Referendum 2023 | The Voice to Parliament Debate | Listen to both sides!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 เม.ย. 2023
- On April 4, CIS hosted and broadcasted an Oxford-style debate on the motion “The Voice to Parliament is needed to address Indigenous matters.”
This year Australia will hold a referendum on whether to change the constitution and ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ views are better represented in Parliament. Is the Voice about giving Indigenous Australians a right to express their views on policy through representatives elected by their communities? Or would the Voice provide cover for an activist government to legislate radical policy with no genuine democratic consent?
On the affirmative side were Australia’s first Indigenous Senior Counsel, Anthony McAvoy, and constitutional lawyer Shireen Morris. Against the proposition were Northern Territory Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and head of CIS Indigenous Forum Nyunggai Warren Mundine.
Referendum question: The question to be put to the Australian people at the 2023 referendum will be: “A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”
Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is a Country Liberal Senator for The Northern Territory and former Deputy-Mayor of Alice Springs.
Dr Shireen Morris is a constitutional lawyer and teaches constitutional law, constitutional reform and Indigenous constitutional recognition at Macquarie University. She is co-author of the book A Rightful Place: A Road Map to Recognition (Black Inc.).
Nyunggai Warren Mundine is director of the Indigenous Forum at CIS. He is an author of several books including Warren Mundine in Black and White: Race, Politics and Changing Australia (Pantera Press) and editor of Beyond Belief - Rethinking the Voice to Parliament (Connor Court).
Anthony McAvoy is Australia’s first Indigenous Senior Counsel and between 2011 and 2013, Tony was an Acting Part-Time Commissioner of the NSW Land and Environment Court. He was also Acting Northern Territory Treaty Commissioner from the period of Dec 2021 to June 2022.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS promotes free choice and individual liberty and the open exchange of ideas. CIS encourages debate among leading academics, politicians, media and the public. We aim to make sure good policy ideas are heard and seriously considered so that Australia can prosper. Follow CIS on our Socials;
Twitter - / cisoz
Facebook - / centreindependentstudies
Linkedin - / the-centre-for-indepen...
📖 Read more from CIS here: www.cis.org.au/
💬 Join in the conversation in the comments.
👍 Like this video if you enjoyed it and want to see more, it really helps us out!
🔔 Subscribe to our channel and click the bell to watch our videos first: / @cisaus
⏲️ Missed this event live? Subscribe to CIS to be up to date with all our events:
www.cis.org.au/subscribe/
📝 Subscribe to CIS mailing list- www.cis.org.au/subscribe/
💳 Support us with a tax-deductible donation at - www.cis.org.au/support/
No to Apartheid!
No to Racism!
No to Segregation!
No to a separate Voice!
One Australia for all Australians
Hoo haa
YAY!! 😁
We are 3 percent of the population and 50 percent of the prison population because what you don't want to understand is that systems of governance can be racist like the that someone I know who studied criminal justice at Flinders University and had a judge come and speak and heard him state to the class of upcoming lawyers, judge's and social worker's that they should not believe anything an indigenous person says and they'll all lie to you to help whomever needs it. But let me ask you this. If you kid accidentally kill someone would you turn them in or help bury the body as I remember not to long ago some lady helped her son bury the GF he killed here in sa
@@justinhobbs8646 That 3% consume $25 Billion of whitey`s money annually even as you spurn your benefactor. That`s equal to the defence budget! All we get back is abuse. 600 indigenous doctors show what can be done whilst 299,997 do nought. You can choose to carry on like Jacinta or Lydia. Attitude determines altitude. The balloon rises because of what`s inside, not whether black or white. Instead of swallowing the ALP`s Kool Aid try a large helping of truth for once.
@@justinhobbs8646 I think we should all be treated equally in this country & helped on a needs basis rather than on one of race. After all, we are all part of the human race. As for burying someone my child killed: I don’t think I could live with the terrible secret.
Was it Albanese that said they would need 6 months post referendum to see what The Voice would look like?
I’ve never signed a blank cheque in my life and I won’t start now!
This is not a blank cheque. This is how the Australian Constitution works.
In Australia, the Constitution is what is called in legal academia 'a minimalist' constitution. It doesn't provide details; it only prescribes the principles and leaves the details to the Australian people, represented through their elected MPs and Senators, to fill in the details.
This is viewed as a good thing. Thomas Jefferson once said that the dead should not govern the living. He meant that laws should reflect the intention and will of the people it is set for, not their ancestors. The Constitution is an important document that is hard to amend or change. If we specify how many members the Voice has, how much funding it gets, how to conduct its elections, how it provides representations, how these representations are read or requested...etc. it will lock it in. Besides, these details do not exist in the Consitution anyway. Does the Consitution or any state equivalent say the government should have a minister for horse racing or not? How many ministers? How to select them? What is their minimum qualification? No, the constitution leaves that to the day's legislature to decide.
The amendment is doing exactly that; it asks us if we should recognise the Indigenous Peoples of Australia as its first nations and give them an advisory role on matters that affect them. If we agree, those details, like all the details of our whole political system, are then filled by Parliament, and they can be easily changed if and when we need them to be. The only constitutional entrenchment is the acknowledgement and Voice's existence.
@@kanealkoraghooli1682 Yes pops a blank cheque it is: The detail could’ve been provided with model or draft legislation to which the government can commit to and be accountable for - but I guess that’s too much hard work and it may scare people away. We understand minutiae will not be in the proposed constitutional amendment wording, but the government is leaving it sufficiently blank by not being forthright with filling in the details of a proposed legislation before the referendum. I would’ve preferred a constitutional convention where even these details would’ve been ironed out, but I guess it’s too late for that now and we’re already being divided as a nation, so much for uniting Australia, hey? There are also ways to prescribe principles that would ensure a limited scope and allay legitimate concerns of the constitution being stretched to accommodate effects that may undermine the Rule of Law in this country, in fact modest and very effective changes to the wording were proposed but rejected - a real missed opportunity to secure broader consensus, these include deletion of s129(ii) providing for the supremacy of parliament, a new s77(iv) parliament circumscribing judicial review, clarifying s129(iii) in a way that gives express parliamentary power to make laws as to the legal effect of the Voice’s representations, substitute “Ministers of State” in lieu of “Executive Government” to limit representations made to public servants, insulating them sufficiently to enable them to do their work. So no, we’re not asking for the Constitution to be weighed down with the details of regulations although it could still take in sufficient details such as Ch III s72 (e.g., retirement age) just enough, sufficiently scoped, with latitude for parliamentary acts, but not overly vague such as this one. We do not need to conflate minutiae with clear boundaries in the Constitution. Now as for further and also important details, a model or draft legislation would’ve helped answer critics’ questions and assure the public of a proper perspective. Recognition is one thing, a true minimalist position is simple constitutional acknowledgment and nothing more, an advisory role would not be necessary especially because that itself can be legislated as a more agile body that keeps with the times. Now, if we want entrenchment of such an advisory body, sure, the counterproposals I mentioned above would still do as intended without the massive risk that this current wording presents.
Then it's a really stupid constitution put together by beaurocratic cowards.
That explains why we have so much abuse of power in Australia.
Also, why we have no 'Bill of Rights' and other detailed and specifically outlined protections of the people.
The Devil is in the details or in this case, the lack of details.
Never ever trust a blank cheque approach. Vote NO
@@entershikarii👌👌 spot on
@@entershikariiThere is an draft. Did you try searching it up
Well said Jacinta Price. Whether you advocate for yes or no, it surely is an act of irresponsiblity for us to put our signature to a blank contract, which is effectively, what we are being asked to do. Sign here and we will figure out the wording later...promise you'll like it. Altering the Constitution should never be done lightly and always for the right reasons and in a carefully-worded manner.
Where is the “blank contract”? Parliament will do what it has always done, no different and that is to legislate the Voice. Your “blank contract” is subject to the legislative process and importantly can be amended. The change to the Constitution will empower Parliament to legislate the Voice. So yeah, the details are to be worked out no different to any Commonwealth law. It is also amusing that after all the detailed considerations over many years by a wide representation of the community you could write “…never be done lightly…and in a carefully-worded manner,”. But I agree with the sentiment that things should be done for the “right reasons”, and this is values based.
@@NK-ch3oz I believe that Parliament already has the power to legislate a Voice. Why not do this first, to make sure it works and does not have unintended consequences, before trying to alter the Constitution?
