Far Enough - Vote Yes
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 10. 2023
- Far Enough?
Remember when you wanted to find the best coffee within walking distance of where you’re at and you googled it? You can apply the same tactic to so many other aspects in life! For example; referendums that over 80% of Indigenous people are in favour of. What a time to be alive.
Production Companies - Blue-Tongue Films & Collider
Director - Nash Edgerton
Writers - Jenna Owen, Vic Zerbst
Producers - Michael Cody & Nash Edgerton
Cast - Adam Briggs, Jenna Owen, Vic Zerbst - Hudba
LOL I find it hilarious that the yes ads are basically “vote yes or you are a dummy”.
I have 5 friends who are in a joint lotto syndicate. 3 are yes voters and 3 are no. Of the No voters, 1 has swallowed the line that this is “the thin edge of the wedge” and will ultimately lead to… he’s not sure what, but something bad. The other 2 No voters are out and proud racists. So in answer to the above comment, in my group the No voters aren’t dummies, they are just scared, or racists.
@@richardbellmaines9460 And they are your friends?
Nah, this vid isn't calling no voters dumb, it is just encouraging people who are confused to do some basic research and get good info.
If the shoe fits...weird. same shoe size as the plebiscite no voters. Same style. Still lost that one, didnt ya sport.
@@Ademos5- The plebiscite was way more comprehensive of an idea. The information for the voice is so vague and basically relies only on the idea that if you care about aboriginal people the vote for this… even if it is a bad idea.
Lefties the people have spoken.
It's not all Lefties. It's mainly Progressives. There are still working class 'rednecks' keeping the flame alive. You know ... the kinds of people Progressives sneer at for having the audacity to be unsophisticated and live in uncool places.
Aboriginals should honestly just be happy. It dont get what the big deal is.
When you use the term "lefties", I assume you are referring to people other than yourself. I must conclude that for you, "lefties" are people who know how to construct simple sentences that involve punctuation.
Yes you've spoken using the term leftist, indicating you weren't interested in our indigenous only some pathetic unrelated culture war. Gove yourself an uppercut champ, you're a disgrace.
Nah, most lefties are ignorant AF, if they weren't, they wouldn't be lefties. @@TheBlackDogChronicles
Can someone explain why the guardian calls this viral and says it has 5 million views when it only has 178k?!
Every1 watched it 28x ;) So simple for those that CARE & want to progress rather than divide Australia on YES for Love or NO for destruction of Social values (just like J.Howard)
Videos shared on other platforms or accounts included. Also they make stats up
Reposted on IG and TT by celebs, so 5mn total, which probably isn't enough
The Guardian will rot your brain
@@arclux "Will" is not as bad as did, by Murdoch media (Fox, Sky, Daily toilet paper, etc ;)
Litmus test:
When the party in power, the legacy media, large corporations and celebrities tell you to do something, what do you do?
use your brain?
@@vanessagoddess1Check first reply.
It looked like a junta in the making. I'm half waiting for the Prime Minister to return with the green light from Xi and Biden to take the next step by force.
He does, after all, seem to think (according to that radio interview in Melbourne) that a perfect world is him as Dictator banning social media and deciding what truth is.
This video is brilliant for the No campaign. Writing off the concerns of millions of people based simply on them being "idiots" will likely kill any last chance for this referendum. The constitution was designed to be difficult to change to force those who want to change it to win the argument, not ridicule those who don’t agree. In 1967 over 90% of Australians voted for equality under the constitution. In 2023, it seems at this point, the majority will vote again for equality under the constitution. We’ll see on 14 Oct either way.
Yep. This little gem will do wonders for Team NO. The doubling down will be spectacular.
This add isn't aimed at people who have serious concerns about the Voice or are opposed to it. It is about people who aren't sure but haven't looked into it. They are different groups, and Briggs isn't saying anything about the former here.
Understand what you’re saying. Though this clip certainly implied that No voters are idiots. With this backdrop across the Yes campaign, the result of the election should not be a surprise. In time it may even be said that the majority of Australian’s are pretty wise to be very skeptical of proposed changes to the constitution.
Yes I and everyone I know have questions better than the mockery he made of the people questioning a referendum that came totally out of the blue. Having an unemotional, critical thought out and logical conversation based on facts is not what this video is but pretends to be, still doesn’t answer our questions. This is coming from left wing right wing, everyone. Do you want to answer the real questions we had? No it’s too late it was rushed through ……..hrmmm
When your local labor party office calls your friend out of the blue campaigning for the voice and she asked questions. The guy called her an ‘anti vaxxer’ and hung up on her. So she called them back twice and there is more to this story but basically they didn’t explain at all and tried to guilt trip her into caring with irrelevant facts about indegnous instead of answering questions that were specific and totally fair. ‘But don’t you care about our indigenous Australians?’ Do you know the statistics?’ Yes she is a left wing social worker who was never the anti vaxxer you accused her of. Briggs you had people like this trying make us vote yes. Why would we trust them to do the right thing? 😂 so blame maree edwards local mp office not us 😂 call her and ask her why she had people yelling at local residents to vote and accusing them of being right wing fascists if they ‘dared’ to ask questions.
Typical of modern cringe today, people afraid to have an opinion with gutless conversations. I want people to state their case regardless of what they think others may think and have some honesty about themselves.
its important to challenge each others beliefs too. talk to your people IRL and tell them why you think they are wrong. some are stuck in their ways but if they truly want to listen they will.
It's really telling that when you push back and provide them with solid arguments, they just revert to good 'ol fashioned racism. That's why people don't want to discuss this. They know their opinion sucks.
@ben10the10 read the comments there are solid arguments from both camps. Little of what I have seen is racism. Just because someone votes no doesn’t mean they are racist. The problem most No voters have with the proposal is that who makes up the voice and what power it is going to have are being decided later by politicians in parliament. People don’t trust those Canberra polies. Even you shouldn’t because next election cycle the liberals may be in power and they can change the voice to whatever they want as it is currently worded. People actually do want better outcomes for indigenous but are worried by the lack of detail. The yes campaign has tried to fill the lack of detail with stuff they just made up. They can’t know these details yet because parliament hasn’t decided on what those details are. The only legally binding thing is the words in the question itself. I suggest you read it carefully, and only it (not what the yes campaign thinks the voice will be or the ‘Uluṟu‘ statement from the heart which is not a legally binding part of this change) then make up your mind. If it is still yes that is no problems but please don’t disrespect other people exercising their democratic rights by slandering them as racist. This is a solid argument against the voice: ‘I don’t trust the politicians in Canberra to not abuse this and stack the voice with puppets and grant it powers to suit their own agenda. This is not a democratic body and as such is open to corruption. It could have been detailed about how it was formed and the powers it has in the wording of the question just like other parts of our constitution. In my opinion the question doesn’t pass the pub test.’
