Can we have a Treaty with our own citizens?

[@robd2096]

The alarm bells are ringing - loud and clear. The aboriginal elite have been planning this carefully for years. It is taking the rest of us a long time to catch up to the reality. It's not fair, in that, many, many aboriginals who see themselves as Australians first will cop the future stigma of this in what will be a divided Australia if "The Voice" gets up. Thanks for the heads-up Wes, you couldn't have been any clearer or fairer.

[@nancylaandgrab1742]

Aboriginal elite? This is a communist regime created by bankers and warmongers

[@MichaelIrwin-j3m]

Albo has been planning it with them over the years and they have him were they want him Primister of this country.

[@nosferatut9084]

The so called Aboriginal Elite didn't come up with this. It's come straight out of the WEF and UN.

[@ddr1966]

glad i came across this, appreciate a conversation on the voice that is not toxic for a change

[@stilllooking7996]

Great content, please keep going, especially after the referendum.

[@stpeterscooksriver1873]

You have stolen my thunder! Will this reasonable, thoughtful, and insightful man be lost to us after the referendum?

[@jeremyspencer1505]

Spot on. It is not too hyperbolic to say this ‘gracious’ request is a Trojan horse to Treaty. The whole process is underhanded, dishonest and divisive. Vote No.

[@AnotherDoug]

Treaty can happen without the Voice. No to the Voice will not stop Treaty.

[@tashamaree]

​@@AnotherDougit will if this plot is revealed now.

[@Chloe-w7n]

And why shouldn't there be a treaty. It's the least our government could do. I'm not aboriginal, but I recognise the crap that was enforced onto them. Stolen children for one thing. Leading to trauma that takes generations to heal from.

[@tashamaree]

@@Chloe-w7n you believe a lot of propaganda. The so-called "stolen children" were mixed-race and were not welcome in their tribes - some were even rescued from ant-hills. Witchdoctors told the tribes those children were cursed, a lot like albino Africans - they were in danger. Sure they were not always well treated in the institutions, but nor were European or migrant children of any culture if you recall. Native children were not taken. The Constitutional definition of Native was pureblood, no English, remote, and fully-subsistent on the land. They were left alone (even feared) as the Crown had no duty to them - as they had nothing to do with it. Some Natives were friendly and helped the colonies of course. Natives who intermarried or worked within the Crown system, or were born of any European blood, or were adopted due to abuse in the tribes, were considered British Subjects, and became Australian Citizens at Federation. Some Colonies even allowed Black males over 21 to vote! Blackwashing history is just as bad as Whitewashing history. ALL were victims of the Crown - even the elite sent here. We are all equal in a dark past, and if we keep swallowing propaganda that creates victim mentalities that lead to complete dependence on the Nanny State and nothing but division when we are all indigenous by birth on this land, and all one race - human, and we need ALL of us to defend the sovereignty of ALL Australians of every colour and cultural descent. We all bleed red, and redder than the Corporate Commie scum running this country into the ground to please Europe and the US. Enough division for the love of God and Country - before we Australians lose everything - and that means ALL of us.

[@markd.9538]

@@Chloe-w7n Making amends and closing the gap for the stolen generation has zero to do with the current proposal for The Voice, and then treaty. Those are distinct, separate things. Please don't conflate the two. Making amends can be done without the voice - imagine the millions that will be spent sustaining the voice - effectively a taxpayer-funded political lobby group - in perpetuity - versus putting that money into real assistance and support. Even if you support the voice, it will take away from the thing that you purport to care about - actually helping people.

[@normanmazlin6741]

"Herding Cats"🐈🐈🐈....exactly what our highly trained bureaucrats are best at....jobs for life with zero output. Thanks for your succinct views. Appreciated.

[@andrewgartlan5003]

To the best of my current understanding your observations are correct and conclusions thoroughly reasonable. Thank you for making the effort to share these thoughts with the many Australians too busy trying to earn an honest living by serving their community to research this sufficiently. Great work.

[@longway1]

Your words are very wise. A vote for yes is a vote to change the balance of power in this country where a few will have to much power, the people on the voice panel may be elected but the body behind that panel will be in control and who might that be who's pockets will be filled and how much will filter down to the ones that really need it. We the voters need to push our politicians to do the work needed not vote to change the constitution things won't change just that some elite will get richer.

[@AnotherDoug]

An ADVISORY body cannot change any "balance of power". The Government will NOT be obliged to listen to the Voice. The Voice will not, by force of the Constitution itself, be allowed to do anything other than ADVISE. It cannot negotiate.

[@longway1]

​@@AnotherDougand they all live happily forever after !!!

[@tashamaree]

​@@AnotherDougif it was really that pointless they wouldn't be working so darn hard and spending so much to push it through now would they.

[@tashamaree]

The few already have all the power - we just have the illusion of choice.

[@longway1]

@@tashamaree and the alternative would be? Please enlighten me.

[@leighmurrell5494]

Spot on information.

[@perenti01]

You should be on national television . You are the first person i have heard Speak on the voice that has made any sense.

[@ozzymat61]

Another great video. Unlike the mainstream media, which have taken the stance of telling us what to think your delivery is feels more like consultation.

[@DesAbel-w9l]

Spot on again Wes. Certainly all Australians should be fearful of! Love your unbiased segments.

[@BBA765]

Thank you, I always like your reasoned comments. I like most Australians are always ready to help people in genuine need, regardless of their background. This includes both Aboriginals' and others who are experiencing hardships and financial stress. However, I see 'The Voice' as a grab for power without responsibility; a system based on just taking and offering nothing in return except 'feeling good about ourselves' according to our prime minister

[@EmEnz1]

I endorse this.

[@AwwwThatsMintocs]

If the voice were to be voted into law it would serve to engender a culture of victimhood & incompetence among aboriginal people & especially the youth. No one is mistreating Aboriginal people today. Aboriginal people are treated equally & fairly. They are not victims & are in no way incompetent. Yes there is a gap but most of those issues are due to poor personal life choices & refusal to help oneself. You can throw all the money in the world at an alcoholic, repeat criminal offender, domestic violence perpetrator etc but unless they choose to want to change their ways then it's useless. You can't help someone who doesn't want to help themselves. Moving on from the past is also a critical step for Aboriginal Australians as well. No one is saying we should forget the past but there must be a point where Aboriginal Australians as a whole move on from the past. Holding onto the past is only harming Aboriginal Australians ability to live a great life here together with every other Australian citizen. Humans can only live in the present. Holding onto the past stops a person from living a full life in the present.

[@tashamaree]

The present situation is the product of exactly what you stated - inherited victimhood breeding dependence on Nanny State in order to be used as Pawns in Globalist Marxist games.

[@davidhilder6826]

You are spot on, who knows what level this Voice will take

[@upstumps]

Some sanity in this madness unfolding ŕight in front of us. Thank you for your work

[@aussie807]

Exactly right, the Voice is a legal institution as you said to negotiate a treaty as a country cannot enter a treaty with its own citizens.

[@AnotherDoug]

The wording of the proposed Constitutional change will NOT allow the Voice to do anything except give advice. The Voice will not be allowed to negotiate anything.