@@ltho5616 I understand that Parliament could legislate the Voice without amendments to the Constitution. A threshold question, do you propose Constitutional recognition of First Nations people as a standalone referendum question? The rationale for the Voice to be in the Constitution is to reduce the prospects of a future Parliament disposing of the Voice, so in that sense your point is correct as it would require a referendum to amend the Constitution. However the proposed Constitutional amendment stipulates that the Voice be established for the purpose of making representations and leaves the detail for Parliament to legislate. So Parliament will have power to remedy unintended consequences without the need for a referendum.
I think you need to have a read about how policy mandates or policy promises are articulated versus policy written and amended, OP.
Look at the Help to Buy scheme, give Julie Collins office a call and see what info you can get beyond a paragraph of broad info and a few figures. This is a scheme that was supposed to be rolled out this year... nothing exists beyond an idea and some badic budgeting before it goes to actual policy writers to hash out.
Calm down on thinking you're 'blank cheque' is somehow different from the way our procedures work usually.
@@NK-ch3oz "The rationale for the Voice to be in the Constitution is to reduce the prospects of a future Parliament disposing of the Voice"
People know that. That's part of the reason people are against it. We don't know that it will be the positive thing the government claims. We don't even know what it is in real substance, much less how it will actually be implemented.
That's why it's important to not put it in the constitution. We shouldn't put something that isn't clearly lined out in the constitution because if it doesn't work, we need to get rid of it. Making it impossible for a future government to get rid if needed is not a great argument to give a no voter. It's not a positive. I wouldn't highlight that aspect of the voice. If the person you are talking to doesn't bring it up, you probably shouldn't either.
I'm not even a no voter (still undecided, but leaning no because of things like this given the lack of info) and I shake my head when I see a yes voter argue that as if it's a good argument that will convince people. It is quite a scary aspect of the referendum if it is successful.
The problem is not representation.
It's accountability.
Why, precisely, did all the previous programs fail?
Where EXACTLY did the funding go?
How EXACTLY was the community consultation done? Who was held accountable?
Why would yet another level of bureaucracy fix this? #VoteNo
Great post, I've been thinking the same thing.
The irony is that, the SAME people that have been overseeing those funds and programs, are the SAME people that are always telling us how bad Indigenous Australians have got it, and now, the SAME people want to try something else (The Voice) that will do the SAME thing and produce the SAME results!
Largely, they were delivery programs, often with appointed people, paid by elected ministers/departments.
The Voice is purely advisory, with no monetary power. It's time the ATSI people had responsibility for closing the gap.
Previous programs failed due to their impermanence as well - before problems could be ironed out they were repealed due to political change. Accountability will be to the Parliament and the Australian people, far more so than before as it is a national body. The Arrilla Indigenous Consulting TH-cam Channel has some really good clarification videos.
@@jannybabe21
"It's time the ATSI people had responsibility for closing the gap." ????
What the hell has been stopping them all this time?
It's these sort of statements that are driving people toward the 'NO' camp.
The idea that the broader Australian Public has to 'look after' Indigenous Australians, by giving them free handouts for everything they need, is why the problem persists.
They already have access to every service that is available and more, yet, apparently, it's not enough.
This 'Voice' is straight out of the 'White Australian Guilt Manual'.
It's both patronizing and condescending to keep on insisting that Indigenous Australians can't get on without 'special support', it also reeks of the bigotry of low expectations.
Time the adults entered the room and broke this never ending cycle of failure.
Same place the billions of dollars go to for the California affordable housing / fix the homeless epidemic , same place NDIS funding goes to. Corrupt private contracted companies that are incentivized not to fix the problems, because if they fix the problems they will stop getting funding.
@@jannybabe21
And how will the accountability & responsibility work?
We need the voice as much as we need more taxes.
We need more taxes for the Super Rich.
@@CybrosisEvolved based on what? People often think the government is bad at managing money. Rich people don't sit on wealth with it doing nothing in their bank. They invest into companies which create goods and services, and jobs. Taxing the super rich (more) is taking money from people that are successfully using money and giving it to government that's argued to be bad with money.
And when you argue to tax the rich more, do you even know how much is paid? Government could up their tax for 10 years straight and people would still say that exact same thing.
You don’t seem to understand how rich people handle their wealth. They own very little and earn very little but control a lot. This means using income tax is a hopelessly ineffective way to try and take rich people’s earnings and redistribute it to everyone else. If you’re serious about growing the economy and ensuring that wealthy people pay for what they take of the commons you should be supporting the introduction of an LVT as the principal taxation instrument in Australia. To understand this better see Prosper Australia
And jabs😂😂
@@mattyj4852ayyyy nice name
As a person of colour who has lived and worked in remote Aboriginal communities I will be voting NO. Australia is for all Australians equally regardless of race, always was, always will be ❤️🇦🇺
You say equality yet where’s the equality in not being in the constitution
@@deklangreen7771 every single ethnicity in Australia needs to be incorporated into the constitution for there to be "equality"?
@@deklangreen7771 we all have the right to a fair trial too under Australian law, that’s not in the constitution 🤡🤡🤡🤡
@deklangreen7771 the answer is no unless there is a seperate panel for all races that live in Australia
@@deklangreen7771 you are misguided Declan. Everyone is equal in the constitution now. You do not need to be individually identified by race in it…at the moment the constitution is colour blind. The voice will change that and make you more ‘special’ than others….and being a minority that’s not a good position to be in. Please inform yourself and don’t listen to lying tongues.
No to the Voice. We are one country and one people. I do not and will not vote for something that will bring about division - no way!
The most divisive outcome would be for The Voice to fail. that would be divisive. Vote YES!
@@nikkideanmusic people are already divided. Look at the polls.
As I understand it, we don't need "a voice" in Canberra - we need "ears". If only the PM had listened to Jacinta Price regarding alcohol management plans in Northern Territory.
After listening to this debate, and doing my own research, I will knowledgeably voting No. Thankyou to both sides.
I suggest you search the claim with a fact check. There will be several responses.
TO ME...THE GAP IS THE VOICE THAT MAKES WE THE PEOPLE DIVIDE.....STAND UP for NO.....A COMMON SENSE.....INDEED...
If u think a simple Yes or No to this question is common sense then i think you need to read more about it.
The parliament represents all Australians no matter your background race or colour vote NO TO THIS RACIST PROPOSAL!
Exactly Dear keithhickson2690, As of July 2022, there are and 8 senators and 3 members of the House of Representatives who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. They are:
• Senator Dorinda Cox, Western Australia
• Senator Patrick Dodson, Western Australia
• Senator Jacqui Lambie, Tasmania
• Senator Kerrynne Liddle, South Australia
• Senator the Hon Malarndirri McCarthy, Northern Territory
• Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Northern Territory
• Senator Jana Stewart, Victoria
• Senator Lidia Thorpe, Victoria
• The Hon Linda Burney MP, Member for Barton
• Dr Gordon Reid, Member for Robertson
• Ms Marion Scrymgour, Member for Lingiari
So 11 of in our Federal Parliament are Australian Aboriginal or TSI's.
Senate 26 Labor Senators/ 32 Lib/Nat/Country Party 2 Independents and 11 Greens; Lambie 2; One Nation 2 and UAP 1 = 76
House of Reps 78 Labor/ 56 Lib/Nat/Country Party 11 Independents and 4 greens 1 Centre alliance and 1 Katter Australian Party = 151
TOTAL PARLIAMENTARIANS IN FEDERAL PARLIAMENT = 227
Source: peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/parliamentary-statistics/
Percentage of Australian Aboriginal and TSI's in the Country: 812,000 ( 91.4% Identified as Australian Aboriginal and 4.2% as Australian TSI and 4.4% as both Aboriginal and TSI's)
Source: www.abs.gov.au/articles/australia-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-population-summary
Population of Australia currently 26,423,359.
So, Australian Aboriginal and TSI's are 3.1 % of the Population.
So, Australian Aboriginal and TSI's are 4.8% representation in Parliament.
It seems to me, that our Australian Aboriginal and TSI's are OVER REPRESENTED IN OUR FEDERAL PARLIAMENT.
