Far Enough - Vote Yes
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Far Enough?
Remember when you wanted to find the best coffee within walking distance of where you’re at and you googled it? You can apply the same tactic to so many other aspects in life! For example; referendums that over 80% of Indigenous people are in favour of. What a time to be alive.
Production Companies - Blue-Tongue Films & Collider
Director - Nash Edgerton
Writers - Jenna Owen, Vic Zerbst
Producers - Michael Cody & Nash Edgerton
Cast - Adam Briggs, Jenna Owen, Vic Zerbst
Lefties the people have spoken.
It's not all Lefties. It's mainly Progressives. There are still working class 'rednecks' keeping the flame alive. You know ... the kinds of people Progressives sneer at for having the audacity to be unsophisticated and live in uncool places.
Aboriginals should honestly just be happy. It dont get what the big deal is.
When you use the term "lefties", I assume you are referring to people other than yourself. I must conclude that for you, "lefties" are people who know how to construct simple sentences that involve punctuation.
Yes you've spoken using the term leftist, indicating you weren't interested in our indigenous only some pathetic unrelated culture war. Gove yourself an uppercut champ, you're a disgrace.
Nah, most lefties are ignorant AF, if they weren't, they wouldn't be lefties. @@TheBlackDogChronicles
LOL I find it hilarious that the yes ads are basically “vote yes or you are a dummy”.
I have 5 friends who are in a joint lotto syndicate. 3 are yes voters and 3 are no. Of the No voters, 1 has swallowed the line that this is “the thin edge of the wedge” and will ultimately lead to… he’s not sure what, but something bad. The other 2 No voters are out and proud racists. So in answer to the above comment, in my group the No voters aren’t dummies, they are just scared, or racists.
@@richardbellmaines9460 And they are your friends?
Nah, this vid isn't calling no voters dumb, it is just encouraging people who are confused to do some basic research and get good info.
If the shoe fits...weird. same shoe size as the plebiscite no voters. Same style. Still lost that one, didnt ya sport.
@@Ademos5- The plebiscite was way more comprehensive of an idea. The information for the voice is so vague and basically relies only on the idea that if you care about aboriginal people the vote for this… even if it is a bad idea.
spoiler alert NO WINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thankyou for making the world a more depressing place!
It’s funny you have more like than the original comment 😂
@emmagrindrod3465 someone’s a little sad 🥺🥺🥺 the difference is the treaty you refer to from New Zealand came from a time the country was at war with Britain. They were capable of holding their own and demanding a treaty. A treaty now for Australia is stupid and unnecessary. If recognition is all they wanted they could have just made the vote about that. That’s why the vote went out like a sad wet fart
@Adrenalin4Life-ds8ub common sense prevails they reckon. I think this is one of those cases
@emmagrindrod3465 why Aboriginals have higher suicide rate? Some wrong with them?
Well it's all over now. The big banks and mining companies didn't win.
Yep. Not enough people pointing that out.
Hahahhaha Yaye!
👇Button to vote NO!
VOTE NO!!!!💯💯
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You got owned !
Pwnt
Where is Albo?
He just spent $360 million on this and it failed - due to lack of information. And now he scuttles off home and avoids the result.
He needs to go
@emmagrindrod3465
1. This was NEVER about indigenous peoples, it was about Albo and the ALP repaying a debt to the Activists who got them in power. The Voice would have been a non Aboriginal stacked undemocratic third house that pushed left wing and green agendas.
2. The Voice would have done NOTHING for the current problems. The last thing we need is another talk fest. We need ACTION. We need to stop the squandering of money of crap an focus on the issues you highlight.
@emmagrindrod3465
OK Emma, tell me where it says online the answers to these questions:
1. How many members will comprise the voice:
10 persons
100 persons
1000 persons
10,000 persons
2. How will they be chosen:
Direct election from all Australians
Direct election from Aboriginal members of Australia
Appointment by the existing government
Selected by the Land Councils
Selected by the states
3. How Aboriginal will the members be:
Aboriginal by DNA
Aboriginal by more than 50% DNA
Aboriginal by less than 50% DNA
Australians who identify as Aboriginal
Experts who are Australian
Any Australian
4. What will they provide:
Recommendations only
Guidance and Answers Only
Suggested legislation and proposals
5. What areas will they cover:
Aboriginal land council matters
Aboriginal Health issues
Australian land use issues
Australian environment issues
Australian legal issues
Australian external relations issues
6: Wil they include:
Refugee issues
Environment issues
Legal issues
Civil rights issues
Constitution issues
Heath issues
All issues
7. How long will members be in the Voice:
4 years
2 years
Until death
That’s the details we were looking for.
Now show me where they were, or STFU.
I don't want it , NO.
Kek, still lost. Imagine an interbred ancestors of the Indian race failing.
Litmus test:
When the party in power, the legacy media, large corporations and celebrities tell you to do something, what do you do?
use your brain?
@@vanessagoddess1Check first reply.
It looked like a junta in the making. I'm half waiting for the Prime Minister to return with the green light from Xi and Biden to take the next step by force.
He does, after all, seem to think (according to that radio interview in Melbourne) that a perfect world is him as Dictator banning social media and deciding what truth is.
Just wanted to drop in and say aye... Hows that all working out for ya?
@@Migswan Thank you for voting NO in Melbourne and keeping Australia equal for all Australians.
