Can the Voice fix disadvantage?

[@JJCP95]

Thanks for these videos Wesley, they're insightful and informative. Also, I have a biscuit request/suggestion: try some Walkers shortbreads, you won't be disappointed!

[@WesleyAird]

How about some McVities? Digestives with chocolate maybe?

[@JJCP95]

@@WesleyAird I haven't tried those before, I'll definitely get some 👍

[@GlennThompson]

If even 1% of politicians, beaurocrats and activists were as honest and straightforward as the presenter on this chanel then Australia and the world would be a far better place. This man impresses me more than any other contemporary person that I can think of.

[@Truffles069]

This channel is massively under rated. It's always interesting, and thoughtful

[@butchgleeson]

You are Gold ! As a Proud Australian with Aboriginal heritage, you are leading the way to make our country a better place! Every Australian wants all our people to have equal opportunity , rights and support. We don't need to be divided by race, nationality or disability . We are all equal ! Respect !

[@davidhilder6826]

Thanks for your insightful comments

[@graybeard6687]

Well said! I have been asking and pleading for the current politicians to do their job. They have ears, and considering the level of indigenous members in parliament, why isn't the indigenous affairs minister doing anything now? Why is she not doing this now? They have all the power they need to at least make an attempt to listen now and work with the community's now, 90% of Australians would support and back in any genuine effort that gave the disadvantaged people a hand up and not lost in red tape.

[@seekerout]

Thank you for your insights. They confirm what my gut instincts were telling me - that you don't attack complex human problems from the great heights of the federal government. Solutions need to be narrowly targeted and flexible enough to make a difference at the micro level down to the individual, the family and their immediate community. The proposed Voice is a megaphone that will drown out the small voices that we should really be listening to.

[@AnotherDoug]

You are exactly right: the Voice will be a megaphone ... to amplify the small voices that we should really be listening to. That is the underlying philosophy of the Voice.

[@seekerout]

@@AnotherDoug The voices it will amplify are those that already shout loudly enough and have been well heard (and funded) for years.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@seekerout How do you know? These "voices" would need to be selected by members of their communities to become Members of the Voice. You don't know who they are.

[@seekerout]

@@AnotherDoug And neither does anyone else. The whole proposal is so vague that it's not even clear if the members of the Voice are going to be elected or selected, and - if elected - by whom. And we don't even know whether there will be limits on their time in office. Judging by past experience, though, I can confidently predict that almost everyone elected or selected to become part of the Voice will be the same 'indigenous representatives' currently sitting at the top of the tree. It would be naive in the extreme to think that the Voice will be something different. It will just be more of the same, but welded on so we can't shake it off when it proves to be just as ineffectual and costly as all the other initiatives that were supposed to close the gap.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@seekerout ~ "elected or selected" - I recommend you read the Voice design principles (voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles) - the relevant one is "To ensure cultural legitimacy, the way that members of the Voice are chosen would suit the wishes of local communities and would be determined through the post-referendum process." (In other words, Government is not going to force a paternalistic approach to selection - each community will do what works for them.) ~ "whether there will be limits on their time in office" - again, in the Voice principles: "Members would serve on the Voice for a fixed period of time, to ensure regular accountability to their communities." ~ "I can confidently predict" - ???? based on ? ~ What tree? ~ "naive in the extreme to think that the Voice will be something different." - it will be very different to anything that has been attempted before. That's why it has a good chance of working. ~ If the advice is bad, the Government can ignore it - but that is not expected to happen. ~ " just as ineffectual and costly as all the other initiatives that were supposed to close the gap" - so you propose we keep doing what we have done for the past 56 years in the hope that the Gaps will suddenly start closing for no particular reason?

[@francesblabey3055]

Wesley, thank you.❤

[@maccart67]

We need you in Canberra. Thank you 🙏🏿

[@MrAndyshanahan]

I for one truly appreciate the way you're doing this. A very balanced, respectful, and considered approach and content. This is a vital moment in our history, and I would hate to see the worst outcomes of a vote either way... People with your insight, care and eloquence need to be front and center - and widely viewed. Thank you so much.

[@chapmansbg]

Anybody watching this spread the word because this man makes some good points. I have shared to FB and Twitter.

[@oceanreefer2626]

You have raised some great points. Well done for presenting a balanced, unbiased view. I wish more people were watching your videos.

[@jerrywong5960]

Well said. "If you can not define the problem, most likely you won't solve the problem."

[@VeronicaBrandt]

I'm learning so much! Seeing the Rebel News trip to Alice Springs, hearing from friends travelling through rural Australia, reading an essay from someone working in Tennant Creek, getting the picture from these people about immediate problems with violence on many different levels - then contrasting this with the waffle in the Uluru Statement from the Heart which instead brings up long past grievances. Your level headed view that most Indigenous Australians are doing well does seem to match up with what I know from living in Australia all my life. The 17 - 1800s was a violent time all over the world. We can't pour precious resources into applying modern ideas to a past which is now a remote and very different place. There is much we can do right now, but it needs to be on the local level.

[@elizabethsiebel2807]

Brilliant.

[@aaronfranklin6863]

the road to hel is paved with good intentions,we need to pave our own road our way,only we can save ourselves,we need our rightful power and control of our lands,resources,wealth and our own lives

[@WesleyAird]

our own road and self-agency. good idea

[@ianking-w6f]

The best "Voice" is talking to my brothers and cousins in the streets of life. and listening ! Yarn Up You Mob, Yarn Up

[@Scott-YouTubeAddict]

OMG - I love this guy - we just want equality for all Australians so we can finally be united in this lifetime 😊👌🇦🇺

[@AnotherDoug]

And the aim of the Voice is to help disadvantaged A&TSI communities to one day also achieve the equality that other Australians already enjoy

[@Scott-YouTubeAddict]

@@AnotherDoug such as ?

[@Scott-YouTubeAddict]

@@AnotherDoug I have aboriginal friends and relatives that go to work and pay bills same as me. They have all the opportunities that I do. Plus privileges and entitlements on top

[@AnotherDoug]

@@Scott-KZbinAddict The A&TSI communities that are affected by lower than Australian average outcomes in health, education, housing and employment

[@AnotherDoug]

@@Scott-KZbinAddict Glad to hear that. They are not likely going to need a Voice then but thousands of others living in communities will benefit.