@@tjsurname119the difference is that indigenous politicians represent their electorate and have to be loyal to their political party. They are simply not accountable and or liable to indigenous communities. This is where the advisory committee of First Nations people is different as they represent indigenous Australians period. They would thus represent the views of their people. That’s the difference with indigenous MPs who aren’t accountable to First Nations people necessarily singed out compared to indigenous people in the advisory group who are accountable and liable to their indigenous community peoples voices. Just to clear that up for you.
Jacinta Price is amazing, She knows her facts. She knows the VOICE is wrong. Australia needs more like Jacinta Price. When she talks i definitely listen.
We all know the problems regarding First Nation's People so why The Voice? Will The Voice magically know how to fix these problems? I don't think so. A waste of time and money and absolutely nothing will change.
And Albo will swamp us with many overseas 'Torres Strait Islander people' from everywhere. Unity and progress for ALL Australians-not just some. 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
It's a diversion from an incompetent government who are deflecting from the real issues that they have no answers for. People hopefully will wake up one day. Albos conned them and they were stupid enough to fall for it.
@@sabejreid2072, you know *Torres Strait* People are a specific group, not 'from everywhere,' right? It's a bit hush-hush; they are from the TORRES STRAIT.
And when I think about it, if anyone swamped this country with foreigners, it was the first fleet
Jacinta Price is the bees knees. It's great to see a panel be able to debate/discuss in such a tolerant way, passionate on both sides, and still respectful and able to answer questions.
And yet look at Alice Springs!!!!
@@ralphmogridge8364 it would be worse without her
she is smart & articulate. Logic not ideology drives her. A fabulous example of what a correctly motivated aboriginal can become.
@@garyjohnstone6422 smart and logical as in agreeance with right wing thinking!!
@@ralphmogridge8364 Jacinta Price is her own person, a combination of her family and history and her present and future, she has worked out what is important now and going forward, she is a legend.
If there is already First Nation people in parliament doesn’t that mean there is already a First Nations voice to government
No
You make the assumption that any politician represents the people! I would say naaaaaaaa, unless its an honest independent that lives in the community they represent. Parties represent party interests, not the citizens of their electorate.
Exactly Dear Stuartpotter600, As of July 2022, there are and 8 senators and 3 members of the House of Representatives who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. They are:
• Senator Dorinda Cox, Western Australia
• Senator Patrick Dodson, Western Australia
• Senator Jacqui Lambie, Tasmania
• Senator Kerrynne Liddle, South Australia
• Senator the Hon Malarndirri McCarthy, Northern Territory
• Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Northern Territory
• Senator Jana Stewart, Victoria
• Senator Lidia Thorpe, Victoria
• The Hon Linda Burney MP, Member for Barton
• Dr Gordon Reid, Member for Robertson
• Ms Marion Scrymgour, Member for Lingiari
So 11 of in our Federal Parliament are Australian Aboriginal or TSI's.
Senate 26 Labor Senators/ 32 Lib/Nat/Country Party 2 Independents and 11 Greens; Lambie 2; One Nation 2 and UAP 1 = 76
House of Reps 78 Labor/ 56 Lib/Nat/Country Party 11 Independents and 4 greens 1 Centre alliance and 1 Katter Australian Party = 151
TOTAL PARLIAMENTARIANS IN FEDERAL PARLIAMENT = 227
Source: peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/parliamentary-statistics/
Percentage of Australian Aboriginal and TSI's in the Country: 812,000 ( 91.4% Identified as Australian Aboriginal and 4.2% as Australian TSI and 4.4% as both Aboriginal and TSI's)
Source: www.abs.gov.au/articles/australia-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-population-summary
Population of Australia currently 26,423,359.
So, Australian Aboriginal and TSI's are 3.1 % of the Population.
So, Australian Aboriginal and TSI's are 4.8% representation in Parliament.
It seems to me, that our Australian Aboriginal and TSI's are OVER REPRESENTED IN OUR FEDERAL PARLIAMENT.
Yes. There are already 11 members of parliament that are indigenous.
NO to the referendum of 2023. ALL Australians must be represented in exactly the same way in parliament. No more preferential treatment for any one ethnic group in Australia. We are a true multi cultural society which includes Aboriginal and torres straight islander people and as such, our government should practice what they preach and encourage unity, not division and dischord.
So you believe Aboriginal Australians are treated in the same way as all other Australians? Do you know many Aboriginal Australians?
@@user-xx1yb9jy9sthe constitution treats them the same. Full stop.
There is race in the constitution- twice. The ATSI people are not recognised as the original inhabitants. We are the last first world colonial country not to do this.
All they ask is to be heard. Their body will be protected.
It's power is in empowerment, responsibility, and cultural knowledge.
@@user-xx1yb9jy9shonestly it seems to be a poverty issue not a race issue.
I don’t have the answers and I’m not claiming to, but something needs to be done about addiction and violence in Australia that is causing inter generational trauma, I have seen so many kids growing up white aboriginal Asian European middle eastern African and it’s the same root issue. The parents, support system around them and their own personal decisions.
The Australian Constitution (1901) is the root cause of Aboriginal disadvantage, dysfunction, abject poverty and death, because Aborigines were a people thought of (in 1901) as too weak a race to cope with modernity and therefore were best to be given all the help needed for them to 'die off' with ease and comfort!
The fact that Aborigines have survived all the adversities visited upon them by the Australian governments at all levels is nothing short of a miracle.
And because they're still here 235 years after white people landed in their country, fully intending from the day of first çontact to wipe them off the landscape of their ancestral lands, shouldn't the Australian Constitution (1901) give them now the recognition they are entitled to and the ensuing constitutional protection it guarantees every other Australian that's come to this land from other countries of the world?
The Aborigines are outside the Australian Constitution (1901) because they were never intended to be in it in the first place (know your shameful History!)
So, where's this, "dividing Australians" or making Aborigines more special than the rest of the Australian people?
Aboriginal peoples refuse to be ethnically cleansed of their Aboriginality which is their identity, surrender their proprietary rights to ancestral lands, succumb to mainstreaming and assimilation & convert to the dominant White Australian social & cultural norms which is what everyone in the country is demanding them to do, including governments at State Territories & Commonwealth levels.
But Aborigines are not stupid. They're not going to sell their soul to the devil. And JUSTICE will prevail in the End.
God bless the Aboriginal Cause!
To cut the story short, NO NO NO !
Nothing based on race is good.
To Shireens final comment, even with the voice the govt of the day could have still ignored their advice and would be able to still overturn the alcohol ban. So why even have a voice? Past case in point, The Albanese government were aware of what would happen in the Northern Territory by indigenous leaders and still chose to ignore their advice. I’m tired of hearing the yes case use empathy as their argument to make white people feel better. If we don’t forgive the past we will never move forward together as one nation, one people!
We are one people not 3
I feel Australians can apologise forever and there will always be an indigenous group who will never be happy we cannot take away what wrongs were in the past but can give a hand to go forward together to keep our country safe happy and great go on together making each life fullfilling as possible mins set is the thing not accusations.
@@elsiecater156it's about power. It's not about equality...which is what most decent people want. Fairness for all equally. But this is about power and as said...it'll start here and keep going.
I am kind of surprised that the constitutional Doctor didn't go from the angle of 'it will be business as usual, they won't be able to take this to the high court'. That's the biggest issue with this proposal as we all know it will be the activist class who will make up the majority of 'the voice'. She knows what this voice will do.
Debate was easily won by the negative. The affirmative argument had too many contradictions and emotionally aggressive which to me shows what the approach of a voice would take if they get a yes vote.
I'm not voting yes
Ms Morris is disturbed and wants a non-binding advisory voice because sitting politicians elected by the people haven’t achieved anything for indigenous peoples. If elected people can’t influence decision makers, how is an advisory panel going to change a decision? I think the best thing that has come out of the Voice discussions is that the discussion is being had about indigenous Australians and the issues their communities face. We all now need to hold our elected representatives in every community more accountable for decisions made for the community and everyone in that community Australia wide.
It’s activism. Why does voice have to go in the constitution as a new chapter? Why can’t we have the voice and see how it goes first BEFORE making it irreversible!
@@sandyfoot it's got nothing to do with 2hat they sat. It's a land grab. The UN are coming after the land and the only thing stopping them is the traditional land owner's. Put them I'm 5he constitution and it's all over red rover!
Our government have never given a rat's about indigenous people or any of us for that matter but if they can personally profit off an agenda they will suck up to, lie and use whoever is required to fill their pockets or gain more power!!
