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.

@theaussiewhinger

Жыл бұрын

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.

@Stockman516

Жыл бұрын

We can. I forget the words, but when you vote you can vote the entire government out.

@didiora8625

Жыл бұрын

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.

@danielbtwd

Жыл бұрын

​@@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.

@SandraLewisfocus1

11 ай бұрын

Maybe Governor General can dissolve Govt. Can that still happen

“Every Australian deserves a voice”, but we don’t have one. Politicians have not been listening to the Australian people for decades.

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.

@leonie563

Жыл бұрын

I'm watching NZ now for what that could look like

@whatthe6532

Жыл бұрын

@@leonie563 Hipkins is trying to sneak through his anti democracy progrom with 10 waters and the new Resource Management Act.

@masculineleadership

Жыл бұрын

Agreed.

@j...bro.

11 ай бұрын

"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 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.

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.

@Kwesekara1672

10 ай бұрын

You got that right.

@carsella11

10 ай бұрын

It should be. Although it currently isn’t because of section 51. As discussed in the video, they considered changing this but it has its own problems.

@JLBarker1000

10 ай бұрын

What right have our political leaders to hand us over to the UN, WHO, WEF etc? 🙁🇦🇺

@mizzyroro

10 ай бұрын

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. 😒

@jenneyalberts1336

10 ай бұрын

I dont think we need a treaty, give them a magna carter first.

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.

@trg9765

Жыл бұрын

Speak up and raise YOUR voice. REPECT FOR YOUR TRUTH TELLING. ONE PEOPLE ONE AUSTRALIA DIVIDED WE FALL.

@guyfitter3006

Жыл бұрын

Thank You for your insightful comment in this issue.

@Kwesekara1672

Жыл бұрын

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.

@michaelpatterson3194

Жыл бұрын

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.

@creeib

Жыл бұрын

​@@michaelpatterson3194Vote YES ❤

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.

@1942Ped

Жыл бұрын

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.

@garyandrews5104

Жыл бұрын

Don’t know a lot of history about Australias flora and fauna do you?

@Pacdoc-oz

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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.

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.

@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307

Жыл бұрын

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!

@1942Ped

Жыл бұрын

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.

@danquaylesitsspeltpotatoe8307

Жыл бұрын

@@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!

@Kwesekara1672

Жыл бұрын

@@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?

@1942Ped

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@starrystarrybee

11 ай бұрын

If Albo refuses to elaborate and bribes organizations to say yes, IT MUST BE BAD

@edithflood631

11 ай бұрын

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.

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".

As a Canadian, I can tell you our “Solution “ didn’t work. And-it’s getting worse.

@grannyannie2948

Жыл бұрын

I agree. However I don't believe in democracy anymore, it doesn't matter how we vote, the policies remain. I supported your truckers.

@liamcelt1321

Жыл бұрын

@@grannyannie2948 Truck off Trudeau

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

11 ай бұрын

The interviewer is clearly very bias lol. I thought the professor was reasonable though even though I disagree.

@mindpowertransformations7742

10 ай бұрын

I couldn't agree more. Completely non-emotive, just factual. Every eligible voter should listen to this before casting a vote.

@42hamneggs

10 ай бұрын

@@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

@davidtaylor6870

9 ай бұрын

Agree, John Anderson's objectivity, is at risk on this program, even though he portrays objectivity

@Albot940

9 ай бұрын

@@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.

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.

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

11 ай бұрын

Can you explain the connection to the wef please

@grannyannie2948

11 ай бұрын

@@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.

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?

This is a very important discussion. I hope many Australians will listen and take notice of it.

@diannestewart9042

10 ай бұрын

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.

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!

@lollypop2413

Жыл бұрын

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

@rockcrawlerchurch2976

Жыл бұрын

What is this forum you are talking about?

@rockcrawlerchurch2976

Жыл бұрын

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.

@lamarzimmermanmennonitefar5269

Жыл бұрын

I hope, and partly believe that Peterson has humility and organizational skills to bring together professionals in relevant fields such as Lomberg.

@lamarzimmermanmennonitefar5269

Жыл бұрын

And I firmly believe John Anderson a fully qualified candidate for the ARC board.

@sorchahonorine6329

10 ай бұрын

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.

Extraordinary insight into the heart of an extremely complex and complicated issue delicately, powerfully thoughtfully explored by John Anderson a powerhouse of an Australian

Thank you John Anderson for this very informative 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 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!

After listening to this and the recent speech from our Aboriginal elected officials on the conservative side of politics, I’m voting “No”.

I am very impressed with this discussion. We have a long way to go still. Still I will vote NO NOT ENOUGH information.