[@soldier8304]

Very well said, mate!

[@IntenseBliss1]

“It is difficult to overstate the importance of EDUCATION and ECONOMIC PARTICIPATION.” Well said mate!

[@jeffstorer]

Thanks well said, real help is not something Govt do very well, until funding gets to make a difference , instead of being rorted or wasted , nothing will ever change, except the holder of the check book

[@AnotherDoug]

The Voice will be able to help ensure existing funding is directed to where it can be used most effectively

[@jeffstorer]

@@AnotherDoug do you mean the current funding for which,no one is held accountable for or even is required to explain where it actually went ,it's only a lazy 30 odd billion , the voice I s a smoke screen for what Govt has really achieved,, absolutely nothing

[@timbrown8581]

Great comments!

[@beautifulbanknotes]

The Voice is about power, it won’t help the remaining 20% of disadvantaged indigenous people, it’s just a power and financial grab by the elites, the Voice would create a financial and judicial nightmare for Australia, and it will divide Australians against Australians, Vote NO and keep our democracy intact and keep Australia united as one country and one people.

[@AnotherDoug]

~ " it’s just a power and financial grab by the elites" - who are these "elites" ~ how would the Voice - an ADVISORY body - create a financial "nightmare" - what is the basis of this statement? ~ The Solicitor-General had provided an official Opinion that the proposed Constitutional change will NOT cause judicial problems at all.

[@tomnewham1269]

@@AnotherDoug The Solicitor General has only provided an opinion which doesn't mean he is right. There are other constitutional lawyers who disagree with the Solicitor General. Putting such a thing as the Voice in the constitution is very broad in its wording and not specific enough. It will create debate and that will lead to cases going to the High Court for a ruling to be made on all sorts of matters if someone does or doesn't agree with the government in regards to 'advice' from the Voice.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@tomnewham1269 ~ The Solicitor-General is a leading Constitutional Lawyer and a Kings Counsel. His Opinion was published three months ago and no other lawyer has disputed it. So, I think it can be considered quite reliable. He has said that, when the Voice legislation is written, the Government can specify that the Voice advice has no legal affect - therefore it cannot be taken to the High Court. No debate is possible. ~ The proposed Constitutional change is quite specific: - the Voice can only make representations (that is, give advice); and - that the advice can only be about matters relating to A&TSI peoples. (The Attorney-General has defined "matters" - again with no-one disagreeing - as "specific to [A&TSI] peoples; and matters relevant to the Australian community ... but which affect [A&TSI] peoples differently")

[@christinac3929]

@@AnotherDoug A&TSI people are in pockets all around the country. How can it be fair that the Aborigines get to advise parliament on issues affecting them but other members of society do not have the same access.? If the voice has no legal effect, what is the point? The Government can specify that the Voice advice has no legal effect, but the advisory group can counter that. This statement " "specific to [A&TSI] peoples; and matters relevant to the Australian community ... but which affect [A&TSI] peoples differently") does not make sense. How are Aboriginals intrinsically different from the 270 other ethnic groups in the country?

[@AnotherDoug]

@@christinac3929 ~ "How can it be fair" - no-one is being disadvantaged by the creation of an ADVISORY body. No-one loses anything. Fairness (or lack of it) in the A&TSI communities is documented in the Closing the Gap reports. ~ "what is the point?" - the Government receives advice directly from the people affected by the policies and laws aimed at A&TSI peoples about how the money being spent can be used more effectively. ~ "the advisory group can counter that" - No, they can't. The Constitution itself will restrict the Voice to "making representations" only. That is, to give advice - that is it! ~ That statement isn't saying that A&TSI peoples are intrinsically different. It is saying that the Voice can ONLY provide advice on policies that have some specific impact that the rest of Australia does not experience. So, the Voice can't advise the government on, say, parking tickets.

[@pablovalentine8976]

Thank you for your honest reporting,

[@bernardvecchio3704]

Well said !!!!!

[@robinthomas1421]

Thanks again for clear explanations of all of this. I've been sharing to get this out to more people.

[@andreaconnelly3799]

Thank you 🙏

[@KingComputerSydney]

Wesley, you are fantastic addressing the complexity of the situation.

[@Hansca]

Thank you, your guidance is appreciated.

[@gregm9433]

I am a white fella who has spent 30 years working in West Arnhemland and Kakadu with the Bininj there. I think your videos and personal style are fantastic. I agree with all you say.

[@sticksfaz5413]

Well said, great series of videos. I only know a couple of people with an Aboriginal heritage and they’re all doing fine. In fact 3 of them are financially way more successful than I am, and you know what, I think that’s fantastic.

[@nolaj114]

Excellent - very balanced and considered perspective.

[@IntenseBliss1]

“No government can fix your life unless YOU take action”; totally agree, you can’t help someone that wont help themselves

[@Ed_Downunder]

I have no comments to add. You have said it better than I. You can speak from a perspective I do not have. I will say you are doing the aboriginal community a great service, with your pleasant manner and thoughtful comments. I will share on Facebook and Twitter (Sorry 'X'). Your efforts are really appreciated.

[@Brett.Crealy-kh1sk]

This is the most sound argument against the voice to date, and is the clearest understanding of what the issues are right now for the remote disadvantaged...

[@MarkForbes-dr4ie]

Well said mate self determination is the key,the voice won't fix grass roots issues, and delivery of services

[@bono1961]

Great words of wisdom.

[@johnandandreacampbell2974]

A great communicator.

[@chrismiddleton9088]

Wonderful arguments provided in a very clear and concise way. I would love to see this gentleman involved in an advisory capacity to Government departments involved in indigenous affairs.

[@librandancer]

Solid analysis

[@mathieuetoile]

I’m loving these truthful videos by you! Why aren’t you running Aboriginal affairs? You’d be great at it!

[@MrMoses1300]

Because he wouldn't be filling the pockets of corrupt people.

[@karlm9584]

They don't want honest and sensible people running these departments. Almost all of the major players behind the voice and yes campaign were living high on the hog at ATSIC.

