This is a great conversation. Thank you for hosting it. It's the only time I've heard people talk about the Voice in a cool, calm manner without emotional appeals.
@@Albot940 I don't have a problem with Anderson's bias. He's not hiding it and always presents it as his personal concern. He presented his questions and concerns in a rational and reasonable manner that invited education and discussion. Prof Aroney was very unbiased which means we did not get a debate, but he did explore Anderson's concerns and what they might mean without being alarmist or dismissive. For example, he wasn't arguing with Anderson's concern's about needing detail, but he was pointing out (indirectly) that too much detail will obstruct any discussion or decision. Also pertinent their agreement that the constitution is just words unless it is reflected in the society
@@42hamneggs He clearly is hiding it - half the people responding here seem to think this was a 'very objective' conversation. In fact, it was very one sided. He is trying to portray himself like he is objective but he clearly isn't.
I have no problem with “Voices” to represent indigenous Australians the same as any other association or union. The Constitution however should not discriminate for or against certain Australian people. As in the past I suspect this “Voices” is unfortunately unlikely to change anything for our indigenous Australians. Great interview by the way!
Its one voice by 1 unelected group for the whole nation. Those not in the elite group can be overidden by the unelected 'voice'. At the moment everyone has a voice...including First Nation eg Senator Thorpe and many others in politics
It is indeed very important…. Please read my comments above if you are interested in a bigger picture perspective. I have elaborated on the importance of a voice so that indigenous people can have a say on issues which directly affect them.
Great informative interview, we don’t need the VOICE to help our fellow Australians. We need great leadership and focus the $3.9b to the correct projects which will change lives. The voice is another layer of admin to soak up funding. It won’t change anything other than undo 100years of respect and consolidation of Australians. We have gained so much ground do we want to divide us?
I fear the ‘Voice’ will end up as an unelected élite committee of privileged urban aboriginal activists with power of approval over all government legislation. Recognising 3% of the population in the Constitution & leaving 97% of Australians out seems very unfair & unconstitutional to me.
The problem is the voice to the government departments and their right to be heard on every little thing the government does! if they dont they can take court action to delay it until they have had their say then take court action if they dont get their way ON EVERY LITTLE THING! The ability to hold the government to ransom!
So the Voice might be abused and the abuse not mended, so we do nothing and just continue to treat them badly? And the 97% of Australians are already recognised in the Constitution. Just read it, it is online and cost free. It is the 3% who are not. And we stole their land. Just look at the Mario decision.
@@1942Ped "so we do nothing and just continue to treat them badly?" Sorry how are they treated badly? Is it because they get free legal, all health car and dentist Which you dont? Or the 0% home loans? Or because they jump straight to the top of medical waiting lists while you wait 2 years? THIS PART IS EXTREMLY IMPORTANT! do you even know what the second part of the ref means? Can you explain it thanks! "And the 97% of Australians are already recognised in the Constitution" WOW NO 100% ARE! But please avoid to explain your false claim which you didnt think what you where claiming when you wrote this! Didnt steel their land, they where not a country and didnt own the land they have no concept of that!
@@1942Ped I didn’t steal any land from anyone. I don’t owe anyone anything. I want us all to be treated equally. I don’t want a committee of privileged & well-paid urban aboriginal activists with mixed blood & big chips on their shoulders having the last say on all legislation that goes through parliament. As far as I know we’re all supposed to be in the constitution as a nation. Aboriginal people already own at least 50% of Australia & already have many special privileges & rights over other Australians. What more do they want?
@@Kwesekara1672 No their land was stolen from them. That was the Mabo judgement. And they want to be treated equally but with respect for their own culture which is much older than ours. Where did you get the information that they already own at least 50% of Australia. Provide some evidence. And they did once own all of it. If you actually read the proposed Constitutional amendment you will see they won't have the power to change any legislation. They can ask for it but parliament will make the decision. This fear is being pushed out by conservatives who are deliberately lying.
I get the feeling that this is SO Ideologically Driven that a whole lot of detail hasn't been delt with because the promoters just don't care. They just want it to get done irrespective of the cost and complexity to the greater Australian community.
I beg to differ. They care. The Makaratta Treaty is being drafted as we speak. That is why there is scant detail on the Voice, so as not to contaminate the Makaratta when the Voice fails. Sure, talk about the Voice but keep your eyes on, and make way for, the Makaratta…it’s coming into law via Parliament, early next year, Voice or no Voice.
