@@anthonyscully2998 he lied though and kept his true reasons hidden. From what i gather a combined voice will cost him a lot financially as it could stop his grifting of aboriginal communities. That whats wrong with the ABC.
As a white Australian I'm trying to listen to many voices and views of indigenous Australians but cutting off those putting their side makes it difficult.
Ms Sarah Ferguson constantly interrupted and didn’t let Warren Mundine finish what he was saying. He was very polite and gracious and she was very rude and disrespectful. He knows much more about what will help the aboriginal communities than she will ever know.
No she didn't - she wasn't rude or disrespectful at all! The interviewer's job is to keep the interviewee on track to answering the question. Mundine was clear and articulate in his reasons for his position on the Voice. A very good interview
Sarah just wanted Warren to explain why he said what he said. That's her job. Warren did a poor job of explaining himself. He was polite though. Just not very persuasive.
The question that Sarah Ferguson asks at 3:35 would seem to indicate that she didn't listen to Warren Mundine's answer to her previous question. The layer of bureaucracy that the Voice would create could effectively stymie the creation of any project - including not only a new energy metal mine but also a wind farm or solar farm - and is the creation of a self-destruct mechanism in the proposal of any project. It's pretty basic why this is a very bad idea and doesn't even achieve the outcome it purportedly sets out to achieve.
he is on the show and somehow that means he isn't being listened too? even when they broadcast it around the country to get shmucks like you to not feel bad for voting no because he is aboriginal? are you braindead or is everything in politics and news just surface level to you. the ABC could get a bunch of people from the yes camp to say how wonderful it is but instead its gotten 2 people who are skeptical of it and put them on. is that not influencing what people see to sow doubt in the referendum? and yet you think the ABC is on Labor's side? stop watching sky news and do some real research or even just watch question time live. question time is a joke and you still get a better understanding of what it actually happening than the news.
Warren was about to provide a great example of a successfull program that works and would make a great difference if it was expanded. Then Ferguson just rips in, interrupted and made out that it's not helpful. ABC guests need a voice of parliament to get help get there point across on this show.
I will give the ABC points for having the comments open. It is unusual for the ABC to risk being fact checked or to subject itself to any scrutiny by the general public.
Perhaps the GayBC could do a little truth-telling?. Besides the Voice, there the "truth telling" and "treaty" in the Uluru Statement? The Canberra Voice architect Tom Calma said, “Let’s get the referendum out of the way then focus on agreement making.” Tell us about the Uluru Dialogues which informed the Uluru Statement, which were recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) and how they mention “financial settlement such as seeking a percentage of GDP" and "truth commission, reparations, a settlement, the resolution of land, water and resources issues" and "Australia got a whole country for nothing, they haven’t even begun to pay for it”. Im voting NO
It doesn't matter about what the information says, it is racist simple. They have the same rights as ALL AUSTRALIANS. Working for a living is a great way to earn money. Thank you Warren Mundine.
@@retyroni MAte it's racist and I'll tell you why I, and millions of other Australians are voting NO. The Uluru Statement proclaims 3 components. First is the Voice. The others are "agreement-making [Treaty] and "truth-telling"[re-telling history]. Labor is committed to implementing the full Uluru Statement. Attorney General Mark Dreyfus said the Voice was a “first step” towards those things, and Tom Calma said, “Let’s get the referendum out of the way then focus on agreement making.” Recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) are the Uluru Dialogues which informed the Referendum Council’s Final Report and The Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Final Report says: “Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a settlement, the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law”. Alarming enough, but the FOI documents show what’s also been left out: “a financial settlement such as seeking a percentage of GDP", "Australia got a whole country for nothing, they haven’t even begun to pay for it”, and a desire to abolish our flag because “the Australian flag symbolised the injustices of colonisation”. We simply have to vote No.
@@crankin77 when does he answer why he thinks the voice is a threat to the community. he answers why its a threat to his mining operation? 2 minuets in just for your timestamp he says its a threat the the community and then says how his mining operation works, he didn't answer the question he sidestepped it but bro dw thats hard to see when you want so bad to agree with him
@@jamesbuijs6742 Thanks for the reply. After review the question was: "... how it could it act as a threat to ORGANISATIONS & communities." So he actually speaks to his mining company aka an organisation. Secondly, he does answer the community threat and I quote: "instead of actually going to the communities, they can go to the voice." So please point out the sidestep here or find another avoidance 'bro'.
I applaud Mundine for appearing on this show he knew that he wouldn't get a fair hearing and he didn't, she interrupted his replies at every opportunity
and please be also aware that this is not some sort of open forum or discussion scenario. The program has very tight time schedule so the host has to make sure the conversion doesn't drag on while still getting all the questions asked.
The Voice is a threat to 97% of the Australian population and to how Government in this country works. We will effectively have three pillars, which will slow down the business of Government, including legislative changes, to a snail's pace because the Voice will insist on having a say and an input into ALL government business. The Voice representatives will be backed up by administrative support staff and advisors that will blow out to huge proportions over time because they need to be across on ALL legislation. The Voice bureaucracy will become huge and very costly. They will start to horse trade to allow some legislation through without interference and cries of discrimination in exchange for huge concessions that will greatly advantage people who claim to be Indigenous, including those that haven't experienced a day of disadvantage in their entire life. If the 11 point plan of action by the NIAA that was allegedly left behind in a Woden restaurant and then passed on to Pauline Hanson is to be believed as genuine, that will give an insight into what Australia has in store if the Voice is voted in as it is expected to be. There needs to be vigorous debate in the lead up to the referendum to expose all the possible pitfalls for people to take into consideration before voting. So far we've practically only seen and heard people urging people to vote "YES". Albo effectively telling people to trust him that everything will be fine is quite simply not good enough. This goes way beyond recognition of our First Nation people in the Constitution. I'm not inclined to sign a blank cheque, so why would I do the equivalent on something as important as Constitutional change that will be with us forever? All Australians are equal, but the Voice will ensure that won't be the case and I have no doubt it will divide the country.
"huge concessions that will greatly advantage people who claim to be Indigenous, including those that haven't experienced a day of disadvantage in their entire life" Correct.
you must not watch the ABC much. sure they had a white dude on qanda but they always have brown aboriginals one 7:30 because of this exact reason. cant be aboriginal if your not brown or black
The man who stood next to the PM when he announced the referendum wording - his name is Thomas Mayo - has been busy filling in the blanks. Mayo is a union official and self-described “militant”. He wrote the book on the proposed constitutional change. He sits on Albo’s Referendum Working Group, which drafted the referendum question, his signature was on the Uluru Statement and he has spent a year and a half travelling the country trying to talk Australians into changing their Constitution to include the divisive Voice. What does he say about the Voice? Thomas Mayo says the Voice is a campaign tool to “punish politicians”, “abolish colonialist institutions” and “pay the rent, pay reparations and compensation”. Rather than what the PM described as an “inspiring and unifying Australian moment”, Mayo told a conference of communists that “there is nothing that we can do that is more powerful than building a first nations’ Voice, a black institution, a black political force to be reckoned with”. At a 2021 Invasion Day protest where he described “the powers that be” as “murderers”, he said he was “sick of governments not listening to our voice” so planned “to use the rulebook of the nation to force them”. Mayo revealed the divisive aims behind the Voice at Invasion Day and Black Lives Matter protests as well as in numerous addresses revealing the Voice’s radical origins to the Search Foundation, which describes itself as the “successor organisation of the Communist Party of Australia”. Remember when Albo said the Voice was “a modest request”? Remember when he said that what “shines so brightly at the very core of its gracious request is the desire to bring us all closer together as a people reconciled”? Empty words. Now you know the truth. You’ve heard it from the mouth of the man who wrote the book on the Voice to Parliament. It is not a “modest request”. It is not “gracious”. It’s about power and money and influence. It's about dividing Australians. Thomas Mayo, the Yes campaign’s most prominent advocate, said as much himself.
The state and territory governments aren't failing to get these kids to school, thier parents are. Until we are willing to face the true causes of disadvantage, we won't be able to rectify them. Individual choices, Individual responsibility.
@ypotis68 how would you explain the gap between those who are 'disadvantaged ' and the many indigenous Australians I work with who grew up in the same circumstances but chose a different path to ensure the success and prosperity of themselves and their children. I have spent decades living and working in remote WA and NT and the obvious truth is the choices of individuals determine the outcomes. The government's have just been exacerbating the detrimental behaviours by promoting a lack of accountability and sufficient consequences.
@wordzmyth unfortunately not. I'd love to have started out with some of that privilege I've heard so much about. I just had to succeed the good old fashion way. Good life choices and delayed gratification.
10 minutes was just not long enough for Mr Mundine to get his points across. Ms Ferguson wanted quick answers to questions that are actually more complex than just yes-no answers.
