I watched the abc's drum program tonight and was pleased to see Wess as a part of the panel,well done Wess. It must be very frustrating when the host of the program invites you to make comment on a subject and then allows another panelist to rudely talk over the top of you. Congratulations on the manner you handle that situation. You Sir are a true gentlemen.
I like the balance they you present. If only everting on social media was like this. Great work. I’ll have to copy and paste my comment to your other video for the yes case. 😊
@@AnotherDoug But has has promised that if the voice referendum succeeds then he will implement the full statement which includes treaty. So a vote for the voice is also a vote for treaty and makarrata because Albanese has hitched one to the other. It's his evasiveness around this issue that has eroded trust and cost the yes campaign votes.
@@AnotherDoug Wake up dude. What do you think the advice is going be? What do you think will happen if 'advice' is ignored? This is simply a mechanism to lobby for more power. You'd have to be naive not to see through it. Most of the Yes activists have already admitted that the end goal here is a treaty.
@@JasonFoster-mq2vi No, he hasn't said "IF the voice referendum succeeds" at all. He has said he will implement "Voice, treaty, truth" - there was no dependency on the Voice being approved. He has not explicitly denied that, if the Voice fails, he would proceed on treaty or truth. A vote for the Voice is NOT a vote for treaty or truth. As Albanese has implied, the Voice is not a critical dependency for treaty or truth. And the No side agrees: Mundine (the leader of the No Campaign) and Thorpe have both said they want to see the Voice fail at the referendum, so that the "real work" on Treaty can commence.
i don't understand how a government have a treaty with your own citizens. Before they were citizens yes but after? Aboriginals have more rights now than the average citizen.
@@craigfrith7024 that's the entire point.. that's what is meant by "sovereignty never ceded" they want to become their own autonomous nation(s) represented by the voice. Read page 18 of the Uluru statement. It's all there.
The only information you need is the full Uluru statement, and the Dialogue minutes as well if you feel brave, but definitely the full, 18+ page Uluru statement is a must-read before voting. This information shows the true intent behind the voice.
The version of the Voice we are voting on is not the same as envisaged by some of the people who attended the Regional Dialogues. Some of them wanted the Voice to be able to negotiate treaties, reparations, etc with the Government. The version of the Voice we are actually voting for will have one power only: the power to give ADVICE to the Government. The Government will always have the right to accept or ignore that advice.
@@AnotherDoug If that were unambiguously true then there would seem little advantage in it for the activists who have pushed for it. The limits to the powers of the voice I think are at best unclear since embedding it in the constitution gives it a unique position and a kind of pre-eminence not possessed by any other lobby group - and Albanese has previously stated that it would be a brave government who chose to ignore it. Regardless, the bigotry and hostility the creators express toward non-Indigenous Australians is reason enough for me to deny their request for special political rights for them. The referendum looks likely to fail - the first thing we need to do if it does is seek alternative means of addressing Indigenous disadvantage, which is orders of magnitude worse in remote Indigenous communities than it is among the Indigenous population as a whole. We need a very large light shone on the power structures in the communities, land councils, Aboriginal corporations and government bodies and have a clear look at how these things interact with one another to result in the outcomes that we see. Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine both seem to allude to this as being part of the problem.
@@AnotherDoug no matter how you spin it the yes vote is irrelevant. There is absolutely no reason to vote yes, no matter what side of the fence you're on. If you're on the side of the indigenous then this proposal as it is described and envisaged by you doesn't go nearly far enough and it clearly isn't what they want according to their hallowed statement so why annoy them with it? And if you're on the side of the no, then it is obviously unnecessary and possibly dangerous.
@@AnotherDoug "The version of the Voice we are actually voting for will have one power only: the power to give ADVICE to the Government." You forgot to mention that this advice will be restricted based on race, which is the primary reason why most people are voting no. Racist policies have no place in any modern democracy. We all already have a voice, it's called a vote. And if you want to give 'advice' to the government you can already do this by writing your MP a letter. Vote NO to racial division.
Great to see you on the drum Wes. Magda tried to score a point with misinformation from no campaign. Then you pointed out misinformation from the PM, Albo. Well done.
Well done, I have looked at some of your videos, they are well balanced and thought provoking and give avenues for people to do further research. I must say that with all the money being spent in this space and talking to people I know, it looks as if governments of all colours has failed in their responsibilities in the use of these government monies on trying to reduce the gap. I have made my decision on which way I am voting. Too many people with bright ideas and no practicable working knowledge seem to be in control.
I like how you're not pushing either side of the debate. That's what our media should be doing. People need to be thought to think for themselves and do their own research and not be told what to think.
Neatly done, sir. The thought of my grandchildren 50 years from now having to pay some sort of tribute to the grandchildren of indigenous contemporaries offends me greatly. Not even the descendants of those who voted for Federation have a special Voice to the Executive or to the Parliament.
The Voice Referendum has no direct link to any discussion on reparations. The Voice would only have one power: to give advice to the Government. It would not have power to negotiate on behalf of A&TSI peoples. It could certainly offer advice to the Government on reparations but the government can accept or ignore that advice, as it wishes
@@AnotherDoug The Voice would have/would have had/will have whatever powers the Parliament gives it under the broad Constitutional mandate. This is why a proper convention and DETAILS are needed. A government could create any structure it wanted, from a single person, to merging all the bureaucracies currently dedicated to indigenous affairs, to placing indigenous cadres in every single government department like grand old Communists are fond of doing in their spirit-crushing way.
@@AnotherDoug A big problem is that the voice referendum is directly linked to the people who wanted it - and those people have clearly and unambiguously laid out in 112 pages of official documents (86 pages of regional meeting records and the 26 pages that record the proceedings from which the 1-page Statement from the Heart was distilled, which itself is page 1 of 26) a very far-reaching agenda, much broader in scope and scale than what we are being told we are voting on, which the prime minister has promised to implement should the referendum succeed. Separatism, reparations and a voice that is not merely an advisory body but that "must have teeth" (their own words) are all obvious themes in the documents. As well as openly-expressed racism and disdain for any Australian not born with Aboriginal heritage. The individuals who produced this bigoted and entitled list of demands will most definitely be jockying for a seat on the voice, should the referendum succeed - after all, it's their own creation. Why would I vote yes to special political rights for someone who despises me, thinks I owe them something and thinks that the land I was born in is not mine because I was born without a particular racial heritage? www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/foi-log/foi-2223-016.pdf The people who created this proposal don't want anything to do with me - they just need my vote to help get their agenda across the line and entrenched. And if I give it to them that would make me a "useful idiot". So they won't be getting it from me.