Australian politics has lost the plot, the amount of money spent on such a divise and racist propaganda campaign for this proposal is mind blowing. There are serious problems in this country that need attention and our government is dividing the country instead. Albanese and his communist agendas MUST go! Governor General are you there????
If it's just advisory then why enshrine it in the Constitution?
Our constitution of 1900 needs to be taught to every Australian, it still stands and cannot be changed without a referendum. The voice seemingly is a fraud, a distraction and being presented to incorporate for UN control.
th-cam.com/video/KREowGbvnSc/w-d-xo.html
In administrative law, when a decision maker makes a decision, people affected may have a legislative or common law right to be informed or listened to. Well, why the hell do we need the Voice, then? Because that duty/right can only exist either if
1- legislation says it does, or
2- if common law principles say it does, AND legislation doesn't override this and nullify that right.
This is the case in many areas of law where the Liberal-Nationals have eroded your political rights in the last 20 years. Do you disagree with a Centrelink determination? ATO? JobActive? HECS debt? A student visa or asylum application? Aboriginal land rights? Land access and mining laws? In all these areas and more, the right to access your information or have a fair hearing is limited by many legislative constraints. The only way around legislation stripping you from a right is to entrench it in the Constitution. That is why the US has a Bill of Rights, and we don't. That is why we had 4 previous failed Indigenous consultative bodies (hint: non of them were constitutional, they were legislative)
There are other benefits for it to be a Constitutional body. in Constitutional law, a power inferred from another body cannot exceed that body's original authority. Here's an example: in the Race Discrimination Act 1975, the parliament says no one can discriminate. However, the parliament can exempt itself from that rule (as it does with many later legislations; for example? the NT Intervention Act 2007 was exempt from Race Discrimination Act. You can literally google/wiki this). Therefore, when parliament or government installs an advisory body, it can ignore it thereafter and not listen to it. Why? Who do you think will force the government to abide by its own statements and listen? There isn't a political body that can do that. If those previous consultative bodies were constitutional, however, the government has to consider their input but does not have to follow it.
Second, being constitutional means the government cannot control the body and its membership. They cannot force them to resign, fire them, or change them when it disagrees with them. This literally happened to the ATSIC when the Government decided to defund it and left it to bleed out.
Another important new aspect of constitutionality: the body is separate from its members. When you hear the news about a corrupt MP, or you discover a lie of a government official, or when you hear news of a sex harassment conviction on a High Court judge (all of which happened in the last year btw), do you call to abolish the parliament/government/high court? Do we dissolve these bodies and institutions because of the wrongdoing of their members, directors, or leadership? NO. That doesn't happen with corporate bodies. Every Indigenous body, whether consultative, for-profit, or not-for-profit, is connected to its leadership and membership: if they do well and maintain a good reputation, the institution continues; otherwise, it is doomed. A Constitutional Voice will give Indigenous Australians that guarantee; that we will listen regardless of the few bad apples. Bad or corrupt Voice representative? Sack them, criminally prosecute them, and throw them in prison if that is what the law requires. But the institution itself continues.
@@kanealkoraghooli1682 a very cogent argument and if I had not spent quite a lot of time researching and fact checking, you would almost convince me to vote Yes.
NT Intervention Act 2007 was exempt from Race Discrimination Act. Yes. because the Government could not do it in a State, because of the Race Discrimination Act, it could only do it in the NT because of the foundational legal structure of the NT being a Territory, NOT a State.
ATSIC was abolished by Bipartisan Vote LNP & ALP because of system wide nepotism and, to put it as politely as I can "zero accountability, planning and oversight" of massive amounts of Taxpayer funds that literally disappeared with nothing to show for it. That is yet another reason, in a list of many why The Voice is a terrible, costly, risky and divisive notion.
100%Yes for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition, which would pass with over 95%. 100% No for The Voice-Treaty-Truth Co-Sovereignty (Makaratta), and trying to smuggle that in behind Recognition which then denies a majority to Vote for Recognition.
You have pointed out many interactions with HECS, ATO, Jobseeker etc and how bad they are. Have you considered that maybe less Taxes, less Big Government and less reliance on Government in your life would result in better outcomes all round?
I am also frustrated that Governments don't seem to listen and plod on but that should be a clear indication why another Bureaucracy (Voice Body) is not the answer. People demanding and voting for better performance and efficiency is the way forward, together.
The first nation peoples should be recognized by the Constitution But vote NO to the Voice .
Every Australian born human has a voice in parliament.
Yes this a vote of no confidence in the sitting members to represent all Australians
Well no, it's every citizen, you don't have to be born in Australia.
@@nikkideanmusicexpand?
Your "Voice" is also ignored for the big dollar Lobby Groups that support politicians personal gain.
Not every Australian has has suffered colonisation and the ongoing effects. Despite Jacinta's claim that colonisation hasbeen good for the Indigenous people.
They have a voice. It’s called an ELECTION.
And the NIAA and 300 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Organisations.
And Brittany Higgins.
Spot on. We vote for those who represent our will.
@@cjod33 Who are the ones that represent our will? The Aborigines are stealing our land claiming they got here first, and the government is stealing the land we have left for solar panels and the renewable transmission lines.
If Australia belongs to the Aborigines because they got here first, then the Moon belongs to the Americans because they got there first.
They represent their own interests@@cjod33
Lawyers , everyone is recognised in Our Australian Constitution ! A seperate Aboriginal Nation is divisive !
NO! They need to work with Law enforcement to reduce their crime rate which is being supressed under the umbrela of racism!
How's about you go to law school and ask them there ideas on non English speaking indigenous people in remote areas that need a translator.... ....... .....go on I fucking dare you because you don't get the fact the criminal justice system here punishes aboriginal peoples worse than whites and immigrants
Agree with you
Who's "they" the other? You wanna claim that all Indigenous peoples are Austrlians, well they aren't . Australia's constitution is based off the commonwealth ideologies that have debunked to disadvantage First Nations and Torres Stirict peoples. Your vocabulary is an prime example of the disingenuous systems that claim they hear the VOICES of Indigenous peoples.
If you have been born in Australia then you have a voice Thur the voting system. Why should one small group get better treatment than everyone else? I vote for one Australia and one voice.
You'd seem convincing if you didn't qualify having a voice by being born in Australia. Migrants and naturalised Australians exist.
As to why should one small group...etc., first of all, Indigenous Australians are not 'one' group; there are hundreds of identified distinct groups.
Again, you show a lack of knowledge on the issue, which is understandable btw; part of this Voice-treaty-truth process is telling people of Australia's First Nations and erasing the myths.
Finally, as to 'why', because an Indigenous Nation is not merely an ethnic minority or a cultural group; they are a people that has a right to land that supersedes any other group to that land. It is called sovereignty. Just like England and Scotland can coexist while their respective sovereignty separate from the others, and how Germany cannot move in into either place and enforce its laws over them without their input and self-determination.
Of course, you'd say, but they have a vote. Let's assume they have an equal vote, not affected by the economic and social gaps many Indigenous people live in. We cannot ignore centuries of genocide, wars, appropriation, and discrimination that led to them being a minority.
Think about South Africa. Would you still call it apartheid had the white policies succeeded in reducing the numbers of Indigenous black South Africans? Yes? Because this is exactly the difference, Australia simply succeeded in decimating Indigenous Australias to the point they make up 3% of Australia.
I have been brought up in SA and had close ties to people of the Zulu tribe. I immigrated to Australia and taught in remote indigenous towns, having close friendships while there. I have seen and experienced both cultures. One noticeable difference was very troubling to me. In SA the indigenous people were not given government support, educational opportunities were basic and housing was corrugated iron sheds with bare dirt and sparse communal toilets. With this awful conditions and opportunities, the people treasured any education and took all employment opportunities available. They tried very hard to rise while being given little opportunity to do so. In contrast, the Australian indigenous communities I experienced, were provided with new schools, new housing of good quality, beautiful sports facilities, a hospital….most being physically torn to pieces including buildings and a delivery of brand new musical instruments within a week. Most didn’t work and had no intention of rising out of this victim state. I do not have answers. I can see a tragedy in both cases. I genuinely loved all indigenous people I met and feel equal opportunities to self determination and pride is paramount to heal this wound. The voice is the equivalent of apartheid which is totally unacceptable and will not solve anything but will divide the nation and undo any positive changes that have been provided for our own indigenous Australian citizens in the past
@@CC-uq4huNeeds to be an honest conversation from politicians about the social ills of the Aboriginal people. Only then can there be progress.
