. It's a recipe for pandemonium, not good government.
And all via permanent racial division between citizens.
The basic principles are wrong.
The ways to solve the 'gap' problems are various, including spiritual, and they are variously individual, local, and regional, and imo governmental politics gets in the way of maximizing the number of individuals who could get themselves out of trouble.
yes, thanks for acknowledging that it is a difficult emotional decision to vote 'no' due to wariness about legal and administrative implications, and aversion to identity politics, while still wanting to be a 'good' person. Seeing we are being told we are racist, misinformed etc to have doubts.
@@newgabe09 I know alot of people have been literally moved to tears by the dilemma as it was presented to us. There's something very similar to the old loathsome politics of religion going on.
Firstly thanks for your arguments and valued video. To put it simply governments to this day have only marginally been able to implement effective unified measures bettering the lives of the indigenous people of this country so why should this new approach do better. The main sticking point of the Voice proposal is that in all the arrogance of the Labor Party / Anthony Albanese we are asked to give approval to a system without given the details. In a democracy we vote on facts not fiction, never the less I would very much like to support meaning full change for the better.
@@nikkideanmusic
Thanks for your input.
Sure I understand this, however I have no confidence in this system and in my representative as I think that person is inadequate. I also think that the wheeling and dealing done is then beyond our power and I rater in this case have a clear definition of what the voice will do. Now that would then be the will of the people. I feel that this system of governing needs an urgent update and the bull " it not broken so it does not need fixing" just does not wash anymore.
Very interesting, thank you. A few points:
It seems that having a voice to parliament entrenched in the constitution would mean that representation to parliament is guaranteed. If I want to say something to parliament, I have to approach a member of parliament and convince them of my cause. A voice to parliament entrenched in the constitution would mean that something can be presented to parliament without this. Is this the real reason it has to be in the constitution rather than just an advisory body which we could have anyway?
The real purpose seems to be a step towards Aboriginal sovereignty. What does sovereignty look like for Aboriginal people? There are multiple Aboriginal tribes or nations. Do they all have the same idea of sovereignty? Would they all agree to be governed according to the voice? If there is a disagreement between tribes, is it really the responsibility or right of our federal government to intervene?
I would think that sovereignty implies there is a country or land which Aboriginals can inhabit and make all the rules. In the USA, their constitution does recognise indigenous peoples or nations because there are actual treaties with some of those nations. Those nations have lands and can make their own rules relating to law on those lands. They are called "reservations" which I think is a horrible term, but whatever...
I don't think Australia has any such arrangement. Granting sovereignty would be an empty gesture then. We can't grant sovereignty without granting land as well and having formal treaties for how laws work in those lands. I'm not opposed to this, but the "voice" would not achieve this and would create division because no clear boundaries are being set. It's not that the voice doesn't go far enough; it doesn't go anywhere except in a direction guaranteed to cause division.
If we are going to do this, let's do it properly. Negotiate treaties with individual Aboriginal nations. Let those nations sort out for themselves what they want and negotiate that with our federal government. Grant (or return) land to those nations. Our government should pay proper compensation to whomever currently owns that land, but of course there would be a lot of negotiation, and it would be costly. Too bad; if we want to do this, let's do it right.
Likewise, we should not entertain claims of custodianship over land without some sort of proper process that includes evidence of need. Many more people now live in Australia, and giving "ownership" of all of Australia away would be beyond stupid. This will be painful, and compromise will be needed, but I can't see how progress can be made without addressing this issue. Compromise could include owners of that land entering treaties that guarantee certain rights of cohabitation or other use of that land for people who are not members of that nation. Not our business.
For members of whatever Aboriginal nation there is a treaty for, include a provision that those people are Australians as well as members of their own nation. Let each nation decide for itself who can be a citizen. Then the Australian government doesn't have to make rules about it. When not on their own land, those people should be subject to Australian law. When they are on their own land, Australian law would have more limited jurisdiction and tribal law could apply. There would be a question as to what Australian social security benefits those people had access to and how it would be delivered, but that could be included in the treaty. Any non-tribe person or company wishing to do business on that land would be subject to the laws of that land as well as Australian law.