@@youbigtubership 1. Read sub-section (ii) of the proposed Constitutional change - it actually specifies the ONLY function of the Voice to "make representations to ...". No other function is allowed by the Constitution itself. 2. Now read sub-section (iii). Those words "subject to this Constitution" narrows the "mandate" considerably. Those words mean that the Constitution itself will prevent Parliament from giving the Voice any other function than to "make representations ...". 3. "A government could create any structure it wanted" - yes, it could. (Which is what many people would be happy with when they say "the Government should just legislate the Voice".) However, the Government has published a number of Voice Principles that will be the basis of the Voice legislation. These Principles have been published so that everyone can hold the Government and Parliament to account when they consider the legislation. The Voice Principles require multiple members of the Voice (so, not a single person). The Voice will be independent, so existing government sections cannot be merged into the Voice.
@@youbigtubership plus we have a document prepared by the indigenous that goes into great detail regarding their demands, which the PM has committed to - seemingly sight unseen, if we are to believe what he says.
I have never had an employer that felt enough to provide the staff with biscuits , it was often just hard enough to get them to remember the milk and we bought our own coffee . But if you had a cake , he be there with his hand out .
All other heads of power in the Constitution have their power clearly prescribed and constrained. The proposed new chapter for the Voice has no such provisions and that alone is a concern and raises warning bells.
"their power clearly prescribed and constrained" ~ proposed section 129 (ii) clearly says the Voice "may make representations". That is all it can do. ~ proposed section 129 (iii) clearly says that Parliament has the power, "subject to this Constitution" to make laws about the Voice. Those words, "subject to this Constitution" mean that Parliament cannot change the function of the Voice from that specified in sub-section (ii) You can't get more prescribed and constrained than these.
@@AnotherDoug But the term 'may' has no constraint, which means their role may be extended to other areas, for example negotiating a treaty, reparations as is detailed in the full Uluru statement. There are no constraints, and the use of open terms in the clauses, incorporating it into its own chapter, and the use of 'Executive' to enliven the full extent of Administrative Law is both legally dangerous and unknown. The clauses have been carefully drafted to allow legal extension beyond what is being presented.
@@aussie807 ~ "the term 'may' has no constraint" - the term "may" qualifies the making of representations; so the Voice MAY make representations or they MAY NOT make representations. See the Solicitor-General's Opinion footnote 7: "Proposed s 129(ii) is expressed in permissive terms - the Voice “may make representations” - so as to confer a discretion on the Voice as to whether or not to make representations on any particular matter relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples" ~ The Voice WILL HAVE NO POWER to negotiate treaties or reparations. It will only have the "power" to give ADVICE. (This is proven by the fact that Mundine and Thorpe both want the Voice to fail, so that the "real work" on treaties can begin. Does this sound like the Voice will pave the way for treaties?) ~ " both legally dangerous and unknown" - only if the Parliament outsources its drafting of the Voice legislation to idiots (which it won't). Parliament will have the power to determine the legal effect of representations made by the Voice. Consequently, the Voice will not be able to challenge the Government or Parliament in any court. ~ The clauses certainly have been carefully drafted - to NOT allow the Voice to do anything but give ADVICE. Please read the Solicitor-General's Opinion.
There are so many issues surrounding this. I'm concerned that the Albanese government is marrying what should be two separate aspects: One - the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders within the Constitution of Australia, and Two - the creation of a Voice to Parliament. I'm pretty confident that people would overwhelmingly support One (and I'm one of them) but it seems number Two is the sticking point - and for good reason at the moment, because no one truly understands what the Voice will actually achieve. Some suspect it will achieve "bad" things, others think it will achieve nothing other than creating a toothless bureaucracy, and others believe it will be a "step" in reconciliation. I personally question why some of the actions called for cannot be achieved through legislation (the government can create an Indigenous Council to advise the Dept of Indigenous Affairs for example). If the referendum fails, I would think the government can still pursue some of the goals and dreams of Aboriginal people through both legislative but also bureaucratic means such as changes in processes, procedures, and so on. And maybe restructuring or reshaping the Dept of Indigenous Affairs is a place to start - is that dept fit for purpose if all the money, time and goodwill of so many people has "failed" to bridge the gap? I'm also concerned that Aboriginal people have varying reasons to not support the yes campaign. Were this to get through, what happens to the voices of those people? Is the voice to parliament truly going to be representative of all Aboriginal people or what activists, elites and academics want (which is still a paternalistic approach to addressing concerns of Aboriginal people)? The issue might not have been an issue if Australians could trust politicians to do the right thing. The way the current government has handled this smacks of trying to hoodwink voters. This failed when the question of the Republic was put - not enough information on how it would actually "look" and "work" and the implications for ordinary Australians. I hate this current "debate" in the lead up to the vote. Very nasty and dismissive comments from both sides when both sides have legitimate points that should be weighed up in a much more positive and constructive way. I want much better outcomes for Aboriginal people but the Yes side did not do anything to explain this in the Referendum pamphlet.
