Reasons To Vote No | John Anderson

[@simonboland]

Many thanks to you John Anderson for your common sense, civilised debate and well chosen guests during this period.

[@ruthconradie8650]

We would be fortunate to have a prime minister like you. Intelligent, thoughtful, dignified and honest, you make our politicians look like idiotic imposters.

[@dianapanetta]

Could not have said it better myself.

[@ralphtoivonen2071]

An asshole? That's all the conservatives put up as leaders.

[@user-zo1lz9nt9x]

Couldn't disagree with you more. I believe we need more voices like John Anderson in Australia.

[@etherspin]

​@@ralphtoivonen2071Anderson is not to be confused with Barnaby Joyce mate

[@VK6AB-]

Agreed, that was an outstanding presentation and the epitome of leadership.

[@NoelMay]

Thanks John. Accountability for the billions of dollars spent is long overdue

[@mmadden90]

You are a good man John Anderson. Thank you for your commitment to all Australians 👍

[@steveascension9626]

Along with many of my friends, I voted "no" because there are too many unanswered concerns and potential risks for the Australian nation. For our indigenous peoples in the outback, the possibility of division is too great and dangerous. I am so grateful for people like Warren Mudine and Jacinta Price who speak the truth in a way that is so far above all of the proponents of the Yes Vote movement. I'm happy that many of those supporters are now coming to their own logical conclusions & voting No

[@JimJamJuicy]

I wish they would broadcast this brilliant summary of the No case on the ABC

[@angush1772]

Yeah…I don’t think that’s going to happen. The ABC are implicit in the shamefully biased coverage shown by many media outlets. The fact that they’re taxpayer funded only makes it more galling.

[@paulwilson7622]

As usual Mr Anderson, you are a true thoughtful diplomat and probably the best person to make these statements. Other leaders are not in your league!

[@user-zo1lz9nt9x]

Thank you for the most articulate video explaining the Voice. I voted no early as I was heading on holiday. Fingers crossed Australia won't be divided by race. The Land Council and Native Claims are already not okay.

[@KetovoreAnita]

Thank you for all of your wise words regarding The Voice. Thank heavens Australians today have used their common sense and the NO vote has won. Let’s hope this doesn’t keep the division going that we’ve seen since this started. It’s been appalling.

[@Kwesekara1672]

No unelected group of people should have a special ‘Voice’ in parliament over & above our elected representatives, especially in perpetuity.

[@macalacalan1175]

At exactly the same age as you John, I also went to school with Aboriginal kids, taught and lived in a remote aboriginal community and have later had associations with aboriginal people in various scenarios both professional and social. In 50 years I've never voted for (and will never vote for) the political party to which you belong (ed?). I would therefore consider myself as leaning left in my political views. However, on this question I'm in total synch with you for the same reasons you identify (plus some) and I applaud you for your courage in expressing your views so publicly in the face of naive criticisms that your views are racist. There was (is) no way this referendum would (will) succeed. Its initiation reflected a total lack of wisdom and political foresight and, in that regard, the PM and Labor Party has kicked a home goal - for its government and for many in the aboriginal community. And so, after this weekend, there will be many people (in the yes camp) who will conclude that the broader community lacks compassion, is racist and does not have concerns about the plight of some aboriginal people. They would be wrong.

[@angush1772]

Good to likewise read your honesty in your remarks. I’ve been very disappointed at the propensity of “yes” campaigners to blame the unpopularity of this proposal on the LNP. I’ve got no doubt that there are some that see it as political opportunism, but - overwhelmingly - the unpopularity of this proposed voice is simply because people are not comfortable with the lack or detail, especially considering the permanence of any constitutional change.

[@Midlife-Adventures]

It may crash Albo's job security but I suspect a loss will be milked by Labor for years to come. They will play the Australia is racist card for all it's worth, a new generation will be indoctrinated in schools and tertiary education facilities with the defeat of this proposal touted as evidence.