Oh it will go down that path.. but briggs and his mates wont be at the helm at least
@@Migswan
This advert was one of the reasons the NO vote got up. The YES vote was never going to pass on the pathetic and overworked "It's time" and "it's the right thing to do" position. Taking the moral high ground (as the left claim ownership of) to convert people's thinking still requires a thoughtfully clear and concise argument. Now that Australians have voted NO how about some accountability and transparency for the $110 million a day spent on 3% of the population.
Racist much? That 3% managed the land a million times better without all the mod cons....but hey...the white fella just gotta justify his position (just for clarity... I'm an embarrassed white fella. Dad British, mum, 3rd generation Aussie. I bet you that if your family had their land stolen, 3, 4, 5 generations later, good hold more of a grudge than these guys. So sad the new world is all about cognitive bias
@@CamTracey I don't know, at least those that 'stole' the land are giving you $40bn a year, something tells me if all non indigenous left tomorrow another country (China) would be here in seconds and would be far less considerate. If all you do is live in the past, you're never going to make progress
You have joined RUclips 10hrs ago with the moniker "Angry". 'Nuff said.
Um, I've never seen this ad before 😮
@@mnmmnm8321me neither. Briggs can call me dumb. This was a total blindside I am still catching up. Apparently there was advertising on tik tok Insta, I don’t use any of those. I found an explanation and only resource to be the ABC. Labor representative called my friend out of the blue when no one was aware of the referendum really. She asked basic questions about it and the guy called her an ‘anti vaxxer’ out of the blue and hung up. So she called back twice to get someone to listen to her and it was still nonsense once they treated her with decency after being very nasty and personally attacking her based on an assumption that to question Labor means you are an anti vaxxer?? My friend is not an anti vaxxer so……okkkkkk. Very poor detail and emotional blackmail. Don’t you care about indigenous people? Type comments instead of actually what they were proposing. Sorry Briggs but you got me. Where did the referendum dollars go? Why am I going through parliamentary documents to try and understand what it going on and having to watch the senate and question time to get any info? I don’t watch commercial tv. Hahahaha guess I should have just googled. Oh I did
Can someone explain why the guardian calls this viral and says it has 5 million views when it only has 178k?!
Every1 watched it 28x ;) So simple for those that CARE & want to progress rather than divide Australia on YES for Love or NO for destruction of Social values (just like J.Howard)
Videos shared on other platforms or accounts included. Also they make stats up
Reposted on IG and TT by celebs, so 5mn total, which probably isn't enough
The Guardian will rot your brain
@@arclux "Will" is not as bad as did, by Murdoch media (Fox, Sky, Daily toilet paper, etc ;)
well… what a condescending advertisement this was 😅… Briggs is probably at home having his week of silence now..
Congratulations to the Australian public for rejecting this political third rail.
You’re glad they can’t literally just give advice? That was scary for you?
@@youarethedancingqueeyour living under a rock like a commie rock spider 😂
@IgnoreNot-qg3ly It literally was just going to be a rotating roster of 24 First Nations representatives GIVING ADVICE to Parliament. They would NOT have ‘got a vote’, only elected Members of Parliament can propose, vote on, or pass laws. The Voice representatives would NOT be Members of Parliament & would have no power to make laws, or to veto laws. They would literally just go into a room & be listened to. That’s it. There wouldn’t have been any obligation on the Parliament to act on anything the Voice members said. They would literally have just had to listen. Equality isn’t the same as treating everyone the same. Equality is about leveling the playing field. It includes providing wheelchair ramps, closed loop sound systems in auditoriums for hearing aid wearers, having Medicare to provide medical care to people who wouldn’t be able to afford it otherwise, charging lower bus fares for pensioners, paying compensation to victims of crime, soup vans for people without food, letting people who’ve been silenced speak.
@@03041976001 It was literally exactly that. Didn’t you read it?
Are all the Aborigines who wanted the Voice also 'commies'?@@timmaslen4766
It might make you feel good to denigrate the other side but it is counterproductive if you want to win hearts and minds. Arrogance and condescension from the 'yes' campaign have done much to lose this referendum. Keep going and the 'No' campaign will have the last laugh.
This vid has probably given the NO side thousands of votes.
Who knows why they thought sneering would work. Maybe they don't get out much?
This video isn't about people who are opposed or the no campaign. It is about people who are unsure but haven't looked into it. It isn't about no voters.
@@LlywellynOBrien Doesn't matter. They're basically saying if you're not a firm Yes, you're some kind of idiot.
@@pm2886 No they aren't there aren't any no voters in the video and nothing is mentioned about them.
You're quite right. It's about denigrating undecided voters. That really worked well, didn't it?@@LlywellynOBrien
How are these "female bimbo" stereotypes appropriate in 2023? It's like an ad from the 90's
Funny that they actually wrote it, so, maybe they had control of the narrative. Just saying
Systemic misogyny maybe? Deeply ingrained. I doubt they would have scripted mansplaining in if they were aware of it.
@stevecharles683 Yeah I think (yes they wrote it, but) you’re right, it is (unintentionally I think) reinforcing an unhelpful stereotype. It would maybe be better as a series, with people of different ages/genders/ethnicities/takes on the issue in each one. Even better if the characters’ views worked against viewers’ stereotypical expectations of them.
@@youarethedancingquee if you can do better put your money where your mouth is..
