ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- Far Enough?
Remember when you wanted to find the best coffee within walking distance of where you’re at and you googled it? You can apply the same tactic to so many other aspects in life! For example; referendums that over 80% of Indigenous people are in favour of. What a time to be alive.
Production Companies - Blue-Tongue Films & Collider
Director - Nash Edgerton
Writers - Jenna Owen, Vic Zerbst
Producers - Michael Cody & Nash Edgerton
Cast - Adam Briggs, Jenna Owen, Vic Zerbst
![[Live] : ONE 168 วันนี้!! "โจนาธาน vs ซุปเปอร์เล็ก"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jIN65KgJsI/mqdefault.jpg)
LOL I find it hilarious that the yes ads are basically “vote yes or you are a dummy”.
I have 5 friends who are in a joint lotto syndicate. 3 are yes voters and 3 are no. Of the No voters, 1 has swallowed the line that this is “the thin edge of the wedge” and will ultimately lead to… he’s not sure what, but something bad. The other 2 No voters are out and proud racists. So in answer to the above comment, in my group the No voters aren’t dummies, they are just scared, or racists.
@@richardbellmaines9460 And they are your friends?
Nah, this vid isn't calling no voters dumb, it is just encouraging people who are confused to do some basic research and get good info.
If the shoe fits...weird. same shoe size as the plebiscite no voters. Same style. Still lost that one, didnt ya sport.
@@Ademos5- The plebiscite was way more comprehensive of an idea. The information for the voice is so vague and basically relies only on the idea that if you care about aboriginal people the vote for this… even if it is a bad idea.
Lefties the people have spoken.
It's not all Lefties. It's mainly Progressives. There are still working class 'rednecks' keeping the flame alive. You know ... the kinds of people Progressives sneer at for having the audacity to be unsophisticated and live in uncool places.
Aboriginals should honestly just be happy. It dont get what the big deal is.
When you use the term "lefties", I assume you are referring to people other than yourself. I must conclude that for you, "lefties" are people who know how to construct simple sentences that involve punctuation.
Yes you've spoken using the term leftist, indicating you weren't interested in our indigenous only some pathetic unrelated culture war. Gove yourself an uppercut champ, you're a disgrace.
Nah, most lefties are ignorant AF, if they weren't, they wouldn't be lefties. @@TheBlackDogChronicles
This advert was one of the reasons the NO vote got up. The YES vote was never going to pass on the pathetic and overworked "It's time" and "it's the right thing to do" position. Taking the moral high ground (as the left claim ownership of) to convert people's thinking still requires a thoughtfully clear and concise argument. Now that Australians have voted NO how about some accountability and transparency for the $110 million a day spent on 3% of the population.
Racist much? That 3% managed the land a million times better without all the mod cons....but hey...the white fella just gotta justify his position (just for clarity... I'm an embarrassed white fella. Dad British, mum, 3rd generation Aussie. I bet you that if your family had their land stolen, 3, 4, 5 generations later, good hold more of a grudge than these guys. So sad the new world is all about cognitive bias
@@CamTracey I don't know, at least those that 'stole' the land are giving you $40bn a year, something tells me if all non indigenous left tomorrow another country (China) would be here in seconds and would be far less considerate. If all you do is live in the past, you're never going to make progress
You have joined TH-cam 10hrs ago with the moniker "Angry". 'Nuff said.
Um, I've never seen this ad before 😮
@@mnmmnm8321me neither. Briggs can call me dumb. This was a total blindside I am still catching up. Apparently there was advertising on tik tok Insta, I don’t use any of those. I found an explanation and only resource to be the ABC. Labor representative called my friend out of the blue when no one was aware of the referendum really. She asked basic questions about it and the guy called her an ‘anti vaxxer’ out of the blue and hung up. So she called back twice to get someone to listen to her and it was still nonsense once they treated her with decency after being very nasty and personally attacking her based on an assumption that to question Labor means you are an anti vaxxer?? My friend is not an anti vaxxer so……okkkkkk. Very poor detail and emotional blackmail. Don’t you care about indigenous people? Type comments instead of actually what they were proposing. Sorry Briggs but you got me. Where did the referendum dollars go? Why am I going through parliamentary documents to try and understand what it going on and having to watch the senate and question time to get any info? I don’t watch commercial tv. Hahahaha guess I should have just googled. Oh I did
Where is Albo?
He just spent $360 million on this and it failed - due to lack of information. And now he scuttles off home and avoids the result.
He needs to go
@emmagrindrod3465
1. This was NEVER about indigenous peoples, it was about Albo and the ALP repaying a debt to the Activists who got them in power. The Voice would have been a non Aboriginal stacked undemocratic third house that pushed left wing and green agendas.
2. The Voice would have done NOTHING for the current problems. The last thing we need is another talk fest. We need ACTION. We need to stop the squandering of money of crap an focus on the issues you highlight.
@emmagrindrod3465
OK Emma, tell me where it says online the answers to these questions:
1. How many members will comprise the voice:
10 persons
100 persons
1000 persons
10,000 persons
2. How will they be chosen:
Direct election from all Australians
Direct election from Aboriginal members of Australia
Appointment by the existing government
Selected by the Land Councils
Selected by the states
3. How Aboriginal will the members be:
Aboriginal by DNA
Aboriginal by more than 50% DNA
Aboriginal by less than 50% DNA
Australians who identify as Aboriginal
Experts who are Australian
Any Australian
4. What will they provide:
Recommendations only
Guidance and Answers Only
Suggested legislation and proposals
5. What areas will they cover:
Aboriginal land council matters
Aboriginal Health issues
Australian land use issues
Australian environment issues
Australian legal issues
Australian external relations issues
6: Wil they include:
Refugee issues
Environment issues
Legal issues
Civil rights issues
Constitution issues
Heath issues
All issues
7. How long will members be in the Voice:
4 years
2 years
Until death
That’s the details we were looking for.
Now show me where they were, or STFU.
VOTE NO!!!!💯💯
This video is brilliant for the No campaign. Writing off the concerns of millions of people based simply on them being "idiots" will likely kill any last chance for this referendum. The constitution was designed to be difficult to change to force those who want to change it to win the argument, not ridicule those who don’t agree. In 1967 over 90% of Australians voted for equality under the constitution. In 2023, it seems at this point, the majority will vote again for equality under the constitution. We’ll see on 14 Oct either way.
Yep. This little gem will do wonders for Team NO. The doubling down will be spectacular.
This add isn't aimed at people who have serious concerns about the Voice or are opposed to it. It is about people who aren't sure but haven't looked into it. They are different groups, and Briggs isn't saying anything about the former here.
Understand what you’re saying. Though this clip certainly implied that No voters are idiots. With this backdrop across the Yes campaign, the result of the election should not be a surprise. In time it may even be said that the majority of Australian’s are pretty wise to be very skeptical of proposed changes to the constitution.
Yes I and everyone I know have questions better than the mockery he made of the people questioning a referendum that came totally out of the blue. Having an unemotional, critical thought out and logical conversation based on facts is not what this video is but pretends to be, still doesn’t answer our questions. This is coming from left wing right wing, everyone. Do you want to answer the real questions we had? No it’s too late it was rushed through ……..hrmmm
When your local labor party office calls your friend out of the blue campaigning for the voice and she asked questions. The guy called her an ‘anti vaxxer’ and hung up on her. So she called them back twice and there is more to this story but basically they didn’t explain at all and tried to guilt trip her into caring with irrelevant facts about indegnous instead of answering questions that were specific and totally fair. ‘But don’t you care about our indigenous Australians?’ Do you know the statistics?’ Yes she is a left wing social worker who was never the anti vaxxer you accused her of. Briggs you had people like this trying make us vote yes. Why would we trust them to do the right thing? 😂 so blame maree edwards local mp office not us 😂 call her and ask her why she had people yelling at local residents to vote and accusing them of being right wing fascists if they ‘dared’ to ask questions.