@@ben10the10 "They know their opinion sucks"? I doubt it. Everyone I know, left right or center, thinks their opinion is the gold standard.
spoiler alert NO WINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thankyou for making the world a more depressing place!
It’s funny you have more like than the original comment 😂
@emmagrindrod3465 someone’s a little sad 🥺🥺🥺 the difference is the treaty you refer to from New Zealand came from a time the country was at war with Britain. They were capable of holding their own and demanding a treaty. A treaty now for Australia is stupid and unnecessary. If recognition is all they wanted they could have just made the vote about that. That’s why the vote went out like a sad wet fart
@Adrenalin4Life-ds8ub common sense prevails they reckon. I think this is one of those cases
@emmagrindrod3465 why Aboriginals have higher suicide rate? Some wrong with them?
Where is Albo?
He just spent $360 million on this and it failed - due to lack of information. And now he scuttles off home and avoids the result.
He needs to go
@emmagrindrod3465
1. This was NEVER about indigenous peoples, it was about Albo and the ALP repaying a debt to the Activists who got them in power. The Voice would have been a non Aboriginal stacked undemocratic third house that pushed left wing and green agendas.
2. The Voice would have done NOTHING for the current problems. The last thing we need is another talk fest. We need ACTION. We need to stop the squandering of money of crap an focus on the issues you highlight.
@emmagrindrod3465
OK Emma, tell me where it says online the answers to these questions:
1. How many members will comprise the voice:
10 persons
100 persons
1000 persons
10,000 persons
2. How will they be chosen:
Direct election from all Australians
Direct election from Aboriginal members of Australia
Appointment by the existing government
Selected by the Land Councils
Selected by the states
3. How Aboriginal will the members be:
Aboriginal by DNA
Aboriginal by more than 50% DNA
Aboriginal by less than 50% DNA
Australians who identify as Aboriginal
Experts who are Australian
Any Australian
4. What will they provide:
Recommendations only
Guidance and Answers Only
Suggested legislation and proposals
5. What areas will they cover:
Aboriginal land council matters
Aboriginal Health issues
Australian land use issues
Australian environment issues
Australian legal issues
Australian external relations issues
6: Wil they include:
Refugee issues
Environment issues
Legal issues
Civil rights issues
Constitution issues
Heath issues
All issues
7. How long will members be in the Voice:
4 years
2 years
Until death
That’s the details we were looking for.
Now show me where they were, or STFU.
VOTE NO!!!!💯💯
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You got owned !
Pwnt
This advert was one of the reasons the NO vote got up. The YES vote was never going to pass on the pathetic and overworked "It's time" and "it's the right thing to do" position. Taking the moral high ground (as the left claim ownership of) to convert people's thinking still requires a thoughtfully clear and concise argument. Now that Australians have voted NO how about some accountability and transparency for the $110 million a day spent on 3% of the population.
Racist much? That 3% managed the land a million times better without all the mod cons....but hey...the white fella just gotta justify his position (just for clarity... I'm an embarrassed white fella. Dad British, mum, 3rd generation Aussie. I bet you that if your family had their land stolen, 3, 4, 5 generations later, good hold more of a grudge than these guys. So sad the new world is all about cognitive bias
@@CamTracey I don't know, at least those that 'stole' the land are giving you $40bn a year, something tells me if all non indigenous left tomorrow another country (China) would be here in seconds and would be far less considerate. If all you do is live in the past, you're never going to make progress
You have joined CZcams 10hrs ago with the moniker "Angry". 'Nuff said.
Um, I've never seen this ad before 😮
@@mnmmnm8321me neither. Briggs can call me dumb. This was a total blindside I am still catching up. Apparently there was advertising on tik tok Insta, I don’t use any of those. I found an explanation and only resource to be the ABC. Labor representative called my friend out of the blue when no one was aware of the referendum really. She asked basic questions about it and the guy called her an ‘anti vaxxer’ out of the blue and hung up. So she called back twice to get someone to listen to her and it was still nonsense once they treated her with decency after being very nasty and personally attacking her based on an assumption that to question Labor means you are an anti vaxxer?? My friend is not an anti vaxxer so……okkkkkk. Very poor detail and emotional blackmail. Don’t you care about indigenous people? Type comments instead of actually what they were proposing. Sorry Briggs but you got me. Where did the referendum dollars go? Why am I going through parliamentary documents to try and understand what it going on and having to watch the senate and question time to get any info? I don’t watch commercial tv. Hahahaha guess I should have just googled. Oh I did
well… what a condescending advertisement this was 😅… Briggs is probably at home having his week of silence now..
Congratulations to the Australian public for rejecting this political third rail.
You’re glad they can’t literally just give advice? That was scary for you?
@@youarethedancingqueeyour living under a rock like a commie rock spider 😂
@IgnoreNot-qg3ly It literally was just going to be a rotating roster of 24 First Nations representatives GIVING ADVICE to Parliament. They would NOT have ‘got a vote’, only elected Members of Parliament can propose, vote on, or pass laws. The Voice representatives would NOT be Members of Parliament & would have no power to make laws, or to veto laws. They would literally just go into a room & be listened to. That’s it. There wouldn’t have been any obligation on the Parliament to act on anything the Voice members said. They would literally have just had to listen. Equality isn’t the same as treating everyone the same. Equality is about leveling the playing field. It includes providing wheelchair ramps, closed loop sound systems in auditoriums for hearing aid wearers, having Medicare to provide medical care to people who wouldn’t be able to afford it otherwise, charging lower bus fares for pensioners, paying compensation to victims of crime, soup vans for people without food, letting people who’ve been silenced speak.
@@03041976001 It was literally exactly that. Didn’t you read it?
Are all the Aborigines who wanted the Voice also 'commies'?@@timmaslen4766
They should just use the clip of Marcia Langton calling everyone who vote no racist and stupid. Save money on promotional videos so they can buy tissues and tape for their one week silence. That was an amazing promotion for the no campaign. Keep it up!
That Lurch looking old Trot can give us the silent treatment forever for all I care.
yeah, I disagree with Marcia Langton on that. I believe Australians that voted No are actually selfish and racist. They're not stupid at all. They knew exactly what they were doing
Don't forget all the other expletives she used
I love that this brings us back to the basic question we're ACTUALLY voting on! 👏👏👏
@@lachlanmcvey7885how is it a lie?
