Is this a case of the emperor’s new clothes?

[@stuartbrocklehurst4136]

Really enjoy your non biased messaging. How come i can only find the 1 page Uluru statement from the heart, where can i download the additional 26 pages?

[@JohnBoully]

Try googling 'NIAA Document 14' - which is the Statement plus the 'Our Story' extra bit.

[@tg5834]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/bGaYnq19h9KekNksi=WoyE66lh3q6bsiD4

[@johnkotz3822]

I got a copy from Sky News Peta Credlin. Try googling Peta Credlin Uluru Statement from the Heart.

[@AnotherDoug]

Just remember, we are NOT voting on the Uluru Statement (whether it is 1 page, 26b pages or 120,000 pages). We are ONLY voting on Constitutional recognition and an ADVISORY body called the Voice. That is it!

[@tg5834]

3,521 Aboriginal & TSI corporations 243 Native title bodies 48 Land councils 35 Regional councils 122+ Aboriginal agencies 3 Advisory bodies *145 Health Organisations 11 Indigenous Federal MPs 12 Culturally important Indigenous days Taxpayers give $33 BILLION annually for 984,000 people (3.8% of the population) Expenditure per person in 2012-13 was $43,449 on Indigenous Australian compare to $20,900 on other Australians a ratio of 2.08 to 1 and increase from 1.95 in 2009. Australian taxpayers spend at least $100 million a day on direct support for Indigenous Australians every year or $39.5 billion of direct government expenditure every single year. The figures are based on the 2017 Indigenous Expenditure Report produced by the Productivity Commission. 55% of Australias land is under Native Title, with thousands of claims pending over the remainder, including all rivers, lakes and surrounding ocean. Government is funding claims and has cancelled funds to defendants. Recognition will be used by activists for sovereignty rulings in International Courts. Inside information is that activists plan to use International sovereignty rulings to challenge the Crown for Australian sovereignty in our High Court. Please vote NO.

[@janetpetersen1938]

My first reaction watching Albanese announce this was No! This will divide us. Dad would hate this. My dad was an aboriginal man who married a white woman. He always believed people should be equals. He never saw the colour of people. He only judged people on their character. I’m glad he is not here to live through this.

[@cobar5342]

Good on you. I agree. It is divisive (possibly deliberately) and our country does not need that.

[@pablovalentine8976]

I was the same my dad married my mum who was Aboriginal . We were brought up to never judge on race or color. And Iam very proud my parents were like that. I honestly knew one second after hearing the proposal that this yes campaign would destroy society . Believe me it will get ten times worse if the Yes win. VOTE NO

[@roseward7369]

YOU SHOULD BE VERY PROUD OF YOUR PARENTS.

[@terrydrew6245]

I have never gone along with popular consensus. My gut feeling is my guide and it told me to ask questions and seek answers so I could make an informed decision.A CHANGE TO OUR CONSTITUTION IS A BIG DEAL. What I have found is this. The people we depend upon to run our country have tried to bully people by calling them chicken littles if they say no.this bullying made me ask more questions. What i have found i the voice is a rabbit hole that has real potential to fracture this country I love so much. So popular consensus may make an individual feel warm and fuzzy for a little while but in the end you are just sheep being led around. If you really love this country then always ask questions become informed. Make your vote really count

[@kevinclarke68]

A good man god rest him

[@milalewis983]

Wonderful analogy. I'm one of those Australians who's changed their initial Yes position to a No. I believed voting Yes was the right thing to do however the more questions I asked about how the Voice would function the more questions I had. Something about it just didn't feel right. I do voluntary work at a local small town op-shop in regional Australia. So I started engaging local indigenous people about what they thought about the Voice. I guess it was my own little Vox Popoli.Speaking to these people it became increasingly clear that this Voice had little to do with the will and desire of the grassroots Aboriginals I encountered, and everything to do with the will of a very select group of urban indigenous "royalty". I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Australians when I say I want our indigenous people to thrive and succeed, but I now firmly believe that this Voice is not the way to do it. Listening to Senator Price speak at the National Press Club the other night, her words resonated with me. Her brutal honesty in voicing the unpalatable truth of what's driving this referendum was powerful and took courage. As a side note, I was ashamed and embarrassed that the National Press Club saw fit to relegate her presentation to a small room devoid of the usual trappings of white draped tables and dinner which have traditionally been extended to other speakers. The excuse that the main function room was closed due to renovations rang so obviously hollow. In closing, and with an apology for the lengthy response, I want to thank you for the time, effort and clarity of your own contribution to the Referendum. It's been very much appreciated.

[@AlanBoddy-fl2qp]

The room they gave her at the Press club was appalling..... But I think she absolutely SHONE brightly through it💪♥️

[@Nonny54aussie]

Wes and Jacinta have been the voices of reason throughout this time.

[@aeasthouse316]

coming from South Africa and I lived my childhood through apartheid, pitting one race against another or privileging one group above others is not a way to right past wrongs. That how I saw this voice, completely the wrong approach to a problem right from the start. The history of the aboriginals, as with indigenous South Africans, is very sad and should be a reminder of what the effects of true racism is. The long term fall out in both cases were truely catastrophic. The way to correct the past, stop looking at race, start looking at the people.

[@milalewis983]

@@aeasthouse316 Well said. I couldn't agree more.

[@tomnewham1269]

@@aeasthouse316 That last sentence is absolutely spot on.

[@nagaster]

As an indigenous Australian, I am voting no. There is nothing in this proposal for ordinary indigenous people, just a bigger trough for the usual pigs to feed at and enlarge themselves at the expense of everyone else. We have seen too many broken dysfunctional bureaucracies to believe that one that will be enshrined in the constitution will be just perfect and will never, ever need to be improved or reviewed. All the yes campaign is, is a set of aspirations. Like most academics, they wouldn't have a clue how to implement any of these, but they sure would enjoy the power of being able to interfere with and shut down any complaints about them.

[@kevinclarke68]

Spot on

[@user-es3tr4os2k]

What mob you from?

[@brontewcat]

I have heard Aboriginal people say that just when they started making headway, their committees and advisory bodies often get abolished. Who do you think is better placed to advise government about the needs of Aboriginal and Torre Strait Islanders - me a privileged white woman or you, who have lived experience and a completely different perspective on the needs of Indigenous people? It will probably not be perfect, but I think you should be heard.

[@brontewcat]

By the way I am not an academic, but I have worked with Indigenous people both as colleagues and as my clients. I have seen some of the issues. I am voting Yes because it has to better than what we have now. More than 43% of children in out of home care in NSW are Indigenous. Yet in some smaller Indigenous communities this is not the figure, the communities intervene and offer alternative solutions. The Voice can offer alternative solutions to many of the problems that exist. It is worth a try.

[@dawsie]

@@brontewcatit will never work, because they have tried everything but at the end of the day it will be the very same Mob who’s been getting rich from all of the other failed efforts. As Jacinta Price has said stand up and run for a set in parliament just like all the others have done. I live out in rural Australia and the consensus so far is a resounding NO because not one of the other groups are allowed at the table with the ones already there with the likes of M. Langton who all believe only those from the city knows how to deal with it all. What it will do is creat the very thing that happened in Africa “The Apartheid” This country is made up of hundreds of different cultures from around the world, many of who fled Africa because of the very same thing that is now happening here. We have never had so much racial hatred before this year not like this and it has gotten uglier as the weeks and months have gone on. If we can not learn from the very same mistakes that other countries have made then we are domed to suffer the same fate. So many of the aboriginal elders around Australia have seen this and they have stood up and asked all Australians to stand up and say no. I come from a very multicultural mixed family it would be like cutting off a limb to remove part of that culture from my body. Many of the aboriginals I have met and worked with over the past 40 years are very much the same, they are now a culturally mixed with smatterings of UK and European and Asian tied into their family trees. This voice does not speak for them as it also does not speak for many of the rural aboriginals. The voice is nothing more than at its best a worst band-aid than all the ones that have gone before. They don’t want “segregation” that is what this is all about, they all say we are Australians and we are aboriginal too. They want to know where did all the billions of dollars that have already been spent over the past 4 decades for the under privileged members of the communities went because many of them never saw a cent from any of it. They want accountability of what has been spent they want to know where it was spent. The voice will never fix that

[@bernardvecchio3704]

In the beginning I was thinking, this may be a good thing. But the more I heard from the yes campaign, the more doubts I had. The activists who basically wrote the Uluru Statement lost my vote when the turned out to not have the marginalised people’s best interests at heart. The name calling and abuse towards the No campaign was so divisive. I now lean heavily towards No, and I want to thank you for helping me enforce my opinions on this crucial matter.