[@JohnBoully]

Well said, Wesley. I will share this video and hope that many others are doing the same.

[@jonh9561]

Can the Voice fix disadvantage? Surely this has to be the main and central question in regards to The Voice. Good, calm and reasoned commentary that I'm grateful to hear and I think that we'd all like to know the answers to this central question .......... eh, PM Albanese.

[@AnotherDoug]

Why do you assume it won't?

[@jonh9561]

@@AnotherDoug Because, nowhere in the first or subsequent 25 pages of the Uluru Statement of the Heart that was supplied by the National Indigenous Australians Agency, does it say ANYTHING about fixing disadvantage. Over to you.

[@WesleyAird]

The referendum does not ask us to vote on disadvantage.

[@pooletranslation7581]

I just discovered this channel. It's very good!

[@DavidSheppard-i5t]

A very intelligent articulate and commonsense explanation from a man who gets it. I was inspired by your rhetoric,

[@KillerKid1900]

Great video. The most important change will happen at the level of individuals, families, and communities - something I very much doubt a new arm of Government will positively affect

[@AnotherDoug]

Not a new "arm of government" - the Voice will ADVISE the Government, not act as part of the Government

[@cameronbroom2593]

This man makes a whole lot of sense.

[@Chewy02]

Wow, what a great explanation. This needs sharing everywhere.

[@leighmurrell5494]

Right across the Nation, some people simply don't gain an education that will serve them well, nor they have an equal access to jobs, money and medical support, be they Indigenous or other. and this is another reason why focusing on just 3.5% of the population, because the Bent Albo is determined to create an apartheid society, will ultimately not serve anyone well.

[@AnotherDoug]

Describe this "apartheid society" you think an ADVISORY body will create?

[@antidepressant11]

That's a pretty clear case for the No

[@fredkasparek5463]

I love your level headed commentary

[@MichaelRobinson-hy8ms]

I am in the no camp for a bunch of reasons and have misgivings about the efficacy of the Voice to fix indigenous disadvantage. I am NOT racist and have an egalitarian ethos and love my fellow man regardless of race, colour or creed. Surely there are other ways to approach this problem without creating a permanent constitutional race based division within Australia. Who knows, in 50 years the problems may be mostly resolved. However, thanks to the constitution, the Voice will remain…….for what purpose? IF the Voice achieves a majority (hope it doesn’t) consensus I sincerely hope that wise minds such as your’s forms the Voice committee to steer this behemoth towards equitable outcomes for the disadvantaged aboriginals and refrains from entertaining extreme outcomes as promulgated by Lydia Thorpe & co. Thank you once again for your intelligent discussion of the thorny topic without injecting bias. Much appreciated.

[@adamwinterton2512]

Mate, not sure how I stumbled across your channel, glad I did, but thank you for explaining it rationally.. every word was true, might not be popular, but that's the way the truth go's more often than not

[@brettlane6908]

Very well said 😊👍👍

[@djpodesta]

Just a personal message today, The more I listen to your messaging, the more I appreciate your input. You seem to be an asset to your community and hope that you are appreciated by those whom you serve.

[@Gougen_Stuff]

And there it is, truth and reality put very succinctly

[@Grumpy-sy7wr]

I feel we already have a voice to Parliament, for the most disadvantaged of our nation. Those voices belong to the MPs responsible for the electorates those communities exist in. They put their hand up to be elected in that constituency, so they need to get out and about, do their job and learn what is needed for those communities, in their electorate.

[@AnotherDoug]

The Indigenous MPs represent ALL people in their electorates - not just the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander peoples. Those 11 people alone cannot be expected to focus solely on Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander matters - that would be racist, against the Constitution and an overwhelming workload!

[@Grumpy-sy7wr]

@@AnotherDoug Read it again, slowly. Every region has an elected MP. Not necessarily any of the 11 indigenous ones. Whoever was elected into those electorates needs to cover their entire electorate.

[@WesleyAird]

Every member of parliament is responsible to every one of their constituents. And then we have Ministers for portfolios. The system is there and we should hold our politicians to account.

[@Grumpy-sy7wr]

@@WesleyAird Pretty much what I was trying to get across, but you put it so it makes much more sense. They all need to start doing their jobs, over their whole areas.

[@freemind9734]

There should be no disadvantaged Aboriginals, with an annual tax payer funded budget of $33 billion which equates to $33k per Aboriginal so where does all the money go?

[@kimbo99]

Stangely thats not mentioned in the Uluru statement from the Heart. No gratitude whatsoever. Anywhere in the 26 page document. Conspicuous by its absence.

[@MrMoses1300]

Not a big fan of Pauline but she is pushing for answers on that subject and getting nowhere IMO

[@AnotherDoug]

@@kimbo99No gratitude? You want to be thanked for the Stolen Children, for forced relocations onto missions, stations, and reserves; for Aboriginal Exemption, etc?

[@AnotherDoug]

The Voice will be able to help ensure existing funding is directed to where it can be used most effectively

[@WesleyAird]

Much of it goes to general services such as roads, courts, defence, etc for all Australians of which Indigenous Australians make up a proportion. But the National Indigenous Australians Agency received some $4.5 Billion in the latest budget and that was targeted.

[@bigboy9693]

Jacinta Price is right, personal responsibility is the answer and holding the 19,00 aboriginal corporations to account, so we know where the 39 billion go. Audit all of them and make them account for ever cent as we know what happened at ATSIC.

[@aaronfranklin6863]

ATSIC was a good thing,I lived in 2 communities that benefited from ATSIC,the gobernment should of cleaned out the crooks and kept it,because it did work greatly its a shame a few people had to be untrustworthy

[@johndunn4182]

@@aaronfranklin6863 Hahaha... No mate, it was corrupt and not a good thing. Get real.

[@aaronfranklin6863]

@@johndunn4182 did ya miss the part I said I lived in two communities that benefited from it,I'll bet there would've been others as well that benefited from atsic that's the real reason they scrapped it because they could see it was getting instant good results

[@johndunn4182]

@@aaronfranklin6863 Rubbish..... I lived through those days. Clark was a crook. Get real pal.