[@PiersLortPhillips]

John, I didn't need any more convincing but this was a wonderful, calm exposition of what's at stake. I hope all who watched and listened on this channel share it around. Thank you for your clarity

[@VK6AB-]

To quote a former PM "In Australia there is no hierarchy of descent: there must be no privilege of origin" Bob Hawke, 1988.

[@gusman37]

Well spoken Mr Anderson ... the Australian political theater arena parliament are void today of elected Australians with principles and brains that represents what's needed to bring all Australians together collectively 👏 ... God Bless 🙏

[@waffle_burger8499]

Well done Mr Anderson, you most definitely did your part for the country. Proud to have you advocating for us.

[@bluewren2]

Completely agree with you John Anderson. How did these people ever get into power?

[@aslkdfjhg]

The fact that a majority of Australia is voting no, and the media and government have no idea why, is deeply concerning. So many flaws with the Voice, so many unanswered questions, and all of them dismissed as misinformation. On QandA people who are unsure are pressured and intimidated. That is quintessentially unaustralian.

[@angush1772]

I think the belligerent refusal of the “yes” campaign to even respond to - let alone maturely debate - people’s concerns about their proposition. It’s for the “yes” case to mount the compelling case to change…and they haven’t done that. Instead they’ve simply embarked on creating a multi-million-dollar tidal wave of celebrity and corporate emotional blackmail and coercive guilting. It’s hands down the most appalling campaign I’ve ever witnessed.

[@brunomalacco7994]

Very well said. 100% agree

[@Design_no]

​@@FergHydeyour answer makes no sense.

[@PerversePoster]

@@FergHydeNicholas Aroney is a constitutional law professor at QLDU, he’s written a 36 page document outlining the many pitfalls in the “voice” as it’s proposed. This isn’t conjecture or opinion, the man teaches constitutional lawyers to understand the constitution. There isn’t a higher authority outside the high court and his own peers. I strongly suggest you go and read it before you vote from a place of emotion and not education.

[@simonboland]

And the irony that our prime minister talks about kindness. The campaign was characterised by the exact opposite from yes proponents.

[@phillipharding6610]

We are all Australians , Vote NO ..

[@adrianenache6794]

Maybe "GUEST" is a better word!

[@jasonsangwin4006]

@@adrianenache6794 it's not though

[@stebeeful]

Well produced, the most comprehensive concise information on why this race based referendum cannot succeed.

[@andrewcarlile3378]

I think the lack of a proper constitutional convention was a dreadful mistake in the process of launching this proposed change. I also wonder if the referendum should have been split into two questions, one to enshrine Indigenous Australians into the constitution, and the second to enable the Voice to Parliament. Indigenous Australia deserves the best but I feel we have all been let down by the haphazard and vague launch of this change.

[@cameronjames3499]

Should've added a third to immediately start a Royal Commission Audit into every dollar that's been spent on this sector so far, with the heaviest penalties possible for any misappropriation or malfeasance.

[@freespirit1411]

​@@cameronjames3499I strongly agree!

[@angush1772]

Constitutional recognition does not need an advisory body, and an advisory body does not need constitutional enshrinement.

[@toby-xo6rb]

It wasn't a "mistake" - it was done on purpose to try to rush through a power grab and hoping no one was paying attention. Fortunately people like John were wide awake and helped inform many people of the dangers of this referendum. Hopefully "No" will carry the day tomorrow. Here's to a strong, united Australia where we currently and in the future enjoy so many benefits denied to other countries. Let's protect Australia at all costs.

[@MrNintoku]

It would appear the Aboriginal group who put forward the voice idea voted against the idea of putting recognition into the constitution.

[@nomadheros4663]

I don't wanna be like Canada 😅

[@antonp6917]

Its freighting to see so many virtue signalers blindly voting YES. They cant even tell you why.

[@nivekab]

Pretty simple, consultation is proven to produce better outcomes for people involved.

[@VK6AB-]

Outstanding piece. Well done. One point of note, we are a nation of migrants, we just arrived by different methods and at different times.

[@joolslorien3936]

Isn’t that true for all nations?

