Is it racist to vote NO?

[@ShockWaveGamings234fg321f]

It's not racist to say no

[@pebblepod30]

But Pay the Rent is a fundamentally & unavoidably racist & colonialist setup, just with a new elite & new superior race. Contary to what they claim about being "voluntary" (they dont yet have the power to forve their racist ownership on others), Tenant & Landlord mean owner & non owner by definition, in this case based on a fashionable racism pushed at university. And they are the same people like Thomas Mayo pushing the Race based special Voice into the Constitution. Even though they already have the same voice and special voices too already.

[@scrooge1970]

I have no problem whatsoever with recognition of the First Peoples of Australia BUT i do have a problem with the voice. Unfortunately the government has deceitfully merged two questions into one, its a great shame but i am forced to vote NO.

[@n163126]

what 2 questions, if u may?

[@scrooge1970]

@@n163126 They are asking two things; Alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia ... and Establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Its the second part that is so contentious and vague, it would be like signing a permanent blank cheque to a politician.

[@cscooperau]

​@@scrooge1970I'd say no to both. Recognition in the constitution will do nothing at all for indigenous Australians. IA are already considered Australian citizens and have been for decades. 80% of IA are doing fine. The best thing for the remaining 20% is for them to ask, what are the 80% doing that I'm not? The whole, "recognise in the constitution" will do nothing but allow the govt to pat themselves on the back.

[@Quinctili]

@cscooperau correct. In 1947 Labor proposed an Act that would draw together ALL Australians. In fact, ,Labor even specified a particular date this should happen, that being the TWENTY SIXTH OF JANUARY. Does that date ring a bell? Labor lost the next election, but we had real politicians back then, before Whitlam sold out and signed Australia to the Nazi linked Fabian Society. Menzies, leader of the Liberal Pary in 1948, also recognised the importance of one Austtralia, one people. He sat down with Labor, they came up with the Passport Act, and passed the Labor legislation in full, unopposed, right down to the date Labor had proposed. THE 26TH OF JANUARY. Essentially, that became the day Australia became one people, AUSTRALIA DAY. This new Act allowed ALL Australians, born, or who had resided in Australia for 5 years prior to 1947, to travel anywhere in the world on an AUSTRALIAN PASSPORT for the first time. Not a British passport, Australian. Both Liberal and Labor recognised there was to be no distinction of race, skin colour, nothing. On that day, which became AUSTRALIA DAY, we became one people. Recognition. Sadly, racist Aboriginals and the scum that took over the previously respected Labor Party made it a political issue for uninformed fools. Labor turned to shit, manipulated by the Fabian Society. Every Labor leader since Gough Whitlam MUST be a member of the Fabian Society AND TAKE ORDERS FROM OVERSEAS, or they don't get the job. The written and published goal of the Fabian Society is to rule the world and implement their Eugenics program to eliminate half the world's population. Eugenics is population cleansing, extermination and breeding control. Example. Hitler was the first Socialist to use Eugenics extermination on a grand scale, but the Left will kill a few hundred more aged, sick, frail, mentally ill, gays, unemployed and unattractive people tonight in the Socialist paradise of Venezuela. Millions dead so far. Waaayy back, a world leader of the Fabian Society, therefore Socialism, was George Bernard Shaw of My Fair Lady fame. He admired Hitler (leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) who had presented him with an award, on film, for his work in advancing Socialism, but was a massive fan of Mussolini in particular, for he had been a leader in the Italian Socialist Party even as a teenager. You can find that praise in Shaw's many books. Anyway, Shaw wrote this advice to Hitler and Mussolini. "We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living.....A part of EUGENICS politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because blah blah " Find it, read it. There's our future. The Nationalsozialistische Australian Labor Party under the control of Albanazi. Good luck.

[@simongross3122]

Same here. I don't even have a problem with treaties if they are fairly and transparently negotiated, taking into account the fair treatment of all affected. The problem with treaty though is exactly which of the hundreds of aboriginal groups would a treaty be made with? To be completely fair, each group should negotiate their own treaty. This sort of thing happened in the USA. I don't see it happening here. Even Arnhem Land which provides a degree of sovereignty, independence and the operation of traditional law for some Aboriginals is not backed up with a treaty. You are correct. The government's sneaky approach to this referendum stinks like rotting fish.

[@stevegoodwin5841]

Jacinta Price said it best ie "We need ears not a voice to Parliament" We are all Australian already and all covered under Constitution and I feel a division, not a coming together would result from a carried Yes to proposal. I am all for improving life for all Australians (which already includes our true indigenous Australians)

[@S3NTRY]

I do enjoy the fact that The Voice is Labor saying "when we have been in power, we have never listened, but this will fix it"

[@BioTransXX]

@@S3NTRYIrony is the best kind of comedy.

[@waveman0]

as always you deliver a well-thought-out and informed video, thank you.

[@sosministriesrev1412]

Short answer is no. Voting no is absolutely necessary to prevent racist alteration to the constitution.

[@Ripa-Moramee]

Quite literally. The indigenous are Australian's, as we all are. I see them as my brothers and sisters as anyone else in this country. They have the opportunity to become politicians, they have the right to vote, and they have the right to protest.

[@scoundragon]

For me voting No is the right decision. I can’t see how elevating one race above everyone else is going to change anything are we all Australians or are we going to have minority groups though out Australia.