~ "Albanese government is marrying what should be two separate aspects" - the request for Constitutional recognition via the Voice did not come from the Albanese government. It was requested six years ago in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Labor adopted that as one of their election promises. Labor was elected. They chose to honour their election promise. Here we are. ~ "what the Voice will actually achieve" - it will provide advice to the Government on matters affecting A&TSI communities to help close the gaps in areas like health, education, employment, etc. The Yes Pamphlet actually gives three examples where listening to advice from Indigenous peoples actually resulted in better outcomes ~ "government can create an Indigenous Council" - yes, it could. But then the Government changes and the new government abolishes that Council with the flick of a pen. Its happened multiple times to various "voices" created in the past. The hope is that Constitutional change will help protect the Voice from a hostile future government. ~ "what happens to the voices of those people?" - they will be heard. The Voice is about consulting communities and representing communities, not ignoring specific individuals. ~ "still a paternalistic approach" - but far, far less paternalistic than a bunch of white people making decisions without consulting any A&TSI communities. ~ "trying to hoodwink voters." - Referendums have always been about concepts not details. If the Government had released the 130 page Langton/Calma Report, the complaints would be even louder "too much detail" or waste weeks debating whether there should 22 or 24 people on the Voice committee. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
@@AnotherDoug ~ Labor's adoption of the Voice recommendations as an election policy was not the reason it won the election, nor the reason it might have lost the election. The hoodwinking comes from combining the two parts of the Voice proposal - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander recognition in the Constitution, and establishing a Voice to Parliament. ~ Listening to people affected by government decisions is always a good idea, no matter who those people are. The examples given in the Referendum booklet illustrate that working with Aboriginal people and communities is not only a great idea, but that it can work without a Constitutional Voice. ~ Government can create an advisory group by legislation and while any piece of legislation can be repealed, it is highly unlikely that such legislation would be. Like any statutory body, an indigenous advisory body could be established and run, and once it demonstrates that the money IS being directed efficiently and effectively with positive outcomes, there's no reason for a government to repeal it. The other advantage is that legislation can be more easily amended to improve things, expand things, so I see this as an advantage to that statutory body. ~ Merely stating that "yes, Aboriginal people who are currently dissenting from the Yes campaign will have their voices heard" does not reassure anyone that the dissenting voices will be (for whatever reason they dissent). I'd say it is unlikely that say Jacinta Price would be invited to participate in the Voice to Parliament body, or however it is to work. ~ It isn't necessary to provide so much details that everyone is confused. The reason the Republican issue failed is that no detail was given, effectively asking the population to decide that "a republic would be a good idea" rather than understanding how a "working" republic would function. I think the same thing is happening here. ~ As for your comment about a bunch of white people making decisions without consulting with the ATSI community, the 3 examples given in the Referendum Yes notes would indicate that people are being consulted. That consultation definitely needs to be looked at, but my argument is that this process of consultation can be incorporated into processes and procedures and legislated where needed to ensure the consultation is genuine, and my comment about looking at the current and preferred role of the Department of Indigenous Affairs is still valid. If this is the Department that has been overseeing the money spent on specific projects, how have they been doing? What levels of bureaucracy are Aboriginal communities having to go through to get projects completed successfully and how can this be streamlined? I won't go on any further with the Dept role and how it could be better organised or reorganised to achieve better results, but the point is that it probably needs serious review in itself.
@@johnnichol9412 ~ "adopted" ≠ "proposed". As I said, the Voice was proposed at the Uluru Constitutional Convention in 2017 - not by Labor. ~ "why will they listen to "The Voice" - the fact that, if successful, the Voice will have been mandated by over half the Australian adult population will give it a bit of weight in Parliament. Ultimately, however, it will be the quality of the advice given by the Voice that will be its own best "advertisement".
@@magpiegirl3783 ~ "hoodwinking comes from combining the two parts of the Voice proposal" - The Final Report of the Referendum Council in 2017 had two recommendations: 1) a Constitutional change to create a Voice; and 2) a "Declaration of Recognition" to be enacted by all Australian Parliaments (not in the Constitution. So, had the original recommendations been followed, we would still be voting on a Voice in the Constitution. Don't blame Labor (if, indeed, it was them) for combining the two recommendations because, as you noted above, your sticking point is the Constitutional Voice - not the Constitution recognition. ~ "it can work without a Constitutional Voice" - proponents believe more can be achieved by advising the government directly via the Voice. ~ "it is highly unlikely that such legislation would be" - I think you will find that legislation had to be repealed/modified when all the previous "voices" were abolished by their respective governments. Governments will not be not put-off just because some legislation has to be repealed. But there is little point talking about a legislated Voice because, if the No vote wins, the Voice will be off the table for a long, long time (10 or 20 years). ~ "does not reassure anyone that the dissenting voices will be" - we live in a democracy. That means the majority usually "wins" - not every dissenter can be accommodated. Don't blame the Voice proposal for that - that is just how democracies work. ~ "unlikely that say Jacinta Price would be invited to participate" - if she is selected by the relevant A&TSI communities (and it doesn't conflict with her senatorial duties), there is no reason why Price could not be on the Voice. ~ I'm not going to debate the the Republic Referendum as I have little knowledge of it. The government has released the Voice Principles upon which the Voice legislation would be based. ~ "how have they been doing?" - not well enough, apparently - as evidenced by the Closing the Gap targets. The intent is that ready access to the opinions of A&TSI people representing the A&TSI communities will provide direct advice to the NIAA and others. Review of the NIAA is a different question altogether.
You have actually summarised the No pamphlet. They did not present a single fact but use a bunch of scary words (risky, unknown, divisive) without backing them up with a single fact. The Yes campaign presented a number of real-life examples where listening to Indigenous people helped.
@@AnotherDougsome of those fears are well grounded. the word "reparations" has been used by architects such as Mayo. Where are spokesmen like him? He's vanished. Yes campaign needs one person to stand up and offer a rational argument for voting yes. It hasn't happened yet .
@@AnotherDoug "They did not present a single fact but use a bunch of scary words (risky, unknown, divisive) without backing them up with a single fact." Lol. Here's a fact: The Voice is racist because it seeks to enshrines legal privilege in the Constitution to people based purely on race. Feel free to fact check that and tell which part of that isn't true. You also actually mentioned some facts with out realising it: Risky: There is increased risk by changing the Constitution without knowing the details of the change. This is objectively true. Unknown: No details have been given about the specifics of how this Voice would be constructed. If you have these details please share, because the PM has been asked numerous times and refuses to offer any. Divisive: Why are we arguing if it's not divisive? It's quite clearly and objectively already divided the nation into Yes and No camps. "The Yes campaign presented a number of real-life examples where listening to Indigenous people helped."' The logical hole you've put yourself into here is that if we have example that work now, why do we need any change? Why not just repeat whatever worked without the need for a change to the Constitution?
@@AnotherDoug ah see classic logical fallacy there mate. The onus is on the Yes campaign because they're the ones wanting to change things. They don't need to show where listening may have helped in a couple of cherrypicked instances. They need to show why the model that already failed (cf ATSIC) should be permanently enshrined in the Constitution. It's not up to the no case to convince people to vote no. The no case is to convince people to keep things as they are, to shoot down the yes arguments. The Yes campaign made it far too easy for the No campaign when they put up the weakest arguments even a child could walk a horse through.
We definitely need reform and higher visibility for indigenous Australians, particularly those in remote communities that are being hidden away and pushed silently into the `too hard` basket by politicians on both sides of parliament. It is hard to believe that another layer of bureaucracy will help with any kind of `truth telling` when everyone is trying to hide the purgatorial conditions and outcomes that are the reality for many born into remote communities throughout our country.
Not a layer of bureaucracy - an advisory body whose advice can either be accepted or ignored by the Government. But we need something to get moving on the Closing the Gap targets which are not closing and some are getting owrse.