Litmus test:
When the party in power, the legacy media, large corporations and celebrities tell you to do something, what do you do?
use your brain?
@@vanessagoddess1Check first reply.
It looked like a junta in the making. I'm half waiting for the Prime Minister to return with the green light from Xi and Biden to take the next step by force.
He does, after all, seem to think (according to that radio interview in Melbourne) that a perfect world is him as Dictator banning social media and deciding what truth is.
@Briggs what happend there la brah hahaha got geed up real good playing the clown 😂😂
Well it's all over now. The big banks and mining companies didn't win.
Yep. Not enough people pointing that out.
Hahahhaha Yaye!
Can someone explain why the guardian calls this viral and says it has 5 million views when it only has 178k?!
Every1 watched it 28x ;) So simple for those that CARE & want to progress rather than divide Australia on YES for Love or NO for destruction of Social values (just like J.Howard)
Videos shared on other platforms or accounts included. Also they make stats up
Reposted on IG and TT by celebs, so 5mn total, which probably isn't enough
The Guardian will rot your brain
@@arclux "Will" is not as bad as did, by Murdoch media (Fox, Sky, Daily toilet paper, etc ;)
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You got owned !
Pwnt
Congratulations to the Australian public for rejecting this political third rail.
You’re glad they can’t literally just give advice? That was scary for you?
@@youarethedancingqueeyour living under a rock like a commie rock spider 😂
@IgnoreNot-qg3ly It literally was just going to be a rotating roster of 24 First Nations representatives GIVING ADVICE to Parliament. They would NOT have ‘got a vote’, only elected Members of Parliament can propose, vote on, or pass laws. The Voice representatives would NOT be Members of Parliament & would have no power to make laws, or to veto laws. They would literally just go into a room & be listened to. That’s it. There wouldn’t have been any obligation on the Parliament to act on anything the Voice members said. They would literally have just had to listen. Equality isn’t the same as treating everyone the same. Equality is about leveling the playing field. It includes providing wheelchair ramps, closed loop sound systems in auditoriums for hearing aid wearers, having Medicare to provide medical care to people who wouldn’t be able to afford it otherwise, charging lower bus fares for pensioners, paying compensation to victims of crime, soup vans for people without food, letting people who’ve been silenced speak.
@@03041976001 It was literally exactly that. Didn’t you read it?
Are all the Aborigines who wanted the Voice also 'commies'?@@timmaslen4766
spoiler alert NO WINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thankyou for making the world a more depressing place!
It’s funny you have more like than the original comment 😂
@emmagrindrod3465 someone’s a little sad 🥺🥺🥺 the difference is the treaty you refer to from New Zealand came from a time the country was at war with Britain. They were capable of holding their own and demanding a treaty. A treaty now for Australia is stupid and unnecessary. If recognition is all they wanted they could have just made the vote about that. That’s why the vote went out like a sad wet fart
@Adrenalin4Life-ds8ub common sense prevails they reckon. I think this is one of those cases
@emmagrindrod3465 why Aboriginals have higher suicide rate? Some wrong with them?
We voted for unity people. Well done Australia, I’m proud of us. Thank you to the majority, it’s a victory for our society. Black/white/brown the skin tone or where we were born doesn’t matter. If you voted you’re Australian. True blue.
Just wanted to drop in and say aye... Hows that all working out for ya?
@@Migswan Thank you for voting NO in Melbourne and keeping Australia equal for all Australians.
Oh it will go down that path.. but briggs and his mates wont be at the helm at least
@@Migswan
All six-states and the NT have voted no! The Australian people have spoken 🇦🇺
Typical of modern cringe today, people afraid to have an opinion with gutless conversations. I want people to state their case regardless of what they think others may think and have some honesty about themselves.
its important to challenge each others beliefs too. talk to your people IRL and tell them why you think they are wrong. some are stuck in their ways but if they truly want to listen they will.
It's really telling that when you push back and provide them with solid arguments, they just revert to good 'ol fashioned racism. That's why people don't want to discuss this. They know their opinion sucks.
@ben10the10 read the comments there are solid arguments from both camps. Little of what I have seen is racism. Just because someone votes no doesn’t mean they are racist. The problem most No voters have with the proposal is that who makes up the voice and what power it is going to have are being decided later by politicians in parliament. People don’t trust those Canberra polies. Even you shouldn’t because next election cycle the liberals may be in power and they can change the voice to whatever they want as it is currently worded. People actually do want better outcomes for indigenous but are worried by the lack of detail. The yes campaign has tried to fill the lack of detail with stuff they just made up. They can’t know these details yet because parliament hasn’t decided on what those details are. The only legally binding thing is the words in the question itself. I suggest you read it carefully, and only it (not what the yes campaign thinks the voice will be or the ‘Uluṟu‘ statement from the heart which is not a legally binding part of this change) then make up your mind. If it is still yes that is no problems but please don’t disrespect other people exercising their democratic rights by slandering them as racist. This is a solid argument against the voice: ‘I don’t trust the politicians in Canberra to not abuse this and stack the voice with puppets and grant it powers to suit their own agenda. This is not a democratic body and as such is open to corruption. It could have been detailed about how it was formed and the powers it has in the wording of the question just like other parts of our constitution. In my opinion the question doesn’t pass the pub test.’
@@ben10the10 "They know their opinion sucks"? I doubt it. Everyone I know, left right or center, thinks their opinion is the gold standard.
well… what a condescending advertisement this was 😅… Briggs is probably at home having his week of silence now..
I am Voting NO only because Noel Pearson said there's a second door after the first door .
Can someone tell me what is the second door is all about (Money /Land or something else ???
I am voting NO
This is true representation of what a yes voter believes a no voter thinks like. Can see why they lost.
Exactly!
This is aged so well 😂😂
What happened to the yes vote, put where it should be ,in the rubbish bin.
My local parliamentarian (Peter Dutton) said it "means no issue - the economy, national security, infrastructure, health, education and more - would be beyond its scope" and so everyone should vote no... that's reason enough for me to vote yes
Peter Dutton also convinced me to vote yes
Yeah, if Dutton and Pauline Hanson both say it's bad, then it must be good. Vote yes! 🤣
Why is that a reason to vote no? It's just a representation... it's advice only. With no veto powers. What's the issue???
@@jesselise1996 because people like Dutton are afraid of losing their life of privilege
@@jesselise1996 exactly
Briggs the rapper and two barely watchable so-called journalists telling us to go 'google it' is like Woolies berating you for not doing your own check-out properly.
It's literally these people's jobs to help inform the nation. And they come out a week before the most important moment of the most important issue in Australia, and tell us we're the problem.
Top work alll round.
The same guy that used to turn a blind eye to his brothers and sisters (not literal family) getting blind drunk abusing people at the Flinders Street steps? Oldmate only got this chip on his shoulder when he started getting famous and hanging around with activist class people like Paul Kelly.
Methinks someone feels guilty.
@@TheBlackDogChronicles methinks if you knew me, and what I've contributed ( including creating a music vid for one of Briggs own artists back in 2016 ) you'd realise you're talking out your arse ;)
Thank god there is democracy. Not corporate Australia and marketing.
I suppose my confusion is that there are already indigenous representatives in many organisations and in parliament to be the voice(s) of the Aboriginal people and their local communities. This gives me the notion that these voices are being discredited by the indigenous community and therefore ineffective for their needs. What exactly will this new voice change when there are already voices that exist? Can anyone shed light on this?
Chatgpt rules again
The proposed Voice is a body of First Nations people chosen by First Nations communities. Every representative will have a four year term to ensure they are accountable to their communities.
The Voice will also be covered by the NACC - the new federal anti-corruption body.
It's true we do have some parliamentarians who are from First Nations, but MPs represent their party (and perhaps the people in their electorate) and Senators represent their party (and perhaps their state). There are no parliamentarians directly representing First Nations people. The Voice will be non-political.