[@kerrynball2734]

@@beedoox5613I imagine that there are a bunch of real Aboriginals in remote communities that just go about their daily lives taking life as it comes. Then there's a few activists that generally look closer to and behave more like white people that stir up trouble. It's a white/modern concept that they need housing, clothing, feeding, education, and low infant mortality rate, representation in parliament. Attempting to achieve these outcomes is a continuation of colonialistation.

[@scoundragon]

@@beedoox5613 Well said. I’m tired of hear about it day after day

[@danputaranui3182]

Elevating one race over another?… that’s exzactly what’s been done to Aboriginals

[@bizfromdotcom]

I am the member of Last Nation ..arrived here as a refugee 40+ years ago. I can only say that Australians must get their asses in order. More discipline More hard work. Gang of lefties in public service and universities is destroying core of this Country. I don't want to my children become refugees from Australia in near future..trust me it's no fun

[@kerrynball2734]

@@danputaranui3182 The sad part is that it's the Whites that have done it. Discrimination is bad, even if you're trying to help someone. On the one hand we're meant to be ashamed of our colonial past, on the other hand we're sending Arms to Ukraine to take back Crimea, which is for whatever reason not colonial ambitions.

[@sirstiffpilchard]

I don't care what Ms Burney calls me I am voting NO

[@ThomasLouttit]

Is racist to divide Australians according to race?

[@johnstewart3846]

YES it is.

[@wordzmyth]

Australians already discriminate in everyday life based on race. At least racist here in NZ are ashamed. The original establishment of Australia declared "Terra nullius" - the country was founded on a racist and biased assumption. That indigenous people have no rights. You likely do need a constitutional change to correct that.

[@wordzmyth]

Even if indigenous people have eventiluallu gained equal rights in law they are heavily disadvantaged by a long history of extreme discrimination

[@midlifebiker7424]

@@wordzmyth Aboriginals were nomads, they didnt have any property to warrant a treaty. I dont think a boomerang or didgeridoo were worth trading... It is ridiculous that indigenous Australians that dont want to be "identified" as Aboriginal have less rights, which is "Racist". Im voting NO as a mixed breed...as respect to both sides of my family tree and for modern multicultural inclusive times..... This is all about houso albo wanting a legacy...and nothing else..

[@wordzmyth]

@@midlifebiker7424 thanks for being a great example of the kind blindness to your own privilege Australia is famous for.

[@midlifebiker7424]

Im mixed breed and its 100% NO from me.... I identify as Australian...

[@krisp4889]

And Bloody proud of it as you should be!!__ just look at the disaster across the Tasman to see how right you are.__ Cindy wore a hijab "embraced the Moslem population" and then handed them a "second class citizen passport"__ actions speak louder than words she was the ultimate Hypocrite.

[@moonwolf6074]

I vote no on the voice

[@robd2096]

When we voted for the current government we thought (hoped, actually) that we would get a new government that was less shit than the previous one. Our hopes on this were dashed when we found out just how treacherous they are. First the NACC not being allowed to hold public hearings as was promised by Albo, and what Australians had demanded. Secondly, we have found out Albo is only funding one side of "the voice" argument (his side of course) despite his commitment to equal funding. Further, he has engaged in insulting, denigrating and abusing people who have genuine concerns and relevant questions. Albo now denies that the referendum is of any concern or significant consequence to Australia. "It's the right thing to do" he says. Full and factual disclosure is the right thing to do, Albo. He also denies that he, by forcing through the referendum, is installing not only the voice, but "treaty" & "truth telling" as part of supporting the statement from the heart "IN FULL". You're on record Albo. This process has turned into a nasty vilification exercise which is turning Australians away form the voice - and rightly so. Australians deserve to vote the way they see fit without recriminations. If the referendum is lost, it is directly on Albo's shoulders and he should resign. Personally, I see "the voice", if enshrined in the constitution, dividing our great country racially, forever. The consequences of this referendum are powerful and permanent. If you don't know, or even if you are not sure, vote NO. There's no way back.

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

@robd2096 in all other elections if we don't the government we can wait a few years and vote for change. Altering the constitution is a very different proposition - for better or for worse.

[@S3NTRY]

very well said. good to see there are still people out there with the capacity for critical thinking.

[@Knowbody42]

It's racist to vote yes. Laws based on race are racist. There should be one set of laws that applies to everyone the same way.

[@Jcremo]

Thank you for your succinct, intelligent, short video on the subject.

[@paddlesmcbean2366]

It’s racist to vote yes in support of a referendum that would promote 1 race ahead of all others.

[@letsbefrank6269]

Please do not keep referring to Indigenous Australians as being disadvantaged, there are other Australians who are also disadvantaged. How about we refer to other Australians as being disadvantaged Australians too. Domestic violence, poverty, disenfranchised, homeless, is not separated by race. We are all Australians, get used to it, lets move forward together not bloody separately.

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

It's complicated. Indigenous Australians do experience disadvantage and, I agree, it is similar in many ways to the experiences of many other Australians. The issue is one soci-economics and geography. But this referendum debate has focussed on race and by extension Indigenous disadvantage. Over on our webpage we have an online course called Contemporary Indigenous Australia and in that we try to project a more balanced picture of Indigenous people being young, urban and mostly engaged in the economy.

[@russellritchings8082]

Like the man said, research, do your homework. I have read the full 112 documents that make up the Uluru statement from the heart. It takes longer to read than 2 minutes as the PM would want you to believe. After reading that, it would be racist to vote yes.

[@Roulandus-le-Fartere]

Is it racist to grant special rights and privileges to someone because of their genetic/cultural makeup?