I am certainly in favour of paying respect and allowing dignity to Australian Aboriginals, as I am towards all Australians. But I do not support the "voice". It is poorly thought out, wishy-washy and there are no boundaries. Why can't we form a treaty with one Aboriginal group and go from there? It could serve as a model for further treaties.
"Why can't we form a treaty with one Aboriginal group and go from there?" - A typical "white" response since post-WW II. Such white folks want everyone they dominate to think and have the same social hierarchy and decision-making structure as said white groups do. Extremely ethnocentric.
The grey area is deciding what matters affect Indigenous people ... as they are citizens of Australia, every matter affects Indigenous people. The Voice will have the right to make "representations" to every government cabinet minister, as well as their department officials, on every matter.
But do you not think that it is an issue that there are many diverse aboriginal languages, customs, beliefs and homelands? Do you think that a body of 24 "appointees" is enough?
@@johncater7861 The diverse nature of Aboriginal society, and the clannish support for one's own family group, is what helped to bring down ATSIC.
For $10k you can buy a labour MP to ask a question in parliament. Just ask China. Now ask yourself, to buy a 3/4 white “activist” to block legislation, delay an executive order, how much would China pay. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
sounds horrible. People who cant manage their own communitys making decisions about foreign policy and the economy. Sounds really dumb.
The wording says it 'may' make. This is so ambiguous.. does it mean 'they sometimes might if they want to' or 'they have permission to' or 'they have a right to?"
We are all Australians. Vote no to the voice.
I'm voring no.
You didnt have you land,people and culture taken from you clearly.
What is actually wrong with giving the traditional owners of this land a say in what happens with it or there people?
@@TG.34295 Because their say affects government policy, international banking and pretty much everything else that should be left alone.
It is Aboriginal land, but the Europeans perfected it and turned it into a civilizational Mecca.
@@DestinyAwaits19 Hahahaha perfected it,you must be deadset cooked...
Who is aboriginal, 100% or 1% aboriginal decent?
There are better ways of improving our constitution then this silly idea.
Thanks Renato. Yeah, ‘Duty to Consult’,* mate. Ret. Chief Justice Robert French AC, warns if a duty to consult ‘the Voice’ was to be found in proposed s129, this would “make government unworkable”. Similarly, ret. Justice Kenneth Hayne AC notes that a duty to consult ‘the Voice’ would “disrupt the ordinary and efficient working of government” to such an extent that it would “bring government to a halt”. Looking at both form and substance, this proposed Aboriginal Voice has its own chapter (Ch IX) in the amended constitution, implicit in this is a new head of power, separate from Parliament, the Executive, the Courts, and the States - it is more than likely to be deemed a separate (and likely favoured given recent decisions*) branch by the judiciary (Ch III) to the executive/govt (Ch II) of which it will have some measure of influence over via s129(ii), that arguably cannot be restrained by the parliament/legislative (Ch I) due to s129(iii) that any act or legislation is to be “subject to this [amended] constitution”. *See Federal Court case Tipakalippa v NOPSEMA, 2022. This could undermine the Rule of Law indeed. 😔
I think Julian Leeser is a dreamer - it is his own opinion that changes to the wording will change our opinion as well - not a chance - we are committed to VOTING NO.
Who's we?I'm committed to voting yes.
@@user-fs5gk8in9z we are the majority - sorry I considered you one of the minority - didn't mean to offend you.
We are push into division and therefore we have to have treaty - not such things exist as you would like to see us separate nations. What wrong with being ONE???
There is no deataiil they never tell us
I have been looking into the Voice to Parliament. At this time of writing I have concluded that 'NO' is the right answer. The Uluru statement needs to be studied, I have looked at the statement, and it is about sovereignty. That is simply about power and the power will be in the hands of the Aboriginal elite. Whilst this public debate will turn ugly occasionally, it does put a spotlight on Aboriginal communities that need help and assistance. It is the Aboriginal leaders who control the land gained from land right claims. There is a concentration of power that is not serving their communities. The 'Voice to Parliament' is a Labour policy, that if pushed through will have a devastating effect on Australian democracy when there is a change of government.