We have a minister to look after First Nations issues but they still put their party first.
It's true there are other bodies that represent groups like health organisations and there are community groups including football clubs, but they don't provide advice directly from communities to the government and parliament.
The organisations like the health organizations don't automatically get to give advice to the government and parliament. They are at the mercy of the government. So, it's got nothing to do with being discredited by their communities.
There are a couple of other things that I think are important about the Voice.
First, we voters will get to hear when the Voice gives really good advice and the government ignores it when making policies and developing programs. So, we'll know that politicians are wasting our taxes to play political games.
The second thing is those gaps in the rates of suicide, birth weight, employment, live expectancy, etc will start coming down. That's going to get all Australians thinking that we can have better policies in the broader community if we listen to people and use the research. So, in times benefits will start flowing through to all Australians.
But, it will take time to close those gaps so we need to stop politicians playing games, and if the Voice is in the Constitution, we can do that.
I can't see a single downside of the Voice. I'm sixty years old and I have been watching First Nations people kicked around like political footballs all my life. To me, this looks like the best opportunity we've ever had to finally start dealing with all the disadvantages so many First Nations people face.
So, this old girl has voted Yes because of all the things above and because even the overwhelming majority of "constitutional conservatives" think the Voice will make government better.
@@sandracochrane2155 you can't see a single down side to the Voice? Have you been living in an echo chamber? We already have the voice - we spend billions of dollars on indigenous initiatives covering health, housing and welfare, we spend double the amount on per indigenous Australian that other Australians and we have 11 indigenous MPs. The Voice is only going to bolster big government and give it more power, and will not resolve any of the major issues impacting aborigines.
@@Simon-pl2zi Much of what you claim is actually untrue.
I don't live in an echo chamber - I'm here talking to you because I'm interested in how you come to think as you do. But, my work and person lives have given me the opportunities to see a lot and listen to a great many people - I'm 60 years old so that's a lot of observing and listening to a great many perspectives and experiences.
The Voice isn't a magic wand and it will take time for various people to adjust, but I have confidence that Australians are just as capable as people in other countries where a variety of models are starting to make a difference.
It's to enshrine the pay cheques of the grifter class.
This video really helped the No win!!… big thanks to the creator from the majority of Australians… without you we could not defeat the Yes 👍
Googling one yes propaganda page is not being informed and knowing, champ.
Love it. It nails how the politicization of the Voice has complicated the matter, rather than the actual voice proposal (which is clear!)m looking forward to voting yes
@@garyandrews5104 man write something original. You keep copy pasting each time. When you are paid per comment you would think you could at least be original. What will the NO campaign think seeing such laziness
@@garyandrews5104 bro, stop copy pasting the same comment over and over again
@@Nylandersaraus1 lol, noticed the same
@@elizabethm4642there is a tsunami of meaningless comments in support of yes in response to this patronising video… yours included … it’s not possible to individually reply to all, but it’s very very important that it be challenged so as to not all the vulnerable to be influenced by this video.
@@garyandrews5104 Individualism/selfishness leads to isolation & not understanding the basic principles of Social harmony. We need to learn from the culture that survived 65,000 years & we are about to destroy the world in only couple of centuries. Wake up & start thinking.
Yewww 1st! Shout out from Yuwaalaraay Country Lightning Ridge
And the NO vote wins 👏👏🤣🤣🤣 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
@@DW_drumsThey've been here for 60k years and invented stuff like curved stick, stick with pointy end, stick with 2 pointy ends and stick with holes in it. Then the white man came and brought civilisation.
Two thoughts after following the comments for two days:
1. Why are so many people so upset about a comedy skit where two voters in a democratic country decide to get themselves informed before they vote in a referendum? We should be celebrating informed voters whether we agree or disagree with their voting intention.
2. As someone whose been on the receiving end of misogyny in Australia for 60 years, I love that you care but this is not misogyny.
Well, this aged like fine milk 😂😂 Good on you Australia for rejecting this woke agenda!
Typical cringe propaganda. I'm so proud of Australia for voting NO! Best thing to come out of 2023
Briggs is now sulking in his room writing angry letters to NRL teams while cuddling his aboriginal flag blanket, your a deadset flop mate
Thank you Senator Briggs, for everything. Something tells me the look of sheer exhaustion on your face was not acting.
That clause is completely standard. It is to allow Parliament to improve the Voice over time instead of prescribing a fixed structure that can never change. It’s nothing to create fear over. Check out Section 51 of the constitution that is set up the same way for pretty much all law making. If you don’t think there should be a Voice, fine, but don’t try to scare people into thinking it’s something it’s not. The NO campaign is full of misinformation and distraction aimed at making people anxious. Please let’s debate the issue at hand, not the distractions…
@@lachlanmcvey7885 man you are the NO campaign employee of the month with your effort on this video. Gold star 👏
@@lachlanmcvey7885 So I'd think this would actually reassure no campaigners that the Voice, whilst it can make representations to Parliament, is still governed by Parliament and will remain so. It usurps no Parliamentary powers; it's simply an advisory body.
attempts to include wording in the Voice proposal to stop any appeals by said body to the High Court, this was refused by the Yes camp, with many stating that injunctions and appeals were a right. Legally risky? Hell yes. negotiations and compromise or VOTE NO
That's not true at all. The Proposed Section 129 has been written simply and tightly to ensure that the Voice provides advice only. It is actually a constitutionally conservative position that's why constitutional conservatives have joined the overwhelming majority of constitutional experts in supporting the Voice.
@@sandracochrane2155 are you saying the voice CANNOT appeal to the High Court? …
@@sandracochrane2155 Watch "The Constitutional Implications of The Voice Referendum Proposal" by 'Aussie Law'
@@garyandrews5104 I'm saying it's highly, highly unlikely according to constitutional lawyers and constitutional experts including those who have sat on the High Court. Kenneth Haine, who sat on the High Court and ran the Banking Royal Commission, is one of many who have discussed this. He's been interesting on this. He says that he thinks the only serious possibility is when public servants don't administer government decisions according to the law (rather than the Voice than the Voice going to the High Court because advice isn't taken). And, lets face it, given what we've seen from the Robodebts Royal Commission, anything that can help bring into line public servants breaking the law is a good thing. I mention Haine's discussing it because he has such a no nonsense way of communicating things, he's a good person to follow up for yourself. Other people like Twoomey, Saunders, French, Craven, Willams and the Solicitor General have said the same. They're all on the record so you can check them out. Others too.
👇Button to vote NO!
Now the referendum has failed kick albo out of parliament for hes foolishness!!!
Then the next step would be an AUDIT on indigenous affairs and NDIS.
They should just use the clip of Marcia Langton calling everyone who vote no racist and stupid. Save money on promotional videos so they can buy tissues and tape for their one week silence. That was an amazing promotion for the no campaign. Keep it up!
That Lurch looking old Trot can give us the silent treatment forever for all I care.
yeah, I disagree with Marcia Langton on that. I believe Australians that voted No are actually selfish and racist. They're not stupid at all. They knew exactly what they were doing
Don't forget all the other expletives she used
her lean over & forearm touch as she says ‘and I would *hate* to patronise an Indigenous person’
Haha exactly, painful to watch really.
@@moorspede yes, it was painful to watch.
@WarningTimes no land grabs? Oh that's rich. 😂
The ad was originally an ad for Tinder. Listen carefully.
I love that this brings us back to the basic question we're ACTUALLY voting on! 👏👏👏
@@lachlanmcvey7885how is it a lie?
