After watching so many of your videos, referendum aside, I seemingly feel compelled to start eating biscuits with my tea! Cheers mate....and thank you for all you do.
The distilled yes case is 'you're racist for voting no and also this country is racist if it doesn't pass'. I've read The Guardian every day for the last month and this is their biggest point.
I am voting no for 2 main reasons. 1 . I do not trust the government to do the right thing once the constitution is changed. 2. I have watched dozens of high level activists say that once the constitution is changed they will begin work on a Treaty and then reparations. This is not being talked about enough and flatly denied by the government.
1. The change to the Constitution is very specific. It recognises the First Peoples of Australia and creates a purely ADVISORY body called the Voice, The Voice will only ever have one power : to give advice to the Government. That is actually specified in sub-section (ii) of the proposed change to the Constitution. The Government will also be restricted by that same clause in the Constitution - the Government cannot change that one power the Voice will have. What do you think the Government can do with an advisory body? 2. It's not being talked about by the Government or the Yes campaign because, for the reasons given above, it isn't relevant to the Referendum. "Activists" can say anything they like - it doesn't mean it will happen. Mundine and Thorpe have both said that once the No vote wins the Referendum, the real work on treaty can commence. So, those "activists" do not see the Constitutional change as helping treaty discussion at all.
@@AnotherDoug The world has many idealists.....most people are just too busy staying alive to listen to them. History teaches us that, in the main, this is very fortunate.
@@ianian9078 I suggest you consult: ~ a dictionary: "representations" means "the action of speaking or acting on behalf of someone" ~ the Explanatory Memorandum when the Constitution Alteration Bill was introduced to Parliament - multiple references to 'advice", but specifically on page 11, paragraph 12: "A representation is a statement from the Voice to the Parliament or to the Executive Government, or both. A representation would communicate the Voice’s view on a matter relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples." ~ the Attorney-General's Second Reading Speech - multiple references to the Voice giving "advice". I can provide links. ~ the Solicitor-General's Opinion on the proposed Constitutional change multiple references to the Voice giving "advice". I can provide links. Thanks for calling me a liar when you could not be bothered to check for yourself.
@@ianian9078 Mate, you are just doubling-down on insulting people. Have I accused you of lying? Then please stop accusing me. If you don't like the dictionary definition, then: Read the Explanatory Memorandum. Read the Attorney-General's speech. Read the Solicitor-General's Opinion. These are all written by the people who will be writing the Voice legislation - so they know the meaning of "representations" better than any of us - and they all say it is synonymous with ADVICE!
ThankYou. Lack of trust in the process of the uluru statement and seeing the attitudes of pearson mayo and that indig minister haa Me at NO. That professor calling australians racist again and again sealed the deal. Im not australian but will vote NO in this referendum.
Any vote by the people for some of the people must always be NO! George Orwell's Animal farm addresses this exact issue Where "some animals are more equal than other animals"!!!
I'm voting No, thanks. Is this really going to help those most in need, i.e. Those in the most isolated areas? I don't particularly want another skinsuit for inner city white lefty beauracracy.
Such is my distrust of the Gov't that ANY proposition is met by skeptism on my part... the part where they trot out the old "Istaphobe" argument if you dont see it their way just cements my "No".
So, that means you support Dutton's proposal for another referendum but, if the LNP becomes the government at the next election, you will automatically stop supporting it (because of your "distrust of the Gov't")?
I will be voting NO for 3 reasons. 1. The Voice is about separatism and division. Noel Pearson confirmed that. We don't want a divided nation. 2. The Voice is about Treaty, Reparation (money) and Grievance. But the government won't talk about that & give us information. 3. The Voice will become permanent and so there is no turning back.
1. How does an ADVISORY body that can only affect less than 3% of the population, cause division/separatism? 2. The Voice can only provide ADVICE. It cannot negotiate anything, let alone treaty or reparations. (This is proven by the facts that Mundine (leader of the No Campaign) and Thorpe have both said that they want the Referendum to fail so that the "real work" on treaties can begin.) 3. Why would we need to "turn back" from an ADVISORY body that affects less than 3% of the population?