[@thedave7760]

If the government and all the media are telling you that something is a "good thing" and everyone needs to do that thing and if you don't then you are probably waycisst, you can be sure that you are being manipulated and what you are seeing is propaganda designed to make sure you think like them.

[@brontewcat]

What name calling and abuse have you seen towards the No campaign? I have heard some people accuse the Yes campaign of this, but when it is fact checked most (I am not going to say all) of the comments were taken out of context, and meant something entirely different.

[@tg5834]

​@@brontewcatVoice campain tactics: kzbin.infowE8Vhy6auTU?si=8BwupCfOwapZkR-P

[@ronniexx9743]

I love your common sense approach to the referendum. Thank you Wes.

[@KenDavis761]

I was originally a Yes and still am a "constitutional recognition". But very early I realised that the voice concept was dictionary definition racist and had no place in the constitution. I have no problem with Aboriginal advisory groups, and I'd rather have many with narrower focii, than one big one. But not in the constitution. If I wanted anything new in the constitution, it would be that elected representatives MUST respond substantially to enquiries and requests from the public - and that misleading parliament should be a crime with substantial punishment - but I'd want some expert advice before locking that in!

[@aeasthouse316]

you have my support for your proposed changes.

[@AnotherDoug]

"the voice concept was dictionary definition racist" Well, Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner Chin Tan disagrees with you. Quoted in SMH 29/5/2023, he said the “Voice in itself is not racist and it does not racialise Australia”, arguing instead the proposal was not about granting one group of people rights at the expense of another, but about elevating the rights of Indigenous people to participate in the nation’s democracy.

[@Invictus357]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@AnotherDoug Indigenous peoples already take part in our country’s democracy! The 11 indigenous parliamentarians would show you that, and they were elected by not just Indigenous Australians, but by a diverse population of Australians. So to say that the “voice” to parliament would elevate the rights of indigenous peoples to participate in the nation’s democracy is frankly a misnomer. Does Mr Chin Tan, actually realise that ALL Australians whether indigenous, or not, participate in this country’s democracy?

[@paulinelong7205]

Yes, exactly, you said it better than I did.@@Invictus357

[@gustaaf1892]

@@AnotherDoug They already participate in Australia's democracy and get the benefit of more than twice the government expenditure per person than other Australians. It should have read 'elevating the rights of Indigenous people above those of other Australians'.

[@MichaelRobinson-hy8ms]

Wes, it took a while for the analogy of the children’s story to sink in but, as always, a wise choice to illustrate a point about the two sides of the referendum. The spell was broken for me when Albanese lied about having no knowledge of the pages supplemental to the single page of the voice proposal. ‘Why would I read them?’ I guess committing the country to the most divisive period in our country’s history by supporting a voice ‘in full’ and lying about the full extent or ramifications of this commitment by omission is extraordinary. My trust in him as a leader is well and truly BROKEN. Keep up the good work!

[@AnotherDoug]

"when Albanese lied" - how would you know he lied?

[@anthonycarr7466]

I’ll take issue with you on the point you make here, Michael. You say that you lost trust in the PM when he said that he didn’t read the other 20 odd pages. Debate has raged about what those other pages REALLY mean. PETA Credlin on Sky tv would have us believe that these pages are significant because they reveal sinister motives behind the Voice idea. Alternatively, you may accept that these pages are the minutes of the meetings leading up to the final draft, as it says at the header of the pages. Does the PM need to read the background notes or could his staff give him the gist. So you choose. Peta Credlin says it’s sinister, the PM says it’s detail that doesn’t have any impact on the guts of the matter - the final draft.

[@Invictus357]

⁠@@anthonycarr7466 Through freedom of information to the NIAA, it has confirmed that there is 18 pages of the statement. And the fact that many of the indigenous elders whose names appear on the Uluṟu statement didn’t know that their names were just put there, without their consent or permission. A number of aboriginal elders from the land around Uluṟu, are so mad at the use of their names said that if they saw that piece of canvas, they would burn it. KZbin channel “The Australian.”

[@MichaelRobinson-hy8ms]

@@AnotherDoug well Doug, Albo has that Bill Clinton quality, you know, professing ‘I did not have sex with Monika….’ look. Let’s discuss Albo’s honesty. He has been dishonest from the very beginning about the referendum by failing to provide details about its form or function and powers. He is trading on the goodwill of the people. Don’t question facts, it’s all about the vibe! Bullshit! We need to sign a blank cheque and trust him to fill out the details. Who does that? Let’s discuss the one page document, the pitch or executive summary, the gift, the gracious invitation. Albo tells us he reads the one page document all the time and claims it contains some 400 something words. That’s a lot of details. Yet he declares he did not read the details or the ‘full’ voice document because he didn’t need to as he knows the conclusion. Which tells me he is either incompetent or a liar. I chose liar because he knows how inflammatory the full document is and would literally sink the referendum. Best option is to deny it exists, fake news, and misrepresents the one pager. Tell me if it is a coincidence that the co- author of the voice document Megan David declared on several occasions that the voice wasn’t one page but several about 18 pages and encouraged everyone to read the FULL document. After Albo declared the voice is one page she had to make a public statement agreeing with the prime ministers version of the truth (lie). Why would she need to change her story especially considering she played a big part in writing it! At the same time, Peta Credlin exposed the full extent of the voice document and the now discredited RMIT fact-checkers censored the report on Facebook. Coincidence, I don’t think so. Who is covering up the truth? Or more importantly who is protecting a lie. Let’s face it, any person with 2 or more brain cells who reads the voice document in full will not support the referendum. Albo knows this and has tried everything to shut it down. Yes, I believe he has read the full document and cannot claim to acknowledge its existence otherwise he will be seen to have wasted $360m of taxpayer funds on a referendum that would never get off the ground. Finally, Albo has denied the voice is about treaty. Does he think we are all fools? FFS!

[@MichaelRobinson-hy8ms]

@@anthonycarr7466 Anthony, let’s put the Peta Credlin story aside fora moment. What about the architect of the voice Megan Davis who has on many occasions referred to the voice document containing 18 pages in full who when Albanese claimed it to be only one page Megan was required to eat her words and toe the party line that there is only one page. Hmm. We can’t have the prime minister saying something that isn’t true, can we? Back to Credlin’s story, I guess it was just bad luck that this information became censored by a yes biased fact checker who thankfully has now been discredited (RMIT). No one called in any favours. Nothing to see hear. I personally consider the 439 word document as a summary page and the remaining pages were used to create the document. Fair enough. However as with all summaries one needs to delve into the detail to ensure the summary properly and faithfully represents the distilled final summary. In my humble opinion the detail contains disturbing information and aspirations that failed to be included in the summary and therefore I have formed the view that radicals such as Mayo, Langton Thorpe and Co will use constitutional recognition and power to pursue objectives that would undermine the 97% of Australians who are not represented by the voice. Yes, I have a problem with this.

[@davidstokes8441]

Another good message. Have my ideas about the Voice changed over the term of the Referendum "campaign"? No, in fact the more I hear from the Yes camp, the more my decision to vote no has matured. My working life was, for 25 years tied to working and living in the remote communities of Central Australia and the Pit Lands. I have seen the NAC, DAA, ATSIC, PM & C, and now the I.A.C. I have seen Land Councils and local governments mature and in some instances totally fail their constituents. I have seen the good and the bad, and in some instances have the instrument of those actions. The Voice is another top down imposition, another proof of "victimhood" and paternalism by one group of Aboriginal people in the urban centres (particularly Melbourne and Sydney) over another group of Aborigines.. I'll be voting NO, the Emperor has no clothes.

[@patcummins6036]

Well written! Isn’t it funny that the lies and half truths once hidden are highlighted by honest discussion!

[@AnotherDoug]

The Voice will be an advisory body that will be selected by the A&TSI communities. That is NOT a "top down imposition"

[@entershikarii]

No matter how ‘yes’ people frame it, it is simply not guaranteed in the wording that ‘The Voice’ will remain “an advisory body”. Selected not elected? That doesn’t look like democracy to me: Desires of local communities are secured via secret balloting based on universal suffrage - this is not the mechanism for ‘The Voice’ though. In fact, the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process never even considered it. Their two models were that unelected regional Voices would either meet behind closed doors to select members of the national Voice, or vote for members of the national Voice. They opted for closed doors. Yikes.

[@rosstatam16]

I was always 'No' but initially only a 'soft' no. I committed myself to reading and listening to as much material from credible sources. The more I heard and read the stronger my 'NO' became .

