The Voice Referendum will be held on October 14. Here's everything you need to know before you vote.
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 04. 2023
- The date has been set, and the Yes and No campaigns have put forward their pamphlets on Australia’s Indigenous Voice to Parliament. If you don’t know about the Voice, here’s a look at everything you do need to know before it comes time to vote. Subscribe: ab.co/3yqPOZ5 Read more: ab.co/3Mzc36m
Australia will hold a referendum on October 14 on having an Indigenous Voice to Parliament written into the Constitution. Political reporter, Dana Morse, takes a deep dive into everything you need to know about the Voice.
00:20 - What is the Referendum question?
01:35 - Here’s everything you need to know about the Voice
01:40 - The basics of the Constitution
02:34 - Why do people want a Voice in the first place?
03:50 - Where did the Voice come from?
04:43 - What would the Voice be? (inc. constitutional amendments)
05:42 - Debate on the Voice proposal
06:55 - Who would be on the Voice?
07:08 - Calma - Langton report model
08:09 - What would the Voice do/not do?
08:40 - Why won’t the government give us the detail on the Voice before the referendum?
10:50 - What about Truth and Treaty?
11:00 - Where are we at now?
12:00 - Arguments from the No campaign
ABC News In-depth takes you deeper on the big stories, with long-form journalism from Four Corners, Foreign Correspondent, Australian Story, Planet America and more, and explainers from ABC News Video Lab.
Watch more ABC News content ad-free on ABC iview: ab.co/2OB7Mk1
For more from ABC News, click here: ab.co/2kxYCZY
Get breaking news and livestreams from our ABC News channel: / newsonabc
Like ABC News on Facebook: / abcnews.au
Follow ABC News on Instagram: / abcnews_au
Follow ABC News on Twitter: / abcnews
Note: In most cases, our captions are auto-generated.
#ABCNewsIndepth #ABCNewsAustralia
No to Apartheid!
No to Racism!
No to Segregation!
No to a separate Voice!
One Australia for all Australians
The only thing to know beside this being racist! is the fact it will give them a legal right to fight in court any time they have not been heard! Painted the local dole office injunction cant use it until you have talked to us about it! Talked with us about every single point of the budget and listened to our view? 100,000 injunctions!
@@jamiehorosak3718 Your right say no to racist voice!
@Blue Bird Yes all the racist abo benefits should go! Why should they get free legal for everything and you not? Why should they get pout to the top of the medical treatment while you pushed to the bottom?
Could not have said any Better ..
good on you ABC for leaving the comments on... how can we vote it we can not talk right.. thanks again
Oh my god, ABC turned on comments?! I thought this day would never come.
@@crookedclassic actually they tuned them off for 2 days now they are back on for this show.. i i have not seen this before
@@johney3734Yeah, I don't remember ever seeing a video with comments turned on which I've always thought is stupid
@@crookedclassic its normal for them to be on at the start.. they are heavily moderated and most comments get taken down 40 min later
@@crookedclassic Most news stations turned comments off during Covid when every video covering coronavirus was getting blasted by bots.
Australia would be far better off to include every citizen equally with a Bill of rights but no
sitting Government has the balls to give the people true equality.
So we vote on something no one knows what is, and that could change over time and be almost impossible to remove once implemented... No thanks.
The government of the day can change The Voice to whatever format people support. What format would you like it to take?
@Blue Bird actually you have no idea of it will or won't lift the status of FNP because we have no idea what it is and what it will be capable of doing. Also this isn't a white/black thing, this is a everyone/FNP thing. If it serves to make FNP desires or needs heard over other communities in Australia then it is a racially descriminatory entity, why not have an Asian Australian voice or a African Australian voice or a Latin voice to parliament?
I'm voting NO
We’ve still got time to miss this iceberg. Voting NO.
NO!!! The voice is DIVISIVE!!!
Look, the solution is easy... How can I put this... The answer is NO.
Why is the ABC allowing comments? Somethings not right.
its like a bank asking us to sign a document and say its all good but they cant show us what we signed? thats what i got out of this.
you sign for the end of private property in australia.The end of the mining industry and the end of farming. And you also consent to a race based societal system, with systemic racism implemented as the rule, against your children. You consent for endoctrination, exploitation of your children on the basis of their race. It's a WEF policy .If you take an interest in other countries, they are puhsing things like this , modifications of their constitution with different excuses , and they all lead to the same outcome .
But banks don't do that... so your point is irrelevant
@@WoodysOpinion101 that is his point. Even a bank doesn't expect you to sign without providing you with all the legal dribble. In the case of this referendum, we are being asked to vote on a thing without concrete details.
My lawyer advised to vote ‘No’
@@janepablo8075 I'd wager you think the government is honest?
'A group of indigenous people.' There's a big group of indigenous people in Australia already. They don't all agree. Some ignore other indigenous people. They don't speak the same language. They have different plans and hopes and needs.