[@aaronfranklin6863]

@@johndunn4182 yeah just because he's a dck hed doesn't mean the idea,the intention of the program was rock solid,yeah if he's guilty then I surely hope he's whole family goes to jail,they should've just got rid of him and got someone else to take over

[@wheres_bears1378]

Can not wait to vote no and put this to bed

[@1969cmp]

Alcohol is a massive problem we are seeing played out in the kids and youth in the central desert areas. While in the womb their brains are damaged by alcohol and then born into a world of extreme alcohol fuelled violence causing further damage.

[@robyn5905]

Thanks for these great and very helpful, educational videos. I'm very interested by your comments in this (and other videos) that in the main aboriginal people are doing fine with only 20% very disadvantaged. We tend to think it's the opposite due to various reports, including the Closing the Gap program. I'd be interested in your thoughts on that program and especially how that fits with your comments that most aboriginal people are doing ok. Thanks again, so helpful. 😊

[@snells-window]

Thank you for your very informative channel. I was initially a no voter but will now be voting yes. I don't expect the voice to fix the problems, but it has to be worth a try, as nothing we have done to date has been able to solve the issues. I do hope the truly disadvantaged people in remote communities will finally get to have some say in their future which up until now has almost wholly been determined by whitefellas. I say hope, because I fear their voices will be drowned out by the well educated and well off urban aboriginal people.

[@Hitman-ds1ei]

The disadvantage most face today is the facilitation of victim hood and the belief its someone else's responsibility to fix things for them not realising part of the fix is the personal growth and community growth by taking ownership and responsibility of the problems and solutions, "not having your arse wiped for you" is a big piece of the journey to success !

[@WesleyAird]

Whenever I see Indigenous people waiting for the 'government' or some such to 'fix' their problems I get very angry. All around the world, across history, individuals and families overcome disadvantage by self-agency.

[@johndunn4182]

Wesley, how will the Voice address endemic issues in Aboriginal communities? Issues like violence and rape.... towards men, children and women. Violence and rape perpetrated by Aboriginal men.

[@sandybottom6623]

Vote No to Division. Vote No to Racism. Vote No to Apartheid. Vote No to The Voice. One Australia. All together.

[@AnotherDoug]

Not racist; not apartheid

[@rossd6809]

The symbolism of the stacked chocolate biscuits has not gone unnoticed 😊

[@rossevans1774]

The Australian Federal Government should be focused on improving the lives of ALL disadvantaged Australians. If it takes a Constitutional referendum to get an elected Federal Government to focus on improving the lives of ALL disadvantaged Australians, then maybe we just don't have the right Government.

[@AnotherDoug]

They are. Creation of the Voice will NOT reduce any support currently given to other disadvantaged Australians.

[@rossevans1774]

OK, that's fine, but will it provide 'more support' to a disadvantaged racial minority than is currently available to other disadvantaged Australians? The referendum is divisive now and regardless of result will remain divisive long after 14/10. @@AnotherDoug

[@AnotherDoug]

@@rossevans1774 The Voice will not provide "more support" - it will help direct the existing support to the areas it will be most effective. The Referendum should be no more divisive than a grands final: two opposing sides, but after the day, division is forgotten. Why would this be any different?

[@rossevans1774]

Forty billion dollars ($40,000,000,000) last year alone went into the black indigenous pit, even you do not expect that figure to be less next year. It was 'directed to support to areas it will be most effective' after recommendations from respected black indigenous advisory groups/committees. The moment that a minority group is even perceived to receive, let's call it what it is, 'preferential treatment', that is not available to others we have a 'divide' in the population. You need to look back in history, even recent history to understand what has resulted when a minority of a population is treated differently. The proposed changes to the Australian Constitution on the surface look fine to some but ultimately, they are divisive. @@AnotherDoug

[@christinac3929]

Only education and work will improve one's lot in life. It's very hard when living remotely but that is largely a choice.

[@kermitthehermit9588]

Largely a choice 😂🤣

[@KF-bj3ce]

Very enlighten talk. Having read the booklet 'The Voice to Parliament' by Thomas Mayo and Kerry O'Brien, I was surprised specially the part of past governments positive actions and back flops since 1967. Points you have raised in regards to locations and personal choices are very valid and I can not see how the Voice will bring better outcomes to these people. What concerns me is that the Voice will empower a small group of people that will simply be another arm of government wasting more resources and as we know from our current setup will do anyway whatever they want after the election. We all would love to see some way to better the lives of the Aboriginal People that require and wish to have a boost to adjust to the way of life that was trust up on them by the colonization of this continent. But realistically its not going to happen in a short time, but in generations like it happened in other parts of the world. So having said this I think that the Prime Ministers proposal of the Voice is more a Anthony Albanese ego trip and will do very little, but create division like it has done in West Australia with the cultural heritage act. In general governments work slow, does some good things, but is stacked with members of age and baggage and tied to party lines with little freedom to be really flexible and creative.

[@AnotherDoug]

~ The Voice will not be "another arm of government" - it will ADVISE the Government, not act as part of the Government ~ "its not going to happen in a short time, but in generations" - it has been 56 years! How much longer do you think if we keep doing exactly the same thing as we have done for the past 56 years. The Voice is a chance to break the cycle. ~ "the Prime Ministers proposal of the Voice" - the Prime Minister did not come up with this proposal. It was proposed by representatives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in a series of Dialogues that produced the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The Labor party is simply honouring an election promise to implement the Statement from the Heart. ~ The Voice and the WA legislation are completely unrelated

[@coobye]

Just remember folks to write your choice in the box and don't just tick it or your vote won't count. NO.

[@antidepressant11]

What I get from media is that half the aboriginal population is in prison. How skewed our understanding can be .

[@joycebaron672]

Vote no hands of the constitution ,no need at all to change that.

[@downtoearth1950]

The voice will embed disadvantage and ensure the Indideous remain dependant upon a permanent hand out from the taxpayers for centuries to come while those at the top gain massive wealth 😕☹😡

[@AnotherDoug]

How does an ADVISORY body help anyone gain "massive wealth" It may take awhile but certainly not centuries to help lift disadvantaged A&TSI communities

[@karlm9584]

It is quite simple to understand the motive behind the voice, the treaty and truth. All we need to do is read the entire Uluru statement and most of it is revealed on pages 17 and 18. For even greater insight into the purpose we should all read the minutes of the Uluru Dialogues as well. Not a lot was mentioned about solving disadvantage, but plenty was mentioned about sovereignty, autonomy, self-determination and self-government.