What is the definition of 'first nations'. I think most have a rough idea, but don't have a strict definition.
Vote no to this divisiveness, racism, one vote one flag one nation
No reparations, not time to pay the rent for non indigenous
Voice to be heard is misliding...there is multiple agency to deal with it
Why sbould First Nations people be heard? That is preferential treatment. I am thoroughly used to the government ignoring me and everyone I know, independant of skin colour. Why should they be different? 😅😅
Its impossible to be informed and rational about a referendum where the detail of how the Voice is going to work has been withheld for reasons of deception, or for reasons of non existence.
Any Australian who votes in favour of the Voice will be undermining the democracy of this country. Remember there is currently 11 Indigenous representatives in Federal parliament, do those people not provide a Voice.
Now that Aboriginal Australians are Australian citizens, don't Aboriginal Australians already have sovereignty along with all other Australians under Australian law?
Terra nullias was proven to be a myth in the High Courts of Australia.
They want more.
@@DestinyAwaits19 rightfully so… 😂😂. This is their country and we’re like a bunch of 30 year old kids not moving out
SELF RESPECT AND INDIVIDUAL RESPONSILITY i s the key to improvements in the aboriginal situation.
You hit the nail on the head
I’ve been saying that for years
this is the solution to all of our problems
I don’t want to assume what you’re trying to say here but an elaboration is needed… you can’t just say that to a group of people who have been completely traumatised for centuries… a group of people who only RECENTLY have had fulfilled their basic need of being recognised as HUMAN BEINGS!! Indigenous communities DONT EVEN HAVE CLEAN WATER TILL THIS DAY!!
Wow, you met a 200yr old aboriginal ?
Voting NO to this new form of racism.
@@nikkideanmusic Who knew? The Voice will magically fix their lives.
@@nikkideanmusic It's a NO then.
Aboriginal disadvantage is only there where is not work opportunity, nothing but remoteness .To solve that eighter move to jobs, or be left behind. And this applies to everyone who is in such predicament, white or black
also where there is addiction, violence, congenital brain damage, inter family conflict and vendetta, domestic abuse, complex trauma, illiteracy, sexual predation etc. Tends to dull the work ethic of people of any 'race' but as we know is especially bad in certain groups.
Australia voted correctly on 14/9/23
Overwhelmingly, resoundingly NO.
So proud of my fellow citizens.
You're the voice, try and understand it
Make a noise and make it clear
Oh, whoa
We're not gonna sit in silence
We're not gonna live with fear
Oh, whoa
This time, we know we all can stand together
With the power to be powerful
Believing we can make it better
Ooh, we're all someone's daughter
We're all someone's son
There is no information about the voice
There is plenty if you look for it.
Man where was this video on the 4 Jan when my assignment was due! 😂 great work man! 👍
Don't be fooled by glib and deceptive arguments. Look into a mirror and realise that you are looking at a reflection. You cannot reason with a reflection nor can you compel it to change its appearance.
Love this channel. Really helps for introductions to topics at University
Well said. Thank you. I needed this analysis.
Thanks so much. I'm now more informed and even more definitely voting NO!
@@nikkideanmusic I'm proudly informed because I listen to other people's opinions. You on the other hand, seems to have already made a decision without hearing the other side. Yeah, that's very smart.
Waking up is wOking out!
SELF-REALISATION
The idea is to select a song, even a nursery rime, that we consider as OUR favourite and very influential: it is a good idea to take the time to do so because of what is involved.
We can then write the lyrics on a piece of paper or on a computer: being old fashioned I see paper as a better option.
To then write the words in sequence separately, leaving spacefor comnents: taking the time and concentrating on what each ot these words means to us! To embrace in detail the positive of each of them. We should not ignore what is affecting us negatively, on the contrary, it is paramount to extract something positive out of events that have affected us. There is always something even, and possibly mostly, when we have lost a dear one or been affected by a broken relationship. We have to make full use of this type of experience because the best light is the one getting through cracks. Hurdles require to be cleared off and this kind of effort is beneficial.