[@LDU2U]

"Is it Racist to Vote NO?" Absolutely not, if vote Yes, then THAT is Racist.

[@Chewy02]

I think you’re right on the money. It’s refreshing to her commonsense.

[@Quinctili]

It is racist to legislate laws based entirely upon a race or skin colour, intended to favour only that race or skin colour. We're better than that. We've moved on from that. I cannot, and will not, support any form of racism and division, let alone a form of APARTHEID. For those reasons, I will be voting NO. No to a racist Voice.

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

My suggestion to address disadvantage is 'fund need, not race'.

[@Quinctili]

@centrefor_indigenoustraining how much more? And for how long? Isn't it RACIST to fund an organisation that relates to only ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE? Why not fund an organisation for the 2.6% of Muslim Australians? Or the 0.4% of Jewish? Manipulating figures and facts, which is what's really going on, surely the Jews are a greater minority! It's bullshit. It's all bullshit. Money and manipulation. Manipulation and money. Who profits? And THAT is at the centre of every falsehood and crime ever committed. Try this. Labor could never get elected without the Aboriginal and Muslim vote. It's in their interest to promote division and hatred. You're being used to ESTABLISH DIVISION! You're not the cure, not the solution. I probably have more Original mates than you, and they can see it as clear as day. I realise you have to make a living, but you're doing it by promoting racism and division. It's bullshit.

[@MarkBrown-gc6hr]

Any legislation based on a persons skin or race is by very definition "racist". It will lead to Apartheid. Aparheid was legislated separate treatment of people in South Africa based on race. Look at what happened and the trouble it caused. Do you want that here? And don't say it wont happen here. People are the same everywhere

[@Filgand]

Its extremely hard to be informed when the media only shows boths sides screaming "Vote the way I tell you". Without someone pointing out ALL the pros and cons of BOTH SIDES, we the public will remained confused, and a no vote is guaranteed. To get the outcome they want the No side only needs to keep shouting "Vote No" but the Yes side needs to communicate all the pros and cons of both sides honestly and in detail.

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

Thanks @Filgand we've seen too much shouting lately (I'm looking at you federal politicians!)

[@rikdownunda]

You have my respect /hugs God bless

[@macalacalan1175]

Thank you.

[@deanhunter6206]

It is one thing to change the constitution. Its another thing entirely to make legislation based on a percieved mandate. So its a no from me.

[@evemisan8944]

No Division. Vote NO. Neville Bonner the first Aboriginal Politician. Liberal Senator, pleaded for No Division, we are all Australian. Shameful the Albanese Govt is wanting to creste Apartheid in Australia. Also where is the annual $40 Billion Aboriginal funding being spent? (for 3.2% of population if Australia). Less is spent on Defence budget. NDIS, snd Medicare Accountability us required.

[@brettwilliams3471]

Be informed, remove the emotion. Vote with your head not your heart.

[@fisho2620]

but vote No

[@brettwilliams3471]

Vote no

[@pebblepod30]

Which can only mean a no vote, imo. The Yes Vote ia spear headed by the same people as the racist & colonialist Pay the Rent crowd. Just with a new superior owner race & new colonialist relationship. Contrary to their false claima otherwise, Landlord/Tenant/Rent are not voluntary things and mean one superior race is an owner, all the other ones are not. Notice that they refuse a long form debate with Jacinta Price, just like all the most influential CRT people avoid debates & discussion with very well informed people ouside their ivory tower echo chamber.

[@waynegrosvenor9699]

Albanese did not win government it was installed via preferences ( the major problem with Australia’s electoral process)

[@AccordQS]

We are a proud multicultural nation. Dividing a nation by race, is racist. If it was say, ‘Chinese Australians’ demanding rights and privileges that other Australian citizens do not have (and enshrine it in the constitution) there will be rioting! We are all one people, one nation and one country. Promoting anything else is divisive and will never work. There are better ways to help the 20% aboriginals still living in outback communities. Promoting large scale adoption of kids in dysfunctional families may be the best I have heard so far. Save the kids. Do not play into the hands of the aboriginal activists on the gravy train. Vote NO.

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

I like that you've focussed on the Aboriginal people living in outback communities as need extra support.

[@normanmazlin6741]

Thans for your frank words. I believe that when you interact with people based on their 'race' rather than their own individual characteristics you are being rasist. So of course, voting YES to this proposed change is 'rasist'. On a more personal level, I was brought up to respect people for their individual qualities and to reject all forms of racism, closeted or open.

[@pebblepod30]

I like it, and also Pay the Rent is the most fundamentally racist & colonialist thing you could do, just with a new racist elite as owners & managers. Some of them i think are just emotionally manipulated it by nad lessons of love they learnt (e.g. i am a good person if i treat myself badly or unequally). A common way to manipulate others. Contrary to their own false claims, Landlord, Tenant & Rent mean owner & non owner and is never voluntary or equal. You don't pay rent for something you own. I believe un egalitarian ownership, not a cool & hip racist New Colonialist ownership.

[@annawild7117]

It is a Trojan Horse, and won't help our ATSI brothers and sisters, but hurt us all.

[@janined5784]

No, it is NOT racist to vote NO. It is patriotic and loyal. A no vote would protect everyone in this country, and it would protect the yes voters from themselves and prevent them from doing a great deal of damage to the country we all live in.

[@marksmart9754]

It’s actually racist to vote yes. The legislation contravenes the United Nations policy against racism.