How would you keep it from being a club for the most powerful indigenous people?
its almost like the public can vote for a representative that most aligns with their values. hold up we already have that
All living Aboriginal Australians descend from a single founding population that arrived here about 50,000 years ago, the study shows. They swept around the continent, along the coasts, in a matter of centuries. And yet, for tens of thousands of years after, those populations remained isolated, rarely mixing. So that makes me indigenous to this land, no vote from me. NO
@@user-en5kx3ks1i interesting, where is the study? I'm interested. Also, why does this information equate with a no vote? If you are indigenous, do you not stand to benefit from having representatives in parliament that can comment upon issues that affect you?
Some folks say "We get the government that we deserve"
Years ago, around 1890, a group of shearers met under the shade of the "tree of Knowledge",
and formed what became the Australian Labour Party.
I think that those same men would be horrified
to see what has become of the Australian Labour Party.
It is a good example of what can happen,
and could well happen
with "The Voice".
@@benjigray8690 The voice doesnt need to change with the times! Its (BTW ITS NOT 1890! THINGS HAVE CHANGED IN THE LAST 130 YEARS!) The voice is already a terrible racist law which will give them the power to obstruct every action done by the government departments with legal action until they get to have their voice on everything!
Even if you ask a simple question, the mind cannot help but wonder and ask all those other questions. Do you accept a loan without reading all the documents? No. Australian's need to know everything up front - too many occasions where things have blown out financially etc etc, we need to make an informed choice
land grab.
We should not have to pay taxes if we aren't citizens. 😂😂
Everything about the First Nation people's culture is a lie. Especially the claims that they make that they have a history of 65,000 years. About three decades ago it was 40,000 years, Two decades ago 50,000 years, and now 65,000.
Yet there isn't a single piece of humanmade architectural evidence in the whole world that dates over 6,000 years.
@@changedmyname26 who aren't citizens?
@@Franz9955t isn't policy on the run. It's taken 14 years to get to this point. Every legal expert agrees that the proposal is constitutionally sound. The call for detail in the constitution is purely political mud slinging. No federal institutions have their design details written into the constitution, not even the high court of Australia. All of those mechanics are legislated. As they should be to ensure flexibility. The voice is an advisory body, the same way that the nation's security services are. Indigenous people want more of the responsibility to fix the challenges they face.
Vote NO! to racism. This is the road to Apartheid.
@Blue Bird BS
@@bluebird1825 liar
@@bluebird1825 I'd wager you think the government is honest??
The fact the government isn't being transparent tells me everything I need to know. Vote NO to racism and devision!
it's a sad day if this happens, people should vote no to this divisive and discriminatory piece of legislation
The longer this drags out the more cynical I get. I would have at one point voted yes as all steps are baby steps and evolve into something better or so I thought. This Voice thing offers very little to Aboriginal People. What we have is a rotting corrupt system in any case. You can see how ripped off Aboriginal People have been with all other agreements and the corruption that has set in and division. People needs rights not charity.
Sound familiar? ATSIC The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission was the Australian Government body through which Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders were formally involved in the processes of government affecting their lives, established under the Hawke government. Shut down as it was a shit show of rorting, infighting and bad management
This is not transparent and is clearly bias. Look back at the different bodies and the corruption that lead to their disbandment. The VOICE could never be held accountable. This will not close the gap.
you should always read the small print before signing anything but in this case there is just a blank space to be filled in later. you have to be kidding Vote No
The Voice will create problems, not solve them. And it will cost a lot of money and waste a lot of time. Voting no.
People just Vote ' NO' full stop and we will be ok.
How could you rationally expect anyone to vote yes to this when it is so vaguely written, describe the exact powers and function properly or stick it.
I can do that, a body made up of indigenous australians from everywhere in the country and in torres straight form a government body in parliament, from there they'll form an advisory body which just means they can suggest things and share their opinion in government looking at proposed laws to see how it'll affect them, otherwise they just want to be recognised in the commonwealth, idk what truth is for
Yes, and what will happen to the One Vote, One Value concept.
@cheesecheese6459
1)By what process will the body be created? Election? Selection? By which criteria and by who?
2) On what basis will it's members be making representations? Individually or collectively?
3) given that the voice excludes non-aboriginal people, what criteria will be used to determine an individual's racial eligibility?
4) l how often will the voice be required to convene with their aborigunal constituents? Or will they have delegates?
5) how often will the voice be required to convene with parliament?
6) what requirements does the voice have to make a representation in a timely manner so asto not impede the parliamentary process?
7) what are the consequences for the voice failing to meet it's given requirements?
8) what is the voices operational budget?
@@cheesecheese6459 Ooh wit of such dimness...
It’s gonna be a NO from me. Let’s watch them edit this out.
Say NO to the ABC!