@@AnotherDoug1. The Voice would make representations exclusively for one separate race of Australians that would be interposed at every level of government decision making, and affect all Australians. 2. Representations with a big stick :ruclips.net/video/9YlOHRwgb70/видео.htmlsi=_2N0ylQbbCzfChit No thanks, Vote NO. 3. Racial separatism will not be accepted, and is not wanted in Australia. All disadvantaged Australians must be treated equally, regardless of race or ethnicity.
Does this mean "the voice" could only offer advice on indigenous affairs? I was hoping it could help guide the government to better care for country. Eg advice about cultural burns for decreasing bushfire intensity and frequency.... that sort of thing.
It is important to note that the same reasons that this government is using to try and garner support for the voice have been used before multiple times before. That compassion led to the Aboriginal Protectorate/Stolen Generation, Sit Down Money and `tribal lands`, Atsic, Centralised Land councils and the non interference policies that leave women and children isolated in abusive and neglectful squalor. The road to the hells that are Traditional communities have been liberally paved with compassion and good intentions.
So, you are saying that the Stolen Generations (for instance) were a direct result of the Government of the day receiving advice from a committee of A&TSI peoples selected by their communities to give advice to the government. What is your evidence for this astonishing claim?
Thanks for your program. Your pamphlet gives a very good summary of the issues of the Voice. I'm voting No primarily because I believe that a Voice Chapter in our Constitution would be divisive and rasist and would ultimately do more harm than good to indigenous people.
~ Not racist: it is recognising the culture, history and traditions of the peoples who have lived in this country for thousands of years before anyone else. ~ Not divisive: how can an advisory body that will affect less than 3% of the population be in any way divisive. The campaigning has certainly been divisive but the Voice won't be. ~ How can something that will help Close the Gaps "ultimately do more harm than good"?
@@AnotherDoug Racist: it is giving a (quickly growing) group of individuals, based solely on their genetic background and not on their individual needs, a unique and extra access to representation to government, forever. That's more than recognition and respect of a culture, that's rasist. Divisive: Our own PM said "it would be a brave government that doesn't follow the advice of the voice". This same PM blankly refuses to provide ANY details about the makeup of this voice. 'Trust us, it's modest and simple' he says, while admitting that he hasn't even bothered to read the important backstory ( only 26 pages) to the 'canvas' painting that calls for the voice, treaty and truth. The vast majority of all Indigenous people are closley assimilated into Australian mainstream culture and hence every thing that effects them effects all. Therefore, much of the advice from the voice could affect the lives of all mainstream Australians who, no doubt will resent this power over their lives by a minority group, leading to resentment of the minority group itself. More harm: whenever government policies which target 'racial needs' rather than 'individual needs' are allowed to be ingrained into a society (let alone the Constitution) it becomes a crutch for the 'victim group' at best and a festering sore of resentment at worst - a very divisive and dangerous thing to happen to any minority group. ( e.g. "Why should my 1% indigenous neighbour and his descendants, who earn more and are wealthier than me and my descendants, have more privileged access to our government, our university, our welfare, our medical etc??") It is beholden on the protagonists of the voice to prove it's value and worth to the majority, and so far, that detailed proof is sadly lacking.