Thanks Warren.👍 Any unbiased Australian looking at the: The Voice will see that it’s obviously rushing towards extreme overreach. And that’s before you begin to look at its undermining of Australian democracy. The country doesn't need ‘The Voice’, and about the only ‘achievement’ ‘The Voice’ will without question bring about is further division. The voice doesn't exist to do anything but stroke the egos of a select few at the expense of everyone else. 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 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?
"Can't build a toilet on a mining site without negotiating with traditional owners... then off to the Minister to have it ratified". Already a god-awful mess. Let's make it ten times worse with the Voice bureaucracy! What a shemozzle.
'A logical and wise man" and a mining exec with noooooooooo ulterior motives such as huge financial implications which he admits in the first few minuets. . . . . . rewatch what he says at the 2:40 point. he argues for a no vote because the community would have an ability to stop his mining company if there was a voice, whereas now they don't have that ability now. . . . . .
Well spoken Warren Mundine. You’re representing the “No” case eloquently and accurately. There’s two sides to this debate and multifaceted arguments on both sides. While I will vote no, I recognise that the “Yes” case are trying to help Indigenous Australians, the issue is that changing the status quo through a Constitutional is not the way. Legislate it 100%, but don’t enshrine it seeing as we don’t even know if it will work.
if you listen to him, hes reason for being on the "no" side is he is worried about how it will effect his mining business. what a scum bag. he doesn't even care about his own people.
You just hear what you want to hear. Any vaguely objective assessment would find that he failed miserably and hardly made sense. Its all about him knowing more blackfellas than anyone else and I can tell you there is no black man more detested by them than him. He is totally rejected by them and all he is doing is saying stuff specifically to indulge racists such as yourself. Its a pretty good tactic in this day and age when right wingers will subscribe to any hateful misinformation you throw them but its about as well spoken as my dog.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. As I see it, the proposed constitutional amendment provides Parliament with a high level of flexibility in how The Voice is set up. Clause 3 says that "The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures". So the amendment says that Parliament has to set up an indigenous advisory group called The Voice (clauses 1 + 2) but it allows parliament to decide how The Voice will be chosen and how it will operate (clause 3). In fact, if the liberal and national parties win control of the house and senate in the next election, they could pass legislation to establish their proposed “local and regional” Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
That's why I've never understood the criticism that the government hasn't released enough detailed information how the voice will work. That detail is not in the constitution because the proposed amendment allows Parliament to decide those details. This allows The Voice to be improved over time.
@@danielpage5597 the point of that criticism is that we don’t even know the model Albanese wants to implement. He could very well implement a model with lots of power (although this would not be in the Constitution). I think the main issue I have is that with the Constitutional wording, the gov did ask the working committee to change the words. They asked to get rid of the executive government clause, which is what the opposition and opponents are against. The working committee refused. This was after the SG gave them private advice. Pretty much all lawyers admit that there’s a risk. This includes Constitutional lawyers and High Court judges, even those who are Yes voters or do want to see a Constitutional voice but don’t agree with this model as a result of the risk. If they simply changed Executive Government to head of government or something that states what they actually mean rather than this broader statement, they would take away one of the pillars of the No argument. Even as of last week, with lobbying by Julian Leeser, the guy who alongside others came up with the voice concept, to remove the executive gov portion, Albanese opposed this change. We’ve had a history of activist high court judges; it is my opinion that, from what I’ve read in terms of the wording itself and possible implications, that the risk for interpretations is too high. It could result in damaging effects and even the possibility is a major red flag.
All those gaps and issues are not solely our fault. I’m not guilty of my fathers sins. When will this culture face up to the facts and accept responsibility? How much do we keep giving? Thanks Warren. I admire your temperance and wisdom. A big ‘No’ from me.
@bismarckmark6566 I'll tell you why I, and millions of other Australians are voting NO. The Uluru Statement proclaims 3 components. First is the Voice. The others are "agreement-making [Treaty] and "truth-telling"[re-telling history]. Labor is committed to implementing the full Uluru Statement. Attorney General Mark Dreyfus said the Voice was a “first step” towards those things, and Tom Calma said, “Let’s get the referendum out of the way then focus on agreement making.” Recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) are the Uluru Dialogues which informed the Referendum Council’s Final Report and The Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Final Report says: “Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a settlement, the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law”. Alarming enough, but the FOI documents show what’s also been left out: “a financial settlement such as seeking a percentage of GDP", "Australia got a whole country for nothing, they haven’t even begun to pay for it”, and a desire to abolish our flag because “the Australian flag symbolised the injustices of colonisation”. We simply have to vot No folks.
Typical ABC/Ferguson treatment. Here we have a successful respected aboriginal leaders who 'knows' intimately the grass roots, to the tree tops of aboriginal affairs currently. He runs circles round the ABC / presenter and the Voice showing it for what it actually is i.e. unknown unknown rubbish. Love your work Warren!
I will give the ABC points for at least having a guest on the program from the "No" side as opposed to their usual air time being filled with "Yes" feel good platitudes and propaganda; however Sarah Furgerson conducts the interview in attack mode - hostile and inquisitorial. ABC - "fair and balanced"? Ha! Ha! Ha!
On one hand, I understand what you're saying, she was challenging his views for the entire segment. But also, how could any news station claim to be "fair and balanced" if when they invited a guest they just agreed with everything the guest said? To be fair and balanced, the two people involved in a debate must represent different sides. And whatever side a guest represents, their views must be challenged to see how they hold up against criticism. This is the fundamental nature of a debate. And I think if anything, her questioning his views only displayed that they are well thought-out and able to hold their own in the face of criticism.
@@CynicallyDepressedx Guests representing the YES vote on the ABC however aren't challenged like this, so that is the lack of balance that people often refer to where it concerns the ABC. The potential pitfalls of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament are simply not exposed, which is why we need to have some vigorous national debates for everyone to see that will expose both the positives and the dangers of the Voice.
Is Sarah stupid? No. Is she listening? Yes. So why does she not accept Warren's answers to her repeated questioning? Because she doesn't like what he is saying. Sadly that amounts to the expression of her own prejudices. Very disappointing.
The last thing we need is more government beurocrats, as he said before being interrupted by a government beurocrat, we need people in the community's representing the people and not more people in Canberra, vote NO for the voice,
If you are fed up with people in Canberra representing communities instead of members of those communities representing themselves why would you oppose a change which gives elders of first nations communities a chance to represent themselves? That's literally the exact thing that you want.
Very well said Warren. The point with regards to the bureaucracy that will be brought by the voice is a really excellent point. No longer will the actual group from that area be consulted it will go off to a body, therefore it’s a threat to that group of indigenous landowners that their voice won’t be heard or making the decisions. Then he highlights an example where legislation of programs have been greatly successful. Yet she pushes all of that aside… awesome stuff Warren.
The amount of cost and money waste that the voice will create and if it succeeds the delay on decisions making will cost Australia too much. Bridging the wealth ,health and education gaps has to be done by people them selves because there are non indigenous disadvantaged people as well and most people that create wealth for themselves have done it themselves and not had it given to them by government
Actually colonial governments just gave their mates vast tracts of land. That is how people became wealthy. You are in a fantasy land. The socio economic status of people has nothing to do with what you are saying and no serious person would agree with you. Rich people in this country are mostly unproductive talentless bludgers. They haven't "done it themselves" at all.
Rubbish. LOL. Government ALWAYS gives business perks and money all the time. Especially the Coalition who are blatant about it. What planet do you live on? Certainly isn't Earth. The bigger the business and power they have, the more "benefits" they get that no one else does. Fool.
Well explained... Mundine raises a very valid point. And possible issues, with the Voice ... Sarah interrupts a bit to cut off his common sense responses... more information pros and cons required.
Barely use the ABC now other for evening news/weather. Sadly it's lost its way & now no more than a fringe activist mouthpiece for the left running on the taxpayers dollar. Trioli, Karvelas, Tingle, Kelly, Probin & even poor old Heather Ewart are clearly are part of mission lefty. No balance anywhere there. Well past time that the ABC was cut loose to the market.
Ferguson is white, wealthy and an elitist. She has no right to question and dispute anything an Indigenous man has to say about Indigenous matters. All respect to Warren Mundine and his fight against Albanese's Voice.
Warren would reject your defence of him by employing neo-Marxist Critical Race Theory. Being white does not preclude a person from being expert on Aboriginal mattters- and Prof Anthony Dillon who is Aboriginal says so!
I am stunned the abc actually had a debate with someone against the voice…the audacity to ask for a life long contract…how about some audits so we can learn where the tax payers money is being well spent (and celebrated) and not so well spent …
All living Aboriginal Australians descend from a single founding population that arrived here about 50,000 years ago, the study shows. They swept around the continent, along the coasts, in a matter of centuries. And yet, for tens of thousands of years after, those populations remained isolated, rarely mixing. So that makes me indigenous to this land, no vote from me. NO
Because you heard one guy say that, a mining business guy 🤨 Whose he asking, the 1000 natives he has on his ranch "yes boss". Hes talking nonsense and making stuff up.