As a mixed blood Australian I have to say that, no matter which way you slice it, the voice is a Racist policy! You don't get rid of Racism by introducing systemic racist policies.
We should change the Constitution to say we can sack the government, without their on-going, lifelong salary and freebies, if they don't work for the people. We appointed them, we pay their salaries, we should be able to sack them.
No need to change the constitution to be able to 'sack' the government (MPs, to be precise). It's called having elections. But you do have a point about the lifelong benefits of long serving MPs and ministers, though.
We can sack this government and hold them all accountable for all of the atrocities and treasons they are committing under article 61 of Magna Carta 1215.
@@theaussiewhingerso 51% get to tell the other 49% what to do? Give me a constitutional republic over democracy. Most people are not smart enough to vote.
thank you so much ! I am striving to make an informed choice, this has been beyond helpful. I worry that this type of informative content is not currently part of the broader public discourse. Again, thank you so much!
Every Australian, including those who are Aboriginal already have the freedoms to live their best life as chosen by each of us for ourselves. But this only works if everyone is equal under the constitution.
Announced today the voice is to have it's own chapter in the constitution, and is to make representations to parliament and the executive government. My thanks for addressing these 2 points John and Nic.
A little too inside-baseball for a foreign viewer like myself, but I was really impressed at how much Professor Aroney knows about our own Canadian constitution.
We are not being asked to make a choice but to step aside and surrender our democratic right to give or refuse consent in a referendum, but to abdicate that responsibility and leave it to the government for them to decide, that would be like giving a crook a blank cheque. We don't know what the government has in mind or how far they will go, better to leave the constitution alone. - Don't be conned.
30 Billion + Spent each year, $50,000 per person per year, more than than twice for other citizens and somehow they are being discriminated and are the disadvantaged ones. What a joke.
There is nothing that all Australians that does not impact Indigenous Australians. So the Voice has the right to contribute to every piece of legislation. Every piece.
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 An impeccable debate if you will, John Anderson shines in respectfully informing Professor the concerns about the Voice. There were some clever nudges from the Professor, however We the people see through it. Thankyou Mr Anderson 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼😊
I pray more people can listen to this discussion between two level headed, experienced and studied men who understand a few of the implications of certain dynamics of our world when it comes to the ingredients that have made up the freest and best societies.
I agree that the details of any proposed legislation requires total transparency, in order to safeguard the aims of the constitution. We all should have equal access to the rules and protection of the constitution to prevent individuals or self interested groups from hijacking the country.
I know that asking the wrong questions will get me labelled a racist but stuff it, I genuinely do not understand this. My question is: Are our parliamentarians so racist that they need a specific constitutional requirement before they will listen to the voice of indigenous Australians? I believe we do need a voice to parliament but it is a people's voice. We need something that gives ordinary people a way to have their voice heard alongside the voices of the banks/unions/lobbyists etc. Here is one suggestion, ban anyone who has ever been a member of or worked for a political party from being a Senator.
In Mabo v. Queensland (No. 2), judgments of the High Court inserted the legal doctrine of native title into Australian law. The High Court recognised the fact that Indigenous peoples had lived in Australia for thousands of years and enjoyed rights to their land according to their own laws and customs. That is why ALL councils, mining companies etc must consult with Aboriginal groups first. I don't know whether you never have lived in a regional town but their own corporations are everywhere. They have a very big voice already.
great discussion - the sort of content you can process, and then agree or disagree with, including drilling down to a finer level, and evaluating specific points of detail. A rare thing in Australian politics - very insightful and useful.
Because the Voice will be 'top down' it will have to rely on compulsion and coercion in my opinion and could be used as a instrument to attack political enemies
Thank you gentlemen….sadly such discussions have become a ‘taboo’ in the current process. Debate is done before it even started, information scarce, legal implications relatively unknown…..just a ridiculous vibe to latch onto. Not good enough imo.
When will Itslien Australians get their voice to Parliament? When will Greek Australians get their voice to Parliament? When will Cambodian Australians get their voice to Parliament? When will Somali Australians get their voice to Parliament? When will Indian Australians get their voice to Parliament? Why is only 1 ethnicity highlighted in these discussions?
Never! Do wolves listen to the bleating of the sheep? Normal people only exist to be fleeced of our property and resources! The elite in Canberra and the state capitals ( pollies and bureaucrats) are not our friends nor do they have our interests at heart. When was the last time any of them asked your opinion on anything?
