Record voter turn-out is great for democracy

[@Rule-of-two]

I was a yes voter at the start. But this referendum has opened my eyes. I’ve learned a lot. What’s become clear to me is that there are already many advisory bodies that currently exist and billions that are currently spent trying to fix aboriginal issues every year. If all these groups and money haven’t made a difference how will the voice? There needs to be an urgent audit into where these billions are going!

[@AnotherDoug]

"If all these groups and money haven’t made a difference how will the voice?" - by providing advice from people with direct knowledge of the impact (or lack of impact) in the most disadvantaged communities. That is what is missing at present. The Yes Pamphlet has three real-world examples of how listening to the locals has helped. The Voice will spread that benefit across more than just these three examples. If an audit is needed, that can happen after a Yes vote as much as after a No vote.

[@Rule-of-two]

@@AnotherDoug and how will these individuals for the voice be chosen? And how much will they be paid? This has not be stated. ‘If’ and audit was needed, Over 100 groups who have failed to make a difference. I would think it would be better to find out what has gone wrong with the existing groups than to add another one. The main issue is that aboriginal issues are all painted with a broad brush. Disadvantages between Australians are more to do with the locations they are living in than their race.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@Rule-of-two ~ "how will these individuals for the voice be chosen?" - the Government has published the Voice Principles (voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles) so they (the Government) can be held accountable when the legislation is developed after a successful Referendum. The answer to your question (and possibly other questions) is there: "Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government." ~ " how much will they be paid" - remuneration is likely covered by the Remuneration Tribunal which has published "Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Part-time Public Office Determination 2023 Compilation No. 4" (www.remtribunal.gov.au/document-library-search/remuneration-tribunal-remuneration-and-allowances-holders-part-time-public-office-determination-2023-compilation-no-4). Looking at what members of Land Councils are paid, members will likely get $320 to $544 per day when meeting. ~ "Over 100 groups who have failed" source (credible) of this information, please.

[@mikem9001]

@@AnotherDoug There is zero mention of "advice" or "advisory" in the proposed amendment. Rather it gives the Voice power to make representations, and to all levels of government (including to individual officials and bureaucrats). The courts will enforce those representations because they are enshrined in the Constitution. Trust Labor on this? The Voice concept was created by the unrepresentative and stacked Uluru conference.

[@oztuber2]

@@AnotherDoug You keep telling lie after lie.. didn't your mob have 65,000 supposed years to get your backyard in order, yet the rest of the world civilized itself and built cities, health sytems, the whole kit and kaboodle... Its clear that uncle and aunty can't do anything to help themselves.. give it a rest you embarrass yourself every post... no wonder people will vote NO, it's the racist comments like yours that make everyone want this racist yes nonsense dead and buried

[@onlytimewilltell204]

If the Gov says yes then we say no l dont trust the corporation at all?

[@mbkimber]

I was born in South Africa and spent 34 years living under the Apartheid regime. I brought my family to Australia to get away from Apartheid 40 years ago. I will never vote for a system which will divide a country into racial groups. I have seen the results of such division. Yes, we have problems, but we can work them out together as Australians. And the irony is that the South African national anthem under Apartheid was called “Die Stem” in Afrikaans. Translated it means “The Voice “!

[@peterplotts1238]

I hope many Australians read your post. People all over the world should hear the essence of what you say.

[@oztuber2]

Well said.. and so interesting that Die Stem translates to The Voice, I wonder if we here called it that deliberately.... Great post.

[@AnotherDoug]

The Voice is the OPPOSITE of apartheid. Professor Dominic O'Sullivan from Charles Sturt University: "Apartheid and the Voice are polar opposites. The Voice is a path towards democratic participation, while apartheid eliminated any opportunity for this" Professor Ben Saul from University of Sydney: "apartheid involves the commission of inhuman acts (such as murder, torture, personal injury, arbitrary imprisonment, extermination, persecution, forced labour, denial of fundamental human rights, or exclusion from participation in political, social, economic and cultural life), for the purpose of one racial group maintaining systematic oppression and domination over another racial group." “The Voice does not in any way involve Indigenous Australians perpetrating any inhuman acts against other Australians, or establishing systematic oppression and domination over other Australians. Nor does it in any way involve non-Indigenous Australians perpetrating any inhuman acts against Indigenous Australians" www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/no-evidence-that-voice-will-create-apartheid-in-australia

[@mikem9001]

@@AnotherDoug What evidence is there of anything "democratic" about the Voice? Albo has refused to commit to its members being elected. Looking at the Calma-Langton report, it is clear that they won't be. The unrepresentative Voice will be stacked with the "correct-thinking" people, just as the Uluru Conference was. Those who ask real questions and care about indi9genous people, like Jacinta Price, will be excluded.

[@oztuber2]

@@AnotherDoug Oh dear 😁😁😁😁😁😁

[@graaaaaaaaaaaaay]

I'm one of the new Australians you are talking about. I have come from a country where the so called "Indigenous" people have treaty and allocated parliamentary seats. Despite this there is still complaints that it is not enough by certain activist groups. Will the "Voice" fix the issues in Australia, I don't believe so. I believe it will cause more divisions not just between Indigenous and non-indigenous but amongst indigenous people themselves

[@oztuber2]

yes you are 'one' of the new Australians that see sense..but many don't.. watch the interviews online with them and they believe all the hype that Aussies are racist against Aboriginals and they also go the way of the ''minority' argument being that they are too so side with the aboriginals. Not all of course as you are evidence of, but i bleieve the Yes vote will get many New Australians for those reasons. So I agree with most of your post.. bar the wording of 'indigenous' which is a huge problem word and part of the problem itself and I wish people would stop using it and use aborigine/al and not indigenous just to appease them. I am indigenous, i was born here, it is my native country and when people use the word indigenous to talk soley about aboriginals it 1. doesnt make sense in the correct understanding of the conversation, and 2. confuses people who don't see the difference... eg If i say the word 'indigenous' in a sentence talking to my friends who all also use it like myself correctly, and someone else is listening who is ignorant of the correct meaning of the word, they will assume incorrectly that i am talking about aborgines when I'm not, so then the conversation is like 2 people talking different topics without realising. You are a new Australian so probably unaware maybe... point is we who use it correctly probably get sick of having to convert everyones wrong usage of the word to have a convo... not having a go at you ..i agree with what you said.. all bar that word usage.

[@PFitz539]

@@oztuber2Wake up to yourself. You are not Indigenous so stop talking silly. You and I are obviously European Australians. Our heritage is European, our historical roots are in Europe. We cannot compare with a people who have been here for 65k years with 200 years. It’s silly talk your talk.