[@configurational]

Comprehensive, evidence-based, honest, sensible. Thank you so much John Anderson and team. Cheers!

[@Peter_Thorpe]

What's happening in Burrum Heads is really very sad...locals were chased off by aboriginals from the beach...if this is the future of Voice..I'll vote NO

[@sanders7789]

Tell me you're joking, please. I cannot believe this - just a tiny taste of living with the Voice

[@stevenhickey1800]

I was a pretty average law graduate, but one thing that has stuck with me for 25 years was the High Courts gradual expansion of the federal government's power under section 51(xx). There is no guarantee of what the High Court will do with the yes vote getting up.

[@Coops777]

A timely last minute message. The additional 5 points made to the original version of this video are critically important. Thankyou so much John for all your efforts. I think this video is excellent. I pre polled my NO vote today.

[@avapineda8813]

Thank you you made a lot of sense I think there should be an investigation into where all the money has gone with very little improvement in some aboriginal children’s lives and their education

[@christinecavanagh5906]

Agreed

[@christinecavanagh5906]

Vote NO IN INK NO CONFIDENCE IN ALBANESSE TIME FOR HIM TO STEP DOWN VERY UNTRUSTWORTHY !

[@gaia-australis]

I suspect that Pandora would say, "Strive for fairness, but don't open the box!"

[@joseph71823]

An excellent video for all Australians to see even after the vote. It explains the issues v ery well. I will challenge my Yes friends to watch it.(Mrs B)

[@kevinroberts2395]

Disadvantage is not the exclusive domain of aboriginal people.

[@cobar5342]

The aboriginals I see are far from disadvantaged. The whole 'Voice' debate has shown us all just how well off they are $40 billion per year! I cannot equate that with 'disadvantage'

[@joetesta5730]

Anyone that could possibly vote yes and say that they have all Australians interests at heart after considering these well considered facts by this thoughtful articulate man are lying to you. There can be no other sensible fact based decision but a NO vote. Anyone who's still undecided or confused, shouldn't be after watching this video.

[@lucky55399]

All he does is deflect the issue to other concerns? he didn't provide a single factual reason as to why this voice will be negative to Australia. The only possible argument is the basis it is divisive, however many other countries have their natives in their constitution so why is stating race in the constitution a bad thing? It's the ability to appreciate differences in race and culture and come together as one, something racist people are incapable of doing.

[@Reneesillycar74]

And here we go with passive aggressive name calling again.

[@paulw5039]

@@Reneesillycar74 This is what people default to, unfortunately, when they lack rational arguments to back up their position.

[@sanders7789]

@@lucky55399 Why are you calling yourself racist? It may be true but why advertise it? Your problem to deal with

[@grimnir8872]

@@lucky55399 Why should one group get more rights than others?

[@scuffmacgillicutty7509]

Canadians were told by a young Trudeau that "his government would be running "Modest" deficits." Canadians are still waiting to hear the word modest again from the PM, but realize it's no longer part of his vocabulary. Cheers from Canada.

[@jasonsangwin4006]

As an ex-pat who now has to fly across the Pacific to visit family back in Canada, I can tell you now that I have no idea how Canadians afford it. It feels like it has really changed even from just 6 years ago. I also can't believe Canadians fell for the Carbon Tax nonsense

[@Peter_Thorpe]

We should keep working hard for the no case until the last hour of the referendum, long live Australia, long live Australian Unity

[@vickimaggs8239]

John Anderson - the voice of reason.

[@stevec9972]

Thank you for standing up for all aussies. Explained in a comprehensive easy to understand way👍

[@Catlover2091]

Absolutely brilliant. A concise, measured & easy to understand explanation. Thankyou

[@redandpink219]

Thankyou for your series on this issue, John. I have appreciated the thoughtful presentations.

[@tinkerble007]

Thank you for all you do John

[@StarCrystal9]

Yes, Australians need courage to say the Truth! That is the key and the shortest way to a solution.