@@paulfri1569 its in the mid 70% margin last time I checked, I don't know a single indigenous person who doesn't support it. They surely exist, but they are a small minority of useful idiots, or just straight up idiots. The Yes vote is obvious if you aren't really stupid, or just straight up an ethically degenerate POS.
You want Mundine to do a survey??? The man has more on his plate work wise than you'd probably have in 100 of your lives. He's out in the bush of WA, NT and Queensland 3 days of every week, meeting with aboriginal people, on top of running companies. Also he doesn't need to do a survey, he's talking with these people daily, he knows what they think and what they know and don't know. He doesn't need to do a survey and he knows whats good for his people and other aboriginals and he, along with other respected aboriginal people say no to this Voice and thats good enough for me. Especially when you look at the quality of the yes voters, nothing but hateful people along with grifters and race hustlers, there's no comparison
Why doesn't the goverment hold a semi referendum only for indeginous Australians to see what they think before asking the whole Australia to make a decision for them?
Well said Mr Mundine. The Voice would turn into a den of cronyism in Canberra that would benefit a few and further disadvantage many in rural areas. And correctly highlighted the failings of State and Territory governments.
Of course someone who runs a mining company doesn't like the idea of people being properly organized. They are much easier to push around when they are not.
First nations people do very well these days from mining royalties off their land. The issue isn't money - it's how they spend it but calling that out is racist of course.
Are you going to let him finish a sentence, Ms Ferguson? It's not racist to ask what the Voice will be able to achieve..... and exactly how it will achieve it.....if, as we are told, its role is merely advisory, with no power of veto. It doesn't add up.
I continue to be very,very annoyed by the Australian media( and polies) constantly referring to our indigneous aborigines as "FIRST NATION'people. WHY? Because the use of the word "Nation" infers "the state or fact of being united or combined into one, as of the parts of a whole; unification. absence of diversity; unvaried or uniform character. oneness of mind, feeling, etc., as among a number of persons; concord, harmony, or agreement." Our aborigines,during their 40,000 years in this continent were comprised of something like 900+ tribes....and the tribes were mostly in conflict over territorial disputes/claims. ( Not much has changed, huh?) How in bloody hell does anyone call that NATION peoples??? I have no problem whatsoever with referring to our blackfellas ( NOT racist before you start...they call us "whitefellas) as indigenous population ( which is only 3.8% of our current population) or as orginal inhabitants of New Holland/Australis...but no bloody way as First Nation's people. ....that is just a political term for ulterior reasons. We still have freedom of speech....so I have just put in my 2 bob's worth.....but Labor Party will soon curtail that even more....mark my words. I have been an Aussie for 75+ years now, and I certainly don't like the way Australia is heading. Very sad for Australia..
It's not First Nation's [possessive] people, it's First Nations [plural] people, a term borrowed from indigenous americans I believe. So you are right there was/is no single 'nation' among the different indigenous tribes, but that's also what people who say First Nations are saying.
The great thing about Warren's IPA so-called Better Alternative is the fact that he has never had to spell it out in any real detail. We all know what he's against but what he supports is still quite murky. It's all too typical of the "NO" Campaign overall. Sow doubt, spin lies and leave the "YES" case to prove it's worth.
We should be worried that this change would give Aboriginals power that could easily be misused. Mundine mentioned “mining companies” and this is where the real danger is , multinational mining companies will be working closely with Aboriginal “ corporations “ and the rest of us AUSTRALIANS will be left out .
Actually I think Mundine's point was that the Voice could _limit_ the power traditional owners already have with respect to mining leases. He's the one worried a national power will be 'misused' from the perspective of the local owners. Your concern about excluding the rest of Australia is already realised in such things as non taxable Native Title Benefits.
He was completely coherent, and I'll tell you why I, and millions of other Australians are voting NO. The Uluru Statement proclaims 3 components. First is the Voice. The others are "agreement-making [Treaty] and "truth-telling"[re-telling history]. Labor is committed to implementing the full Uluru Statement. Attorney General Mark Dreyfus said the Voice was a “first step” towards those things, and Tom Calma said, “Let’s get the referendum out of the way then focus on agreement making.” Recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) are the Uluru Dialogues which informed the Referendum Council’s Final Report and The Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Final Report says: “Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a settlement, the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law”. Alarming enough, but the FOI documents show what’s also been left out: “a financial settlement such as seeking a percentage of GDP", "Australia got a whole country for nothing, they haven’t even begun to pay for it”, and a desire to abolish our flag because “the Australian flag symbolised the injustices of colonisation”. We simply have to vote No.
@@DD-bx8rb well found and amazing what you learn when not relying on MSM to educate on important matters like the constitution. Sadly the majorly are ‘breaking news’ headline and A Current Affair consumers.
Automaticly he states the voice will interfere? Is that an unbiased viewpoint? I am not a lawyer but the word may, does not mean they wont? Huh warren is complaining the voice has the ability to have a voice .... FFS is anyone actually listening to this guy.... Hes just an Aboriginal right winger rich dude, in my opinion.
I have worked in Government and there have been numerous programmes that were designed to help Indigenous Australians to close the gap with the average Australian. The majority of those programmes fail because the Indigenous community doesn't take up the opportunities these programmes provide. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink. That won't change after the Voice, but the Government will throw increasing amounts of money at the Indigenous population without success. The people who are likely to benefit the most are opportunists who identify as being Indigenous, but who have never experienced a day of disadvantage in their entire life. I once read that the average expenditure per Indigenous person in Australia (all from cradle to grave as per census data) across all levels of Government was almost $80k per year, which is a multiple of what is spent on non Indigenous people.
The voice is so racist and divides our country by race and colour of your skin, we must unite as one all equal inclusive of everyone, we are a multicultural land and we must accept everyone for who they are, not who they were born too
@@redsword1659 Yes I was born here along with my parents and grandparents and I am against this racist voice and stand with first nations against white supremacist governments condemning them just because they don't agree with it
Warren Mundines facta on created employment numbers are not given the light of day. I have pointed out that you can't mandate that people must comply when you say you cant guarantee water to remote communities and they should move closer to towns. Aboriginals thatr choose to live on country following traditional ways cannot be used to exemplify program failure. This whole subject is beaten up ideologically and the ABC is a classic example. They refuse to promote knowledge of the successes despite the fact that this would promote the successful solutions.
there sides got nothing, best they can do is this, funnel bs all over the place as they know an unsure vote is a no vote. Thisd be there game plan, interviewer should know that and thats what she should have started with.
@@crankin77 it wouldnt make a difference to you anyway. And its not just ONE thing, its his comments as a whole. And as a whole his no vote reasoning is bs. And whats the deal with his eyes darting around everywhere, is the grifter worried about being exposed???
Mundine may be a well known first nation advocate, but he cannot be seen as the leader of all Aboriginal Australians. The "Voice" is now a kicking ball for everyone.
I'll tell you why I, and millions of other Australians are voting NO. The Uluru Statement proclaims 3 components. First is the Voice. The others are "agreement-making [Treaty] and "truth-telling"[re-telling history]. Labor is committed to implementing the full Uluru Statement. Attorney General Mark Dreyfus said the Voice was a “first step” towards those things, and Tom Calma said, “Let’s get the referendum out of the way then focus on agreement making.” Recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) are the Uluru Dialogues which informed the Referendum Council’s Final Report and The Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Final Report says: “Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a settlement, the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law”. Alarming enough, but the FOI documents show what’s also been left out: “a financial settlement such as seeking a percentage of GDP", "Australia got a whole country for nothing, they haven’t even begun to pay for it”, and a desire to abolish our flag because “the Australian flag symbolised the injustices of colonisation”. We simply have to vote No.
@@The_Real_Mclovin you didn't bother to refute claims of conflation and rhetoric because you don't know what refutation, claims, conflation and rhetoric are. You strengthen the idea that untruth, conflation and rhetoric is indeed involved. Well done.
@@redsword1659 After months of telling everybody and anybody that if they questioned the voice they're or the politicians behind it, in any way, that they are racist. Nothing, from the lack of information, to the planned setup of the voice, its powers, or its valid constitutional concerns mattered, it was simply racist. A few weeks in, the PM actually had the gall to say that any aboriginal that didn't agree with it, at all, is an extreme radical. Absolutely /nobody/ even has a chance of beating the Yes campaign when it comes to confrontation, rhetoric or untruths, it's just not happening. They'd need to go to such extreme lengths that nobody would take them seriously, and there's just not enough money involved in the matter to recruit them if anybody wanted to - there's not even an unbiased funding scheme for the two sides, by design of the PM. But bringing any of that up usually only draws one of two words from the blind followers of dogma: 'racist' or 'bigot', and the only ones likely to suffer will be the regional aboriginals.