[@aussie807]

@@AnotherDoug Sorry but not correct. It’s powers and authorities are yet unknown because that will be later legislated. It’s advisory function under its own chapter to Executive Government gives it significant power, this is well established under the precedents of administrative law.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@aussie807Read the Solicitor-General's advice www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ea88212c-eccc-45d2-822c-8578fa96895c&subId=740367 , specifically: ~ Paragraph 17 "Proposed s 129 does not confer legislative, executive or judicial power upon the Voice. That means that the Voice would have no power to make laws, to develop or administer policies or to decide disputes. Nor would it form part of either the Parliament or the Executive Government, instead operating only as an advisory body to those two branches of government. The Voice clearly has no power of veto." ~ Paragraph 18 (b): "Nor would proposed s 129 impose any enforceable obligation upon the Parliament to consider representations from the Voice, let alone to follow such representations." ~ Paragraph 18 (c): "The influence of the Voice’s representations to the Parliament will be a matter to be determined by political considerations, rather than legal considerations." ~ Paragraph 19 (b): "the Parliament is empowered to legislate to specify the extent to which any such consideration [by Executive Government] is required." Why do you think the Parliament would allow bad legislation to be written that ignores all this advice?

[@tashamaree]

​@@AnotherDougwe already have several political advisory bodies for tribal issues that do little but take money and make life harder for all Australians of all colours and cultures, same as the levels of Government doing the same.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@tashamareeName them, please

[@amexicanladyonthesoutherncross]

Thank you for your words.

[@sisiphas]

You are not being alarmist

[@georgekasparek6683]

Well said!

[@iand4835]

Spot on Wesley. Only two words that open that door “First Peoples” knock, knock.

[@robertparker6026]

I was of the understanding that under the westminster system everyone had a voice

[@upstumps]

You are correct, we do

[@fionahobbs8818]

Great commentary, I think you've nailed it.

[@bono1961]

Thank you for the explanation. 👍

[@HTBuckley-m8y]

Spot on, as always. ue&co

[@nickj1968]

Thanks for the solid analysis. It's going to be a continuum of the current mess if this vote gets up, arguably worse. Voting no will promote true change. Voting yes will clearly perpetuate the status quo.

[@trevorgill7195]

You are telling the truth, and they are not. Always remembering freedom is a precious thing, and if not maintained it will be lost.

[@wildwestjanbutcher650]

Many years ago, I had a friend in the local CFA who described the nightmare of dispensing donated funds to bushfire victims. For instance, if two people lost their house, one insured and one not, do they get the same amount of donations? If not, isn’t the insured person being punished for having the foresight to insure his home? What about stock and fences? Cars and sheds? The questions were endless. I can see the “reparations” following the voice and treaty having many of the same issues. Who is entitled to what? Do full blood aboriginals get more than, say 25%? Do the under privileged get more than the ones who got off their butts and got jobs and homes? If so, why should the ones with gumption get less? Most importantly, who is going to decide where the money goes? How can we trust that this is not just another money grab for the privileged few? Keep in mind this will not be a one-off payment. They are demanding a percentage of the national GDP, so the payments will be ongoing. So will the problems. If we vote Yes, and it’s a mistake, it’s permanent and we are stuck with it. A no vote is the safest option. There is currently 30 billion dollars per annum dedicated to indigenous programs across Australia. How about we see where that money is, or more to the point, isn’t going, before we throw more good money after bad. I will be voting no with a pen.

[@mpbonaventura]

I suspect the 30 trillion figure might be a typo? That would be an order of magnitude greater than our GDP.

[@anthonycarr7466]

Hey @wildwestjanbutcher650 slow down a bit. The Productivity Commission states that $5.6 billion is specifically spent on Indigenous programs. Indigenous people also benefit from other programs (eg: Social Security) that non indigenous people also receive. This takes the full amount to $30 billion per year.

[@wildwestjanbutcher650]

An, yes. My bad. 30 billion is more like it!😜

[@bradfordblowthe1193]

@@anthonycarr7466although I disagree with your 5.6 Billion figure, as it completely ignores the disproportionate number of Indigenous that access the welfare and funding compared to non indigenous. The numbers that we should really be looking at are the per person dollar figure the government spends. Approx $46800 per indigenous vs $23000 for non indigenous…. My main issue is that the funding (Lets ask Noel Pearson) does not seem to actually either reach, or help grass roots people in need. If it can be explained how (another) a Canberra based advisory group will fix that core issue. Royal commission into current funding first, then action based on findings.

[@AndrewMitchell001]

From all the digging I have done personally I can say that we have both reached the same conclusion appreciate your video thanks.

[@Tinkster75]

very well considered content delivered clearly and with measured insight. An interesting discussion, thank you.

[@elianenicholls2525]

Lové listening to your videos Sir, thank-you! 🙏

[@davidferry548]

One of the roles given to the High Court at Federation was to interpret the constitution when a constitutional matter was brought before it. As soon as Chsirman Noel's Voice is ignored it will likely trigger a High Court challenge where the court will be required to interpret whether the voice can be ignored when it raises so called issue's important to indigenous peoples that were ignored when a mining license , subdivision etc is approved , if you think this cannt happen have a look at Tiwi Islanders. V Santos , remember a high court ruling binds all lower courts , putting this in the constitution is putting a ticking time bomb in our legal system

[@AnotherDoug]

The Solicitor-General has given his official Opinion that parliament can write the Voice legislation so that the Voice CANNOT challenge any Government decision in the Courts. The High Court will not be involved in interpreting anything..

[@davidferry548]

@@AnotherDoug correct the High Court cannot strike down legislation except in cases where the legislation breaches the constitution however one of their roles given them in tbe constitution is to interpret the meaning of tbe constitution as it relates to a specific matter brought before it , if you think this won't happen you are backing the wrong horse

[@longway1]

@@AnotherDougl think you should research how the high court and the constitution work in Australia, as for negotiating of course there will be negotiations do you think that the voice will give some advice and the government say no it will end there.

[@tashamaree]

​@@davidferry548yes and if that's true, then why are they pushing so hard for this is the million dollar question... we're already heaving with symbolic gestures that disrupt social cohesion because no one of any colour or culture was actually asked, or dispassionately educated on these things - they just showed up, and if you had concerns you were labelled and silenced. Democracy is dead with nothing but propaganda for profit flying round.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@davidferry548 My point is that the Voice will not be able to challenge the Government in any court. If someone other than the Voice wants to involve the High Court, well it will be at their cost and, as the Solicitor-General says: "The suggestion that a consequence of empowering the Voice to make representations to the Executive Government will be to clog up the courts, or to cause government to grind to a halt, ignores the reality that litigation concerning the validity of decisions of the Executive Government is already very common, and that it does not have either of those consequences."

[@andreaconnelly3799]

Thank you Wesley 🙏

[@edwin5419]

Yeah wow. If I wasn't sure before, I sure am now

[@francesblabey3055]

😂herding cats, love it. Serious, I think most Australians will become the third citizens of this country. Thank you sir for telling the truth.