[@AnotherDoug]

Which is why we are not voting on the Uluru Statement but solely on Constitutional recognition and an advisory body called the Voice. We are NOT voting on sovereignty or autonomy or self-determination or self-government.

[@karlm9584]

@AnotherDoug no we won't need to vote on sovereignty and self-determination and self-government because that will all be part of treaty, as the uluru statement page 18 clearly says. A voice is required so a treaty can be made with all the individual indigenous nations represented collectively in the constitution by the voice. Voice, then treaty, then truth. We will have no direct control over the voice itself because it will be a new constitutional entity like the state of New South Wales or Victoria, but probably not a physical state because it represents and makes representations for all the original indigenous nations physically encompassing all Australia. The parliament's "control over the voice" and those "deatails that will be worked out later" that so much emphasis is placed (for misdirection) is purely administrative detail, which is not terribly consequential. We dont need any more details. All the details we need to understand everything about this agenda have been provided in the uluru statement. We just need to read them.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@karlm9584 ~ "A voice is required so a treaty can be made": incorrect. We've had this discussion multiple times: the Constitution itself will prevent the Voice from negotiating anything. (It's why both Mundine and Thorpe say they want the Voice to fail so that "real work" on treaties can begin.) ~ "entity like the state of New South Wales" - incorrect. The proposed change to the Constitution clearly says the only function of the Voice is to give advice ("make representations"). If the Voice was to become a "state like NSW", it would not require a Constitutional change at all! ~ we are not voting on any part of the Uluru Statement other than a slightly-modified version of their recommendation for a Voice.

[@karlm9584]

@@AnotherDoug the voice doesn't need to negotiate anything it is purely a constitutional place holder. It is the treaty that will be negotiated. The voice has an administrative component of course and that tiny, inconsequential aspect of it will be legislated and can be changed, but the actual "voice" and its purpose to exist in the constitution and recognise all indigenous nations can never be changed once established.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@karlm9584 ~ "a constitutional place holder." - the Voice will not be a "place holder" for anything because it will NOT be able to do anything except give advice ~ "recognise all indigenous nations" - yes, recognise that they were the First Peoples of Australia - which, of course, cannot be changed because it is a historical fact. But you are implying that the Voice will become a body to somehow legally represent A&TSI peoples. That CANNOT happen - the Constitution itself will not allow it. The Constitution will also prevent Parliament from changing the only function of the Voice (which is to give advice/"make representations")

[@aussie807]

mate I love your chats great work❤

[@alpsnduds]

I have been watching your channel for a while and you make a lot of sense. I have been doing a lot of research as you suggested and every place I have looked that is not biased says what you are saying...THE VOICE is not the answer. After living in Alice Springs for 12 years I have seen the very best of the Aborigines and the very worst (that is the same in all races though).

[@davidferry548]

Well stated and articulate presentation The only one going to be better off is Noel Pearson

[@brontepetropoulos4755]

THANKYOU i have just subscribe i like listening to honest people well done i hope your Chanel grows, really like what you have to say very imformative 👍

[@harrysoothsayer5086]

The voice has to have a legal definition to be used as something tangible that is inserted into the Constitution, and this document should be the first referendum so people know what they are dealing with. One cannot have a referendum on an airy fairy idea for a group of people that society has not yet specifically categorized as to whether they fall into the privileged group. A court may have to make this determination, as was done in the USA. How many times does the color have to be diluted before the "rights" cease? If someone is going to be treated as special then a legal criteria must be in place. Maybe there should be a system like the USA Indians where there is a specific “color dilution” factor that determines race and a DNA test will complement the said test. Apathied will then be alive and well! On Thursday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese revealed the true extent of the damage the Voice activists want to inflict on your Constitution. And it’s far worse than we feared. Not only do they want the divisive Voice to ride roughshod over Parliament, it would have a direct say over every decision made by the executive government. And the Voice will have the power to challenge those decisions in the High Court. The true gravity of what this referendum is actually about is only now starting to dawn on many Australians. This change to the Constitution is so massive, it’s made headlines around the world. Time Magazine called it a “profound constitutional change” which means Indigenous Australians could “gain formal representation in Parliament” 1. Still sounding like a “modest” change? But the funny thing is that Albo tried to talk them out of such a massive constitutional amendment. He asked the referendum working group - made up of pro-Voice activists - to limit its power to take a democratically elected parliament or government to the High Court 2. And they said no! So what did Labor do? They folded. They proved the ‘no’ case before the campaign even starts. At the very first opportunity to show that the so-called Voice will not ride roughshod over the government, they folded. Despite the internal division, despite the legal concerns, despite the community concerns, they capitulated. It just goes to show who is in charge here. It is not you, me or the Australian people - the pro-Voice activists are well and truly running the table. The Albanese government proposed an “additional set of words to guard against potential High Court challenges”, but were denied by the pro-Voice activists. And if the rule book of the country is changed we can only expect more of this. Do you remember last year, when Albo said it would be a “brave government” that ignored the divisive Voice? Well, this is exactly what he meant. And exactly why you and I will be fighting hard to say ‘no’. There’s no way we’re going to let the Voice divide our nation like this. Posted 27th March by harry soothsayer

[@ape2969]

I am not indigenous, but I have been involved in indigenous organisations and have had a lot of interaction with indigenous people almost all of my life. When the referendum was first announced, I became very concerned for all of the same reasons that are now being voiced by intelligent, and informed, no-vote advocates. I have also listened very carefully to the yes vote advocates, but, apart from a lot of assertive statements about what the Yes vote will do, I have heard no compelling evidence or argument for how this would, or could, make a difference. Sadly I am convinced that a Voice will disadvantage the disadvantaged even more while creating division in the community. WE MUST VOTE NO.

[@WesleyAird]

Many Indigenous people do not hold a strong connection to their indigeneity. Non-Indigenous people with strong community experience can often have really valuable opinions that ought to be listened to.