@@AnotherDoug How is another parliament existing between remote communities and service delivery not going to be another layer of bureaucracy? What positive difference is yet another group of people debating what needs to be done at the coalface from the comfort of a city office going to create? I have spent more than 25% of my life living and working in remote communities. We dont need more voices and academics, we need more hands to do the work required and people to open their eyes to the denial modern policy and programs are built on. In 13 years i never saw a politician stay one night in a community or a mainstream media crew trying to make a real story there.
They are called "Remote Communities" for a reason. People make all sorts of lifestyle choices, there is nothing stopping anyone from moving to the cities or more densely populated areas and joining the rest of humanity.
@@ThomasLouttit That is a fairly common sentiment. The reality is that language barriers, extremely poor educational outcomes, cultural obligation to family and a visceral connection to country make successful transition the exception rather than the rule. It is not that people do not leave for other places, it is that they are incredibly poorly equipped to integrate. You see the result of that failed transition manifest most obviously in places like Alice Springs, Port Augusta, Tennant Creek etc. Most Australians with no experience of these places and incredibly limited exposure to the people fail to realise that people from many of these traditional communities are one generation out of the bush. Many people born and raised in these communities have almost no foundational cultural understanding of the basic principles that underpin a successful life in modern society. One of the most profound paradigm shifts in my life happened when i found out most of the men my age in one of the communities i worked in had not lived in a house until they were between 5-8 years old, never seen a store or eaten a processed food. When you consider that there is an immense gap in culture and the difficulty of educating a people that you dont share a language with and dont get why education is important in the first place, these outcomes are not really surprising. What IS an issue is that we are abjectly failing to address this gap and hiding the reality of it from everyday Australia. Your comment is a prime example of what most Australians think because there has been a concerted effort from Government, Indigenous Organisations and Media to hide that reality from everyone.
@@dyrtybarstud5261 Please provide us with the evidence of your claim that "there has been a concerted effort from Government, Indigenous Organisations, and Media to hide that reality from everyone." Just because these things are not in the faces of the rest of Australians, in no way means there is a concerted effort by the bodies you mention to hide anything.
Hi there, You can watch The Drum on ABCiview! Here is the link to the episode Wesley is featured in: iview.abc.net.au/show/drum/series/0/video/NC2307H176S00 Thanks for watching, Centre For Indigenous Training
I am now retired but worked a lot in South East Asia and even in North sea on ships biscuits were either in tin's or plain packaging. The food was good always clean and healthy your work is more relaxed as budgets weren't as tight as when coming to work in Australia where food and lollies Tim Tam's and mint slices are in MUA agreements along with ice cream on sticks and tubs chewing gum chocolates and chips. Along with news papers on helicopter days much higher salaries all makes for unhealthy living and a lot of stress to get job done in time and in budget. All the avocados and prawn cocktails sound nice but really waste is a issue and militant unions make it hard for companies to make profit so if you are a worker you feel the pressure. So to me I would be happy with plain biscuit and if needed I could bring a few treats from home. A job is important but so is mental health. Be good if Government worked more on purchasing power of our dollar than just increasing wages and then tax's as it is a vicious circle.
Please excuse me for not being a virtue signaler, but the First Nation people of Australia are British. Aboriginals are not even first tribe people. Furthermore, aboriginals must not be enshrined in the Constitution as First Peoples of Australia, as there is no evidence to prove that beyond doubt. Such Constitutional recognition is the first step for activists to obtain sovereignty rulings from International Courts, and would lead to pressure on government for all manner of additional concessions, privileges and even separatist ambitions, at the expense of all Australians.
"but the First Nation people of Australia are British." This is an important distinction to make. The very concept of a 'nation state' is European, so the people here before European settlement we never any sort of 'nation' as we know it today. The term 'First Nations' is a deliberate marketing trick to make it sound like something that needs a 'treaty'.
I downloaded your brochure, thank you. I think you have summarized the issues very clearly (more so than the electoral commission document). However, I think that you have left out a fundamental point regarding the question of the voice, being: YES - The voice will help bring indigenous and non-indigenous Australians together on a path of reconciliation through recognition, representation, treaty and truth. NO - The voice will forever divide Australians by race, where indigenous Australians have more representation to government than non-indigenous Australians.
"NO - The voice will forever divide Australians by race, where indigenous Australians have more representation to government than non-indigenous Australians." This is the Yes position.
@@AnotherDoug The word indigenous is just a label and has different meanings to different people. AnotherDoug, please stop playing dumb, you know exactly what MA-nm2tv means.
@@AnotherDoug All Homo Sapiens migrated out of Africa; the so-called indigenous people of Australia are migrants, indigenous people of Africa. You know this scientifically established fact, so please stop playing dumb and tell the truth.
It’s a hard No from me.
I watched the abc's drum program tonight and was pleased to see Wess as a part of the panel,well done Wess. It must be very frustrating when the host of the program invites you to make comment on a subject and then allows another panelist to rudely talk over the top of you. Congratulations on the manner you handle that situation. You Sir are a true gentlemen.
We are all Australians. We are all Indigenous born here. I am voting NO. ❤️🇦🇺🦘
Vote NO to the divisive voice and demand Albanese step down!
Weslay nice work on the brochure clear concise and easily followed to reach the right (NO) decision ... I've started letterboxing them around Perth
VOTE NO.. write NO. And say NO.
I've done my research. I've also spoken with a few people.
It's a definite NO from me.
I would urge everyone to also write NO to the Voice.
Keep your urges to yourself
@@davexenos9196 We ask all Yes voters to stop the hate & abuse.
I like the balance they you present. If only everting on social media was like this.
Great work.
I’ll have to copy and paste my comment to your other video for the yes case. 😊
Thank you.
Watching from New Zealand, i wonder why albo denies that treaty will be a part of this.
He knows that would lose him more votes.
Because the Voice is ONLY about advice - it cannot negotiate treaties.
@@AnotherDoug But has has promised that if the voice referendum succeeds then he will implement the full statement which includes treaty.
So a vote for the voice is also a vote for treaty and makarrata because Albanese has hitched one to the other. It's his evasiveness around this issue that has eroded trust and cost the yes campaign votes.
@@AnotherDoug Wake up dude. What do you think the advice is going be? What do you think will happen if 'advice' is ignored?
This is simply a mechanism to lobby for more power. You'd have to be naive not to see through it. Most of the Yes activists have already admitted that the end goal here is a treaty.
@@JasonFoster-mq2vi
No, he hasn't said "IF the voice referendum succeeds" at all. He has said he will implement "Voice, treaty, truth" - there was no dependency on the Voice being approved. He has not explicitly denied that, if the Voice fails, he would proceed on treaty or truth.