Typical cringe propaganda. I'm so proud of Australia for voting NO! Best thing to come out of 2023
This video is brilliant for the No campaign. Writing off the concerns of millions of people based simply on them being "idiots" will likely kill any last chance for this referendum. The constitution was designed to be difficult to change to force those who want to change it to win the argument, not ridicule those who don’t agree. In 1967 over 90% of Australians voted for equality under the constitution. In 2023, it seems at this point, the majority will vote again for equality under the constitution. We’ll see on 14 Oct either way.
Yep. This little gem will do wonders for Team NO. The doubling down will be spectacular.
This add isn't aimed at people who have serious concerns about the Voice or are opposed to it. It is about people who aren't sure but haven't looked into it. They are different groups, and Briggs isn't saying anything about the former here.
Understand what you’re saying. Though this clip certainly implied that No voters are idiots. With this backdrop across the Yes campaign, the result of the election should not be a surprise. In time it may even be said that the majority of Australian’s are pretty wise to be very skeptical of proposed changes to the constitution.
Yes I and everyone I know have questions better than the mockery he made of the people questioning a referendum that came totally out of the blue. Having an unemotional, critical thought out and logical conversation based on facts is not what this video is but pretends to be, still doesn’t answer our questions. This is coming from left wing right wing, everyone. Do you want to answer the real questions we had? No it’s too late it was rushed through ……..hrmmm
When your local labor party office calls your friend out of the blue campaigning for the voice and she asked questions. The guy called her an ‘anti vaxxer’ and hung up on her. So she called them back twice and there is more to this story but basically they didn’t explain at all and tried to guilt trip her into caring with irrelevant facts about indegnous instead of answering questions that were specific and totally fair. ‘But don’t you care about our indigenous Australians?’ Do you know the statistics?’ Yes she is a left wing social worker who was never the anti vaxxer you accused her of. Briggs you had people like this trying make us vote yes. Why would we trust them to do the right thing? 😂 so blame maree edwards local mp office not us 😂 call her and ask her why she had people yelling at local residents to vote and accusing them of being right wing fascists if they ‘dared’ to ask questions.
This is aged so well 😂😂
Majority vote is NO and here you are stuck with this sexist BS ad. At least you tried lol.
Just proves don’t fall for the patronising and condescending guilt trips. This advert apart from its cringe value is a complete insult on people’s intelligence and guess what it was an overwhelming NO including from the most densely populated indigenous communities.
Briggs is now sulking in his room writing angry letters to NRL teams while cuddling his aboriginal flag blanket, your a deadset flop mate
What happened to the yes vote, put where it should be ,in the rubbish bin.
@Briggs what happend there la brah hahaha got geed up real good playing the clown 😂😂
Googling one yes propaganda page is not being informed and knowing, champ.
OMG This so cringeworthy. Just another reason it's going down.
Yes, it's very cringe. Will backfire badly. Someone didn't think this through .. at all.
God this is cringe.
Says a doctor.
Not a health doctor.
But a doctor in the loosest of terms- because you got a doctorate.
And then you rant on mental health.
😐
Do you want to talk about the mental health of First Nations people?
Or are those stats cringe too?
Typical of modern cringe today, people afraid to have an opinion with gutless conversations. I want people to state their case regardless of what they think others may think and have some honesty about themselves.
its important to challenge each others beliefs too. talk to your people IRL and tell them why you think they are wrong. some are stuck in their ways but if they truly want to listen they will.
It's really telling that when you push back and provide them with solid arguments, they just revert to good 'ol fashioned racism. That's why people don't want to discuss this. They know their opinion sucks.
@ben10the10 read the comments there are solid arguments from both camps. Little of what I have seen is racism. Just because someone votes no doesn’t mean they are racist. The problem most No voters have with the proposal is that who makes up the voice and what power it is going to have are being decided later by politicians in parliament. People don’t trust those Canberra polies. Even you shouldn’t because next election cycle the liberals may be in power and they can change the voice to whatever they want as it is currently worded. People actually do want better outcomes for indigenous but are worried by the lack of detail. The yes campaign has tried to fill the lack of detail with stuff they just made up. They can’t know these details yet because parliament hasn’t decided on what those details are. The only legally binding thing is the words in the question itself. I suggest you read it carefully, and only it (not what the yes campaign thinks the voice will be or the ‘Uluṟu‘ statement from the heart which is not a legally binding part of this change) then make up your mind. If it is still yes that is no problems but please don’t disrespect other people exercising their democratic rights by slandering them as racist. This is a solid argument against the voice: ‘I don’t trust the politicians in Canberra to not abuse this and stack the voice with puppets and grant it powers to suit their own agenda. This is not a democratic body and as such is open to corruption. It could have been detailed about how it was formed and the powers it has in the wording of the question just like other parts of our constitution. In my opinion the question doesn’t pass the pub test.’
@@ben10the10 "They know their opinion sucks"? I doubt it. Everyone I know, left right or center, thinks their opinion is the gold standard.
I am Voting NO only because Noel Pearson said there's a second door after the first door .
Can someone tell me what is the second door is all about (Money /Land or something else ???
I am voting NO
And the NO vote wins 👏👏🤣🤣🤣 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
@@DW_drumsThey've been here for 60k years and invented stuff like curved stick, stick with pointy end, stick with 2 pointy ends and stick with holes in it. Then the white man came and brought civilisation.
What a lot of fawning sycophants in the comments section. Oh wow Briggsy, you dug a hole, can I have your baby?!!!!!!!!!
Yewww 1st! Shout out from Yuwaalaraay Country Lightning Ridge
All six-states and the NT have voted no! The Australian people have spoken 🇦🇺
This is true representation of what a yes voter believes a no voter thinks like. Can see why they lost.