That clause is completely standard. It is to allow Parliament to improve the Voice over time instead of prescribing a fixed structure that can never change. It’s nothing to create fear over. Check out Section 51 of the constitution that is set up the same way for pretty much all law making. If you don’t think there should be a Voice, fine, but don’t try to scare people into thinking it’s something it’s not. The NO campaign is full of misinformation and distraction aimed at making people anxious. Please let’s debate the issue at hand, not the distractions…
*YES MOB ARE WOKE TERRORISTS*
@alansergeant9185 they say the voice will be chosen by indigenous leaders in the communities in the video. The actual question states that the make up will be determined by parliament. When facts contradict a claim then that is the definition of a lie. The video basically ‘googles’ it for you says some stuff they made up and relies on people being to lazy to actually google it themselves. So deceitful.
@@lachlanmcvey7885and what wasn’t accurate about the video?
Yewww 1st! Shout out from Yuwaalaraay Country Lightning Ridge
Briggs the rapper and two barely watchable so-called journalists telling us to go 'google it' is like Woolies berating you for not doing your own check-out properly.
It's literally these people's jobs to help inform the nation. And they come out a week before the most important moment of the most important issue in Australia, and tell us we're the problem.
Top work alll round.
The same guy that used to turn a blind eye to his brothers and sisters (not literal family) getting blind drunk abusing people at the Flinders Street steps? Oldmate only got this chip on his shoulder when he started getting famous and hanging around with activist class people like Paul Kelly.
Methinks someone feels guilty.
@@TheBlackDogChronicles methinks if you knew me, and what I've contributed ( including creating a music vid for one of Briggs own artists back in 2016 ) you'd realise you're talking out your arse ;)
Racism is people getting special treatment like free everything, jobs and getting into Uni because of your colour. Having free legal, medical all while paying no taxes then calling the other group racist. We are the same, there should not be preferences given on colour.
Though a lot of people imagine this to be the case, it's just not true.
her lean over & forearm touch as she says ‘and I would *hate* to patronise an Indigenous person’
Haha exactly, painful to watch really.
@@moorspede yes, it was painful to watch.
@WarningTimes no land grabs? Oh that's rich. 😂
The ad was originally an ad for Tinder. Listen carefully.
We voted for unity people. Well done Australia, I’m proud of us. Thank you to the majority, it’s a victory for our society. Black/white/brown the skin tone or where we were born doesn’t matter. If you voted you’re Australian. True blue.
All six-states and the NT have voted no! The Australian people have spoken 🇦🇺
Now the referendum has failed kick albo out of parliament for hes foolishness!!!
Then the next step would be an AUDIT on indigenous affairs and NDIS.
What happened to the yes vote, put where it should be ,in the rubbish bin.
Cheers Adam and the entire team for cutting right through the idiotic BS on both sides of the vote. I've shared this wherever I can.
👇Button to vote NO!
This is aged so well 😂😂
Just wanted to drop in and say aye... Hows that all working out for ya?
@@Migswan Thank you for voting NO in Melbourne and keeping Australia equal for all Australians.
Oh it will go down that path.. but briggs and his mates wont be at the helm at least
@@Migswan
Well it's all over now. The big banks and mining companies didn't win.
Yep. Not enough people pointing that out.
Hahahhaha Yaye!
This says it all.woke city people that had no idea, voted yes.
I think i understand now. We're all just a bit tired of being bashed over the head with 'you are shit unless you do this...'
I agree 👍
Who said that? Nobody
@jonah.donohue
Well I said that. I wasn't quoting. Have you not sensed that people in western cultures are growing more weary by the day of the culture wars?
That's what I'm seeing in a lot of content. I was expressing my viewpoint on the possibility that people voted no, in part, because they're over the pressure from the cultural left.
If you disagree, cool. No problem.
It's funny how people with a guilty conscience imbue something with meaning it doesn't really seem to have. Shakespeare had something to say about that, in Hamlet in Act 3, Scene 2.
@TheBlackDogChronicles well I'm intrigued. I shall have to look that up and educate myself. Thanks for your comment. I'm sure, knowing Hamlet to be renowned for its monologue, which I've seen as a movie clip, what I find will be elucidating.
@@TheBlackDogChronicles
Yes. The 'groundlings'. Poor souls 😂
My local parliamentarian (Peter Dutton) said it "means no issue - the economy, national security, infrastructure, health, education and more - would be beyond its scope" and so everyone should vote no... that's reason enough for me to vote yes
Peter Dutton also convinced me to vote yes
Yeah, if Dutton and Pauline Hanson both say it's bad, then it must be good. Vote yes! 🤣
Why is that a reason to vote no? It's just a representation... it's advice only. With no veto powers. What's the issue???
@@jesselise1996 because people like Dutton are afraid of losing their life of privilege
@@jesselise1996 exactly
I am Voting NO only because Noel Pearson said there's a second door after the first door .
Can someone tell me what is the second door is all about (Money /Land or something else ???
I am voting NO
Wait, so you can google important things?
worse that than, there's a bunch of sites called "let me google that for you" etc. It's kind of sarcastic what they do.
Yeah I tried it just now and it really works. I was surprised to find that you can search for other stuff like Indigenous treaty and funny videos of cats.
Of course and google will always provide you with the right answers and right information……..
Google this - www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8bj0jbnn1yri9y83lbblg/USOTH-Document-14.pdf?rlkey=0fumbze6godfjoxa0wq5gstjo&dl=0
Yeah mate. Actually google it.
Check out part 3 from the actual question:
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
So NOW we should do our own research? 👌
Great video. Just Google it.
Also "I would hate to patronise..." - well played
google is heavily censored these days dude.. it’s not like the 90s anymore.. remember all those different search engines we used to have.. even duck duck go is censored now.. you have to keep your wits about you and not just believe anything you read.. online scamming is a thing and it extends far beyond what the average googler would imagine. and have a nice day 😬
Yeah I googled it and found that this is propaganda and lies!
Check out part 3 from the actual question:
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
So good! I love them and Briggs
Yeah that arm touch was perfect! Such an incredible political video. More of these and less of boring political videos. I actively searched for this clip. I’ve never done that about a political issue before.
I agree, it would definitely not be patronising to give one ethnic group special treatment, vote yes!
attempts to include wording in the Voice proposal to stop any appeals by said body to the High Court, this was refused by the Yes camp, with many stating that injunctions and appeals were a right. Legally risky? Hell yes. negotiations and compromise or VOTE NO
That's not true at all. The Proposed Section 129 has been written simply and tightly to ensure that the Voice provides advice only. It is actually a constitutionally conservative position that's why constitutional conservatives have joined the overwhelming majority of constitutional experts in supporting the Voice.