I spent 3 months on this exercise alone; the result can be measured by the gratitude, after singing the song, we feel getting out of bed in the morning, we have opened a door to Awareness which improves our ability to withdraw from realities in a positive way. We still have negative feelings at times, but we realise their reduced impact on our lifestyle. Be genuine to ourself means matching results spread within and 'with out'. Remember: this is not a quick fix, but as we do it, we can keep on having our life, no drastic changes required.
I wrote a book to that effect in French: Trois p"tits chats Publibook under my pseudonym Marcel Paton: MARCEL PATrice lauverjON. My whole name causing confusion I made changes 40 years ago. Cheers and all the best to those reading these lines whether you adopt the idea or not.
Trois p'tits chats.
C'esr une idée de choisir une chanson qui nous plait et prendre le temps de le faire car de cest la base de ce dont il s'agit.
On peut alors écrire les paroles. Pour ensuite écrire les mots en séquence séparément, en laissant de la place aux commentaires : prendre le temps et se concentrer sur ce que chacun de ces mots signifie pour nous ! Pour embrasser en détail le positif de chacun d'eux. Nous ne devons pas ignorer ce qui nous affecte négativement, au contraire, il est primordial de tirer quelque chose de positif des événements qui nous ont affectés. Il y a toujours quelque chose de positif : la meilleure lumière est celle qui passe à travers les fissures. Les obstacles doivent être franchis et ce genre d'effort est bénéfique. J'ai passé 3 mois sur cet exercice seul; le résultat peut être mesuré par la gratitude, après avoir chanté la chanson, nous nous sentons en sortant du lit le matin, nous avons ouvert une porte à la Conscience qui améliore notre capacité à nous retirer des réalités de manière positive. Nous avons encore parfois des sentiments négatifs, mais nous nous rendons compte de leur impact réduit sur notre mode de vie. Être authentique envers soi-même signifie faire correspondre les résultats à l'intérieur et à l'extérieur. Rappelez-vous : ce n'est pas une solution miracle, mais comme nous le faisons, nous pouvons continuer à avoir notre vie, aucun changement drastique n'est nécessaire.Trois p’tits chats. Marcel PatonPublibook
he's good... balanced and not bias
Did you understand it all?
4:55 ".....contribute to their claims towards sovereignty." A nation within a nation - just what we and they need - NOT.
WHY DOES THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT MAKE US SUFFER.
Why exactly is the Uluru statement taken seriously given the failure of aboriginal leadership to actually restrain the degradation and back sliding of their communities?
Great work arguing both sides and, as far as i can tell, completely equally.
Il be Voting NO!
Save you time, there are no reasons for.
Thanks 👍 brother for telling us 🤠
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.
Oops. Renato mentions people in Parliament who IDENTIFY as indigenous as if that meant they REPRESENT indigenous nations, rather than their party and state.
ALL are Australians. No need for First nation, Second nation and so forth
You keep saying that the voice will give the right to make representations BEFORE legislation is passed but I see nothing in the proposed amendments that would prevent representations on any matters, before or after, legislated or not. So it seems that representations could be on anything back to federation and on matters like a minister deciding to attend or not attend a meeting. Have I missed something?
Thank you for an excellent lesson.
Section 51(xxvi) gives the legislative power to create laws specific to a race, so the addition of chapter 9 would enhance section 51(xxvi) in favor of a yes vote. But in favour of a No vote would be the result of the 1967 referendum which took out section 127 and removed the word "Aboriginal" from section 51(xxvi) which empowers the legislative ability of the Parliament to create laws for any race. As a result of that vote in 67 the government signed a treaty in 1975 eliminating all forms of racial discrimination so the Constitution is best to be left the way it is so a No vote is the way to go.
In my view the recognition of the indigenous peoples in the constitution is good the power for the VOICE is divisive and will lead to splitting the nation it must mot be included in the costituion
If Aboriginal Australians get a so-called Voice separate from all other Australians, wouldn't this action open up the possibility for all other ethnic groups in Australia to get their own Voice as well, or does this only unfairly apply to privileged special interest groups?