[@tashamaree]

Yes 1. Global Elite using the 2. Tribal puppets and the 3. Cows to be milked via emotional blackmail (or anyone cast out from number 2 for having a brain and balls) Welcome to Terra Australis 😔

[@stuartgraham8946]

Love your work Wes👍

[@homesteading]

Very good and calmly reasoned video. I spoke with a "Yes" promoter a few days ago and he was totally clear that "the Voice" was only the first step - treaty, etc to follow (what they call Makarrata.) He added that it would probably not be one treaty but many as there wasn't one Aboriginal nation. The only legal path I see is the establishment of sovereignty for these "First Nations" with each having a treaty with the Commonwealth under the foreign relations powers. What this would really look like nobody is saying!

[@AnotherDoug]

The Voice can only be an advisory body - that will be written in the Constitution itself where not even Parliament can change it. Some people would like to see the Voice as a representative body for negotiating treaty - but the Constitution will not allow the Voice to do anything but give advice. Also, if the Voice is voted down, that does NOT mean the end to discussions on Treaty - as Warren Mundine made abundantly clear yesterday.

[@petermurgatroyd2002]

Thanks for explaining this

[@stity23]

The videos pf the Aboriginal activists outlining the sequence of objectives at and after "The Voice" should be widely available as part of the Yes/No campaign...after all its not disinformation of any kind it comes from these "Aboriginal representatives mouths and documents

[@AnotherDoug]

Whether or not it is disinformation is irrelevant. We are ONLY voting for Constitutional recognition and an ADVISORY body called the Voice. We are NOT voting on anything else.

[@tashamaree]

​@@AnotherDougwell a mention in the Preamble would unite the country like in 1967... They clearly don't want that.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@tashamaree Firstly, Australia rejected changing the Preamble to recognise A&TSI peoples in the 1999 Referendum. Secondly, A&TSI representatives during the Constitutional Conventions in 2017 rejected the Preamble suggestion as it would only be symbolic - they sought substantive changes to the Constitution.

[@tashamaree]

@@AnotherDoug because it was coupled with the diabolical Republican push 🙄 I won't even bother explaining why we dodged a massive bullet on that (even though the Crown is no good either) now I'm certain of your agenda. And the carry on in 2017 is exactly why 2023 should go the same way - now, as then, those sold-out tribals do not speak for nor care for the majority of tribal people. Now I know for sure you're a gaslighting troll who will likely never watch the testimony of Geoff McDonald. This Referendum is just as deceptive as 1999, therefore I've seen it floating around that BOTH questions should be answered No - lest we consent to a further temperature rise as too many sit quietly in the ever-hotter red-tinted waters, in or out of which, the result will be the same, only the timeframe of our demise will differ. Seems you're on the side to hasten it slightly more than the argument that will be made internationally that Australians are "racist", which is utter bollocks - rather the Governments are. The question then is why are you helping them. You're clearly not a Zombie Watermelon flinging pejoratives around and wagging the finger at anyone who can think for themselves... You're playing the cool calm collected Devil's Advocate.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@tashamaree ""Both questions"?? There is only one question on the ballot paper.

[@maccart67]

Thank you!

[@SteveJager]

Thank you for this, the most important comment you have ever posted. Our current Constitution that protects every Australian, including the Aboriginal peoples is at risk! If the yes campaign is successful, the current Constitution is no longer viable and we are open to nefarious Governments legislating to separate us based on race, wealth, or religion. The introduction of a 'Treaty' would ultimately destroy the remaining protection of our Constitution and in the long term, should we choose to become a Republic, we also lose our Sovereignty and would be sold off into the hands of the highest bidder....the Global Elite! To vote yes is therefore simply an act to condemn your children to poverty and absolute slavery!....Vote 'NO' with a vengance and use a biro!

[@AnotherDoug]

The Constitution is and will continue be fine. The proposal is to add a new Section that recognisees the First Peoples and creates an ADVISORY body called the Voice. Nothing to do with race, wealth, religion, sovereignty, "Global Elite" nor will it condemn anyone, let alone your children.

[@SteveJager]

@@AnotherDoug Thnks for your reply....On one point you are right....'the Constitution is fine' and we will be voting NO to keep it that way! Regarding the rest of your comment, I think you need to consider again what you have written? I do not wish to get into a point scoring debate with you....after all, I respect your right to hold the opinion you have expressed but would like to point out the fact that the proposed 'Advisory Body' is based on RACE....and will be based on WEALTH by those who will be chosen to be the 'Voice'! As for Religion, Sovereignty and the Global Elite, I urge you to take a good hard look at what is currently happening in Europe, Africa and the US regarding those matters! Besides that, whether you accept only the 1 page or the 26 pages of the 'Uluru Statement From The Heart', both are legally unsound and wouldn't stand close scrutiny in a court of law! I could go on and on but I won't!....thanks again for your opinion and have a great day!

[@tashamaree]

​@@AnotherDougthe Constitution obviously isn't "fine" if people want to lobby to change it 😂

[@AnotherDoug]

@@SteveJager ~ Success of the Yes vote will not make the Constitution worse. The proposal is to add a new section to it - not change any existing sections. ~ Not based on race at all. Leaving aside that there is only one human race on this planet, the change is to recognise the first peoples of Australia - not a particular "race". ~ How does wealth have anything to do with who will be chosen by the A&TSI communities? ~ What may, or may not, be happening in other countries is not relevant to our Referendum.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@tashamaree My point is that the Constitution is NOT at risk. The proposal is to add to it - not change anything that currently exists.

[@leandabee]

I live in Tassie, and I only see yes posters on people's fences and on office buildings, and have yet to see a no poster. I sent your videos to someone, and yet he still put up a vote yes thing on Facebook. I'm a tad concerned that people are not doing research and are just going to vote yes because they think it's politically correct to do so. Oh well, we are all free to vote whatever we want I suppose. By the way, you are so right about the 100s and 1000s biccys😋 ❤👌

[@AnotherDoug]

Research means reading the Constitutional change and reading the Solicitor-General's advice. Research is NOT Facebook or Sky after dark

[@leandabee]

@@AnotherDoug oh really! Wow, I didn't know that. I thought facebook and sky news were the be all end all of the world's way of being informed. Gee, I better re think my fecking intelligence. What a wanker 😅😅

[@tashamaree]

​​@@AnotherDougyeah cos he's likely not on the take or anything, and strangely untouchable if he turns out to be corrupt like most of the rest. We SEE what's going on, and who is in on it, so we have no choice but to seek alt media to try and get a rounded perspective from many voices - cos that's democracy, and the People are supposed to hold political and therefore legislative power. Most freethinkers don't trust extreme right media any more than the extreme left media pretending to be right that's shoved down our necks. Wanting a BALANCED argument and free debate sans emotional blackmail and virtue signalling should be the benchmark of so-called democracy, and your clear bias shows your agenda is to look reasonable with your fingers crossed behind your back... or you're a useful idiot. On this issue most Australians don't seem to be as stupid and pliable as the elite had hoped by now, but that doesn't mean the snakes won't slither in by another hole if this doesn't take off. They only got to where they are by centuries of patience and drip-feeding venom as the political cash pendulum swings...

[@petejitsuman9025]

I await the cookie appraisal at the end , which is your favourite biscuits, cookie and what cup of tea ? Love the videos , rational and great starting point for any other research 🇦🇺☕️🧇

[@lat-roc9733]

Thankyou.

[@rogerthat487]

Can a person of mixed decent have treaty with themselves?