[@nevecatalani8721]

The number of people who know nothing about it who are voting yes tells me every referendum should have a short paragraph about the issue for the voter to comprehend and then answer a couple of short right or wrong questions about - then if and only if they've correctly understood the paragraph will their vote count.

[@macca2342]

Yet the call was "if you don't know vote no". That's a call to the uninformed voter if ever there was one.

[@nevecatalani8721]

@@macca2342You are making as unsound argument. Declining to give approval to a request before learning what that request is is sound.

[@macca2342]

My point is only an ignoramus would not learn and the people making that call are cynically exploiting idiots.@@nevecatalani8721

[@jasonsangwin4006]

@@macca2342 It's more popularly known as "the burden of proof". The burden of proof is on the party who brings forth a claim or dispute while the other party has no such burden and is assumed to hold the correct position.

[@Crossingthelinepodcast]

Thank you this is a fantastic argument against the voice and I hope people listen

[@camcam9907]

Cheers John 👍 Here's hoping enough people understand what's at stake

[@birgitlenoble6943]

Excellently presented , insightfully explained and analysed, John …👍

[@a.cameron207]

I am not an Australian, but here is my penny for what it is worth. The fact that the structure of this voice, its legal power, and its position in relation to the other branches of government is only to be decided afterwards is a huge red flag (or indeed a blank cheque). To be granted permission to alter a constitution without first revealing the alteration in detail is the dream of ideologues who know their ideas would be rejected if presented openly, not the process of a fair minded person who has faith in what they propose.

[@nivekab]

Why would it have specific details in the constitution? That's the governments job to do as circumstances change, take the defence force, had specific details been in the constitution we would still have a defence force on horseback!

[@AceKit3]

Yes, I agree with you, and have already voted No. Thank you for the words of wisdom throughout your entire podcast. It’s a pleasure to watch your videos & discussions.

[@boitmecklyn4995]

Not surprised that the city centres were in the yes camp. Another case of city people thinking they know what's going on with the rural areas.

[@Holy_Moley]

Thank you. Hopefully Australia isn't so blind as to allow this to pass, and hopefully cheating doesn't get this across the line.

[@Tracertme]

You don’t even need to know what all the pages mean given most politicians haven’t even read it, at least the PM. It’s a simple principle, if you raise any group with a level of embedded privileges above another you have sailed democracy by because not all the same rules apply to all Australians any longer and in time, whether the intent is deliberate or not. Not ALL Australians will be treated the same and will cause devision and resentment, that is just inevitable. ❤

[@cyberpunkworld]

Well yes. Voice. and nobody knows what it means. That is, the legislation that comes with it. Crazy. Vote and you not know.

[@cobraquickstrike92]

Read the constitution - it basically only outlines heads of power which enable every piece of legislation. Section 51 contains far less detail for far broader powers: www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/chapter1/Part_V_-_Powers_of_the_Parliament 51. Legislative powers of the Parliament The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power12 to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States; taxation; but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States; bounties on the production or export of goods, but so that such bounties shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth; borrowing money on the public credit of the Commonwealth; postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services; the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth; lighthouses, lightships, beacons and buoys; astronomical and meteorological observations; quarantine; fisheries in Australian waters beyond territorial limits; census and statistics; currency, coinage, and legal tender; banking, other than State banking; also State banking extending beyond the limits of the State concerned, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money; insurance, other than State insurance; also State insurance extending beyond the limits of the State concerned; weights and measures; bills of exchange and promissory notes; bankruptcy and insolvency; copyrights, patents of inventions and designs, and trade marks; naturalization and aliens; foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth; marriage; divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto, parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants; invalid and old-age pensions; 13the provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances; the service and execution throughout the Commonwealth of the civil and criminal process and the judgments of the courts of the States; the recognition throughout the Commonwealth of the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of the States; 14the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws; immigration and emigration; the influx of criminals; external affairs; the relations of the Commonwealth with the islands of the Pacific; the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws; the control of railways with respect to transport for the naval and military purposes of the Commonwealth; the acquisition, with the consent of a State, of any railways of the State on terms arranged between the Commonwealth and the State; railway construction and extension in any State with the consent of that State; conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State; matters in respect of which this Constitution makes provision until the Parliament otherwise provides; matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States,15 but so that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law; the exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia; matters incidental to the execution of any power vested by this Constitution in the Parliament or in either House thereof, or in the Government of the Commonwealth, or in the Federal Judicature, or in any department or officer of the Commonwealth.