No because all other ethnic groups are considered to be invaders of the first nations peoples country.
Yes. Oh, but hang on. Isn't that what happens when we vote for parliament? 😂
It only applies to privileged special interest groups like the aboriginals.
so it should doesnt compair to all the wrong we been through
@@thaliawarren5845 Stop being a perpetual victim.
Thanks for the video but I still have no idea what to vote. I want to recognise first nations people and let them decide what's best for their own people and communities. On the other hand the complete lack of detail and the fact that the so called body will probably be made up of rich entitled "Westernised" or "politician type" first nations people and not the ones actually living in the communities affected is telling me to stay clear. I think a better option would be to change the part of the constitution allowing government to make laws that affect people by race. We should not be able to make laws that affect one race and not another.
If you're happy and you NO it clap your hands 👏🏻👏🏿🤣😂
I think that parliament is already entitled to implement any advisory committee they wish too. The only reason for having it in the constitution is to ensure that a change of parliament can't dismiss, ignore & neglect the Aboriginal community..
But then a government can choose to implement or completely ignore the the voice anyway, so what is the point of having a committee that can be totally sidelined & ignored anyway?
As it stands, the voice is not well defined in makeup, function or scope of it's advice.
I would prefer that it be implemented & trialled without constitutional amendment so we can all see it functioning, modify where necessary & have the means to judge it's pros and cons. So many things have been implemented in a half baked & under funded way to give lip service to assisting the Aboriginal community, with no effective result. It seems risky to me to alter the constitution without better definitions, resources & procedures to ensure success.
I tend to the opinion that even in the unlikely event that it is passed, it will just prove to be yet another disappointing failure. As the proposal stands, it just not good enough IMO.
I think your 5 against points missed a much higher argument against. Lidia Thorpe's argument for treaty first. A terrific point I would have liked you to address because it is basically constitutional mechanics rather than politicical or subjective
the British didn’t need a treaty with the original tribes because they took possession of New Holland off the Dutch.. in a round about way… nefariously .. bit by bit.. goes way back to the Treaty of Zaragoza..
@@jesusislukeskywalker4294 It's my understanding that the Dutch never took possession of New Holland to begin with, so taking possession of it off of them doesn't really work.
@@echelon2k8 a lot of the history of Australia has been covid up , was all kept top secret .. it’s very difficult to find the truth.. the British snaffled it bit by bit.. the Anglo Dutch Treaty of 1824 is quite significant .. have to read between the lines .. in 1649 the Dutch took possession of the Portuguese claims from the Treaty of Tordesillas.. Spanish had claim to QLD NSW Victoria.. Prince of Orange was Dutch and was installed as British King in 1689.. it’s very interesting to say the least . At Bondi Beach carved into the rocks is A Signo Hoc Vinces.. of course the British aren’t going to acknowledge it .. The Mahogany Ship at Warnumbool most likely covid up too.. we will possibly never know the truth .
The Voice proposal is much more than a Frivolous exercise. It will change the very nature of our democracy and undermine the core objective of egalitarianism.
The voice to Parliament "Yes"campaign is the most divisive initiative I have ever witnessed and the dumbest thing I have ever seen our politicians propose. It is racist in the extreme and places the vast majority of Australians on the democratic margins.
If we hold the idea of a democratic and egalitarian Australian political system to be an objective of our democracy. We must see that this proposal makes no advances towards that ideal, however, it does advance the notion that we should be divided by racial and cultural types.
Can anyone explain rationally to me why there should not also be Anglo, Chinese, Indonesian, Russian, Italian, Greek, Vietnamese voices to parliament as well?
We are either a unified democracy or not. Either unity is an objective of our political processes, or it isn't.
I am very tired of sitting quietly, whilst someone reads a welcome to country to me, as though I may not be welcome in my country, except by the say so of someone else, of a specific racial type.
To continue along this path of racial division will only bring civil unrest and ever increasing disunity to Australian society. It will not heal anything and will tear open old wounds.
Stop this insanity now, before it is too late!