[@leighmurrell5494]

No racism can only be avoided by a NO VOTE. The Voice will not change anything in terms of how our genuine indigenous people are helped to have a better life. What is truly needed is a full and independent inquiry into just where the estimated $57 biliion dollars in funding has disappeared to (mostly amongst the "urban, activist identifiers" I suspect),without any evidence of real improvements.

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

curious you mention genuine indigenous people - we could talk about that for hours.

[@andrewdegozaru74]

You my friend are a wise man. Thank you for sharing your analysis. The full 28 page doco is available now thanks to an FOI request being fulfilled. I've read the full document; and in the context of things said by it's main promoters, it reads like a Separatist's manifesto rather than a treatise to closing the gap. To the central question: Will it close the gap? I think PNG's post colonialist journey of independence could be a reasonable cautionary analogy of a possible future if independence of NT were brought about (as directly mentioned in the Darwin ROM). Pretty concerning, but I, none the less, will continue to question and ponder until I am obliged to vote.

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

Well done. I hope your friends and colleagues are respecting your questioning and pondering.

[@empty_nestadventures]

I have no idea how I will vote, but these are about the best videos I’ve seen in tackling the issue in a very objective way. I look forward to seeing more.

[@kerrynball2734]

76 Senators and 151 Members of parliament already have a generous tax payer funded travel capability that allows them to travel to and hear the voice of their local Aboriginal communities. Some people of Aboriginal decent have also been elected to parliament, so they could also just listen to them while they're in Canberra. We should be celebrating our progress rather than having this divisive referendum.

[@simongross3122]

I agree that existing MPs need to hear the voices of the Aboriginal people in their electorates, just as they should listen to the voices of all the other people in their electorates. But the MPs that are of Aboriginal descent do not represent all Aboriginals. They too have to reflect the views of their own constituents. That's why they are elected to parliament. So it's wrong to say that Aboriginals have representation in parliament just because there are Aboriginal MPs. But I don't believe the voice to parliament would be a good thing. If the labor party were actually sincere about this, they could listen to Aboriginals anytime they liked and could present their concerns to parliament anytime they liked. They do not need a constitutional change to achieve this. The fact that they are insisting on this voice indicates that they doubt their own sincerity.

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

Every member of every parliament has a duty to represent all of their constituents. Same goes for ministerial accountability.

[@nevillebartos5939]

Dont care what it is. Im voting no.

[@bushranger7646]

We dont need an alteration to constitution only government.

[@Skiptondesigns]

Not at all. It's an opinion. And MANY people have the opinion to give the voice a NO.

[@ReddRubble]

An opinion can be racist, in fact, most racist things are opinions, they aren't mutually exclusive

[@Skiptondesigns]

@@ReddRubble Nah, don't try and twist meaning. Unfortunately, people like you are on some sort of mission to find racism in anything and everything. People do not need to agree on all matters either. An individual can vote No and not be racist. They don't need to vote Yes because they are made to feel guilty for something that they were not part of.

[@An.era.we.will.never.forget]

This is what you all need to get your heads around. In 1973 the united nations took occupation of Australia, thanks to Gough Witlam. Now, 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 is proclaimed. The only thing keeping Australia from becoming a republic is the fact that indigenous and Torres strait islandes are not currently included in the constitution (the fraudulent green book), and, are still deemed to be the original owners of the land. If indigenous people are to be written up in this 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 under native title and are no longer classed as owners, including businesses.

[@leighmurrell5494]

It's simple - 50/50 one can choose the race that best suits them or embody both. Less than 50% and one is automatically and rightfully the majority percentage. One might also choose to factor in just how long ago the balance changed and what sort of life they are now living as a a mediating element. The notion that someone with a transported convict ancestor for example, that had Irish or Welsh or whatever relatives in their history, can now claim to be Irish or Welsh etc is simply ludicrous. So why should that be any different for people with genuine (meaning verified) Aboriginal ancestry?

[@An.era.we.will.never.forget]

As long as we are not a republic, Indigenous and Torres Strait islanders own Terra Australis!!! To our indigenous brothers and sisters, do not give your land to the united nations, or this illegitimate government. We, the people of Australia are with you and support you.

[@poppykoch9085]

This government have been secretive which raises my suspicions. The Uluru statement available under FOI is not 1 A4 page long as Albo has said, it is 26 pages long. We are being asked to vote for something when not all clauses or conditions have been revealed and will not be revealed until AFTER we vote. I have no problem helping indigenous communities but this is not a solution for the good of all Australians, it will be divisive especially when it all seems to boil down to money and power again. Bodies like ATSIC have failed communities miserably being corrupted and ineffective so what make this any different? I am sorry but until I can trust what we are being told, the devil is always in the details which are severely lacking, I will have to vote NO.

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

We are thinking the '1p vs 26pp' might be a good topic for next week. Stay tuned.

[@MrTallpoppy58]

Without question it is divisional. It will give one group of Australians a voice about all others, that will divide us as a minimum. Likely it will be the cause of conflict and hatred. Is that really what Aboriginal Australia wants or needs ? If you are thinking person you must vote NO. The voice is not the way.

[@markwheeler9072]

The mechanisms for people to government consultations are in place already . . no amount of ' newism ' will make this vociferous proposal one blinking bit more efficient . . there are still too many untouchable differences to meet head on, and no one wants to do it.

[@Bruski68.]

It is not racist to vote no, it is a sign of intelligence to vote no.