@@normanmazlin6741 ~ "based solely on their genetic background" - no, as I said it is based on the culture, history and traditions of the peoples who have lived in this country for thousands of years before anyone else. (By the way, there is only one human race on this planet - this channel does not allow URLs - search for Scientific American "the concept of race is a lie") ~ "it would be a brave government that doesn't follow the advice of the voice." - that statement has nothing to do with divisiveness. He was referring to what the voters could do at a future federal elections if the sitting government chooses to ignore good advice from the Voice. ~ "blankly refuses to provide ANY details" - all Referendums have been based on a concept. Details are not normally released as part of the Referendum because it can confuse the discussion. If the government had released a massive document (like the 130-page Langton/Calma report), there would have been just as loud an uproar over "too much detail" and then we would descended into time-wasting arguments over the minutiae of the document instead of focusing on the concept. Having said this, the government has released a number of Voice Principles (search for "Voice Principles"), upon which the legislation will be based. ~ "calls for the voice, treaty and truth." - we are NOT voting on treaty or truth - just a Voice. (In fact, Mundine and Thorpe want the No vote to win, so that the "real work" on Treaty can begin. ~ "every thing that effects them effects all." - if true, then the Voice won't have a lot to do, because it will only be allowed to provide advice on matters that affect A&TSI peoples differently to mainstream Australians. ~ "the voice could affect the lives of all mainstream Australians" - no the Voice will NOT affect mainstream Australians - see above. ~ how can you prove something that does not yet exist? Nevertheless, the yes Pamphlet contains three real-world examples where listening to A&TSI peoples has proven to be worthwhile. By contrast, the No Pamphlet provided zero facts and just filled with fear mongering and untruths.
Your information has been informative I'll be voting no I've listened to other indigenous peoples and iget the feeling that they want us to be as one and that's what I agree with from the ❤
People just remember your now dealing with a corporation and not the Crown and we can ask ourselves where did this communist approach originate from and how it was constucted and altimatley for whos benefit for what reason
Thank you for your excellent and very clear commentary. I have also just read your pamphlet setting out the YES and NO cases side by side and it is the best I have seen.
Hi Wes. Thanks for another video. One point however, the Voice is to be a committee that will give advice to the parliament and EXECUTIVE government .... This means direct and exclusive access to parliament, Cabinet and heads of the federal public service that no-one else has. This is one of the major sticking points of the whole Voice debacle in that only the indigenous will have this access.
@@jonathanodude6660 But not direct access to Cabinet ministers or heads of federal government departments. This would be an exclusive privilege available only to indigenous Australia.
The heads of federal government departments are typically elected MPs. If the head of a department is your MP, you just book an appointment to talk to them, or walk into their office. If they are not your MP, you can tell to your MP to talk to them, or you can talk to them via their department, or speak to someone lower at the department.@@robd2096
I watched this out of genuine curiosity. Now having listened it is clear that the voice is a deliberately vague and nebulous concept designed to mislead the Australian public. I will definitely be voting NO!
Wesley with respect, both your distilled posts should be removed or combined into a single post....WHY?....because your 'Vote Yes' post is getting preferential treatment on RUclips!....Your Yes appears at or near the beginning of the RUclips videos loading page, while your No post is burried almost at the end, giving the impression that a 'Yes' vote is the way to go!
I got notified of the Yes case only, as a recommendation from this channel. He dosen't seem to mention that there is a No case video, I only discovered it by accident.
I think both sides of the issue have weak arguments. And because of that I’ll be voting no. There’s just not a good enough reason to change the constitution, yet.
It is absolutely misleading to say that a "vote for recognition is a vote for three other things - Voice, Treaty and Truth." The Voice will have no direct relationship with any discussions about Treaty or Truth telling. The Voice will only have one power: to give advice to the Government. It will not have power to negotiate on behalf of A&TSI peoples. It could certainly offer advice to the Government on Treaty and Truth Telling but the government can accept or ignore that advice, as it wishes If the No vote wins at the referendum, that will not kill-off Treaty or Truth telling. As Mundine and Thorpe have said, when the No vote wins the real work on treaty commences.
AnotherDoug the authors of the Uluru Statement state this is about Voice Treaty Truth Telling, but its first step is The Voice. To say then that The Voice will have no direct relationship with ANY discussions regarding Treaty or TT is absolute rubbish. Fro their own lips they agree the three issues are connected. Listen mate, the majority of us are voting No, and what comes after we will deal with as it comes.