[@tashamaree]

​@@lilianebarlow1719yes and they were proud British Subjects prior to Federation I hear. Whoever is still pure tribal blood would call them "coconuts". Not that I believe in more than 1 race, but there's identity conflict within tribal peoples' communities too.

[@frankmontanari5534]

I'm voting no to voice. I'm voting yes to audit. I'm voting no to labour. I'm voting yes to criminal investigations. I'm voting yes to Jacinta and Warren . I'm voting no to Mayo, Burney, langdon, Pearson, Stay united Australia, go with your gut feeling.

[@AnotherDoug]

So, in voting yes "to Mundine", you do realise he wants the Voice to fail so that " the real work" on treaties can begin?

[@q36spacemodulator]

The more of your video's I watch the more you give me to think about. I'm watching it a month or so after the vote on the voice. From day one I said this is divisive, are we all not Australians?. Your video's have been enlightening and I'm glad I voted no.

[@chapmansbg]

When I talk about these issues with people that are blindly voting Yes, I am told that I am cruel and or some other ad hominem emotionally manipulative sort of person. I ask people how they made their decision to vote Yes or why they are voting Yes, the answers have no real subject matter, the other day my own mother just said 'they deserve it' (after telling me to stop spreading my cruelty). What is going on?

[@MrCav74]

Most people are inept in understanding what's going on, Labor is opening the floodgates for giving money away at the expense of every tax payer. Have a look at the rush to pass native titles in stupid places knowing that the council will need to extinguish the native title by paying for it.

[@AnotherDoug]

The No pamphlet has no facts at all

[@tashamaree]

Sheer Marxism and a desire to dumb people down, question their own gut instincts, and otherwise shame them into silence for questioning why the political waters from all arms of the stream are so darn muddy.

[@Ed_Downunder]

You have nailed the issue. In the last week, I have discovered another phrase that that is coming into focus, Autonomous regions, The notion of autonomous regions sits inside the concept of sovereignty. And you are not being alarmist. Ponder this thought. Would an autonomous region place an ambassador in Canberra. This is the normal function of a sovereign state. Would a sovereign autonomous region operate with all the functions of a sovereign state? Police, law courts, hospitals, political institutions and the list goes on. This is only the internal machinery of a sovereign state, would an autonomous region host foreign powers and operate external to Australia. My mind moves toward the recent Solomon Islands power shift. Fortunately, this is being seen as the preoccupation of activists and not in the best interests of Australia.

[@tashamaree]

500 guarded borders anyone? Federation gave all British Subjects of all colours and cultures, now Australian Citizens, the right to travel freely State to State, and not be taxed for it either by Bridge Trolls taking tolls.

[@Ed_Downunder]

❤❤❤@@tashamaree

[@Kwesekara1672]

So much for Albanese telling us mugs the exclusive Aboriginal only ’Voice’ in parliament was only ‘a modest request’ & ‘good manners’. On our part of course.

[@ninjamaster7724]

The Uluru Statement from the Heart is 26 pages long,not 1 page. I'll be voting no. Also,first nations,plural is an oxymoron.There's only 1 first,not multiple firsts,so all the tribes that came after the first tribe can't be first?And if the Aborigines were the first people to set foot on Australian soil,then they are indigenous to Australia and not Torres Straight Islanders. Torres Straight Islanders are only indigenous to the Torres Straight Islands.

[@AnotherDoug]

The term is "First Peoples" not First Nations

[@ninjamaster7724]

@@AnotherDoug the term used all the time is "First Nations".Have you been living under a rock?

[@AnotherDoug]

@@ninjamaster7724 Have you not actually read the thing we are voting on - the proposed Constitutional change? It says in the first line: "In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: ... "

[@ninjamaster7724]

@@AnotherDoug no shit sherlock? But unless the Torres Straight Islanders came over to Australia from Asia at the exact same time as the Aborigines,then they aren't indigenous to Australia because only the first people are indigenous and if the Aborigines were first,then the Torres Straight Islanders were 2nd and therefore not indigenous.

[@paulsnow1289]

I’m amazed by how much of the money that’s supposed to help remote indigenous communities doesn’t make it to them. A no will be the first step towards outing these peoples stealing the money. Yunupingu is one example..

[@barryfaulkner7032]

What happened between the English colonial people and the hunter gatherer peoples they encountered 250 years ago has got nothing whatsoever to do with anything going on today. The introduction of a treaty will be a lawyers picnic. It will have the same effect as it has in NZ. It will slow down everything that the government does as if that isn’t slow and over expensive already. The people that were here before the English were not a nation in any way shape or form. The one thing that forms a nation is language and there were between 350 and 400 different languages in the country at the time. Also it’s estimated that there were between 30 to 40 thousand people living in the country. The obvious benefits to all Australian citizens in the country over the last 250 years cannot be ignored. Do any of us want to return to life as it was then? Of course not. The sooner these trouble makers are shown up for the money seeking parasitic influence on all young people today the better.

[@tashamaree]

Breeding a victim mentality to make tribal people dependent on welfare in order to use them for diabolical agendas via corrupt and greedy corporate political games and their propaganda machine is literally the MO of nation-destroying globalists who want an easy 99% to rule and milk and cull.

[@mackbolan1733]

I'm voting NO to racism...

[@JoshWashington]

and the kicker is in what you (they) haven't said. Its not primarily about 'closing the gap'. Therefore many Australians are being deceived re the actual intent of the Voice. There is no way around it - the Voice is a trojan horse.

[@MrMattias87]

Well according to the UN, a treaty is conducted between two countries

[@tashamaree]

Exactly. Apartheid anyone? Geoff Macdonald, ex-Communist, warned about this in the early 80's with his book and documentary "Red Over Black". It's on KZbin and only 1hr.

[@ShellingAdventures]

Hi! Just wondering what your thoughts and views are on the "one page" part of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. So many people say that its one page, and then others say its 18, or even 26 pages long, and that it goes into detail treaty, etc. What's the real story about it? Thanks!

[@annieheydon9682]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jGq3npivZZqmaJY

[@upstumps]

The page that is supposedly the document is, in my opinion, the executive summary of the rest of the document. The other pages provide the detail of how the "consultation" meetings played out. The whole thing should be read as the same document

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

Hi Sand Coffee Rocks, Thanks for your comment. We have 2 videos you might find interesting about the Uluru Statement. You can check them out here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jGq3npivZZqmaJY kzbin.info/www/bejne/iqvHqZ6hiZWlpMU Feel free to share any additional questions you may have! Centre For Indigenous Training

[@ShellingAdventures]

@@upstumps Thank you! I have looked into a bit more since making this comment, and hmm, I did find it all a bit, well, maybe I won't mention it 🤐

[@tracys3096]

Reflects my own thoughts. The strategy doesn't make sense from a long game view otherwise.

[@JohnLee-mq4hk]

We don't need two separate entities of people belonging to one country, if we are to get along with each other.

[@AraratGold]

The Voice is a bad episode of Married at First Sight, except there's no option for divorce ! JUST VOTE NO, because it is too bloody dangerous to be messing with our Constitution for the sake of only 3% of the population !