What a lot of people fear is that the “voice” will become stacked with activists like Lidia Thorpe or Marcia Langton who definitely don’t have the interests of Australia as a whole in mind and don’t want reconciliation. The fear is that, through the voice, activists will put up a never ending list of ambit claims. Then brand as racist, anyone who doesn’t give them what they want. These activists have proven that they don’t want reconciliation. Does “Always was, always will be Aboriginal land” and “you’re on stolen land” sound like reconciliation to you.
By all means legislate for the voice as an act of parliament then test the model for a few years, then if it works for ALL Australians, talk about putting it in the constitution. I just don’t trust the current process or the people behind it.
As the video explains, a big problem with merely legislating this kind of thing is that successive governments change/remove/replace the legislation, and there is no continuity for the people that this is intended to help. This has happened repeatedly in history. The constitutional change will only ensure that the concept for having a body "the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice" exists, whereas it will be up to the parliament of the day to debate and agree upon legislation to figure out how the body is established, who is on it, how many people, how it is funded, etc. Currently it is suggested that it will be local and regional groups that feed into a national voice, not a group stacked with particular people and politicians.
I agree with this but I believe the spirit of the change proposed is that the main thing here is to acknowledge and recognize the need for an indigenous voice, regardless of the specifics details. Activists like Lidia, as painful and as counterproductive as they are, are temporary. The Voice should be permanent. That will give some time to sort out the specifics.
@@politicalpod "always was , always be" is an empty slogan. What I want to know is what they want. How do they see immersed in the modern australia. We cant go back, so what future do they want?
100% agree
@@sarahvictoria3204 There's a good reason those aboriginal bureaucracies were abolished. Because they were wasting everyone's time and money and not improving outcomes for aboriginals. The idea of embedding another useless bureaucracy into the constitution is insane. Especially one that breaks the principles of democracy.
As I learn about aboriginal culture the more the idea that no one own the land but the land owns us. The land can reject us or accept us and we all have equal rights to it.
A lot of convicts didn’t come here by choice and a lot of others did but I’m grateful that the land has accepted us.
I'm not convinced it's a good idea ... no examples and too many doubts ... evolving as a better country is the goal, not continual separations...
I'm voting NO to the voice
What is an oxymoron?
I was told it's when two blokes from the tax office arrive on your doorstep, and say
We're here to help you.
The same example is when I read that the ABC is going to do an unbiased explanation about the voice.
All Australians already have a "Voice" it's called voting.
..or in a steel workshop.... the guy with the oxy-acetylene torch in his hands.
my vote is still NO
Why is that if you can explain please
@@cgraham209 sorry its my personal vote.its called democracy
@@cgraham209 I'm happy to explain for 50 years we've had committee members dealing with this issue with a trillion-dollars in funding and nothing has ever been done. You'll notice there's no community elders on the committee only people who are from the city or have very little contact with the indigenous people in the bush where the problems are. No one is explaining how this voice is going to change that how its going to stop the ministers from stealing all the money while people suffer in the bush like has always been the case
@@cgraham209 Me personally I think its weird! That a law is being considered that we divide people based on nothing but the colour of our skins and our race! I reckon its a deep rabbit hole, and I would rather not open that Pandora's box. The day of us being divided based on skin and race are over! There is no law that says someone can't do something just because of their race, that is left behind in the backward times of the white Australia policy of old. Why are we keeping division based on race alive on life support? Weird if you ask me! I will be voting NO.
@@chewie5870 It's not enough to say there's no discrimination now, when there's been discrimination in the past, and there's still such a large gap. Laws can also be indirectly discriminatory. The constitution originally entrenched discrimination, that's why it should be used to ensure we continue to progress towards equality.
Isn't Linda Burney representing the voice for the indegenous people ?
I think the migrants need a voice too. The homeless people need a voice too.
Aboriginals do need a voice and I fully support them but, 1- they can't even agree on what they want themselves and 2, how can I vote Yes without knowing what I'm exactly voting for. The whole thing needs more clarity & transparency.
Why do we need the Voice when we have the National Indigenous Australians Agency with the same aims and tasks. I don’t know how effective it has been, but one would think that it should have achieved a great deal with 1300 employees and a budget this year in excess of 4.5 billion dollars. If it has, then why do we need the Voice? If not, then this shows how ineffective the voice would be. Either way, it seems to be a powerful argument for the 'No' vote.
Because a body like that's existence is subject to the whim of the Government (the video addressed this). Once a part of the constitution, a Voice must exist and can't be cancelled. This is about constitutional recognition.
@@ladyangua1
So, if it fails to achieve its objectives, what then? It would seem to be an unelected, unaccountable and irremovable entity. I wouldn’t vote for that.
@@frankmoore3433 are you saying people just ignore what you say so therefore they ignore everyone?