Exactly!
How is this not called out for mansplaining and portraying women as a denigraded stereotype?
shut up
Mansplaining never really meant what you seem to imply it does. Mansplaining was just one more way of denigrating white men in particular.
It's therefore not applicable in this scenario.
😂😂😂
We voted for unity people. Well done Australia, I’m proud of us. Thank you to the majority, it’s a victory for our society. Black/white/brown the skin tone or where we were born doesn’t matter. If you voted you’re Australian. True blue.
pwned
Three muppets without a clue how to fix a lightbulb.
If a dedicated Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and a whole Department for Aboriginal Affairs can't fix the problems, what chance do these clowns have? - ZERO
The YES side is starting to sound like Trump with starting to blame everyone for the coming NO victory
FFS, the no campaign have ADOPTED the trump play book……specifically Advance, backers of Fair Australia, announced with glee at CCPAC (how American - look it up) in August, that they could manipulate the narrative . They have. I hope you enjoy the post- truth world you have just joined up to.
Jesus Christ. Really 😂. This guy must have got a good kick back for this dribble.
Vote No
No all day.
You're the voice try and understand it.
Vote No 🇦🇺❤🖤💛
Your argument isn’t that compelling. I’m sorry I don’t speak emoji
It’s a No from me also. It’s divisive and risky, should’ve been legislated before putting it in our constitution.
I love the way the full figured gentlemen with the silly hat acts all wise as if he is the new Solomon. Well the divisive voice got crushed and good riddance to it.
Spoiler alert...the wise gentleman doesn't like white people anddeep down wants them all to leave ...
So lame
Yeah, No Voter arguments are pretty lame
@@Migswanthe irony if you saying "them" while claiming you don't want division. Oops. Your granddaddy hood slipped there champ, there's a reason they covered their coward faces too, isn't there.
@@Migswanoh the irony. “THEY” I presume the Commonwealth Government, can already do all the nasty things the No campaign says about race - see S 51 (xxvi) of the Australian Constitution (Google it). Maybe this is a chance to stop them from doing it.
@@DavidNorris-o4uthe main no position is just asking questions… how is that lame?
Great video. Just Google it.
Also "I would hate to patronise..." - well played
google is heavily censored these days dude.. it’s not like the 90s anymore.. remember all those different search engines we used to have.. even duck duck go is censored now.. you have to keep your wits about you and not just believe anything you read.. online scamming is a thing and it extends far beyond what the average googler would imagine. and have a nice day 😬
Yeah I googled it and found that this is propaganda and lies!
Check out part 3 from the actual question:
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3) 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 good! I love them and Briggs
Yeah that arm touch was perfect! Such an incredible political video. More of these and less of boring political videos. I actively searched for this clip. I’ve never done that about a political issue before.
I agree, it would definitely not be patronising to give one ethnic group special treatment, vote yes!
Not hard. There ya go.
No to more UN agenda. This 'voice to parliament' has NOTHING to do with benefitting Indigenous Australians.
Now the referendum has failed kick albo out of parliament for hes foolishness!!!
Then the next step would be an AUDIT on indigenous affairs and NDIS.
Briggs the rapper and two barely watchable so-called journalists telling us to go 'google it' is like Woolies berating you for not doing your own check-out properly.
It's literally these people's jobs to help inform the nation. And they come out a week before the most important moment of the most important issue in Australia, and tell us we're the problem.
Top work alll round.
The same guy that used to turn a blind eye to his brothers and sisters (not literal family) getting blind drunk abusing people at the Flinders Street steps? Oldmate only got this chip on his shoulder when he started getting famous and hanging around with activist class people like Paul Kelly.
Methinks someone feels guilty.
@@TheBlackDogChronicles methinks if you knew me, and what I've contributed ( including creating a music vid for one of Briggs own artists back in 2016 ) you'd realise you're talking out your arse ;)
This says it all.woke city people that had no idea, voted yes.
Pffft, not falling for paid actors
Bruh, it is skit featuring a rapper and two comedians. No one is trying to trick you here.
I think i understand now. We're all just a bit tired of being bashed over the head with 'you are shit unless you do this...'
I agree 👍
Who said that? Nobody
@jonah.donohue
Well I said that. I wasn't quoting. Have you not sensed that people in western cultures are growing more weary by the day of the culture wars?
That's what I'm seeing in a lot of content. I was expressing my viewpoint on the possibility that people voted no, in part, because they're over the pressure from the cultural left.
If you disagree, cool. No problem.
It's funny how people with a guilty conscience imbue something with meaning it doesn't really seem to have. Shakespeare had something to say about that, in Hamlet in Act 3, Scene 2.
@TheBlackDogChronicles well I'm intrigued. I shall have to look that up and educate myself. Thanks for your comment. I'm sure, knowing Hamlet to be renowned for its monologue, which I've seen as a movie clip, what I find will be elucidating.
@@TheBlackDogChronicles
Yes. The 'groundlings'. Poor souls 😂
awesome brigs
Because the Australian Government always has good intent don’t they…. #voteNO
epic fail
her lean over & forearm touch as she says ‘and I would *hate* to patronise an Indigenous person’
Haha exactly, painful to watch really.
@@moorspede yes, it was painful to watch.
@WarningTimes no land grabs? Oh that's rich. 😂
The ad was originally an ad for Tinder. Listen carefully.