[@AnotherDoug]

The proposal is to add a short new section to the Constitution - not changing anything else that is already there. So, not messing with it. The Solicitor-General has officially said: "The proposed amendment is not only compatible with the system of representative and responsible government established under the Constitution, but it enhances that system." www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ea88212c-eccc-45d2-822c-8578fa96895c&subId=740367

[@tonyscott8557]

I think you have got it exactly right. This is the real reason for seeking to have the Indigenous people identified as such so they can then use that body to be the negotiators for treaty with the indigenous people. Once put into the Constitution Australia will no longer be ONE and will be forever TWO, being the Indigenous and the rest. This used to be called Apartheid and this used to be a dirty word. Now it appears the Indigenous activists are seeking it anew. This is not being ONE but is being divisive.

[@AnotherDoug]

~ The Voice will *NOT* have the power to negotiate - the proposed Constitutional change explicitly says the Voice can provide advice *ONLY* . ~ The Voice is the opposite of apartheid.

[@ThomasLouttit]

What's the old saying, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics". I think the idea of a treaty comes from the concept that Aboriginal people are technically still at war with the Crown. You know, "always was, always will be, sovereignty was never ceded". However, as you mentioned, treaties are signed between sovereign governments, and as far as I know, there never was and still isn't a sovereign Aboriginal government. Is the plan for this suggested constitutionally enshrined body to take on the role of that sovereign Aboriginal government? Noel Pearson says, "We need a constitutional voice for the First Nations (plural, many nations), a position from which we can never be shifted." Is this why this is so important, and why it 'must' be done first, before the Treaty? I remember Gough Whitlam said, "Aboriginal people need access to the World Court". I often wonder what would be the decision of the World Court if the sovereignty of Australia was challenged in that court? However, every time I mention this, I always seem to find someone who reminds me that the World Court is a toothless tiger. Anyhow, I'm off to Cloes to see if I can get a packet of Arnotts Hundreds and Thousands, I just love the pink icing with those sweet specks of lolly on top. A cuppa hot tea [no milk, no sugar for me please] and a couple of Hundreds of Thousands bikkies, mmmm, how good is that. (I like to dunk.)

[@tashamaree]

It's the UN they'll be deferring to under the Indigeous Peoples policy - unelected bodies with no interest in Australia or her united People except to divide and disempower them by political games.

[@retyroni]

The proposed amendment recognises "First Peoples" rather than a nation, first nation or first nations. I've heard some express dismay at this choice on the grounds it fails to establish the sovereignty required to negotiate a treaty (I even saw one person claim the 1967 recognition of citizenship extinguished sovereignty but they seemed to be a bit of a loony) but others (e.g. UNSW) indicate the concept of 'sovereignty' is too complex for this word choice to make any difference.

[@tashamaree]

I'm fairly certain 1967 wasn't about Citizenship - that happened at Federation. 1967 was about reinstating the voting rights for people of tribal heritage lost at Federation (some colonies gave tribal men voting rights - not all, but foremost you had to have assimilated freely). I think the delay was simply to foster division, and here we are right on schedule for MORE division like frogs in pots getting hotter and hotter so gradually that only some wake up and jump out. And the dismay at the wording shows the agenda - the 500 tribes were not a nation at all. The most united they ever were was as British Subjects, like the rest of the Convicted Slaves brought here against their will. Building a nation was only ever a second thought - this was a prison to die in, and the Crown didn't give a hang about anyone here - not even the "elite" sent to handle the riff raff with the promise that this exile was temporary... In fact it was some tribal people that helped the British out, and as best they could, while following orders (they were stricter on their own than on the "natives" also) tribal and non-tribal people did their best to work together in spite of massive cultural differences. We have much to celebrate in mutual achievement, but instead we're being divided for literally no reason and no benefit to anyone but the elite who sought to destroy us in the first place. A native person was more revered and feared than an Irish Catholic - slave or free. Don't forget that. The first slaves in the Americas were Irish too. Lest we forget.

[@tashamaree]

I'm fairly certain if this Referendum was about a Preamble mention of the first Alien Origines everyone would vote Yes like in 1967, and the country would be united. On this issue there's a spectrum of opinion and agendas from people of all colours, cultures, and positions on this issue. The water is so muddy, the only sensible vote is No until everyone is on the same page. The orchestrators of this clearly don't have unity and social cohesion in mind at all. They don't even have national sovereignty in mind. This isn't about us and our country and people at all.

[@GlennThompson]

Wesley Aird for PM.

[@fightforjustice3744]

Sounds right to me , mate.

[@ix-Xafra]

The South side of Brisbane is disputed territory between two tribal groups. Will the voice settle the argument?

[@chrismiddleton9088]

And unfortunately there are examples of that all over the Country. There was a toll road opening recently in NSW that resulted in a fight between 2 opposing group over which group had the right to perform a smoking ceremony.

[@tashamaree]

Um Canberra itself is a tribal war between Ngnunnawal and Ngambri peoples (all related btw)

[@BioTransXX]

Treaties are usually offered when 2 sovereign nations fight for power and it is determined that there will be no clear victor, or one side decides that they no longer wish to spend resources fighting for dominance, or they come to an agreement to avoid war. That is why Māori have a treaty, and why Aboriginal Australians do not. Māori were united in their defence of the people and the land which helped them fend off the Brits, Aboriginals were not and so they were conquered. The conquered don’t get treaties, they are instead assimilated. This country is made up of people from all corners of the globe. I wont accept power being given to a group of people based on their race that allows them to make decisions for their own benefit and to the very likely detriment of all others. I vote NO.

[@tashamaree]

I agree with you in most part, but didn't Mabo show that they weren't conquered, they just simply saw the benefits of no longer living a tribal life at the mercy of whomever happened to have power in their tribe at the time. Also the colonies did give British Subjects of tribal heritage voting rights - according to their own laws - some did, some didn't of course. The Constitutional definition of Native was basically no assimilation whatever, and full subsistence on the land, meaning they weren't British Subjects like mixed blood offspring, mixed couples, or pureblood offspring rescued from abuse (which did happen similar to happenings in other, even more highly developed, tribal nations). There's been a lot of Blackwashing of history which they've then called Whitewashing. I think we all need to know our true history before we can even attempt to resolve these matters between ourselves - and we need to stop trusting that politicians and tax will sort things out - when that hasn't worked for decades.

[@BioTransXX]

@@tashamaree That is true to an extent, though they did not have to say the land was occupied in order to conquer the people. There are many ways to conquer, and they were conquered. The fact that Brits, with the assistance of migrants from all over the world, transformed the coastal regions into thriving cities using Western technology without the permission or involvement of Aboriginals is proof enough that they were conquered. Even if we accepted the fact that they are not British subjects, that they are not Australians, then that means that they should have nothing to do with government, and especially not with our constitution. If they are truly sovereign then they do not have the right to have a seat at the Australian table let alone have an opinion on anything that involves Australians. What happened here is what happens to all conquered peoples/cultures. Yes the lie that Australia was Terra Nullius when Captain Cook arrived should be acknowledged, but so should the fact that the Aboriginals were conquered. This land no longer belongs to Aboriginals alone, it belongs to all Australians. The Aboriginals that want to be “sovereign” should leave Australian society and create their own on their own lands that have been given to them.