Which is just true to form, her standard 'journalistic' practice. Have a look at the complete garbage and mistruths Ferguson produced with her Trump/Russia series, all of which has now been totally de-bunked and found to be a set-up of the Clinton campaign.
@@redsword1659 I see no evidence of you bothering to contribute anything other than ad hominin vitriol. Mac said nothing different than Banks did, so we must then also apply your superciliousness and self agrandisement to his initial comment as well. Well done.
@@barryford1482 so you are in some sort of troll farm in Russia or Vietnam or somewhere obviously. Tighten up your language or you'll get the sack (it means you will be dismissed and loose your job)
If you don’t have any reliable healthcare (remote communities) your health outcomes will be worse, it doesn’t take a genius to work that one out, similar with education and schooling
Warren was answering all questions honestly and succinctly, but Sarah had her own agenda, clearly pro Voice, and kept asking Warren for clarification when his responses were honest, logical and clear. Very sad journalism and shows how pro Voice the ABC appear to be. I really don't understand why they refuse to look at the big picture and simply work in a closeted environment. Very strange and worrying.
This country does not belong to the Aboriginals. It is everyones. I'll tell you why I, and millions of other Australians are voting NO. The Uluru Statement proclaims 3 components. First is the Voice. The others are "agreement-making [Treaty] and "truth-telling"[re-telling history]. Labor is committed to implementing the full Uluru Statement. Attorney General Mark Dreyfus said the Voice was a “first step” towards those things, and Tom Calma said, “Let’s get the referendum out of the way then focus on agreement making.” Recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) are the Uluru Dialogues which informed the Referendum Council’s Final Report and The Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Final Report says: “Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a settlement, the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law”. Alarming enough, but the FOI documents show what’s also been left out: “a financial settlement such as seeking a percentage of GDP", "Australia got a whole country for nothing, they haven’t even begun to pay for it”, and a desire to abolish our flag because “the Australian flag symbolised the injustices of colonisation”. We simply have to vote No.
This man has changed his position on this issue as often as he changes clothes from day to day. Hell, he was part of the original Uluru dialogues that called for a Voice. He then personally advocated for it in his attempt to win a seat under Scott Morrison's Liberal government and failed. He then has changed his position twice since then and he changes how he argues the point from several different hypothetical positions each time he speaks and depending on who he speaks to. Frankly, I'm astounded anyone takes this man seriously at all. If it weren't for the Voice campaign he wouldn't even be a name people recognise, and simply fade into a history as a footnote on an AEC spreadsheet in 2019. People who change their opinions this often only do so for one reason - money. Coincidentally, Warren changed his opinion on the Voice around the same time he started taking money from CPAC, an organisation that is funded and lobbies on behalf of some of the richest people in the world. He is a charlatan of the highest order.
@SD Pearshaped: Correct, Mundine is a millionaire, his company rips off traditional owners through his consultancy companies businesses by managing traditional owners mining agreements where millions of dollars are ripped off. I’m an aboriginal elder and i know he’s been going this for decades and now the voice will more or less give traditional owners the opportunities to manage their own affairs. He doesn’t want lawyers representing them, because they’re too honest, no under the table deals. Mundine opposition to the Voice is to merely protect his families lifestyles, his mansion in Sydney and flash cars, they live like Kings and Queens the best of everything and a Yes vote will destroy him and his gravy train, by ripping off the vulnerable, this is why my people on country have nothing, this is why there’s overcrowding in houses, as this mans businesses, especially where’s there’s the Right to Negotiate with mining companies financial negotiations which are meant to support traditional owners communities very rarely see any of the financial benefits because Mundine consultancy businesses diverted to only benefit his company’s and immediate families personal interests. Ever seen his families houses and cars in Sydney? They live like the Kardashians.
![ROSÉ(로제) - APT. (Band VER.) (With. 이영지) [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IW8qaemx74g/mqdefault.jpg)
Not a very unbiased interview. She did not want to accept what he said, she only wanted to get her point across. Typical ABC interview.
You want points not evidence or facts? Can see through you people a mile away.
She gave him a chance to respond. The ABC should be praised for allowing someone from the no camp on
@@anthonyscully2998 he lied though and kept his true reasons hidden. From what i gather a combined voice will cost him a lot financially as it could stop his grifting of aboriginal communities. That whats wrong with the ABC.
@@anthonyscully2998 Why praised? ABC are a government agency payed for by all tax payers that has a charter to represent Australia equally.
@@anthonyscully2998 "ABC should be praised for allowing someone from the NO camp on" what a narrow minded view
As a white Australian I'm trying to listen to many voices and views of indigenous Australians but cutting off those putting their side makes it difficult.
This is how I feel too
I literally came to the comments to comment on the exact same thing
Ms Sarah Ferguson constantly interrupted and didn’t let Warren Mundine finish what he was saying. He was very polite and gracious and she was very rude and disrespectful. He knows much more about what will help the aboriginal communities than she will ever know.
No she didn't - she wasn't rude or disrespectful at all! The interviewer's job is to keep the interviewee on track to answering the question. Mundine was clear and articulate in his reasons for his position on the Voice. A very good interview
Sarah just wanted Warren to explain why he said what he said. That's her job. Warren did a poor job of explaining himself. He was polite though. Just not very persuasive.
Warren was all class.
Ferguson was a far left hyena.....with a far left agenda.
@@travstar5447 "Far left hyena!?" 🤣 So much for an impartial perspective. 😝
@@travstar5447you got that right. She was rude & disrespectful.
The question that Sarah Ferguson asks at 3:35 would seem to indicate that she didn't listen to Warren Mundine's answer to her previous question. The layer of bureaucracy that the Voice would create could effectively stymie the creation of any project - including not only a new energy metal mine but also a wind farm or solar farm - and is the creation of a self-destruct mechanism in the proposal of any project. It's pretty basic why this is a very bad idea and doesn't even achieve the outcome it purportedly sets out to achieve.
And yet labor and the abc refuse to listen
he is on the show and somehow that means he isn't being listened too? even when they broadcast it around the country to get shmucks like you to not feel bad for voting no because he is aboriginal? are you braindead or is everything in politics and news just surface level to you.
the ABC could get a bunch of people from the yes camp to say how wonderful it is but instead its gotten 2 people who are skeptical of it and put them on. is that not influencing what people see to sow doubt in the referendum? and yet you think the ABC is on Labor's side? stop watching sky news and do some real research or even just watch question time live. question time is a joke and you still get a better understanding of what it actually happening than the news.
8:48 Warren Mundine starts to make a very powerful point so, true to form, Ferguson cuts him off. That some think the ABC is not biased is incredible.
She Ferguson is anty Australian ..you hear and seen her points of view..VOTE NO !!
@@romanklis6407 Stop being a nutter. You sound like Q ANON.
I agree; AND bias appears 10 times worse on any issue that involves the word 'aboriginal'.
Warren was about to provide a great example of a successfull program that works and would make a great difference if it was expanded. Then Ferguson just rips in, interrupted and made out that it's not helpful. ABC guests need a voice of parliament to get help get there point across on this show.
@@kurtkozyrski9500Being manipulative is like breathing for Ferguson, an old neo-Marxist of the GayBC.
I will give the ABC points for having the comments open. It is unusual for the ABC to risk being fact checked or to subject itself to any scrutiny by the general public.
How much did tax payer s pay for this troll
Very true, it's about time the abc listened to the people of Australia
@@infidel202 Touche
Agreed, but sad that we have to congratulate them for such a low bar. 😞
Say NO to the ABC!
Thank you Warren. How you kept your cool and argued so rationally and clearly is a credit to you - and hope for the rest of us.
It would have been nice for the host to allow Mundine to answer the questions he was asked, instead of being interrupted!
Welcome to the shit show that is the ABC, brought to you by budget cuts and journalism being a joke
Perhaps the GayBC could do a little truth-telling?. Besides the Voice, there the "truth telling" and "treaty" in the Uluru Statement? The Canberra Voice architect Tom Calma said, “Let’s get the referendum out of the way then focus on agreement making.” Tell us about the Uluru Dialogues which informed the Uluru Statement, which were recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) and how they mention “financial settlement such as seeking a percentage of GDP" and "truth commission, reparations, a settlement, the resolution of land, water and resources issues" and "Australia got a whole country for nothing, they haven’t even begun to pay for it”. Im voting NO
Good on you Warren.
First person Ive heard on ABC that makes sense on the voice. Just say NO.
It doesn't matter about what the information says, it is racist simple. They have the same rights as ALL AUSTRALIANS. Working for a living is a great way to earn money. Thank you Warren Mundine.