[@arthurblaquiere1906]

I really enjoy your bipartisan views on this Voice subject. As a migrant to this great Australia which gave me free education to post graduate level, I have done my best to repay and grow this wonderful country. I am so devastated by this Voice by making me feel rejected, not welcome in my country. I am neither racist nor stupid. I cannot understand the desire of the Voice leaders wanting the indigenous @Australians to have a stone age life style but funded by the working non indigenous Australians.

[@vivianpepper3525]

Another softly spoken, common sense,rational conversation. Well done

[@SewerPossum]

I cringed when I saw your channel pop up on my KZbin feed. I mean "Centre for Indigenous Education"? Bravo then for presenting a calm, rational, well articulated view on critically important topics that are mired in toxic rhetoric from politicians, activists and the media. New subscriber.

[@malcolmmcgrath9344]

Has my opinion changed over time. Well the answer is yes. I have become more firmly a No voter. The more I hear from the Yes side, Professor Langton, Anthony Albanese, Noel Pearson and others the more I am convinced that I was right in my opinion from the start. Recently Senator Jacinta Price spoke to the Press Club, in a dingy back room and she was more articulate and convincing than any of the Yes crowd. I have never had a doubt that there is a GAP, I do not believe that GAP can be closed when a minority of Indigenous people continue to live in remote communities. Not everything that is wrong with Indigenous affairs is the non-Indigenous fault. We have a voice, it is the House of Representatives and the Senate and they have access to any amount of advice they care to take from, councils, groups, working parties, academic experts, government employees, activists and 11 Indigenous members, should they care to make use of it. We do not need yet another race based council feeding at the public trough. I also appreciate your even handed talk.

[@Reginaldesq]

Thats not an opinion change thats an opinion confirmation :)

[@TheInvoice123]

For the price of the referendum we could have provided 700 indigenous houses!

[@Reginaldesq]

@@TheInvoice123 Yeah but we wouldnt have.

[@ninjamaster7724]

I was in Westfield the other day and walked past Sportsgirl and on their shopfront window they had the Aboriginal flag,Torres Straight Islander flag,the Homosexual flag & Transgender flag but no Australian flag? That's absolutely disgusting and just straight up virtue signalling. Never shop at Sportsgirl.

[@tg5834]

What would you expect, when everything they sell is made in China. Perhaps they should have Chinese flags on display as well.

[@avapineda8813]

Terrible well they will lose customers unless a group of homosexuals love the flag and rush in but I suspect they would want better more fancy outfits and people from the outback or Torres straight rush to the shop maybe they should appeal to the general public as well

[@hygst]

Yep, go woke go broke

[@DrRippenShitten]

the "homosexual flag" you mean the Queer Community flag as the "gay" flag is different from the one you mean. The flags on storefronts are just to let people know they wont be judged upon entering. Australians aren't judged for "being australian" so theres no need for the flag in that context.

[@simonwells4820]

@@DrRippenShitten I disagree on this point... If Australians are just judged for being Australians, there is no need for the other flags at all... Why segregate any body of people, makes absolutely no sense to me...

[@rpaulwaddington1858]

😊 with butter and a cup of tea. Thank you Wes for your thoughtfully balanced posts. I am in the body of those who see the mere act of asking us to make a change to our Constitution, by definition, requires each of us to make a choice. That choice being to provide an opportunity for 'one' group to have access to decision/lawmakers in a manner not available to others. We have deliberatly been asked to make a choice; those asking have deliberately sown a divisive seed and we all need to understand what will grow...

[@timbrown8581]

Thanks Wes for another thoughtful and well researched vid. The Emperor's New Clothes is an awesome analogy for the Referendum. I think those clothes fit tighter on one side of the debate then the other, but then again, I have formed my opinion and could be biased. It always amazes me that the NO side are accused of being racist, when they want equality and unity. No example is ever give of how they are racist. Yet the YES side want laws based on race, division in the community, uneven political representation and compensation based on race. Sometimes when you point your finger at others, it's the other fingers on your hand pointing back at you that are truthful.

[@AnotherDoug]

The proposed Constitutional change is NOT based on race. Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner Chin Tan (quoted in SMH 29/5/2023) said the “Voice in itself is not racist and it does not racialise Australia”, arguing instead the proposal was not about granting one group of people rights at the expense of another, but about elevating the rights of Indigenous people to participate in the nation’s democracy.

[@Invictus357]

@@AnotherDoug Chin Tan is only saying what he thinks his boss’s want to hear.

[@entershikarii]

Spot on, Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay (wrote in The Aus 30/5/2023) said “The wording … inserts race into the Australian Constitution in a way that undermines the foundational human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination and creates constitutional uncertainty in terms of its interpretation and operation.”

[@Sooz007-l3b]

Compensation as a percentage of GDP. I think $33 billion a year must be quite a good bit of GDP!

[@AnotherDoug]

@@Sooz007-l3b $33 billion is a deliberately misleading figure used recently by Tony Abbott. RMIT fact-checked his statement and published this explanation: "The vast majority of that ($27.4 billion) was simply the Indigenous share of "mainstream expenditure" - that is, expenditure "provided for all people", including spending on schools, hospitals, welfare, defence and "public order and safety". The remainder ($6 billion) was spent on "services and programs … provided to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community specifically". In other words, Indigenous-specific expenditure accounted for 1.1 per cent of total direct expenditure on all Australians."

[@nolawillis7561]

So well said. So nice to hear your voice of reason.

[@allenknapp3416]

Well put. I have been a no for a while but was an undecided. I am a details person and it was missing for me, with the lack of any and following some comments and statements from the group that designed the voice created more questions than any forth coming answers (is it 1 page or many, is it a modest recognition or something more). I am now a hard NO and won't be swayed to a yes as the Yes campaign have left it too late to provide me with any details and they can label me what ever they like I don't really care.

[@dg5433]

The moment I heard there would be an unelected body of people with the potential to run roughshod over the elected Parliament, alarm bells rang. From that point my No stance has strengthened. Jacinta Price is a beacon of light and strength. Her words resonate with my thoughts. Ah.. dipped in a cup of tea 😊

[@kg3718]

Too right and if you listen to the hard core people like Peter Mayo they would relish riding roughshod over the rest of us

[@AnotherDoug]

The Voice cannot "run roughshod over the elected Parliament". This has never been said by anyone. The Solicitor-General for Australia has said the Voice will only be able to give advice to the Government & Parliament and that that the Government and Parliament can choose to ignore that advice..

[@AnotherDoug]

@@kg3718 Who is Peter Mayo? Thomas Mayo is now irrelevant to the Referendum.

[@dg5433]

@@AnotherDougwhen Our prime minister said ‘it would take a very brave government to ignore the recommendations of ‘the voice’ ‘ that did it for me!

[@AnotherDoug]

@@dg5433 First you said your turning point was "The moment I heard there would be an unelected body". Now you are saying your turning point was "when Our prime minister said ‘it would take a very brave government"

[@M3au]

You are quite right. There is nothing “modest” about permanently changing the Constitution. In order to get my approval to change a document that has served this country very well, I need to know exactly what I am voting for. I am not going to give any government a blank cheque.

[@AnotherDoug]

We do know exactly what we are voting for: In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.” That's it.

[@M3au]

@@AnotherDoug and iii. is the blank cheque. Even if this Albanese government lasts only one term, we could be lumbered with its interpretation of this clause for the next 6 years. WWII lasted less than 6 years.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@M3au Parliament - which, by the way, is not only the Labor party but also the LNP, Greens and independents - always have power to make laws. That is their job. How is the Voice legislation a "blank cheque" any more than any other legislation?

[@M3au]

@@AnotherDoug because they haven’t told how they will legislate it …

[@AnotherDoug]

@@M3au And you avidly read every bill introduced into Parliament looking for "blank cheques"? What does a "blank cheque" actually mean in relation to the Voicer anyway? It will not have control over any money or deliver any programs.