Well done. However, I think opposing point #4 is too nebulous as presented. Sorry, just my opinion. Also, I think these points could have been clarified by having the For-and-Against categorized by which ethnicity is making the point. For example, my understanding is that some Indigenous First Nations Peoples are against this proposal because the proposal simply would simply accept an advisory body, when in reality the proposal should recognize the sovereignty of the Indigenous Peoples. This perspective includes the idea that the land belongs to the Indigenous Peoples, and that an advisory presentation to the Executive body and Parliament should come from non-Indigenous Peoples. Please correct me if my understanding is not correct. Thank you for presentation, from San Diego, California.
Muito bom! Parabéns e obrigado.
Great video
Thanks for the analysis. Looks racist and divisive to me.
Why can we not be all Australians equal in All that is good for being all Australians
We come from all backgrounds,we contributed to Australian multicultural community
Including our Our current priminister
If each community in Australia will seak agnolegement for deserving a Specialr
Recognition how can we be Australians in its Democratic country
When one community is the other?
Some of us are better then other?
Democracy?
We All here because we saffered troma
Why can’t we be One ! Helping each other in
Difficult situations , but All Australians no colour
No difference- all of Us are here as a result of some
Displacement or other reason
But we can be one Australians and peruse our commen desire
To BE- Australians and be proud of what we have archived
If we delegate our existence to other
We will be in the same space as Europe and other
Country’s are facing
We need to be ONE!
One for all and all for one and be proud of who we are!,
Orvelien - some of us a
COSMOGONIC MYTH
The cosmogonic myth of ancient religious believes, that is considered is still present in today's animism, dictates a variety of social behaviours, a type of dynamics that still takes place under our eyes, bringing along some aspects of an authentic past.The idea may not be to rebuild the past, but to require some expertise to be orientated towards valuing what is left of the past, and associate it with a present with larger visions. It is understood that, for examples, that the Australian Continent has not been exposed to as much animistic influences as other native Cultures since plants appear to have been part of the Totemic field. The concept of leadership is very commonly considered as well as being different.
During the Colonial period, attentions were directed towards men, and Communities were considered as being Patriarchal, this aspect has been reconsidered in line with changing Western appreciations demanding another approach of the feminine. One more aspect that can be brought to light with different perspectives.
Western stories and fairy tales can be sourced in Europe, including Santa Klaus, a Winter character when it is Summer in the Southern Hemisphere. It is interesting to have an idea about what has been shared among 'First Nation' People and how, often, they have a lot in common with what gets expressed elsewhere: allowing mythology to be much more associated with Australian way of life. We are one, BUT we are many, this is not saying we are one AND we are many: slight alterations in wording can mean a huge difference which explains the power of manufactured propaganda. All this helps being factual about the Chinese Revolution when Intellectuals were disposed of.
How long will it take to get a coherent opinion from the voice..for example if we go to war? Definite No from me.
And another issue to add to an increasingly long list: is it constitutionally allowable for the Federal Government to override any State or Territory decision where there is conflict between aboriginal groups and a State or Territory Government?
For example, there is a long going dispute between aboriginal groups and the Northern Territory Government over cotton farming. The aboriginal groups affected are beseeching the Federal Government to intervene.
@@nikkideanmusic no, but the current Federal government might find it politically expedient to intervene on behalf of The Voice against a state government.
Yes or a tick or a simple NO as a Kalkadoon I’ll say NO
I'm still not sure
If in doubt, vote no. The status quo is always preferable to unforeseen consequences.
Thank you.
Listen to Jacinta Nampajimpa Price. The Voice will allow race grifters to get high salaries, it will not help Aborigines who are disadvantaged (most Aborigines are not disadvantaged) It will make things WORSE for disadvantaged Australians
horrible idea. they get billions and look how they don't help their own people at all. Don't need that for every other issue as well.
Another body to go with the 1200 + bodies already there to serve first nation people.
Representation to Parliament on first nation issues. Whats wrong with our first nation Parliamentarians, that is in parliament and the ones to come.
International obligations are not going to assist first nations people with daily liiving.
Little detail on the voice, just write a blank cheque and hand it over.