The "racism" in play here already exists in such concepts as _Native Title_ and _traditional owners._
So: racist? Maybe. Simple? Definitely not.
@@retyroni MAte it's racist and I'll tell you why I, and millions of other Australians are voting NO. The Uluru Statement proclaims 3 components. First is the Voice. The others are "agreement-making [Treaty] and "truth-telling"[re-telling history]. Labor is committed to implementing the full Uluru Statement. Attorney General Mark Dreyfus said the Voice was a “first step” towards those things, and Tom Calma said, “Let’s get the referendum out of the way then focus on agreement making.”
Recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) are the Uluru Dialogues which informed the Referendum Council’s Final Report and The Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Final Report says: “Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a settlement, the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law”. Alarming enough, but the FOI documents show what’s also been left out: “a financial settlement such as seeking a percentage of GDP", "Australia got a whole country for nothing, they haven’t even begun to pay for it”, and a desire to abolish our flag because “the Australian flag symbolised the injustices of colonisation”. We simply have to vote No.
Sarah Ferguson struggles here and the ABC's bias is clear when she interrupts the strong points from Mundine.
Warren Mundine struggles here and his wealthy owner class bias is clear when he avoids answering any question from Ferguson.
@@jonathananderson349 What was a question he struggled to answer? Time stamp will be helpful.
@@jonathananderson349 FAX
@@crankin77 when does he answer why he thinks the voice is a threat to the community. he answers why its a threat to his mining operation? 2 minuets in just for your timestamp
he says its a threat the the community and then says how his mining operation works, he didn't answer the question he sidestepped it but bro dw thats hard to see when you want so bad to agree with him
@@jamesbuijs6742 Thanks for the reply. After review the question was: "... how it could it act as a threat to ORGANISATIONS & communities." So he actually speaks to his mining company aka an organisation. Secondly, he does answer the community threat and I quote: "instead of actually going to the communities, they can go to the voice." So please point out the sidestep here or find another avoidance 'bro'.
She keeps cutting him off and talking over him.
This woman seems more interested in pushing her opinion rather than letting her interviewee give his insights.
Well done warren
I applaud Mundine for appearing on this show he knew that he wouldn't get a fair hearing and he didn't, she interrupted his replies at every opportunity
They are supposed to do that. They do it to every politician or EX polly. So this is not new if you were a constant viewer.
and please be also aware that this is not some sort of open forum or discussion scenario. The program has very tight time schedule so the host has to make sure the conversion doesn't drag on while still getting all the questions asked.
She spent as much time talking as he did. The point of an interview is to hear what the interviewee has to say not the interviewer.
@@guyh9992For comparison just watched her interviewing Pearson completely different, he rambled on with no interruptions
Typical ABC. Why I mostly do not watch anymore. Especially the Drum and Q&A - so biased now I just get infuriated.
Pity Mr Mundine wasn't allowed to answer the questions in the way say Pearson, Langton, bowen or albanese would have been, but it is the abc
The Voice is a threat to 97% of the Australian population and to how Government in this country works. We will effectively have three pillars, which will slow down the business of Government, including legislative changes, to a snail's pace because the Voice will insist on having a say and an input into ALL government business. The Voice representatives will be backed up by administrative support staff and advisors that will blow out to huge proportions over time because they need to be across on ALL legislation. The Voice bureaucracy will become huge and very costly. They will start to horse trade to allow some legislation through without interference and cries of discrimination in exchange for huge concessions that will greatly advantage people who claim to be Indigenous, including those that haven't experienced a day of disadvantage in their entire life. If the 11 point plan of action by the NIAA that was allegedly left behind in a Woden restaurant and then passed on to Pauline Hanson is to be believed as genuine, that will give an insight into what Australia has in store if the Voice is voted in as it is expected to be. There needs to be vigorous debate in the lead up to the referendum to expose all the possible pitfalls for people to take into consideration before voting. So far we've practically only seen and heard people urging people to vote "YES". Albo effectively telling people to trust him that everything will be fine is quite simply not good enough. This goes way beyond recognition of our First Nation people in the Constitution. I'm not inclined to sign a blank cheque, so why would I do the equivalent on something as important as Constitutional change that will be with us forever? All Australians are equal, but the Voice will ensure that won't be the case and I have no doubt it will divide the country.
"huge concessions that will greatly advantage people who claim to be Indigenous, including those that haven't experienced a day of disadvantage in their entire life" Correct.
Mundine is spot on
Finally a real aboriginal allowed some screen time , not those whose great great great great step grandfather was one.
you must not watch the ABC much. sure they had a white dude on qanda but they always have brown aboriginals one 7:30 because of this exact reason. cant be aboriginal if your not brown or black
The man who stood next to the PM when he announced the referendum wording - his name is Thomas Mayo - has been busy filling in the blanks.
Mayo is a union official and self-described “militant”.
He wrote the book on the proposed constitutional change.
He sits on Albo’s Referendum Working Group, which drafted the referendum question, his signature was on the Uluru Statement and he has spent a year and a half travelling the country trying to talk Australians into changing their Constitution to include the divisive Voice.
What does he say about the Voice?
Thomas Mayo says the Voice is a campaign tool to “punish politicians”, “abolish colonialist institutions” and “pay the rent, pay reparations and compensation”.
Rather than what the PM described as an “inspiring and unifying Australian moment”, Mayo told a conference of communists that “there is nothing that we can do that is more powerful than building a first nations’ Voice, a black institution, a black political force to be reckoned with”.
At a 2021 Invasion Day protest where he described “the powers that be” as “murderers”, he said he was “sick of governments not listening to our voice” so planned “to use the rulebook of the nation to force them”.
Mayo revealed the divisive aims behind the Voice at Invasion Day and Black Lives Matter protests as well as in numerous addresses revealing the Voice’s radical origins to the Search Foundation, which describes itself as the “successor organisation of the Communist Party of Australia”.
Remember when Albo said the Voice was “a modest request”?
Remember when he said that what “shines so brightly at the very core of its gracious request is the desire to bring us all closer together as a people reconciled”?
Empty words.
Now you know the truth.
You’ve heard it from the mouth of the man who wrote the book on the Voice to Parliament.
It is not a “modest request”. It is not “gracious”.
It’s about power and money and influence.
It's about dividing Australians.
Thomas Mayo, the Yes campaign’s most prominent advocate, said as much himself.
What an articulate man.
WOW, an ABC video with comments.....
The state and territory governments aren't failing to get these kids to school, thier parents are. Until we are willing to face the true causes of disadvantage, we won't be able to rectify them. Individual choices, Individual responsibility.
Vote no then
Does your individual history have stability and generational assets?
I wouldn't trust governments nor grant them authority to fix family issues
@ypotis68 how would you explain the gap between those who are 'disadvantaged ' and the many indigenous Australians I work with who grew up in the same circumstances but chose a different path to ensure the success and prosperity of themselves and their children. I have spent decades living and working in remote WA and NT and the obvious truth is the choices of individuals determine the outcomes.
The government's have just been exacerbating the detrimental behaviours by promoting a lack of accountability and sufficient consequences.
@wordzmyth unfortunately not. I'd love to have started out with some of that privilege I've heard so much about. I just had to succeed the good old fashion way. Good life choices and delayed gratification.
10 minutes was just not long enough for Mr Mundine to get his points across. Ms Ferguson wanted quick answers to questions that are actually more complex than just yes-no answers.
Thank you Warren!
Thanks Warren.👍
Any unbiased Australian looking at the: The Voice will see that it’s obviously rushing towards extreme overreach.
And that’s before you begin to look at its undermining of Australian democracy.
The country doesn't need ‘The Voice’, and about the only ‘achievement’ ‘The Voice’ will without question bring about is further division.
The voice doesn't exist to do anything but stroke the egos of a select few at the expense of everyone else.
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 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?
Zulu's were a nation. Aborigine's were not a nation.
He is spot on! In real life this will be a dogs breakfast
"Can't build a toilet on a mining site without negotiating with traditional owners... then off to the Minister to have it ratified". Already a god-awful mess. Let's make it ten times worse with the Voice bureaucracy! What a shemozzle.
Good on ya Warren... We need more like him in leadership... A logical and wise man.
'A logical and wise man" and a mining exec with noooooooooo ulterior motives such as huge financial implications which he admits in the first few minuets. . . . . . rewatch what he says at the 2:40 point. he argues for a no vote because the community would have an ability to stop his mining company if there was a voice, whereas now they don't have that ability now. . . . . .
Well spoken Warren Mundine. You’re representing the “No” case eloquently and accurately. There’s two sides to this debate and multifaceted arguments on both sides. While I will vote no, I recognise that the “Yes” case are trying to help Indigenous Australians, the issue is that changing the status quo through a Constitutional is not the way. Legislate it 100%, but don’t enshrine it seeing as we don’t even know if it will work.
if you listen to him, hes reason for being on the "no" side is he is worried about how it will effect his mining business. what a scum bag. he doesn't even care about his own people.