That clause is completely standard. It is to allow Parliament to improve the Voice over time instead of prescribing a fixed structure that can never change. It’s nothing to create fear over. Check out Section 51 of the constitution that is set up the same way for pretty much all law making. If you don’t think there should be a Voice, fine, but don’t try to scare people into thinking it’s something it’s not. The NO campaign is full of misinformation and distraction aimed at making people anxious. Please let’s debate the issue at hand, not the distractions…
*YES MOB ARE WOKE TERRORISTS*
@alansergeant9185 they say the voice will be chosen by indigenous leaders in the communities in the video. The actual question states that the make up will be determined by parliament. When facts contradict a claim then that is the definition of a lie. The video basically ‘googles’ it for you says some stuff they made up and relies on people being to lazy to actually google it themselves. So deceitful.
@@lachlanmcvey7885and what wasn’t accurate about the video?
This says it all.woke city people that had no idea, voted yes.
I was walking today in my Vote Yes Tee shirt. Have been doing so for weeks. The only comment I have received was today was from a Ferny Grove High School student who said he loved it and didn't understand why anyone would vote No. Bless him. I have faith in the young to trounce inequality and save us from ourselves. ❤
Definitely voting NO!
Vote Yes Mate 🇦🇺⚫️🟡🔴
Our great country could be so much better and more cultured if we chose to embrace and recognise Indigenous-Australian people and their input. People seem to forget Aboriginal people also fought and died for this country in WW1 and WW2. How dare we as a nation not at the very least give them the unique recognition they deserve in their own country and the chance to advise on issues that could harm them and their culture.
Vote yes 🇦🇺⚫️🟡🔴
They get the same recognition as everyone else.
@@arcluxNot according to one of you earlier responses, which implied they didn’t actually fight ( presume it was you, the no campaign reminds me of smoke). Certainly one correspondent suggest the indigenous people who dod fight were on part indigenous, but they didn’t say which part ……right leg, left arm etc.
Great video. Just Google it.
Also "I would hate to patronise..." - well played
google is heavily censored these days dude.. it’s not like the 90s anymore.. remember all those different search engines we used to have.. even duck duck go is censored now.. you have to keep your wits about you and not just believe anything you read.. online scamming is a thing and it extends far beyond what the average googler would imagine. and have a nice day 😬
Yeah I googled it and found that this is propaganda and lies!
Check out part 3 from the actual question:
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
So good! I love them and Briggs
Yeah that arm touch was perfect! Such an incredible political video. More of these and less of boring political videos. I actively searched for this clip. I’ve never done that about a political issue before.
I agree, it would definitely not be patronising to give one ethnic group special treatment, vote yes!
I love the way the full figured gentlemen with the silly hat acts all wise as if he is the new Solomon. Well the divisive voice got crushed and good riddance to it.
Spoiler alert...the wise gentleman doesn't like white people anddeep down wants them all to leave ...
Wait, so you can google important things?
worse that than, there's a bunch of sites called "let me google that for you" etc. It's kind of sarcastic what they do.
Yeah I tried it just now and it really works. I was surprised to find that you can search for other stuff like Indigenous treaty and funny videos of cats.
Of course and google will always provide you with the right answers and right information……..
Google this - www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8bj0jbnn1yri9y83lbblg/USOTH-Document-14.pdf?rlkey=0fumbze6godfjoxa0wq5gstjo&dl=0
Yeah mate. Actually google it.
Check out part 3 from the actual question:
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
The YES side is starting to sound like Trump with starting to blame everyone for the coming NO victory
FFS, the no campaign have ADOPTED the trump play book……specifically Advance, backers of Fair Australia, announced with glee at CCPAC (how American - look it up) in August, that they could manipulate the narrative . They have. I hope you enjoy the post- truth world you have just joined up to.
I think i understand now. We're all just a bit tired of being bashed over the head with 'you are shit unless you do this...'
I agree 👍
Who said that? Nobody
@jonah.donohue
Well I said that. I wasn't quoting. Have you not sensed that people in western cultures are growing more weary by the day of the culture wars?
That's what I'm seeing in a lot of content. I was expressing my viewpoint on the possibility that people voted no, in part, because they're over the pressure from the cultural left.
If you disagree, cool. No problem.
It's funny how people with a guilty conscience imbue something with meaning it doesn't really seem to have. Shakespeare had something to say about that, in Hamlet in Act 3, Scene 2.
@TheBlackDogChronicles well I'm intrigued. I shall have to look that up and educate myself. Thanks for your comment. I'm sure, knowing Hamlet to be renowned for its monologue, which I've seen as a movie clip, what I find will be elucidating.
@@TheBlackDogChronicles
Yes. The 'groundlings'. Poor souls 😂
You're the voice try and understand it.
Vote No 🇦🇺❤🖤💛
Your argument isn’t that compelling. I’m sorry I don’t speak emoji
It’s a No from me also. It’s divisive and risky, should’ve been legislated before putting it in our constitution.
Three muppets without a clue how to fix a lightbulb.
If a dedicated Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and a whole Department for Aboriginal Affairs can't fix the problems, what chance do these clowns have? - ZERO
It might make you feel good to denigrate the other side but it is counterproductive if you want to win hearts and minds. Arrogance and condescension from the 'yes' campaign have done much to lose this referendum. Keep going and the 'No' campaign will have the last laugh.
This vid has probably given the NO side thousands of votes.
Who knows why they thought sneering would work. Maybe they don't get out much?
This video isn't about people who are opposed or the no campaign. It is about people who are unsure but haven't looked into it. It isn't about no voters.
@@LlywellynOBrien Doesn't matter. They're basically saying if you're not a firm Yes, you're some kind of idiot.
@@pm2886 No they aren't there aren't any no voters in the video and nothing is mentioned about them.
You're quite right. It's about denigrating undecided voters. That really worked well, didn't it?@@LlywellynOBrien
Wow! I was going to vote yes, but after watching this: I’m not so sure!
I had the same reaction.
Happy to discuss……
As above, if you are still not sure, happy to talk about what you're unsure about :)
@@LlywellynOBrien They're saying that this vid is so obnoxious, that it has potentially changed their mind.
Well played Sir. This is the kind of advertisement the voice needs. Humour is the best way to defuse hostility and convey truth.
Don't know he seems kind of hostile in the video.
The level of pretention in this clip is off the charts. That you think this is humor is gold.
You are so out of touch it's actually kinda cute
It’s not humorous it’s pretentious and very cringy and is a great example of why the Voice was pulverised by the electorate.
You’re out of touch.
Cheers Adam and the entire team for cutting right through the idiotic BS on both sides of the vote. I've shared this wherever I can.
Thank you so much for this video. It makes me feel hopeful that Australians who view this will see past the few naysayers with their endless poor excuses for voting no and realise that the commercial media love the ensuing drama and are pushing it out there full bore. I hadn't known any Indigenous Australians till I lived in Coober Pedy for three years. When I returned to Adelaide in 1981, I did the Aboriginal Studies Tafe course as I really knew very little about their history and culture. I was asked to write an essay comparing 'affluence' within our society and traditional Indigenous societies. I did my research and came to the conclusion that their 'affluence', holistically, was richer than ours. It's way past time that Indigenous history and culture was included in education. So yep, a simple Yes to a straightforward question.
I agree Helen, we have a lot to learn from the indigenous of this country but this whole thing wreaks of deception. The celebrities, the corporations, the rich city folk. Even this video stinks. They just make stuff up at the end.
Check out point three of the actual question. This won’t be determined by elders in the communities but polies in Canberra.
Well it didn’t help…
Great work Briggs and everyone involved! Comedy is the stealth weapon!
Funny thing is I didn't see any comedy in that. The ignorance is all too common.
@@wandayonder9772 It's tragicomedy. Tragic for the indigenous & just people, Comedy for the world loughin at our primitivity, if NO (J.Howard's mob) takes over :(
@@lachlanmcvey7885 Do you understand it? Ask P. Hanson - Please explain ;)
Even the Western biased BARD understands that: ...The Voice suggestion is significant proposal that has the potential to improve the lives of the Indigenous peoples.
We still want to torture them? How uncivilized :(
What a load of garbage. If Albanese won't explain how the voice will work until after the referendum, then there is no way you or anyone else could have any idea of what the true consequences of voting yes are. That is not misinformation it is lack of information from Albo. Blame him.