@@ianian9078 ~ "show me one time advice or advicosry is mentions in the proposed amendment" - Anne Twomey (who was a member of the Constitutional Expert Group) has explained in her own video ( ruclips.net/video/T8zTy4Saa18/видео.htmlsi=JflKV5nyM6tYW5Sr ) that earlier versions of the Constitutional change did use the word "advice" until it was pointed out that in certain political contexts "advice" can be given that is binding on the recipient and requires them to do something. As there is no intention that Parliament or the Government be bound to follow the Voice's advice, the word was changed to "representation". Similarly, "consult" was rejected as it could be construed to require the Government to consult the Voice and that was not desired either. - the Explanatory Memorandum when the Constitution Alteration Bill was introduced to Parliament - multiple references to 'advice", but specifically on page 11, paragraph 12: "A representation is a statement from the Voice to the Parliament or to the Executive Government, or both. A representation would communicate the Voice’s view on a matter relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples." - the Attorney-General's Second Reading Speech - multiple references to the Voice giving "advice". I can provide links. - the Solicitor-General's Opinion on the proposed Constitutional change multiple references to the Voice giving "advice". I can provide links. ~ "show me how you can limit what matters are included" - I never mentioned this in my comment but there is a restriction in the proposed Constitution: the Voice can only provide advice on matters relating to A&TSI peoples. ~ "until the legislation is written and they define the powers" - sub-section (ii) of the proposed Constitutional change actually specifies the ONLY function of the Voice, which is to "make representations to ...". No other function is allowed by the Constitution itself. Sub-section (iii) gives power, "subject to this Constitution" to the Parliament to create the Voice legislation. Those words "subject to this Constitution" mean that the Constitution itself will prevent Parliament from giving the Voice any other function than to "make representations ...". The Voice can only ever have the power to give advice - that is it. ~ "It is designed to be the representative body" - No, it will not be a "representative" body in the parliamentary sense. It will ONLY be an advisory body and cannot negotiate treaties or reparations or anything on behalf of A&TSI peoples. ~ "you cant even follow your own logical fallacies" - I clearly said the Voice could offer ADVICE to the Government on Treaty and Truth Telling but the Government can accept or ignore that advice, as it wishes. ~ "we dont know what the governemt will do until the legislation is written." - well, we know what the Constitution will say the Voice can do. And we know that parliament cannot override the Constitution to give the Voice any extra functions (like negotiation). Finally, we have the Voice Principles, which will be used as the basis for the legislation when it is written. These Principles have been published so that everyone can hold the Government and Parliament to account when they consider the legislation.
@@soldier8304 By "direct relationship" I mean that the Voice is NOT a critical predecessor for treaty or Truth telling. The version of the Voice we are voting on is not the same as envisaged by some of the people who attended the Regional Dialogues. Some of them wanted the Voice to be able to negotiate treaties, reparations, etc with the Government. The version of the Voice we are actually voting for will have one power only: the power to give ADVICE to the Government. The Government will always have the right to accept or ignore that advice. Even the No campaign does not believe the Voice is relevant to Treaty or Truth. Mundine (the leader of the No Campaign) and Thorpe both want to see the No vote win at the Referendum so the "real work" on treaties can begin.
@@ianian9078 The Voice legislation has not yet been written. However, as I have mentioned elsewhere , if you doubt the meaning of "representations", then you should: Read the Explanatory Memorandum. Read the Attorney-General's speech. Read the Solicitor-General's Opinion. These are all written by the people who will be writing the Voice legislation - so they know the meaning of "representations" better than any of us - and they all say it is synonymous with ADVICE!
![Twenty One Pilots - “The Line” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/E2Rj2gQAyPA/mqdefault.jpg)
I thought the video forgot to actually mention the YES argument.
But then I realised the YES doesn't have an argument. Only platitudes.
Boom
Voting NO.
Vote No.
Your 'one pager' is a very good summary of the issues.
It further cements my reasons for voting NO
After watching so many of your videos, referendum aside, I seemingly feel compelled to start eating biscuits with my tea! Cheers mate....and thank you for all you do.
The distilled yes case is 'you're racist for voting no and also this country is racist if it doesn't pass'. I've read The Guardian every day for the last month and this is their biggest point.
I am voting no for 2 main reasons.
1 . I do not trust the government to do the right thing once the constitution is changed.
2. I have watched dozens of high level activists say that once the constitution is changed they will begin work on a Treaty and then reparations. This is not being talked about enough and flatly denied by the government.