@@sandracochrane2155 are you saying the voice CANNOT appeal to the High Court? …
@@sandracochrane2155 Watch "The Constitutional Implications of The Voice Referendum Proposal" by 'Aussie Law'
@@garyandrews5104 I'm saying it's highly, highly unlikely according to constitutional lawyers and constitutional experts including those who have sat on the High Court. Kenneth Haine, who sat on the High Court and ran the Banking Royal Commission, is one of many who have discussed this. He's been interesting on this. He says that he thinks the only serious possibility is when public servants don't administer government decisions according to the law (rather than the Voice than the Voice going to the High Court because advice isn't taken). And, lets face it, given what we've seen from the Robodebts Royal Commission, anything that can help bring into line public servants breaking the law is a good thing. I mention Haine's discussing it because he has such a no nonsense way of communicating things, he's a good person to follow up for yourself. Other people like Twoomey, Saunders, French, Craven, Willams and the Solicitor General have said the same. They're all on the record so you can check them out. Others too.
Thank you Senator Briggs, for everything. Something tells me the look of sheer exhaustion on your face was not acting.
That clause is completely standard. It is to allow Parliament to improve the Voice over time instead of prescribing a fixed structure that can never change. It’s nothing to create fear over. Check out Section 51 of the constitution that is set up the same way for pretty much all law making. If you don’t think there should be a Voice, fine, but don’t try to scare people into thinking it’s something it’s not. The NO campaign is full of misinformation and distraction aimed at making people anxious. Please let’s debate the issue at hand, not the distractions…
@@lachlanmcvey7885 man you are the NO campaign employee of the month with your effort on this video. Gold star 👏
@@lachlanmcvey7885 So I'd think this would actually reassure no campaigners that the Voice, whilst it can make representations to Parliament, is still governed by Parliament and will remain so. It usurps no Parliamentary powers; it's simply an advisory body.
Googling one yes propaganda page is not being informed and knowing, champ.
Great work. Waiting for Aaron's TikTok denying the fake news of Gonorrhea but fully supporting Yes to the referendum.
@ Lachlan The third paragraph of the referendum proposal is completely standard. It is to allow Parliament to improve the Voice over time instead of prescribing a fixed structure that can never change. It’s nothing to create fear over. Check out Section 51 of the constitution that is set up the same way for pretty much all law making. If you don’t think there should be a Voice fine vote NO, but don’t try to scare people into thinking it’s something it’s not. The NO campaign is full of misinformation and distraction aimed at making people anxious - and now apparently trolling. Please let’s debate the issue at hand, not the distractions…
Thank god there is democracy. Not corporate Australia and marketing.
This is true representation of what a yes voter believes a no voter thinks like. Can see why they lost.
Exactly!
Well, this aged like fine milk 😂😂 Good on you Australia for rejecting this woke agenda!
I suppose my confusion is that there are already indigenous representatives in many organisations and in parliament to be the voice(s) of the Aboriginal people and their local communities. This gives me the notion that these voices are being discredited by the indigenous community and therefore ineffective for their needs. What exactly will this new voice change when there are already voices that exist? Can anyone shed light on this?
Chatgpt rules again
The proposed Voice is a body of First Nations people chosen by First Nations communities. Every representative will have a four year term to ensure they are accountable to their communities.
The Voice will also be covered by the NACC - the new federal anti-corruption body.
It's true we do have some parliamentarians who are from First Nations, but MPs represent their party (and perhaps the people in their electorate) and Senators represent their party (and perhaps their state). There are no parliamentarians directly representing First Nations people. The Voice will be non-political.
We have a minister to look after First Nations issues but they still put their party first.
It's true there are other bodies that represent groups like health organisations and there are community groups including football clubs, but they don't provide advice directly from communities to the government and parliament.
The organisations like the health organizations don't automatically get to give advice to the government and parliament. They are at the mercy of the government. So, it's got nothing to do with being discredited by their communities.
There are a couple of other things that I think are important about the Voice.
First, we voters will get to hear when the Voice gives really good advice and the government ignores it when making policies and developing programs. So, we'll know that politicians are wasting our taxes to play political games.
The second thing is those gaps in the rates of suicide, birth weight, employment, live expectancy, etc will start coming down. That's going to get all Australians thinking that we can have better policies in the broader community if we listen to people and use the research. So, in times benefits will start flowing through to all Australians.
But, it will take time to close those gaps so we need to stop politicians playing games, and if the Voice is in the Constitution, we can do that.
I can't see a single downside of the Voice. I'm sixty years old and I have been watching First Nations people kicked around like political footballs all my life. To me, this looks like the best opportunity we've ever had to finally start dealing with all the disadvantages so many First Nations people face.
So, this old girl has voted Yes because of all the things above and because even the overwhelming majority of "constitutional conservatives" think the Voice will make government better.
@@sandracochrane2155 you can't see a single down side to the Voice? Have you been living in an echo chamber? We already have the voice - we spend billions of dollars on indigenous initiatives covering health, housing and welfare, we spend double the amount on per indigenous Australian that other Australians and we have 11 indigenous MPs. The Voice is only going to bolster big government and give it more power, and will not resolve any of the major issues impacting aborigines.
@@Simon-pl2zi Much of what you claim is actually untrue.
I don't live in an echo chamber - I'm here talking to you because I'm interested in how you come to think as you do. But, my work and person lives have given me the opportunities to see a lot and listen to a great many people - I'm 60 years old so that's a lot of observing and listening to a great many perspectives and experiences.
The Voice isn't a magic wand and it will take time for various people to adjust, but I have confidence that Australians are just as capable as people in other countries where a variety of models are starting to make a difference.
It's to enshrine the pay cheques of the grifter class.
Love it. It nails how the politicization of the Voice has complicated the matter, rather than the actual voice proposal (which is clear!)m looking forward to voting yes
@@garyandrews5104 man write something original. You keep copy pasting each time. When you are paid per comment you would think you could at least be original. What will the NO campaign think seeing such laziness
@@garyandrews5104 bro, stop copy pasting the same comment over and over again
@@Nylandersaraus1 lol, noticed the same
@@elizabethm4642there is a tsunami of meaningless comments in support of yes in response to this patronising video… yours included … it’s not possible to individually reply to all, but it’s very very important that it be challenged so as to not all the vulnerable to be influenced by this video.
@@garyandrews5104 Individualism/selfishness leads to isolation & not understanding the basic principles of Social harmony. We need to learn from the culture that survived 65,000 years & we are about to destroy the world in only couple of centuries. Wake up & start thinking.
Vote Yes Mate 🇦🇺⚫️🟡🔴
Our great country could be so much better and more cultured if we chose to embrace and recognise Indigenous-Australian people and their input. People seem to forget Aboriginal people also fought and died for this country in WW1 and WW2. How dare we as a nation not at the very least give them the unique recognition they deserve in their own country and the chance to advise on issues that could harm them and their culture.