@@kanealkoraghooli1682 by your own admission the land was occupied by many small groups …that was not a nation. There were no developments on the land or any order to the groups to make it a nation. It was occupied. That’s all. To compare these original people to the Scotish who had an organisation of groups or clans that had a national identity is ludicrous! They were a sovereign nation who had a king! Have you ever heard of the Stone of Scone..I doubt it.they gathered together to fight for their land….unlike aboriginal people who are still in their little groups with no sovereign….therefore your beliefs are misguided. Australia is now a sovereign country gathered together as One people with a democracy and therefore is now a sovereign nation. We don’t ‘assume’ you have an equal vote…the FACT is you do have an equal vote now…but you want to change that. You are seeking to have a greater vote and seek to gain power over the established government and laws over all resources for your own benefit. That’s not going to happen mate. Before arguing sovereignty start learning what it actually is. The only time in history where a minority ruled over the majority is back in the old days of feudal systems where the minority had military power over the masses…they took it by force. Just think seriously what happened back then. France as an example…Russia…it didn’t end well for the elites. Better live with a democracy like we have already….the alternative is not pretty especially if you have zero military backup.
Well spoken@@kanealkoraghooli1682
The Yes votes case is based on "Just trust us". Since when can we trust politicians
Great debate, in terms of winners and losers. The 'NO' case won, there were too many points that scored for the 'NO' campaign, so no list. But Warren made the best points about lifting people out of poverty is opportunity. It's interesting that Warren was the least articulate, and yet he was the most persuasive. Where Shireen was very polished and articulate, she was not convincing. Sorry to say, but in my view, her style of presentation was often characterised as a controlling or bullying. The biggest looser of the night was the Prime Minister for the way he attacked anyone for voting 'No' before we had any chance to discuss.
Indeed. I believe Warren’s strengths, are his principle stems from genuine life lived truths, when Warren answers a question, or makes a statement he’s simply articulating this basic truth, this authenticity. While the greater proponents of the Voice’s sponsors are speaking to a profoundly unclear and inconsistent scheme.
@@aggressivecalm ❤
Yep Shireen came across as very bossy in her argument, Australian's are not fans of being dictated to, that's also why JP is so effective, she is articulate yet down to earth and makes her points without dictating them to you.
@@iggyblitz8739 I was thinking the same thing regarding Shireen, but didn’t want to come off as simply being unfavourable of the current Voice,
*(to be clear I, as most Australians would be more than happy, (proud) to include the many, hundreds of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups, each with their own culture, language, beliefs and practices in Australia’s constitutional preamble it’s appropriate, true, and it’s important. It is of such importance that accuracy is almost equally meaningful. We as a nation need to take this important step towards harmony and recognition accurately and correctly, the fabrication of a ‘First nation’ should not be included.
To enter the true state of Australia’s history is as important as including the many, hundreds of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups, each with their own culture, language, beliefs and practices within our nation's constitution. (In a step this important/significant Australia needs to recognise all of them, and not try and define them as one thing.)
@@aggressivecalm Yes but it can be done without needing the voice in the constitution, not a good idea to give any group special powers in the constitution, and Aboriginal & TSI recognition can be included and localised voice groups also can work with communities to get result without the need for it to be enshrined in the constitution.
Jacinta speaks with such “realness” so easy to understand and makes so much sense.
Shireen's final word is disturbing... Let's "be clear"..: It was the mothers, grandmothers, aunties, and daughters who pleaded for those alcohol restriction laws (only against hard liquor spirits, not beer) to be put in place, because they were being subjected to daily domestic violence and sexual abuse by their uncles, brothers, fathers... the "elders" in power in their communities under the influence of hard liquor. Those communities who were able to uphold those restrictions began to thrive. That was... until those restrictions were overturned. So, Shireen.... LET'S BE CLEAR....NOTHING CHANGED BECAUSE THE IMPORTANT CHANGES THAT WERE MADE WERE UNDONE BY VIRTUE SIGNALLERS LIKE YOU..
Huh?
No voice
I’m not convinced that the so-called Voice is going to solve the aborigini problems
And how will having no voice help?
Why not? I'm doing an seminar would love to hear your opinion
Warren and Jacinta had substance and calm. Shireen lacked this...and quite angry. I kept falling asleep during Anthony's discourses. I will be voting NO.
So you did not make up your mind based on the substance of what they said, but the "vibe" they gave you; calm vs angry and boring.
After careful consideration of your comments, I find that Your comments lacked the emojis I like, I will vote YES.
@@kanealkoraghooli1682it was a joy to read your reply. Thank you
@@kanealkoraghooli1682energy doesn’t lie….doesn’t mean DD didn’t also give credence to the substance of their words 🙄 an emoji, just for you x
Well when you been ignored like Shireen and Anthony you too woukd be furious.
@@jonah.donohue Oh rubbish, those two had their say right throughout the video. The reason they were angry is they knew they had a bad proposal and could not fool the Australian public. Over 60 percent- NO! Democracy in action despite the lies and funding of the Voice campaign. Australia used it's brains for once
That only one person out of four highly esteemed Indigenous Australians (Jacinta) was able to address any specific details and implications of the proposed Voice is a great representation of the general public who haven’t got the foggiest idea. Australians want a fair country so they’ll probably vote for it because they’re being told it’s the fair thing to do, but no one really understands what change we’re actually voting for.
Three indigenous not Four!
Lol 😆 , truth is Jacinta Price is saying what all white Australians believe don't give blacks rights an steal they're land 🤣
@@nikkideanmusic by listening to Anthony Albanese
@@Jack-gn4gl Try reading something
@@nikkideanmusic so it's not up to the politicians to explain why the sitting member can't represent the indigenous population,tell me where you got the information from and I will read it,more layers of government from a country that has an upper and lower house of government, not many other countries have an upper and lower house, all filthy parasites that have sold off the country, go to China and get yourself a 99 year lease on a couple of their ports,1.5 million for a house in my street that's not fit for a dog,what hope do the kids have today of buying a house in the future, all sold off the plan before they're built, the government is an absolute disgrace, 7 thousand dollars for my parents house, 50 thousand for mine and both apparently worth 1.5 million dollars, that's what my kids would have to pay,but hey the voice is all they need to distract idiots
We need more debates like this in the lead up to the voice to better inform our vote. Having said that Warren and Jacinta won hands down.
Absolutely agree #VoteNo
In your opinion which is an european exceptionalism opinion
Warren and Jacinta are such good little Jacky Jacky's, ain't they.
@@beepbeep6861 By you comment you show your ignorance. There is not one Aboriginal opinion on matters. Every person is an individual. Individuals like Warren and Jacinta are free to speak, though many would wish them silenced.
@@DD-bx8rb Ignorance, they're the one's throwing their mob under the bus.
1967 the constitution included indigenous people and why aren't they making better use of the NIAA and their huge budget of over 4 billion dollars
Jacinta Price is excellent she gets my vote well done Jacinta we need more politicians who are as wise as you thank you ❤
How is she wise?
I will vote No to the Trojan Horse 'Voice to P'. Unity and progress for ALL Australians not just one section. 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
If you are wondering about the fine print of the Voice and what will happen after the referendum - I have just been reading the UN General Assembly on the rights of Indigenous people. There are numerous chapters, but it essentially says that Indigenous people have the right for self determination. This is interesting, because when Gough Whitlam started campaigning for aboriginal rights, that was his main goal and various Labour governments have continued in this vein. Now, Gough is Albanese’s hero and he wants to emulate Gough and live up to Gough’s expectations or even go one better and deliver Gough’s goal and deliver the UN General Assembly goals.
This also fits with the goals of the 1982 National Aboriginal Conference, where a draft Makaratta detailed requirements for self determination or Aboriginal Sovereignty. There are some pretty scary demands in this Draft (eg tax relief for 195 years, payment of 5% of GDP for 195 years etc- research it for yourself). Aboriginal Sovereignty was also the main driver at the Canberra Tent Embassy. Articles from this Makaratta appear also to be included in the Uluṟu Statement from the Heart. Marcia Langton and Patrick Dodson would be most aware of the 1982 Makaratta. And the kicker - 2022 an expression of interest was released by Penny Wong for an Aboriginal Ambassador to “lead indigenous perspectives experiences and interests into foreign policy and First Nations trade and investment” - I expect because the Voice has further un-mentioned goals. So, when Albanese says “trust us”, it will all be worked out after the referendum. Just like his pre-election promises - that has worked out too well.