[@Coops777]

Thanks Wesley. You really drove home one of the most important considerations in the whole issue - Changing the referendum is not a small, modest thing. I've been a NO vote from the start. In my town, we have a well loved, well known and well respected Aboriginal elder who spoke with me (a non Indigenous Australian) almost a year ago. He said how wrong he thought the Voice concept was and suggested I take a look into it. He said not to ever let anyone call me racist if I oppose it. I followed his advice. I agree with him 100%

[@aggressivecalm]

Yes23 Voice to Parliament, is what happens when the demand for racism, outpaces the supply of racism. Thank you Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, I am not afraid to say you have brought tears to my eyes on several occasions. Thank you Jacinta Nampijinpa Price for my children’s futures, and the possibility of their growing up in a better Australia, a unified non-discriminatory, evenhanded nation. One of equality, egalitarianism, fairness, justness, and equitability. While the Yes vote is collapsing, the question should be asked: How the hell did something so absurd ever gain this level of traction in the first place? Time for a national reconsideration on the broad rights and obligations of all Australians in Australia, and a re-evaluation of the current preferential treatment, and actions towards Aboriginal and or Torres Strait Islander’s. Australia must embrace once again national equality, egalitarianism, fairness, justness, and equitability. The moment Australia stepped over the line from equality to a favoured group, we took a massive misstep. We must walk back this shallowness and clear stupidity. Honestly embracing a group's cultural ancestry to such an aggressive degree, and using this cultural ancestry as an excuse, is clearly pretty racist. Equally blaming some other culture, and those belonging to this differing cultural ancestry is clearly and unquestionably racist. Equality, egalitarianism, fairness, justness, and equitability are non-discriminatory, evenhanded, and unprejudiced. The opinion that the colour of your skin, or the antecedents of an individual are the defining factors is narrow-minded, backwards, bigoted, racist, discriminatory, prejudiced, unfair, and insulting. Yet it's been the dominant thinking in the Australian government, Universities, the Australian media, (particularly the ABC) and general public discourse for decades. This retrogressive, confused, righteous stupidity has to be walked back. Australia will be burning witches again if this level of ‘objectiveness’ and ‘honesty’ continues. Bring Australia together. Australia is for all Australians equally, with objectivity, fairness, impartiality, and even-handedness.❤🇦🇺🦘

[@simonwells4820]

Personally, my position has never changed. I am a firm believer we are all Australians and seperating us into 2 different bodies serves no good for our country. I also believe there are marginilised peoples in our country that need help. These peoples are not just indigenous but are made up of many different cultures from our multi culturalist society... I believe all Australians who need help should receive help, no matter their heritage....

[@xxxxxx726]

We are one, but we are many And from all the lands on earth we come We'll share a dream and sing with one voice "I am, you are, we are Australian"

[@DD-bx8rb]

Thank you very much, Wesley, for your contribution to our country

[@whatdoesfreedomlooklike]

Ever the voice of reason. Thanks.

[@deborahmaurer9163]

I was an automatic No voter from the start due to my complete distrust of both 'sides' of the political realm and governmental meddling bodies. Though this is a somewhat reactionary stance I feel the disgraceful display of authoritarianism from government and those affiliated over the past 3 years suggests it is prudent not to jump into any constitutional changes 'suggested' by any of the political parties. I'm suspicious and disappointed that our Aboriginal Australians are being used as the bait in a 'bait and switch' attempt that will deprive all Australians, original or not of their basic freedoms. I really don't think any of us have had a voice that is truly heard or respected in a long time. The Emperor's clothes are non-existent but there's also something pretty fishy going on. Better the devil you know...as they say. And thanks Wes. Your posts have helped me understand so much more about why I feel No is the right way to vote and thank you to all those people who comment. Love reading the comments.

[@markclifford3960]

When this is all over keep posting your thinking great insight on topics

[@kg3718]

Great post and true. That’s exactly what happened. The more that came out about the overwhelming powers that the voice to parliament would have and that the members would be selected not elected from the aboriginal elite activists it went into decline. Andrew Bolt has already called the vote for the No campaign saying in his opinion it’s over and irreversible. It’s said the voters must send a strong message to never bring this up again because we are all equal.

[@AnotherDoug]

"from the aboriginal elite activists " - nobody ever said this. The Voice members would be selected by the A&TSI communities

[@entershikarii]

I got more concerned that proposed members would be selected not elected under the guise of “cultural legitimacy”, that “the way that members of the Voice are chosen would suit the wishes of local communities”, says on the official website. That doesn’t look like democracy to me: Desires of local communities are secured via secret balloting based on universal suffrage - this is not the mechanism for ‘The Voice’ though. In fact, the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process never even considered it. Their two models were that unelected regional Voices would either meet behind closed doors to select members of the national Voice, or vote for members of the national Voice. They opted for closed doors. Yikes.

[@marieappo1245]

Thank you Wes 😊 you make so much sense 👏

[@entershikarii]

Used to be ‘yes’, then ‘not sure’ when the wording came out, after May this year when it became clear that the proposed amendment wording will no longer change and no more details will be officially released, me and my family will vote NO. I commend those who have opposed this from the get go as a matter of principle, but thank you for being patient with us.

[@AnotherDoug]

More details are here : voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles

[@entershikarii]

@@AnotherDougPrinciples back in April based largely on the Calma-Langton Report which PM said won’t be the basis for ‘The Voice’. Has a model or draft legislation been tabled at Parliament? No? Then there is no guarantee that these principles will be adopted. Too bad.

[@steveclarkmusic9]

When Peta Credlin brought to our attention the 26 page Uluru Statement. It wasn't available in the places where it should have been, and then the 'brush off' that it wasn't important or relevant .... or even a 'conspiracy.' After accessing the Statement and reading it, and investigating its authors, then my questioning and 'search for truth' began. Thanks Peta, for calling out that 'the Emperor was wearing 'a lie.'

[@AnotherDoug]

~ "It wasn't available in the places where it should have been," - it was available exactly where it would be expected for the past six years - on the Referendum Council's website! ~ We are not voting on the Uluru Statement whether it is 1 page or a 1000 pages. We are voting on recognition and an ADVISORY body called the Voice. Nothing else!

[@tg5834]

It doesn't need to be in the constitution if is just an advisory body. We don't want to be stuck with it forever, when it turns out to be a dud like all the others.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@tg5834 The Uluru Statement from the heart requested that it be included in the Constitution. In the unlikely event that the Voice is a dud, the Government can simply ignore its advice.

[@Timmydope]

I didnt intent on staying for the whole video... but must admit.. I was fully engaged. Kudos to you sir.

[@Reginaldesq]

I started in the yes camp. I assumed the representatives would be democratically elected. When I started hearing that they would not be elected or that some might be elected and some not, I started to have concerns. Apparently democracy is one of those things that will be decided after the vote. The talk of the "Uluru statement from the heart" caused me to actually read it (I knew nothing about it previously). I was shocked. It seems to me that the one pager says that Aboriginal people would like a separate country ruled by an Elder aristocracy. Which leads me to believe, it is the Elders (or some of them at least) who dont want elected representatives, because, in many cases, they wont be the ones elected and this will destroy the Elders as a class.

[@kevinclarke68]

Listen to THOMAS MAYO then you will know what the grand plan is

[@AnotherDoug]

Which part of the one page says they want a separate country?

[@AnotherDoug]

@@kevinclarke68 Mayo is irrelevant to the Referendum

[@AndyJarman]

Jacinta Price can tell us a thing or two about what "elders" get up to in remote communities.

[@AndyJarman]

​@@AnotherDoug"With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood." Then further on "We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history." Makarrata is a weasel word for treaty. With an identity enshrined in the constitution as one sovereign people, then the Australian State would be required to address the Aboriginal people as a Nation State sharing Australia. This is a confection. Australia is a British invention. Before Cook established it was a land mass separate from other continents and used the Latin term "Terra Australia" there was no concept of a land girt by sea. The people here before the British set up shop were far from living in harmony with their neighbours. The appearance of shields and separate languages gives the lie to any cumbyah utopia. You don't need a shield unless you think someone might just has a go at you with a spear. You don't speak different languages unless you jealously guard resources from strangers.

[@bono1961]

The community benefits from leaders such as yourself. I always feel more informed after watching your posts. Great work 👍

[@shanerooney7288]

I haven't changed my mind. I'm still of the opiniion we should treat Aboriginals as EQUALS.

[@maccart67]

Thank you, I really appreciate your comment ✌🏿

[@georgetsagaris4470]

I said no at the begging and nothing has changed my mind, I watched some live coverage of some of the Q&A at the meeting at Uluru when the statement from the heart was conceived and was made aware of its radicalism back in 2017.

[@MAC...]

You pretty much summed it up... people want to help indigenous people.. but we don't want vague structures of power created...

[@shockmarkets7384]

When it comes to government, I begin with the premise I'm being lied to, and act accordingly. I've not been given any indication in my lifetime to divert from this. Quite the contrary. It's reaffirmed pretty much any time a politician opens their mouth to speak.

[@pardalote]

Thanks Wes. I remember decorating milk arrowroots with my kids when they were little. Icing, smarties for eyes, jelly snake for the mouth, and sprinkles for hair. So much fun.

[@meganwilliams2962]

I used to do this with the children as a school holiday activity/ rainy day activity

[@ronnorman1409]

Another great video! Well done.

