Thrive Tribe Noticeboard
The 2023 Referendum & Constitutional Change
Confused about the Voice To Parliament?
Info Packs Avialble Now – https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/16eEFat2yGi7eDgW9troaT5t-02FEUo5n?usp=drive_link
We have broken it down for everyone to really get a grasp from a grassroots perspective, from our research and campaigning for 10 years.
All the info has been out for years in the vote no to constitutional change page, led by Alice Haines.
To keep it as simple as possible, all they have done that is different to the Recognise campaign is, add a voice with no power (250 appointed representatives) and everyone’s thinking it’s different.
Main thing to remember, the end game is the same (to recognise us in the constitution) and we said no to this time and time again. Once we are in that Constitution we are Australian citizens, we will have no legal leg to stand on if we want to stop them from digging up the country whenever and wherever they want.
So we’re asking whats the point of a treaty after we’re recognised in the constitution, when we will have zero tribal rights? And how can 18% million people vote on something that doesn’t affect them? It only affects us and we have not consented to this, so we call for Boycott
The Voice To Parliament – Why Vote No or Not At All
Firstly we need to be clear on what’s at stake, it’s all about gaining consent from the natives to make the occupation legal. Its really all about this word sovereignty, in international law its very clear that a land that has tilled the earth, has its own written history and governance; cannot be interfered with because its what they call a sovereign nation. Sovereignty means – the absolute power, like the king of England is the absolute power for their country. The tribes are the absolute power of the land mass known today as Australia
Sovereignty Workshop Part A with Alice Haines
Sovereignty Workshop Part B with Alice Haines
Sovereignty means – the absolute power, like the king of England is the absolute power for their country. The tribes are the absolute power of the land mass known today as Australia
The only way for another nation to overtake a sovereign nation is through conquest (declaring law and winning the war), by terra nullias or by a peace agreement. So far the government have been avoiding the legal issues surrounding the occupancy terms, now they seem to be using our own people to trick us out of our sovereign rights as the original inhabitants of the land mass.
Because our law is the oldest law of the land, it is first in law is the supreme law of the land. Because we hold the ultimate power in this land, we must not allow our people to be tricked into watering down our rights.
Our people out bush must be made aware that the people picked by government to represent all of our communities, are being used to transfer our sovereign rights to the government so they can claim the ultimate power. The so called experts are lying to all of Australia by telling them that this will not cede tribal sovereignty and in the same breath they say sovereignty is just a spiritual notion. They are treating us all like fools, using trickery and deceit to swindle the tribes out of our birthrights. They must not get away with disregarding our ancient law system as some kind of spirituality only with no basis in law. Our law system in totally inline with the highest law known to man today, natural law.
The new comers are here unlawfully, without permission to rule over us and must be stopped. We can run our own communities as even white mans scientific evidence shows (community led solutions have higher success rates that last longer) and must assert our sovereignty at every opportunity. Mind the tricks and traps that will water down our rights, give no consent to anything cos we all know anything government is involved in is never honorable. Not once have they treated the tribes with honor, its time for change.
(Growing) List of videos by the team in 2023
No Consent For The Referendum, Voice, Treaty or Truth Process
Reconciliation and the Voice what we need to know
Suppressing Our Voice – Invite Only Process
The State Treaty Process Can’t Be Trusted
Warning: Mob please be advised the following footage contains images and voices of elders no longer with us
Our Voices
Academic Paper argues that First Nations communal allodial land title cannot be extinguished by fraud
Sharing the real voices of our communities, the grassroots, the mob who we actually see in our communities. Battlers
Socials
Telegram
https://t.me/BoycottReferendumWithMob
https://www.facebook.com/groups/885335475878438/?ref=share_group_link
https://instagram.com/boycottthe_voice_to_parliament?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
Reconciliation Scam by Jason Hartwig
Hear Our VOICES
Treaty, Recognition or Independence even??
Facing the facts: what the 1967 Referendum didn’t achieve
CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION OF FIRST AUSTRALIANS
A message to all “Recognise” believers (Yes Voters)
Why Should I Oppose Recognition?
Letter to the Referendum Committee 2015 from Kaiyu Bayles
Declaration of Persona Non Grata Against the King, the Crown and its Agents sent 02/04/2023 by Kaiyu Bayles
Other Useful links:
The Cons of the Recognise Campaign Alice Haines
RED ALERT-DANGER! CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION – ALICE HAINES
Non Est factum – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRRgOJ40UA8
31:30
Uluru Statement (HQ) Constitutional Recognition – Con from the heart.