[@mst7806]

That point about how the changes to the constitution are about 'closing the gap' is excellent. Once the gap is closed, then what? It indeed implires that the reconciliation industry is a reality.

[@lesliesepssy9222]

Albo made himself untrustable, his political life is finished, he can only do one thing, that is, he must resign, NOW, no ifs or buts!

[@AnotherDoug]

Why not Dutton with his bait-and-switch on A&TSI recognition?

[@GMN360]

Good luck Australia…please vote NO.

[@astrogoodvibes6164]

A 'yes' vote, though possibly well intentioned, has the eerie hallmarks of a road to a certain place of torment, by being broad, simplistic and expedient with not much thought given to the lasting and potentially destructive consequences down the track.

[@chrisdebeyer1108]

Very good observations. I would like to see a review of the need for a new state of North Queensland. Structure of Australia is bottom heavy at present.

[@maradall]

We are seeing right now just how bad things can get, when people start disputing claims over land because of historical ownership - as both sides have beeb doing in Israel-Palestine. Let's hope we have more sense and restraint, here in Australia.

[@NickPBE]

Excellent video, John

[@grahamtrezise1114]

Doggone, I do like listening to your channel Mr Anderson...

[@nathanmorris3540]

I’ll vote no because we already make far too many concessions to a tiny portion of the Australian population. They already create far too many problems for Australians.

[@nickzee1637]

Thankyou John for your continuing contributions to public life

[@alfredopampanga9356]

Despite the obfuscation , misdirection all these initiatives have one aim The aim is for people who identify as Aboriginal to be paid cash by other Australians solely because they are Aboriginal

[@Peter_Thorpe]

These 2% people have 11 representatives,billions in funding, more than 50% of Australian land under Native Title...what more do these greedy people want...where will we go,where will our children go 😔

[@tophercIaus]

I looked this up for a uni assessment last year, it's more like 14% of the country that they own or control.

[@johnromans2509]

I’m English and I watch this guy because he reminds me of something about England we here have forgotten. I can’t speak for Australia of course, but perhaps the shared heritage informs his world view, and the love of liberty, responsibility and honesty is captivating in a world devoid of this kind of politic.

[@Design_no]

Until there is a proper audit into where the 30 odd billion per year gets spent i will be voting NO.

[@beepbeep6861]

And voting no, will fix the problem hey. 😂😂😂

[@williamlennie]

Thank you.

[@zippyfinleyadventures]

John this is so shocking to hear as a Canadian. Chiefly because the discourse here regarding the very same topic is eerily similar. Neverending billions are paid out annually, after which we are continually told the problem is worse not better. I hope our two nations decide on a future we can all live with soon. Cheers and thank you for the work you do !

[@woodsmen9844]

Great summary of the reasons to vote NO. Being a lawyer and having studied Constitutional Law, I see too many alarm bells on the alteration being proposed from the actual wording set out and how the High Court will interpret those words, and the introduction of a new chapter. On a moral level, Australia prides itself on being egalitarian and giving everyone a “fair go”. These principles are antithetical to the Voice.

[@Design_no]

Simply put, it is racist and divisive.

[@advoc8tr]

Even a preamble recognizing their "special" status is an issue. Where is my or "our" recognition in Britain's constitution ... having been forced to come here as convicts I can't even move back there without going through the current system of visa, residence permits etc. Same goes for many others - ALL of whom were born here just like every Aboriginal alive today.

[@seekerout]

The whole enterprise was ill-conceived and poorly implemented. I can't wait to lay it to rest.