Wait, so you can google important things?
worse that than, there's a bunch of sites called "let me google that for you" etc. It's kind of sarcastic what they do.
Yeah I tried it just now and it really works. I was surprised to find that you can search for other stuff like Indigenous treaty and funny videos of cats.
Of course and google will always provide you with the right answers and right information……..
Google this - www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8bj0jbnn1yri9y83lbblg/USOTH-Document-14.pdf?rlkey=0fumbze6godfjoxa0wq5gstjo&dl=0
Yeah mate. Actually google it.
Check out part 3 from the actual question:
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3) 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.
My local parliamentarian (Peter Dutton) said it "means no issue - the economy, national security, infrastructure, health, education and more - would be beyond its scope" and so everyone should vote no... that's reason enough for me to vote yes
Peter Dutton also convinced me to vote yes
Yeah, if Dutton and Pauline Hanson both say it's bad, then it must be good. Vote yes! 🤣
Why is that a reason to vote no? It's just a representation... it's advice only. With no veto powers. What's the issue???
@@jesselise1996 because people like Dutton are afraid of losing their life of privilege
@@jesselise1996 exactly
Three and a half minutes of being patronising, condescending and arrogant: while not addressing one single actual counter argument.
It's so hard to know why you guys lost. . . . . . .
Just google it????? Ridiculous, now it's good to one source of factual information?
The two young women depicted as stupid and shallow.
How condescending and patronising.
Wake up, people.
I love that this brings us back to the basic question we're ACTUALLY voting on! 👏👏👏
@@lachlanmcvey7885how is it a lie?
That clause is completely standard. It is to allow Parliament to improve the Voice over time instead of prescribing a fixed structure that can never change. It’s nothing to create fear over. Check out Section 51 of the constitution that is set up the same way for pretty much all law making. If you don’t think there should be a Voice, fine, but don’t try to scare people into thinking it’s something it’s not. The NO campaign is full of misinformation and distraction aimed at making people anxious. Please let’s debate the issue at hand, not the distractions…
*YES MOB ARE WOKE TERRORISTS*
@alansergeant9185 they say the voice will be chosen by indigenous leaders in the communities in the video. The actual question states that the make up will be determined by parliament. When facts contradict a claim then that is the definition of a lie. The video basically ‘googles’ it for you says some stuff they made up and relies on people being to lazy to actually google it themselves. So deceitful.
@@lachlanmcvey7885and what wasn’t accurate about the video?
Still voting NO. I don’t trust Albanese when he refuses to provide even the most basic of details about this proposal. The Australian constitution is for all Australians and is not something to toy with, it should treat us all equally regardless of race, but this voice to parliament will entrench race based privileges and separatism in this country, when we should all be equal under the law. Plus, aboriginals don’t need a voice when they already have one it’s called voting for your MP, as well as 3,278 aboriginals corporations, 243 native title bodies, 35 regional councils, 155 aboriginal agencies, 3 advisory bodies, 145 aboriginal health organisations, 11 aboriginal members of federal parliament and 34 BILLION dollars allocated annually specifically for aboriginal needs. If that’s not a voice then idk what is. It’s a big NO from me and the majority of all Australians, that’s why this referendum will be defeated.
For more ACTUAL important information before voting in the referendum, watch Jacinta Nampijimpa Price’s full National press club speech: ruclips.net/user/livehrinfhtFDlc?si=V9Pew_KHpC3hQ94Q
Initially, I shared similar concerns, but upon further research, I found many of these views to be misconceptions.
1. *Separatism Misconception.* The term "separatism" is a strong one, and it's important to clarify that both Aboriginals and non-Aboriginal Australians fall under the same governing body and abide by the same set of rules within our nation. It's an oversimplification to categorise the Voice as such.
2. *Representation Challenges.* Aboriginal communities are dispersed throughout Australia, often resulting in them being a minority in many regions. Consequently, regional representatives often address broader regional interests rather than the specific needs of these communities. Furthermore, the unique cultural practices and values of Aboriginal communities, particularly in remote areas, may not always be front and centre in mainstream political discourse. While voting for MPs is a fundamental democratic right, MPs alone can't address the myriad of challenges faced by these communities. Large, structured bodies with extensive networks are better equipped to handle such intricacies.
3. *The Uniqueness of the Voice.* Existing structures like Aboriginal corporations, native title bodies, regional councils, aboriginal agencies, health organisations, and the representation in parliament play vital roles. However, these aren't substitutes for the proposed Voice, which offers a different, more centralised approach to representation.
4. *Federal Advisory Bodies.* At the federal level, advisory bodies like NIAA and IAC serve specific purposes (I'm not sure what the 3rd was...?). If they do not have a distinct role, then they will eventually merge into the Voice. At the end of the day, ensuring the consistent presence of an advisory body is what this vote ensures. Most people agree that there _should_ be an advisory body, so I'm puzzled by the hesitancy in cementing such an entity's existence.
5. *Benefits of the Voice's Longevity.* The continuous existence of the Voice offers numerous advantages. This includes the accumulation of expertise, stable investment, and financial prudence by avoiding the cyclic dismantling and re-establishing of such bodies. More critically, it's a sincere effort to address the shortcomings of our existing approaches. Despite substantial investments in Aboriginal communities, desired outcomes remain elusive. Other nations have managed their relationships with their indigenous populations more effectively. I'm optimistic that the Voice can bring about a positive change in this regard.