Alice Haines and Ghillar Michael Anderson expose the double meaning of ‘R’ and ‘Recognise’ used by the advocates for the inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the colonial Australian Constitution, which is still an Act of the British Parliament dated 1900.
At the Gathering of Nations in Canberra Alice Haines graphically describes the dangers for Aboriginal People being included in the Australian Constitution and the proposed changes to section 51(26), as well as the horrendous origins of the ‘R’ symbol.
Finally found a download site for this important book which exposes the corporatisation of Reconciliation Australia and forces behind its support of Yes23 events across the continent. DRIVING DISUNITY by Lindy Nolan
Lindy Nolan’s insightful, well-researched and provocative bode shines light onto how corporate Australia is driving disunity among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples by pushing for constitutional recognition and undermining treaty, land rights, and sovereignty.
Where did the idea of Constitutional Recognition for First Nations peoples come from?
In 1965 Prime Minister Robert Menzies noted in parliament that Aboriginal people are not Australian citizens and the government cannot legally control them. See the Hansard record of 1 April 1965.
In 2007, Prime Minister John Howard, announced that if he was re-elected, he will put a referendum to the Australian people to formally recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution. ABC Report (link is external) 11 October 2007
John Howard’s statement was made during the same period of government when he was opposing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, opposing a Treaty and following the introduction of the Northern Territory Intervention and the shutting down of ATSIC.
Why is the government pushing for Constitutional Reform?
The government can say that because the First Nations people voted for the changes in the referendum they have specifically voted to be controlled by the government.
The government wants more control over First Nations people, especially those living on ‘valuable mining land’
The government wants to extend its power to further dislocate and marginalise First Nations people who have not already assimilated
The invaders of these lands and the following governments have been aggressively trying to ‘breed out’ and/or assimilate First Nations people since the invasion in 1788, when they released there were more Aboriginal people on the continent than they first thought and they were people with established societies. They have needed to eradicate the people to justify their terra nullius claim (unoccupied and free to colonise).
But how can they get away with it?
They have spent many millions dollars on the ‘Recognise’ campaign through advertising and other promotions, from the popular sports through to the arts. They have employed well known assimilated Aboriginal ‘Leaders’ to actively promote their campaign and have added a further $15m in the 2016 Budget to press the ‘Yes’ vote in communities around the continent.
With over $100m already spent on the ‘Yes’ vote they have never allocated any money on people or organisations to put up a case for the ‘No’ vote or to explain the pitfalls.
The commercial channels (Fox, 7, 9, 10 groups of channels) are all funded and operated by big business interests and collect advertising revenue from ‘R’ Campaign, and are also regulated by the government
The ABC and SBS (NITV) is funded and being bullied by the government
Former PM Tony Abbott inferred that all Aboriginal government funded organisations must support ‘Recognise’ or their funding may be compromised. (blackmail)
There has been a media blackout on all mainstream media outlets to describe what rights Aboriginal people will get from Constitution Recognition or the disadvantages – this goes against the ‘democratic’ assumption of the Australian government system.
Who is the ‘Expert Panel’ on Constitutional ‘Reform’ who advise the government?
They are (un-elected) people especially selected and funded by the government to promote Constitutional Reform.
See: Proposed Constitutional Reforms are treasonous and Fraudulent
There were 40 government funded people at the June 2015 ‘Constitution Recognition’ meeting at Kirribilli (link is external) with the then PM and Leader of the Opposition.
New Referendum Council
On 7th December, 2015 the government appointed a new council to promote Constitutional Reform to work independently to the ‘Expert Council’ , including some of the front line people from the ‘Expert Panel’, which was named ‘The Referendum Council’. This council includes more non-Indigenous people than the ‘Expert Panel’. The non-Indigenous members are leading right-wing Lawyers and media experts..
The Referendum Council members list: Professor Patrick Dodson (co-chair) Resigned), Mark Leibler AC (co-chair), Stan Grant (tipped to become co-chair replacement), Pat Anderson AO, Professor Megan Davis, Andrew Demetriou, Murray Gleeson AC QC, Kristina Keneally, Mick Gooda, Tanya Hosch, Jane McAloon, Michael Rose, Natasha Stott Despoja AM, Noel Pearson, Amanda Vanstone, Dalassa Yorkston, Dr Galarrwuy Yunupingu AM. Please note: None of these people were voted for or appointed as spokespersons by the Aboriginal community. Referendum Council members images (link is external)
See: An overview by Ghillar Michael Anderson and Referendum Council Announcement – PM Media Release (link is external)
Why should I oppose it?