A vote for the Voice is NOT a vote for treaty or truth. As Albanese has implied, the Voice is not a critical dependency for treaty or truth. And the No side agrees: Mundine (the leader of the No Campaign) and Thorpe have both said they want to see the Voice fail at the referendum, so that the "real work" on Treaty can commence.
Vote No
*Its really disappointing how any Indigenous Australians voting No are called horrible names like 'coconuts'. So much for respecting people's views*
I suppose it comes down to bass racism
i don't understand how a government have a treaty with your own citizens. Before they were citizens yes but after? Aboriginals have more rights now than the average citizen.
"i don't understand how a government have a treaty with your own citizens"
You can't. It's absurd. But this is the level we are at now.
@@gooble69 they won't be citizens. They don't think they are.
A treaty is between countries not with it’s own citizens all it will create is division with in Australia.
@@craigfrith7024 that's the entire point.. that's what is meant by "sovereignty never ceded" they want to become their own autonomous nation(s) represented by the voice. Read page 18 of the Uluru statement. It's all there.
@karlm9584 I did read that thanks for the clarification makes sense for them but not for us.
The only information you need is the full Uluru statement, and the Dialogue minutes as well if you feel brave, but definitely the full, 18+ page Uluru statement is a must-read before voting. This information shows the true intent behind the voice.
The version of the Voice we are voting on is not the same as envisaged by some of the people who attended the Regional Dialogues. Some of them wanted the Voice to be able to negotiate treaties, reparations, etc with the Government.
The version of the Voice we are actually voting for will have one power only: the power to give ADVICE to the Government. The Government will always have the right to accept or ignore that advice.
@@AnotherDoug If that were unambiguously true then there would seem little advantage in it for the activists who have pushed for it. The limits to the powers of the voice I think are at best unclear since embedding it in the constitution gives it a unique position and a kind of pre-eminence not possessed by any other lobby group - and Albanese has previously stated that it would be a brave government who chose to ignore it.
Regardless, the bigotry and hostility the creators express toward non-Indigenous Australians is reason enough for me to deny their request for special political rights for them.
The referendum looks likely to fail - the first thing we need to do if it does is seek alternative means of addressing Indigenous disadvantage, which is orders of magnitude worse in remote Indigenous communities than it is among the Indigenous population as a whole. We need a very large light shone on the power structures in the communities, land councils, Aboriginal corporations and government bodies and have a clear look at how these things interact with one another to result in the outcomes that we see. Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine both seem to allude to this as being part of the problem.
@@AnotherDoug no matter how you spin it the yes vote is irrelevant. There is absolutely no reason to vote yes, no matter what side of the fence you're on. If you're on the side of the indigenous then this proposal as it is described and envisaged by you doesn't go nearly far enough and it clearly isn't what they want according to their hallowed statement so why annoy them with it? And if you're on the side of the no, then it is obviously unnecessary and possibly dangerous.
@@AnotherDoug "The version of the Voice we are actually voting for will have one power only: the power to give ADVICE to the Government."
You forgot to mention that this advice will be restricted based on race, which is the primary reason why most people are voting no.
Racist policies have no place in any modern democracy. We all already have a voice, it's called a vote. And if you want to give 'advice' to the government you can already do this by writing your MP a letter.
Vote NO to racial division.
@@AnotherDougit's over give up😂
Great to see you on the drum Wes. Magda tried to score a point with misinformation from no campaign. Then you pointed out misinformation from the PM, Albo. Well done.
Thank you yet again
Well done, I have looked at some of your videos, they are well balanced and thought provoking and give avenues for people to do further research.
I must say that with all the money being spent in this space and talking to people I know, it looks as if governments of all colours has failed in their responsibilities in the use of these government monies on trying to reduce the gap. I have made my decision on which way I am voting. Too many people with bright ideas and no practicable working knowledge seem to be in control.
I like how you're not pushing either side of the debate. That's what our media should be doing. People need to be thought to think for themselves and do their own research and not be told what to think.
Lets think of all residents here as Australians only regardless of their former origins
Neatly done, sir.
The thought of my grandchildren 50 years from now having to pay some sort of tribute to the grandchildren of indigenous contemporaries offends me greatly.
Not even the descendants of those who voted for Federation have a special Voice to the Executive or to the Parliament.
The Voice Referendum has no direct link to any discussion on reparations. The Voice would only have one power: to give advice to the Government. It would not have power to negotiate on behalf of A&TSI peoples. It could certainly offer advice to the Government on reparations but the government can accept or ignore that advice, as it wishes
@@AnotherDoug The Voice would have/would have had/will have whatever powers the Parliament gives it under the broad Constitutional mandate.
This is why a proper convention and DETAILS are needed. A government could create any structure it wanted, from a single person, to merging all the bureaucracies currently dedicated to indigenous affairs, to placing indigenous cadres in every single government department like grand old Communists are fond of doing in their spirit-crushing way.
@@AnotherDoug A big problem is that the voice referendum is directly linked to the people who wanted it - and those people have clearly and unambiguously laid out in 112 pages of official documents (86 pages of regional meeting records and the 26 pages that record the proceedings from which the 1-page Statement from the Heart was distilled, which itself is page 1 of 26) a very far-reaching agenda, much broader in scope and scale than what we are being told we are voting on, which the prime minister has promised to implement should the referendum succeed.
Separatism, reparations and a voice that is not merely an advisory body but that "must have teeth" (their own words) are all obvious themes in the documents. As well as openly-expressed racism and disdain for any Australian not born with Aboriginal heritage.
The individuals who produced this bigoted and entitled list of demands will most definitely be jockying for a seat on the voice, should the referendum succeed - after all, it's their own creation. Why would I vote yes to special political rights for someone who despises me, thinks I owe them something and thinks that the land I was born in is not mine because I was born without a particular racial heritage? www.niaa.gov.au/sites/default/files/foi-log/foi-2223-016.pdf
The people who created this proposal don't want anything to do with me - they just need my vote to help get their agenda across the line and entrenched. And if I give it to them that would make me a "useful idiot". So they won't be getting it from me.
@@youbigtubership
1. Read sub-section (ii) of the proposed Constitutional change - it actually specifies the ONLY function of the Voice to "make representations to ...". No other function is allowed by the Constitution itself.
2. Now read sub-section (iii). Those words "subject to this Constitution" narrows the "mandate" considerably. Those words mean that the Constitution itself will prevent Parliament from giving the Voice any other function than to "make representations ...".