[@Aussie4Freedom1]

Aussies will make the right decision as the polls are showing! 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺 #VoteNoAustralia

[@NovaZero]

Voted. I find it funny that they have so many activists going around asking people to vote Yes. You just don't get that for the other side. You know those people who advocate for the No vote will just get shut down. I hope the No vote wins. If the Yes vote wins, I hope the worst doesn't come to pass. Although we know for certain whatever effects it will inflict will simply be drawn out and causing a dysfunctional mess.

[@mynameisben123]

For me, I have fundamental principle that says people must never be treated differently based on their race. This includes being treated worse because of their race or better because of their race.

[@brycepetalas4118]

Funny the legal experts I've heard comment on it all said its a very safe ammendment. As the composition of the Voice Body can change. I deeply regret what's happened to the Aboriginal people and their treatment in the last 250 years. Parliamentarians are representive of their electorate, not the people they come from.

[@Connor_Hodinj]

The referendum is a proposition to legislate an advisory body to advocate for the interests of indigenous Australians at the federal level. What that means is that when parliament make laws, the advisory body would have a right to express their interests on how the law affects them and propose adjustments to benefit indigenous Australians. So I have three reasons why I’m voting no so I’ll go through them 1 by 1 1- when people talk about indigenous representation in parliament they aren’t actually talking about representation per say Of 151 federal parliaments 11 are indigenous which is 7.2% or almost double the indigenous population as a proportion of the country. So they are fairly represented in government When people talk about indigenous representation, what they really mean to say is how can we best ensure indigenous interests are appropriately addressed in society. That’s the real question So for the referendum, is legislating the advisory body the best course of action, I think not because of reasons 2 and 3. 2- Australian democracy is built on what’s called representative Government where the people elect parliamentarians in their respective electorate to represent their interests at the federal level. The politicians we elect are our voice who vote to pass bills in parliament based on our interests. Representative government works because if parliamentarians don’t represent the interests of their voters they will get voted out at the next election cycle The problem with the referendum is that the advisory body is not accountable to the will of the people They would have a constitutional right to exist and we can’t vote them out like politicians So the problem is that the will of the people, that being you and me, would be confounded by the interests of the advisory body. It would be harder for the politicians we elect to represent our interests with an advisory body whispering into the ears of parliament Essentially our votes would forever be worth less than they are currently as the will of the people have less of a say on the outcomes of parliament (that’s not to say our votes would be worthless, just worth less) I want to clarify so you don’t get the wrong idea, It’s not that our opinions would no longer matter. It’s that there would be an advantage for indigenous interests in parliament. And our interests and opinions could get sidelined from time to time And it’s procedurally unfair because like I said they can’t be voted out of government They would have a constitutional right to exist as an advisory body Reason number two is more of a governance issue. If your not a lawyer or a politician it might not mean much to most people. A lot of people don’t understand the political process and need more a moral reason. Reason 3 is the moral reason 3- some people say that because of the injustices indigenous people went through in the past that they deserve to have the preferential treatment in parliament when I ask people if they think it would be moral for other races in other countries to have the same advisory body they almost always say no For example I as half Ukrainian have ancestors who are buried in mass graves in Siberia somewhere. Ukrainian people have never known peace and there are still wars ongoing Back when Ukrainian was under Russian rule in the Soviet Union, would the yes voter be in favour of giving Ukrainians preferential treatment in parliament, probably yes The issue is with the way the legislation is drafted There is no sunset provision, which is a clause in the law that defines when the law dissolves/terminates The advisory body would last forever So if indigenous Australians achieved equitable outcomes and are equal in every way they will still be entitled to the preferential treatment So the question now is would the average yes voter be in favour of the same law for Ukrainians now they are sovereign of their own country. Having preferential treatment over every race for forever because they are simply the indigenous owners of the land who went through hardship in the past There are many other examples, Jews in gas chambers, Palestinians and Armenians and even Ukrainians who have had it objectively worse off than Indigenous Australians. But Israelis don’t have an advisory body in Israel. No yes voter would sign off on it for anyone else Ukrainians are as indigenous to Ukrainian as the indigenous are to Australia So that’s the double standard and the moral reason why people should vote no That’s the nuance in my opinion Voting no doesn’t mean things will never get better for indigenous Australians by the way You can compare it to a issue like climate change For a long time it was considered a hoax by politicians But widespread advocacy and protests from the public allowed the issue to flow through the channels of representatives democracy and to the parliament As all issues should in a democracy I can’t name a single politician that ran on the backs of indigenous issues like they do climate change But I reckon that will change after the referendum That way their issues are tended to in a way that’s procedurally fair