[@oztuber2]

@@PFitz539 65,000 years is a myth and ridiculous. there is no evidence of anything past 5000 years. That ridiculous number goes up a thousand years every year. it was 40,000 years when i was in Primary School.. get real You don't know my heritage why are you pretending you know, assuming I'm European, I have not said and you don't know. You don't seem to deal in facts, just false information you gullibly believe and assumption and guess work with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Regarding me being Indigenous i most certainly am. I was born here, this is my only home. that is the meaning of the word try looking up the meaning, which i have had to paste from Websters many times for ignorant people in the past.. but you can do your own homework instead of just believing naively what fake TV tells you. You sound like the perfect candidate to fall for the 'Truth' part of the Yes campains nonsense. If you class heritage as some form of evidence that one is not indigenous to Australia, then aborigines are not indigenous either, as they are from South India and parts of Asia. who came here 4,300 years ago and wiped out those before them. So you are just ignorant and need to study some before you talk.

[@managerialelitetoaster3456]

Correct.

[@Will-nb8qk]

Speculation is a horrible means for attempting to gauge effectiveness of a given proposition.

[@cobar5342]

The figures you quote are encouraging. Our Democracy is a precious item and worthy of respect. I am a 'No' voter but I really want Jacinta Price to be Prime Minister for many reasons, including her ability to define the real issues that aboriginal Australians face.

[@managerialelitetoaster3456]

It's already fraudulent.

[@jonathanodude6660]

it hasnt even happened yet@@managerialelitetoaster3456

[@mikem9001]

Well said.

[@oztuber2]

tbh i lost hope in all aboriginals years back, in my circles they hated whites no matter who i met.. they sometimes pretended to like whites until another aboriginal appeared then they would mock us and laugh at white Aussies and straight up tell you that those who are apologetic to them they laugh at and think of them as doing their work for them in regard to getting them the perks they want.. they befriended to get something then laughed and still do this.. this is 100% a thing. So i'd lost hope in all and it wasn't until I heard Jacinta Price that i finally got some hope back. She is amazing..and was the first aboriginal since i was a kid and had no issues with them whatsoever (as it should be .. like kids), But then others started showing..little by little.. mostly remote aboriginals not city aboriginals who are all for what they can get (not all). this man on this video.. i could sit and chat with him not a problem and pinch his biscuits and get on like a house on fire i think)..... but until Jacinta.. i basically lost hope that all Aborigines were to gain..and i still believe most are dont get me wrong. I live near many and they want the voice in for control and to gain.. they are the only people i know who does want yes in..... but Jacinta for PM.. no not that far...but in saying that Id take almost anybody over Albanee the worst PM in Australias history.. the Biden, Zelenski, Trudeau, of Australia... I'd love Trump or Italy's Maloni

[@managerialelitetoaster3456]

Meloni is a globalist plant. Said she'd do something about immigration and is now facilitating the invasion. @@oztuber2

[@johneducatemyself5249]

Good point, not enough education in our school system about how the political system works.

[@downtoearth1950]

My postal vote went in Today.....I proudly voted "NO"....... 😊😊😊😊😊❤

[@johndunn4182]

Well done and congratulations..... All my friends and relatives are also voting NO.

[@gloriapascoe2614]

You can proudly look in the mirror and say I have listened to propoganda and not FACTS WHAT HAVE I DONE.

[@johndunn4182]

@@gloriapascoe2614 We are attending a party on Saturday night to celebrate the NO victory. Hahahaha.

[@johnphelps9788]

I am trawling through whatever I can find about the voice referendum to test my own thoughts against the yes and no propaganda . This site is the only one I have found without a barrow to push. You have been giving us an unemotional and unbiased opinion on what the referendum is all about and you encourage us to do our own research rather than browbeat us with dubious 'facts'. The zealots on both sides of the debate would do well to follow your example.

[@oztuber2]

if you want the 28 pages explained well google credlin 28pages...should get all you need to see how evil YES is..

[@AnotherDoug]

"without a barrow to push" - that is not correct. This site is pushing a No vote (subtly, but is doing it)

[@tg5834]

The Voice mob have brought this on. Patriotic Australians are challenging the racial entitlments and division. Look at other countries with their big problems caused by division of ethnicity and race. Albanese leads us down this path. Please reject it by voting NO.

[@tg5834]

​@@AnotherDougIf it appears that way to you, it is because you can see for yourself, that there is nothing good to say about voting Yes.

[@oztuber2]

The referendum is to see if Aussies want aborigines to have a voice that they already have through democratic voting as they are already over represented in Parliament with a voice THE ULURU STATEMENT This statement is the reason for the Referendum. A small percentage of aboriginals along with the PM, wish to and I quote "" seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country'' The thing is they already have a place in this country and get more benefits than non aboriginals, ie FREE legals, housing, UNIVERSITY, education, etc etc etc. (discriminatory and racist). They used to get a shoe allowance once.. Not sure if that still exists. THE ULURU STATEMENT: Is sown in lies and extraordinary claims. . Claiming that they were sovereign nations in Australia. How were they nations? They were groups of uncivilized tribes killing each other off at alarming rates. They claim they possessed this land by their OWN laws. (yet they killed out the people before them after they arrived 4,300 years ago) Genocide much? It claims science proves 60,000year inhabitation yet science through DNA has proven only 4,300 years. So they lie about that and do so every year the number grows by 1000 years. This 'sovereignty' is a notion.. Built on their religion. They claim this 'sovereignty' has disappeared because of White man and yet believe it should come back.. An impossibility if it were indeed lost in the first place…. Proving the religions and customs still exist and nobody is trying to take that away from them at all. It disagrees with the legal system in claiming that aboriginals are unfairly incarcerated in large numbers. This only proves that the crime rates of aboriginals is far more per capita than non aboriginals..which is on them. Do the crime do the time. It claims that aboriginal kids are alienated by their families..while statistics show that harm and neglect are from their own families and they reject help often from non aboriginals trying to help. They claim they are powerless to help themselves, this is not lack of power its lack of desire to. It claims to seek constitutional reforms to empower them to take their rightful place in the Country.. A place they have already and with more privileges than anybody else. The ULURU STATEMENT says.. Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda The word MAKARRATA means TREATY So TREATY is the CULMINATION of their AGENDA And finally,, It goes on to quote :: ""We seek a Makarrata (TREATY) Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history."" TRUTH TELLING (part 3 of the agenda) The changing of REAL History into one that shows Settlers and their ancestors as evil murderous barbarians. Which is already being taught in the Education System, which is disgusting and a disgrace. So there is the EVIDENCE from the ULURU STATEMENT itself showing that it is what is what the YES CAMPAIGN are voting for in this RACIST REFERRRENDUM A 3 part agenda admitted in the VOICE itself because they state that the voice is to do with the agenda of the ULURU STATEMENT which these points are taken from.