Shorly this would prove that the Aboriginal ministers over the last 50 years have been completely useless and they should all hand their paychecks back if we now need to change this
@@frankmoore3433 You didn't elect or choose the members of ATSIC or the NIAA either. The members of the Voice will be accountable to the people who chose them the same as the other bodies were. The difference is the Voice members get chosen by the Aboriginal and TS People to advise and lobby for THEIR interests, not by a bunch of politicians beholden to mining and business lobbyists.
Vote NO
Vote NO!!!
I honestly think this will cause alot more division in the country. We were meant to change a word in the National Anthem to ONE and free. But are we really ONE? If we are ONE then why the vote? If we vote yes to this change in our constitution then what if it doesn't go as planned? We can't change it again. It's still an undecided for me. I don't have a crystal ball to see the future and I don't know how it will affect EVERYONE. Still a big concern for me.
We're not one. Indigenous peoples are still disadvantaged at practically every corner, how could be one and free if a significant portion of us are over-imprisoned. With a voice, the people actually impacted can tell us why and how to fix it. Not the old white guys in cushy cars and mansions in Canberra.
And, "We can't change it again." Sure we can. We can always hold another referendum. Or, more accurately, parliament will still be able to legislate the function (The referendum is just "Should we have one, Yes or No")
@@FlamingLily it seems the people that are "scared" of the voice and what it means are the ignorant ones who think that equality for indigenous people are somehow going to personally affect them and "equality" for them means privilege that they think they do not have but will be given to indigenous people
Are we free? I question everything WORLD HEATH ORGANISATION needs this to control everyone 😢 I will not vote yes or no more information required simple
I think that we are both one and we are diverse. For instance, we have elderly people, adults and children. Each group tends to have different needs and perspectives but each group is part of the larger community known as Australians. We have people who are passionate about sport and we have people who love culture and the arts and people who aren't very keen on either or who love both. We can care about all of those groups. Having diversity within unity is something we are good at.
@@FlamingLily The Voice won't help a single one of your concerns. It will just be another useless bureaucracy. One that is against the basic principles of one man one vote. No racial group should have their own special Parliament in a modern liberal democracy.
Australia is a vast continent. It is not easy to close the gap between the rural and the urban people. The voice is not going to close the gap because there are many other factors at play.
It could be that this will allow the 'other factors at play' to be highlighted and fixed though. It's a tough choice though isn't it!
Don't think of it as closing the gap but stopping it from getting wider
Its flipping the script. Our entire history is telling indigenous Australians what is good for them and how they should act and it has never worked. The only thing that is going to help in closing the gap is actually listening to first nations people.
They don't want to give detail to see it passed, but we want all the information of what it will look like before we vote on it.
I can equate the Yes vote to the introduction of the cane toad, the Rabbit, the fox, the camel, the goat and the human race to this continent, a good idea at the time, but look at it now.
A big fat NO.
A bit fat YES
"All of us will have an equal say".... isn't that what 1 person 1 vote already is?? Pfftt.
2 months on from this video and what "the voice" actually is doesnt seem to be any clearer...
There are two questions being ask do we want these people recognised in the constitution and the second is do we want to give them a voice. So is that basically suggesting that all the Aboriginal government ministers have been useless in the past and maybe they should give back all the money they wasted when they haven't actually done anything? And what is it that you're actually going to do that you haven't tried in the past ?other than giving them a voice that's going to stop the human atrocities happening every day in Australia? Now for a long time we've had a big problem of committee members that are constantly offended about things so they don't actually have to do any real work in the community . They refused to have the full bloods on the panel because they know that they will start asking questions and again there are no full blood elders on this committee and we're going to get exactly the same as what we've had in the past, A trillion dollars in funding and we're still trying to work out what's not offensive when we address them but nothing else has changed and no constitutional alteration will change that
Aboriginals as a demographic are already overrepresented amoung parlimentarians.
There's a dedicated indigenous minister to parliment.
There are various Aboriginal Affairs Ministers, Registrar's of Aboriginal sites .etc at the state level.
And none of that worked.
But a special race-based parliamentary advisory body (and additional voice groups at the state level) funded at the expense of the tax-payer totally will work!
Trust me bro.
Amazing. We did change by getting a job and earning a better life style. We didn't get a better life by having a "voice". Makes no sense to me.
It is difficult to vote on something that has little detail, particularly when it is unable to be revoked once apart of the constitution. I think that this bill will not be able to properly represent all First Nations people from all tribes and cultures. The constitution should not treat individuals differently on the basis of race.
The constitution already treats people differently on the basis of race.
The voice changes that, and enables Aboriginal people to have a say on issues that affect them. That’s equality. You must understand that racism in Australia is systemic and the system need to change to overcome that kind of violence on a specific part of the population.
It can be revoked from the constitution. You would need to pass another referendum though.
Which means ultimately ... the decision on whether to keep it, will be up to the Australian people.
Not up to politicians to abolish on a whim.
I think if it was should Aboriginal people be recognised in the constitution we would all vote yes it's just that they're taking on this extra thing about employing more committee members who has history of being completely useless
@@Lani-sc2oj sorry - can you provide proof of that?