How much land you grabbed that you don't want to share? @@WarningTimes
senator Briggs gets my vote
This fella makes sense !!
Briggs getting $$$$, air time on ABC TV and radio and some other underhanded goona to be out here campaigning alongside any mainstream poli....
Proudly voted NO
Weak as F
The voice is just the first step before
Treaty
Truth telling
Makarata
Percentage of GDP.
Vote no, the city activists have no intention of helping remote communities.
Well that escalated fast
Is that what your Sky News safe space told you? Mr Bolt let you in on the whole story hey. The irony that the whole video you commented on was about just Google-ing it is not lost on me.
For anyone reading this, the above commentor is lying 🤥
This is not true.
No to more UN agenda. This 'voice to parliament' has NOTHING to do with benefitting Indigenous Australians.
Briggs is THE MAN. Vote YES for the Voice.
How exactly does it divide the nation ?
I think the division thing is the NO campaign’s masterstroke. 64% of Australians in favour of the voice with mostly bipartisan support one year ago, then in September 2022 Dutton reverses Liberal’s position and launches a NO campaign, Ken Wyatt quits the party in disgust, Sky News flood the country with divisive and false information and then… Dutton and Sky blame the YES campaign for creating the division. Brilliant!! Well, if you’re flexible with your moral compass that is. But I think what they mean is that we shouldn’t ever talk about issues that not everyone will agree on?? Hey it works in China…
Proppa deadly! 🖤💛❤️
It's ridiculous how many charged up conversations I've been in, where I've ended up resolving their qualms by just reading the referendum question to them.
Apparently reading to white people has become a part of our cultural load now.
Sorry but I am trying to keep up here what is "cultural load"?
Oh yes, that reassures me, someone who thinks others they need to be patronised.
Farken let em know aye!
@@MM54334He isn't saying white people can't read, just that a lot of us have been confused by the lies spreading into believing things that are disproven by literally reading the paper.
@@thedave7760The idea of cultural load is roughly the feeling of responsibility or onus to explain things, represent Indigenous people and culture etc.
Makes you wonder how it all got "so hard" huh? I read the statement from the heart and then the proposal and a few Constitutional experts and retired judges opinions...considered the No case which was full of misinformation and fear mongering. Job done. Voting Yes
Mate after all that research you failed to recognise the stuff just made up about this being determined by indigenous communities.
Check out part 3 from the actual question:
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
Did you read the 27 pages Uluru statement or the 1 page sanitised version?
The No campaign relies on lies because they don't have real arguments
@@garyandrews5104the Uluru statement is not the Voice. It is not what the referendum is about. And this fear mongering about a “26 page secret statement” is conspiracy crap.
@@garyandrews5104misinformation Gary
So NOW we should do our own research? 👌
Because the Australian Government always has good intent don’t they…. #voteNO
Well done - best take in the last five months by a mile.
@@garyandrews5104copy pasta 🍝
Make it the best by 2km (longer & standard is better ;)
Nice crossposting, mate. Keep on copyin' and pastin'. @@garyandrews5104
Dutton's "Don't Know, Vote No" slogan should never have gotten as far as it did.
"Don't Know, Go Find Out" should have been the counterpoint from day one.
My advice is if you don't know, do your own research.
It goes to show how ignorant the right are.
Don't no, read this - www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8bj0jbnn1yri9y83lbblg/USOTH-Document-14.pdf?rlkey=0fumbze6godfjoxa0wq5gstjo&dl=0
Yes actually find out. Don’t read the first paragraph of the vote yes campaign and actually read the question.
Check out part 3 from the actual question:
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
No one will answer important questions about the structure and powers of The Voice and the official statement is that the details of The Voice will be decided AFTER the referendum.
Approving legislation before it is written Is as smart as giving a signed blank check to a 5 year old, no one in their right mind would do either.
How are these "female bimbo" stereotypes appropriate in 2023? It's like an ad from the 90's
Funny that they actually wrote it, so, maybe they had control of the narrative. Just saying
Systemic misogyny maybe? Deeply ingrained. I doubt they would have scripted mansplaining in if they were aware of it.
@stevecharles683 Yeah I think (yes they wrote it, but) you’re right, it is (unintentionally I think) reinforcing an unhelpful stereotype. It would maybe be better as a series, with people of different ages/genders/ethnicities/takes on the issue in each one. Even better if the characters’ views worked against viewers’ stereotypical expectations of them.
@@youarethedancingquee if you can do better put your money where your mouth is..
I have had 2 conversations like this in the past few days. This is an excellent contribution. Today I was letterboxing for YES. At a playground I bumped into 2 blokes looking after their kids. I offered them our YES23 leaflet. One immediately said NO because he was a NO. The other said: "Hey come on! I am now a YES. I saw this great skit where a dude is talking to 2 chicks, forget his name. It's the best explanation of why to vote YES I have seen. It gave me the info I wanted." I gave them his name ... Briggs. the NO bloke is going to look at the vid.
Ill take things that didn't happen for 500 Alex.
Is that how progressive lefties imagine interacting with No voters goes? Thanks for the fairytale
@@Fornax70 over the past 12 months or so I have had dozens, maybe more, conversations with committed NO and soft NO people. This is just one of those conversations. Usually, NO people were uncomfortable with talking and putting their view, didn’t cope too well with listening from me and then questions based on my listening to them. Some started re-thinking their view. Some stayed NO and a lot I just don’t know. Although I think I do now. The re-thinkers didn’t know that their Constitution already had a race power that has been used divisively against Aboriginal people, including by politicians and corporations who are NO champions. Both NO and YES people commonly knew fuck all about the Constitution and how it works.
@@DonSutherland1 fair enough.
I would add that quite a few No voters were quiet not because of shame but because they didn’t feel like an argument with a rabid yes voter.
It’s very telling when 61% of the public, Labor and Liberal voters plus a majority in every state all decide to vote against a proposal especially when the Yes campaign had the government, most corporations and most celebrities in their corner.
That shows that despite accusations of misinformation, lack of bipartisanship there was serious issues with how the Yes campaign made their case. They in typical fashion didn’t really try to understand why people were voting no, we saw the same situation during the pandemic especially in Victoria and no lessons were learned.
Have to say best yes add I have seen
I know, the yes campaign has been one mistake after another.
dont ever remove this video
As an elderly Australian the Voice has been the most culturally divisive issue in Australia in my lifetime. As the government has funded a massive "vote yes" campaign with ads across all media, magazines, radio, television and even TH-cam, I would not be surprised if the "yes" vote succeeds. If you think you should vote "no" because a permanent lobby group, that the government must consult, for one ethnic group only, that all other ethnic groups must pay for, that can never be dissolved or disbanded, is a bad idea in a multicultural society, you are called a racist.
There is no limit to the insults poured onto those who intend to vote no. A popular Australian cartoonist made a cartoon of "no" voters as Nazis holding Nazi banners with "No" incorporating the face of Adolph Hitler. This is a disaster for my country no matter what the outcome. If the Voice is not passed, the people that voted "no" will be earn the undying hatred of about half the population.
Worse, it appears the Voice is incompatible with the current Australian Anti-discrimination Act of 1975 which clearly states if services are granted exclusively to a particular ethnic group that has suffered from social under achievement, it must be temporary, and services returned to being equal for all groups when the group receiving special treatment has achieved equality. A permanent lobby group, which is part of the constitution, that can never be dissolved is in clear conflict in the act. If it passes the ideal of a multicultural Australia where everyone is treated equally no matter what ethnic group they belong to, will have been fatally damaged.