3. "A government could create any structure it wanted" - yes, it could. (Which is what many people would be happy with when they say "the Government should just legislate the Voice".) However, the Government has published a number of Voice Principles that will be the basis of the Voice legislation. These Principles have been published so that everyone can hold the Government and Parliament to account when they consider the legislation. The Voice Principles require multiple members of the Voice (so, not a single person). The Voice will be independent, so existing government sections cannot be merged into the Voice.
@@youbigtubership plus we have a document prepared by the indigenous that goes into great detail regarding their demands, which the PM has committed to - seemingly sight unseen, if we are to believe what he says.
Thanks again for another helpful informative post 👍
I have never had an employer that felt enough to provide the staff with biscuits , it was often just hard enough to get them to remember the milk and we bought our own coffee . But if you had a cake , he be there with his hand out .
All other heads of power in the Constitution have their power clearly prescribed and constrained. The proposed new chapter for the Voice has no such provisions and that alone is a concern and raises warning bells.
"their power clearly prescribed and constrained"
~ proposed section 129 (ii) clearly says the Voice "may make representations". That is all it can do.
~ proposed section 129 (iii) clearly says that Parliament has the power, "subject to this Constitution" to make laws about the Voice. Those words, "subject to this Constitution" mean that Parliament cannot change the function of the Voice from that specified in sub-section (ii)
You can't get more prescribed and constrained than these.
@@AnotherDoug But the term 'may' has no constraint, which means their role may be extended to other areas, for example negotiating a treaty, reparations as is detailed in the full Uluru statement. There are no constraints, and the use of open terms in the clauses, incorporating it into its own chapter, and the use of 'Executive' to enliven the full extent of Administrative Law is both legally dangerous and unknown. The clauses have been carefully drafted to allow legal extension beyond what is being presented.
@@aussie807
~ "the term 'may' has no constraint" - the term "may" qualifies the making of representations; so the Voice MAY make representations or they MAY NOT make representations. See the Solicitor-General's Opinion footnote 7: "Proposed s 129(ii) is expressed in permissive terms - the Voice “may make representations” - so as to confer a discretion on the Voice as to whether or not to make representations on any particular matter relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples"
~ The Voice WILL HAVE NO POWER to negotiate treaties or reparations. It will only have the "power" to give ADVICE. (This is proven by the fact that Mundine and Thorpe both want the Voice to fail, so that the "real work" on treaties can begin. Does this sound like the Voice will pave the way for treaties?)
~ " both legally dangerous and unknown" - only if the Parliament outsources its drafting of the Voice legislation to idiots (which it won't). Parliament will have the power to determine the legal effect of representations made by the Voice. Consequently, the Voice will not be able to challenge the Government or Parliament in any court.
~ The clauses certainly have been carefully drafted - to NOT allow the Voice to do anything but give ADVICE. Please read the Solicitor-General's Opinion.
@@aussie807There is a bit more to the power of the Voice than Doug wants to tell you.
ruclips.net/video/9YlOHRwgb70/видео.htmlsi=_2N0ylQbbCzfChit
No to the orange cream ,and no to the voice ,both may seem sweet in the beginning,but will leave a bitter aftertaste
There are so many issues surrounding this. I'm concerned that the Albanese government is marrying what should be two separate aspects: One - the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders within the Constitution of Australia, and Two - the creation of a Voice to Parliament. I'm pretty confident that people would overwhelmingly support One (and I'm one of them) but it seems number Two is the sticking point - and for good reason at the moment, because no one truly understands what the Voice will actually achieve. Some suspect it will achieve "bad" things, others think it will achieve nothing other than creating a toothless bureaucracy, and others believe it will be a "step" in reconciliation. I personally question why some of the actions called for cannot be achieved through legislation (the government can create an Indigenous Council to advise the Dept of Indigenous Affairs for example). If the referendum fails, I would think the government can still pursue some of the goals and dreams of Aboriginal people through both legislative but also bureaucratic means such as changes in processes, procedures, and so on. And maybe restructuring or reshaping the Dept of Indigenous Affairs is a place to start - is that dept fit for purpose if all the money, time and goodwill of so many people has "failed" to bridge the gap? I'm also concerned that Aboriginal people have varying reasons to not support the yes campaign. Were this to get through, what happens to the voices of those people? Is the voice to parliament truly going to be representative of all Aboriginal people or what activists, elites and academics want (which is still a paternalistic approach to addressing concerns of Aboriginal people)? The issue might not have been an issue if Australians could trust politicians to do the right thing. The way the current government has handled this smacks of trying to hoodwink voters. This failed when the question of the Republic was put - not enough information on how it would actually "look" and "work" and the implications for ordinary Australians. I hate this current "debate" in the lead up to the vote. Very nasty and dismissive comments from both sides when both sides have legitimate points that should be weighed up in a much more positive and constructive way. I want much better outcomes for Aboriginal people but the Yes side did not do anything to explain this in the Referendum pamphlet.
~ "Albanese government is marrying what should be two separate aspects" - the request for Constitutional recognition via the Voice did not come from the Albanese government. It was requested six years ago in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Labor adopted that as one of their election promises. Labor was elected. They chose to honour their election promise. Here we are.
~ "what the Voice will actually achieve" - it will provide advice to the Government on matters affecting A&TSI communities to help close the gaps in areas like health, education, employment, etc. The Yes Pamphlet actually gives three examples where listening to advice from Indigenous peoples actually resulted in better outcomes
~ "government can create an Indigenous Council" - yes, it could. But then the Government changes and the new government abolishes that Council with the flick of a pen. Its happened multiple times to various "voices" created in the past. The hope is that Constitutional change will help protect the Voice from a hostile future government.
~ "what happens to the voices of those people?" - they will be heard. The Voice is about consulting communities and representing communities, not ignoring specific individuals.
~ "still a paternalistic approach" - but far, far less paternalistic than a bunch of white people making decisions without consulting any A&TSI communities.
~ "trying to hoodwink voters." - Referendums have always been about concepts not details. If the Government had released the 130 page Langton/Calma Report, the complaints would be even louder "too much detail" or waste weeks debating whether there should 22 or 24 people on the Voice committee. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
I think you encapsulated the main issues and concerns with greater clarity and fewer words than the booklet does.