You just hear what you want to hear. Any vaguely objective assessment would find that he failed miserably and hardly made sense. Its all about him knowing more blackfellas than anyone else and I can tell you there is no black man more detested by them than him. He is totally rejected by them and all he is doing is saying stuff specifically to indulge racists such as yourself. Its a pretty good tactic in this day and age when right wingers will subscribe to any hateful misinformation you throw them but its about as well spoken as my dog.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. As I see it, the proposed constitutional amendment provides Parliament with a high level of flexibility in how The Voice is set up. Clause 3 says that "The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures". So the amendment says that Parliament has to set up an indigenous advisory group called The Voice (clauses 1 + 2) but it allows parliament to decide how The Voice will be chosen and how it will operate (clause 3). In fact, if the liberal and national parties win control of the house and senate in the next election, they could pass legislation to establish their proposed “local and regional” Indigenous Voice to Parliament.
That's why I've never understood the criticism that the government hasn't released enough detailed information how the voice will work. That detail is not in the constitution because the proposed amendment allows Parliament to decide those details. This allows The Voice to be improved over time.
@@danielpage5597 the point of that criticism is that we don’t even know the model Albanese wants to implement. He could very well implement a model with lots of power (although this would not be in the Constitution).
I think the main issue I have is that with the Constitutional wording, the gov did ask the working committee to change the words. They asked to get rid of the executive government clause, which is what the opposition and opponents are against. The working committee refused. This was after the SG gave them private advice. Pretty much all lawyers admit that there’s a risk. This includes Constitutional lawyers and High Court judges, even those who are Yes voters or do want to see a Constitutional voice but don’t agree with this model as a result of the risk.
If they simply changed Executive Government to head of government or something that states what they actually mean rather than this broader statement, they would take away one of the pillars of the No argument. Even as of last week, with lobbying by Julian Leeser, the guy who alongside others came up with the voice concept, to remove the executive gov portion, Albanese opposed this change.
We’ve had a history of activist high court judges; it is my opinion that, from what I’ve read in terms of the wording itself and possible implications, that the risk for interpretations is too high. It could result in damaging effects and even the possibility is a major red flag.
All those gaps and issues are not solely our fault. I’m not guilty of my fathers sins. When will this culture face up to the facts and accept responsibility?
How much do we keep giving?
Thanks Warren. I admire your temperance and wisdom.
A big ‘No’ from me.
@bismarckmark6566 obviously according to you I’ve missed something, so what do you mean? Please clarify. Thanks.
@bismarckmark6566 I'll tell you why I, and millions of other Australians are voting NO. The Uluru Statement proclaims 3 components. First is the Voice. The others are "agreement-making [Treaty] and "truth-telling"[re-telling history]. Labor is committed to implementing the full Uluru Statement. Attorney General Mark Dreyfus said the Voice was a “first step” towards those things, and Tom Calma said, “Let’s get the referendum out of the way then focus on agreement making.”
Recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) are the Uluru Dialogues which informed the Referendum Council’s Final Report and The Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Final Report says: “Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a settlement, the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law”. Alarming enough, but the FOI documents show what’s also been left out: “a financial settlement such as seeking a percentage of GDP", "Australia got a whole country for nothing, they haven’t even begun to pay for it”, and a desire to abolish our flag because “the Australian flag symbolised the injustices of colonisation”. We simply have to vot No folks.
Typical ABC/Ferguson treatment. Here we have a successful respected aboriginal leaders who 'knows' intimately the grass roots, to the tree tops of aboriginal affairs currently. He runs circles round the ABC / presenter and the Voice showing it for what it actually is i.e. unknown unknown rubbish. Love your work Warren!
I will give the ABC points for at least having a guest on the program from the "No" side as opposed to their usual air time being filled with "Yes" feel good platitudes and propaganda; however Sarah Furgerson conducts the interview in attack mode - hostile and inquisitorial.
ABC - "fair and balanced"? Ha! Ha! Ha!
On one hand, I understand what you're saying, she was challenging his views for the entire segment. But also, how could any news station claim to be "fair and balanced" if when they invited a guest they just agreed with everything the guest said? To be fair and balanced, the two people involved in a debate must represent different sides. And whatever side a guest represents, their views must be challenged to see how they hold up against criticism. This is the fundamental nature of a debate. And I think if anything, her questioning his views only displayed that they are well thought-out and able to hold their own in the face of criticism.
@@CynicallyDepressedx Guests representing the YES vote on the ABC however aren't challenged like this, so that is the lack of balance that people often refer to where it concerns the ABC. The potential pitfalls of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament are simply not exposed, which is why we need to have some vigorous national debates for everyone to see that will expose both the positives and the dangers of the Voice.
Ferguson total bias...shame on you lady !!!
@@gustaaf1892 I agree. In order to be fair and balanced, a guest representing either side must be challenged similarly.
Is Sarah stupid? No. Is she listening? Yes. So why does she not accept Warren's answers to her repeated questioning? Because she doesn't like what he is saying. Sadly that amounts to the expression of her own prejudices. Very disappointing.
The last thing we need is more government beurocrats, as he said before being interrupted by a government beurocrat, we need people in the community's representing the people and not more people in Canberra, vote NO for the voice,
Bureaucrat. Look it up. A journalist isn't a bureaucrat and neither is a bloke digging ditches for the council even though you probably hate him too.
Why is it the comments that are all against it always have a misspelt word in them? 😂
If you are fed up with people in Canberra representing communities instead of members of those communities representing themselves why would you oppose a change which gives elders of first nations communities a chance to represent themselves? That's literally the exact thing that you want.
Warren is right only someone from a tribe can onky speak for their tribe they can't advise any other tribes
Very well said Warren. The point with regards to the bureaucracy that will be brought by the voice is a really excellent point. No longer will the actual group from that area be consulted it will go off to a body, therefore it’s a threat to that group of indigenous landowners that their voice won’t be heard or making the decisions. Then he highlights an example where legislation of programs have been greatly successful. Yet she pushes all of that aside… awesome stuff Warren.
The amount of cost and money waste that the voice will create and if it succeeds the delay on decisions making will cost Australia too much. Bridging the wealth ,health and education gaps has to be done by people them selves because there are non indigenous disadvantaged people as well and most people that create wealth for themselves have done it themselves and not had it given to them by government
Actually colonial governments just gave their mates vast tracts of land. That is how people became wealthy. You are in a fantasy land. The socio economic status of people has nothing to do with what you are saying and no serious person would agree with you. Rich people in this country are mostly unproductive talentless bludgers. They haven't "done it themselves" at all.
Rubbish. LOL. Government ALWAYS gives business perks and money all the time. Especially the Coalition who are blatant about it. What planet do you live on? Certainly isn't Earth. The bigger the business and power they have, the more "benefits" they get that no one else does. Fool.
I don't think Lydia Thorpe would get a grilling on the ABC. Well done Waren Mundine you make a lot of sense.
Lydia Thorpe is also against the voice so I don't know if that's true
Sarah how do you sleep at night? The interview wasn’t going well for you so you would just cut Warren off constantly,gutter journalism at it finest
Well explained... Mundine raises a very valid point. And possible issues, with the Voice ... Sarah interrupts a bit to cut off his common sense responses... more information pros and cons required.
The gap we are trying to close is the gap between the Stoneage and the Electronic Age. Nobody is capable of closing that gap.
Absolutely, it wasn’t Colonialism that led to the problem it was the meeting of the old world and the new.
Barely use the ABC now other for evening news/weather. Sadly it's lost its way & now no more than a fringe activist mouthpiece for the left running on the taxpayers dollar. Trioli, Karvelas, Tingle, Kelly, Probin & even poor old Heather Ewart are clearly are part of mission lefty. No balance anywhere there. Well past time that the ABC was cut loose to the market.
Sarah Ferguson, I’m wasting my time listening to what Warren Mundine has to say because you’re not interested in letting him finish a thought.
I am more convinced to vote “No” after watching this interview.
Oh don’t pretend, you were never going to vote yes. People like you are so transparent
Even if there was I would still vote NO!! Because we are all Aussies!!
Mr. Mundine voiced so clearly my misgivings about this pet Voice project of Albanese's. "That dog don't hunt" as the Americans say.
Ferguson is white, wealthy and an elitist.
She has no right to question and dispute anything an Indigenous man has to say about Indigenous matters.
All respect to Warren Mundine and his fight against Albanese's Voice.
Get out of here with your identity politics
Wow how racist of you! So you’re going to restrict her speech based on race?
Warren would reject your defence of him by employing neo-Marxist Critical Race Theory. Being white does not preclude a person from being expert on Aboriginal mattters- and Prof Anthony Dillon who is Aboriginal says so!