I've had this debate with a lefty acquaintance and their justification is that indigenous Australians have worse outcomes (health, education etc.) than everyone else. After asking how this empty political move will actually improve indigenous outcomes, he admitted that it was a gimmicky move. I explained to him that all other Australians will be resentful of this move and he refuses to accept that I am right about that.
They already have a voice. Their needs have been accepted with multiculturalism. It is not the same for the original inhabitants.They have been hounded their children been taken away from them their culture rejected by the invading culture. They are still suffering. Please learn something about them.
Brilliant conversation and most informative. The constitution is such a well thought out document the country (the government) is mad to just say 'trust us she'll be all right on the night'. This is a typical massive government thought bubble poorly thought out for it's implications and once it's done it is done. By not even bothering to sketch out the general detail and implications to the public as to how the voice will work is taking the Australian public for mugs and shouldn't be allowed to pass muster. Far better to include it in the preamble and start holding local/city/town/state/federal representatives responsible for their decisions when they consult with these 3200 Aboriginal community/committee groups the country has 'representing' their people. It's the lack of effective communication, legislation and throwing good money at poorly thought out 'solutions' then melting into the background when not following the policies through when it doesn't work. Real effective legislation is the answer with much better use of our money spent will make a difference not fairy cake guilt trips about how magically the Voice is going to cure injustice, closing the gap and provide better education outcomes.
the constitution has been changed to suit the States. 3rd tier government as in local councils were omitted from the original constitution. 3 referendums were held with regard to allowing 3rd tier government and all 3 the vote was a resounding "NO" for any 3rd tier government. States have stated that because the 1901 constitution does specifically mention that there can't be 3rd tier government they gave local councils the power to collect taxes. There have been 3 referendums stating the will of the people with regard to this matter. State governments have deliberately ignored the will of the people and thus ignored the constitution. This IS an act of treason. The current King holds 1 share in the wealth of this country under the "partnership act", the same as each commonwealth citizen with 1 vote allocated to each. NO certificate of proclamation exists for this breach of trust by the States. Councils have no power to tax anyone. Laws must have proclamation certificates, if not they are IN BREACH of our constitution.
Our demographics have changed significantly from previous referendums. I'm of the opposite opinion. I think things like immigration, education, healthcare, welfare, and taxation should be more localised. That way we can vote with our feet how we want to live. In 1901 we had no welfare, from memory not even aged pensions. Today the federal government pokes it's nose into every part of our business. I've given up on democracy. It doesn't seem to matter which party is in power, we get the same policies. And those policies tend to represent global interests rather than Australia or Australians, who get completely disregarded. The voice comes directly from the UN playbook.
@@grannyannie2948 I would concur...but...the 1901 Constitution sets out the rules for government, whereas the people come above government...the government must have permission from the people, regardless of demographics. In 1919 Australia was recognised as a sovereign nation.. That act alone was treason. It heralded the demise of the constitution and rule of law. If the constitution has no meaning, then we have NO democracy. Political parties are the invention of the political class with the intention of dividing the nation. The weaker we are the stronger they become. We are a republic acting as a constitutional monarchy. It will be interesting to hear the oath King Charles utters at his coronation...he can remove a government under the 1901 constitution, WE cannot..and 4 years is a death warrant under this current, gutless, pandering political class. Smaller government is required....including the states...we do not need another bunch of small minded criminal types running councils and stealing from tax payers using more and more corporate rules to obey.
@@royevetts4900 I am not educated in law. But in recent decades I've looked back and come to the conclusion that every negative thing that's effected me, has been the result of a democratically elected person. The first PM I remember was Whitlam. As a child at the time I was happy my young male relatives could not be conscripted to Vietnam. But as I grew older I realised that he had stolen my freedom of speech, stolen my marriage rights and decided I was nolonger allowed to raise my children because my husband would be taxed to support single mothers. He also drastically changed immigration. He was sacked, and replaced. But nothing changed. And this has been going on for at least fifty years. I often flippantly remark that the only thing conservatives conserve is bad Labor policies. So ultimately whoever we vote for is irrelevant. I watched Morrison's smug beaming face as Schwab personally praised him for using covid to advance their aims. Hmm. And both major parties came to the election United on all policies. Only the rhetoric changes.