[@selectpestprice1692]

It's a hard NO from me ❤

[@danielbrennan5976]

Congratulations on an impressive QandA appearance, Wesley. I think the ideas and arguments you put forward were very strong and ought to be properly answered by the Yes campaign.

[@JJCP95]

Wes, great point about people supporting a concept/proposal but not necessarily the wording on the ballot paper 👍 Ps. I love shortbread creams.

[@gloriapascoe2614]

YOU ARE ILL INFORMED AND CLUELESS

[@wayneandjansanders4657]

Thank you for your information Wes.Take care!

[@mariaalicec.branco1271]

By listening to your clips , I did a research on Governmemt website and found the Uluru Statement of the heart and its manifesto as part of document 14. A total of 26 pages. Including discussions is 112 pages. Very interesting and it really force me to critically reflect on it and already decided which way to vote. Thank you.

[@AnotherDoug]

To complete your education: we are NOT voting on the Uluru Statement from the Heart (whether it is one 1 page or 1000 pages). We are voting on Constitutional recognition of the First Peoples of Australia and an ADVISORY body called the Voice. That is it. Nothing else in the Uluru Statement is involved.

[@mikem9001]

@@AnotherDoug Eveything in the Uluru Statement is involved. Albo won't tell us how the Voice wil be constituted or chosen, nor what its other details are. He already knows, of course, and the details are set out in the full Uluru Statement and in the Calma-Langton report.

[@oztuber2]

@@AnotherDoug this is another LIE.. you get your info from the ABC, not real news... anyone voting yes is voting for racism. .its that simple

[@tg5834]

​@@AnotherDougPeople know what they are voting on, but are concerned about the unknown consequences. That is why it is best to vote NO

[@harleydavo1099]

Thanks for a middle of the road walkthrough the referendum issues. Both sides have become polarised and it makes it hard to make an informed decision. Keep going.

[@phillipcollier1766]

Love your work - should be more of it and taught in schools

[@DennisOnshaw]

Very intelligent analysis...thank you

[@whatdoesfreedomlooklike]

When I was young I hated that voting was compulsory. I had no interest in politics so why should I have to vote. Now that I am older I am so grateful that we do have compulsory voting because it's the rational politically disinterested majority that is keeping the political extremists at bay.

[@ThomasLouttit]

What makes the "politically disinterested" rational, and the politically interested not?

[@whatdoesfreedomlooklike]

I did not claim that one thing leads to the other thing. @ThomasLouttit

[@ThomasLouttit]

@@whatdoesfreedomlooklike Good point, so please let me rephrase my question so you can better understand its intent. What makes the "politically disinterested" rational?

[@whatdoesfreedomlooklike]

My point was that most Australians are politically disinterested and most Australians are rational. There is no specific causal relationship between political disinterest and rationality. Given the option to not vote however most politically disinterested people probably would not leaving a higher percentage of the votes coming from political extremists. I will posit however that there is likely an inverse relationship between political extremism and rationality. @@ThomasLouttit

[@ThomasLouttit]

@@whatdoesfreedomlooklike I am still not sure who you are referring to when you mention political extremists? Are they, the politically interested or a small subset of this group? Who would you class as a political extremist and what percentage of the population would you place them at?

[@andreaconnelly3799]

Thank you Wesley 🙏

[@chrisheggie952]

Always an interesting and informative site, thanks Wesley. Looking forward to your commentary after the result is announced irrespective of outcome.

[@oldcodger70]

Wes, love your videos. The Albanese govt should have done this. One topic I have noticed that no one has covered is the fact that only tribal elders can speak for the tribe. On Sunday's Outsiders a tribal elder reiterated this and said that this was the reason that he and his tribe would be voting no. So if The Voice cant speak for the tribes what is the point of creating it.

[@michaelmurchie2248]

Thank you for your simple, informative videos!

[@jonh9561]

Good point, the yes / no referendum is being put to us as a simple binary choice, when in fact the details behind individual decsicions is likely to be much more nuanced.

[@tonybloomfield5635]

Amazing job putting up with Patricia Karvelas on Q and A. Over the years the ABC has had a good number of biased and therefore dislikeable hosts, but she takes the cake (or biscuit).

[@ronnorman1409]

Keep up the good work, that was really good content and well explained 👍

[@gregherman5017]

just vote NO that is all

[@normanmazlin6741]

I think that there are more young people registered these days because everyone is far more interconnected through social media and the internet. Back when i was 20, we didn't even have mobile phones to connect us, so not being registered in the 'system' was much easier and was more the norm. Not sure that having so may young, inexperienced people deciding the future of the country is such a good thing as older, wiser and more cautious is often better in the long run.

[@PeterCarblis]

Thank you for your balanced, even-handed and rigorous approach.

[@mariaalicec.branco1271]

Thank you. Love your sessions. An open eye.❤

[@carldavid1558]

Great information. I’m now realising why the federal government is so keen on supporting this referendum. It’s what politicians hope for. Numbers.

[@AnotherDoug]

Numbers of what?

[@tg5834]

​@@AnotherDougLabor voters.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@tg5834 You aren't @carldavid1558

[@tg5834]

​​@@AnotherDougThe OP doesn't know how dumb you are.

[@allanhunt194]

Thanks Wesley for your common-sense approach to this issue. My belief is that our Indigenous population are very much appreciated, well respected and their culture help make Australia stand out as a place that is considered one of only a few places to come here and hopefully call home. We are a multi-cultural nation due to those from so many different countries / cultures that have chosen Australia as their new home and Australia has welcomed them with open arms. This referendum, whether on purpose or by accident has created division but as you say, whether to vote yes or no on October 14th. or before has created angst and a level of division that has only been identified as being worthy of reporting by the various forms of media that have ultimately caused division throughout the nation. I believe the reason for this rests with the current government led by the PM. There is so much that can be written about the current situation as it is today, one could write a book about the last few months and leading up to the referendum vote. There needs to be a meaningful review after the October 14th vote of what has transpired as a lead up the the referendum vote so that this situation of division and poor behaviour never happens again. We are so much better than this. Hopefully future governments will understand what this government has created.

[@AnotherDoug]

The Referendum is no more divisive then a football grand final. The day after the grand final, and the Referendum, any divisiveness disappears.