[@Mike-ub5pk]

I like the analogy regarding ‘low expectations’. Well said. We are all idealists but need to live in reality

[@lechenaultia5863]

I desperately want conditions in remote communities to improve. But the last thing those communities, especially women and children, need is yet another rapidly-expanding bureaucracy managed by neo-Marxist activists

[@randomuser929]

I would vote for recognition in the constitution, and i don't think many people would be against that. but i cant vote for another layer of bloated bureaucrats utilising tax funds. Also the lack of transparency for what we are actually voting for from the Labor gov isint doing anyone any favours.

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

The word 'recognition' is in the question set by the PM. The bureaucracy you mention is in the bill that sets out the proposed alteration to the constitution.

[@sparky5437]

Question, why is the voice no different to what new zealand with the treaty? I see lots of people comparing the two

[@mackbolan1733]

Why would it be racist to vote no??? It is racist to vote yes...

[@jeffstorer]

From a multicultural society ,to a two tribes mentality ,thats what a yes vote will get you, the beginning of anarchy,that has already been started

[@Pappazeko]

G'Day, The problem as I see it. Is that we are not being given all the details. it has been said before, its like signing a blank cheque. With so little information being given. Maybe it is. I cant support legislation and laws that define your place in Australia simply by your origins. Sorry brother. you are my equal. I will be voting no. and I am not a racist.

[@paulbyerlee2529]

Regardless of whether you see it as racist or not if it is not good policy then people will vote accordingly. If they can demonstrate that it is good policy then I have no trouble with voting yes. Unfortunately I am not convinced either way. I have very little faith in the government of recent years. Closing the gap is best achieved by consulting the communities it will affect. Rather than a voice to parliament would it not be better to have a voice to policy and programs to better help the communities involved.

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, fund need not race.

[@laurencefielder]

No it is not racist to vote no. Until there is full information as rto the voice construction , members powers cosrting etc how can one vote for it

[@ziggyrusin3114]

Vote NO! if you are able to think.

[@aussie807]

Great information and encouragement for informed decisions❤

[@LlywellynOBrien]

Obliviously you don't have to be racist to oppose the Voice, but gee are the bloody racists having fun with attacking it.

[@aussienscale]

No, no it's not 👍

[@missco2820]

Who came up with that question ⁉️

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

I did. A lot of people are worried about being on the wrong side of virtue when actually it's a discussion about public administration.

[@GTrainRx7]

The issue I am getting stuck with is (relatively) simple. Will having a voice in parliament increase, or decrease, the divide that we have today? I would like to think that the end goal is integration, of all peoples. We can't change the past, we can do what we can to make up for the mistakes others made in the past, so where/how is there an end?

[@krisp4889]

It will make it worse as it has done in NZ__ 90% of first nation peoples are already integrated.

[@simongross3122]

Sorry. Integration is a wrong concept. It implies that there are people who need to be somehow brought into a mainstream view of things. I don't believe this at all. The best we can do is to treat all people equally under the law, which we say we do and yet do not do in practice. Voice to parliament will not achieve this. It will do the opposite by making it legal for some people to be treated differently from others under our law.

[@GTrainRx7]

@@simongross3122 I am not sure I agree with your premise. Integration (to me at least) means you become part of the mainstream BUT you don't have to lose your heritage. Common examples would be Chinese immigrants having Chinese NY and other celebrations, yet they are still "integrated". First nations people can retain their culture and heritage, and be integrated. This has not happened yet. When a First Nations person says their land was stolen, they are not integrated (as an example) I do agree that we should just treat everyone equally, it just doesn't work out that way in practice. First Nations people have many advantages, yet there are still systemic problems. If they were to be treated equally, remote communities would collapse. Having a Voice means it will always be "them and us", which can only make things worse.

[@simongross3122]

@@GTrainRx7 I think we sort of agree with each other except on this point. The problem with "integration" is who should be integrated with who? Should we adopt the lifestyle and customs of Aborigines? Should they adopt ours? I dislike the whole idea. When I say we should all be treated equally, I mean under the law. There should be no laws in this country that say that what is allowed for some people is a crime for others. Inequality is inevitable. People will always treat some differently to others. You would treat your family differently to other people, and so it goes with tribes, ethnicities, etc. But the law of the land should be for all equally, and we should all be subject to it equally and we should all receive the same protections. There are some blatant cases where this equivalence doesn't exist. But that's a different discussion. We already do treat some groups differently to others. We have this moderately socialist society where we give some people benefits that others don't have (low income benefits, NDIS, additional benefits for Aboriginals, for example). Ok, that's not treating everyone the same, but at least that's only bureaucratic and not a matter of different laws for different people. We can continue to give special benefits to some if we want, but it should be part of our normal lawmaking and administrative processes. It definitely should not be enshrined in the constitution. I agree with you wholeheartedly that enshrining different treatment in the constitution will lead to "us and them". That already exists, but it is not supported by law.

[@GTrainRx7]

@@simongross3122 In answer to "who should be integrated with who", is everyone should keep their customs, as they see fit, where their customs don't break the laws of the majority.

[@allmighty736]

I smell dark emu. (Centre For Indigenous Training) IN YOUR BACKYARD! YEAH! OK 👍

[@onlytimewilltell204]

I'm white and my ancestors have been on planet earth 🌍 for over sixty thousand years aswell now does this make me special no we all belong to this world all creatures great and small

[@waza987]

I honestly believe it is racist to vote Yes. A mild form but it is giving different rights to a group of people based on their race. If we want to address people at disadvantage there should be actions addressing the circumstances not the particular race that has the majority representation in the disadvantaged group.