[@paulinelong7205]

My daughter in law asked quite a few weeks back how I felt, didn't have a clue. Haven't watched tv for several years, don't buy papers. As soon as change to the constitution was mentioned it was time and quite difficult as everything on You tube pointed to YES. I learned during the COVID experience when government(s) push the subject needs a closer look. Belief in any government has long since disappeared for me. I initially thought a YES vote was both discriminatory and patronising to aboriginal people also across the board racist to everyone as we're all Aussies. Had a closer look and found no substance, no details. The further you look the worse it becomes. Have copped a lot of flak and don't care what others may think of me. So long story short NO. Trust yourself.

[@aeasthouse316]

yes mate, I'm with you. Governments no longer serve the people, the serve large corporation that give them donations, also known as bribes. When someone can "give" a $1m dollar donation to buy them a seat at the table with a politician that me and you can't have, then we don't have a democracy anymore. Everything governments do is to create larger power base to serve corporations.

[@AnotherDoug]

Or you could trust Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner Chin Tan (quoted in SMH 29/5/2023) who said the “Voice in itself is not racist and it does not racialise Australia”, arguing instead the proposal was not about granting one group of people rights at the expense of another, but about elevating the rights of Indigenous people to participate in the nation’s democracy.

[@aeasthouse316]

@@AnotherDoug but it is by its very nature "granting one group of people rights at the expense of others", regardless thar Tan is claiming it will do the opposite. The mechanism of how this voice will work has not even been properly defined? All we know for sure is that one group of people (by means of a birth right / race) will have other rules and benefits that the rest are entitled to. It's called segregation! History teaches us segregation leads to atrocities such as apartheid.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@aeasthouse316 ~ Professor Anne Twomey, a member of the Constitutional Expert Group that provides the government with legal support on constitutional matters relating to the referendum, told RMIT FactLab that “the proposed constitutional amendment does not confer any special rights”. Professor Twomey added: “It just requires the establishment of a body with the function of making representations to parliament.” She said that any individual or organisation can make representations to parliament by way of petitions, which are tabled in parliament, or by making representations to their local member of parliament. Bodies with collective interests, such as unions, community groups, charities and business organisations, can also make submissions to parliamentary committees to point out problems or propose changes to bills being debated in parliament, she said. “People with similar interests often band together in groups in their hope that their collective voice will be more influential than their individual submissions,” she said. “The Voice would be one such group.” ~ The Voice mechanism will, like the mechanism for all Referendum questions, be provided after the success of the Referendum. But search for Voice Design Principles (this Channel does not allow me to post URLs) - to see the Design Principles that have already been published by the Government ~ "Apartheid and the Voice are polar opposites. The Voice is a path towards democratic participation, while apartheid eliminated any opportunity for this" Search for "The Voice vs apartheid" and look for an article from RMIT

[@entershikarii]

You don’t need to trust her but Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay agrees with you (wrote in The Aus 30/5/2023) said “The wording … inserts race into the Australian Constitution in a way that undermines the foundational human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination and creates constitutional uncertainty in terms of its interpretation and operation.”

[@dn-anonymous]

Very moderate presentation, thankyou. No need for a big hooha, just consider the debate, make your own decision, nice and simple.

[@librandancer]

Your balanced view is refreshing.

[@colemanfairweather1804]

As soon as I heard an inkling of "the Voice" referendum I thought "No" - you're absolutely right: you only fiddle with a country's constitution if it is something fundamental that will forever change the landscape. I couldn't see how having yet another indigenous-focused entity, built of political fabric, could possibly affect the real issues faced in regional and remote communities. My issue was and remains today the same - I want to see accountability for the billions allegedly already spent on initiatives to address the various indigenous issues existing today; wallowing in continual historical victimhood is, like, depression, a snake eating itself - it offers no way out. I would want to see where today's funds go, how those funds spent, who reconciles the spending and who is defining the benchmarks and measuring the expected changes. I would like more open and honest public debate on exactly what the "issues" are and how ordinary people like me can actually help in some tangible way, and I don't mean "Oxfam" kind of way, ie handing over more money - that is never the answer. And if those indigenous activists are so obsessively compelled to address the plight of aborigine's, I would like to see those same people actually offer pragmatic solutions that could be implemented NOW - their lack of initiative to do this to my mind just shows that the people driving the Voice are really just a bunch of politically-charged (essentially marxist in their tactics from what I can see) opportunists taking advantage of the change of government and woke sentimentality to make a power grab. The ONLY benefit I can see from this whole charade is that maybe some truly uniting aboriginal Voices have been able to speak and be heard - Jacinta Price is remarkable, I would vote for her as PM or President in a heartbeat, that speech the other day was amazing - her courage is astonishing, reminds me of MLK Jr.

[@AnotherDoug]

"built of political fabric" - either members of the Voice are selected by their communities or they are selected by the Government. Which of these is not "political fabric" (whatever that means) ~ "defining the benchmarks" - www.closingthegap.gov.au/national-agreement/targets ~ "their lack of initiative to do this " - how do you know they haven't made suggestions - but due to the lack of a Voice, they have not been heard? ~ how is creation of an ADVISORY body "a power grab"?

[@entershikarii]

Yes, there is just no guarantee within the wording itself that it will remain an ADVISORY body. All other explanatory notes and memoranda are irrelevant when the High Court interprets an amended constitution if we let the very ambiguous Ch IX s129 get up. Vote NO.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@entershikarii 1. The proposed Constitutional change says in clause (ii) that the Voice "may make representations". There is no other function specified for the Voice so "make representations" is ALL that it will ever be able to do (unless we change it in another Referendum). 2. The Voice will not be able to challenge the Government in any court. If someone else challenges, then "explanatory notes and memoranda" are NOT irrelevant. As the Solicitor-General himself said in his Opinion on the Constitutional change: "The High Court has given weight to equivalent explanatory materials when interpreting previous constitutional amendments. Accordingly, the Court can be expected to have regard to the statements just quoted from the Explanatory Memorandum and Second Reading Speech"

[@entershikarii]

@AnotherDou Here we go again Doug. Mate, as I've said before, firstly "make representations" does not just mean to "give advice", otherwise it would have been expressly stated that "there is no other function specified for 'the Voice' but only to *give advice* and is all that it will ever be able to do." I don't think you can guarantee that it is your interpretation of the phrase that will be taken by the High Court. Another referendum to precisely define the Voice is not necessary because we already missed the opportunity to clearly define it this time with sufficient detail. Secondly, 'the Voice' will obviously be able to challenge the government AND parliament itself to the High Court as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution about the implications of the exact meaning of these proposed words. This is also why I am skeptical about the Solicitor-General's pronouncements (as well as that he had been wrong many times before) - sure under the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, judges are entitled to have a look at extrinsic materials such as explanatory notes, second reading speeches, but NOT to take account of the subjective intention of a particular politician such as the Attorney-General, the Minister of Indigenous Affairs or the PM for example. The High Court itself had made it very clear in Cole v Whitfield 1988 that from that unanimous decision justices will be able to have a look at the Federation debates but not determine the subjective intent of the founders who drafted the Constitution. The High Court is shall only be interested in the objective meaning of the words of the Constitution itself. In this case, the wording could've been clearer as evidenced by constitutional law experts having sought to improve it a few months ago. Since improvement did not happen, people are justified in voting NO.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@entershikarii It isn't my interpretation of "make representations" Leaving aside the Oxford dictionary says it is the equivalent of give advice; the word advice/advise/advisory has been used in: ~ the Explanatory Memoranda tabled in Parliament with the Constitution Alteration Bill: - page 4 "The Voice would be an independent advisory body that would be empowered to make representations ..."; - page 5 "... those representations would be advisory in nature." - page 10 "... provide advice ..."; - page 10 "A representation is a statement from the Voice to the Parliament or to the Executive Government, or both. A representation would communicate the Voice’s view on a matter relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples" ~ the Second Reading Speech by the Attorney-General when the final draft of the Constitution Alteration Bill was tabled in Parliament: - "those representations would be advisory in nature." - "This provision will ensure the Voice ... effectively represent views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples at the national level." - "It will not have to wait for the Parliament or the Executive to seek its views before it can provide them." ~ the Solicitor-General's official Opinion on the proposed Constitutional: - paragraph 17: "Nor would it [the Voice] form part of either the Parliament or the Executive Government, instead operating only as an advisory body to those two branches of government." Sub-clause (ii) of the proposed Constitutional change specifies the only role of the Voice (to "make representations"). If the Government had wanted the Voice to do other things, it would have left this part out of the Constitution. The fact that the Voice's role will be included in the Constitution means the Government's intention is to keep the Voice as an advisory body only. To change the role of the Voice would require another Referendum - not even the Parliament could change legislate around the Constitutional requirement to "make representations" only. The Voice legislation will be written so that the Voice CANNOT challenge any government decision. That is explained in the Solicitor-General's Opinion. If the No campaign believed, like you, that the Solicitor-General is wrong, why have they not challenged his Opinion? Maybe, because they can't find fault and leave it to fearmongering phrases like "legally risky" with no facts to back it up.