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?

@lollypop2413

Жыл бұрын

Exactly..nobody understands a blank cheque...and yes its creating an elite club on race...in charge of the country.

This was a very interesting discussion of the kind we are unlikely to hear elsewhere.

@guyfitter3006

Жыл бұрын

Agreed.

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…..

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.

@crookeddoghomebrew9144

Жыл бұрын

Its the corruption that effects the individual indigenous peoples.

@evike685

Жыл бұрын

The money spent is not working to close the gap. Consider that the Voice may lead to money spent that does lead to closing the gap

@veenacriddle1207

10 ай бұрын

The people have to try to help themselves like all of us.leave us all equal, don't divide us and destroy our Country.

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.

We nust fight this. We must fundamentally resiet this blabk cheque for the expansion of government power.

It’s no to this divisiveness, racist , treaty , reparations One Australia One vote , one voice

These discussions are so critical and yet they just aren’t happening as part of the wider debate. The referendum lacks enormous amounts of detail and there are dozens of unanswered questions. The PM and federal government have dropped the ball with generating discussion and debate. They are treating this way too casually and optimistically.

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.

Thank you for this very informative discussion, really liked the idea of the Family being an aspect of local government and the role and responsibility we have to our family and community. This point is so poorly missed in public and political discussion on social issues. Great to understand the history of the constitution and why the 67 referendum took place. Keep up the great Work John.

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.

Thank you for this most informative revelation on our Constitution and the risks we face when considering changes to it.

1:12:51 John hits the nail on the head at this point in the discussion. We’ll have done a good job when the voice is no longer needed.

@SilverScriptz

11 ай бұрын

Yes, I agree and for me, that is the most profound statement of all, bringing it all home to the most reasons why....

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." George Orwell, Animal Farm 1945

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.

Great work John!

Mr Anderson, this was such a serious and important discussion. I think the Professor did a wonderful job of answering questions and explanation. Relevance at the moment is so important. Thankyou ...

Mr Anderson's interviews are always interesting as well as informative.

Absolutely brilliant. I’ve learnt so very much. Thank you.

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 wish Aussies were taught this more

I really do enjoy the longer conversations. Excellent content.

Liked how you both discussed the Treaty of Waitangi arrangements in New Zealand. NZ has Maori parliamentary seats and some local councils have Maori wards and constituencies. Still, the idea that the Treaty facilitated co-governance remains contested in NZ.

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 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 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼😊

Thanks for the talk...with more reason now ...VOTE NO TO VOICE.

There is nothing that impacts indigenous Australians that doesn’t affect all Australians.

@PeterConnolly-if4hs

Жыл бұрын

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.

@johntehiwi114

Жыл бұрын

You mean immigrants

@johntehiwi114

Жыл бұрын

The Australian constitution has nothing to do with the indigenous Australians they are a monarchy to themselves

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

A brilliant conversation. Thanks!

“Exactly what it would look like” needs to be determined and presented prior to a vote

@anthonymercuri8885

10 ай бұрын

Not sure about that. I don't think the layperson is qualified to judge the quality of legislation. (How many Acts have you read in their entirety? I've skimmed 5 or 6, ever, and it's never even definitive in itself without the accompanying legal record of real-world enforcement decisions) Only lawyers and career politicians are. The layperson only works on "the vibe", and they've got that. The text in the Constitution is deliberately vague and simple ("there will be a body"), so that the actual detail of the working apparatus can be improved over time, rather than writing in stone a busted design and being stuck with it.

@samebloke

10 ай бұрын

@@anthonymercuri8885 The constitution is a rule book that imposes limits of power to government. A so called "body" should also be subject to limits of power. That is what I mean when I say it needs to be determined and presented. The public should know the limitations. The constitution is not the same as legislation in that it is the government's rules, not the public's

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.

@grannyannie2948

Жыл бұрын

I have given up on federation entirely.

@alisonjohnston1665

Жыл бұрын

There are 11 Aboriginal voices in Parliament but the Labor government won't hear that, or listen to them.

@grannyannie2948

Жыл бұрын

@@alisonjohnston1665 But they want an undemocratic system.

@OK-ke3jg

Жыл бұрын

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.

Can I ask a really honest question: why do indigenous people get a special ability to govern themselves?

@grannyannie2948

Жыл бұрын

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.

@freebird7017

Жыл бұрын

@@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!

@peterleversha9651

Жыл бұрын

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

Жыл бұрын

@@peterleversha9651 that doesn’t seem to answer my question. Can any group apply to self govern?