[@tashamaree]

@@BioTransXX I guess, but word semantics when we're trying to move towards a non-political reconciliation doesn't really help, and makes us no different to the Ottoman Empire, which makes me a tad uncomfortable... If not Native by Constitutional definition, then they were considered British Subjects if they were family by Marriage or blood, or even adoption, or even just assimilation, and happily so. Hence they built and died alongside the rest of us in the wars and deserved the same honour, which was unnecessarily denied by the Status Quo, and rarely by the Common Man. Thus the Subjects became Citizens of Terra Australis like the rest of us who hail from everywhere, and their voting rights should not have been delayed as much as they were - but were to add fuel to the Marxist fire, slow-burning decades... Terra Nullius was a legal definition I think that was justified according to Law - wasn't nice, but it was the Law. Land Rights are a mess, but I don't think schism or defection of any sort is helpful, and it's exactly what our unworthy overlords desire.

[@BioTransXX]

@@tashamaree I don’t know how we can ever move towards non-political reconciliation when we have Aboriginal activists in and outside government and their non-Aboriginal enablers constantly making it a political issue. Many are even saying that there can never be reconciliation. We have Noel Pearson saying he “wants” reconciliation, he “wants” Australia to be “united”, but he has repeatedly been heard saying things like “I hate white people” and “white people are c*nts”. And those are just a few of the things he’s been caught saying. The entitled attitude has to change, otherwise it will always be a political issue. We can start by having an enquiry into the misuse and mismanagement of the 30 billion dollars a year that Aboriginals get for Aboriginal exclusive use. 30 billion a year, a trillion over the last few decades, more than 3 times non-Aboriginal Australians receive, they own more than 50% of the land, and they still keep asking for more and more? I think reparations have been paid a trillion times over. Enough is enough. No treaty, no voice, no race based rights or power in or outside government.

[@tashamaree]

@@BioTransXX well mate, Marxists gotta Marxist... They are the ones depriving and brainwashing the tribal people (and non-tribal) and blaming everyone else, so no one realises the real issue, and they still get paid. Have you seen Geoff Macdonald's 1hr doco on KZbin? Red Over Black. Ex-Communist reveals the Marxist infiltration into the Tribal Land Rights Movement. All of this was planned long ago, and implemented bit by bit like a slow-boiling pot with all us common frogs in there.

[@coobye]

Write NO. Don't tick or put an X or your vote won't count.

[@paulmitchell7816]

Not one full blood aboriginal amongst them. It's a rort

[@dawsie]

No your not, when I first heard of that speech it set of so many alarm bells in my head. I knew it spelled trouble if it ever got off the ground.

[@fredlight9963]

Kind of like trying to get a divorce settlement while remaining married.

[@shanerooney7288]

Volume is WAY too low. When I have to crank up my settings to hear your video, it causes problems with any other noise my computer wants to make.

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

Hi Shane, Thanks for letting us know. We'll make sure to increase the video's volume for next time. In the meantime, feel free to turn on closed captions 😊. Thanks for watching.

[@deadlymarsupial1236]

You are spot-on. The agreement the government has with its citizens is the constitution, executed by the monarch (commonwealth of australia constitution act section 61) A treaty is defined at law between two different countries and a peace treaty between two belligerent countries.. The text proposed to be inserted into the constitution must be read as defined by law. Maxim: Words are known by the company they keep. The text is like malicious code that inserts vulnerabilities into the constitution written by lawyers who know what it says so it is intentional. Various definitions at law for words are loaded with powers. Shall - Mandatory May - Discretionary - "Representation" - induces another to enter a contract based on fact - "Fact" - can be as weak as an unsubstantiated claim that goes without rebuttal. (mental event - a thought) - "subject to this constitution" - sounds innocent on the face of it, however the parliament is already subject to the constitution so why say it again? It really means subject to section 129 (ii) which gives the voice powers at law. - "people" in constitutional law mean the entire body of citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes. The aboriginal and torres strait people were separate tribes many plundering each-other for resources as per nulla nulla video kzbin.info/www/bejne/roeXhHt-ppaZh7s The text subjects parliament to the powers of the voice to make laws. The laws are with respect to matters RELATING TO, not ON BEHALF OF the aboriginal and torres strait people. Maxim: Where the expressed mention of one thing excludes others. www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/judges-and-the-law/content-section-6.6 The Voice therefore has no responsibility or accountability to the aboriginal and torres strait people and has full discretion "may" in what it represents to parliament as it does not define who it represents. Recognition is Ratification. Ratification gives effect to a claim as if originally authorized by the one who recognizes. This shifts the blame to the people instead of to those who make the claim. In this case the people by referendum. pbs.twimg.com/media/F6g5vtPbQAApedo?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 pbs.twimg.com/media/F6g4sa2aIAANDms?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

[@AnotherDoug]

~ "Representation" - induces another to enter a contract based on fact" - that is not the definition of "representations". It has been defined as giving advice or views in the Explanatory Memorandum (which accompanied the Constitution Alteration Bill in Parliament), in the Attorney-General's Second Reading speech on the same Bill and the Solicitor-General in his official Opinion on the proposed Constitutional change. ~ "section 129 (ii) which gives the voice powers at law." - this is incorrect. The Voice will have NO power at all - other than to give advice to the Government. The importance of "subject to this Constitution" is that it means that Parliament itself cannot change the purpose of the Voice to anything other than to give ADVICE. The Voice cannot be given the power to negotiate treaties or reparations or anything because it will be "subject to this constitution"! ~ "The text subjects parliament to the powers of the voice to make laws." - this is incorrect. The Voice will have NO power, other than to give advice. (See the Solicitor-General's official Opinion on the Constitutional change) ~ "Voice therefore has no responsibility or accountability" - this is incorrect. See the Voice Principles for how the Voice members will be held accountable.

[@deadlymarsupial1236]

​@@AnotherDoug, Extriinsic aids (explanatory memorandum) are preceeded by other rules/methods of interpretation at law, (a) literal rule; (b) golden rule; (c) mischief rule; (d) purposive approach; (e) presumptions at law; (f) rules of language (such as Noscitur a sociis), (g) intrinsic aids; Extrinsic aids is at the end of the list of rules/methods. What you propose is absurd on the basis it would put many of the results of these methods in contradiction with each-other and thus risk different judgements depending on the method a judge chose to apply. Yet people are expected to vote in a referendum either consenting to or rejecting what they personally believe the text proposes at law. When words that suit the meaning intended are available, it makes no sense at law to take other words with meanings different for the context of the circumstances the law addresses and subject them to redefinition to such an extent the redefinition contradicts the original definition of the same word so as to depend on the redefinition that may or may not be referred to in a court's attempt at interpretation depending on the method of interpretation chosen by the court. The only sense at law for doing such a thing is mens-rea, that being an intention to enshrine into our sacred constitution an effect at law very different to that explained to the people in order to obtain their consent by fraud which considering we are talking about a possible undermining of the constitution with vulnerabilities primed for exploitation raises questions of high treason by the scribes and their masters who put them up to it. That alone is sufficient to lack faith in the integrity of the proposition put forward to referendum and quite frankly deserves a Royal Commission Inquiry.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@deadlymarsupial1236 So, you believe you know better than the Solicitor-General of Australia? www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=ea88212c-eccc-45d2-822c-8578fa96895c&subId=740367

[@deadlymarsupial1236]

@@AnotherDoug Sacrifice is the measure of credibility (maxim). Until the authors as well as the Solicitor General testify under their oath of office and penalty of perjury and treason in a public broadcasted royal inquiry I will reserve myself from forming beliefs in support of that text being nothing more than propagandized.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@deadlymarsupial1236 What do you want the Solicitor-General to testify to? Do you think he normally issues official Opinions full of lies? I notice that not a single person from the No Campaign has challenged the Solicitor-General's Opinion on the Constitutional change. Given all the No Campaign's negativity on everything else, that means they must believe the Solicitor-General is telling the truth. You should believe it too

[@MB-qo7ru]

The Voice' is supposed to "close the gap". Enshrined into the Constitution, are we expecting the Aboriginals to be this lesser group of people who will always need this greater support and permanently require special measures? I think NOT. I will vote NO.