[@graemesydney38]

Well said Wes. I agree with everything you've said but particularly the idea that problem solving starts with defining the problem. Other than the anecdotal and subjective opinion of everyone involved there is no defined 'aboriginal issue' and no uniting aim even amongst aboriginals. And for good reason there is no defined 'aboriginal issue' - because it is a diverse and complex issue requiring a diverse and complex solution. I believe there is a better way and we need change, but that will come when the issues are identified and defined. I can't see how another Canberra talkfest without legislative power, voting power or veto power can achieve anything other than slow down the whole process of government. Any effective change will need to be new, innovative and probably novel. Another bloated, unaccountable, rarefied, remote, Canberra talkfest certainly doesn't meet that description, it is just more of the same. The sad thing is that I predict the issues and hardships for the individual aboriginals will remain long after the referendum, win or lose.

[@AnotherDoug]

~ "there is no defined 'aboriginal issue" - suggest you have a look at the Closing the Gap targets www.closingthegap.gov.au/national-agreement/targets ~ No-one involved in the Uluru Statement from the Heart has asked for "legislative power, voting power or veto power" - that would be a third chamber in Parliament and a hard "no" from pretty much everyone on the Yes side ~ "effective change will need to be new, innovative and probably novel." - which is exactly why we need a different way of looking at the issues and getting advise from the people actually affected by these issues.

[@ThomasLouttit]

Mmmm ... Delta Creams, now we're talkin' .... I think I am starting to hear 'voices' ....

[@netsurfer3655]

As far as I'm concerned, we're all Australians. If those identifying as Aboriginal want things out of life, let them fund it with their own efforts & their own money. For those in need, let them join the queue behind other Australians in need. Those who don't like this are welcome to relocate to NZ or Canada.

[@beepbeep6861]

If the voice gets passed are you willing to relocate to NZ or Canada or the motherland, just saying.

[@SMHman666]

@@beepbeep6861 Why would he need to do that?

[@beepbeep6861]

@@SMHman666 WTH are you, did you come to bat for your boyfriend, let that person speak for themselves. SMH

[@BigGen222]

​@@SMHman666beepbeep is a very sad troll on here all the time. Don't give them yours

[@SMHman666]

@@BigGen222 Cheers 👍

[@dyrtybarstud5261]

I have spent a solid portion of my life living and working in exactly the remote and very remote communities you are talking about that `skew the statistics`. Many of the needs and concerns that coastal mob have are worlds apart from the soul destroying brokenness that is the norm in `traditional communities`. These very remote small clusters of social purgatory are already hidden behind layers of red tape (like permit entry) and quite deliberately avoided by both media and politicians unless there is a moment that can be milked for their benefit or views. Politicians hide behind principles of non-interference or self determination when the simple fact that modern money, housing, medicines and daily needs have all been simply thrust onto a people that 50 years ago were living an almost entirely traditional, wood age life is transformational. It has quite literally completely interfered with and profoundly changed the development pathways of this group of people in a single generation and in the process fundamentally changed the entire framework that people existed within. Its no surprise these places are having difficulty bridging that cultural chasm. As a nation, both immigrant and indigenous we have, for the most part, failed to acknowledge just how profoundly we have broken these communities and that without that first acknowledgement it will be impossible to improve outcomes for new generations that belong to that incredibly beautiful but broken country. Whilst white guilt and indigenous denial or rejection of personal responsibility underpin our social consciousness, will we be able to engage in examining the hard truths and adopt radical solutions in order to create better outcomes? If we are to build a ladder out of the chaos into an opportunity for a better Australian Culture that can harness the inherent strengths of both people we will need to. Maybe the most profound danger with the voice is that it has the potential to bury remote communities under another layer of bureaucracy effectively hiding the issues in these places even deeper behind both white guilt and indigenous shame culture. It is already near impossible to gather or access accurate statistics from these places because they are heavily redacted, restricted or simply not collected accurately. I suspect that the best we can hope for with the voice is changing our national day from Australia day to maybe something like Mabo day where we celebrate the day we truly recognised all Australians claim to country and at worst it will leave the already most shattered communities in this country in a continuous cycle of spiraling poverty, abuse and isolation.

[@KF-bj3ce]

It seams to me that a smart person like you in the grass root space can do more in the current setup than Anthony Albanese in his high chair. Once again thanks.

[@blacksorrento4719]

If you look up treaty within the Australian government It is part of DFAT, which means treaties are made with foreign countries. Not within our nation. Is this why they want to change the constitution with the Yes vote. Because it’s not just about acknowledging our Aboriginal people, it’s about change, so they can bring about Treaty, which in turn will lead to reparation. Sorry but 3% of our population get $38billion per year. How much more do they want of the humble tax payer? The marginalised won’t see any more of it, they will still be marginalised. So I ask, what is the point of it all? What is the REAL meaning that is driving this? Because I don’t think for one minute, it is for the good of the aboriginals who really need it, or for the remaining 97% in who still call Australia home.

[@AnotherDoug]

~ The Constitutional change proposed in the Referendum is about 1) acknowledging A&TSI peoples as the First Peoples of Australia and 2) establishing an ADVISORY body - that's it. There is NO MENTION of Treaty. ~ Nobody said that any more money was required (other than the cost to run the Referendum and establish the Voice). The benefit will be re-directing existing funding to make the funding more effective

[@blacksorrento4719]

@@AnotherDoug that may be so as far as the question for the referendum is concerned. Listen to the elite who helped write the USFTH, and there is definitely treaty and truth telling. I don’t trust Our PM nor some of those elites pushing The Voice one iota, that’s just my opinion. We are still a democracy and people can vote however they wish to. There is just more at stake here than what we are being told, the lack of disclosure or debate speaks volumes.

[@longway1]

​@@AnotherDoug voice treaty truth try telling the truth.

[@leighmurrell5494]

Read the full document, listen to the Bent Albo and any of the activists who WILL be on the "selected" committee and they all talk about Treaty and reparations. When basic logic and law is applied, there will have to be an indigenous oversight on all legislation and laws because technically, everything will affect them. The ability to impact on all aspects of our way of life is way beyond what the rest of the 96.5% of the population has even the vaguest possibility of achieving...this would be an apartheid society. We only have cohesion and strength in our society as one people.