@@AnotherDoug ~ Labor's adoption of the Voice recommendations as an election policy was not the reason it won the election, nor the reason it might have lost the election. The hoodwinking comes from combining the two parts of the Voice proposal - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander recognition in the Constitution, and establishing a Voice to Parliament. ~ Listening to people affected by government decisions is always a good idea, no matter who those people are. The examples given in the Referendum booklet illustrate that working with Aboriginal people and communities is not only a great idea, but that it can work without a Constitutional Voice. ~ Government can create an advisory group by legislation and while any piece of legislation can be repealed, it is highly unlikely that such legislation would be. Like any statutory body, an indigenous advisory body could be established and run, and once it demonstrates that the money IS being directed efficiently and effectively with positive outcomes, there's no reason for a government to repeal it. The other advantage is that legislation can be more easily amended to improve things, expand things, so I see this as an advantage to that statutory body. ~ Merely stating that "yes, Aboriginal people who are currently dissenting from the Yes campaign will have their voices heard" does not reassure anyone that the dissenting voices will be (for whatever reason they dissent). I'd say it is unlikely that say Jacinta Price would be invited to participate in the Voice to Parliament body, or however it is to work. ~ It isn't necessary to provide so much details that everyone is confused. The reason the Republican issue failed is that no detail was given, effectively asking the population to decide that "a republic would be a good idea" rather than understanding how a "working" republic would function. I think the same thing is happening here. ~ As for your comment about a bunch of white people making decisions without consulting with the ATSI community, the 3 examples given in the Referendum Yes notes would indicate that people are being consulted. That consultation definitely needs to be looked at, but my argument is that this process of consultation can be incorporated into processes and procedures and legislated where needed to ensure the consultation is genuine, and my comment about looking at the current and preferred role of the Department of Indigenous Affairs is still valid. If this is the Department that has been overseeing the money spent on specific projects, how have they been doing? What levels of bureaucracy are Aboriginal communities having to go through to get projects completed successfully and how can this be streamlined? I won't go on any further with the Dept role and how it could be better organised or reorganised to achieve better results, but the point is that it probably needs serious review in itself.
@@johnnichol9412
~ "adopted" ≠ "proposed". As I said, the Voice was proposed at the Uluru Constitutional Convention in 2017 - not by Labor.
~ "why will they listen to "The Voice" - the fact that, if successful, the Voice will have been mandated by over half the Australian adult population will give it a bit of weight in Parliament. Ultimately, however, it will be the quality of the advice given by the Voice that will be its own best "advertisement".
@@magpiegirl3783
~ "hoodwinking comes from combining the two parts of the Voice proposal" - The Final Report of the Referendum Council in 2017 had two recommendations:
1) a Constitutional change to create a Voice; and
2) a "Declaration of Recognition" to be enacted by all Australian Parliaments (not in the Constitution.
So, had the original recommendations been followed, we would still be voting on a Voice in the Constitution. Don't blame Labor (if, indeed, it was them) for combining the two recommendations because, as you noted above, your sticking point is the Constitutional Voice - not the Constitution recognition.
~ "it can work without a Constitutional Voice" - proponents believe more can be achieved by advising the government directly via the Voice.
~ "it is highly unlikely that such legislation would be" - I think you will find that legislation had to be repealed/modified when all the previous "voices" were abolished by their respective governments. Governments will not be not put-off just because some legislation has to be repealed. But there is little point talking about a legislated Voice because, if the No vote wins, the Voice will be off the table for a long, long time (10 or 20 years).
~ "does not reassure anyone that the dissenting voices will be" - we live in a democracy. That means the majority usually "wins" - not every dissenter can be accommodated. Don't blame the Voice proposal for that - that is just how democracies work.
~ "unlikely that say Jacinta Price would be invited to participate" - if she is selected by the relevant A&TSI communities (and it doesn't conflict with her senatorial duties), there is no reason why Price could not be on the Voice.
~ I'm not going to debate the the Republic Referendum as I have little knowledge of it. The government has released the Voice Principles upon which the Voice legislation would be based.
~ "how have they been doing?" - not well enough, apparently - as evidenced by the Closing the Gap targets. The intent is that ready access to the opinions of A&TSI people representing the A&TSI communities will provide direct advice to the NIAA and others. Review of the NIAA is a different question altogether.
Some Australians should not different rights than other Australians. I am, you are, we are Australian. Vote NO.
Thank you Wesley 🙏
I agree, we should all have the AEC document to read and think on, wise words .🙂
NO!!!
The Yes case just seems to be "do it on the feels". For a half a billion dollar thing, you'd hope they could make a better argument
You have actually summarised the No pamphlet. They did not present a single fact but use a bunch of scary words (risky, unknown, divisive) without backing them up with a single fact. The Yes campaign presented a number of real-life examples where listening to Indigenous people helped.
@@AnotherDougsome of those fears are well grounded. the word "reparations" has been used by architects such as Mayo. Where are spokesmen like him? He's vanished. Yes campaign needs one person to stand up and offer a rational argument for voting yes. It hasn't happened yet .
@@AnotherDoug "They did not present a single fact but use a bunch of scary words (risky, unknown, divisive) without backing them up with a single fact."
Lol. Here's a fact: The Voice is racist because it seeks to enshrines legal privilege in the Constitution to people based purely on race.
Feel free to fact check that and tell which part of that isn't true.
You also actually mentioned some facts with out realising it:
Risky: There is increased risk by changing the Constitution without knowing the details of the change. This is objectively true.
Unknown: No details have been given about the specifics of how this Voice would be constructed. If you have these details please share, because the PM has been asked numerous times and refuses to offer any.
Divisive: Why are we arguing if it's not divisive? It's quite clearly and objectively already divided the nation into Yes and No camps.
"The Yes campaign presented a number of real-life examples where listening to Indigenous people helped."'
The logical hole you've put yourself into here is that if we have example that work now, why do we need any change? Why not just repeat whatever worked without the need for a change to the Constitution?
Should we be concerned about land and water hand backs and schemes such as pay the rent?@@AnotherDoug
@@AnotherDoug ah see classic logical fallacy there mate. The onus is on the Yes campaign because they're the ones wanting to change things. They don't need to show where listening may have helped in a couple of cherrypicked instances. They need to show why the model that already failed (cf ATSIC) should be permanently enshrined in the Constitution.
It's not up to the no case to convince people to vote no. The no case is to convince people to keep things as they are, to shoot down the yes arguments.
The Yes campaign made it far too easy for the No campaign when they put up the weakest arguments even a child could walk a horse through.
We definitely need reform and higher visibility for indigenous Australians, particularly those in remote communities that are being hidden away and pushed silently into the `too hard` basket by politicians on both sides of parliament. It is hard to believe that another layer of bureaucracy will help with any kind of `truth telling` when everyone is trying to hide the purgatorial conditions and outcomes that are the reality for many born into remote communities throughout our country.