[@AnotherDoug]

Not a lesser group at all - but a group that lives in ways sufficiently differently to most of Australia that the Government should take advice before imposing policies that simply may not work in A&TSI communities.

[@j...bro.]

Could we have a trial period before the forever bit at the very least. See if actually helps?

[@onlytimewilltell204]

We can put all the bells and whistles and the training wheels on as you get on the bike we will ripp them all off

[@peterlederer3896]

For a start the Uluru Statement from the Heart is not a one A4 page document at all It's 26 pages long and 100 pages of pre-amble dialogues it's available to view on the Sky News Website if everything is so above board why did it take a freedom of information to be released its not the one Page being spruiked while hiding the remaining detail

[@AnotherDoug]

Because Sky News employee was too stupid to look at the Referendum Council's website where it had been posted 6 years ago.

[@LukeXMV]

Isnt it more about the treaty between the indigenous Australians and the English royals? Did the english royals ever applogize?

[@tashamaree]

For what? There was no other "nation" here, just scattered tribes and more undeveloped than PNG. I don't like the Crown, but we need a decent argument before pointing fingers that make us look ludicrous on the world stage.

[@Chloe-w7n]

​@@tashamareeThis country was inhabited. Thousands of years before settlers came.

[@tashamaree]

@@Chloe-w7n you must be obtuse as anything to respond to my comment like that. Read it again. Slowly. Then reply with something sensible and relevant rather than completely off-topic and a waste of time rebutting because you didn't rebut anything I said at all.

[@harleydavo1099]

I believe the term "First Nations" was introduced as part of the agenda. Recognising sovereignty will allow this Makarata (treaty) process to go forward. A sovereign nation will not have to deal with Australians at all and will open the door to the United Nations and Globalisation. Possibly dealing directly with foreign development and mining.

[@tashamaree]

Yes it was in Canada first for decades. Now look at them. It's always about usufruct. Always.

[@BigGen222]

I love your videos and information but may I ask that you make them a bit louder? My hearing is not the best and I have trouble (even on full volume) and I'd really like to hear what you say.

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

Good morning, Thanks for your comment! We appreciate your suggestion and will keep that in mind for our next video. In the meantime, please feel free to turn on closed captions. You can press the 'c' key on your laptop's keyboard or click the button 'cc' in the bottom right hand corner of the video. Thanks for watching 😊 Centre For Indigenous Training

[@Chloe-w7n]

I'm voting Yes. The racist views alone in this country have made me decide this. I believe there should be a voice in parliament from people who speak for the Aboriginal people in areas across Australia. Decisions that affect them should have some say in matters that affect them.

[@markd.9538]

There are already indigenous members of parliament, in the Parliament of Australia. 11 of them as it currently stands. Thats a significant number. They are voted in by the citizens of each electorate - one citizen, one vote. A Yes vote in the referendum won't accomplish what you believe it will, as stated in your comment. Instead it will establish a political lobby group, enshrined to exist, in the constitution, forever. And that lobby group will be taxpayer funded, in perpetuity. It will also have no say in matters that affect "them" (whoever "them" are now, or in 100, 500, or 1000 years time). Only elected representatives can help with what you seek - which gets back to my first point above - representation. Its already there. We all have it. Together. Undivided by race or culture or society. Its called representative democracy.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@markd.9538 ~ The Indigenous members of Parliament represent *all* people in their electorates - not just the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander peoples. ~ "It will also have no say" - why do you think an advisory group would not provide advice? And, if that advice is good, why do you think it would not be acted upon?

[@markd.9538]

​@@AnotherDoug Regarding your point #1 - indeed. Thats the whole point. Thank you for providing the best argument against The Voice that can be made. Love your work, champ. Regarding your point #2 - Representatives in parliament vote, and THEY are who have a say when bills are passed. To inject an immutable lobby group into the process defeats the fair say that belongs to of ALL of us. Regarding your point #3 - the Voice is not the only means of providing information to parliament, and if advice is good (no matter its source), then for sure - take thad advice - great! But - keep in mind - The right to petition, the right to protest, and the right to lobby, to mobilise, to demand action, and to run for Office already belongs to ALL. In light of this, there is no need for the Voice. There just isn't. Further, there is no guarantee The Voice will not become a puppet of vested interests. And a corrupt voice in the hands of vested interests would have a constitutional RIGHT to provide potential bad, or misguided advice to parliament as its controllers see fit. That is simply not a required mechanism in the consitution of Australia.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@markd.9538 ~ "_the best argument against The Voice_ " - then I have not made myself clear. The Indigenous members of Parliament do not represent all A&TSI people. They are not a substitute for the Voice. ~ "_immutable_ " - why do you use this word? In what way would the Voice be unchanging? ~ "_defeats the fair say_ " - how does increasing the say of one group have any impact at all on anyone else? No-one loses anything from the existence of the Voice ~ "_there is no need for the Voice_ " - many would disagree that hearing how policies (or the absence of them) adversely impacts A&TSI peoples would be of no benefit. ~ "corrupt voice" - see the Voice design principles - The Voice would be subject to standard governance and reporting requirements to ensure transparency and accountability. - Voice members would fall within the scope of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. - Voice members would be able to be sanctioned or removed for serious misconduct voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles ~ "_misguided advice_ " - recipients of the advice will not be idiots. They can identify poor advice.

[@patrickpower6034]

👍👍

[@mangirri]

The Centre for Jackie Jackies would be a better title.

[@Allisbuttoys]

Albonese says he's having the Referendum, not because it was his idea, but rather because the aboriginal activists asked him to. That should give everyone an idea of who will be controlling who if the Voice gets up

[@AnotherDoug]

Incorrect. You might like to reads the proposed Constitutional change. It clearly gives Parliament full control over dealing with the Voice.

[@boitmecklyn4995]

Voting yes will lead to years of constitutional litigation and a waste of taxpayer money.

[@AnotherDoug]

No, it won't. The Solicitor-General has officially said that Parliament can write the Voice legislation so that the Voice has *NO* right to challenge any Government decision - so, no court cases anywhere.

[@alancotterell9207]

Are the First Nations a recognisable entity with an elected leader ?

[@coobye]

Most indigenous Australians that don't live in communities have mixed blood now but they act like they're full bloods and reject their white ancestry. Why?.