So why doesn’t the government want to give out further details on the Voice? In absence of any detail from the government, it can only be concluded that Aboriginal self determination or Aboriginal Sovereignty is the clear driver behind the Voice and these details are what is being kept from the Australian people. So a No vote would be appropriate.
Thank you.
Amen!!!!
That's 'cause ol' Gough was a treasonous fabian socialist also. Who altered the constitution in 1973 into a corporate body. under the fictitious 'Queen of Australia'
Yes its a small target like strategy that also got him into government, it was also by expanding detail in the last referendum that split the yes vote and caused it to fail despite being the majority opinion at the time so personally i don't think it has some ulterior motive such as to institute a sovereign state, but i do believe its being as small a target as possible so it just just barely squeak by and pass.
I also think the Penny Wong thing is Interesting and gets me thinking but i also think about how our states technically have their own foreign policy and can meet and make deals with foreign powers without the federal governments permission and so it wouldn't be totally out of the question to institute an ambassador which sounds like a less powerful premier, I mean Kevin Rudd is an ambassador of foreign relations to China and the US both countries he doesn't even have a citizenship in. interesting thought thanks for the research.
The United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Article 1(4) says we can make laws regarding a race in order to solve a problem and it will not be regarded as racial discrimination UNLESS it is a permanent law.
The Constitution is as permanent as we get.
Racial division is real, and dangerous, and would set Australia on a rapid path downwards in fairness.
This is how you institutionalize racism: You formally give a racial group special powers in government.
I think I've seen you before... ah that's right, at the circus.
giving racists special powers is an exercise in self destruction
What special powers will they have doofus? It’s an advisory board they can’t make laws or have any executive authority
@@santoshrathod123 Yes but an advisory board enshrined in the constitution will have powers unlike any other.
@@iggyblitz8739 re-read what you just said, it has no AUTHORITY to make laws or govern.
Loving Jacinta Price, you haven't missed a beat my dark-skinned sister. Australia will always have a positive future as long as we have people of the same standard as Jacinta Price.
It's a hard pass for me.
We don't need more division, we need unity.
The government, current and past really need to stop driving a wedge between different types of Australians.
Backing Warren and Jacinta,vote NO
Thank you Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. You are aware of what is going on. Could Jacinta be our first woman Prime Minister?
Looks like an overwhelming NO based on all the comments...
Excellent!
Thankyou Jacinta, for brining commone sense, if your community is facing issues its up to you to use your vote to influence the change needed, the voice cannot fix these issues, as the say themself " its just advisory" there is no magic wand to fix the issue.
Ill be Voting NO!
'Waitangi' in NZ was an 'advisory, non binding, no veto voice!' It now directs the NZ Govt in every aspect of bureaucracy, judiciary, academia, health, business, finance and vital utilities. The Voice will be no different because the ideologies and motivations of those allowing this in NZ, particularly activist lawyers, academics and politicians, mirror those activists here in Australia.
Thank you for pointing this out. As a Kiwi in Australia, our model is not something to be admired, it's simply become a tool for politicians and activists to enrich themselves. Most white New Zealanders probably feel like 2nd class citizens now, responsible for all the negative and none of the good, which is so wrong!
Bottom Line is an unelected group appointed by self appointed experts takes up ministerial time thus reducing the availability of ministers to engage with elected back benchers to cover all the people in their electorate. Non aboriginal regional Australians have their voice in parliament sidelined by self appointed aboriginal people. You can sit in your metropolitan ivory towers, enjoying being upper middle class well to do pontificators and enshrine in Australian Law one racial group as supreme and empowered while every other racial group is marginalised
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Refer to apartheid and the players that introduced that and do a comparison with those introducing the voice
The people can put this all how it needs to be.
th-cam.com/video/KREowGbvnSc/w-d-xo.html
From a historical Aboriginal perspective, the entire system that exists now could be considered "unelected" as it was imposed upon them with little to no input by them.
@@phiiz3r did they not vote? voting is mandatory and they are citizens. i have to pay a 150 dollar fine when i don't vote.
Very impressed with the quality of the debate with both sides listening with respect.
Needs to be said how it is;
th-cam.com/video/KREowGbvnSc/w-d-xo.html
Did you not notice the bias ? They introduced it as a "reform" ! It isn't .
Shireen comes across as an activist.
That’s a polite way of putting it 😂
She's frustrated for years and years of Indigenous peoples being slienced.
She's expressive. Nothing wrong with it
From an indigenous Fijian's perspective there is non issues surrounding our 1997 Constitution which upheld multiculturalism and all ethnicities' nationality was Fijian. Just like with the Australian Constitution there were legislations to protect us indigenous itaukei Fijians and our natural resources via the itaukei Fijian Native Land Affairs Board. "Unfortunately" during the 2000 military coup d'etat the 1997 Constitution was abrogated. From then until the past 16 years since the 2006 military coup d'etat by Frank Bainimarama he and his Attorney General Mr Mohammed Aiyaz Saiyed Khaiyum they created their highly biased 2013 Constitution. Their true intentions via legislations of the 2013 Constitution was to slowly make changes to the already entrenched Constitutional indigenous itaukei Fijians where only the two or duo will be similar "the so-called voice" for just a minority indigenous Fijians who were on their side. Hence they ruled for the "Great Council of Chiefs" to be abolished as well as in recent years in 2017 or later they decreed an indigenous Fijian land bill called "Land Bill 17". With this land bill the opinions and views of the indigenous Fijian landowners ("their voice") won't be required during crucial land negotiations for future economic development by the Bainimarama govt and foreign investors. And not only that there was another decree that stated married women cannot put their husbands family name as their surname or last name. And if we can't comply then our only option is to alter our name on our birth certificates to include our husbands family name. The stupidity is we were never born into our husband's family. This was a calculated move to deny us indigenous Fijian people our land rights and as well as our children's to their paternal families' land rights and entitlements.
Bainimarama's govt actions caused some good amount of uproar and dissent and division amongst us indigenous Fijian people and which saw to some of our indigenous Fijian parliamentarian and indigenous peoples rights advocates imprisoned and are still incarcerated today.
The "true intent" of any Constitutional change in the name of so-called "indigenous people's progress" especially during this era should be closely scrutinized by all Australians. We indigenous peoples cannot afford to be used throughout the entirety of our existence in this part of the Southern hemisphere on Mother Earth as "scapegoats or lambs taken to the slaughter". Enough is enough!
As an indigenous itaukei Fijian woman I always challenge some of our people and ask "Who said that we indigenous Fijians are poor, and who are "they" to tell us that???" Such boldness is because of the Fijian government systems and 1997 Constitution (and before that) that were in place which was fair and helped us all Fijians of Fiji to live in harmony with each other up until when Bainimarama's 2013 divisive Constitution came into existence later. Hopefully the current new Coalition Fijian government led by PM Mr Sitiveni Rabuka will bring about new changes soon so Fiji can once again enjoy the quality of "multiculturalism living or lifestyles" that were enshrined in his and the late Mr Vijay Ram Reddy (NFP Opposition Leader) 1997 Constitution of the past.
"the government should have listened to indigenous peoples about the NT alcohol thing"
Yes. You didn't mention that it was the labour party who refused to listen. You know, the labour party that is pushing for the Voice?
1:13:00 OMG I cant believe Tony just said that Canada is seen as a shining example of democracy 😂😂
Voice is not democracy its apartheid!
Communist countries!
What's wrong with Canadian democracy?
@@purshottamadevadhikar5035 Do they have racist rights for natives?
What’s wrong with Canada , the fact that it has Traitor Trudeau as it PM , who is just an NWO Globalist puppet !
Great discussion. We need more of them.
Thank you to the CIS for hosting this important debate. It’s great to hear reasoned arguments for each side rather than moralising.
I hope you are aware the CIS is classic right wing think tank.
@jannybabe21 completely irrelevant. This was a well run debate, each side able to express their opinions respectfully. More than I can say for many legacy media "left wing think tanks", who have been arrogantly lecturing the Australian people for months. Look where that got them.