6. *Concerns with Jacinta Price.* While it's crucial to seek varied opinions, I advise caution when considering some of Jacinta Price's statements. A few have been proven to be inaccuracies.
More bureaucracy will not help Indigenous Australians in disadvantaged communities to close the gap and achieve reconciliation. Indigenous people already have a voice via an unprecedented level of Indigenous representation in parliament.
I'd take your own advice too and advise you to be cautious when considering the need for a referendum to change Australias constitution on something as trivial as what the vote is shown to be in this video. One should not turn their head away from such important issues for the sake of doing what feels right.
How can you say that about Albosleazy?
So NOW we should do our own research? 👌
So cringe.
They got the patronising part right.
I suppose my confusion is that there are already indigenous representatives in many organisations and in parliament to be the voice(s) of the Aboriginal people and their local communities. This gives me the notion that these voices are being discredited by the indigenous community and therefore ineffective for their needs. What exactly will this new voice change when there are already voices that exist? Can anyone shed light on this?
Chatgpt rules again
The proposed Voice is a body of First Nations people chosen by First Nations communities. Every representative will have a four year term to ensure they are accountable to their communities.
The Voice will also be covered by the NACC - the new federal anti-corruption body.
It's true we do have some parliamentarians who are from First Nations, but MPs represent their party (and perhaps the people in their electorate) and Senators represent their party (and perhaps their state). There are no parliamentarians directly representing First Nations people. The Voice will be non-political.
We have a minister to look after First Nations issues but they still put their party first.
It's true there are other bodies that represent groups like health organisations and there are community groups including football clubs, but they don't provide advice directly from communities to the government and parliament.
The organisations like the health organizations don't automatically get to give advice to the government and parliament. They are at the mercy of the government. So, it's got nothing to do with being discredited by their communities.
There are a couple of other things that I think are important about the Voice.
First, we voters will get to hear when the Voice gives really good advice and the government ignores it when making policies and developing programs. So, we'll know that politicians are wasting our taxes to play political games.
The second thing is those gaps in the rates of suicide, birth weight, employment, live expectancy, etc will start coming down. That's going to get all Australians thinking that we can have better policies in the broader community if we listen to people and use the research. So, in times benefits will start flowing through to all Australians.
But, it will take time to close those gaps so we need to stop politicians playing games, and if the Voice is in the Constitution, we can do that.
I can't see a single downside of the Voice. I'm sixty years old and I have been watching First Nations people kicked around like political footballs all my life. To me, this looks like the best opportunity we've ever had to finally start dealing with all the disadvantages so many First Nations people face.
So, this old girl has voted Yes because of all the things above and because even the overwhelming majority of "constitutional conservatives" think the Voice will make government better.
@@sandracochrane2155 you can't see a single down side to the Voice? Have you been living in an echo chamber? We already have the voice - we spend billions of dollars on indigenous initiatives covering health, housing and welfare, we spend double the amount on per indigenous Australian that other Australians and we have 11 indigenous MPs. The Voice is only going to bolster big government and give it more power, and will not resolve any of the major issues impacting aborigines.
@@Simon-pl2zi Much of what you claim is actually untrue.
I don't live in an echo chamber - I'm here talking to you because I'm interested in how you come to think as you do. But, my work and person lives have given me the opportunities to see a lot and listen to a great many people - I'm 60 years old so that's a lot of observing and listening to a great many perspectives and experiences.
The Voice isn't a magic wand and it will take time for various people to adjust, but I have confidence that Australians are just as capable as people in other countries where a variety of models are starting to make a difference.
It's to enshrine the pay cheques of the grifter class.
great
I googled it - but I didn't just stop at the first result Google gave me, that would be stupid.
Definitely voting NO!
You dont need to change the constitution just to give the government advice. Dont fall for the lies
They should just use the clip of Marcia Langton calling everyone who vote no racist and stupid. Save money on promotional videos so they can buy tissues and tape for their one week silence. That was an amazing promotion for the no campaign. Keep it up!
That Lurch looking old Trot can give us the silent treatment forever for all I care.
yeah, I disagree with Marcia Langton on that. I believe Australians that voted No are actually selfish and racist. They're not stupid at all. They knew exactly what they were doing
Don't forget all the other expletives she used
Dutton's "Don't Know, Vote No" slogan should never have gotten as far as it did.
"Don't Know, Go Find Out" should have been the counterpoint from day one.
My advice is if you don't know, do your own research.
It goes to show how ignorant the right are.
Don't no, read this - www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8bj0jbnn1yri9y83lbblg/USOTH-Document-14.pdf?rlkey=0fumbze6godfjoxa0wq5gstjo&dl=0
Yes actually find out. Don’t read the first paragraph of the vote yes campaign and actually read the question.
Check out part 3 from the actual question:
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3) 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.
No one will answer important questions about the structure and powers of The Voice and the official statement is that the details of The Voice will be decided AFTER the referendum.
Approving legislation before it is written Is as smart as giving a signed blank check to a 5 year old, no one in their right mind would do either.
Two thoughts after following the comments for two days:
1. Why are so many people so upset about a comedy skit where two voters in a democratic country decide to get themselves informed before they vote in a referendum? We should be celebrating informed voters whether we agree or disagree with their voting intention.
2. As someone whose been on the receiving end of misogyny in Australia for 60 years, I love that you care but this is not misogyny.