[@wombat6177]

Why indeed. It’s identity politics and it’s a way of holding power and calling out racism in others but never oneself.

[@marksmart9754]

But they don’t consider themselves Australian citizens. They only want citizenship when it comes to getting government handouts. Any other time they deny they’re Australian. So either stop receiving government hand outs. Or be citizens 100% of the time. You can’t have it both ways. And it’s time our government stopped pandering to such a small minority group at the expense of the rest of Australian citizens.

[@tashamaree]

Once upon a time, tribal people were proud to be British Subjects prior to Federation.

[@marksmart9754]

@@tashamaree that’s before a group went to Africa to be taught how to fight against “ white oppression” by the communists training the “freedom fighters” in South Africa.

[@jamescerini6993]

Will the First Nations People be ready for a treaty with the rest of Australia?

[@tashamaree]

Never! Can't agree on the colour of an orange amongst themselves!

[@jonh9561]

In answer to the question "Can we have a Treaty with our own citizens"?, the answer would have to be yes it is possible, given that it has been done in similar situations in different parts of the world. HOWEVER, the question could be rephrased to ask; SHOULD we have a Treaty with our own citizens? Personally, I think that the time for any sort of Treaty has long since passed because our peoples and cultures have become so very mixed that in truth, it is now almost impossible to disentangle these things and most of us, including the rest of the world, generally view all of us as 'Australians' and that is the basis on which we should build and move forward on. We can test this notion by imagining how we would all react if this great country of ours was ever under threat, would we divide ourselves into groups or unite in its defence?

[@onlytimewilltell204]

How will the voice affect state street vanguard and black rock is more important than jackie jackie on the never never is where this will be going tell me lm wrong lm not buying this as sympathy vote at all its about control of recourses.

[@AnotherDoug]

Racist words

[@tashamaree]

​@@AnotherDougI think they mean an average tribal person, but yes, this is a defamatory phrase and more education is required lest there's more fuel for the fire burning this country to the ground in every way possible.

[@tashamaree]

I take your point re Corporatist agendas, but the phrase you used is pejorative and we don't need to give the agenda pushers any more ammo now friend 🙏🕊

[@pablovalentine8976]

Noel Pisson is a good reason to vote NO. He is just after 30 billion plus more for the rest of his life . What Noel Pisson should do is get a real job and see what its like to work your guts out everyday and pay a third of your wages to government so him and his elites can have a better life forever. Remember this is forever till the earth turns to dust . Seriously why would anyone want to do that ? Tell Noel Pisson to get a real job VOTE NO THATS THE GO

[@704macleod]

You seem to be hinting at the New Zealand model which has crept upon the unaware citizens.

[@jc7671]

The only need for a voice would be if there was no intention of closing the gap. At no stage has Mayo, Reid, Pearson, Langton, Davis, Anderson & Burney have not never mentioned closing the gap. It's all been about gaining more power and creating a permanent body in the constitution. ATSIC was disbanded as it wasn't fulfilling it's primary purpose. A new permanent organisation has no intention of completing its primary purpose, just to exist and cost money.

[@AnotherDoug]

Burney talked about it at the National Press Club just a few weeks ago: ministers.pmc.gov.au/burney/2023/national-press-club-address

[@tashamaree]

That gap makes a LOT of money, the wider it is, the more they make.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@tashamareeWho is "they"?

[@tashamaree]

@@AnotherDoug the puppets of the shadowy elite who run this country from overseas.

[@GusJohnson-bj5lh]

Over the next 100+ years we will see more and more young aboriginals moving to the cities for education, work, marriage, overseas work and generally the enjoyment of the modern “good life”. So, when 100+ years from now the land becomes valuable, due to natural resources, and the community filthy rich by way of royalties, a community which by now is comprised of practically all elderly with just the odd young person; is the community going to accept a number of people from “outside”, most likely many times more than those who are still remaining on the land, people they have never even seen or heard of…? I don’t think so. This is going to be grossly unfair to many, but a secured income for the legal fraternity with endless Court cases.

[@tashamaree]

What you're saying has been happening for 200 years 😉

[@17_73]

Yes you can have a treaty with your own people if a goverment can deny rights to certain citizens for many decades. For example no right vote no right to give evidence in a court of law and the goverment can remove certain citizens right to live on what was their land for thousands of years. Then why can't a goverment make a treaty with that group of citizens. America made many treaties with certain American citizens they may have broken those treaties a day after they were made.

[@gregorymcleod]

I am not a fan of 100's & 1000's but like my ginger snaps or short bread.

[@chrismiddleton9088]

I personally like chocolate Teddy Bears. Not sure about dunking those tea though, maybe coffee.

[@FairladyS130]

With socialists everything is progressive so only old conservatives dispute their goodness no matter the legality, social value and practicality of the proposals.

[@tashamaree]

Because progressivism is actually regressive in practice.

[@FairladyS130]

@@tashamaree Yes, most progression is based on social Marxism and Marxism is about as regressive as you can get.

[@tashamaree]

@@FairladyS130 diabolical things typically are 😔

[@alancotterell9207]

Stop making sense. To my mind, a Treaty would be preferable, but it presupposes there is a fight. - IS THERE ?

[@anerawewillneverforget]

Everyone thinks this is just about the Uluru statement. They think it's about giving Aboriginal people a voice. This is about... The United Nations has given the Australian government a mandate of ownership for ALL housing, property, farms, and businesses country wide that will come into effect once the Republic has been proclaimed. The ONLY thing keeping Australian from becoming a Republic is the fact that Indigenous and Torres Strait islanders are not currently included in the fraudulent constitution (green bounded book) and are still deemed to be the original owners of the land. If Indigenous people are to be written up in the constitution, then this means Indigenous people have ceded their sovereignty and the United Nations OWN ALL AUSTRALIAN LAND UNDER NATIVE TITLE - meaning ALL Australians REGARDLESS OF COLOUR OR RACE 'LOSE' their properties and houses/homes under native title and no longer are classed as owners, including businesses.

[@_nebulousthoughts]

Got any references to back that up?

[@halfdome4158]

The globalist plan. Use minorities to destroy the country, laws and then they will all enjoy the profits.

[@nettles6055]

​@@_nebulousthoughtsyou can look it up. Sky news host talks about it, among others.

[@retyroni]

This is nonsense. It has been debunked as nonsense many times. People need to stop copy-pasting nonsense they haven't checked.

[@tashamaree]

They are in the Constitution - as Citizens, former Subjects. The only "Natives" in the Constitution are full-blood, no English language skills, remote, and fully subsistent on the land, thus not Electors. In 1967 the Government finally decided to restore Colonial voting rights to tribal people (although not all Colonies bestowed them). It was long overdue seeing as our Tribal Brothers bled right along with us on British battlefields to allegedly buy our freedom, and prior to the wars had helped build the colonies using tribal skills and learned Western skills also. Unity as one race, one country, one people, one flag is the only way to true sovereignty, but the Republican nonsense is a trap also. Honestly I see no way out right now, it's choose your own adventure on the least worst of all bad scenarios.

[@arthurmurrie3204]

NO.

[@Gusto0172]

Whatever you do, don't mention treaty. I did but I think I got away with it.........