1. The change to the Constitution is very specific. It recognises the First Peoples of Australia and creates a purely ADVISORY body called the Voice, The Voice will only ever have one power : to give advice to the Government. That is actually specified in sub-section (ii) of the proposed change to the Constitution. The Government will also be restricted by that same clause in the Constitution - the Government cannot change that one power the Voice will have. What do you think the Government can do with an advisory body?
2. It's not being talked about by the Government or the Yes campaign because, for the reasons given above, it isn't relevant to the Referendum.
"Activists" can say anything they like - it doesn't mean it will happen. Mundine and Thorpe have both said that once the No vote wins the Referendum, the real work on treaty can commence. So, those "activists" do not see the Constitutional change as helping treaty discussion at all.
@@AnotherDoug The world has many idealists.....most people are just too busy staying alive to listen to them. History teaches us that, in the main, this is very fortunate.
@@ianian9078 I suggest you consult:
~ a dictionary: "representations" means "the action of speaking or acting on behalf of someone"
~ the Explanatory Memorandum when the Constitution Alteration Bill was introduced to Parliament - multiple references to 'advice", but specifically on page 11, paragraph 12: "A representation is a statement from the Voice to the Parliament or to the Executive Government, or both. A representation would communicate the Voice’s view on a matter relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples."
~ the Attorney-General's Second Reading Speech - multiple references to the Voice giving "advice". I can provide links.
~ the Solicitor-General's Opinion on the proposed Constitutional change multiple references to the Voice giving "advice". I can provide links.
Thanks for calling me a liar when you could not be bothered to check for yourself.
@@ianian9078
Mate, you are just doubling-down on insulting people. Have I accused you of lying? Then please stop accusing me.
If you don't like the dictionary definition, then:
Read the Explanatory Memorandum.
Read the Attorney-General's speech.
Read the Solicitor-General's Opinion.
These are all written by the people who will be writing the Voice legislation - so they know the meaning of "representations" better than any of us - and they all say it is synonymous with ADVICE!
But the Government also promised there would be no lockdowns or mandatory vaccinations, so we know we can trust them ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
the voice is a trojan horse
vote no
use a pen, not pencil
ThankYou. Lack of trust in the process of the uluru statement and seeing the attitudes of pearson mayo and that indig minister haa Me at NO. That professor calling australians racist again and again sealed the deal. Im not australian but will vote NO in this referendum.
Any vote by the people for some of the people must always be NO! George Orwell's Animal farm addresses this exact issue Where "some animals are more equal than other animals"!!!
I'm voting No, thanks.
Is this really going to help those most in need, i.e. Those in the most isolated areas?
I don't particularly want another skinsuit for inner city white lefty beauracracy.
Such is my distrust of the Gov't that ANY proposition is met by skeptism on my part... the part where they trot out the old "Istaphobe" argument if you dont see it their way just cements my "No".
So, that means you support Dutton's proposal for another referendum but, if the LNP becomes the government at the next election, you will automatically stop supporting it (because of your "distrust of the Gov't")?
@@AnotherDoug Dont trust "He who will never be prime minister" either sport.
It will always be quick mate with no detail……NO
I will be voting NO for 3 reasons.
1. The Voice is about separatism and division. Noel Pearson confirmed that. We don't want a divided nation.
2. The Voice is about Treaty, Reparation (money) and Grievance. But the government won't talk about that & give us information.
3. The Voice will become permanent and so there is no turning back.
1. How does an ADVISORY body that can only affect less than 3% of the population, cause division/separatism?
2. The Voice can only provide ADVICE. It cannot negotiate anything, let alone treaty or reparations. (This is proven by the facts that Mundine (leader of the No Campaign) and Thorpe have both said that they want the Referendum to fail so that the "real work" on treaties can begin.)
3. Why would we need to "turn back" from an ADVISORY body that affects less than 3% of the population?
@@AnotherDoug1. The Voice would make representations exclusively for one separate race of Australians that would be interposed at every level of government decision making, and affect all Australians.