[@allanhunt194]

@@AnotherDoug Thanks for your thought Doug but this referendum has stirred up much angst and it's to do with the level that we Aussies live our lives. It's not a sports grad final that we all want our team to win. This is everyday life and what a divided nation can become because one group of Aussies have a different set of rules than another. This referendum is serious stuff. If you're an eligible voter, vote with some thought and not just a feeling.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@allanhunt194 No-one has "a different set of rules than another." Some are currently quite disadvantaged, to such an extent (and for so long) that their life span is an average 8 years less than the non-indigenous average. The Voice is about making thew voice of those disadvantaged a little bit louder (just like any lobby group)

[@tg5834]

​@@AnotherDougYour misleading comments are almost comical.

[@entershikarii]

The divisiveness of this referendum is palpable and I don’t think it will end after 14 Oct, especially if the more than likely event that NO succeeds, the losers will not like it and will throw a huge tant consistent with their form so far. 😞

[@brettlane6908]

Bloody well said 👍👍👍👍 Marcia Langdon should listen to you!!!

[@longway1]

Haven't heard much from marcia for a while they must have stopped her helping the no vote.

[@ragamuffin8976]

That's me mate, a no vote but see a crying need to help all Australians to be able to participate in of the land of opportunity

[@AnotherDoug]

"see a crying need to help all Australians" - you see this but don't see the Closing the Gap targets not closing and you are happy for that to continue.

[@tg5834]

​@@AnotherDougHe said AII Australians.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@tg5834 You are not @ragamuffin8976

[@tg5834]

​@@AnotherDougSo?

[@kinarrakid5036]

Thank you for another critical and balanced viewpoint, Wes.

[@Mevlinous]

What’s funny is, this referendum has proved that actually, indigenous people DO have a voice, the choice in voting, AND if we are all lucky enough to preserve it, the right to free speech. That is the true voice which needs to be preserved.

[@AnotherDoug]

Free speech is not in danger.

[@tg5834]

​@@AnotherDougNot in danger here at least, says Doug the misleading Voice troll, in delusional celebration.

[@Mevlinous]

@@AnotherDoughave you heard of the new misinformation and disinformation laws the government are pushing through. They relate to social media and can censor any comment which they disagree with. What about dissenting voices, especially on controversial topics. What about issues of corruption? No government should have that power. That IS the power to dictate what is true or what is false. Go and read 1984 by George Orwell if you haven’t already. Specifically look for the “ministry of truth”. That is what is being set up here. Don’t say you’ve read it already. No person who’s read that book could possibly look at the current situation without a view of skepticism and fear of Authoritarian control of the population.

[@cimmerianj8997]

Hey Wes, thanks for another thought-provoking video. Especially the context on the last referendum (which I'm too young to remember). You raise a really interesting point about specific proposal vs. general principle. Because Yes campaigners seem to insist on the opposite of what you say: that we're voting for/against just the idea of a Voice, so the details (or lack thereof) shouldn't matter to us. However it's that lack of detail which, maybe, has some of us who were leaning towards Yes back off a little way. If your example of the last referendum is accurate, specifics really matter. If I can make a request ... Another Yes talking point is that 83% of Aboriginal & TSI people support the Voice, therefore the rest of us should too. I think I recall you saying, in a reply to a comment on one of your other videos, that you had a problem with the 83% figure: I'd be interested to hear you elaborate on that. Thanks again, really appreciate your thoughts, and the tea and bickies of course ☕

[@AnotherDoug]

"specific proposal vs. general principle." - the 1999 Republic Referendum was also about the principles 1) of becoming a republic and 2) how the president would be selected. The legislative detail, same as for the Voice, would have been passed through Parliament after a successful Referendum. The Voice Referendum is similar: two connected principles 1) Constitutional recognition for First Peoples and 2) an advisory body called the Voice. Aside from the information in the proposed Constitutional change itself, the Government has published Voice Principles on which the legislation will be based. voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles

[@tg5834]

​​@@AnotherDougWho do you think you are? hijacking this channel, no one is interested in anything you have to say, troll.

[@tbpal7114]

Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom. Thank you so much for being so wise. Yayyy shortbread cream ❤️

[@ThomasLouttit]

Great point about the lack of citizenship education in today's school system, it was my favorite subject back in high school, however, I must admit it was not so keenly received by a big percentage of other students. What about the humble custard creams, or is that just way too square?

[@dominicgalante9753]

VOTE NO

[@212Nippa]

Thankyou Wesley Aird and your KISS approach. My starting point is the following and the rest is pretty simple :- In Australia there are three levels of government which consists of the Federal Government, each State and territory governments and each State and Territory is broken up into local government areas (councils). All these levels of governments are made up of representatives elected by the people. The remit for ALL of theses representatives is to serve the needs of All the constituents of their electorates at their Federal, States and Territory and local Government areas of responsibility. Australians are therefore represented by about 6, 734 elected representatives who all have a voice in all of their respective parliaments across this nation. These representatives all have sworn obligations to represent ALL OF THE CONSTITUENTS they represent regardless of their race, religion political affiliation, economic circumstances or any other affiliation they may have an interest in. Today, the right to vote and therefore make representations at federal, state and local levels of government is enjoyed by ALL citizens of Australia over the age of 18 years. It’s Democracy, a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a nation state.

[@kerrynball2734]

The Shortbreads are out: Keep up the good work.

[@sticksfaz5413]

Great video yet again, and you’ve got my favourite biscuits. I’m having one with my tea while watching this video👍

[@lostbutfreesoul]

The only problem I have with our system is the lack of Abstaining. Not just having the ability to say none of the people listed are good choices, but the lack of ability to have your vote end at the choice you want it to end is the problem. There are many ways to abuse a system that forces the voter to behave in a certain way. Right now the Political parties can do some back-room dealings right before the elections, pledge to give each other their run off votes for political kick backs, and tilt things into their favour. All because you have two choices: Give the party your vote (select one and only one) or Order every candidate (even when there can be over a hundred of them!) Once you force people to the poles and give them a fast choice and a slow choice.... the majority go the fast route to get out of there, seeing they never wanted to be there in the first place. Decades of political apathy in Australia led to decades of back room deals and political parties making sure *their votes* (not yours) go to the two major parties in the end. All because we don't have the ability to say "First, Second, Third choice... and no further."