[@waynerichards6567]

Thank you for your unbiased account of what the voice could mean to the future of Australia "We are one" to borrow a quote and hopefully we will remain that way Cheers

[@grantnelson5591]

As a bitsa Aussie who proudly acknowledges my European and Indiginous lineage , i was a yes voter . But it didn't sit well with me the lack of transparency. I feel we need more an inquiry into where is the money gone/going rather than the voice . Too many people on the gravy train i think !

[@peterbronxsidetrack1238]

Great stuff again

[@pushagainstthezeitgeist4968]

Wes, every time I listen to one of your broadcasts I come away a bit better informed and with a fresh view on some things. Any chance of you getting elected and representing people at all colours and stripes.

[@joebandiera6216]

Hi Wesley, I find your series of presentations on the Voice referendum respectful and fair attempt to have us think this topic thru for ourselves. I love Australia and all of us no matter what our heritage or our sum of life experience brings us to believe what is best for our country. No one I know wants to see indigenous Australians worst off. In this time when passions flare up for what we believe is best for the future. I listen to a song from a truly gifted indigenous Archie Roach song writer. “Let Love Rule” I urge all Australians that love this country to listen to it. This song makes my heart both heavy and proud to be one and all Australian. Your right about this changing us forever. I pray Archie’s message get thru to us all and there is no disrespect to Archie’s family if they don’t share the same view you and I do. ❤ 🇦🇺

[@maccart67]

My thinking continues to be the same. Butter and thank you.

[@francesbryce5211]

Dipped in coffee. Great message and I personally don't like what this is doing to OUR great country. Mark

[@andrewhammond1949]

Well done! My question has always been “why can’t the Aboriginal representatives in parliament make the necessary legislation?”

[@AnotherDoug]

Legislation is not what we are voting on: we are voting on Constitutional recognition for the First Peoples and an ADVISORY body called the Voice. That's it. In any event, the 11 Indigenous people in Parliament represent everyone in their electorates - not just the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander peoples. Those 11 people alone cannot be expected to focus solely on Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander matters - that would be racist, against the Constitution and an overwhelming workload!

[@tavuzzipust7887]

Vote NO to any proposed change to the Constitution on which you're told "the details will follow later."

[@AnotherDoug]

Then you would have voted no to the Constitution itself.

[@falseprofit4u]

💯 % Just speak the truth, let the likes of the naked Langton spew their bias, bilious lies and hatred 😀 as Bonaparte once said, Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

[@AnotherDoug]

"spew their bias, bilious lies and hatred " - ah, so you've read the No Pamphlet.

[@falseprofit4u]

​@AnotherDoug I've read both yes and no and my analysis of the yes camp is the scant detail on how the advisory body/committee will operate in a more cohesive manner to deliver the "better outcomes" the yes camp are trying to sell a product and gain trust to buy it and the no camp wants to know what's in the box, albanese Langton and others are saying just trust us, buy it and we'll open the box later, I don't like the sales pitch or the nasty attacks, they disrobe the Voice protagonists and it's very concerning.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@falseprofit4u ~ There is "scant detail" because the Voice does not yet exist and the members have not yet been chosen. ~ The Yes pamphlet gave specific examples of how "listening works" ~ The No Pamphlet gave deliberate misinformation: - For instance, under "Risky", it says "no issue is beyond its reach" and High Court involvement. They chose to ignore the Solicitor-General's official Op[inion that the Parliament will absolutely be able to specify the "reach" of the Voice and forbid the Voice from making any High Court challenges. Why did they ignore this? - They also complain about lack of detail when they know full well that no Referendum ever contains the details that will be established by legislation later.

[@falseprofit4u]

@@AnotherDoug The whole proposition is preposterous. They? ,,, the Voice, will deliver better outcomes somehow because ??? The nonsense that they will be forbidden 🚫 from challenges in the high court is absolutely absurd. it's aboriginals who approached albanese ( his own words) apparently to present TVP for decision through the referendum process along with an acknowledgement of first nations people enshrined in the constitution without detail apparently 🙄

[@AnotherDoug]

@@falseprofit4u ~ "They? ,,, the Voice, will deliver better outcomes somehow because ???" - As the Yes Pamphlet said: _When governments listen to people about issues that affect them, they: ■ Make better decisions. ■ Get better results. ■ Deliver better value for money. The Voice will give advice on key issues facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, from better infant health to improving services in remote areas._ ~ "The nonsense that they will be forbidden from challenges in the high court is absolutely absurd." Why is it nonsense/absurd? What legal advice have you obtained that is better than the Solicitor-General's official Opinion that was published back in April? He clearly said that Parliament will have the power, in the Voice legislation, to prevent the Voice from challenging any government decision. Not even the No Campaign has openly challenged this Opinion. But the authors of the No Pamphlet deliberately misinformed when they said the Voice is legally risky and did not give the source for this opinion. ~ The Referendum Council was appointed by the Liberal Government in 2015 to conduct a national consultation process on how Australians think Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should be recognised in the Constitution. This resulted in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. And here we are

[@patrickwakefield2297]

good common sense approach. seems most of the anger and abuse is coming from the yes side. no side seems much calmer, and are quietly listening and working it out.

[@empty_nestadventures]

Hey Wes, I continue to watch and love your work. I just spent a week in a community in FNQ, called Jumbun. Beautiful people and an awesome focus in moving to self determination. My question is, and I’d love to see a video on this- Do you think a Voice to parliament is at least an opportunity for a reset. For accountability for spending and most importantly, voices and needs of the grass roots communities to be recognised? It is very clear in my experiences in communities and in cities, that each mob have vastly different needs and those billions per annum are not reaching those that need it most…..

[@chrisheggie952]

Thank you Wesley for the most balanced, considered, non sarcastic and respectful series of narratives on the Referendum! I haven't previously left a like or comment for precisely the reasons you describe in this video (sorry about that)... Recently the Prime Minister stated 'yes' when asked if he thought the Referendum would be successful, to which I immediately thought 'Of course, because irrespective of the outcome it will be the voice of the people and therefore a success!'

[@allaquiver]

Thanks Wes for you vid. It’s always perplexed me why eye watering amounts of money have been spent on “the problem” over my lengthy lifetime with no result. I have serious doubts a ‘voice’ will do anything but make already advantaged folk even better off. Don

[@aussie807]

I love your pragmatic, down to earth chats 😊and what a great analogy.

[@KittyWhiplash959]

Thanks Wes!

[@briansmart2045]

Thank you for your conversation , first video of yours for me and will look for any past ones . To me as soon as the voice was announced I thought it to be a very divisive thing for our country and will be voting no . Certainly many people need help and more needs doing . May Jacinta Price be given all the backing needed 🙏🏻 I feel most plain biscuits should be dunked . Again thank you for your care for OUR 1 Nation , may it never be divided

[@rikdownunda]

I appreciate you. thank you

[@peachypeachman4860]

Thank you Wes 🙏

[@ACDZ123]

It never turned ugly, it was always ugly from the start ..people are just waking up to what this voice is really about. A money and power grab ..im voting NO to this division ..unfortunately playing victim has financial benefits attatched and certain activists know this and are wanting to put their snouts in the trough even deeper . Everyone is equal and should be treated as such

[@anthony9thompson]

Another great video. I was literally typing a sentence about your biscuits when you started talking about them !

[@CC-uq4hu]

Wes you have won me in the first two minutes…I’ve always had that fairytale in my mind for the last few years…now I understand why. I’m pretty sure it’s called gaslighting I think

[@DD-bx8rb]

I am assessing Labors Voice by the public comments of those who designed it. Thomas Mayo sits on the PM's Referendum Working Group which designed the referendum question. Mayo published his book titled "The Voice to Parliament Handbook". His signature is on the Uluru Statement and he has spent 18 months travelling around Australia trying to talk Australians into changing the Constitution to include the Voice. He is a union official and self-described “militant” on record as saying the Voice will “punish politicians”, “abolish colonialist institutions” and “pay the rent, pay reparations and compensation”. Rather than the Voice being the “inspiring and unifying Australian moment” and "modest request" described by the PM, Mr Mayo told a Communist conference “there is nothing that we can do that is more powerful than building a first nations’ Voice, a black institution, a black political force to be reckoned with”. At a 2021 "Invasion Day" protest he described “the powers that be” as “murderers”, and said he was “sick of governments not listening to our voice” so planned “to use the rulebook of the nation to force them”. At Black Lives Matter protests and other addresses he reveals the Voice’s radical origins in the Search Foundation which describes itself as the “successor organisation of the Communist Party of Australia”.