I always find it disgraceful and disgusting to say the closing the gap has been an utter failure. When if you actually look at the statistics we have come a massive way when it comes to educating indigenous Australians and its clear its working seeing that we continue to set new records in the ammount of indegenous MPs and other goverment positions.
To say the government "educating Indigenous Australians" was an achievement is extremely disrespectful to people who were forced to learn western practices against their will................................................................................................... PLEASE WATCH THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY.. we need to vote yes indigenous are still being treated worse than dogs, living in tin sheds built by the government, with no running water or sanitation and the government lies to our face about where "the money" tax payers have spent on this issue... the Indigenous never got a cent of it! th-cam.com/video/4lJUCMKYUUw/w-d-xo.html
There’s a lot of people who’s livelihood depends on the division, victimhood, and frankly, the status quo being maintained, yet they argue for change everyday. Change that they don’t really want.
Go Jacinta LOL good old pom
Sitting drinking a beer with an aborigine rugby league player on my team.. he drinks with us 5 white guys and a couple islanders . why does he drink with us.. he response.. cause if i drink with my bros they humbug me.. ( dont know what that is ..look it .. they drag each other down )... he says he has a job, a wife, kids, mortgage.. bought a car.. i drink with you guys i buy a round .. everyone buys me one back... but if I drink with my bros .. im the only one paying.... The drag each other down... rather than push each other up... its a cultural thing that needs to change...
Couldn’t agree more, we have come a long way and the momentum is heading in the right direction however now we’re being asked to drag ourselves emotionally back to the past and wallow in self inflicted misery from another time.
Knowing and understanding history is important, however as a society and as individuals we should always try to live in the moment, in our time and focus on the positives that will lead us into our future. I think Jacinta reflects this mindset well.
Australia already has 11 "voices" in Federal Parliament, they are called politicians who identify as Aboriginal. They seem to be doing a good job as the Australian Government allocates $34 BILLION per year specifically for Aboriginal purposes, on a per capita basis this is DOUBLE what is allocated to the non Aboriginal population.
Exactly
Also the big problem is the voice to the government departments which will be a legal right enforcable by law! they will have the right to be consulted on every little thing the government departments do! And if they haven been before hand can take legal action to stop it until they are heard then legal action when they are not obeyed! They will have the right to extort control over the over government and everything it does!
I agree with your sentiment, but it’s “only” $1 billion dollars a year, however! Over the many years of ATSIC, and now the NIAA, you could say, that over $34 billion dollars has been “spent”, “misused”, and flat out stolen, would not be wrong.
can't tell if you're an idiot or an idiot. The allocation of funds is based on addressing specific challenges and addressing systemic inequalities. It is not a matter of comparing per capita spending between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal populations, but rather, comparing the disadvantages and inequalities faced by non-indigenous Australians vs indigenous Australians. The Aboriginal incarceration rate in NSW is 10x that of the non-Aboriginal imprisonment rate, and here you are complaining about the per capita spending on Aboriginal people being higher than non-Indigenous Australians. FYI, the ratio is not 2:1 but in fact, 1.21:1, as per the National Indigenous Australians Agency. So dear representative of the Wyatt family, if you have kids, please change the name of your youtube channel, as it would be a shame for them to be associated with your comment that is so clearly written by a misinformed person. I'm not religious, but I would pray for you if I was.
3.4 billion
You’re absolutely correct Warren about the untrustworthy Albanese approach!
When I was growing up, my family was discriminated based on the colour of their skin. Perhaps not to the atrocious extent that some aboriginal peoples have been. I supported the Recognise campaign discussion of proposing recognition of First Nations and the constitutional change preventing Governments from implementing race-based legislation. I’ve been told my whole life that it is not right to be racist - by my parents, by my schools, universities, by my work places and by my friends, by my wife and her family. Yet here the Voice seems to be a race-based change. Trying to make sense of such a contradiction is what I am struggling with, and the only thing I can think of that makes sense is that I with all Australians must take responsibility for the sins of a colonial past for which my family was exposed negatively to this as well. The question I need to ask at the ballot box is can race-based legislation and institutions of the past, be corrected by another race-based institutional change cemented forever into our constitution. I am not sure these types of proposals ever result in uniting people because people are much more that just their race.
You are so very, very right. And this is coming from an abortional woman. I believe in my heart that this will Divide Indigenous people. I will be voting a definite no..( Actually I am terrified of the future)
ANZAC DAY is a line for all true blue Australians to draw in the sand.
It should unlawful for any person to conduct a “Welcome to Country” ceremony on ANZAC DAY.
Ex-service and current members of the Australian Defence Forces should not be publicly treated as if their just foreign soldiers standing upon the soil on which they were born.
Welcome to Country messaging on ANZAC DAY is a public insult to these men and women who have served past and present and to those that have fallen for the sake of all Australians.
The laws in Australia which restrict and prohibit certain activities on ANZAC DAY need to be updated in respect of due honour and observance from all Australians on ANZAC DAY.
🇦🇺💯%
‘welcome to country’ is a made up ‘tradition’ that did not exist until resent times
Disgusting performance in Adelaide 2017 Anzac day indigenous woman using 23rd Psalm as an invasion story
I welcome to country all fuzzies wazzies in the lands of the PNG
Sorry, have you served time in the military. If you have, please tell us. Please don't write lies. step back and have a proper looking and hearing within you.
All I can say to you that,
THE LAW WE LIVE UNDER IS THE BRITISH ROYAL MAFIA. 'RESEARCH'.
LAW
No sorry. They are history books from all around the world, and it's tells you what happened at that time in the world. The famous books at time was believable. The unfamous
peoples books they wrote was completely different to famous group.
When you read there history famous and unfamous, then it's all comes together
What happen in the past.
JESUS BLESS YOU
NO WE DON’T NEED “THE VOICE”. WE ALL HAVE A VOICE. IT’S CALLED “THE VOTE”.
We all deserve to be Australians
Your right Warren and Jacinta. It's went full circle from getting the right to be recognised just as every other Australian, to NOW trying to be recognised as different again. Back to " some are more equal than others" and everyone should agree that is a road we should not go down. We have been there before - let's not return.
You're right, Dude.
Being one...really ties the country together. ;)
@@memine3704 . This Voice is over the line .
We'd be entering a world of pain .
@@nikkideanmusic So they don't already get the same say as everyone else, they can't vote?
There's laws being passed right now that effect all of us. I had no consultation about them. Nor did you. Try on Hyperbole often do you? Pfft.
A permanent 'voice' in Government? What does that even mean, exactly, other than make some noise?
This extra 'voice'... one that is by appointed people, that no one gets to vote on, doesn't sound like they'll have any more say then they do now.
Sounds like more BS, more 'lifetime pensions' on the taxpayer for absolutely no benefit. Other to those getting the cushy jobs that is.
And apart from enshrining in the Constitution racist BS where even IF what you wanted was to somehow magically come about by that cluster-fk of a proposition.... you want people to have a different amount of power, based solely on their race. By definition, racist.
How about this. Everyone gets the same 'voice'... one person, one vote. Race doesn't come into it. Only citizenship.
But you're not happy with that, are you? You want to push some racist BS, with nonsense lies about remote people getting some sort of say in Government more than they do now. Pfft.
Rubbish.
@nikkideanmusic that's what parliament and the senate is about. Equality is equality.
@@nikkideanmusic i think you should head out to the top end and see for yourself how some indigenous peoples live snowflake.
You also forgot the highest family violence and sexual assault rates in Australia. Children living in 3rd world conditions. Or that a indigenous women is up 4 times more likely to be sent to hospital by a family member.
First nations is also wrong. Look up how the Dingo was introduced by the Indonesians about 4 thousand years ago. People have been migrants to this land for many many years.
This reminds me of Tony Blair creating separate "voives" for the Northern Irish, the Scots and the Welsh. Just look at the mess that has created, the First minister of the Scottish assembly was arrested yesterday - more managers, more committees, more troughs more snouts.
To Shireen’s point at 57:20, the thing is that as soon as you make the whole Voice about race, any disagreement against it becomes not just ideological difference, but a racial attack. This is profoundly, profoundly problematic and can absolutely be weaponised against both Australia as a whole AS WELL as Indigenous communities. It basically becomes an entity that you cannot question the authority over, which, in government, is very dangerous and poses a very real threat to democracy
By the same logic, section 51 of our current constitution has threatened our democracy for over 120 years because it allows for legislation based on race. And yet, our democracy is one of the world's strongest. Fear is a powerful driver but hopefully this reduces it for you.