2. Representations with a big stick :ruclips.net/video/9YlOHRwgb70/видео.htmlsi=_2N0ylQbbCzfChit No thanks, Vote NO.
3. Racial separatism will not be accepted, and is not wanted in Australia. All disadvantaged Australians must be treated equally, regardless of race or ethnicity.
Congratulations on your pamphlet. It is an accurate summary of the for and against arguments. Thanks for all your videos. They were very informative.
Does this mean "the voice" could only offer advice on indigenous affairs? I was hoping it could help guide the government to better care for country. Eg advice about cultural burns for decreasing bushfire intensity and frequency.... that sort of thing.
If the advice is good and the Government agrees that care of country is a matter relating to A&TSI peoples, then yes.
It is important to note that the same reasons that this government is using to try and garner support for the voice have been used before multiple times before. That compassion led to the Aboriginal Protectorate/Stolen Generation, Sit Down Money and `tribal lands`, Atsic, Centralised Land councils and the non interference policies that leave women and children isolated in abusive and neglectful squalor.
The road to the hells that are Traditional communities have been liberally paved with compassion and good intentions.
So, you are saying that the Stolen Generations (for instance) were a direct result of the Government of the day receiving advice from a committee of A&TSI peoples selected by their communities to give advice to the government. What is your evidence for this astonishing claim?
Thanks for your program. Your pamphlet gives a very good summary of the issues of the Voice.
I'm voting No primarily because I believe that a Voice Chapter in our Constitution would be divisive and rasist and would ultimately do more harm than good to indigenous people.
~ Not racist: it is recognising the culture, history and traditions of the peoples who have lived in this country for thousands of years before anyone else.
~ Not divisive: how can an advisory body that will affect less than 3% of the population be in any way divisive. The campaigning has certainly been divisive but the Voice won't be.
~ How can something that will help Close the Gaps "ultimately do more harm than good"?
@@AnotherDoug
Racist: it is giving a (quickly growing) group of individuals, based solely on their genetic background and not on their individual needs, a unique and extra access to representation to government, forever. That's more than recognition and respect of a culture, that's rasist.
Divisive: Our own PM said "it would be a brave government that doesn't follow the advice of the voice". This same PM blankly refuses to provide ANY details about the makeup of this voice. 'Trust us, it's modest and simple' he says, while admitting that he hasn't even bothered to read the important backstory ( only 26 pages) to the 'canvas' painting that calls for the voice, treaty and truth.
The vast majority of all Indigenous people are closley assimilated into Australian mainstream culture and hence every thing that effects them effects all. Therefore, much of the advice from the voice could affect the lives of all mainstream Australians who, no doubt will resent this power over their lives by a minority group, leading to resentment of the minority group itself.
More harm: whenever government policies which target 'racial needs' rather than 'individual needs' are allowed to be ingrained into a society (let alone the Constitution) it becomes a crutch for the 'victim group' at best and a festering sore of resentment at worst - a very divisive and dangerous thing to happen to any minority group. ( e.g. "Why should my 1% indigenous neighbour and his descendants, who earn more and are wealthier than me and my descendants, have more privileged access to our government, our university, our welfare, our medical etc??")
It is beholden on the protagonists of the voice to prove it's value and worth to the majority, and so far, that detailed proof is sadly lacking.
@@normanmazlin6741Doug carn't handle the real truth, and will just continue with his simplistic misleading propaganda.
@@normanmazlin6741
~ "based solely on their genetic background" - no, as I said it is based on the culture, history and traditions of the peoples who have lived in this country for thousands of years before anyone else. (By the way, there is only one human race on this planet - this channel does not allow URLs - search for Scientific American "the concept of race is a lie")
~ "it would be a brave government that doesn't follow the advice of the voice." - that statement has nothing to do with divisiveness. He was referring to what the voters could do at a future federal elections if the sitting government chooses to ignore good advice from the Voice.