I think the idea that it treats people differently based on race is a red herring. The voice is rather a constitutional recognition of the unique status that indigenous australians occupy in the settler colonial state that is Australia. Rather than thinking in terms of race we should be thinking in terms of the coloniser and the colonised. To me, the voice works to enshrine official representation for the colonised peoples within the state apparatus that now administers what was once the land of the colonised peoples.
No from me. Bigger issues which effect all australians and albo is being divisive and not doing his job.
I read the proposed question very carefully and it is my great concern that what the Voice will creates is a huge bureaucracy, not answerable to the Parlament or anyone. It is my further concern it will create havoc with our system of government and will have a lot of consequences due to a wide range of matters the Voice could make representation about, added by unknown decisions of the activist Courts. The ABC presentation only supports this suspicion. All I can say, if you do not fully understand it, don't vote for it. While I fully understand the emotions of the Voice proponents and am sure everyone would support bridging any gaps between some of our first nation people and the rest of the country, the Voice seems to me to be a radical, rather than gradual proposition.
What I want to know is what they're going to do different ? Are we finally admitting that the Aboriginal ministers for the last 50 years have been scamming the system and are we going to have those same type of people on the committee again while there's no full bloods in sight
This is the only sensible conclusion a reasonable person could come to
NO!
Again, labor govt doing it again with no details to the poilicies or bills they suggested. I'm moving country if this stupid thing passes. This is the fall of the west as it did in NZ. Better pick up mandarin or hindi...
All you need to know about the voice is to vote NO!!!!
This reminds me of the 1979 Iranian constitutional referendum. The gov urged Iranians to vote in favour of an 'Islamic' constitution without actually revealing what that new constitution contained. Only when the voting had ended and it was clear that the yes vote had won, the Islamist regime finally came out and revealed the document in its entirety. Needless to say, Iran has not recovered since then. I urge Australians to think carefully before altering their constitution.
No
The ABC allowing comments thats shocking, Vote NO!
When is ‘VOTE NO DAY’? …keen to know - so I can plan my day.
For a referendum that was provided on the condition it was impartial, our own PM has made it pretty clear what he thinks Australians should do. Let's remember to provide information for the Australian people to make up their own mind. I'd like to know if the current constitution applies to all Australians. Why then would we need a clause, escape, proviso, exception for a particular group of Australians? The referendum has already caused division and it will continue to do so. How about uniting under one banner and cooperating for one constitution for all Australians. This extraordinary country is owned by ALL Australians - no exceptions.
No one mentions we will have to pay a weekly tax if the vote is a yes. They go around the sun talking about what will happen but don't mention the 'tax' before we vote.
Can we get a correction, please.
The White Australia policy had nothing to do with Indigenous Australians.
It was an immigration policy sought by Labor to deny peoples from arriving because of their wage expectation. The method used to deny them entry was Racist.
The great Labor 'HERO' Gough Whitlam eventually ended the last remnants of the policy (after all the hard lifting by the Liberals) but within a year of doing so was personally cancelling Refugee Visas to Australia that had already been approved by his Minister, because he was 'not having thousands of f***ing Vietnamese Balts coming into this country with their political and religious hatreds against us.’
Just about every other country had a similar policy. It was about economics
You don't have to dig far to unearth Labor's horrendous racist background.
Facts!
That's what I gave
Whats wrong with the current system in terms of funding getting to where the're sposed to go.Lets fix that and take the initiative.
Big fat NOOOOO :)
I would vote on a referendum to fix housing, to fix the wealth gap, and to stop price gouging by companies but I wont vote yes for apartheid.
Vote no.
This looks like a leap of faith type of decision. If it goes through it remains to be seen how well it would work in reality. So the question really is, should we try this approach? If it works, fine, but if it doesn't, then what?
chaos...
no
The murkiness of how much power this proposition gives to a minority group will inevitably lead to bad outcomes for all other people groups
its the elite blacks not all of a minority 99.999 % will miss out.
@@futureday-3011 ffs the government can ignore their advice if they want. There is no power, it's just them saying "hey we think this policy may help us". There's nothing to worry about.
@@HaddenMellorss self-determination would have helped us mob, this marginalizes power = dangerous.
I vote no because it is rasiest also I would like to know whats in the voice otherwise I will vote no because of dishonesty as I like details before voting.
Strong no
By any metric of self-determination the gap is growing worse by the choices of individual indigenous 'voices'. There is no evidence that a 'collective voice' would result in a differing outcome.
In fact ... when remote communities agree to re-introduce alcohol, that we banned - the gap gets wider.
Whichever way you try to spin it, the Voice is still a platform of representation for what will become a privileged minority Australians who will have more representation than the rest of us.
What about other cultures that exist in Australia? Should they have their own voice in parliament too? And if not, why not?
Every race and culture has a voice. It's called elections.