Vote yes 🇦🇺⚫️🟡🔴
They get the same recognition as everyone else.
@@arcluxNot according to one of you earlier responses, which implied they didn’t actually fight ( presume it was you, the no campaign reminds me of smoke). Certainly one correspondent suggest the indigenous people who dod fight were on part indigenous, but they didn’t say which part ……right leg, left arm etc.
I love the way the full figured gentlemen with the silly hat acts all wise as if he is the new Solomon. Well the divisive voice got crushed and good riddance to it.
Spoiler alert...the wise gentleman doesn't like white people anddeep down wants them all to leave ...
The best video I have seen on CZcams
Really? Is this your first time on CZcams? 😂
So just another body providing advice to politicians who will act on such advice and recommendations providing it benefits them. Great another toothless tiger.
Not necessarily. We are going to hear about advice not taken, and if the majority of us have voted Yes, that starts to shift the balance of power in favour of on the ground knowledge and research-based evidence. Even people who don't care about their fellow Australians will start to care about wasting their taxes (assuming their thought processes are not governed by racism).
If it really were going to be toothless, you'd see the Liberal party actually in favour of it rather than pulling out all the stops to make sure it doesn't happen. If it won't matter to you either way, why oppose it?
senator Briggs gets my vote
This fella makes sense !!
Briggs getting $$$$, air time on ABC TV and radio and some other underhanded goona to be out here campaigning alongside any mainstream poli....
Proudly voted NO
Weak as F
Have to say best yes add I have seen
I know, the yes campaign has been one mistake after another.
Definitely voting NO!
@Briggs what happend there la brah hahaha got geed up real good playing the clown 😂😂
I love these actors. They all bounce off each other so well
Most labour party members are actors too
Typical cringe propaganda. I'm so proud of Australia for voting NO! Best thing to come out of 2023
Briggs is now sulking in his room writing angry letters to NRL teams while cuddling his aboriginal flag blanket, your a deadset flop mate
Can you believe they thought this ad would work 😭😭
1:26 "OK, so, I have read something online, about the nature of demoracy..." fkn bang on.
The third paragraph of the referendum proposal is completely standard. It is to allow Parliament to improve the Voice over time instead of prescribing a fixed structure that can never change. It’s nothing to create fear over. Check out Section 51 of the constitution that is set up the same way for pretty much all law making. If you don’t think there should be a Voice fine vote NO, but don’t try to scare people into thinking it’s something it’s not. The NO campaign is full of misinformation and distraction aimed at making people anxious - and now apparently trolling. Please let’s debate the issue at hand, not the distractions…
You are copy pasting this everywhere mate. What's ya fucking point?
Part three is literally "the government gets to legislate what the voice body will look like and how it will work".
Which means that it can be as strong... or alternatively as weak as the parliament of the day wants it to be with the only caveat that it can't be abolished completely.
There's no fucking gotcha.
So there's no confusion - I'm in full support of this sensible reform.
My comment refers to the FB memes and statemdnts of misinformation, swirling around in social media echo-chambers for those opposed. Should have been clearer about that.
Agree - part 3 is perfectly normal. It's actually an important protection, allows the amendment to be inserted without creating any unnecessary legacy.
Australians who have looked directly at this change, and actually understand it, will get behind it.
@@lachlanmcvey7885 Your use of the information included in your comments is the literal definition of propaganda.
@80sHEAVYMetalPowerBALLAD-bt3pv
Just say you don't understand the proposal mate, or the current state of the Constitution.
Whatever celebrities and politicians say to vote I will do the opposite
That doesn't seem like a great decision making process. And what happens when (as in this case) you have pollies and celebs advocating for both sides?
@@LlywellynOBrien
The yes camp wants us to vote with our feels & not with our heads. How is that a great decision making process?
@@arclux I disagree, they have certainly foregrounded the moral case, but they have made many arguments, explanations and defences as well.
@@LlywellynOBrienAgree strongly. Problem is that those arguments get rejected because…….. who knows. My sense is a lot of the no case is about feeling. There is a call for information, but when it’s supplied its woke, leftist, elitist, vegetarian or wrong because of your choice of coffee (the latter happened to me in a reply to this video - seriously ). My real sense is that there are many arguments coming from the no camp about what COULD happen (a land grab like in Zimbabwe is one that springs to mind) that are dystopian and based on fear (fear potentially generated by individuals and organisations with strong vested interests in being divisive). There is no appetite for a any argument about what could happen in a positive way. We have spent a lot of time, energy and money working out what doesn’t work, and that is the system we currently have. As a bit of anecdotal background - I have spent a bit of time at the pre-polls, and the people who are going to vote no (they tell you) are best described, on the whole, as angry or gruff, while the YES voters have a smile on their face. You get the exact same sense by comparing the comments and replies to this video. just saying
@@LlywellynOBrien I'll ignore them all and pay the fine for not voting
I'm just commenting to raise engagement and boost the algorithm
Just look at how the Indigenous people in Europe have benefited from their voice vote. They haven't, rather you get a small select of Indigenous people making decisions for all Indigenous people. The average Indigenous person does not want it and regrets their voice vote.
That's not true. Although different countries have different models, First Nations people elsewhere are making advances in areas like health and education. And they are happy to see that Australia might join the 21st Century, and wish us well if we do.
Of course, nothing is perfect, and some countries are adjusting legislation to make their bodies more effective and not all politicians and bureaucrats are open to doing better when they can manipulate First Nations issues to their political or promotional advantage. But, there are always people of goodwill and people who prefer selfish opportunism.
Many other countries are watching us. Personally, I don't think we should be swayed by the views other countries have of us, but we do have to recognize that we will have to accommodate a world view that sees us as diminished and we can expect major powers like China to be pointing out our human rights hypocrisy when we are having arguments with them.
@@sandracochrane2155 you are completely wrong on this. We can and should look to see how other countries have done this. The Sami parliament in Finland is disastrous to Sami people . I know because I speak with them. Indigenous leadership should always be local. No official voice can ever do that. That's the European way my friend.
@@joethi4981proof is better than assertion. For example, my indigenous friends in Britain ( the Anglo celt saxon pict dane cohort) are doing ok - discuss.
Wow! I was going to vote yes, but after watching this: I’m not so sure!
I had the same reaction.
Happy to discuss……
As above, if you are still not sure, happy to talk about what you're unsure about :)
@@LlywellynOBrien They're saying that this vid is so obnoxious, that it has potentially changed their mind.
That's the line I'm using while campaigning and pre-prolling from now on: Have you googled the Voice?
Yes and nowhere have I found any plan to achieve anything except do better for indigenous people. Don't be naive people. Screenshot this and check it in 10 years.