[@AnotherDoug]

We are not voting for Mayo (who was only 1 of 20 people on that Working Group). We are voting for Constitutional recognition and the Voice. What Mayo said is irrelevant to the vote.

[@tg5834]

​@@AnotherDougMayo is synonymous with the Voice. Vote NO.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@tg5834 We are voting for Constitutional recognition and the Voice. We are not voting for Mayo.

[@tg5834]

​​@@AnotherDougThe Voice can speak on behalf of others, including Mayo. That's what making "representations" means, as you fullwell know.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@tg5834 1. The Voice will only give advice on behalf of A&TSI communities - not a single person. 2. Even if the Voice did give advice on behalf of a single person, the Government would (rightly) ignore that advice.

[@robertdickeson432]

Thankyou for all your words they have helped me a lot much appreciated.

[@debrahumphreys9305]

A perfect summary of how things have become on this shoved down our throat referendum

[@bevtunley7512]

We recently found your website and subscribed on KZbin. Love your commonsense and gracious comments. We worked on a remote community years ago and appreciate the difficult conditions some people endure. Found your talks encouraging in this crazy mixed up world. God bless you

[@andreaconnelly3799]

Thank you Wesley 🙏

[@Paul-op9oz]

The history of the government is my decision. The treatment of Australians in the last 3 years is one example. No matter what the government says, wants or does is never in the best interest of the people. You cannot get clean water from a sewage pipe.

[@aeasthouse316]

government no longer serve us, they serve big corporations who "donate" large sums to political parties. Also known as bribes. Unless we stop corporations buying a seat at the political decision making table that you and me can't have, nothing will change regardless of who is in power.

[@francesblabey3055]

Wesley, excellent .❤👏👏👏 With butter❤

[@offgridjohn871]

God bless ya brother.

[@snappingclam8801]

Thanks for the well-reasoned analysis. I've been a NO from the start; monkeying with a complex system that works reasonably well will likely produce massive, possibly ruinous, unintended consequences.

[@petergilbert3861]

Well done Wesley, very thoughtful points. I instinctively lean to the yes campaign because it seems logical that indigenous people should have a voice in there future considering the horrors of the past. But a voice will not necessarily right all wrongs. A no vote may get (right minded) Australians thinking more about bridging the gap strategies. People on each side have created divisiveness by insulting their perceived opponents. This trend saddens me deeply when we ought to be Australians all, one and free. (supportive non indigenous). Keep up the good work.

[@stilley78]

I'm firmly in the "no" camp. I love to travel around Australia and have visited all sorts of remote locations and met some friendly people. I don't believe that it's going to give those every day, down-to-earth, grassroots people in communities such as Pipalyatjara, Kowanyama or Kalumburu a voice. I think that it's going to give those inner city elites a voice on what they think these locals out in indigenous communities want. All devised from their multi-million dollar penthouse suite in Sydney, having never driven on an unmaintained dirt road in their life- their BMW may get scratched. I also don't trust the government and I believe that there is some important bits of information that they're not telling us until AFTER the referendum, which is no good in my opinion. If you don't know, vote no. If you don't like being told that the underlying problems of the no voters are "base racism" or "sheer stupidity", vote no.

[@AnotherDoug]

~ Members of the Voice will be selected by local A&TSI communities. ~ "If you don't know, vote no." - as someone has pointed out, this is a morally bankrupt statement. If you don't know, find out!

[@longway1]

​@@AnotherDougtell the whole truth dougi

[@AnotherDoug]

@@longway1 Which bit have I lied about?

[@longway1]

@@AnotherDoug l said the whole truth. You are only answering questions like most of the yes campaign. That is why this voice will fail.

[@jonh9561]

The original proposition to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the constitution by PM Albanese, seemed on the face of it, to be a reasonable one, BUT this was accompanied thereafter by an associated proposition i.e. the Voice and when pressed for the details on this concept, the PM became evasive and started using derogatory language to describe those people who started to reject the proposition e.g. the "Chicken Littles" etc, because any opposition to his "modest request" was seen as mainly coming from his political opposition, as opposed to free-thinking individuals. Numerous requests for details resulted in more evasion instead of answers and predictably, people became suspicious and started to hunt out any available information. The FOI request to the lead body for first nations peoples i.e. the National Indigenous Australians Agency was a turning point and led to a single document of 112 pages being released by them, including the main reference, 'The Uluru Statement from the Heart'. This is the title of the first page and numbered 1 to 26 of following pages. The Uluru Statement from the Heart talks about the Voice, Makarrata/Treaty and Truth Telling. It has become clear the original proposition to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the constitution by PM Albanese, is anything but "a modest request" and that the Voice could be viewed as a Trojan Horse for the main objectives of the architects/drafters of the Voice, which are; high-level advocacy directly to Parliament, Makarrata/Treaty, Truth Telling, Reparations/Compensation and the ongoing payment of rents that could be in the form of a percentage of the country's GDP. We may be being asked to only vote on; "The question that will be put to voters is whether to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice" (this is the actual wording from the electoral commission), but in reality it is much more than this and as such, the original proposition put to us by PM Albanese and the Yes campaign, is very likely to be seen as deliberately deceptive and misleading, which has sown distrust in the PM and the main proponents of the Voice. There must be complete honesty and transparency whenever dealing with Australians, because starting from an early age, people become increasingly practised in detecting when others are lying and/or being deceitful and for those who are found out, there is always a price to pay.

[@AnotherDoug]

~ The "original proposition" was always to implement the Voice - it was NOT "associated thereafter". ~ "the Voice could be viewed as a Trojan Horse" - the Voice could never be a trojan horse. By the power of the Constitution itself, the Voice would only ever be allowed to give ADVICE. ~ "in reality it is much more than this" - no, it isn't! The Voice would only ever be able to give ADVICE. ~ "deliberately deceptive and misleading" - the only thing in the campaign that has been "deliberately deceptive and misleading" is the No pamphlet. It contained nothing of any truth and was full of fear mongering.

[@chrismiddleton9088]

@@AnotherDoug Actually there is nothing in the sentences to be incorporated in the Constitution that mentions the word ADVICE. The relevant words are "make representations" I suggest that you look up the legal definition of those words. Rest assured, if the YES case got up then we would see a fair bit of activity from the High Court impacting the process of Government.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@chrismiddleton9088 ~ "make representations" means "give advice" (check your dictionary, also the Solicitor-General's speech on 31 March and the Attorney-general's Opinion on the Constitutional change released on 21 April - all say "advice"!

[@iancoyles9325]

Brilliant analogy Wes.👍👍👍

[@mattharcla]

That was a very thoughtful and well presented video. I will follow your other work with interest. I am one of the millions of Australians who emotionally and morally and financially wish to do everything that is possible to improve the lives of all our people. It was the voices of indigenous and indeed tribal people saying "vote no" that gained my attention when I read and listened to their positions. Then of course discovering who the actual authors are. And hearing about the "consultative process". I have experienced the consultative process, and somehow with the final report comes out it bears no resemblance whatsoever to what the people being consulted asked for. Then there is the whole socialist left power grab. The whole thing reeks. I will be voting no.

[@Ed_Downunder]

Great analogy. I have studied the referendum from many angles, including the question and concluded 'no'. That is not my point. I watched Jacinta Price give a speech at the National Press Club. It was the most succinct speech about the 'Voice' and how aboriginal culture is holding aboriginal people back. This, of course, opened the 'Pandora Box'. The referendum will come and go, it is dead in the water, we just have to go along to complete the journey. But after the referendum, the real work starts, and this will be spearheaded by Jacinta Price. I am expecting her words to be chopped up into sound bites to sooth the feelings of the aboriginal activist industry. I watched Channel 10 do exactly that. My plan is to stay vigilant and engaged after the referendum because this 'Voice' is only the first salvo.

[@KingComputerSydney]

I was open to voting either way initially and went along to Yes campaign speakers hearing from Dean Parkin and others. There were claims that this would bring reconciliation and we were told it was a “gift”, but I thought their argument for changing the constitution was very weak. After seeing Albanese deceptive claims about the Uluru statement being only one page, contradicted repeatedly by other people involved with writing it, I then read the full 26 page Uluru statement and dialogues that led to it. The emperor had no clothes, and the agenda of the voice showed the “gift” was a trojan horse in the constitution as a pathway to power and reparations. Listening to the constitutional lawyer who helped devise the wording for the referendum assuaged my concern a little, but the agenda of the communist activists like Thomas Mayo have really turned me off the idea. The estimated $600 million a year to run the voice bureaucracy, apparent lack of accountability, poor governance model and claims devoid of an evidentiary basis that the voice would magically resolve issues for disadvantaged Aboriginals are also factors to consider. Aboriginals against the voice for various reasons have included concerns that the current crop of powerful and privileged leaders who already have a significant voice would be the same ones who would have power in the new Voice - yet they have failed to meaningfully address the issues. That failure would be permanently baked into the constitution. No thanks.