[@AnotherDoug]

Not racist. It is about recognising the First Peoples of Australia (who are NOT a separate race) by creating an advisory body. No-one will be disadvantaged by this

[@djpodesta]

I am not sure how this video made it into my stream, as I have lost all interest in politics since the world began to talk in non-substantive rhetoric and slogans. The mere fact that you feel the need to make this probing video, says everything that I need to know. Why do self interest groups of every kind need to continually muddy the informative waters and chase public debate about their particular cause? - I am not only referring to the advocates *for or against* the Voice with my comment. Everybody is *both* discriminatory and a victim of discrimination in some way or another. That is both human nature and the cost of living in a multi-faceted society. Every time we advocate for one cause, somebody else either gets stepped on or over. How about we charge our current elected *advocates* to distribute their funding wisely; to better those communities that they put up their hand to represent?

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

Even though you're not sure how you ended up here, thank you for your considered comment.

[@downtoearth1950]

No on every question

[@crosseyedone7960]

Reality - the one thing we all have in common - we're all "mongrels".

[@michealmouse5548]

I have already voted. I came to this Chanel to try and justify vetoing yes. I have looked at lots of both yes and no channels. Through all the noise all I hear form Yes vote is emotion. Vote yes or I am recast. Or things will only get better if I vote yes. So on the No reason to vote yes. Even when I went to vote. I gave one last chance to change my view. I spoke to both the Yes campaigner and No campaigner. I agree with all the positive information that the yes vote is wanting. But yes vote cold not explain how this voice can represent all Aboriginals. Only toughs who already have a say. Small mobs who can now approach there local reps to parliament will now be drowned out. These will now have to be referred to the voice. As with all things that are decided by parliament. Not every thing goes the way government wants. As a result we will not know what the voice will look like till after the yes vote. Many good Aboriginal representative will have a difficult time. Many urging us to vote NO. So I am listening to the No vote. I voted no. There is a better way. Aboriginals have come a long way and have a long way to go. Why kill of a lot of toughs representatives with this short sighted referendum. I would like to see some thing like New Zealand has where a number of seat are to be held by indigenous representation. This time I voted No. In this case I think the voice been enshrined will make it harder to get the representation that indigenous people should have.

[@foedeer]

I don't think this is a good idea and will introduce the same issues as the US and Canada (affirmative action). I will vote no and I won't be changing my mind on this. The consequences can be observed in the US and Canada.

[@peterbrown4943]

Who cares if it’s rascist

[@marcelthorsen]

When the federal government forces the public to choose between two options, the mere presentation of choice eliminates in possible racism. A racist can make the choice, but the choice doesn’t make a racist. I will be voting no because I despise the fact that here in Australia we don’t yet have constitutional freedom of speech. Anything we say can be used against us without the constitutional ability to freely speak out minds.

[@barito7]

According to the ALP it is below someone’s integrity to say no. Calling everyone chicken Little (don’t even know what this means) or Trumpian before one has considered the facts to make a decision, is derogatory or by extension derogatory. This language has Orwellian tendencies. This is why I fear we are not ready for something like a voice. At worst, this type of attitude shows the underlying philosophy of the movement that has manifested itself in the shaping of The ALP’s referendum.

[@simongross3122]

Hell yes it is Orwellian. They even want their Ministry of Truth.

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

I'm okay whichever way people vote so long as they are solid in their reasoning. What the politicians sometimes forget is that this is a vote run by the electoral commission - and we all have to live with the result.

[@BigGen222]

Had the proposal remained at do I support constitutional recognition of the ATSI people it would have had my 100% support, but once the other aspects such as that involve executive government I'm afraid it has lost my support. This is disappointing as I would have liked to have helped the first part come to fruition.

[@shannondaley7490]

Brother who is this directed too? Is this directed for non Indigenous and the new Indigenous people.?

[@therealuglytruth9288]

Its actually racist to vote Yes, as that is a divisive vote that says all Australians will not be treated equally...a small group based on race will have greater rights under the constitution...which we all know is wrong and racist.

[@letstalk3265]

We learn from our mistakes. That means we must examine why there is still ''The Gap'' in crucial areas in remote communities and that can only come about where there is accountability and honesty in relation to what's happened so far, why the gaps and what more can or needs to be done to close the gaps. The $Billions that have been spent over the last half a century need to be audited and accounted for. Then you have this MAKARRATA stuff. Hang on. Already allocating $5.9M and spending $900,000 on this is jumping the gun and shows deceit especially when there's no explanation forthcoming. Lack of accountability again rears it's ugly head. Discussions, honest answers will help all of us.

[@boitmecklyn4995]

we have a housing and cost of living crisis and Albo thinks this voice rubbish is more important? Shows where he leans.

[@nidisisme]

its hard to know what is racist and what is not these days because some people want us treat people different based on race and if we dont we are racist where as a few years ago if we treated some one different based on race we where racist as for voting yes or no nobody has been able to give me a good reason one way or the other

[@nonprophetlifts]

"For in a democracy, every citizen, regardless of his interest in politics, 'hold office'; every one of us is in a position of responsibility; and, in the final analysis, the kind of government we get depends upon how we fulfill those responsibilities. We, the people, are the boss, and we will get the kind of political leadership, be it good or bad, that we demand and deserve." “If freedom is to survive and prosper, it will require the sacrifice, the effort and the thoughtful attention of every citizen.” “Victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan.” .... ?