I would suggest the Voice is a smart attempt to assert Sovereignty at a time when Sovereignty is being bastardised and used by deceptive organisations and corporations to stand outside the law.
I've been told that First Nation peoples are Canadian. Indigenous Australians are anyone who is born here. Aboriginal/Aborigines is how we should address them correctly.
The teachers in the school system are given new instructions every generation on which language to use so that the old language which we were told is "not racist" growing up is considered to be "racist". When I was growing up "Aborigines" was considered the PC term and "Aboriginals" was racist. My kids are now being told that "Aboriginal People" is the correct term and "Aborigines" is racist (even though older Aboriginal People often self identify as "Aborigines"). It's a subtle but effective leftist tactic to instil a sense of moral superiority in the younger generations so that they will see the leftist indoctrinations as being more moral than what their parents values were.
Correct. The phrase "First Nation" was taken from Canada and is a government appropriation not an indigenous one. However, the constant insertion into media in this country has led many to assume the latter. It's not. But in applying this term the government successfully homogenises what is a diverse community into a compact, nondescript group making them "easier to deal with".
Another great one J.A. I would have liked to hear a discussion regarding the US Woke Cancel culture demanding the American People trash their current constitution to replace it with an Equity based 1619 BLM only constitution. Thank-you
I have just started reading the Hansard scripts of the first Constitution Convention held in Victoria of 1890. I was blown away by Henry Parkes opening speech at the third meeting, a Monday. He referred to the people not just as people or the populace or society but as SOULS. This conveyed to me that there was a deep regard for the sanctity of the human spirit at that time. Parkes pointed out significant reasons why Australia was ready to be UNITED under one unifying body as would be made possible by a Constitution. The very SAME things that Australians are crying out for all across Australia because our unity in Australia, our equalness as citizens of Australia, and the sanctity of our human spirit is being trashed and under great threat as a sovereign nation. But this united belief that we should one united people under a Constitution was first recorded in 1857! Unique to this Constitution Convention was that access to proceedings was OPEN to th PUB LIC! PROTECT our Constitution! PROTECT our Unity! PROTECT our Freedom! NO Voice to Parliament! Write NO! NO Tick - NO Cross write NO! 🇦🇺🦘❤️🙏🕊️👍😀
As a former US law student, I feel uncomfortable with the statement that Alexander Hamilton was one of the main influencers and deserves so much of the spotlight in Philadelphia's Constitutional Convention and, in the aftermath of the discussion, in the Federalist Papers. One has to read the Federalist Papers by John Jay, James Madison, and then Alexander Hamilton, to see the Napoleonic flavour in Hamiltonian writings. Jay was an eminent editor of the papers which were mostly written at the end of the night and affixed on posts in secrecy to avoid backlash. Although the utopian entertainment industry makes Alexander Hamilton an icon nowadays, as much as Thomas Jefferson or John Adams, Hamilton was a tyrannic admirer of Napoleon, so not the kind of democratic being I wish to be linked with as he was not even nearby. Hamiltonians must be very proud of the achievement, though. It is well-known that George Washington, as a President, had to mediate tyrannic ideas from his Treasurer apart from the freedom principles of his Secretary of State. What I miss from the eminent scholar here is considering that the legal framework of the Australian constitution was designed: against the backdrop of the English colonization, with a strong view that we are part of the European diaspora, which is not exactly correct, but this is the impression I gather from this discussion, as the reference to Europeans nations seems to me as a bit outdated. There is a revolutionary opportunity to recognise Aboriginal sovereignty, as most authors (I invite you to look at the work of S. James Anaya), published by Oxford Press, Anaya understands it as a stage of reconciliation. I think the way Aboriginal sovereignty has been framed here - could be seen as negative and separated from the rest of Australians - it looks more like Lassa Francis Lawrence Oppenheim's 1900s theory, which had also a European-aligned and focused collective rights to sovereignty not for colonies or rather former colonies at that time.
Actually there is no need to change the constitution which is the highest law as it were , the problem is the ordinary day to day laws such as the Criminal Procedure act , the powers of the police to arrest , custody in prisons, prison conditions , when lethal force is allowed , these laws affect aboriginal people disproportionally . I refer to cases where people have died in police vehicles , that one in Kalgoorlie where the detainee died in 50 degrees C , or the killing of females or juveniles merely because the were carrying a knife or appeared threatening . In many cases the "cops' are out of control chasing young people round the suburbs at absurd speeds for traffic offences . In fact police education needs to be drastically changed . The" spit hood " affair in Darwin is another example of abuse . In one case in Perth I think it was , a detainee died in prison over an unpaid traffic fine . Consequently Albanese is only playing politics virue signaling and dividing the population along racial lines and the whole episode will be a disaster as it was in Canada .The various law societies , and the Universities have never engaged in legal protests , as they do in other countries to protect ordinary citizens . , it is a type of Sharia law Australis they think they know it all .