[@AnotherDoug]

~ "There are many ways to abuse a system that forces the voter to behave in a certain way." - what behaviour - to vote? How does forcing people to vote create opportunities for abuse? ~ "pledge to give each other their run off votes for political kick backs" - I think you are confusing parties "giving" preferences to each other with some illegal activity. Voters are no longer subjected to these preference deals. We use a system of optional preferential voting which means each voter can override any preference deal made by any party at the ballot box. ~ "Order every candidate (even when there can be over a hundred of them!)" - no election requires you to number all candidates when there are that many. House of Reps, you number every candidate but there are never 100 of them. Senate ballot papers only require you to number a designated number of preferences (see www.aec.gov.au/learn/preferential-voting.htm) ~ "seeing they never wanted to be there in the first place" - don't attribute voter laziness with some "back-room" conspiracy.

[@BlinkyBill_]

Ok so why should they get a Free seat in parliment iff the issues they represent are that important we should vote for them accordingly not give them a free pass liek we have for decades no way this bullshit passes

[@gregorythompson5826]

Please don't post incoherent rubbish when you are drunk.

[@AnotherDoug]

The Voice is an ADVISORY body - it is NOT a seat in Parliament.

[@tg5834]

It is much worse than a free seat in parliament. The Voice would be an undemocraticly chosen body eminating from an exclusive race based chapter in the Constitution, and be able to overide our democraticly elected parliment in the high Court. We MUST vote NO.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@tg5834 Everything you have said in this post is incorrect.

[@tg5834]

@@AnotherDoug Everything you have said on this channel is incorrect

[@sarkastodon30]

I fully support indigenous Australians and them been on this land for thousands maybe 10s of thousands years. You have to respect that. Were they the "first peoples"? That's a little unclear and cannot be outright proven or not. Who was first? Many separate migrations happened. Reports of pygmy people being present have also been documented by neutral sources, such foreign sailors. More info has come out about Homo floriensis, so it's possible they were first. So I cannot agree with the wording let alone a divisive 'advisory' group either.

[@mikem9001]

Well said.

[@AnotherDoug]

How is an ADVISORY body "divisive"?

[@mikem9001]

@@AnotherDoug There is zero mention of "advice" or "advisory" in the proposed amendment. Rather it gives the Voice power to make representations, and to all levels of government (including to individual officials and bureaucrats). The courts will enforce those representations because they are enshrined in the Constitution. Trust Labor on this? The Voice concept was created by the unrepresentative and stacked Uluru conference.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@mikem9001 ~ "make representations" is the same as "give advice". If you don't believe me I suggest you consult: - the Explanatory Memorandum which accompanied the Constitution Alteration Bill in Parliament - multiple references to "advice" or "view", but specifically on page 11, paragraph 12: "A representation would communicate the Voice’s view on a matter relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples." - the Attorney-General's Second Reading Speech - multiple references to the Voice giving "advice". I can provide links. - the Solicitor-General's Opinion on the proposed Constitutional change multiple references to the Voice giving "advice". I can provide links. ~ "The courts will enforce" - the courts will not enforce anything as Parliament will write the Voice legislation so that Parliament will be empowered to determine the legal effect of representations made by the Voice. The Voice will not be able to challenge the Government or Parliament in any court.

[@longway1]

Watched albo on insiders today he seems to be in a world of confusion. It sounded like he doesn't want to listen to first peoples unless it in the constitution.

[@leandabee]

I have been waiting for one more video before the big day. Hope you are well?

[@AGoogleUser-im2xw]

no

[@Josma432]

You have such a calm reasonable view to this referendum. I only wish everyone could be like this. A pipe dreams I guess 😅

[@mahls93]

Shortbread creams are the best!

[@KingComputerSydney]

Hey Wes, I vote Yes to you producing more content.

[@oztuber2]

the city aboriginals and young people at a high isn't great, nor the new Australians who are taught we are racist and go with the minority... but still yes has no chance.. I'm still to hear one person i know or meet in the street that is voting yes. and everyone is staunchly no and very vocal about it. As for supporting the idea that is a HUGE NO as well.. I and everyone else mentioned 100% reject the idea as well of what is asked in the question.. because the question relates to the voice which in the 28pages is about a voice aboriginals already have plus reparations and paying rent on our own land and changing history to make non aboriginals murderers etc.. A HUGE NO to every part of that nonsense. For any voting yes they should watch Peta Credlin v Sky's Chris Smith about the 28 page document especially section 14

[@AnotherDoug]

~ "relates to the voice which in the 28pages" - we are not voting for 1 page, 28 pages or 1000 pages. We are voting for Constitutional recognition and creation of an ADVISORY body called the Voice. ~ "reparations and paying rent" - the Voice would have no role in negotiating anything to do with treaty or reparations. In fact, since Mundine (leader of the No Campaign) and Thorpe have both said they want the Voice to fail at the Referendum so that the "real work" on treaty can begin, it proves that a vote for the Voice will have NO IMPACT on Treaty plans at all

[@oztuber2]

@@AnotherDoug WRONG... that is the natative the Yes campaign is pushing..but it is clear that the voice is part 1 of 3 of the agenda to bring in Treaty and reparations and paying the rent.. and teaching fake history to kids. You watch too much MSM and the left extremists pushing BS. You are so far from the facts it's embarrassing

[@johncandy6508]

Hey Wesley, great work as usual! You were great at last weeks QandA as well despite a tough crowd. Id love your perspective on the following: Much of the focus on the voice has been on closing the gap and non-stop discussions about colonisation and the Stolen generation. Do you think the temperature of our discourse would be turned down if the discussions centred more on preserving culture, language, and helping share the good of tradition? Noal P kinda touched on this but I think even he is too affraid to not keep the 'we are victims' discourse. Hope that makes sense? typing on phone Thanks brother

[@lecolintube]

I’m keen to explore those biscuits 🍪

[@seanmcardle]

I wonder whether abstaining in protest at the divisive question has merit.

[@tg5834]

No, there is merit in rejecting division, and doing your patriotic duty by supporting equality for all Australians, by voting NO.

[@mathish1477]

Ive just read the international convention on eliminating racial discrimination - im now wondering how this referendum is even legal - excerpt : Article 1 1. In this Convention, the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. 2. This Convention shall not apply to distinctions, exclusions, restrictions or preferences made by a State Party to this Convention between citizens and non-citizens. 3. Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting in any way the legal provisions of States Parties concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization, provided that such provisions do not discriminate against any particular nationality. 4. Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved.

[@AnotherDoug]

The Explanatory Memorandum that accompanied the Constitution Alteration Bill says on the bottom of page 7 and on page 8 - it outlines all the international human rights conventions that the proposed change meets.