This video really helped the No win!!… big thanks to the creator from the majority of Australians… without you we could not defeat the Yes 👍
Vote no hell no
attempts to include wording in the Voice proposal to stop any appeals by said body to the High Court, this was refused by the Yes camp, with many stating that injunctions and appeals were a right. Legally risky? Hell yes. negotiations and compromise or VOTE NO
That's not true at all. The Proposed Section 129 has been written simply and tightly to ensure that the Voice provides advice only. It is actually a constitutionally conservative position that's why constitutional conservatives have joined the overwhelming majority of constitutional experts in supporting the Voice.
@@sandracochrane2155 are you saying the voice CANNOT appeal to the High Court? …
@@sandracochrane2155 Watch "The Constitutional Implications of The Voice Referendum Proposal" by 'Aussie Law'
@@garyandrews5104 I'm saying it's highly, highly unlikely according to constitutional lawyers and constitutional experts including those who have sat on the High Court. Kenneth Haine, who sat on the High Court and ran the Banking Royal Commission, is one of many who have discussed this. He's been interesting on this. He says that he thinks the only serious possibility is when public servants don't administer government decisions according to the law (rather than the Voice than the Voice going to the High Court because advice isn't taken). And, lets face it, given what we've seen from the Robodebts Royal Commission, anything that can help bring into line public servants breaking the law is a good thing. I mention Haine's discussing it because he has such a no nonsense way of communicating things, he's a good person to follow up for yourself. Other people like Twoomey, Saunders, French, Craven, Willams and the Solicitor General have said the same. They're all on the record so you can check them out. Others too.
The voice is just the first step before
Treaty
Truth telling
Makarata
Percentage of GDP.
Vote no, the city activists have no intention of helping remote communities.
Well that escalated fast
Is that what your Sky News safe space told you? Mr Bolt let you in on the whole story hey. The irony that the whole video you commented on was about just Google-ing it is not lost on me.
For anyone reading this, the above commentor is lying 🤥
This is not true.
Well, this aged like fine milk 😂😂 Good on you Australia for rejecting this woke agenda!
if we no voters are Chicken little's Albo is a big Turkey
LOL
Wow! I was going to vote yes, but after watching this: I’m not so sure!
I had the same reaction.
Happy to discuss……
As above, if you are still not sure, happy to talk about what you're unsure about :)
@@LlywellynOBrien They're saying that this vid is so obnoxious, that it has potentially changed their mind.
So how about a mature conversation on the actual issues? No?
Dont be silly. That wouldnt be a mature thing to do...
How about…NO
Very manipulative stunt, how to get someone confused , just google it 😂
How about we just google how to solve all indigenous problems ?, how to get rich? Wow there is an answer for that too 😂
We don’t need the referendum google can answer all our questions.
Again, belittling and bullying.
Vote Yes Mate 🇦🇺⚫️🟡🔴
Our great country could be so much better and more cultured if we chose to embrace and recognise Indigenous-Australian people and their input. People seem to forget Aboriginal people also fought and died for this country in WW1 and WW2. How dare we as a nation not at the very least give them the unique recognition they deserve in their own country and the chance to advise on issues that could harm them and their culture.
Vote yes 🇦🇺⚫️🟡🔴
They get the same recognition as everyone else.
@@arcluxNot according to one of you earlier responses, which implied they didn’t actually fight ( presume it was you, the no campaign reminds me of smoke). Certainly one correspondent suggest the indigenous people who dod fight were on part indigenous, but they didn’t say which part ……right leg, left arm etc.
Personally I feel this video is a bit of a straw-man argument; sort of labelling the 'No' voters as these dis-interested, uneducated, reality TV watching noobs. Each to their own, I'm comfortable with someone holding a different opinion to myself, but this doesn't really address any of the robust arguments against the 'Yes' vote. Although in principle this sounds like a good idea, it's clearly a political move to gain public favour and appear to be trying to solve a huge problem we have in this country without actually having to do the hard work of leadership. Putting it to a referendum also gives them an out if the voice vote does not pass. There is actually nothing this provides the Indigenous peoples of Australia that the government could not already take into account with the right level of engagement and care factor. It's a cop out.
No don’t want land tax
Shared and boosting! 👏
the internet has been heavily censored since 2017.. search results are manipulated.. you have to dig deeper than the first result that pops up.. it will be fake news.. always get three reliable independent sources.. and fact check them..
These 2 girls are supposed to represent the no vote? Bit of a joke mate. You should try and have a real debate
That was hilarious, eh? Two middle class urban hipster chicks. As IF such creatures would ever pause to consider how they'll vote.
The yes leaders have refused any offers to debate.
@@arcluxI’m not a YES leader, just a very informed person (or alternatively: a racist, shepple, vegan/vegetarian , elitist, latte sipping, idiot, douche bag - based on the comments, but I digress). When did my (putative) overlords and mind controllers refuse to have a debate . And with whom? I hope it was supposed to be with somebody from Advance (aka Fair Australia).
Nope, they are meant to represent people who are unsure but haven't looked into it. It isn't addressing considered no voters or saying anything about them.
Proppa deadly! 🖤💛❤️
It's ridiculous how many charged up conversations I've been in, where I've ended up resolving their qualms by just reading the referendum question to them.
Apparently reading to white people has become a part of our cultural load now.
Sorry but I am trying to keep up here what is "cultural load"?
Oh yes, that reassures me, someone who thinks others they need to be patronised.
Farken let em know aye!
@@MM54334He isn't saying white people can't read, just that a lot of us have been confused by the lies spreading into believing things that are disproven by literally reading the paper.