I am hoping the Voice will force the government to investigate the forts that have held our brother and sisters in horrible poverty for their own greedy ends. It time to enact our constitutional human rights to hold those responsible to account and I mean Australians causing harm to any and all Australians.
It's my opinion that the current labour government and the prime minister may be using the voice as a power grab . The people have the power from the bottom up thro trial by jury and voting and the constitution from the top down to limit govt in its constant quest for more power. It was not clear to me the importance of where the voice was inserted in the constitution all the importance of who would represent The Voice to Parliament. A really insightful discussion
How does an Imposter Corporation pretending to be the Government of Australia have any Lawful or Constitutional Grounds to call a referendum, let alone change the Australian Constitution????
Vote NO, NO, No! Make sure you used a Black Biro when you vote, so your Vote cannot be rubbed out if using a pencil. Take a Black Biro with you. Vote NO!
Here's an idea which would not require a referendum and would take advantage of existing infrastructure. Instead of 'The Voice' why not 'The Ears'? As in, the parliamentarian's ears. Because if the ears are not engaged what good will the Voice do anyway? The current proposal is probably just tokenistic window dressing, but might be a stalking horse for undermining national sovereignty. It's impossible to say what 'The Voice' really is because of the maddening and patronising lack of detail. The nation's lack of political maturity is on display.
Why are we still not connecting the dots, are any Australians paying attention to the already existing since its "founding" of the handlers of policy making, so called democratic narrative and foreign influences. We don't and never have had a voice, just managed belief, The success and achievements of the politician should be only measured by the success and achievements of their voters.
Representation of interests affecting any group is provided for through Parliament. Not to the Executive, which is tasked with implementation and administration of laws created by the Parliament. Keep those powers separate, don't build a constitutional tunnel between them. Parliaments which try to influence decisions made by the Executive- e.g. the Sports rorts affair- are shameful. They always do it with favouritism. The Executive must remain impartial.
Perhaps read Barry Jones opinion of the Constitution Barry Jones is an Australian Elder and poly math … he is erudite and intelligent. His article is in the Saturday Paper the constitution vs the voice… all articles about the voice will be free access until the referendum. . I don’t feel comfortable with the political motives behind this interview. There are aspects of the constitution that are less than admirable but not according to these 2 men who I would suggest have both benefitted in their careers and politically from the constitution. Barry Jones offers a different more impartial view.
The only way any present day, freeloaders and (part) indigenous person can lay reasonable claim to their ancestry and which nomadic tribe FIRST occupied a particular piece of land will be by DNA evidence, its AGE AND GENETIC SEQUENCE. That's assuming there are any (ancient) bones to be found?? And anyone who NOW claims ownership would have to relate whole or part of their partial genetic sequence to the tribe that likely first occupied the land. (an impossible task, perhaps?) It would have taken 1000s of years and 100s of different tribes to have made their way from PNG to Van Dieman's land or across the country. With rent and compensation the endgame beyond the $39 billion 55 indigenous councils are squandering, just how much more will they then demand if the voice gets up? Wouldn't it be fair to say that present day "FNP" must have had a recent pow wow or corroboree to randomly decide which tribe first "owned" various pieces of land? All things considered, was "ownership" decided by the toss of a coin, a boomerang, or a spear throwing competition?
Too theoretical in nature, therefore so hard to implement in practice. A set of Principles without the planning, the how's, defined outcomes and measures is just a dream that can turn into a nightmare and you wake up and forget the next day. These guys are really out of touch with the general publics and how people are drowning in the everyday challenges and don't really care too much about the political BS. The inconvenient truth is, if voting is not compulsory then most Australians wouldn't bother to vote on the Indigenous Voice Referendum. Sad but true.
australia is one of the oldest democracies??? absolutely not. not even remotely close. of course the constitution is meaningless when even the high court ignores or directly violates the constitution. like palmer v WA where the judges decide to follow the german example and set aside the constitution in time of emergency. or subordinate legislation bypassing the requirements to pass law in australia. the voice to me is far to vague. it could be argued that all the statements are already possible. so it could be meaningful, or allow judicial control of how much power if any, the voice grants. the constitution needs alot of definition. let us vote with knowledge not BS
When John says our constitution should be totally blind to where you live, gender, age, wealth, position, or colour of your skin, I agree. Identity politics should not be in the constitution, period.