I am stunned the abc actually had a debate with someone against the voice…the audacity to ask for a life long contract…how about some audits so we can learn where the tax payers money is being well spent (and celebrated) and not so well spent …
Why doesn’t Ferguson let him answer her questions☹️
All living Aboriginal Australians descend from a single founding population that arrived here about 50,000 years ago, the study shows. They swept around the continent, along the coasts, in a matter of centuries. And yet, for tens of thousands of years after, those populations remained isolated, rarely mixing. So that makes me indigenous to this land, no vote from me. NO
So even First Nations people are not in agreement on it so what should it be forced on them and everyone else?
Not all white people are in agreement either, so get out of the country.
More than 80% of first nations people are in agreement.
Because you heard one guy say that, a mining business guy 🤨 Whose he asking, the 1000 natives he has on his ranch "yes boss". Hes talking nonsense and making stuff up.
@@sdpearshaped831 sure mate 🤠
@@paulfri1569 its in the mid 70% margin last time I checked, I don't know a single indigenous person who doesn't support it. They surely exist, but they are a small minority of useful idiots, or just straight up idiots.
The Yes vote is obvious if you aren't really stupid, or just straight up an ethically degenerate POS.
Has he got Google? All The Voice will do is organise the mess that exists now.
😂Presume its pure faultless ideal much? Because no government body has ever been corrupt, since the beginning of time.
Well done Warren and ABC, I learnt a lot from that.
Why does he not do a survey and put his result for all to see.
You want Mundine to do a survey??? The man has more on his plate work wise than you'd probably have in 100 of your lives. He's out in the bush of WA, NT and Queensland 3 days of every week, meeting with aboriginal people, on top of running companies. Also he doesn't need to do a survey, he's talking with these people daily, he knows what they think and what they know and don't know. He doesn't need to do a survey and he knows whats good for his people and other aboriginals and he, along with other respected aboriginal people say no to this Voice and thats good enough for me. Especially when you look at the quality of the yes voters, nothing but hateful people along with grifters and race hustlers, there's no comparison
The person that should of done a survey (via survey monkey) and not blow 400 mil on a referendum is the PM.
Well done Warren
It would've been better if the rude interviewer actually let Warren speak.
Why doesn't the goverment hold a semi referendum only for indeginous Australians to see what they think before asking the whole Australia to make a decision for them?
Well said Mr Mundine. The Voice would turn into a den of cronyism in Canberra that would benefit a few and further disadvantage many in rural areas. And correctly highlighted the failings of State and Territory governments.
Of course someone who runs a mining company doesn't like the idea of people being properly organized. They are much easier to push around when they are not.
He makes a great point if you don't kiss the lefty voice ring you get punished..
How is this fair or even democratic??
Runs a mining company that employs a 1,000 Indigenous. Sounds pretty beneficial to me.
First nations people do very well these days from mining royalties off their land. The issue isn't money - it's how they spend it but calling that out is racist of course.
Are you going to let him finish a sentence, Ms Ferguson? It's not racist to ask what the Voice will be able to achieve..... and exactly how it will achieve it.....if, as we are told, its role is merely advisory, with no power of veto. It doesn't add up.
I continue to be very,very annoyed by the Australian media( and polies) constantly referring to our indigneous aborigines as "FIRST NATION'people.
WHY?
Because the use of the word "Nation" infers "the state or fact of being united or combined into one, as of the parts of a whole; unification. absence of diversity; unvaried or uniform character. oneness of mind, feeling, etc., as among a number of persons; concord, harmony, or agreement."
Our aborigines,during their 40,000 years in this continent were comprised of something like 900+ tribes....and the tribes were mostly in conflict over territorial disputes/claims. ( Not much has changed, huh?)
How in bloody hell does anyone call that NATION peoples???
I have no problem whatsoever with referring to our blackfellas ( NOT racist before you start...they call us "whitefellas) as indigenous population ( which is only 3.8% of our current population) or as orginal inhabitants of New Holland/Australis...but no bloody way as First Nation's people. ....that is just a political term for ulterior reasons.
We still have freedom of speech....so I have just put in my 2 bob's worth.....but Labor Party will soon curtail that even more....mark my words.
I have been an Aussie for 75+ years now, and I certainly don't like the way Australia is heading.
Very sad for Australia..
It's not First Nation's [possessive] people, it's First Nations [plural] people, a term borrowed from indigenous americans I believe. So you are right there was/is no single 'nation' among the different indigenous tribes, but that's also what people who say First Nations are saying.
First Nation is the name used to describe the first people in Canada - it has been adopted here for political purposes
Should be Second Nation if anything - first inhabitants were Timorese.
The great thing about Warren's IPA so-called Better Alternative is the fact that he has never had to spell it out in any real detail. We all know what he's against but what he supports is still quite murky. It's all too typical of the "NO" Campaign overall. Sow doubt, spin lies and leave the "YES" case to prove it's worth.
some of these interviewers are just plain rude
We should be worried that this change would give Aboriginals power that could easily be misused. Mundine mentioned “mining companies” and this is where the real danger is , multinational mining companies will be working closely with Aboriginal “ corporations “ and the rest of us AUSTRALIANS will be left out .
Actually I think Mundine's point was that the Voice could _limit_ the power traditional owners already have with respect to mining leases. He's the one worried a national power will be 'misused' from the perspective of the local owners.
Your concern about excluding the rest of Australia is already realised in such things as non taxable Native Title Benefits.
lol, this is what you’re worried about? Aboriginal people getting rich off mining?
Warren seems to be a boots on the ground type of guy.
Host = I have an agenda your logic and facts mean nothing to me.
Mundine didn’t make a coherent argument at all.
Please reference once piece of incoherence. Thanks.
He was completely coherent, and I'll tell you why I, and millions of other Australians are voting NO. The Uluru Statement proclaims 3 components. First is the Voice. The others are "agreement-making [Treaty] and "truth-telling"[re-telling history]. Labor is committed to implementing the full Uluru Statement. Attorney General Mark Dreyfus said the Voice was a “first step” towards those things, and Tom Calma said, “Let’s get the referendum out of the way then focus on agreement making.”
Recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) are the Uluru Dialogues which informed the Referendum Council’s Final Report and The Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Final Report says: “Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a settlement, the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law”. Alarming enough, but the FOI documents show what’s also been left out: “a financial settlement such as seeking a percentage of GDP", "Australia got a whole country for nothing, they haven’t even begun to pay for it”, and a desire to abolish our flag because “the Australian flag symbolised the injustices of colonisation”. We simply have to vote No.
@@DD-bx8rb well found and amazing what you learn when not relying on MSM to educate on important matters like the constitution. Sadly the majorly are ‘breaking news’ headline and A Current Affair consumers.
Automaticly he states the voice will interfere? Is that an unbiased viewpoint? I am not a lawyer but the word may, does not mean they wont? Huh warren is complaining the voice has the ability to have a voice .... FFS is anyone actually listening to this guy.... Hes just an Aboriginal right winger rich dude, in my opinion.
NO!
The constitution doesent need to be tampered with, to better the lives of those indigenous that want to better themselves.
Have you even read the statement?
@@embracedmadness Which statement?.
I have worked in Government and there have been numerous programmes that were designed to help Indigenous Australians to close the gap with the average Australian. The majority of those programmes fail because the Indigenous community doesn't take up the opportunities these programmes provide. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink. That won't change after the Voice, but the Government will throw increasing amounts of money at the Indigenous population without success. The people who are likely to benefit the most are opportunists who identify as being Indigenous, but who have never experienced a day of disadvantage in their entire life. I once read that the average expenditure per Indigenous person in Australia (all from cradle to grave as per census data) across all levels of Government was almost $80k per year, which is a multiple of what is spent on non Indigenous people.
@@gustaaf1892 Agreed. I lived in the Northern territorry for 5 years, and what youve described is similar to what I saw.
Warren Mundine 1, ABC & Ferguson 0
NO DETAILS
NO VOTE
I reckon he knows what he is talking about!.
The voice is so racist and divides our country by race and colour of your skin, we must unite as one all equal inclusive of everyone, we are a multicultural land and we must accept everyone for who they are, not who they were born too
So you weren't born in Australia, is that what you are saying?
@@redsword1659 Yes I was born here along with my parents and grandparents and I am against this racist voice and stand with first nations against white supremacist governments condemning them just because they don't agree with it
It really doesn't.
Stop saying "we". Who are you talking about, you and your Mum?? You don't speak for me or anyone I know.
@@sdpearshaped831 So then, can you tell me when will they benefit and in what ways. No one has been able to tell me yet..