@peterleversha9651

Жыл бұрын

@@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. kzread.info/dash/bejne/hI6lt6prj7jVfLg.html

Great interview, and as Mr Anderson stated at the beginning "educative"! A must watch.

the vote is no

This was a good interview. Ive been tryingto really understand what the voice actually is.. and althought ive watched and read everything i can find the details are too vague. In theory it sounds good but its hard to vote for something without details.

I'll be voting No.

Subsidiarity was a principle that the Abbott government mentioned in a White Paper in 2014 on the reform of the federation. Professor Campbell Sharman of the University of Western Australia described it as ‘enhancing the range of governmental solutions to any given problem and consequently makes the system as a whole more responsive to the preferences of groups and individuals’. In short it provides grounds for decentralised decision-making.

@22:50 - Local aboriginal communities having a say in local politics might sound like a good idea, but the first thing that popped into my mind when I heard this is, in reality, they'll all just end up being proxies for the local Labor party. Who knows, it may start that way, and after an initial settling phase, they'll truly learn to have their own 'voice' that could genuinely help them to lift themselves up. At a local level I think it might work but I fear real damage could be done at national level, especially, if as some have suggested, the Voice ends up having a veto on all Australian law.

@grannyannie2948

Жыл бұрын

I agree. I might also add I am getting sick to death of federal government completely. Looking back over fifty years I find it very difficult to find a Prime Minister of either party who actually cared about Australia or Australians. The first PM I remember was Whitlam, as I got older I realised how much harm he had done to me. I heard Keating recently tell us that China was better than us, and since he offshored my husbands job and caused our house to be repossessed, leaving me literally barefoot and pregnant, he proved he always hated Australians. All because he said Australia was a banana republic and we needed to be impoverished by his recession. Morrison proved himself to be a globalist puppet when Schwab publically praised him so they are no better. For me Federation has been a mistake. Federal powers should be reduced to national security and border security. Everything else, how much immigration we want, taxation, education, health systems, everything should be on a state basis, and then we can vote with our feet on what systems we want. Federation nolonger reflects Australians. It's not 1900 anymore.

@edithflood631

11 ай бұрын

Wow. So the Voice is going to carve into being a whole new constituency for the Labor Party: their First Nations constituency. And there will be institutions in place, like the Voice and Treaty to ensure it is a forever Labor constituency. Maybe Labor figures migrant and indigenous voters will replace the blue collar working classes Labor has abandoned (akin to the USA, where the Democrats figured migrants would replace betrayed blue-collar constituents).

NO!!! The voice is DIVISIVE!!!

There is a song called The Living Years. The first line says "every generation blames the one before and all of their frustrations come beating at your door. ". There's more about hearing and not listening and the bitterness lasts. I understand this song is about a father-son relationship but it relates to this referendum. I have one question. How will various indigenous tribes unite to be one voice? Jennifer Brisbane

Most Needed Teaching for All Persons NOW ♡

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.

I'm glad I've had the opportunity to hear this very informative conversation. So much to consider , really & in the long term. Thankyou & I've shared this .