~ "blankly refuses to provide ANY details" - all Referendums have been based on a concept. Details are not normally released as part of the Referendum because it can confuse the discussion. If the government had released a massive document (like the 130-page Langton/Calma report), there would have been just as loud an uproar over "too much detail" and then we would descended into time-wasting arguments over the minutiae of the document instead of focusing on the concept. Having said this, the government has released a number of Voice Principles (search for "Voice Principles"), upon which the legislation will be based.
~ "calls for the voice, treaty and truth." - we are NOT voting on treaty or truth - just a Voice. (In fact, Mundine and Thorpe want the No vote to win, so that the "real work" on Treaty can begin.
~ "every thing that effects them effects all." - if true, then the Voice won't have a lot to do, because it will only be allowed to provide advice on matters that affect A&TSI peoples differently to mainstream Australians.
~ "the voice could affect the lives of all mainstream Australians" - no the Voice will NOT affect mainstream Australians - see above.
~ how can you prove something that does not yet exist? Nevertheless, the yes Pamphlet contains three real-world examples where listening to A&TSI peoples has proven to be worthwhile. By contrast, the No Pamphlet provided zero facts and just filled with fear mongering and untruths.
Your information has been informative I'll be voting no I've listened to other indigenous peoples and iget the feeling that they want us to be as one and that's what I agree with from the ❤
People just remember your now dealing with a corporation and not the Crown and we can ask ourselves where did this communist approach originate from and how it was constucted and altimatley for whos benefit for what reason
Humble Orange Slice. Perfect for dunking.
Thank you for your excellent and very clear commentary. I have also just read your pamphlet setting out the YES and NO cases side by side and it is the best I have seen.
I read your booklet. Thank you for posting this. Appreciated.
Hi Wes. Thanks for another video. One point however, the Voice is to be a committee that will give advice to the parliament and EXECUTIVE government .... This means direct and exclusive access to parliament, Cabinet and heads of the federal public service that no-one else has. This is one of the major sticking points of the whole Voice debacle in that only the indigenous will have this access.
everyone has access to their federal member.
@@jonathanodude6660 But not direct access to Cabinet ministers or heads of federal government departments. This would be an exclusive privilege available only to indigenous Australia.
The heads of federal government departments are typically elected MPs. If the head of a department is your MP, you just book an appointment to talk to them, or walk into their office. If they are not your MP, you can tell to your MP to talk to them, or you can talk to them via their department, or speak to someone lower at the department.@@robd2096
I watched this out of genuine curiosity. Now having listened it is clear that the voice is a deliberately vague and nebulous concept designed to mislead the Australian public.
I will definitely be voting NO!
How is it "designed to mislead"? The proposed Constitutional change is pretty clear.
Another great video Wes !!
Wesley with respect, both your distilled posts should be removed or combined into a single post....WHY?....because your 'Vote Yes' post is getting preferential treatment on RUclips!....Your Yes appears at or near the beginning of the RUclips videos loading page, while your No post is burried almost at the end, giving the impression that a 'Yes' vote is the way to go!
I got notified of the Yes case only, as a recommendation from this channel. He dosen't seem to mention that there is a No case video, I only discovered it by accident.
I think both sides of the issue have weak arguments. And because of that I’ll be voting no. There’s just not a good enough reason to change the constitution, yet.
You are bloody dreaming.
Seems Wes likes removing viewers comments. Unsubscribed
Not me.
The existence of this comment appears to contradict the claim made within the comment.
@@whatdoesfreedomlooklike maths and logic. Simple for most people.
Did you have a comment removed, or are you just not up to speed with how technology?
RUclips sometimes removes comments for some breach of the algorithm or sometimes if they contain URLs. Just try posting your comment again.
It is absolutely misleading to say that a "vote for recognition is a vote for three other things - Voice, Treaty and Truth."
The Voice will have no direct relationship with any discussions about Treaty or Truth telling.
The Voice will only have one power: to give advice to the Government.
It will not have power to negotiate on behalf of A&TSI peoples.
It could certainly offer advice to the Government on Treaty and Truth Telling but the government can accept or ignore that advice, as it wishes
If the No vote wins at the referendum, that will not kill-off Treaty or Truth telling. As Mundine and Thorpe have said, when the No vote wins the real work on treaty commences.