Warren Mundines facta on created employment numbers are not given the light of day. I have pointed out that you can't mandate that people must comply when you say you cant guarantee water to remote communities and they should move closer to towns. Aboriginals thatr choose to live on country following traditional ways cannot be used to exemplify program failure. This whole subject is beaten up ideologically and the ABC is a classic example. They refuse to promote knowledge of the successes despite the fact that this would promote the successful solutions.
She's got a voice it likes asking questions,but her ears don't have the time or curtisy, to listen to the answers,
Thank you for your information!
Such a gentleman
Mundine word salad. This man's personal grievances have overtaken him.
Awful gibberish interspersed with "I know better than anyone else". Complete failure.
there sides got nothing, best they can do is this, funnel bs all over the place as they know an unsure vote is a no vote. Thisd be there game plan, interviewer should know that and thats what she should have started with.
@@NathanCroucher Please reference one piece of bs that was funnelled. Thanks.
@@crankin77 it wouldnt make a difference to you anyway. And its not just ONE thing, its his comments as a whole. And as a whole his no vote reasoning is bs.
And whats the deal with his eyes darting around everywhere, is the grifter worried about being exposed???
@@NathanCroucher Why wouldn’t it makes a difference? You called it a bs funnel and I asked to clarify. Deflection isn’t an answer.
Mundine may be a well known first nation advocate, but he cannot be seen as the leader of all Aboriginal Australians. The "Voice" is now a kicking ball for everyone.
I'll tell you why I, and millions of other Australians are voting NO. The Uluru Statement proclaims 3 components. First is the Voice. The others are "agreement-making [Treaty] and "truth-telling"[re-telling history]. Labor is committed to implementing the full Uluru Statement. Attorney General Mark Dreyfus said the Voice was a “first step” towards those things, and Tom Calma said, “Let’s get the referendum out of the way then focus on agreement making.”
Recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) are the Uluru Dialogues which informed the Referendum Council’s Final Report and The Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Final Report says: “Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a settlement, the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law”. Alarming enough, but the FOI documents show what’s also been left out: “a financial settlement such as seeking a percentage of GDP", "Australia got a whole country for nothing, they haven’t even begun to pay for it”, and a desire to abolish our flag because “the Australian flag symbolised the injustices of colonisation”. We simply have to vote No.
Conflation, rhetoric and absolute rubbish of untruths.
@@The_Real_Mclovin grow up. You lost that little scrap
@@The_Real_Mclovin you didn't bother to refute claims of conflation and rhetoric because you don't know what refutation, claims, conflation and rhetoric are. You strengthen the idea that untruth, conflation and rhetoric is indeed involved. Well done.
@@redsword1659 After months of telling everybody and anybody that if they questioned the voice they're or the politicians behind it, in any way, that they are racist.
Nothing, from the lack of information, to the planned setup of the voice, its powers, or its valid constitutional concerns mattered, it was simply racist.
A few weeks in, the PM actually had the gall to say that any aboriginal that didn't agree with it, at all, is an extreme radical.
Absolutely /nobody/ even has a chance of beating the Yes campaign when it comes to confrontation, rhetoric or untruths, it's just not happening.
They'd need to go to such extreme lengths that nobody would take them seriously, and there's just not enough money involved in the matter to recruit them if anybody wanted to - there's not even an unbiased funding scheme for the two sides, by design of the PM.
But bringing any of that up usually only draws one of two words from the blind followers of dogma: 'racist' or 'bigot', and the only ones likely to suffer will be the regional aboriginals.
Which is just true to form, her standard 'journalistic' practice. Have a look at the complete garbage and mistruths Ferguson produced with her Trump/Russia series, all of which has now been totally de-bunked and found to be a set-up of the Clinton campaign.
@@redsword1659 I see no evidence of you bothering to contribute anything other than ad hominin vitriol. Mac said nothing different than Banks did, so we must then also apply your superciliousness and self agrandisement to his initial comment as well. Well done.
Stop segregating the people.
No body can take this man Seriously, he has run for the LIbs and ALP
Let me guess white supremacist you are and expect first nations to obey you
When was Mundine a fraud? Before, now or both? It has to be one of these. That would be my question to him but frauds don't answer questions.
@@barryford1482 so you are supporting a Yes vote then.
@@barryford1482 If you had half a brain, you could READ about it Bazza.
@@barryford1482 so you are in some sort of troll farm in Russia or Vietnam or somewhere obviously. Tighten up your language or you'll get the sack (it means you will be dismissed and loose your job)
If you don’t have any reliable healthcare (remote communities) your health outcomes will be worse, it doesn’t take a genius to work that one out, similar with education and schooling
How bout a Bill Of Rights for ALL Australians!
Why does ABC run ads on their your tube channel?
It’s struggling as proponents respond to requests for definition with (a) their personal heritage, (b) history, (c) voice is “a voice” 🙄
Firty fousand hey Wazza?
Pathetic comment Archie
She was gagging from finishing his response because she would look bad
Warren was answering all questions honestly and succinctly, but Sarah had her own agenda, clearly pro Voice, and kept asking Warren for clarification when his responses were honest, logical and clear.
Very sad journalism and shows how pro Voice the ABC appear to be.
I really don't understand why they refuse to look at the big picture and simply work in a closeted environment.
Very strange and worrying.
80% of Australians or 80% of aboriginals?
Surely if this is what aboriginals want they have all spoken saying they want it.
Yep, this is just opposed by useful idiots and race traitor shills.
This country does not belong to the Aboriginals. It is everyones. I'll tell you why I, and millions of other Australians are voting NO. The Uluru Statement proclaims 3 components. First is the Voice. The others are "agreement-making [Treaty] and "truth-telling"[re-telling history]. Labor is committed to implementing the full Uluru Statement. Attorney General Mark Dreyfus said the Voice was a “first step” towards those things, and Tom Calma said, “Let’s get the referendum out of the way then focus on agreement making.”
Recently obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) are the Uluru Dialogues which informed the Referendum Council’s Final Report and The Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Final Report says: “Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a settlement, the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law”. Alarming enough, but the FOI documents show what’s also been left out: “a financial settlement such as seeking a percentage of GDP", "Australia got a whole country for nothing, they haven’t even begun to pay for it”, and a desire to abolish our flag because “the Australian flag symbolised the injustices of colonisation”. We simply have to vote No.
This gentlemen was on point, for what was obviously a blatant attack on him, which could not be substantiated by the interviewer.
Advice can be followed or it can not its not mandatory
And, if that advise is not followed, it will allow those voices to pursue it in the High Court. Something Marcia Langton is keen to tell us about.
This man has changed his position on this issue as often as he changes clothes from day to day. Hell, he was part of the original Uluru dialogues that called for a Voice. He then personally advocated for it in his attempt to win a seat under Scott Morrison's Liberal government and failed. He then has changed his position twice since then and he changes how he argues the point from several different hypothetical positions each time he speaks and depending on who he speaks to. Frankly, I'm astounded anyone takes this man seriously at all. If it weren't for the Voice campaign he wouldn't even be a name people recognise, and simply fade into a history as a footnote on an AEC spreadsheet in 2019. People who change their opinions this often only do so for one reason - money. Coincidentally, Warren changed his opinion on the Voice around the same time he started taking money from CPAC, an organisation that is funded and lobbies on behalf of some of the richest people in the world. He is a charlatan of the highest order.
First time ive heard him speak at length, i thought he'd be brighter. See the eyes darting around all over the place.
@@NathanCroucher He should have taken more lessons from Scott Morrison, he just looked straight at the camera and lied.
@SD Pearshaped: Correct, Mundine is a millionaire, his company rips off traditional owners through his consultancy companies businesses by managing traditional owners mining agreements where millions of dollars are ripped off. I’m an aboriginal elder and i know he’s been going this for decades and now the voice will more or less give traditional owners the opportunities to manage their own affairs. He doesn’t want lawyers representing them, because they’re too honest, no under the table deals. Mundine opposition to the Voice is to merely protect his families lifestyles, his mansion in Sydney and flash cars, they live like Kings and Queens the best of everything and a Yes vote will destroy him and his gravy train, by ripping off the vulnerable, this is why my people on country have nothing, this is why there’s overcrowding in houses, as this mans businesses, especially where’s there’s the Right to Negotiate with mining companies financial negotiations which are meant to support traditional owners communities very rarely see any of the financial benefits because Mundine consultancy businesses diverted to only benefit his company’s and immediate families personal interests. Ever seen his families houses and cars in Sydney? They live like the Kardashians.
@@eliwosalie9965 Nice one, makes plenty of sense, i was wondering what his deal was.
Its not Mundine that has changed opinion. Its the Voice and it's implementation and powers that are opaque and changing regularly.
Honestly, will she let him speak and make his point without hitting him with another question. I found her quite rude and disrespectful.
Legend
Didn’t Rio Tinto blow up sacred caves? Didn’t see them consulting with the First Nations people.