Name one other culture in Australie who lived on the Australian mainland and surrounding islands for tens of thousands of years before colonisation, were forcibly dispossessed of their lands, were subject to formal and informal genocide, and who have significantly worse outcomes on all reasonable measures than any other group in the country?
@@steveremington ❤
@@steveremington this is where you're wrong my friend, my ancestors have been forcibly dispossessed of their lands too by Bolsheviks after the 1917 revolution. And I'm not claiming anything from anyone. This is not about making one group of people have more benefits because hey have suffered more or they lived on particular land for longer. It's about have fair and equal rules for everyone. If one group of people needs more help, then give it to them, pay for their education, give them a head start etc.
@@easternfrontagain how does that relate to Australian Aborigines who are the longest surviving culture on the planet?
Sovereignty was never ceded but here you are...
The most comprehensive piece on the Voice to date, and it says a whole lot of nothing. Genuine debate is needed to unpack this.
What else do you want to say or ask?
@@zen1647 Who is in the voice? How are they appointed? What's the budget allocation? How wide is their remit? I've not heard any answers to these practical questions because nobody knows. Labour are trying to insert an anti-democratic amendment into our constitution using an emotional argument and they are trying to hide the details for a reason.
@@zen1647 Well they actual change would be good!
Sign this blank piece of paper dont worry ill fill it in latter!
@@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307 We're not being asked to sign a blank piece of paper - We're being asked if people with historical connections to this country can give a piece of paper with their thoughts to the government.
It's a relatively minimal change that's designed to produce the biggest benefit.
@@zen1647 "We're not being asked to sign a blank piece of paper"
Yes you are you dont know the laws, you have no idea what they will be! APART FROM RACIST!
"thoughts to the government."
You missed the government departments, (like all yes voting racist like to do!) do you know what it means when they have the right to be heard on every little thing a government department does before it does it?
PLEASE EXPLAIN How that will work!
The only thing I need to know about the voice is I’m voting NO.
As am I Ray ....!!!!
What a load of tripe
dhurag man here. vote No please. unity not division
I'm opposed to Labor's Canberra Voice as it's racially divisive, undemocratic, non-representative of Aboriginal diversity, politicians will not say "No" to its decisions despite claims it will have "no real power", and the debate will divide our communities and nation. Aboriginals already vote like everyone else in Australia, and currently Aboriginals enjoy greater representation in the Federal Parliament on a per-capita basis. As Jacinta Price rhetorically asked Penny Wong in the parliament, "should there be a special voice for Asians in the parliament"? Albanese tells those against the Voice it "won't have any real power". So why have it!? And if it "won't have real power" why is it being put into the constitution!? All the while Albanese is telling Aboriginals on the Left his Voice will give them real power. Albanese makes a mockery of the people. VOTE NO
I am greatly concerned by the phrase "matters pertaining to the indigenous people" this is incredibly vague and I think the entire thing needs to be elaborated on more I am not willing to give this government something they will take as a "mandate" ...
Did it occur to them to ask more than 1 questionso they could get clarity on what people actually think.
Of the 14 minutes good overview, only about one minute explained the 'No' case and potential issues. None of the report touched on the enormous expense involved - money that could go to empowering ATSI with education and employment. Also didn't discuss the potential high court involvement or push for sovereignty or the fact that our Constitution gives everyone an equal voice now - elections. The report mentioned previous ATSI bodies being disbanded it was because they either didn’t work or were corrupt. The ‘Voice’ as proposed can’t be disbanded if it isn’t effective or is corrupt. Legislation enacted now could do all the things claimed to be the reason for the ‘Voice’. Recognition of ATSI as First People could be in the Constitution Preamble.
If formal Constitutional recognition will improve the lives of Australians disadvantaged because of ATSI heritage, then amend the Constitution’s Preamble which sets out Australia’s social and cultural values and aspirations. The Preamble could state:
“The Commonwealth of Australia is constituted as a democracy with a federal system of government to serve the common good. We acknowledge and honour Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation's first people; respecting their Elders, past and present; their deep, ancient kinship and connection with Country, community and culture, that continue to enrich our nation; recognising injustices of the past. Australia belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity, in a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights; mindful of our responsibility to protect our unique natural environment; upholding freedom, tolerance, individual dignity and the rule of law; supportive of equity of opportunity; and valuing independence and national spirit.”
If a representative, independent, indigenous body is required to ensure social justice and equity for all ATSI peoples, such a ‘Voice’ could be established immediately under legislation that outlines its structure, membership, terms and conditions, goals and expectations, targets and review. Firstly, the ‘Voice’ could audit all the programs established for the benefit of disadvantaged ATSI peoples to ensure outcomes are meeting expectations, providing tangible improvements for communities and individuals, efficiently and cost-effectively. The ‘Voice’ could highlight effective programs and suggest and design new ones. Amendment of the Preamble to recognise ATSI and the legislative establishment of a ‘Voice’ may provide REAL financial and practical benefits to disadvantaged ATSI rather than to a divisive, parallel-government system at odds with the fundamental Constitutional rights of all Australians to have an equal vote and representation through our current democratic process.