First nation people are Australian citizens therefore are covered by the constitution.
Need much more information on the voice with guaranteed outcomes before say YES
Voice...including telling thruth about past ,and it willbe only last 200 year of bushing our ancestors. Australia had most peaceful past compare to EVERY nation on earth
Stop murdering the English language
“Truth telling”: nothing truthful need an inherent label”. This reeks of ministry of truth, 1984 and Animal Farm style
i am after the first nation or first people of Australia to be recognised in our Constitution but we have to have ONE/ National Constitution. we have to have this first before we can achieved the rest.
I love your channel - I couldn't find you on instagram, are you on insta? I would love to share this on my stories so my non-law student friends watch
I only needed one reason to vote no to the voice, there were no provisions in the wording of the voice preventing lobby groups from influencing the voice and their recommendations.
I have many Indigenous friends. They live on country, they don't live "white"lives, and they wont be on the Voice. But they do have views, the ACT indigenous wont hear them.
Overall, what I've heard from Renato so far on the Voice mostly rests on a mistrust of the Parliament and High Courts. Is this mistrust consistent or discriminatory?
Hi Renato. Would it be legally possible to enshrine the voice but with a sunset date for that provision eg 2043 so that the Voice no longer operates after that date unless there is a further referendum to extend its life? Can you have sunset clauses in Constitutions?
Interesting idea, but the 'recognition' aspect would be temporary and we'd have to go through it again.
The big issue now as I see it is that the referendum is offering us an opportunity to make legislation, which of course can be amended, repealed, re-drafted, etc. Hard to see it not being a political football each election.
@@nikkideanmusic As far as I'm concerned the country can move forward on the basis of judgement and condemnation for the past, handed down from generation to generation going forward, or on the basis of forgiveness and hope. It's that simple.
@@nikkideanmusic We can go in circles if you want- how does a person or persons yapping in Canberra make the distance between desire to help and delivery of practical assistance shorter?
After thinking about the Voice issue a bit and noting the diivision in the polls, I think there would be merit in splitting the Voice question into two. The first would concern the inclusion of the preamble and the second the Voice.
I am sure that the preamble would be voted in by a huge margin. I'm less sure about the Voice but doing it this way assures that at least the preamble gets up. Better a bird in the hand than two in the bush.
@@PWBERRETT I've moved away from even recognition. A Constitution is not a history book, nor should it be updated like a Wikipedia page.
I was hoping for some insight into to the validity of the arguments, guess i clicked on the wrong video.
Any body know what the AIAA does ?
Good intro, that’s all.
there will be nothing in writing detailing how the negotiations and consultations should proceed......it will be very vague and ultimately determined by some judge.
the aboriginal group can deliberate for ever on any bill including budgets which will lead to chaos and an unworkable parliament.
its ironic that the people who want a republic now want to install an aboriginal royal family with absolute power over australia........who would have thought that albanese was a closet monarchist.
also consider this......lidia thorpe could be australia's first queen. do people really want this woman controlling their lives?
Not nations .... Tribes .... Sovereign Tribes
i think the best way to do this constitutionally 1/ to be a republic 2/ to have bill of rights and then 3/ abolished s 51 to make laws for special races in discriminatory way
Does the USA constitution give special constitutional recognition to American Indians, for that matter does Canada, Mexico, and South American countries have a special recognition of their first nations people ?
You forgot the racism argument. The Voice would be a body solely elected by people identifying as Aboriginal and not by all Australian people, like the 11 members of parliament were that have Aboriginal ancestry. There's a direct conflict of interest in addition to the possibility and reality that not all Aboriginal people agree on the same solution for a problem.
Im happy for them to have a voice under two conditions. 1. No additional financial gain, 2. No additional land rights.
@@nikkideanmusic Hi,
The Minister for Indigenous Australians Australians was asked in parliament specifically about if financial payments would need to be made in regards to the uluru statement and treaty. She didn't answer the question at all. Which would kinda imply yes.