[@mathish1477]

@@AnotherDoug Yes I read it. It doesn't justify any change (using argument, reason, or evidence), it simply states that it's consistent - it clearly isn't. Technically it's a lie by omission.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@mathish1477 "it simply states that it's consistent" - making a statement like that is not a "lie by omission". If it is a lie, it is blatant. I'm not sure what authority you have to say that "it clearly isn't" consistent. For a start, if it isn't, then the "Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011" is about to be breached and the Opposition would have been all over it - they have not. Each of the following are monitored by the United Nations and we have not heard from them that the Voice proposal breaches any of these: ~ The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. ~ The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. ~ The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ~ The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of racial Discrimination.

[@entershikarii]

@@mathish1477​​⁠That’s often the issue, proponents only make assertions without providing substantive reasoning like a proper argument. Listing documents is simply padding but not really citing how the proposal complies.

[@rosiebookallil2530]

What happens if you don't vote at all ..??

[@tg5834]

The question is wrong. It promotes division. Please support equality for all Australians, and vote No.

[@sirskyr]

It's mandatory in Aus, you may end up with a fine for not voting. Though this is one of the most important events in shaping Australia so it's important that you do vote and do it while understanding what the cost benefits for each choice is. I am personally voting No for many many reasons but fundamentally I am against providing special privileges to one group of people over another.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@sirskyr Your disadvantaged group too could have a Voice (although not in the Constitution), if your group also puts in the hard work similar to that done by representatives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who did the hard yards over 10 + years to get sufficient support - both across Australia and with a major political party - for their proposal. Any other group of disadvantaged Australians can do exactly the same thing. If they can gather enough support, they too, could have a Voice. Nothing is stopping them.

[@sirskyr]

@@AnotherDoug that's just the wrong perspective though just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean that you should. By all means vote Yes if that is what you believe however if this was truly an advisory body it would be written as such however the wording of the amendment includes the conferral of powers. We are all Australian and to give extra political rights that also has 24 unelected politicians that will be chosen by elites for elites is absolutely ludicrous. There are 500 separate aboriginal communities, these people are not who is going to be helped or represented it is going to be the people who have the loudest voices. Our local MP's are meant to be our representatives and the very nature of this amendment is undemocratic. All the best to you.

[@tg5834]

​@@sirskyrYou will have to wait a while for Dougs next misleading reply. I believe he is on Beijing or Moscow time.

[@chxroy9825]

Where do you get shortbead creams from , regards

[@chapmansbg]

Wording: 'To alter the constitution to recognise first peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres straight islander voice". There are no legal definitions of any of these terms. This in itself is allowing somebody else to determine what exactly each of these terms will mean. This by itself is divisive and dishonest.

[@tg5834]

Any law firm can seek definition rulings from the High Court with regard to the contested legal meanings of words. There are more than 600 aborigonal lawyers in Australia.

[@chapmansbg]

@@tg5834 why should it be up to private individuals or law firms?

[@tg5834]

@@chapmansbg No one knows, who might seek definitions, to change how the unknown Voice body would operate, lawyers representing politicions, activist groups, mining magnates.

[@chapmansbg]

@@tg5834 and?

[@tg5834]

@@chapmansbg and what? It's too unknown and risky to be in the Constitution. Just vote NO

[@oztuber2]

INDIG'ENOUS, adjective [Latin indigena, supra.] 1. Native; born in a country; applied to persons.

[@AnotherDoug]

Then just say "Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander"

[@AnotherDoug]

3:47 "But voting 'yes' doesn’t have to mean all three." 4:10 "the trifecta of Voice, Treaty and Truth-telling." - Voting yes has zero direct impact on treaty and truth. The Voice will only be able to provide advice to the Government. The Voice will not have any power to negotiate Treaty or Truth-telling. In fact, since Mundine and Thorpe have both said they want the Voice to fail at the Referendum so that the "real work" on treaty can begin, it proves that a vote for the Voice will have NO IMPACT on Treaty plans at all

[@tg5834]

Wrong again, as usual: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ap_TqpyNmcerfqcsi=Pf-aJ-oxDzy0rDyk kzbin.info/www/bejne/qmOtY4aYd7x6eLMsi=Cn_gRWXq2v1sMH5O

[@oztuber2]

voting yes DOES mean all 3 as stated by all the inventers OF the voice itself.. and the first page of the 28 itself

[@AnotherDoug]

@@oztuber2 We are NOT voting on anything said by any "inventors". We are NOT voting on anything on page 1 or page 28 or page 1000 of the Uluru Statement. We ARE voting on the question in the Referendum for Constitutional recognition by creating an (ADVISORY-only) body called the Voice. The leader of the No Campaign (Mundine) has himself said that he wants the Voice Referendum to fail so that the "real work" on treaties can begin. Does that sound like the Voice is an essential part of the "trifecta"?

[@oztuber2]

@@AnotherDoug NONSENSE…. You are brainwashed by really bad information by the racist yes campaign. Aboriginals ALREADY have a Voice in Parliament. They are actually OVER represented in number. And they are DEMOCRATICALY voted in.. Not just selected by a mob that nobody knows about or votes in. You seem to be against democracy as is the PM who promotes this racism. The Voice IS part 1 of a 3 part plan, as stated by those leading the Yes campaign. They have admitted time and time again that getting a 'voice' through parliament is not their main aim… it is the first part in getting non aboriginals to pay the rent… pay reparations for things we have not done, pay fees to go to our own beaches on our own Countrys land, that goes for parks and most everything Then comes 'TRUTH' which is changing what kids learn about our history,, and telling LIES about how non aboriginals tried to wipe out aboriginals (not help them as they have), They want non aboriginals to look like genocidal psychopaths that hate aboriginals. These are all part of the VOICE.. You can't even explain what the voice means in your opinion.. You just say the word 'voice' as if it has no meaning. If it was just a voice of Aborigines,, that is HERE ALREADY. You know deep down I believe that is for all racists and you want it in because you will benefit from it.. it is a takeover attempt that will cause riots, civil war,. There is a saying about being careful what you wish for..you might just get it… then you will regret it and what you claim the settlers were trying to do might just come about. There is only so much people will take before they fight back. Next post I will go through what the voice is proposing for all to see.