@@dominatorbooze8381Recognition and respect, mate. But if you don't get that, as Briggs says, you can always vote No.
Google this - www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8bj0jbnn1yri9y83lbblg/USOTH-Document-14.pdf?rlkey=0fumbze6godfjoxa0wq5gstjo&dl=0
Sure have and realised that they just made up some stuff about it been chosen by indigenous people.
Check out part 3 from the actual question:
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
@lachlanmcvey7885 Google deeper, and read the Design Principles for the Voice.
voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles
It was obvious from the start this was not going to happen. Instead the 430 million of taxpayers money could have gone towards boarding school for aboriginals that don’t want to go home where they feel unsafe, they could get a full time education, a safe place to sleep, meals, counselling everything they would need to get a good start to life. I think this would be an excellent thing to do. What a waste of money on this referendum.
dont ever remove this video
I googled it - but I didn't just stop at the first result Google gave me, that would be stupid.
Very insightful for First Nations people regarding the "truth" of referendum
Still waiting to here from the 80% that wanted it 😂
I was walking today in my Vote Yes Tee shirt. Have been doing so for weeks. The only comment I have received was today was from a Ferny Grove High School student who said he loved it and didn't understand why anyone would vote No. Bless him. I have faith in the young to trounce inequality and save us from ourselves. ❤
Brilliant. I wanna channel this calmness in all my political conversations 🤣
😂 that would shut up the right wing people
Great work Briggs and everyone involved! Comedy is the stealth weapon!
Funny thing is I didn't see any comedy in that. The ignorance is all too common.
@@wandayonder9772 It's tragicomedy. Tragic for the indigenous & just people, Comedy for the world loughin at our primitivity, if NO (J.Howard's mob) takes over :(
@@lachlanmcvey7885 Do you understand it? Ask P. Hanson - Please explain ;)
Even the Western biased BARD understands that: ...The Voice suggestion is significant proposal that has the potential to improve the lives of the Indigenous peoples.
We still want to torture them? How uncivilized :(
What a load of garbage. If Albanese won't explain how the voice will work until after the referendum, then there is no way you or anyone else could have any idea of what the true consequences of voting yes are. That is not misinformation it is lack of information from Albo. Blame him.
How much land you grabbed that you don't want to share? @@WarningTimes
Boom! This is why you’re Senator Briggs! Nice work mate!
Cringe.
@@arcluxuncringe
@@Random-number-67532
Sure.
Thanks for the video, folks. So much unnecessary confusion about a simple constitutional change. Good to see the States are picking up Treaty processes while the Feds flail about.
Because there's nothing more democratic than going against the will of the people in order to install a political third rail.
No changes to the constitution are ever simple.
The states should not be proceeding with any treaty after the referendum result.
Hilarious. Thanks. Here because I googled it!
This video really helped the No win!!… big thanks to the creator from the majority of Australians… without you we could not defeat the Yes 👍
Great video, hate how the no campaign has complicated the very simple and key proposed change that is positive. They way i look at it is i am not indigenous i need to get out of the way of the people who's vote it is, the indigenous people, my vote is 100% YES, regardless of my privilege, let those who it affects the most decide!! Anyone who isn't indigenous should be an automatic YES!
Changing the constitution is not simple. It has long term ramifications.*
It is certainly not the best solution to a problem that faces only a tiny percentage of the population.
*
The last changes to the constitution were 46 years ago. (Will we need a voice in 46years.)
One of the changes was compulsory retirement of judges at age 70.
In 1977 that was quite old. Now it is not. Ita butrose is 81 and still working. If she was a judge she would have had to retire 11 years ago.
@@mattmcguire1577 yes it's not simple, that's the point of this whole referendum, try to keep up. save your fallacious argumentations will you? what does the period between the last referendum change have anything to do with this? do you honest down to earth think judges should be in court for life, even past the point where any normal person would retire due to reduced functionality? you're certainly not the good faith actor you pretend to be
The No campaign has deliberately complicated the issue - the goal is not to persuade but the create a situation where people are confused and vote no because its the safest option. It's the Steve Bannon - "Flood the zone with shit" tactic."
@@Migswan Although we'd be united if we all voted yes
@@mattmcguire1577 Sorry that's your reason for voting no? Judges should be allowed to work after 70?
And the NO vote wins 👏👏🤣🤣🤣 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
@@DW_drumsThey've been here for 60k years and invented stuff like curved stick, stick with pointy end, stick with 2 pointy ends and stick with holes in it. Then the white man came and brought civilisation.
Briggs is THE MAN. Vote YES for the Voice.
How exactly does it divide the nation ?
I think the division thing is the NO campaign’s masterstroke. 64% of Australians in favour of the voice with mostly bipartisan support one year ago, then in September 2022 Dutton reverses Liberal’s position and launches a NO campaign, Ken Wyatt quits the party in disgust, Sky News flood the country with divisive and false information and then… Dutton and Sky blame the YES campaign for creating the division. Brilliant!! Well, if you’re flexible with your moral compass that is. But I think what they mean is that we shouldn’t ever talk about issues that not everyone will agree on?? Hey it works in China…
I have had 2 conversations like this in the past few days. This is an excellent contribution. Today I was letterboxing for YES. At a playground I bumped into 2 blokes looking after their kids. I offered them our YES23 leaflet. One immediately said NO because he was a NO. The other said: "Hey come on! I am now a YES. I saw this great skit where a dude is talking to 2 chicks, forget his name. It's the best explanation of why to vote YES I have seen. It gave me the info I wanted." I gave them his name ... Briggs. the NO bloke is going to look at the vid.
Ill take things that didn't happen for 500 Alex.
Is that how progressive lefties imagine interacting with No voters goes? Thanks for the fairytale
@@Fornax70 over the past 12 months or so I have had dozens, maybe more, conversations with committed NO and soft NO people. This is just one of those conversations. Usually, NO people were uncomfortable with talking and putting their view, didn’t cope too well with listening from me and then questions based on my listening to them. Some started re-thinking their view. Some stayed NO and a lot I just don’t know. Although I think I do now. The re-thinkers didn’t know that their Constitution already had a race power that has been used divisively against Aboriginal people, including by politicians and corporations who are NO champions. Both NO and YES people commonly knew fuck all about the Constitution and how it works.
@@DonSutherland1 fair enough.
I would add that quite a few No voters were quiet not because of shame but because they didn’t feel like an argument with a rabid yes voter.
It’s very telling when 61% of the public, Labor and Liberal voters plus a majority in every state all decide to vote against a proposal especially when the Yes campaign had the government, most corporations and most celebrities in their corner.