[@AnotherDoug]

~ "a trojan horse" - the Voice could never be a trojan horse. By the power of the Constitution itself, the Voice would only ever be allowed to give ADVICE. It cannot negotiate anything (including reparations) ~ Mayo is not relevant to the referendum ~ "poor governance model" - what about the model did you think was poor? ~ "claims devoid of an evidentiary basis " - why are you holding the yes campaign to a higher standard than the No campaign? Everything in the No Pamphlet was "devoid of an evidentiary basis". ~ "same ones who would have power in the new Voice " - which "Aboriginals" said this? How would they know who would be selected for the Voice - since selection would be by the A&TSI communities themselves.

[@entershikarii]

Trojan horse is a very apt analogy especially when the PM, Noel Pearson and the others have been saying this is “a gift”, a “generous offer”. By the power of the High Court, all justiciable elements of the current wording can bequeath a “duty to consult” to ‘The Voice’ which is an effective veto power in its capacity “to make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth in matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples” (proposed s129(ii). This was why Julian Leeser (for all his faults) wanted s129(ii) to be deleted entirely, the wording here is very suspect and risky because of its ambiguity and undefined scope. This will not remain an ADVISORY body only but a branch of government to be reckoned with, “it will be a very brave parliament” that would ignore ‘The Voice’. This is not rectified and so we are justified in voting NO.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@entershikarii I suggest you have a read of the Solicitor-General's official Opinion on the proposed Constitutional change. It is available under "Resources" on the Governments' Voice site (KZbin does not always allow URLs so I can't provide a direct link). He said: ~ there will be NO DUTY TO CONSULT the Voice. (Paragraph 18(a) of the S-G's Opinion: "Nor would it [proposed Section 129] require the Parliament to consult with the Voice before legislating. The text of proposed s 129 - which imposes no obligations of any kind upon the Voice, the Parliament or the Executive Government - is incapable of supporting any such requirements." ~ The Voice will have NO power of veto. (Paragraph 17 of the S-G's Opinion: "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. ... The Voice clearly has no power of veto.") ~ The Voice will NOT be a branch of the government. (Paragraph 17 of the S-G's Opinion: "Nor would it [the Voice] form part of either the Parliament or the Executive Government, instead operating only as an advisory body to those two branches of government."

[@KingComputerSydney]

@@AnotherDoug These are fair comments, noting that Mark Dreyfus is a Yes supporter for Labour. That does not make his advise inaccurate, but it understates the risk not from the legal power but from the inclination that will be there to kowtow to the voice. I also listened to the constitutional lawyer who assisted in devising the wording who somewhat "assuaged my concerns". However we must consider how various treaties and powers can be morphed and negated through time. NZ as example of what has already happened with an advisory tribunal turning into a body with immense power over operations of government, and the activists are using this as a model. Remembering that the inclination of the government of the time can enact legislation and give powers and benefits through the voice which would be very hard to retract. This interview with Professor James Allen is enlightening on this point kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z2bFZJJolLeVq7s

[@entershikarii]

@@AnotherDoug Thanks mate, I have read the Solicitor-General's statement on the matter, it is but an opinion of one legal expert important as he is. With all due respect to Stephen Donaghue KC, who on at least two occasions incorrectly gleaned ultimate Court opinion such as in 2018 on s44(i) saw five parliamentarians had their seats declared vacant contrary to his official opinion as well as in Thoms and Love v. Commonwealth on s51(xix). Again no lawyer, irrespective of status or how distinguished their career, can seriously guarantee which arguments the High Court will accept in the future. Indeed as Ret. Chief Justice Robert French said, predictions about how courts will decide questions of law “involve evaluative judgements upon which reasonable minds can differ.” That uncertainty is simply magnified where a provision is unique and has no constitutional comparison - Chapter IX s129 is exactly this. So when the Solicitor-General says "no duty to consult", I took it with a grain of salt especially when in the Calma-Langton Report the suggestion is that the government and parliament should have an ‘obligation to consult’ ‘the Voice’ and that is effectively a veto power halting legislation and the ordinary working of government which some of our legal luminaries have warned about simply because whilst "the [current] text of proposed s129... [seemingly] imposes no obligations of any kind upon the Voice, the Parliament, or the Executive Government - [appear to be] incapable of supporting any such requirements", the same text does not close that door completely. The scope is still ill-defined and the powers and the legal effects of its representations are not sufficiently circumscribed by Parliament. Similarly, whilst "the [current] text of proposed s129 does not confer legislative, executive, or judicial power upon the Voice", the same text does not clearly preclude a veto power stemming from a "duty to consult". Lastly, "operating only as an advisory body" is not expressly stated in s129. The fact that s129 is a separate chapter IX on standing on its own apart among heads of power from Chapter I Parliament Chapter II the Executive, Chapter III the Judiciary, and Chapter V The States, the importance placed on 'The Voice' in an amended constitution cannot be understated nor its potential power dismissed.

[@Josma432]

A pleasure to listen to you talk.. I’ve subscribed.

[@gregm9433]

Hi Wes Love your vids. I am a No voter but wish I could vote Yes for the recognition part. And I would vote Yes for a legislated Voice, coz then we could give it a trial period to see how it runs, Then Constitutionalise it later, once it had shown itself to be worth the money. One comment that I would also make is that it seems to me that Indigenous people are mostly emerging into the sunshine in Australia and out from oppression. But I argue that over time and accellerating - there is less and less need for a Constitutionalised Voice. The evidence is clear when you look at the progress that has been made in the past 50 or so years. Progress in the indigenous world in that time frame has been astronomical when you look at it carefully and with clear eyes. (E.G. in recent decades, land rights and Native Title combined have given indigenous people access to and a say over 80% of the continents land area and hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of the surrounding sea.) There is no space here to list all the improvements in the indigenous situation with no sign of the pace slowing. E.G., did you know that 70,000 Aborigines have gone through Uni in the last 20 years, and that there are about 12,000 in the Uni system at the moment? (See: Aust. Bureau of Stats. (2017) “Strong Improvements in Aboriginal Education Outcomes.” Media release 143/2017) That is not too shabby for a race of people who make up just 3% of the population.

[@chrismiddleton9088]

I am in total agreement.

[@petermurgatroyd2002]

Very well said

[@bjorn1583]

never vote yes on a bill that the gov refuses to tell you what the bill will change. when hanson and price both agree on a no vote then you know something is very fishy with the outcome of a yes vote

[@AnotherDoug]

We know exactly what the "bill" will change! We are adding a new section to the Constitution. We are NOT changing any existing part of the Constitution. The new part of the Constitution will say "In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.” That's it.

[@bjorn1583]

@@AnotherDoug you wish that was all that the yes vote will do because that wont even touch the surface of what they are bringing in and thats why albo always steps around the questions asking to explain what the bill will bring, plus its also racist to segregate over race which is what the bill also does. a yes vote is racist no matter how you look at it.

[@Metamorphica2]

You've got a new fan Wes!

[@davidgriffin2918]

I was originally hopefully , but sceptical , but after listening to both campains , now a large NO !

[@SF-pq3sq]

White 53. I have always supported the indiginous comunity in many areas. I just think that the voice is more about dividing us for some other purpose. We need to protect our constitution it has served us very well over years. We are one voice one country people from all the lands we come. Surely WE can do this. So i say "HELL NO ALBO". Time to go home Albo you have failed.🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺

[@robertheuston8378]

Keep up the wonderful work

[@jeffmcdonnell1179]

Always was, always will be NO. The Australian people are being conned.

[@macalacalan1175]

Brilliant!

[@JoskMclaren]

IT makes me sad to see all these bigwigs and companies and influencers jumping all over virtue signalling things, but, they seem utterly uninterested in helping with the very real issues that are affecting ordinary indigenous Australians. ps - all biscuits should be dipped 😇

[@denisgately4701]

Very good analogy, Wesley….

[@user-rl5nd3ys8p]

You are doing a Great Job on all this. You earned My Subscription . 👍

[@stuartcowan5525]

Well said

[@araucaria5173]

The more that i have become informed about the voice , the greater has become my resolve to vote no.

[@robd2096]

Anyone who uses the words "Referendum" and "modest" in the same sentence .... is lying to you. Pants on fire, Albo.