[@oztuber2]

@@AnotherDoug The referendum is to see if Aussies want aborigines to have a voice that they already have through democratic voting as they are already over represented in Parliament with a voice THE ULURU STATEMENT This statement is the reason for the Referendum. A small percentage of aboriginals along with the PM, wish to and I quote "" seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country'' The thing is they already have a place in this country and get more benefits than non aboriginals, ie FREE legals, housing, UNIVERSITY, education, etc etc etc. (discriminatory and racist). They used to get a shoe allowance once.. Not sure if that still exists. THE ULURU STATEMENT: Is sown in lies and extraordinary claims. . Claiming that they were sovereign nations in Australia. How were they nations? They were groups of uncivilized tribes killing each other off at alarming rates. They claim they possessed this land by their OWN laws. (yet they killed out the people before them after they arrived 4,300 years ago) Genocide much? It claims science proves 60,000year inhabitation yet science through DNA has proven only 4,300 years. So they lie about that and do so every year the number grows by 1000 years. This 'sovereignty' is a notion.. Built on their religion. They claim this 'sovereignty' has disappeared because of White man and yet believe it should come back.. An impossibility if it were indeed lost in the first place…. Proving the religions and customs still exist and nobody is trying to take that away from them at all. It disagrees with the legal system in claiming that aboriginals are unfairly incarcerated in large numbers. This only proves that the crime rates of aboriginals is far more per capita than non aboriginals..which is on them. Do the crime do the time. It claims that aboriginal kids are alienated by their families..while statistics show that harm and neglect are from their own families and they reject help often from non aboriginals trying to help. They claim they are powerless to help themselves, this is not lack of power its lack of desire to. It claims to seek constitutional reforms to empower them to take their rightful place in the Country.. A place they have already and with more privileges than anybody else. The ULURU STATEMENT says.. Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda The word MAKARRATA means TREATY So TREATY is the CULMINATION of their AGENDA And finally,, It goes on to quote :: ""We seek a Makarrata (TREATY) Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history."" TRUTH TELLING (part 3 of the agenda) The changing of REAL History into one that shows Settlers and their ancestors as evil murderous barbarians. Which is already being taught in the Education System, which is disgusting and a disgrace. So there is the EVIDENCE from the ULURU STATEMENT itself showing that it is what is what the YES CAMPAIGN are voting for in this RACIST REFERRRENDUM A 3 part agenda admitted in the VOICE itself because they state that the voice is to do with the agenda of the ULURU STATEMENT which these points are taken from.

[@gregorymcleod]

Shortbread cream have not tried them yet but like short bread biscuits but they are terrible dunkers.

[@SethEvans-r2j]

Ironically indigenous incarnation don't vote. Yuwa, wiya transcendental!

[@leandabee]

I was going to say they were custard creams, oh well, can't be right all the time 😃.

[@francesblabey3055]

Taste delicious

[@johnandandreacampbell2974]

Have you ever thought of going into politics? Canberra desperately needs clear thinking, good communication, and a good sense of humour!!!

[@graaaaaaaaaaaaay]

I have a question. If this "voice" is created and being on the "voice" council/board (what ever it will be called) is an elected position, elected by only Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, does that mean we will be forced to have a Race Registry? If so then isn't that a form of apartheid? And how do you prove/dis-prove ones race? Will they be subjected to DNA testing or will just identifying suffice?

[@tg5834]

Read page 6 of your referendum booklet. The government can stack it with whoever they want. They would already have a list but won't tell us. Most likely be all trouble makers, like self-identify aboriginals who know whats best for real aboriginals.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@tg5834 Check the Voice Principles (voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles): "Members of the Voice would be selected by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, not appointed by the Executive Government."

[@tg5834]

​@@AnotherDoug Read page 6 of your referendum booklet. Chapter IX 129 ( 111) The Parliament shall have the power to make laws with respect to the composition of the Voice body, etc. We are voting on a Constitutional alteration, not on whatever you say, in your relentless quest to mislead people.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@tg5834 So, when I provide a credible source, it is misleading. But you write with no credible source, you are 100% correct?

[@tg5834]

​@@AnotherDougRead my previous comment.

[@bernardvecchio3704]

love shortbread lol

[@paulthompson2139]

Another good video plus short bread cream biscuits. I’m happy with recognition and short bread cream biscuits. I’m not happy with this Canberra voice. Something more local is needed. One size does not fit all indigenous communities across this big country. Remote communities need to be a priority.

[@allmighty736]

Seen you on Q&A on the ABC! The two of you couldn't even come to an agreement on what the voice is going to entail! So what's it gonna be like if the voice goes in and changes the constitution? it's just going to get worse, where you can't agree on a simple things 😅😅😅

[@nevillemanno4912]

Vote NO, is the only way to go for this Racist Voice? What is needed, is an Audit, on the Billions wasted each year?

[@AnotherDoug]

Not racist.

[@tg5834]

​@@AnotherDougHow is it not racist.

[@oztuber2]

@@AnotherDoug it's 100% racist.. ALL yes voters are racist, there is no way around that.

[@aussiedudeofthesoutheast789]

What's not helping are yes voters shaming no voters into saying a no vote is to be anti indigenous. Even being racist. I really don't like the way the government is handling this referendum. If it were about making sure all indigenous Australians can vote, equal rights. Supporting those who are living in difficult circumstances. Providing support for those who want to move to higher opportunistic areas. I'd vote yes. But for now I'm voting no cause it looks like a mish mash reason and I want to see a better clearer deal for all.

[@bernardvecchio3704]

I Feel for you, the way you were spoken to during Q & A. shamefull

[@longway1]

QandA has had comments open on KZbin for some time after alot of comments on the latest shows very poor and bias treatment of Wess and Dan they have shut down comments they obviously dont like people disagreeing with their agenda.

[@AnotherDoug]

Tehan demonstrated that he doesn't understand the Constitution - which is alarming and appalling for a professional politician

[@longway1]

@@AnotherDoug Whether Dan Tehan understands the constitution or not is irrelevant to how unprofessional and rude the QandA host was to both Wess and Dan.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@longway1 So, a federal politician who was a Minister for 6 years and in the Cabinet chooses to misrepresent the Voice and its interaction with the Constitution - but you think the only important thing is that the interviewer was rude?

[@longway1]

@@AnotherDoug No l also thing that you have very little under standing of the constitution or how the legal system works in Australia consistently raving about how someone's opinion is why the voice can't challenge in the high court any respectable lawer will tell you that any opinion can be challenge in the court you flog.

[@longway1]

@@AnotherDoug l also think that if you spent half the time that you spend trolling this channel lobbying to your local federal member to hold the many first people's so called welfare organisations to account then the gap would be a lot narrower so l recommend you do something meaningful with your life.

[@robd2096]

Another good video, Wes. I watched your debut on "The Drum". You reeked of credibility (a compliment BTW) and presented your points well and with authority. I don't think they expected you to out-cred them. Julia Baird nearly shat herself when you outed the PM for lying to Australians. She was lost for words and had to quickly cross to that nobody with the Yes badge on his shirt while she composed herself and got the show back on the Yes promotional theme. Well done.