That shows that despite accusations of misinformation, lack of bipartisanship there was serious issues with how the Yes campaign made their case. They in typical fashion didn’t really try to understand why people were voting no, we saw the same situation during the pandemic especially in Victoria and no lessons were learned.
Thi girls hadn't thought about it much but googled it read about it & decided they'd say YES.
Welp Scoreboard 🦅🦅
Well played Sir. This is the kind of advertisement the voice needs. Humour is the best way to defuse hostility and convey truth.
Don't know he seems kind of hostile in the video.
The level of pretention in this clip is off the charts. That you think this is humor is gold.
You are so out of touch it's actually kinda cute
It’s not humorous it’s pretentious and very cringy and is a great example of why the Voice was pulverised by the electorate.
You’re out of touch.
In all my 55 years in Australia I have never seen rich inner city socialists{Socialites} talking casually with indigenous people.
They are more likely to say if he engages them in conversation.
"Oh,I am so sorry but we are meeting our friends and must reserve a table."{Then promptly leave him to finish his beer on his own.}
This advert was aimed at the Teal vote.
Creative license.
You're right though, it's a BS scenario. Urban Progs don't do diversity.
The two chicks in this clip are most likely from a privileged private school background...bisexual ...drug using and don't really have a job but are aspiring actors or film makers..
More than likely both would both shit themselves of they ever ventured to the real bush and saw how fucked up real Indigenous Australians are...
I'm not talking about collingwood
lol, hit the nail on the head. you go to balmain in sydney and there are greens voters, aboriginal flags and pro refugee advocates everywhere.
so you have the extreme rich frolicking with socialist politicians they know will never have any real power, waving aboriginal flags even though you see none in the suburb and you won't find a refugee settlement house for at least 50kms away from balmain
inner city champagne socialists are a sick joke
Awesome, brilliant
What lies and propaganda?
Check out part 3 from the actual question:
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
The third paragraph of the referendum proposal is completely standard. It is to allow Parliament to improve the Voice over time instead of prescribing a fixed structure that can never change. It’s nothing to create fear over. Check out Section 51 of the constitution that is set up the same way for pretty much all law making. If you don’t think there should be a Voice fine vote NO, but don’t try to scare people into thinking it’s something it’s not. The NO campaign is full of misinformation and distraction aimed at making people anxious - and now apparently trolling. Please let’s debate the issue at hand, not the distractions…
That's about the best "yes" add so far. Now all you have to do is keep Mayo and the rest quiet, stop companies and universities, schools and companies from shutting down discussion/debate and you'd have a great campaign.
They needed you on this earlier mate. Love it. 👍
Tell me you're a Joe Rogan fan without telling me...
I want there to be more clips of these guys talking crap in a pub.
Talking crap indeed
Vote yes so the Australian government can improce its global ESG rating lol mark my words the voice will change nothing for those that need the help the most.
Please explain
@@Random-number-67532 not sure if serious but the world is all about virtue signalling and empty words. Hence the ESG quip. I guarantee the voice will not help those that actually need the help. Why? Because those closest to the money always get the money. If people haven't learnt that then perhaps they need to be doing some reading beyond watching what the government wants you to see.
Actually I was trying to be funny, sorry (see Pauline Hanson when she was asked about xenophobia); but I digress. May I put forward the idea of a factory. Something goes wrong on the factory floor. Who is going to notice and suggest improvements, those who are dealing with the day to day, or those in the office. A vote for the voice will be a vote for efficiency
@@Random-number-67532 yes I thought that may have been a Hanson reference but hard to gauge on the internet haha if it's one thing I've learnt over the years it's that if the powerful can exploit something guaranteed it will be exploited. The voice will be no different, just be opening a can of worms.
@@dominatorbooze8381 Changing the Constitution only authorises the Government to make the law. The Government introduces a bill into Parliament, & both houses of Parliament need to vote for the bill for it to become law. Every election we get to vote for which party we want to be in Government going forward. If you see money not making it to the people who need it, try to change that, eg lobby your Federal MP to change tax laws or Centrelink laws or housing laws, & vote for whichever party’s policies will do the most good for the people you think need help.
Thank you so much for this video. It makes me feel hopeful that Australians who view this will see past the few naysayers with their endless poor excuses for voting no and realise that the commercial media love the ensuing drama and are pushing it out there full bore. I hadn't known any Indigenous Australians till I lived in Coober Pedy for three years. When I returned to Adelaide in 1981, I did the Aboriginal Studies Tafe course as I really knew very little about their history and culture. I was asked to write an essay comparing 'affluence' within our society and traditional Indigenous societies. I did my research and came to the conclusion that their 'affluence', holistically, was richer than ours. It's way past time that Indigenous history and culture was included in education. So yep, a simple Yes to a straightforward question.
I agree Helen, we have a lot to learn from the indigenous of this country but this whole thing wreaks of deception. The celebrities, the corporations, the rich city folk. Even this video stinks. They just make stuff up at the end.
Check out point three of the actual question. This won’t be determined by elders in the communities but polies in Canberra.
Well it didn’t help…
get em
Only an absolute dullard would watch a three minute highly produced skit and think "ohh ,Google it! Click the first result".great point bro. Seed that sovereignty my brother boy hand it on over, the government has always had your back , can count on them this time to I'm sure
Lets put 1 group of ppl above everybody else!, that'll be great!
The Voice in no way puts Indigenous Australians above the rest of us.
Yeah, you’re right they get all the perks! Imagine if they could walk a mile in our shoes ….
Proppa deadly! 🖤💛❤️
It's ridiculous how many charged up conversations I've been in, where I've ended up resolving their qualms by just reading the referendum question to them.
Apparently reading to white people has become a part of our cultural load now.
Sorry but I am trying to keep up here what is "cultural load"?
Oh yes, that reassures me, someone who thinks others they need to be patronised.
Farken let em know aye!
@@MM54334He isn't saying white people can't read, just that a lot of us have been confused by the lies spreading into believing things that are disproven by literally reading the paper.
@@thedave7760The idea of cultural load is roughly the feeling of responsibility or onus to explain things, represent Indigenous people and culture etc.
Yes
Well done - best take in the last five months by a mile.
@@garyandrews5104copy pasta 🍝
Make it the best by 2km (longer & standard is better ;)
Nice crossposting, mate. Keep on copyin' and pastin'. @@garyandrews5104
Great Video, Thanks for making it!
VOTE YES!
Mate have you googled it. I think they are betting on you not.
Check out part 3 from the actual question:
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
@lachlan troller - paragraph 3 is how all law making works, there is nothing special or scary about that. The constitution provides a framework for Parliament. Parliament will improve the way the voice works for generations using this framework like they do with all other laws. There is no need to sell fear - it is a straight forward, simple proposal. If you don’t agree there should be a Voice fine, vote No, but don’t try to make it sound like it’s something it’s not. That clause is standard and used throughout the constitution. Check out Section 51 of the existing constitution.