There are still potential solutions that haven't been tried, which could be tested before putting this specific issue to a referendum. An example is the delivery of messages that affect Indigenous Australians in remote communities. In some remote communities 400+ services drive/fly in and out to visit, often staying for less than a day to deliver the message/service of the government department/company/NGO they represent. If the average Australian goes into a government department with an enquiry, it doesn't matter who you speak with, you trust that the information you are getting is good irrespective of whether you are familiar with the person answering your enquiry or not. Mob out in the remotes with the traditional kinship/skin group system in tack have a different approach to relationships. The kinship system informs them how to relate to other mob, and the low resolution rule is, before you engage in conversation with a stranger, find out in some way how you relate to them. This prevents you from speaking with people you're not meant to culturally- which I won't get into here. This can explain the hesitancy in quickly developing relationships with visitors. So, needless to say, in these communities, relationships are important in that unless there is an existent relationship between the individual working for the government department, let's say, and the mob who live in the community, then it is often ineffective for the government dept representative to deliver their key messages. Often these representatives are full bottle on all the workings of their dept, but are only visiting to give a summarised version on matters that will affect the community members. In the remotes, the tenure of the government dept staff is low and may only visit once or twice a year. So by the time they have developed relationships in the community, they leave and the person who takes over the role goes through the process of ineffectiveness while establishing relationships over the course of infrequent and short visits during their tenure. The government spending that goes into these ineffective trips will be roughly between $1500-4000 per community taking into account salary, fuel, accommodation, food allowance, and per kilometre travel rates, depending on distances involved. There are over 100 remotes communities in Western Australia alone and how many government departments? What if ONE PERSON could be employed to visit communties of a given area more frequently, stay for longer and take the summarised versions of MULTIPLE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS to the remote community members that they had developed relationships with? effectiveness would surely increase (which may also increase tenure)? It would also give the grass roots community members a point of contact who could report back to the departments about issues affecting communities on the ground. There are still potential solutions that haven't been tried, which could be tested before putting this specific issue to a referendum. An example is the delivery of messages that affect Indigenous Australians in remote communities. In some remote communities 400+ services drive/fly in and out to visit, often staying for less than a day to deliver the message/service of the government department/company/NGO they represent. If the average Australian goes into a government department with an enquiry, it doesn't matter who you speak with, you trust that the information you are getting is good irrespective of whether you are familiar with the person answering your enquiry or not. Mob out in the remotes with the traditional kinship/skin group system in tack have a different approach to relationships. The kinship system informs them how to relate to other mob, and the low resolution rule is, before you engage in conversation with a stranger, find out in some way how you relate to them. This prevents you from speaking with people you're not meant to culturally- which I won't get into here. This can explain the hesitancy in quickly developing relationships with visitors. So, needless to say, in these communities, relationships are important in that unless there is an existent relationship between the individual working for the government department, let's say, and the mob who live in the community, then it is often ineffective for the government dept representative to deliver their key messages. Often these representatives are full bottle on all the workings of their dept, but are only visiting to give a summarised version on matters that will affect the community members. In the remotes, the tenure of the government dept staff is low and may only visit once or twice a year. So by the time they have developed relationships in the community, they leave and the person who takes over the role goes through the process of ineffectiveness while establishing relationships over the course of infrequent and short visits during their tenure. The government spending that goes into these ineffective trips will be roughly between $1500-4000 per community taking into account salary, fuel, accommodation, food allowance, and per kilometre travel rates, depending on distances involved. There are over 100 remotes communities in Western Australia alone and how many government departments? What if ONE person could be employed to visit communties of a given area more frequently, stay for longer and take the summarised versions of MULTIPLE government departments to the remote community members that they had developed relationships with? effectiveness would surely increase (which may also increase tenure)? It would also give the grass roots community members a point of contact who could report back to the departments about issues affecting communities on the ground so that ground level voices are heard.

For me, it is very simple ..... if you cannot (or will not) explain it simply, then I vote no

That was a really informative discussion. Thank you both very much.

😈 PUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION FIRST 😈😈😈😈😈😈👿👿

@mjohnstone2399

Жыл бұрын

With the provision for a governmental controlled Counter disinformation unit. 🤣

Much more informative that the MSM sound bites

Franklin never gets old "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters".

very useful, thank you for this conversation.

Voting NO

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.

@StephensCrazyHour

Жыл бұрын

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.

@sorchahonorine6329

10 ай бұрын

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".

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.

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.

Outstanding content. Thank you!

Thank you.

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.

The number one problem with our current constitution is that being a legal document it can not be altered without the people's approval and the government decided unilaterally to alter the constitution by changing how the Commonwealth Monarch is refered to. From that moment on we have had a silent coup occur and criminal behaviour got worse.

I have just read your bio John, you are a truly wonderful man

Great discussion. Thank you!

Gods defend and keep John Anderson 🙏 ❤🇦🇺👏

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! 🇦🇺🦘❤️🙏🕊️👍😀

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.

@grannyannie2948

Жыл бұрын

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.

@royevetts4900

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@grannyannie2948

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@grannyannie2948

Жыл бұрын

@@royevetts4900 Put more simply, regardless of how we vote we get WEF puppets, never democratic support for voters.

@didiora8625

Жыл бұрын

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.

Brilliant explanation. Thank you.

Thank you for a most informative discussion.

Voice then treaty. So how will the voice be removed from the constitution to make way for any treaty?

@whatthe6532

Жыл бұрын

Why do you need a treaty when you have a one person one vote democracy.

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 agree totally with John Anderson's position. We were asked to vote for a proposal with no details. Yes, let's have an indigenous voice, but let it be built up from the local communities not from the top down. ATSIC was built top down and was ultimately a failure.

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?

@grannyannie2948

Жыл бұрын

When will Australians have a voice to parliament?

@jonahtwhale1779

Жыл бұрын

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?

@alisterrebelo9013

Жыл бұрын

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.

@StephensCrazyHour

Жыл бұрын

Don't forget all the Vietnamese and Lebanese!

@1942Ped

Жыл бұрын

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.

Thank you

Excellent discussion!

Why not more states then and give more power to councils? We seem to be centralising everything.