[@AnotherDoug]

The PM was not "outed" for lying. Aird said Albanese lied but his "evidence" was that some Yes campaigners have said something different to Albanese and for some reason Aird has chosen to believe "some" campaigners in preference to Albanese (despite the fact that a few seconds later, Aird says he wants "to take him [Albanese] at his word). Albanese has never said the Voice Referendum is going to lead directly to Treaty or Truth-telling - he has not lied about this. Certainly, Albanese has said he supports Voice, Treaty and Truth but this Referendum is ONLY about Constitutional recognition and an advisory Voice.

[@robd2096]

@@AnotherDoug Oh please! You're just embarrassing yourself now. You are so desperate to support the Yes case you cannot see reason or recognise fact. Your overzealous Yes mania is more likely to be patronising those you vainly think you're helping. What Wes said was clear and unambiguous. We would all prefer to be able to believe the PM of our country but I'm afraid we elected an untruthful dud (I refer also to the NACC, when he lied about public hearings & autonomy). This can be rectified at the next election when we send him packing. See the difference yet? We can get rid of a dud PM or government but we can't get rid of a dud, radical, racial, vengeful, destructive and greedy political group if they are enshrined in the constitution (forever). You should learn from Wes' videos. Unlike you, they are based on fact and are non-partisan. Fact - Albo supports the USFTH "IN FULL". Fact -The Voice is just the first step according to Albo, Langton, Mayo, Pearson and all the others. I hope you and your children enjoy paying rent to live in your own country (won't feel so clever then, will you, but your kids & theirs will know who to blame, won't they?)

[@tg5834]

​@@robd2096Doug has made almost 500 misleading comments on this channel and countless more on others. He is either an extreme type of attention seeking troll or 1 very sick person. I hope for his sake that he just has a big financial vested interest. He will argue until proven wrong, then he disappears and starts again somewhere else. I find his behavior more interesting than anything he says.

[@robd2096]

Hi@@tg5834, yes I've noticed his fever pitched posts around KZbin. He's not as clever as he thinks he is because he's probably convinced more people to vote No than he's mislead into voting yes.

[@Ben-el7lo]

Im 100% with you on compulsory Voting. Forcibly encouraging citizens to vote is undemocratic & only leads to uninformed & easily misled citizens voting to avoid a fine.😢

[@AnotherDoug]

Or it leads to voters finding out (from credible sources) all the issues with the thing they are voting on and making an adult decision on how to vote.

[@tg5834]

​@@AnotherDougNo one should take any notice of you then.

[@oztuber2]

@@AnotherDoug yet you are voting YES with absolutely NO credible source period. You are a reason why voting definitely should NOT be compulsory.. people like you who are uninformed and uneducated and ignorant on a topic get to have a say on things that are way over your intellect. how does that make for a fair vote in a democracy.. it it wasn't compulsory to vote people like you could say.. oh good i don't understand this and i don't have to vote and wont get fined.

[@oztuber2]

100% and Doug is an amazing example of why voting should NOT be compulsory

[@oztuber2]

@@tg5834 Thankfully nobody does

[@oztuber2]

11 REASONS TO VOTE NO IN THE VOICE REFERENDUM 1. Job quotas: Min 10% appointments to be 1st Nations people for: Judges, Magis, CW SES, ADF officers, AFP and State police forces, Corrections Depts, Vice chancellors, and Ambassadors. 2. Universities…..No entry tests, & no fees for 1st Nations people. 3. Old age pension: Reduced age eligibility for 1st nations people ''because we die younger'' 4. Public housing: 1st nations people to have first preference for all vacant public housing across all states. 5. Sport & Music: Entry fees reduced by 50% for 1st nations people for any events on public land 6. Beaches & National Parks: a. All beaches & national parks to be property of the relevant tribe, & b. Non-First nations people to be charged to use the beaches, parks etc….revenues to go relevant tribe 7. Rivers & streams: a. To become property of relevant tribe & b. Fees for water consumption paid to relevant tribe 8. Mining royalties: Same as for water 9. Income tax: for 1st nations people to be 50% of normal rate. 10. Liquor licensing: All new liquor licences across Australia to be vetted by Voice 11. Voice office: a. Research/policy staff….analyse & review all proposed govt policies, legislation & appointments. b. Same size & pay as DPMC

[@AnotherDoug]

Voting for the Voice is NOT a vote for any of these things.

[@oztuber2]

@@AnotherDoug So you agree that aboriginals already get more than other Australians.. that's good. So that out of the way because they are the facts as shown, Then it only goes that voting NO is the way to stop more division and discrimination that is planned from the Treaty part of the voice, which clearly and obviously will bring that kind of discrimination and racism out in bundles.

[@AnotherDoug]

@@oztuber2 ~ none of what you have listed have anything to do with the Voice ~ "more division" - given that none of the items listed have anything to do with the Voice, in what way will the Voice add "division" to Australia? ~ "discrimination" - by who and against who?

[@francisjohnston8014]

Source: I made it up

[@oztuber2]

@@francisjohnston8014 so don't make it up

[@tg5834]

And don't feel bad about not recognising aboriginals in our Constitution as the First Peoples of Australia, as there is absolutely no evidence to prove that beyond doubt. In fact there may be more evidence to prove that they certainly were not. Anyway, aboriginals are already recognised in our Constitution, along with everyone else. They are also overrepresented in our parliament, and over funded with our tax money. Aboriginals also have Native Title over 55% of Australias land mass with thousands of claims pending over the remainder, including rivers, lakes and surrounding oceans. And now, we are confronted with this further massive overreach, of asking everyone to give aboriginals their own special, exclusive and powerful chapter in our Constitution, when all aboriginal problems and solutions have always been, and will always remain, within the aboriginals own culture and attitudes.

[@managerialelitetoaster3456]

I'm not going to vote. I find it an insult that of all the things they could ask us, it's this. Not do you want reduced taxes? Or lower immigration?

[@sirskyr]

They hand out fines for not voting in Aus, if you disagree with it vote No.

[@managerialelitetoaster3456]

@@sirskyr Oh no. I'm so scared. They'll give me a $20 fine. What will I do?

[@sirskyr]

@@managerialelitetoaster3456 ..... none of us like this referendum. I don't need the snark, I was genuinely just trying to help. We already get taxed enough on income no need to be giving them more even if it's not very much.

[@Josma432]

The best way to show the government you’re not with them is to vote no. If nothing else look at all the wasted money, that’s not ok.

[@managerialelitetoaster3456]

@@sirskyr I'm not going to be giving them money because I won't be paying the fine.

[@allmighty736]

Vote NO