Not a layer of bureaucracy - an advisory body whose advice can either be accepted or ignored by the Government. But we need something to get moving on the Closing the Gap targets which are not closing and some are getting owrse.
@@AnotherDoug How is another parliament existing between remote communities and service delivery not going to be another layer of bureaucracy? What positive difference is yet another group of people debating what needs to be done at the coalface from the comfort of a city office going to create? I have spent more than 25% of my life living and working in remote communities. We dont need more voices and academics, we need more hands to do the work required and people to open their eyes to the denial modern policy and programs are built on. In 13 years i never saw a politician stay one night in a community or a mainstream media crew trying to make a real story there.
They are called "Remote Communities" for a reason. People make all sorts of lifestyle choices, there is nothing stopping anyone from moving to the cities or more densely populated areas and joining the rest of humanity.
@@ThomasLouttit That is a fairly common sentiment. The reality is that language barriers, extremely poor educational outcomes, cultural obligation to family and a visceral connection to country make successful transition the exception rather than the rule.
It is not that people do not leave for other places, it is that they are incredibly poorly equipped to integrate. You see the result of that failed transition manifest most obviously in places like Alice Springs, Port Augusta, Tennant Creek etc.
Most Australians with no experience of these places and incredibly limited exposure to the people fail to realise that people from many of these traditional communities are one generation out of the bush.
Many people born and raised in these communities have almost no foundational cultural understanding of the basic principles that underpin a successful life in modern society.
One of the most profound paradigm shifts in my life happened when i found out most of the men my age in one of the communities i worked in had not lived in a house until they were between 5-8 years old, never seen a store or eaten a processed food.
When you consider that there is an immense gap in culture and the difficulty of educating a people that you dont share a language with and dont get why education is important in the first place, these outcomes are not really surprising.
What IS an issue is that we are abjectly failing to address this gap and hiding the reality of it from everyday Australia. Your comment is a prime example of what most Australians think because there has been a concerted effort from Government, Indigenous Organisations and Media to hide that reality from everyone.
@@dyrtybarstud5261 Please provide us with the evidence of your claim that "there has been a concerted effort from Government, Indigenous Organisations, and Media to hide that reality from everyone."
Just because these things are not in the faces of the rest of Australians, in no way means there is a concerted effort by the bodies you mention to hide anything.
Hi Wes, is there a link for The Drum? Particularly the episode you feature in? Thanks 😊
Hi there,
You can watch The Drum on ABCiview!
Here is the link to the episode Wesley is featured in:
iview.abc.net.au/show/drum/series/0/video/NC2307H176S00
Thanks for watching,
Centre For Indigenous Training
@@centreforindigenoustraining thank you
How big a slice of $42 billion spent on the Aboriginal industry, does the Centre for Indigenous Training receive? NO
Not $42 billion, Tony Abbott said $30 billion but he was wrong too. It is $6 billion - search for RMIT Fact Check Tony Abbott $30 billion"
NO
Why is there even a centre for indigenous Australians, can’t they go learn with everyone else?
the voice is a trojan horse
vote no
use a pen, not pencil
I am now retired but worked a lot in South East Asia and even in North sea on ships biscuits were either in tin's or plain packaging. The food was good always clean and healthy your work is more relaxed as budgets weren't as tight as when coming to work in Australia where food and lollies Tim Tam's and mint slices are in MUA agreements along with ice cream on sticks and tubs chewing gum chocolates and chips. Along with news papers on helicopter days much higher salaries all makes for unhealthy living and a lot of stress to get job done in time and in budget. All the avocados and prawn cocktails sound nice but really waste is a issue and militant unions make it hard for companies to make profit so if you are a worker you feel the pressure. So to me I would be happy with plain biscuit and if needed I could bring a few treats from home. A job is important but so is mental health. Be good if Government worked more on purchasing power of our dollar than just increasing wages and then tax's as it is a vicious circle.
dear Wes, either company as i'm a dunker from way back lol
easiest no ever
I've done some personal research, and I'd much prefer to be around cream biscuits, especially for dunking.
Orange creams...
Tea ir Coffee , whats your choice ?
Please excuse me for not being a virtue signaler, but the First Nation people of Australia are British. Aboriginals are not even first tribe people.
Furthermore, aboriginals must not be enshrined in the Constitution as First Peoples of Australia, as there is no evidence to prove that beyond doubt.
Such Constitutional recognition is the first step for activists to obtain sovereignty rulings from International Courts, and would lead to pressure on government for all manner of additional concessions, privileges and even separatist ambitions, at the expense of all Australians.
"but the First Nation people of Australia are British."
This is an important distinction to make. The very concept of a 'nation state' is European, so the people here before European settlement we never any sort of 'nation' as we know it today. The term 'First Nations' is a deliberate marketing trick to make it sound like something that needs a 'treaty'.
Orange cream...mmmm 🙂
It states theres four comments put forth. Yet there is none. WHY.🤔
Shows six now @8.39 pm😮
It says 16 comments l only see 9 comments and mine went missing nothing l said was offensive
Sorting by "newest first" trends to show more comments.
I recycled mine
We all did. Lol
I downloaded your brochure, thank you. I think you have summarized the issues very clearly (more so than the electoral commission document).
However, I think that you have left out a fundamental point regarding the question of the voice, being:
YES - The voice will help bring indigenous and non-indigenous Australians together on a path of reconciliation through recognition, representation, treaty and truth.
NO - The voice will forever divide Australians by race, where indigenous Australians have more representation to government than non-indigenous Australians.
"NO - The voice will forever divide Australians by race, where indigenous Australians have more representation to government than non-indigenous Australians."
This is the Yes position.
@@gooble69 ??
@@normanmazlin6741 Sorry, but '??' is not a question. You need to put some words in there too...
@@gooble69 ?? means 'please explain'
@@normanmazlin6741 Which part didn't understand?
The British responsible?
My ancestors, just like Aboriginal ancestors, migrated here.
The 'Aboriginals' of Australia are NOT indigenous.
@@MA-nm2tv You might like to check a reliable dictionary for the definition of indigenous
@@AnotherDoug The word indigenous is just a label and has different meanings to different people. AnotherDoug, please stop playing dumb, you know exactly what MA-nm2tv means.
@@ThomasLouttit Yes, and he/she is incorrect
@@AnotherDoug All Homo Sapiens migrated out of Africa; the so-called indigenous people of Australia are migrants, indigenous people of Africa.
You know this scientifically established fact, so please stop playing dumb and tell the truth.