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

John F Kennedy said it nicely, Joseph de Maistre and Oscar Wilde echoed the sentiment

[@bryanstackpole1951]

So things I like... Aboriginals having a voice in parlament, having input on things like backburning and helping their communities. *** what i think we would get instead, a permanent destablization of what party is elected into power, prob labour. Also the 1% Gdp... who is that going to? I can imagine some company or indivdual using this to line there own coffers.

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

There's a lot of questions that haven't been answered, or, we are told will come later. It's a big ask to amend the constitution on faith.

[@Ed_Downunder]

The word "racist" has two main meanings: 1) Actual meaning: A racist is a person who believes that one race is superior to another. This belief can lead to prejudice and discrimination against people of other races. 2) Modern social media or pop culture meaning: In recent years, the word "racist" has also come to be used more broadly to describe any form of prejudice or discrimination against people of colour. This can include things like microaggressions, stereotypes, and assumptions about people's abilities based on their race. This is often promoted by activists and by 'people of colour' who want to exploit a grievance. I will focus on 1) Actual meaning. Because number 2) is based on historical grievance, and confected hurt. Broadly speaking, Australia is regularly described as an egalitarian society, meaning that it is a society where people are treated equally, regardless of their social class, wealth, or background. This belief in equality is reflected in many aspects of Australian culture and society, including: The concept of a "fair go." This is the idea that everyone should have an equal chance to succeed in life, regardless of their circumstances. It is typically seen as a defining feature of Australian society. The emphasis on mateship is the idea of loyalty and support between friends and colleagues. It is frequently seen as a way of promoting equality and solidarity in Australian society. The relatively low levels of social inequality in Australia promotes a relatively flat social structure, with a smaller gap between the rich and the poor than many other countries. This is partly due to the country's strong social safety net, which provides financial support to those who need it. This Australian system is in part a rebuff to the class system that was The British Empire. The resistance to class distinction is part of the natural growth of Australia into maturity. This does not negate the fact that Australia was colonised by a first world Empire because that leads directly to a first world colony. Albeit under the British class structure. The process of colony to country leads to the constitution that was granted in 1901. This was not just some magnanimous gesture by the English government it was a pragmatic solution because the the expense of running colonies. The British Empire was past its peak and sliding into decline. The legacy of British Empire colonisation is that today Australia is a first world nation, and middle power. Often seen punching above our weight. With our new constitution, we fashioned it over time and two world wars to be the egalitarian document it is today. Does it require changing, brought up to date for 2023? I think not. To say our constitution has its roots in the Magna Carter of 1215, the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government were not above the law… It is a little overstated, but the principles of the Magna Carta have been influential in the development of Australian law and government. The Magna Carta established the rule of law, which is the principle that no one is above the law, including the monarch or the government. This principle is enshrined in the Australian Constitution, which states that the government is subject to the law. Since our constitution provides for an equal society and all citizens have a right to education, health and political involvement, there is no room or tolerance for a society divided by race, religion or political persuasion. Here are some specific examples of how the Magna Carta has influenced Australian law: 1) The right to a fair trial: The Magna Carta guaranteed the right to a fair trial, and this right is enshrined in the Australian Constitution. The Constitution states that everyone is entitled to a fair trial in the High Court or a State Supreme Court. 2)The right to property: The Magna Carta guaranteed the right to property, and this right is also protected by the Australian Constitution. The Constitution states that no one can be deprived of their property except on just terms. 3)The principle of legality: The Magna Carta established the principle of legality, which is the principle that the government is subject to the law. This principle is also enshrined in the Australian Constitution. The Constitution states that the government can only do things that it is authorised to do by the Constitution or by an Act of Parliament. Sorry for the wordy preamble to the racist explanation. Today, Australia is a migrant society. We are welcoming even if at times we feel overwhelmed with the migrant intake, so no, Australia is not racist and voting 'No' to racist policies cannot be interpreted as racist. Even so, it will not stop some from claiming it is racist, but without proof. I present the proof that Australia is egalitarian not racist. The claim that voting 'Yes' is racist is difficult to challenge. The vote is based on race and there is no getting around that fact.

[@deborahdw]

Great and informative response, thank you.

[@wordzmyth]

Australia is regularly described as a racist society. Due to the persistent and extreme racism towards indigenous Australians in particular. If you were going to fix this with "We're all equal it would have happened already.

[@Ed_Downunder]

@@wordzmyth Whether Australia is a racist society is a matter of opinion. I think the real meaning of racism (superiority) is a false accusation against Australia. Yes, there are problems, and yes, there are racists, but to brand a country as racist, means it is embedded into society from the government down. South African apartheid and Australian white policy are clear examples of government racist policies. That is clearly not the case today. Many people engage in the pop culture use of racism as a pejorative. You are making strong claims with highly emotive language. "Due to the persistent and extreme racism towards indigenous Australians in particular". How do you support that position? My post claims that Australia is an egalitarian society. It is difficult to achieve a perfectly egalitarian society. However, Australia strives to create an egalitarian society. That is we have policies in place that promote equality, such as affirmative action programs, anti-discrimination laws, education, opportunity and universal healthcare. There is not a single incident where Australian aboriginals are discriminated against. To deliver these services to some communities has been the real challenge as these tribal groups and clans want their indigenous lifestyle in a modern world. It is easy to point the finger and find fault. This referendum is an opportunity for people to put a positive solution on the table. In my view, when this referendum is voted down, things will no go back to the previous, government initiatives. My hope is: There will be a Royal commission into why the last 50 years have failed. The answer will not be lack of money and it will not be discrimination. I suspect the light will shine on many aboriginal organisations that were charged and funded to provide services. Everybody appreciates positive input into this space. Thank you for taking the time to make your comment on my post.