The vote is divisive because, in focus groups, Advance, the group funding the no campaign, found that was the key issue, so they pushed hard on that nerve. (Btw nothing to do with the question at hand, just another avenue to push THEIR agenda - look it up). And indigenous Australians aren’t just another ethnic group, they were here 65,000 years before any other ethnic group decided they wanted to take away their land
@@Random-number-67532 The 65,000 year figure will be debunked like the previous 125,000 year estimate. Carbon-dating is unreliable when pre-dating beyond 10 millennia
I just can't get in the mindset of someone who would vote no because they think it's not going far enough. Do you think the other people voting no agree with you? Can you see them championing a treaty alongside you? I get that any advice can just be ignored by government, but so can everything else. This is still a step in the right direction and makes so much sense.
They want to be runners.....and can't be bothered learning how to walk first. What could possibly go wrong?
Of course you cannot get into the mindset of somebody who would vote no... Its because you lack empathy... Imagine voting for the voice if it were for White People.
It’s a brilliant stall tactic by the NO campaign. Not yet means no but it lets you feel better about it.
@@ScottBrady49 I've never heard the NO campaign say "Not Yet"… seemingly only woke leftists straw-manning the NO side are saying that. Its very very simple... If you vote YES, you are supporting a racist and apartheid-like constitutional amendment... and that's why I voted NO... I'm not a racist... Also some of the behaviour of the yes side has been appalling... Spitting on people... assaulting people... calling people coconuts... appropriate the colors and branding of the AEC in YES posters... and just plain lying about the VOICE (its only 1 page... what a heap of bollox).
Is the "right" direction special interest groups for other races?
Should we crack out the armbands so we know who gets the special extra democratic representation?
I'd love to have more than a single vote!
Just proves don’t fall for the patronising and condescending guilt trips. This advert apart from its cringe value is a complete insult on people’s intelligence and guess what it was an overwhelming NO including from the most densely populated indigenous communities.
Yeah, you can Google it, and many have. Unfortunately all of the official 'information' is fluffy, idealistic, feel good vibe that does not explain how this would work or why it would be better.
Even after months of 'negative' and 'divisive' questions to seek more detail, the Yes team won't or can't provide any better explanation. Expecting a majority to vote Yes for something that has not been explained on the basis of the vibe is unrealistic, which is why the polls are where they are.
What would you like to know about how it would work?
@LlywellynOBrien Lots of the questions commonly asked in Parliament (that Burney 'answered' by reading out the Referendum question), or on televised panels (where the 'impartial' moderator allows non-answers from Yes proponents), or in press interviews (where the Yes representative tells us again that it is a modest request and the right thing to do). Questions like:
1. How will 24(ish) members of the Voice represent 100s of separate tribes and communities?
2. How will the 24(ish) members be selected? The less polite way of asking this is - Will the 24(ish) members of the Voice include Pearson, Langton, Mayo and others from the existing Aboriginal activist industry cohort?
3. How will the performance of Voice members be measured to make them accountable?
4. What limitations are there on issues that are considered relevant to the Voice? Without a clear remit it is possible that the Voice could argue that any and all issues have some relevance.
5. How is advice from the Voice guaranteed to remain advisory, and prevent Govt decisions from being able to be challenged through the courts?
6. How is the ability to listen improved with a Voice compared with people doing the jobs properly now?
7. What accountability for outcomes will be attached to the Voice, as there seems to be no accountability in the current system?
8. Why is an audit of the current system being opposed? Surely that would better inform future initiatives more reliably than an untested system?
9. Why is there a refusal to acknowledge that inserting a privilege in the Constitution that is specific to a particular race is racist?
10. Why has the story changed so much from the Yes proponents over time, from implementing Uluru SFTH in full to "it is just advisory".
Just a few questions that I'm not aware of any official answers. If you have references then by all means share them. We'll sort it all out later is not an acceptable answer to something so significant and potentially open to abuse. "Trust us, there is no risk" sounds like a used car salesman.
@@DavidW73wrong premise ( but I suspect you know that…. creating division etc). The nature of the Voice can change as each Parliament sees fit. The only thing is no Parliament can get rid of it ( that is if you vote YES)
@@DavidW73 Hey David, sorry for the slow reply, lots of questions.
Just to be clear, a bunch of what you are asking about isn’t baked into the amendment that we are voting on, but is subject to the specific legislation that each Government would be able to pass. I will mainly answer from the details that we know from the Labor proposal. If you want to look for the deets on this, the Voice site is a good place, but the co-design report and similar are the next step. Because of the way the Government has gone about this, there is no single, digestible summary of every detail of Labor's proposal (which in my view is a good thing, because we aren't voting on that).
1. They won’t represent any particular tribe or community. They will represent all Indigenous Australians who reside within their region/population. This is basically how our senate works, so I don’t see the issue.
It is important to say that the Voice won’t replace existing cultural leadership structures. These will continue, and would make their views heard in consultation with regional voices and reps.
2. The default would be for them to be elected, with the elections run by regional voices in each jurisdiction. There would also be the option for individuals to be appointed by these voices via pre-existing cultural decision making processes.
Every Indigenous person could hold themselves out for election, vote on their reps and influence the regional Voices. The Reps would then work with the regional Voice and engage in other consultation in order to shape their advice.
3. Presumably the regional Voices that determine the makeup of their representatives would form a view of whether the person is doing a good job. In severe cases the government might also step in. Given we have no explicit accountability for MPs anything beyond this seems very odd.
4. The weight of legal opinion suggests that the Voice would have remit to speak on pretty well any issue. That said, the degree to which their representations are taken seriously would very much depend on the relevance of the issue. It is very doubtful that they would waste political capital on random topics
5. There is no mechanism by which the Voice could be anything other than advisory. This one isn’t even a matter of model, the proposed Constitutional amendment is very clear. The only realistic chance of delay is the outside possibility that the Voice or another party could challenge a decision reached before the Voice had a chance to make a representation. This is not impossible unlike many claims. That said, the majority of legal experts aren’t worried about this occurring, and are even more confident that the Courts would deal with such challenges quickly. See Robert French KC’s address from the other day for one discussion of this.
6. There is currently no representative body with the legitimacy, independence, remit and public profile that the proposed Voice would have. No organisation can currently plausibly claim to speak to the interests of Indigenous Australians. Currently a pollie can just speak to one or two hand-picked Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander figures, in private conversations outside of public view, and claim to have listened to their Indigenous constituents. This would not be possible with a Voice.
7. Just like the rest of our political system democracy is the accountability system. If someone doesn’t represent their region well, they’d be dumped, if the whole thing becomes dysfunctional and loses credibility, there will be pressure for the government to step in. If things go completely off the deep end, another referendum would sort it.
8. I am unsure what you mean by current system. All government spending and programs are audited routinely and the ACNC oversees not for profits. There is no evidence of major problems on either front.
9. Because that is disputable at best. No ordinary sense of the word racist would apply to a means of recognising the traditional custodians of a place and creating a mechanism by which they, a marginalised and impoverished minority, might be heard on matters impacting them. Also, whether indignity and race are synonymous is hotly disputed. It is also worth being very conscious of the oddness of deploying a claim of racism against efforts to empower a people who have been dispossessed, suffered attempted genocides, massacres, forced labour and countless other crimes on the basis of ‘race’ as it was understood in an enlightenment era pseudo-scientific sense.
10. The Labor Party has committed to implementing the Uluru Statement. The Voice is one element of that, but it bears no legal relationship to the others. Treaty and truth telling processes are already underway, but won’t either be commenced by the Voice’s success nor (legally speaking) impeded by its failure. Even if the Voice gets up, the Uluru Statement will have no legal status.
The Voice was requested as the first step because of a belief that Constitutional recognition and practical outcomes were most urgent. It was also hoped that the existence of a Voice would be beneficial during the commencement of Treaty and Truth Telling processes.
The blunt reality for those who don’t like the idea of Treaty is that we are alone in the world in not having faced this, and we will be doing so soonish regardless of the Voice.
@LlywellynOBrien Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed reply. I can't understand why the Yes leadership would not try to explain some of this stuff like you did, rather than being elusive and vague all the time. They lost people's trust with that approach.