Yet "the people of New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania" (where people live) is in the Constitution. Rights of residents in states s 117 is in the constitution. Provision as to races disqualified from voting s 25 is in the Constitution. 😒
This is an extremely serious issue, and there is a serious risk that the current Prime Ministers recent message to all Australians which compels us to support this “modest request” may in fact be supporting many changes which are far less modest than has been implied.
"A Modest Proposal" Jonathan Swift, 1729 Is essay about how the Irish could use children as food to help the economic conditions the irish where facing... it was satirical.
As a newspaper editor in far north qld I discovered how much the indigenous love to talk (at the local level i was exposed to.) I dutifully attended these occasions if requested by the elders. I never found any sort of outcome for the time involved. There is a potential here for an appalling paralysis at the levels of government and public service where the Voice may reach, which I fear will be pervasive. Beware.
Why would they come to a conclusion when they have no power and no voice in the parliament? They were here over 60,000 years and once made decisions.They protected the environment much better than we have. Without power or a voice there os no responsibility.
@@1942Ped Short correction, they DESTROYED a whole continental environment. It is not natural forest with all its original inhabitants but it is a totally changed environment by the constant burning instead of the random burning started by lightening. A host of creatures became extinct during the time that this claim of being here for 65,000 years. It was not CARE of the land, it was exploitation of the land in an incredibly destructive way.
Such an informative interview. It brings out a lot of issues that I hadn't even considered. I was already considering voting against it because of a lack of details and the fact that many indigenous people can't see how it will help the problems plaguing communities. This has helped in my decision making.
42:28 "The more detail you have, the more likely it is to go down." I agree with you John. Not telling us how it is going to work, in a time when trust in the government is at its lowest in our history. They are not showing the people any respect.
As a blackfella with a proud cultural heritage both on my Mum & Dads side, thank you Professor Aroney. The VOICE to Parliament can only occur by changing the Australian Constitution. Once changing our Constitution, my fellow Australians won't be able to change back that plevisite. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has basically shot himself in the foot, to even consider changing our founding document. We blackfella's are witnessing devisivness simply based on Race. I have always challenged the "Chardonnay Set" - Non Indigenous 'truthsayers' who think they know what is in our best interests as a People. Albanese whether intentionally or unintentially, will now create an Indigenous "Chardonnay Set", and in so doing will splinter us as a People, causing my Mum and Dad to turn over in their graves.
I reckon it’s a deliberate ploy by the left to divide Australia & create division & hatred. The Aboriginal people are being used as victims & non-aboriginal people blamed. I suspect the plan is for governments to tax people out of their land & eventually hand it over to UN, WEF mega-rich globalists. Our governments & politicians work for them, not for us. All people black, white, yellow or pink with spots are just mug tax slaves who do all the work, fight all their wars & pay all the bills.
As a white Australian, I am struggling to make sense of the "voice", I would love to see indigenous people fully accepted, respected and allowed to self determine their future. In fact, watching some indigenous programmes leads me to speculate that if indigenous people actually ran our country, they would do better than our current leadership (Of all parties). At least then we would respect the land, live gently and respect the institution of family. Thank you for your perspective.
Fascinating conversation but How is this "Voice" to parliament NOT discriminate against those who do not have a special 'voice' to parliament? What about the Greeks, Irish, German, Italian, Spanish, Vietnamese, Asian, African and other groups????? How are they not made less in the ideas of parliament if they do not have a constitutional 'voice' to parliament? Im sorry but I see the first steps in this 'voice' to a new APARTHEID being established in this country. Also Why is there so much secrecy around the proposal? What is being hidden? Why are we being indoctrinated to vote in favor of what is basically a blank check to allow something we are not being told about in any form when the referendum arrives?
Since 2000, I have lost faith and trust in the politicians and public servants to act openly and with integrety. I worry about the hidden agendas that are inamicable to the interests of the Australian peoples. Now, to quote a close relative, "nothing good comes out Canberra".