[@AraratGold]

@@wordzmyth Some of the worst racists in this country are the Aboriginals themselves. Just have a look at the carry on of Lidia Thorpe for a prime example. If I had 100 bucks for every time I got called a white c&nt living in the NT for 32 years I would be a rich man ! 🙄🙄

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

@Ed_Downunder thank you for your very considered comment. A preamble to the Constitution, Recognition, Reconciliation, these are great ideas. On my reading of the government's proposal this is a next-level institute which is, as you say, based on race. I find it odd that the debate hasn't even touced on who the Voice would represent. Race / indigeneity can be very porous for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

[@EaglesRback33]

Infind it ironic yiu talk about democracy yet you seem to support the voice . Nothing democratic about the voice!

[@ReddRubble]

I wonder why you are creating videos that clearly attract actual no racists (even linking literally racist organizations), and failing to remove, respond or critique their assimilatory comments

[@centreforindigenoustraining]

We do moderate comments and a number are removed. The comments that are posted are overwhelmingly opinions expressed in the spirit of democracy.

[@ReddRubble]

@@centreforindigenoustraining you've replied to multiple racist comments from people digging up comments that should belong in the 1960s that Aboriginal people are 'lazy' and need to just 'get off their phones'. Being racist isn't the 'spirit of democracy'

[@MrLachlan1903]

My concern is based in liberal individualism which I'm aware is distinct from many indigenous cultures, but my western background has given me these values and as the voice stands today I cannot support it as it introduces the concept of group rights as separate and superior to individual rights. In my mind the only consistent approach ideologically is to give those communities who feel unrepresented by the Australian government full sovereignty of their own, and for that right to not just be extended to indigenous people's already with their own national concepts and histories but to all Australians, and ultimately all people on this earth.

[@ArcticSeraph]

If a person is racist, do yoy think they care if they are?

[@bucket6386]

as a white person, the voice is NOT going to impact me meaningfully in any way. Indigenous people, who the alteration will be affected by OVERWHELMINGLY support the voice to parliament, so I should vote "yes" on behalf of them.

[@johnonline1135]

Sorry, but you're entirely wrong.

[@bucket6386]

@@johnonline1135 explain how the voice is going to affect me then

[@johnonline1135]

@bucket6386 For a start, $. Every taxpayer will wear the cost of an even greater disproportionate amount of money being "wasted" on even more aboriginal programs. I say "wasted" because, exactly like with the African Americans, they already have a disproportionately large amount of money spent on them with disproportionately bad outcomes. Why? Because like every ostensibly noble cause, it is soon subverted by charlatans. Black "leaders" are soon in league with white "leaders" and divert massive amounts of money to "causes" whereby contracts are awarded to their friends and family... Research how much money is spent on aboriginal causes and programs. You won't believe how much. Then, consider that MAYBE 10% of that amount actually goes to the people it's claimed it will go to. If you don't believe that, I would just say, again, look at the disproportionately bad outcomes. Are there more graduating University or less going to gaol? Nope. Are there any reasonable outcomes commensurate with the money spent? Nope. And yet the bandwagon is an industry into itself with no shortage of crooks trying to climb on board. So that's a LOT of wasted money that could go to ALL schools, or ALL medicine, or ALL education but won't just for a start. Then, the problem is with this greater influence over Parliament and legislation, one would be foolish to think it won't likewise attract the grubs and generally disgruntled who will relish the idea of punishing white people for the alleged sins of some of our ancestors. Sacred land here, sacred land there... Resources claimed or access to them forbidden. Swathes of land including national parks and monuments off limits. White people tax as reparations / punishment. Etc, etc. The rorts will be endless. Look at what is happening in LA under that Newsom clown. Black people demanding $2 million + EACH as reparations, and the Democrat government agreeing to it. Do you think it will stop there? Also, don't forget it's basically apartheid. Two separate classes of citizens. That does not a nation make. It didn't work in South Africa. The entire world boycotted the S.A. government until they abolished it. Why bring it back here and now? In a nutshell, it's just another cynical and divisive tactic by this pathetic excuse for a government to distract us from their rape of the country. While we're busy arguing over a no brainer couched in emotional baggage, they're selling us out to China unnoticed by the average citizen. Albo figures whether it passes or not, he wins... If it passes, he's a hero. A champion of the oppressed. He'll go into the history books as the man who lifted the poor aboriginals up and gave them their dues. I expect he'll want a statue somewhere or a university or national park named after him in recognition of his virtue and commitment. If it doesn't, well he tried his best on behalf of the downtrodden but, alas, the racist, bigoted white people foiled his noble efforts which gives him and the left in general licence to carp on and lecture is condescendingly about white guilt and white privilege in perpetuity. Don't fall for it mate. It's a ruse. Like everything else this government (and most others) does. The idea that other races are so equal that they need special treatment is actually the racist position. The bigotry of lower expectations. Don't think for a second the government has ANYBODY'S interest at heart other than their own.

[@crossjay]

How do you know it's not going to impact you meaningfully in any way?

[@1969cmp]

Look at Western Australia........

[@hiya5357]

ITS NOT RACIST TO SAY NO AND NO IM SAYING. until there is 1 law in australia there will be no equality