I'm still unconvinced that this needs to be in the Constitution. It should have just been about recognition, with a commitment to try an improved system through legislation.
I think that for a better chance of success the Aboriginal activist industry needs new leadership. Remove the bitter and vindictive who only want to look backwards and be aggrieved. Replace them with people with an optimistic vision for healing and a unified future. This perpetual victimhood and blame mentality will not permit progress.
How is this not called out for mansplaining and portraying women as a denigraded stereotype?
shut up
Mansplaining never really meant what you seem to imply it does. Mansplaining was just one more way of denigrating white men in particular.
It's therefore not applicable in this scenario.
Brilliant. I wanna channel this calmness in all my political conversations 🤣
😂 that would shut up the right wing people
Personally I feel this video is a bit of a straw-man argument; sort of labelling the 'No' voters as these dis-interested, uneducated, reality TV watching noobs. Each to their own, I'm comfortable with someone holding a different opinion to myself, but this doesn't really address any of the robust arguments against the 'Yes' vote. Although in principle this sounds like a good idea, it's clearly a political move to gain public favour and appear to be trying to solve a huge problem we have in this country without actually having to do the hard work of leadership. Putting it to a referendum also gives them an out if the voice vote does not pass. There is actually nothing this provides the Indigenous peoples of Australia that the government could not already take into account with the right level of engagement and care factor. It's a cop out.
I googled it - but I didn't just stop at the first result Google gave me, that would be stupid.
Vote yes so the Australian government can improce its global ESG rating lol mark my words the voice will change nothing for those that need the help the most.
Please explain
@@Random-number-67532 not sure if serious but the world is all about virtue signalling and empty words. Hence the ESG quip. I guarantee the voice will not help those that actually need the help. Why? Because those closest to the money always get the money. If people haven't learnt that then perhaps they need to be doing some reading beyond watching what the government wants you to see.
Actually I was trying to be funny, sorry (see Pauline Hanson when she was asked about xenophobia); but I digress. May I put forward the idea of a factory. Something goes wrong on the factory floor. Who is going to notice and suggest improvements, those who are dealing with the day to day, or those in the office. A vote for the voice will be a vote for efficiency
@@Random-number-67532 yes I thought that may have been a Hanson reference but hard to gauge on the internet haha if it's one thing I've learnt over the years it's that if the powerful can exploit something guaranteed it will be exploited. The voice will be no different, just be opening a can of worms.
@@dominatorbooze8381 Changing the Constitution only authorises the Government to make the law. The Government introduces a bill into Parliament, & both houses of Parliament need to vote for the bill for it to become law. Every election we get to vote for which party we want to be in Government going forward. If you see money not making it to the people who need it, try to change that, eg lobby your Federal MP to change tax laws or Centrelink laws or housing laws, & vote for whichever party’s policies will do the most good for the people you think need help.
Welp Scoreboard 🦅🦅
Still voting NO. I don’t trust Albanese when he refuses to provide even the most basic of details about this proposal. The Australian constitution is for all Australians and is not something to toy with, it should treat us all equally regardless of race, but this voice to parliament will entrench race based privileges and separatism in this country, when we should all be equal under the law. Plus, aboriginals don’t need a voice when they already have one it’s called voting for your MP, as well as 3,278 aboriginals corporations, 243 native title bodies, 35 regional councils, 155 aboriginal agencies, 3 advisory bodies, 145 aboriginal health organisations, 11 aboriginal members of federal parliament and 34 BILLION dollars allocated annually specifically for aboriginal needs. If that’s not a voice then idk what is. It’s a big NO from me and the majority of all Australians, that’s why this referendum will be defeated.
For more ACTUAL important information before voting in the referendum, watch Jacinta Nampijimpa Price’s full National press club speech: th-cam.com/users/livehrinfhtFDlc?si=V9Pew_KHpC3hQ94Q
Initially, I shared similar concerns, but upon further research, I found many of these views to be misconceptions.
1. *Separatism Misconception.* The term "separatism" is a strong one, and it's important to clarify that both Aboriginals and non-Aboriginal Australians fall under the same governing body and abide by the same set of rules within our nation. It's an oversimplification to categorise the Voice as such.
2. *Representation Challenges.* Aboriginal communities are dispersed throughout Australia, often resulting in them being a minority in many regions. Consequently, regional representatives often address broader regional interests rather than the specific needs of these communities. Furthermore, the unique cultural practices and values of Aboriginal communities, particularly in remote areas, may not always be front and centre in mainstream political discourse. While voting for MPs is a fundamental democratic right, MPs alone can't address the myriad of challenges faced by these communities. Large, structured bodies with extensive networks are better equipped to handle such intricacies.
3. *The Uniqueness of the Voice.* Existing structures like Aboriginal corporations, native title bodies, regional councils, aboriginal agencies, health organisations, and the representation in parliament play vital roles. However, these aren't substitutes for the proposed Voice, which offers a different, more centralised approach to representation.
4. *Federal Advisory Bodies.* At the federal level, advisory bodies like NIAA and IAC serve specific purposes (I'm not sure what the 3rd was...?). If they do not have a distinct role, then they will eventually merge into the Voice. At the end of the day, ensuring the consistent presence of an advisory body is what this vote ensures. Most people agree that there _should_ be an advisory body, so I'm puzzled by the hesitancy in cementing such an entity's existence.
5. *Benefits of the Voice's Longevity.* The continuous existence of the Voice offers numerous advantages. This includes the accumulation of expertise, stable investment, and financial prudence by avoiding the cyclic dismantling and re-establishing of such bodies. More critically, it's a sincere effort to address the shortcomings of our existing approaches. Despite substantial investments in Aboriginal communities, desired outcomes remain elusive. Other nations have managed their relationships with their indigenous populations more effectively. I'm optimistic that the Voice can bring about a positive change in this regard.
6. *Concerns with Jacinta Price.* While it's crucial to seek varied opinions, I advise caution when considering some of Jacinta Price's statements. A few have been proven to be inaccuracies.
More bureaucracy will not help Indigenous Australians in disadvantaged communities to close the gap and achieve reconciliation. Indigenous people already have a voice via an unprecedented level of Indigenous representation in parliament.
I'd take your own advice too and advise you to be cautious when considering the need for a referendum to change Australias constitution on something as trivial as what the vote is shown to be in this video. One should not turn their head away from such important issues for the sake of doing what feels right.
How can you say that about Albosleazy?
It's simple nobody deserves to get special status or extra "recognition" because their ancestors have been in a place for more generations. "The voice" was about enshrining racism in the constitution. Thankfully, a sound majority of Australians voted no.
Excuse me, I hate to bother four months on, but have you ever heard of 'The Stolen Generation?' or maybe stolen wages? It's not 'extra recognition' its reconciliation.
@@megggles no. That would be if a law or reform was specifically addressed at that grievance and compensating anyone who was directly affected. "The voice" had nothing to do with that. "
*"It could divide the nation, how?"*
- The fact that it undermines our parliamentary democracy by implementing a race-based parliamentary advisory body, providing Aboriginal Australians with greater parliamentary representation than non-aboriginal Australians. It makes no more sense than having an Irish, Jewish or Muslim parliamentary advisory body.
Greater than the multi-national companies with direct contact to the ministers office, and who may accidentally blow up ancient artefacts in doing their thing (oops, hope you didn’t see that….you did?). Seriously 😢
@@Random-number-67532 *"Greater than the multi-national companies..."*
- Industry-based parliamentary advisory bodies are normal (and typically funded by that industry fyi) a race-based parliamentary advisory body (funded by the tax payer fyi) is completely unprecedented and would represent a complete social sea-change that would provide one racial group with more parliamentary representation than other racial groups.
An aboriginal parliamentary advisory body is no more valid than an Irish, Jewish or Muslim parliamentary advisory body.