*YES MOB ARE WOKE TERRORISTS*
@scottbrady51 so why lie and make up stuff about the voice being chosen by indigenous leaders in the communities? They don’t know that. Just say the truth. The thing will be determined later by Canberra polies as set out in the question. The whole thing is off. The celebrities, the multinational corporations, the Canberra polies and the rich city folk all for yes. Why is that? Non of the indigenous out here in regional Australia are too vocal about this. There is a big community in this town and they are neutral on it. When you ask them they are embarrassed by the whole thing and that is some fellas I know really well. This was before I made up my mind. I genuinely wanted to know their thoughts so I could make a dedication and they are just embarrassed by it and change the subject and move on. Then you see stuff like this and it just looks rotten. I don’t know where they got this whole 80% indigenous are for it thing from. Maybe they made that up as well. How would they even know that? Did they go out into the communities and ask all the indigenous people? Suspect too to bottom.
@@lachlanmcvey7885it’s pretty simply hey 👋 where the line about taking my land the NO campaign keeps telling me about. Can’t see that there. I’m voting yes because the No campaign lies are disgusting 🤮
Brilliant. Thanks Briggsie. Let's just hope enough people get it. If they don't... I'll be in my shed practicing my Kiwi accent for next time I'm overseas...
Don't bother as we don't want Skippies like you in Aotearoa. Stay where you are Skippy.
White guilt game strong here... but don't go to NZ and colonise, just go back to Europe please!
Why don't you move there instead, then ? Leave Australia for those are proud of it.
How’s that accent going? Ready to pretend to be a kiwi yet?
80% of Indigenous people do want thi voice he said!
Because the Australian Government always has good intent don’t they…. #voteNO
Was no, voting yes. We need to push on from our histroy and become a republic. This is the next step.
We do not need to be a Republic either.
Leave the constitution alone.
@@mattmcguire1577 you new to australia? we make it a point in our democracy that the constitution can and should be amended to reflect the changing demographics and circumstances of our country, a precedent that has existed since federation. it's a part of being a functional state with a healthy system of governance, maybe something you're unfamiliar with due to your understanding being solely of the US model
@@mattmcguire1577 Right, but then you're forcing the High Court to interpret the constitution in different ways so that the government can function. That is what is happening in America (Supreme court = High court). In fact, have a look at the referendum on aviation and you'll see what I mean. We should be very _open_ to changing the constitution. That's not to say vote on a change based on the merit of changing it, but simply you should be open to it.
And how will this "republic" work?
@@arclux constitutional republic with a bill of rights. Abolition of states and merger of shire rule.
Shire rule is participatory direct democracy while federal government works on a preferential voting system.
Bill of Rights would amendable constitutionally bound and amendable either by referendum, shire challenge, or by high Court intervention on behalf of the federal government.
Basically a half way system between the West Minister and American model with no States. Federal law with civic protections.
We need to move past our archiac governing model. The pandemic blew that wide open.
Thought this'd be pretty painful, but actually well done mate! Great, straightforward and honest!
Actually completely dishonest.
Check out part 3 from the actual question:
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
@@lachlanmcvey7885 Hey Lachlan, sorry I am quite familiar with the proposed amendment, but don't really get how this makes the video dishonest?
The third paragraph of the referendum proposal is completely standard. It is to allow Parliament to improve the Voice over time instead of prescribing a fixed structure that can never change. It’s nothing to create fear over. Check out Section 51 of the constitution that is set up the same way for pretty much all law making. If you don’t think there should be a Voice fine vote NO, but don’t try to scare people into thinking it’s something it’s not. The NO campaign is full of misinformation and distraction aimed at making people anxious - and now apparently trolling. Please let’s debate the issue at hand, not the distractions…
I would hate to sit through a video you actually find painful.
@scottbrady49 mate I understand you want a better outcome for indigenous. I want a better outcome for indigenous. Problem is we are voting on something that will be on which the power and make up will be decided at later date by parliament. What happens when it is a liberal majority parliament? The chances of this being filled by puppets of whichever party is in charge to suit their agenda is very high in my opinion. You also have the threat of corruption and nepotism in such a body as it isn’t a democratic body. Even the indigenous mates I have are embarrassed to talk about it. I wasn’t there to debate them when I asked about it, I hadn’t made my mind up back then and just wanted their opinion on the whole thing so I could make an informed decision and they are just embarrassed. Then You have the massive mining corporations all on board for this. It seems like something like a cross between ‘green washing’ but for indigenous rights and a power grab that will actually enhance the power of the party in charge at the time. It just doesn’t pass the pub test mate. I do appreciate your point of view though and obviously respect your decision either way. I just don’t like the deceit around this video claiming it will be elders from the communities when they don’t actually know that.
Mate, that is the ducks nuts. Simple, just answer the question.
Nobody will answer the question.
The format of "The Voice" including it's powers, organizational structure and how it will be constructed/elected won't be defined until after the referendum.
Anyone that votes Yes for "Trust me bro" is an idiot.
On the bright side there is nothing in the Australian Constitution that prohibits an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament so we are going to get it regards of the outcome of this referendum.
The actual question without made up stuff in it.
Check out part 3 from the actual question:
129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
1) there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2) the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3) the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
@@lachlanmcvey7885 that's the sticking point - The Voice is currently UNDEFINED.
It could be absolutely anything.
At best these 3 lines mean absolutely nothing and there is no need for the amendment in the first place.
An Aboriginal Voice to parliament already exists in the NIAA that performs these functions so how is this going to be different?
www.niaa.gov.au/who-we-are/minister
No one will answer these questions, including the minister.
@stevebuckley7788 1) There's nothing in the constitution that *requires* a Voice so even if we do get a Voice, the LNP can just get rid of it the second they get reelected...which is the entire point of making it a constitutional requirement
2) Of course they're not telling you how it will work because they don't know how it work because they *can't* know how it will work. The way the Voice works and will be voted on etc will need to be determined by the parliment and Labor do not control the parliment. Any proposed requirements for how the Voice works would have to pass the House and the Senate which means negotiating with the opposition or the cross-bench and the government cannot know what changes either of those groups will want. It's the exact same reason no party gives in depth details on how policy promises will be implemented during an election campaign
@@veronicamcghie5238 by your own admission this is a constitutional change for a body that might not even get created because of a lack of support from the senate and existing state government departments.
So yes, it's already a complete dumpster fire.
In short no one knows what this thing will be, there is no consensus even in the Yes camp on the broad details.
If they actually had any clue as to what they were doing they would have created The Voice first then tabled a constitutional change.