This is unnecessary.
I and my whole family will be voting NO!
ALL Australians should be treated equally
No one race should be given special treatment. Special treatment will give rise to disharmony and conflict among the people in future.
Non-indigenous Australians have been given special treatment hence why we have the disharmony and conflict we have today.
@@ironiconions1620 Can we drop the Yes side into Nicaragua for a week- Step Aunt who has seen the bloodshed her ancestors got
They've had many voices for many years and they all say " gimee gimee" and it's about time they all stood up and had a go at helping themselves. End of story. This voice thing is more about Albanese than anything else. NO.
It is highly illustrative of how dramatically far we have fallen in regards to a fair go for everybody. Probably the most quintessential Australian trait.
Any unbiased Australian looking at the: The Voice will see that it’s obviously rushing towards extreme overreach.
And that’s before you begin to look at its undermining of Australian democracy.
The country doesn't need ‘The Voice’, and about the only ‘achievement’ ‘The Voice’ will without question bring about is further division.
The voice doesn't exist to do anything but stroke the egos of a select few at the expense of everyone else.
On 27 May 1967, Australians voted to change the Constitution for a positive, and meaningful change.
The 2023 proposed change to the Australian Constitution. The Voice. Is an intolerant, narrow-minded power grab.
The Voice fails to represent all Australians.
The Voice will embody structural racism.
The Voice will serve as structural racism.
The Voice will in conjunction with these clear liabilities fail to represent the many different and distinct Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups, each with their own culture, language, beliefs and practices.
Genuine accurate facts are not dishonest scaremongering.
Disagreement with any change that is not democratic, and is not representative, and will be discriminatory. This is now deemed racist?🤔
Why yes let us as a proud multi-ethnic nation Australia, undermine our modern representative democracy in favour of divisive, popular, crowd-pleasing, and overt virtue signalling?
Why would we allow this?
How afraid and intimidated have we become in Australia?
the "fair go" is long dead. people cant even find a room to rent these days.
The fact you have the arrogance to title this ‘EVERYTHING you need to know about …’ is astounding!
Wow ABC, thankyou for having the decency to air this but also for allowing free speech in your comment section. I never watch any of your videos if there is no opportunity for the people to make comments as it feels like you are trying to control a narrative!
DEFINITELY VOTE NO. NO NO NO
Thanks ABC for the great explanation covering pretty much all bases. I don't know where I sit on this, possibly like a lot of my peers, I would like to think I am making an educated vote for the good of the country and all of us in it, with some clarity. I can see there is a need for some type of body that cannot be abolished at the whim of any elected government of the day. That makes sense and has some continuity, checks and balances of a normal democratic system. Permanent seats in the senate, interesting how would that work? maybe it wont I dunno. It worries me if the voice could veto economic policy to the determent of the rest of Australians, which is more clear now, that this is not what the proposed voice is after, although the radicals seem to want that type of power, am I wrong, I dunno. It also worries me that the government can just ignore the advice too, that doesn't seem right either. What worries me more than all this is that the politicians are asking us to trust that they will sort out the detail ........... given the division already and the political landscape, then combine that with all sides have a poor track record of getting much right at all. It worries me that to the average person those words come up with by the working committee for the voice seem quite reasonable and now there is wide debate and legal interpretation of such simple statements. That doesn't seem right either, I cant see how that solves problems, so again I dunno. We all hear the pollies talking to a script each day and every news report has no detail to it, so I am not surprised the polling is what it is. All I want to know is, if I vote yes to any proposal, is will it fix shit. If the answer is maybe? then no good, come back with something that works that we all can understand.
I'd like to know what exactly the solicitor general thought of the proposed model that was required to be heard by the working group and not the public 🤷
I think there in lies half the problem in that there is little to no detail in the proposed model. The official line is they will work out those details if the referendum gets up.
Seems like an exercise to take away our voice ?
Why are comments disabled in current posts on your site ?
We still NEED to know the wording of the treaties. That part could be dangerous
If you say All of us will have a say, why do you call someone ' First nation' people ?
When you divide people into indegenous and non indegenous people, you are discriminating people based on race, knowing racism is bad. The voice is a mistake. It means The race. Isn't it ?
It's not racist to acknowledge the existence of different races. It's also not racist to acknowledge that these different races can have different social, economical, and political circumstances throughout the country, with white people invariably being among the most advantaged, and indigenous people being among the most disadvantaged.
Isn't it racist to continue to uphold this division in advantage? I think it is. That's what the voice aims to stop.
@@FlamingLily it is racist to single out one group and give them special privileges
@@dannyben406 Not when the amount of disadvantage outweighs that privilege, and when the privileges are designed explicitly to fix those disadvantages.