More repeatedly disproven, simplistic, misleading propagander from you. Dear oh dear.
AnotherDoug the authors of the Uluru Statement state this is about Voice Treaty Truth Telling, but its first step is The Voice. To say then that The Voice will have no direct relationship with ANY discussions regarding Treaty or TT is absolute rubbish. Fro their own lips they agree the three issues are connected. Listen mate, the majority of us are voting No, and what comes after we will deal with as it comes.
@@ianian9078
~ "show me one time advice or advicosry is mentions in the proposed amendment"
- Anne Twomey (who was a member of the Constitutional Expert Group) has explained in her own video ( ruclips.net/video/T8zTy4Saa18/видео.htmlsi=JflKV5nyM6tYW5Sr ) that earlier versions of the Constitutional change did use the word "advice" until it was pointed out that in certain political contexts "advice" can be given that is binding on the recipient and requires them to do something. As there is no intention that Parliament or the Government be bound to follow the Voice's advice, the word was changed to "representation". Similarly, "consult" was rejected as it could be construed to require the Government to consult the Voice and that was not desired either.
- the Explanatory Memorandum when the Constitution Alteration Bill was introduced to Parliament - multiple references to 'advice", but specifically on page 11, paragraph 12: "A representation is a statement from the Voice to the Parliament or to the Executive Government, or both. A representation would communicate the Voice’s view on a matter relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples."
- the Attorney-General's Second Reading Speech - multiple references to the Voice giving "advice". I can provide links.
- the Solicitor-General's Opinion on the proposed Constitutional change multiple references to the Voice giving "advice". I can provide links.
~ "show me how you can limit what matters are included" - I never mentioned this in my comment but there is a restriction in the proposed Constitution: the Voice can only provide advice on matters relating to A&TSI peoples.
~ "until the legislation is written and they define the powers" - sub-section (ii) of the proposed Constitutional change actually specifies the ONLY function of the Voice, which is to "make representations to ...". No other function is allowed by the Constitution itself.
Sub-section (iii) gives power, "subject to this Constitution" to the Parliament to create the Voice legislation. Those words "subject to this Constitution" mean that the Constitution itself will prevent Parliament from giving the Voice any other function than to "make representations ...". The Voice can only ever have the power to give advice - that is it.
~ "It is designed to be the representative body" - No, it will not be a "representative" body in the parliamentary sense. It will ONLY be an advisory body and cannot negotiate treaties or reparations or anything on behalf of A&TSI peoples.
~ "you cant even follow your own logical fallacies" - I clearly said the Voice could offer ADVICE to the Government on Treaty and Truth Telling but the Government can accept or ignore that advice, as it wishes.
~ "we dont know what the governemt will do until the legislation is written." - well, we know what the Constitution will say the Voice can do. And we know that parliament cannot override the Constitution to give the Voice any extra functions (like negotiation). Finally, we have the Voice Principles, which will be used as the basis for the legislation when it is written. These Principles have been published so that everyone can hold the Government and Parliament to account when they consider the legislation.
@@soldier8304 By "direct relationship" I mean that the Voice is NOT a critical predecessor for treaty or Truth telling.
The version of the Voice we are voting on is not the same as envisaged by some of the people who attended the Regional Dialogues. Some of them wanted the Voice to be able to negotiate treaties, reparations, etc with the Government. The version of the Voice we are actually voting for will have one power only: the power to give ADVICE to the Government. The Government will always have the right to accept or ignore that advice.
Even the No campaign does not believe the Voice is relevant to Treaty or Truth. Mundine (the leader of the No Campaign) and Thorpe both want to see the No vote win at the Referendum so the "real work" on treaties can begin.
@@ianian9078
The Voice legislation has not yet been written. However, as I have mentioned elsewhere , if you doubt the meaning of "representations", then you should:
Read the Explanatory Memorandum.
Read the Attorney-General's speech.
Read the Solicitor-General's Opinion.
These are all written by the people who will be writing the Voice legislation - so they know the meaning of "representations" better than any of us - and they all say it is synonymous with ADVICE!