[@MrNintoku]

Lets go buy a car guys. But lets not get to look inside it, take it for a test drive or even find out the specifications of the vehicle. All you know is that it has 4 wheels, a steering wheel and has fabric seats with modern safety features. Who is going to buy a car in these circumstances? I'm not.

[@woodrow60]

The NSW party must be a bunch of self-serving careerists to not pre-select John Anderson for the Senate.

[@JamesBenedictJones]

I wish you would head our government, John.

[@beepbeep6861]

And is voting NO, going to fix the problem.

[@McWhatevs]

Well written, delivered and produced

[@ryan6465]

There is no cause to honour Indigenous people in the constitution at all. If there is a reason to amend the constitution, it should be to include a bill of rights.

[@mariafewster4127]

Thank God , for the voice of reason.

[@Craig_Tucker48]

Could you please do a video now that the referendum is over and the no vote won? I worry things will turn into a no vs yes vitriol. There needs to be a debriefing video looking forward with hope that both sides can relate to. I know you probably have already been working on it and could see the necessity of something like this before this comment.

[@MrSamsung669]

Can't wait for swollenpickels to find this.

[@biddydibdab9180]

John Anderson is a thoughtful gentleman. He speaks with clarity and common sense. The Voice is virtue signalling.

[@ronaldnieldschneider1855]

I can’t work out whether

[@JeremyMartensNZ]

Vote “No” if you think the status quo is working quite well. And it is working quite well for those in the top tax bracket. Those on high incomes. Those with the power. If you think, maybe our democracy isn’t perfect, maybe there is still room for improvement, maybe we could learn something from those who have been on this land for thousands of years, then vote “Yes”. The misinformation being peddled by the “No” campaign so they can maintain control and maintain their vision of how Australia should be is astounding in a nation that calls itself democratic. There are good reasons to vote no, enough to mean they should have to keep peddling fears, lies and misinformation- Be informed. Listen to both sides.

[@Phil-yn1er]

Closing the gap is a false premise.

[@yvie0136]

Obviously the yes voters dont have faith in the Aboriginal people because they want the voice put into the Constitution permanently. Victim mentality is encouraged

[@Hoop-pi6dp]

Thankyou Mr Anderson for helping me decide to vote YES today! I have patiently waited for the full referendum campaign to play out and listen to all perspectives. It is highly likely the No vote will prevail, however I say respectfully, it is the old grey Anglo men of past and present that you represent that have created great disfunction for indigenous people, the status quo will not help.

[@Peter_Thorpe]

55% of Australia is under Native Title Act ,billions are spend on these bunch of people..they have 11 politicians that represent them.they have separatecourts like Murri Court where they are barely punished..how much more power do they need..What they really want is all non-indigenous Australians to leave, where will we go,where will we seek asylum 😢

[@nickgood8166]

Brumiputra - 'son of the soil' race preference politics legislation in Aus. Scary stuff! You'll never close the gaps. Humans are not blank slates, attributes are not distributed equally across different population groups.

[@chopincam-robertpark6857]

Another great one J.A.

[@Blickdastardly33]

Why are you not running this country.

[@billburr5881]

Here is an example of the inconsistency of these proposals. They will setup regional voices that will send delegates to the national voice body in Canberra - voted by the people on these regional voices. The national voice body will have a gender balance. So if the regional voice bodies vote in 13 women and 11 men - which woman is denied her place to ensure gender balance? Which regional voice has its delegate rejected to achieve this same end? You can not have a free choice of delegate and mandated equality of outcome!