The fact is that the voice comes directly from the UN and WEF playbook. What's democracy when both the major parties represent global interests and despise the interests of Australians or Australia.
@@Magpie6656 The WEFs goal is the people will own nothing, and not have access to nature. Should this pass activists and constitutional lawyers will be able to redetermine private title, that is private ownership of land. And this determination will be made not by the people, or even democratically elected politicians, but through the court. The Yes side have been quite open that it will include reparations, but nobody knows how much this will cost, and who pays how. What will happen to people unable to afford to pay reparations? Can their property be confiscated? Proponents of the Voice openly admit it will entail ocean's, beaches and parks coming under indigenous control and others will need to buy permits to go there. There are other smaller threads, but these are the two WEF objectives most under discussion.
We don't need to change the constitution to manage aid and support for our Aboriginals. We need an effective, working oversight to manage the 30+billion per year, with proper auditing.
Thank you both for this really informative and balanced conversation. Such a welcome contrast to the bitter name-calling going on between the ABC, Nine Newspapers and Sky News.
I don’t understand why there isn’t some type of pilot study/ trial of what how The Voice would operate. What are the KPIs, targets and outcomes? We seem to have to justify everything with a study or pilot program first. But not The Voice? It’s a bit odd…..
Extraordinary insight into the heart of an extremely complex and complicated issue delicately, powerfully thoughtfully explored by John Anderson a powerhouse of an Australian
What greatly concerns me is that we don't know how representatives will be selected. It's foreseeable that government could hand-pick representatives on the basis of how they will support the government's agendas. This could result in a sort of two-headed beast; the Government + the Voice, with enormous political and legal leverage against marginalized smaller groups and individuals that might conflict with them. The High Courts would in those instances be obligated to prioritize the Government+the Voice, leaving other voices without any real recourse. Smaller indigenous groups could be dismissed with "The Voice - your representatives - have given their approval" to whatever Government decision is proposed.
To further divide our nation. I have come to the conclusion that for fifty years our federal governments have hated Australians and Australia. Whitlam was the first, I heard Keating yesterday putting China above Australia. And Morrison was proven to be a puppet of Schwab. The federal government should be responsible for defence and border security, full stop. We should go back to state government control of everything else. Then we can decide which state to live in and how our taxes should be used. States should also decide immigration policies for their state. If the federal government brings in immigrants the states did not asked for, they should reside in the ACT at the expense of ACT taxpayers.
@@grannyannie2948 Agree and wish this for Germany as well. The EU has become a kraken which interferes in every aspect of Europeans‘ lives. That unelected bureaucracy slows everything down, is out of touch with real lives, and costs us a fortune with their crazy laws. Upwards of 80% of laws in what’s supposed to be a federal Germany are handed down by this behemoth and our gvt doesn’t act on our behalf. It’s time to chop everything down to the states again, where people have control over who is acting on their behalf, which laws are passed and how tax monies are being spent!
It's a technicality. Australia was never annexed in the name of Britain, so the inhabitants were not considered British subjects. Aboriginals weren't given the right to vote until 1962.
@@AbsentPhilosophers yes. Up until a couple of years ago, there was a separate nation here in Western Australia. It was one bloke, he had his own currency and everything. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RZqUH2_UoLU.html
I'm an American and I thoroughly enjoy Mr. Anderson's presentations. I hope he is among the founding members of the Alliance for Responsible Citizenry (ARC Forum) with Dr. Jordan Peterson.
To be clear, Jordan Peterson doesn't know firsthand what the real world is like. He is better than most academics (he does acknowledge problems, although his solutions are sometimes so remarkably off point), but his ivory tower is just a steeple shorter than theirs. In my humblest of blue collared opinions. Opinions formed subjectively, I'll admit, but from a life full of blood and sweat.
I hope the US follows suit. Its society is imploding. Plenty of loud noises from non indigenous black Americans saying that only their lives matter but not a sound heard from Native Americans. I find that very telling.
Thankyou John and Nicholas. A great discussion. The main points I got from this were: 1. It is important for Australians to know very well the details before voting in a referendum 2. The voice will have to represent many tribes of varying opinions (this to my mind is a near impossible task to reach consensus) 3. The voice in representation to the Parliament and Executive will gain access to debate in the High Court (a potentially dangerous situation) 4. There is potential for the voice to become politicized and contain splinter factions 5. Introducing the Voice to the constitution will create a document favouring a particular race. Every way you look at it, the answer is vote NO