[@peterbennett4324]

The 1st thing I ask, when people tell me they are voting Yes or No, is why? I am horrified that so many people have absolutely no idea why they vote Yes or No. To think that something as important as this, could pass or fail by the votes of the uninformed.. I wonder is that's the governments intentions.

[@Daniel.P.2024]

You are correct and also dont miss the trickery in the voting slip.. if you put a tick on no, it equals a yes vote. a no vote must use an "X". Politicians are the cockroaches of society and dont give a fuck about you, me or any Aboriginal in the country. Its all a power grab for the elites.

[@AnotherDoug]

The Government is not responsible for the Yes or No Campaigns.

[@lydia3098]

This voice isn't about the disadvantaged indigenous people. This voice is about the Thomas Mayos in the indigenous community. Its about creating a "black power to be reckoned with" (Thomas Mayo's own words). It's about treaty, reparations, sovereignty. It's about paying rent for the land that we all call home. On October 14, don't get fooled by the "It's good manners" BS

[@brokenmechanic]

when are Australians going to realize, the only time politicians recommend a change to something is when they want to make more money for them selves. this will only do harm to the Australian people

[@AnotherDoug]

The Voice proposal came from representatives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The politicians are involved because Labor is honouring an election pledge to implemtn the Voice

[@shirleychesterman3462]

Does anyone feel guilty for even contemplating voting ‘no’? Because I do but so far from everything I’ve looked at, or listened to I’m not convinced that this is the best way forward and that the only people this is likely to help is this indigenous peoples who are already well positioned in society. I don’t think it’s going to serve those who truly need it well. In fact I feel, another guilty thought, it will only create an elite top end representation.

[@AnotherDoug]

How will it help so-called "elites"? Who are they anyway?

[@falseprofit4u]

There's no place in our constitution for permanently enshrined protection of activists within parliament, poverty and social dysfunction isn't limited to indigenous only, Vote NO to racism.

[@AnotherDoug]

That is not what the proposed change will do

[@falseprofit4u]

@@AnotherDoug What albo says and the activists intentions pushing this is clear in the USFTH 25 pages in full accompanying the simple front page touted by the useful idiot PM

[@AnotherDoug]

@@falseprofit4u As far as the Referendum is concerned, the Uluru Statement from the Heart is no longer relevant (whether it is 1 page, 26 pages or 180 pages). All we are voting for is 1) Constitutional recognition for the First Peoples and 2) an ADVISORY body called the Voice - nothing more than that. Of course, the Voice can provide advice on treaty, etc. However, the Government will NOT be obliged to accept that advice. (The Voice will not be able to go to the High Court, either)

[@falseprofit4u]

@AnotherDoug Where is the planning draft, the nuts and bolts? How will it work more honestly, effectively, and efficiently than ATSIC, for example?? The only nuts I see are the haters and extremists wanting more and more without a single practical plan for a solution for all disadvantaged Australians, not just aboriginals. Albanese has swallowed the red pill, he's not a leader of the people, a true leader doesn't divide citizens or belittle them, there are too many warning signs this is all a big con. It's not two separate issues we are voting on. it's all bundled in the one boat and it's tragic that they will likely sink together.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@falseprofit4u ~ Voice design principles which will be the basis for the legislation: voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles ~ ATSIC had a delivery role - the Voice will not deliver any programs; simply advise the Government ~ We are voting for Constitutional recognition and the Voice ONLY. Anything else will depend on the Government, not the Voice, as to whether there are discussions on treaty, etc.

[@cathyclarke9010]

You certainly nail all the truely relevant issues when it comes to this Voice nonsense.I would bet any dollar amount that the majority of those intending to support a yes vote wouldn’t have any understanding of the Constitution.I would also suggest the Constitution has rarely been brought up to students’ attention in schools in the last 20 years.The NO campaign better start getting its act together.

[@WesleyAird]

Maybe it's time for compulsory citizenship education in schools.

[@sc-ob1rp]

I totally agree.

[@AnotherDoug]

So, with your knowledge of the Constitution how is the Voice proposal "nonsense"?

[@Coops777]

Spot on Wesley. Great video. I'll be voting NO

[@oldmanstumpie1061]

I would really like to hear some ideas from the indigenous community on how they are going to look after the most disdvantaged. Like you say, the government can not fix it, they can only offer support.

[@AnotherDoug]

Have a look at the Yes Pamphlet (or page 14 of the Referendum Booklet). It contains mention of 3 examples where listening to Indigenous people has resulted in better outcomes - Aboriginal Medical Services, Dhupuma Barker school and Indigenous Rangers.

[@garyjohnstone6422]

Taxpayers will be forced to pay “reparations” to Indigenous Australians for “past, present and future criminal acts” under a proposed treaty, with suggestions that “a fixed percentage” of GDP be handed over through “rates, land tax and royalties”, documents released under freedom of information reveal. Contrary to Mr Albanese’s characterisation of the Uluru Statement as a “two-minute” read that can “fit on one A4 page”, the 2017 declaration is actually 26 pages. Credlin told viewers on Thursday that the tenor of the full statement was actually one “of anger, grievance, separatism, and the need to undo, as far as possible, the last 240 years of Australian history”. “And it’s the whole 26 pages of the Uluru Statement from the Heart that every Australian should read, not the PM’s sanitised one-pager, before they cast their vote in the upcoming referendum,” she said. ‘Reparations for criminal acts’ “Treaty would be the vehicle to achieve self-determination, autonomy and self-government. The pursuit of Treaty and treaties was strongly supported across the Dialogues. In relation to content, the Dialogues discussed that a Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law, and guarantees of respect for the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.” Participants in the Hobart dialogue stated that a treaty “must include” land and sea rights, “a fixed percentage of gross nation [sic] product” through “rates/land tax/royalties” and “Aboriginal control”. A number of participants said the Voice to Parliament must be “better than ATSIC”, the scandal-plagued Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission which was abolished by the government in 2005. Liberal MP Paul Fletcher also asked Indigenous Australians Minister Linda Burney how the Makarrata Commission would work should the Voice be successful. As she took to the dispatch box, Mr Albanese could be heard interjecting, “It’s a separate issue.”