@Goat-ward the Gamer having 4% of the population weaponising a 'Voice' and then dictating to the remaining 96% will make matters worse. Remember ATSIC?
When was the last time you filled out any type of government forms ?
Yeah, that’s a no.
Vote NO. We are ONE people - whether born or sworn in Australia. As Woody Guthrie said “ This land is OUR land”!
Proponents are selling this with politician-speak, focus grouped buzzwords “Voice”, “Statement from the heart”.
So, “voice” , is so they can “have a ‘say’”….? What EXACTLY, PRECISELY is that legally and administratively?! A constitutional amendment is serious business. “Advice could ‘theoretically’ be ignored”?! Reminder, proponents do not have to convince aboriginal peoples, to whom they appear their messaging is focused. They must convince non-aboriginal registered voters. The latter are HIGHLY unlikely to vote yes on “theoretical” and a grab bag of politician BS bingo buzzwords voters are primed to view as dissembling, shallow and meaningless.
Stop using the term "advise". The amendment proposed is "representations". It will ultimately be up to the High Court to decide what a representation to Parliament and the Executive entails. The nearest current definition - our lower house of Parliament is the House of Representatives, where quite literally our elected representatives make representations on our behalf. So one could quite rightly argue that the Voice's representations to Parliament should entail seats in the lower house.
It's important to also note the conflict between the proposed 2nd and 3rd changes. The 2nd change grants the voice the power to make representations. The 3rd change, supposedly a safety measure, allows Parliament to define the powers of the Voice. What's not clear is which one takes precedent, but theoretically Parliament will never be able to legislate away the power to make representations.
That leaves a lot of concerning room for interpretation by the High Court.
And High Court judges are appointed, not elected.
Why should we allow the unelected High Court to decide the shape of our democracy?
As an Australian Hongkonger, I vote NO .
The indigenous population are receiving better health support , study support than the rest of Australian. As an Australian Hongkonger, I don't see how this is fair to the rest of us
Everyone misses the point, 'No ' will mean the staus quo of Indigenous destruction contiunes under the radar. 'Yes' strips away the indiginous Lore to be replace by corporate law which in time enslave further and destroy the core of indiginous being.
No voice.
This sounds like a very 1 sided view on this issue… I would love facts from both sides not just a narrative from 1 side of something I’m trying to educate myself on.
The only answer is NO. ENOUGH to divide the country and Australian people.
We are in 2023, why Australians has to pay for this, move on.
Why don't first fleet descendants get a voice as well? They and the folk who came after them before 1900 created the nation, and the constitution. If anyone has a right to direct access to parliament and government, it is the descendants of those folk.
What voice is there for the disadvantaged of Mt Druitt in NSW or Christies Beach in SA? What voice is there for the disadvantaged folk in rural communities?
The core issue of indigenous disadvantage is largely cultural, and that will not be resolved by changing our constitution or political system.
Yes, the core issue is cultural.
Who defines Indigenous cultural authenticity? - repressive authenticity
Who defines Indigenous cultural native title authenticity? - Native title requires Aboriginal people to prove they have had a continuous and unbroken connection to their country
Who defines Indigenous cultural & social norms? - the dichotomy between the settler & Indigenous; assimilate or perish.
Who defines what should be problematized in Indigenous communities? - NT intervention
Who defines the legal, moral & ethical standardizations that permits the juridictional and jurisprudent authority that allows for the taking of children from Indigenous families?
- Over 23000 Indigenous children live in non-Indigenous 'care'. Is this due to culture? or the imposition of cultural differences that effectuates such action to be taken. I.e. A house that should only house a family has a mulitude of families and relations (due in part to the notion of a close-nit community - communal society), that is taken as overcrowding by the state that results in children been taken away? (hypothetical)
The issue I think is the term equality. Because equality requires a standardization to a certain benchmark. If that standardization is conceptualized, framed, propagated and promulgated from a singular cultural mindset and imposed upon another different cultural mindset, then conflict ensues. I.e. Nuclear family vs communal family.
Ya its a complex issue. and complexity is the nail in the coffin of this referendum.
@@verushistorie without answering you in thesis, I will answer several issues you pose.
Aboriginal children in care are there because of failures within family and kinship ties. I think you'll find that each state has a system in place for kids to go to family or kin as a preference. It isn't the child welfare authorities preventing that, except where that care can't be provided. If the public actually knew of why many of those kids were in care, there would be a massive backlash, for government failing to act sooner.
As far as 'assimilate or perish' exists, that is the theme of human history, from modern man's emergence in Africa somewhere under a hundred thousand years ago. Neanderthals bred out, hundreds of cultures have ended because they couldn't compete against more technically and socially advanced cultures. Others today are barely hanging on. There is a very good reason why Brazil is struggling hard to maintain a cordoned sanitaire for their amazon tribes.