The Voice is more analogous with the totalitarian regime of the Covid committee actually....😳 Never again!!!
As I understood it, Shireen's point was that regardless of the lense through which you look at the Voice, whether that be racial or otherwise, it's constitutional restrictions would remain the same. Parliament would maintain all law-making powers with the added bonus of being able to consult with selected/elected First Nations people on how those laws would effect their community. It's that simple. The idea of the Voice being or becoming an unquestionable authority is only a problem if they are given that level of power to begin with.
Chick in the blue just thinks if she screams the loudest she’s right.
An excellent and respectful debate. Thankyou.
Thank you for this! Very valuable and I hope you can arrange another debate going into details of the proposed changes prior to the referendum. It would be great to allow the speakers to have more time to go into more depth. 🙏🏻👏
We don't need it; it's a sham the government's have proposed to take Australian land giving it to the UN while making it a corporation.
th-cam.com/video/KREowGbvnSc/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for this debate. It does help to clarify a few things that have been withheld from the public. I have seen so many Aboriginal people asking us to say no, l, for one, will honour their wishes.
@@paulinecharnley same here, I don't see how this can help those that need it most, it really seems like it will only benefit those already taking advantage of the privileges offered to them. It's sad to see such a traditional community importing class divide into their culture :/
@@bt6904 have you taken my name?
@@bt6904 do you have a middle name?
Jacinta Price.
I must admit I have been stalking you (observing really) for a few years now since I first heard you speak.
What a brain.
An open mind that see's things how they are.
Articulate, intelligent and grounded in reality.
Don't let the haters shut you down. For sure they are going to try.
They have to. You have important things to say that don't fit their political and personal agendas.
You actually are the voice. The real voice.
An Australian that gets elected to the system to have a say in how it should work.
Not try and force your will on the people as you destroy the system from the fringes like the Mayo's of the world.
It will be tough and might consume you, but we need more Jacinta's not less.
Jacinta Price certainly names the trojan horse by the name and nature, well done. I am ever so disappointed by the Labor Party way of ramming there wisdom down our neck without giving us details. It reminds me of a previous quote by a Premier " Don't you worry your pretty little head about this". Well I am very apprehensive about this referendum and how it will be presented to the Australian people.
As a non indigenous person, I can't understand why I'm being asked to vote on this
I am extremely sceptical of government due to personal experience therefore I am extremely sceptical of any initiative that the government is peddling
With Mundine on this. The difference in opportunities between regional and urban Aborigines is immense. It's like two different cultures.
I wonder if the gap is actually in that area and little really to do with racial difference. Are the stats controlled for location? I’ll look it up.
Same issue for regional and metro non indigenous. The further you live from population hubs the less you're heard
@lf1980 we live in the age of the internet. News is instant provided you don't really live off grid. The overwelming majority of rural people have just as much access to information just as quickly as urban people.
It's a fact that some indigenous will always want to be on the land because they are connected to it. There has always been too much corruption to be able to help those that don't want that life. Indigenous people that are given power and money will always favour relatives over all others, this is their culture and where all the money has gone.
If one the aims of the Voice proponents is to replace custodial sentences with community justice we should all be worried.
Well done Jacinta.
Great job Jacinta and Warren.
Great Debate. Wish rest of the political debate is as civil
If you believe Aboriginals are humans too and deserve the same human rights as all Australians, then you have already recognised them. No need for a constitution It's as simple as that.
Wow go jacinta and Warren. I will be voting based on the facts given
No voice just do what it takes to ensure first nations people are given justice.
Platitudes from the yes mob. I would like to know where they live and who they really represent
No we don’t need the Voice. It’s fundamentally racist, we are all the same under the constitution regardless of the colour of our skin
Jacinta Price for prime minister!! She'll be a great leader for Australia.
Are you suggesting in a country that discriminates against all indigenous peoples...they could be prime minister? We'll how dare you!! That would go against the narrative and ruin their grasping of more power and continuing to cloak victimhood
@nikkideanmusic the left wing woke, american politics has infiltrated. Victims like you are happy about that..
@@nikkideanmusic mate. both left and right are bad. Government needs a good clean out of the morons and career politicians and have a moderate in power government that considers the crazy ideas of the left and the conservative ideas of the right and moves forward smartly down the middle.
The left is as bad as the right. Just depends what topics you are narrowing your perspective to.
Jacinta is the ultimate Australian treasure❤️ Such a STRONG, intelligent, resilient, humble, beautiful woman... who speaks TRUTH ❤️
I can not believe the time,Money and energy spent on the aboriginal communities and they’re still in trouble.educate them make them the master of their destiny just like every other Australian..we spend millions of dollars and approximately 1800 authorities out there for them and now where spending more time and money on “this voice”enough is enough.fix the problems now with the tools we have!
Don't the over represented indigenous MPs in parliament have a voice? If not, why are we paying them?
The 11 Aboriginal members of Parlai,ent must be doing agreat job as the Federal Goverment allocates $34 BILLION per year which is, on a per capita basis about DOUBLE what is allocated to non Aboriginal Citizens of Australia.
@@wyattfamily8997 non of that money has gone to the indigenous community.. read the corruption reports before parroting the first thing you find off google..
@@jadehulley9202I think that is what he/she was saying (tongue in cheek)
NO. One Australia where everyone is equal in every way.
Australia is already diverse
The Question as one person one vote that is a very valid question. Sadly that the answer is not very clear. We know all communities are different. If we could be guaranteed that the system will work from bottom- up but it won't as those already holding positions are on huge money - they will get more. Jacinta you make sense.
We do not need aboriginal royalties please. Let all Australians be treated with respect and decency. No special power should be given to any specific race or class.
Four great voices/perspectives. Thank you for informing me as a voter in the upcoming referendum.
The govegnment did not listen about removing the alcohol bans BECAUSE self-styled urban ‘aboriginal advocates’ argued for it despite the wishes of local aboriginal women, there is nothing in the discussion of the Voice that would prevent this recurring and being set in stone in the constitution.
I think some claimed it as a human rights issue actually - in that no one had the right 'to drink alcohol' taken away from them.
Dear Jacita Price how lucky I am to be able to listen to true understanding of the Aboriginal essues as I have always understood even I have come 50 years ago to this wondeful country. People who did not understood Jacinta's argument are ignorant of the such important essues and do not want to help Aboriginal essues. Australians who thing Abouriginals are disadvantaged do not want them to move foward and live hapilly alongside as all.
Put rhe experienced Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price as the Voice and she will do a great JOB .😊
Shireen 's argument is contradictory to practices in indigenous communities and her comments display complete ignorance of the effects of this "Voice" legislation , she says it is only an advisory body , if so why does it need to change the Constitution ?
She's either lying or she;s stupid, the Constitution forms the basis of the Country's laws, if 'The Voice' doesn't like a decision or feels that they are excluded from the decision making process, they will have a whole pack of Activist Lawyers just champing at the bit to start legal proceedings with the High Court.
I was shocked to read in the comments that Shireen is a migrant from another country called "India".
Whilst I understand that all people are equal, couldn't they have found someone from "Australia" to fill the chair when regarding a topic that is 100% about Australia and 0% about India??
I am, you are, we are Australians
We are all one 🇦🇺🇦🇺❤️
how much input do indigenous and Torres Strait contribute toward the social and economical good of the country Dont give them money give them the education of constitution, trade training ,business and management ,hospitality, cookery hairdressing skills better English Money was never in their culture nor was alcohol and its a big stride to cover and step away from money earning victimhood
"Perpetual need of aid." Exactly. Saying YES sounds good, it's hip, but it is punching down. Again. Perpetual aid can not be humane or respectful. Yet here we are.
Let's be honest, no-one gets a voice in Australia. The Government do whatever they like. Sad but true.
The quick answer is no
It worries me that before finalising a decision government departments will have to wait to get advise from "The Voice", how long will they have to wait, what happens if they make a decision before getting advise from the Voice.
Sounds like "The Voice" is going to be the scapegoat/stall tactic Government can then throw back on when nothing gets done for aboriginal communities. If you ask me just another layer of Government that will resolve nothing.
If they are listening to the voice in the case of a matter which affects indigenous people - the decision making will be more effective and better use of tax payer $. Yes is the right vote. ❤️