@@nikkideanmusic😂😂😂😂😂 sure sure
@@nikkideanmusicdodging the elephant in the room is not a valid argument
Vital VOICE issues are ignored, like how the crew of 24 ? (4 rural Aboriginals, 4 Torres Pacific Islanders, 16 urban Angloboriginals ?) the untouchable powerful "VOICE REPS" will be selected? Who are they? Will it be a Indigenous only "continental democratic" separatist vote? So how do we split the Australian Electoral Rolls according to Albo's 3-flag race Apartheid?
One problem with this "race split" is that thousands of Australians have no birth certificates (Est ~400K) because the parents never registered their birthday and many of them are likely to be Indigenous. Hospitals never did do birthday-regos, and often too far to track for busy mothers to do a proper registration maybe?
Incidentally, prominent indigenous organisation's recently indicated on SBS TV that up to 1/3 of Aboriginal "identifiers" like Melbourne Uni Professor Bruce Pascoe etc. are greedy delusional "race-shifting dreamtimers", so that's just another complicating problem in a woke Australian apartheid 3-flag future. "What to be or not to be, that is the question..."
Don't mention appearance, (Black can be very White today! And no doubt a barking Dachshund can identify as a Doberman ) or DNA or even language skills! Modern Australia replaces science with a "tick-box self-identification" that is good enough to migrate to the indigenous race!
Then we have the Torres Strait Islanders that can all speak "language" i.e. the great Pan-Pacific language vs Aboriginals fighting each other with hundreds of primitive and deficient para-languages.
The true traditional Pacific Islanders may actually NOT be interested in a separatist VOICE in bed with their traditionally disrespected culturally inferior continental Aboriginals. (Only a few greedy opportunistic Pacific islanders are expected.) In fact, the Islanders are in every way vastly more culturally advanced and have always despised the scattered quarrelsome mainland Aboriginals that can't talk to each other. Look at their culturally relevant flag and notice that they don't even share a single common symbolic colour! Note that the Blue colour is a exclusive feature of historically advanced cultures across the Earth! What is that telling you about a "unifying VOICE" ? Have anyone bothered to ask the "Mabo Mob" how keen they really are? The BLAK HOUSE OF LORDS (or noisy "VOICE") promoters are mainly black-hat Anglo-boriginals from the wealthy woke Urban Areas where Torres Strait people do not go. They look fine with running their own "business" in their own Pacific way, away from Canberra. Maybe these amazing seafaring islanders may still like their very own proud traditional cultural too much? This weird Mr Albo has open up a can full of divisive and poisonous worms...splitting our once unified 3-Flagation Nation. - VOTE NO -
I like your accent.
This is racist , divisive,
Vote No
Aborigines have always been recognised as the first people here. No one has ever denied that Aborigines were the first people here. Every History book on the topic, every archaeological book on the subject, acknowledges that the Aborigines were here first. The word "ab origines" means "of the original" ... there is zero reason to constutionally recognise the Aborigines ... afterall, the Constitution is a written set of rules for governing ourselves and not for making popular social statements.
@@highcountrydelatite thanks for letting me know ... this clarifies everything.
The Australian tax payer - indigenous or not - have been paying billions of dollars to Aboriginal Affairs and still there is outcry. An apology by then PM was made to Aboriginal people but still outcry. A sense of entitlement is now apparent that Australians still must 'pay'. This is a rod that Aboriginal people need to remove. Stop looking back and look forward - there's no other choice. Aboriginal people have a voice as do the rest of Australians. We ALL feel that at times we're not being heard.
Ost countries have many different races writhing itself, and not much tension as we have here, this divisions is growing bigger and bigger, instead integration. Best country but on cliff...
claims for their lands will become a contentious issue which will bring civil rights for the stakeholders in the land do you own the land and property or does it belong to an aboriginal who claims it belonged to his forefathers and take it to the executive branch and the dumb lawyers will decide regardless of the monetary efforts you put into purchasing that property hallelujah,
Vote no
"It's an advisory body."
No it's not anything yet, and when it is something it may not be purely an advisory body. We can say it will make representations, but surely anyone can do that?
NO TO APARTHEID
NO TO THE VOICE
You havent mentioned about racial division that voice would create..