@@user-ui5bo5um8m I totally forgot about all the muslims and jews that were living in this country for thousands of years and got their land stolen by the British. You're right, it's totally no more valid.
@@user-ui5bo5um8m Mate, one racial group already has greater parliamentary representation than other groups.
@@user-ui5bo5um8m They are called lobbyists………….
Very insightful for First Nations people regarding the "truth" of referendum
kin beautiful, that is excellent... voted YES ... its not hard to find out what its about.That was so funny...... best clip so far
I want there to be more clips of these guys talking crap in a pub.
Talking crap indeed
Jesus Christ. Really 😂. This guy must have got a good kick back for this dribble.
Vote No
No all day.
Just look at how the Indigenous people in Europe have benefited from their voice vote. They haven't, rather you get a small select of Indigenous people making decisions for all Indigenous people. The average Indigenous person does not want it and regrets their voice vote.
That's not true. Although different countries have different models, First Nations people elsewhere are making advances in areas like health and education. And they are happy to see that Australia might join the 21st Century, and wish us well if we do.
Of course, nothing is perfect, and some countries are adjusting legislation to make their bodies more effective and not all politicians and bureaucrats are open to doing better when they can manipulate First Nations issues to their political or promotional advantage. But, there are always people of goodwill and people who prefer selfish opportunism.
Many other countries are watching us. Personally, I don't think we should be swayed by the views other countries have of us, but we do have to recognize that we will have to accommodate a world view that sees us as diminished and we can expect major powers like China to be pointing out our human rights hypocrisy when we are having arguments with them.
@@sandracochrane2155 you are completely wrong on this. We can and should look to see how other countries have done this. The Sami parliament in Finland is disastrous to Sami people . I know because I speak with them. Indigenous leadership should always be local. No official voice can ever do that. That's the European way my friend.
@@joethi4981proof is better than assertion. For example, my indigenous friends in Britain ( the Anglo celt saxon pict dane cohort) are doing ok - discuss.
The best video I have seen on TH-cam
Really? Is this your first time on TH-cam? 😂
Hmmm so demeaning ads that talk down to people don't work 🤔 who would have thought?
I have a feeling the referendum result will be a No.
Agreed, I don't know anyone that has a spine who is voting no. We are basically writing an open contract via a yes vote.
We should vote no, You can't trust a politician to just work it out later. If they can't articulate exactly how it will function before we vote on it. their must be a hidden agenda. I don't have a problem with aboriginals, but I do have a problem politicians you can not trust any of them. @@dominatorbooze8381
Fun fact, things without spines can’t vote in the referendum, and most creatures with them can’t
Great Video, Thanks for making it!
VOTE YES!
Mate have you googled it. I think they are betting on you not.
Check out part 3 from the actual question:
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
@lachlan troller - paragraph 3 is how all law making works, there is nothing special or scary about that. The constitution provides a framework for Parliament. Parliament will improve the way the voice works for generations using this framework like they do with all other laws. There is no need to sell fear - it is a straight forward, simple proposal. If you don’t agree there should be a Voice fine, vote No, but don’t try to make it sound like it’s something it’s not. That clause is standard and used throughout the constitution. Check out Section 51 of the existing constitution.
*YES MOB ARE WOKE TERRORISTS*
@scottbrady51 so why lie and make up stuff about the voice being chosen by indigenous leaders in the communities? They don’t know that. Just say the truth. The thing will be determined later by Canberra polies as set out in the question. The whole thing is off. The celebrities, the multinational corporations, the Canberra polies and the rich city folk all for yes. Why is that? Non of the indigenous out here in regional Australia are too vocal about this. There is a big community in this town and they are neutral on it. When you ask them they are embarrassed by the whole thing and that is some fellas I know really well. This was before I made up my mind. I genuinely wanted to know their thoughts so I could make a dedication and they are just embarrassed by it and change the subject and move on. Then you see stuff like this and it just looks rotten. I don’t know where they got this whole 80% indigenous are for it thing from. Maybe they made that up as well. How would they even know that? Did they go out into the communities and ask all the indigenous people? Suspect too to bottom.
@@lachlanmcvey7885it’s pretty simply hey 👋 where the line about taking my land the NO campaign keeps telling me about. Can’t see that there. I’m voting yes because the No campaign lies are disgusting 🤮
I'm just commenting to raise engagement and boost the algorithm
It was obvious from the start this was not going to happen. Instead the 430 million of taxpayers money could have gone towards boarding school for aboriginals that don’t want to go home where they feel unsafe, they could get a full time education, a safe place to sleep, meals, counselling everything they would need to get a good start to life. I think this would be an excellent thing to do. What a waste of money on this referendum.
"What about the voice doesnt make sense?"
The complete lack of details concerning it's implementation:
- How would they determine what constitutes an indigenous issue?
- What powers will they have (eg. can they filllibuster legislative decisions under the pretense of not having been properly consulted) ?
- What are the guardrails to prevent successive governments giving them even more power or using this as a precedent for treaty and title nonsense?
- How will representatives be chosen and how will we eject them when this body invariably becomes corrupt (like all the other indigenous bodies)?
- How will it be funded, is it replacing some of the 30 billion dollars of annual spending on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders or is it an additional cost ontop of it?
Voting for a policy on it's face while failing to consider it's implementation and the precedents it will set is vacuous and irresponsible. Our government is comprised of bastards and imbeciles who constantly lie to us and we dont trust them to work out the details after the fact. No Details = No Voice.
IF THE VOICE PASSES, then stakeholders from all elected parties will negotiate this. So the Duttons, Jacintas, and people against recognising indigenous representation can control its power. The reason why we are having the Voice is to enshrine a 'voice to parliament' that can't be redacted by the government of the day, that's it. Previously representative bodies have been formed and cancelled by both Labor and Coalition, which is a big waste of time and money. Just vote YES and save money, bro.
And the divide begins. This crap has already happened is other countries resulting in more divide but hey, Australia different right. Bread and circuses 🍞 🤡
What constitutes an "indigenous issue" is clear. The former Chief Justice of the High Court has explained how.
All Indigenous bodies are not corrupt but the Voice will be able to be investigated by the NACC and the Voice legislation can be changed if necessary and Voice representatives can only hold four year terms.
Most of the $30 billion is actually just normal services that the rest of us get like funding for hospitals and schools. First Nation Australians will still use hospitals, schools, etc like the rest of us so that funding will stay the same. The small proportion that is left will have greater accountability mechanisms in place.
The relevant legal precedents have shown us that the Voice is legally safe according to constitutional lawyers and other experts in constitutional law.
@@sandracochrane2155
*"What constitutes an 'indigenous issue' is clear. The former Chief Justice of the High Court has explained how."*
If that were true then you would be able to provide citations for:
a) The specific criterion the high court has provided for determining what constitutes indigenous issues.
b) Commitment from the government that this will be the specific criterion that The Voice will be obligated to use.
Until you provide that the only logical option is to dismiss your claim as baseless - you're blowing smoke.
*"the Voice legislation can be changed if necessary..."*
- 'Herdy-derp we will figure it out later' is not an acceptable answer. How will we eject voice group members them when this body invariably becomes corrupt? Provide the details.
*"Most of the $30 billion is actually just normal services..."*
- That's an outright lie: the 30 billion dollars spent annually on aboriginals is not merely 'normal services' it represents an OVERWHELMINGLY DISPROPRTIONATE amount of government spending compared to the general population and includes other programs that exclusively benefit aboriginals.
"The relevant legal precedents have shown us that the Voice is legally safe according to constitutional lawyers "
Your claim is factually inaccurate:
- Whilst a small number of constitutional lawyers have provided opinions on whether the voice violates constitutional law on it's face, this does not address either potential legal precedents or the fact it undermines our parliamentary democracy (because this is dependent on implementation details that have not been provided)
Nothing in your reply is true.
Chefs kiss. Perfect.
One more week to vote Yes! I'm glad to see this video get some views. Well done Mr. Briggs.