[@Marvellous328]

In my opinion, Australians should consider the following questions before supporting any constitutional change: 1.Is it necessary? 2.Is there an urgent need for this change? 3.What is the primary purpose behind it? 4.Will it make Australia better? 5.What will be the implementation process, and what are the potential implications?

[@jameshaslerbail]

In answer to your questions. 1) Yes it is necessary to address the inequities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians 2) No it hasn't been hurried, it's taken decades to reach this point 3) The purpose is to enshrine an advisory body for First Nations people in the constitution that will advise government on matters related to Indigenous Australians 4) Yes, Australia will be better. No harm can come from listening and the actions taken thus far have been ineffective. 5) The Voice does not have any powers to make or change existing laws, it is an advisory body only. The composition and operations of the Voice would change through normal parliamentary legislation (as any other law) based on the context of the time to ensure it is fit for purpose. There is no threat by enshrining a Voice. More than 70 university law academics and members of the National Integrity Committee say the Voice is 'not constitutionally risky'. It is supported by academics, health organisations, legal professionals, educators, policymakers and more.

[@paulw5039]

@@jameshaslerbail "The Voice does not have any powers to make or change existing laws, it is an advisory body only." Here's the catch 22: if it's just an advisory body and doesn't change any laws, why do we need to alter the constitution to implement it? If it does make new laws, exactly what will these laws be? No yes campaigner has been able to answer these questions. Your comment certainly doesn't, because you don't actually know. We're being asked to change the foundational legal document of Australia on the basis of vague, imprecise and unknown consequences. It's unacceptable.

[@jameshaslerbail]

@@paulw5039 I understand your concerrns. Here are the answers. It needs constitutional enshrinement because other bodies that have been setup in the past to represent Indigenous Australians have been decommissioned with successive governments. Constitutional enshrinement ensures this can't happen and there will always be some kind of representative advisory body for Indigenous Australians while it remains in the constitution. That longevity is very important because it will take time and consistency to improve health and wellbeing outcomes. It also saves a lot of money because it is very expensive to establish and decommission bodies every decade. In answer to your second question, it simply cannot make laws. It has absolutely no power to make any laws whatsoever. All it can do is provide advice to government and the parliament can either choose to accept or reject that advice. Any new laws have to go through the same process as any other law. If you read the constitution you will see that it is intentionally broad. There are no 'changes' being made, rather, a Voice is an 'addition' to the constitution. It has to remain broad because the details of how it operates will be decided through legislation. Australia would not want to enshrine specific details into the consitution because then Australia would have to have another referendum to change anything, which would be completely unfeasable.

[@jaqssmith1666]

@@jameshaslerbail Yes, I read the pamphlet too. why is it REALLY necessary? Your answer to five undermines any power the voice could have, so why is a powerless voice necessary? how is a body without the power to do anything going to address anything? Do you think the parliament just doesn't know about indigenous issues? That a quick reminder is all that's needed to close the gap?

[@lucky55399]

@@paulw5039 We're altering the constitution to ensure the voice/body is never removed, how its legislated is a different question but the advisory body will always exist in some form, giving Indigenous people their recognition and ability to have a say. You're fear mongering from unknown unknowns

[@sabejreid2072]

We did it and we still have to FIGHT to kick Albo out after his first DISASTROUS term. 🇦🇺🔥🇦🇺🔥🇦🇺🔥🎯

[@Mystie01]

Honour is earned; like the heroes who went to war to fight for our many freedoms, the engineers who designed and built this country, the hard working builders themselves, the family business owners, the scientists, doctors and teachers etc.

[@wakinglife7065]

Not cannibalistic savages who have an iq of 62 - all facts. Lie about every inch of their heritage. They didn’t even invent dot painting. We have had our education system hijacked with lies about how wonderful they are. They are warmongerers and literally savages.

[@susannewheatley7447]

John thank you 🙏🏻

[@ShillingEntertainment]

Vote No