@@thedave7760The idea of cultural load is roughly the feeling of responsibility or onus to explain things, represent Indigenous people and culture etc.
Makes you wonder how it all got "so hard" huh? I read the statement from the heart and then the proposal and a few Constitutional experts and retired judges opinions...considered the No case which was full of misinformation and fear mongering. Job done. Voting Yes
Mate after all that research you failed to recognise the stuff just made up about this being determined by indigenous communities.
Check out part 3 from the actual question:
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3) 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.
Did you read the 27 pages Uluru statement or the 1 page sanitised version?
The No campaign relies on lies because they don't have real arguments
@@garyandrews5104the Uluru statement is not the Voice. It is not what the referendum is about. And this fear mongering about a “26 page secret statement” is conspiracy crap.
@@garyandrews5104misinformation Gary
Vote yes so the Australian government can improce its global ESG rating lol mark my words the voice will change nothing for those that need the help the most.
Please explain
@@Random-number-67532 not sure if serious but the world is all about virtue signalling and empty words. Hence the ESG quip. I guarantee the voice will not help those that actually need the help. Why? Because those closest to the money always get the money. If people haven't learnt that then perhaps they need to be doing some reading beyond watching what the government wants you to see.
Actually I was trying to be funny, sorry (see Pauline Hanson when she was asked about xenophobia); but I digress. May I put forward the idea of a factory. Something goes wrong on the factory floor. Who is going to notice and suggest improvements, those who are dealing with the day to day, or those in the office. A vote for the voice will be a vote for efficiency
@@Random-number-67532 yes I thought that may have been a Hanson reference but hard to gauge on the internet haha if it's one thing I've learnt over the years it's that if the powerful can exploit something guaranteed it will be exploited. The voice will be no different, just be opening a can of worms.
@@dominatorbooze8381 Changing the Constitution only authorises the Government to make the law. The Government introduces a bill into Parliament, & both houses of Parliament need to vote for the bill for it to become law. Every election we get to vote for which party we want to be in Government going forward. If you see money not making it to the people who need it, try to change that, eg lobby your Federal MP to change tax laws or Centrelink laws or housing laws, & vote for whichever party’s policies will do the most good for the people you think need help.
Was no, voting yes. We need to push on from our histroy and become a republic. This is the next step.
We do not need to be a Republic either.
Leave the constitution alone.
@@mattmcguire1577 you new to australia? we make it a point in our democracy that the constitution can and should be amended to reflect the changing demographics and circumstances of our country, a precedent that has existed since federation. it's a part of being a functional state with a healthy system of governance, maybe something you're unfamiliar with due to your understanding being solely of the US model
@@mattmcguire1577 Right, but then you're forcing the High Court to interpret the constitution in different ways so that the government can function. That is what is happening in America (Supreme court = High court). In fact, have a look at the referendum on aviation and you'll see what I mean. We should be very _open_ to changing the constitution. That's not to say vote on a change based on the merit of changing it, but simply you should be open to it.
And how will this "republic" work?
@@arclux constitutional republic with a bill of rights. Abolition of states and merger of shire rule.
Shire rule is participatory direct democracy while federal government works on a preferential voting system.
Bill of Rights would amendable constitutionally bound and amendable either by referendum, shire challenge, or by high Court intervention on behalf of the federal government.
Basically a half way system between the West Minister and American model with no States. Federal law with civic protections.
We need to move past our archiac governing model. The pandemic blew that wide open.
Ba ha ha ha - nice try Albo but we aren't that stupid. #voteno
Didn’t know Albo had anything to do with this (did you ask him?) in which case the question answers itself
Looks like about 30% of the electorate are stupid enough to fall for it.
Yeah nah
Vote no to racism just vote no
Well played Sir. This is the kind of advertisement the voice needs. Humour is the best way to defuse hostility and convey truth.
Don't know he seems kind of hostile in the video.
The level of pretention in this clip is off the charts. That you think this is humor is gold.
You are so out of touch it's actually kinda cute
It’s not humorous it’s pretentious and very cringy and is a great example of why the Voice was pulverised by the electorate.
You’re out of touch.
VOTE NO: do NOT divide Australia based on race. the next thing they want is their own country! over 50% of Australia is already under native title! a yes win will only enrich the Aboriginal elites even more! The Commonwealth spends $33 billion annually on Aboriginal people - why is the money going???
Reply. Get your facts right. It is probably over $40billion - But that is for you know….
everything( medicare, NDIS, Defence, home security, AFP, biosecurity, environment, etc). Total spend for non- indigenous people under the same umbrella is close to $600 billion (give or take).
A separate state just for aboriginals has been suggested. What do they call one of those things again?
@@arcluxApartheid
That is a load of factless and patronising twisted information that leaves out: The government appoints its voice members. Aboriginal representation is already greater in government than other representation per capita. No other ethnic group is being given a race based right inthe constitution. There will be a treaty that will allow aboriginal takeover of all lands through the UN rights of indigenous people. Aboriginal welfare is currently $60 billion per year and goes mostly into the pockets of members of the aboriginal gravy train, and not to your average aboriginal, and this will increase under a voice panel that is made up of the gravy train bureaucrats and business people. Around 300 aboriginal tribes are autonomous and cannot be properly represented by a body of bureaucrats and gravy train experts. The claim that 80% of aboriginals support the voice is not based on fact but on a biased guess that appears to be very incorrect when aboriginals know the facts about the voice.