[@AnotherDoug]

We are ONLY voting for Constitutional recognition and an ADVISORY body, called the Voice. We are NOT voting for any of the things you have listed here. This is called fearmongering.

[@Ernst12]

I think it is a good idea to the the title of the video right. The FACT is that no all idigenous people in Australia are suffering disadvantage. 80% have integrated fully into the Australian society just like everyone else. The issue is about the 20% of the people living in remote communities. The main issue is after decades of having spent billions of dollars each year, the problems of these remote communities have not been solved. One can only wonder what happened to all this money and where has it gone. Anyhow, the main obvious issue is that the services, hospitals, schools and so on can't all be exported to remote communities as this would be economically and socially totally out of question. More appropriately, these remote communites and espectially the children need to get and education in order to integrate and become productive members of our society just like everyone else. This means that integration and eduction, housing and access to services must be solved. Finally, no matter what is decided or done, in the end, the people affected need to take responsibility of their own lives, take responsibility for their actions and choices and in terms of the money spent there needs to be accountability for outcomes and a thorough audit of where the money has been spent and how to change things for the better. The indigenous people already have a voice, and that they are currently representing their constituencies in our parliament like any other minister. The voice will do nothing, other then divide us on race, set-up a proposterous treaty between people in Australia and finally it provides inequality between people based on heritage. Bob Hawke is quoted as having said once that anyone who identifies as being an Australian is an Australian and this equality should also be respected in our constitution - not Labor's constitution but the Australian constition that should equally apply to all.

[@AnotherDoug]

~ "after decades of having spent billions of dollars each year, the problems of these remote communities have not been solved." - that is why the Voice is needed ~ "eduction, housing and access to services must be solved." - again, exactly what the Voice will help with. (I deliberately omitted your reference to "integration") ~ "how to change things for the better" - by doing the same things we have done for the past 56 years, we will not work out "how to change things for the better" - that is where the Voice can help by providing a different perspective on the issues. ~ The Indigenous people in Parliament represent ALL people in their electorates - not just the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander peoples. Those 11 people alone cannot be expected to focus solely on Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander matters - that would be racist, against the Constitution and an overwhelming workload!

[@NoRegertsHere]

Less government needed, not more layers. Living in communities will never form the base to achieve of the results of anyone who lives in the city. Last time I looked at the stats, it looked like ATSI ppl who lived in the cities were among the most successful when compared to non ATSI ppl. Above average outcomes. It’s those that live in communities that really struggle. And expecting the same outcomes is flawed logic, even in the absence of the well above average substance abuse data that exists presently.

[@geoffhowellsmusic]

Hmm this was an interesting video. Tbh I am a bit torn over the voice. I quite like the idea, I am nervous about altering the constitution. The Liberal party’s position on it is super confusing. They want a voice & constitutional recognition just not a constitutional voice. I don’t see a huge difference. I thought your point about needing to see the pathway from voice to truth to treaty was spot on. If the Albanese government are serious about implementing the Uluru statement in full let’s hear it!! Otherwise they are treating us like mugs.

[@AnotherDoug]

Voting for Constitutional recognition and the Voice is NOT a vote for treaty or truth-telling. If the Voice is created and Treaty and Truth come up to the Government for discussion, then the Voice would, no doubt, provide advice to the Government on these things (which the Government can simply ignore if they wish to). The Voice CANNOT make the Government agree to these things at all. That is the No Campaign's fear mongering. If there are to be discussions about these things, they will occur whether the Voice exists or not - killing the Voice will not stop that. (In fact, Lidia Thorpe and the Blak Sovereign Movement are counting on the Voice being voted down so they can push their Treaty agenda.)

[@stellanstellan8708]

Being an immigrant, not able to vote in this referendum, all this is new to me. I do not really understand how the Voice would function in reality, is there a board of Indigenous persons only to give advice on matters that will have effect on Indigenous persons only? What if the parliament disregards the outcome of the advice? I wonder if anyone tried to do a test implementation of the Voice to see how decisions and the outcomes would change with the Voice in place?

[@AnotherDoug]

~ "is there a board of Indigenous persons only to give advice on matters that will have effect on Indigenous persons only?" - yes, that is the model proposed for the Voice ~ "what if the parliament disregards the outcome of the advice?" - the Voice members would be disappointed. ~ "tried to do a test implementation of the Voice" - why? The Government and millions of supporters are confident it will work. Also, you cannot do a "test" change to the Constitution.

[@stellanstellan8708]

​@@AnotherDoug Thanks for reply. I do not agree with what you say, though. Just like you can stress test a family´s or country´s economy or other functions, you can take an issue and run it through a number of scenarios to see how it actually would function in real life. Thus you can see where the problems would arise and how to overcome them. It can possibly be done in computer simulations or on a smaller scale using a test panel comprising of a number of those who possibly would sit in the final Voice. Really interesting results would come from parallel test panels dealing with same questions: would they come up with the same conclusion/solution? Also, I´m not sure I have seen any "technical" description on how the Voice is assembled. Through local elections every year/other period, how many would sit in it, when/where/how often would they meet? Disappointed...yes surely they would be, so their opinion is in fact to be seen as final on any issue they discuss?

[@AnotherDoug]

@@stellanstellan8708 The first job of the Voice will be to identify which Government policies they want to focus on. The Voice members will then need to consult with their relevant communities to determine the sorts of advice they need to provide to the Government to achieve better outcomes for their A&TSI communities. This is not a computer application for which there is a single answer that can be determined by competing Voices and the results compared. You say you are an immigrant, so you may not be familiar with Referendums in Australia. Referendums are about the concept. Details are always determined after a successful Referendum. (This is partly to stop the vote from being bogged-down in the detail - such as "where will they meet" and "how often" - as this level of detail has no real bearing on the concept being voted on. Having said that, the Government has published a number of Voice Principles which will be incorporated into the legislation after a successful Referendum. This channel does not like URLs but you can search for the "Voice Principles" and you will find them. Also, it is worth remembering that the proposed Constitutional change will, at best, affect just 3% of the population (being the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander peoples - no-one else will be affected by this change.