Because the government wants to name First Nations people in the constitution so they have more power over them.
It will allow the government to discriminate on the basis of race.
It fails the test of compliance with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf (link is external)
It gives the government the power to pass legislation like the ‘Northern Territory Intervention’ against the First Nations people in all the states
‘Sovereignty was never ceded’ – this legislation will make it much harder for people to assert their sovereign rights – in other words. it will kill any chance of workable and grass roots self-determination
The vote will give non-Indigenous people the power to make the decision on ‘Recognition’ (This is because they have 97% of the vote)
Follow links for some of the many other issues for First Nations people (below).
Related articles:
Over 100 articles relating to Constitution Recognition:
http://www.sovereignunion.mobi/…/Constitution… (link is external)
‘New Matilda’, Constitutional Recognition:
www.newmatilda.com/search/node/constitutional%20reform (link is external)
‘Red Flag’, Constitutional Recognition:
http://www.redflag.org.au/…/constitution%20recognition (link is external)
For more reasons why the ‘Recognise’ campaign is treacherous for First Nations people – Go to: Facebook: Vote ‘NO’ To Constitutional Change
People, Pages and Groups on Facebook To Follow:
Vote ‘NO’ To Constitutional Change
https://www.facebook.com/VotenoToConstitutionalChange
Treaty Before Voice
https://www.facebook.com/treatybeforevoice
Sovereign Union
https://www.facebook.com/SovereignUnion1
Roxley Foley
https://www.facebook.com/rockn.rolla.750
Goompi Bush Skool
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100078280224007
Jason Hartwig
https://www.facebook.com/bamagurubana
Greg Phillips views on the proposed voice
Speaking out: Gary Foley lends his voice to the Indigenous community opposing the Voice
https://umbrellanews.com.au/featured/2023/01/speaking-out-gary-foley-lends-his-voice-to-the-indigeno
Reply in comments:
The Statement From The Heart is a con driven by the likes of Noel Pearson and associates. If implemented, it would do no more than provide a consultative body that can be ignored at any time, but will be trumpeted as a success whenever recommendations are taken up in some way.
It has been spun as a great step forward, but will be a hollow victory if passed. Then it would be used by conservatives to delay any further/real progress.
Just look at the egregious examples of discrimination in the past (ongoing):
* genocide – 50+ papers at http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/resources/genocide/genocide_index.html
* NTER/the Intervention – founded on lies, exaggerations and blatant race discrimination.
* the royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody. Many recommendations not implemented (where FNP had a “voice”) and where things have changed they’ve often got worse.
How would The Voice change any of that? Simple. It wouldn’t. Source: Post reply for https://umbrellanews.com.au/featured/2023/01/speaking-out-gary-foley-lends-his-voice-to-the-indigenous-community-opposing-the-voice/?fbclid=IwAR2qyMmwA81ct5a1tlsEiKs08_kkZx7AoYtLfu3YnCKJJyt1Or3KdfhMR74
Decolonising the Mind
Unilateral Declarations of Independence (UDIs).
Realities of educating at grassroots. Concepts and misconceptions. The Black Wall in relation to the Stockholm Syndrome.
The Sovereign Union of First Nations and Peoples in Australia held the 3rd Gathering of Nations in Old Parliament House , Canberra on 21 & 22 November 2015.
A Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) Explained
http://nationalunitygovernment.org/content/unilateral-declaration-independence-udi-explained
Academic Paper argues that First Nations communal allodial land title cannot be extinguished by fraud
In the 1610 case of Waggoner v Fish, the court held that strangers and foreigners devised and practised, by sinister and subtle means, ways of defrauding the charters, liberties, customs, good orders and ordinances of London. The court held that such acts were criminal fraud. Mutatis mutandis, colonial frame transformation performed on the Australian Continental Common Law, without prior informed consent, would likely be criminal fraud under the English law itself, and would therefore inevitably unravel.
The two types of frame transformation are: (a) domain-specific transformations, as in attempts to alter group status; and, (b) global interpretive frame transformation, as in attempts to change world views by conversions of thought, or complete conquest such as religious conversion. Both appear to be what the non-Indigenous majority are trying to do in Australia, by attempts at radical thought conversion of ancient land titleholders’ status, and purporting to transform the frames of the land titles’ underlying narratives, without the victims’ prior informed consent.
Colonial officials have tried to frame transform the highly sophisticated and ancient Indigenous legal and social system, including sophisticated celestial mapping and navigation systems, into a gallery of mere religious art. This ancient system is transmitted phylogenetically, to which governance colonial officials can therefore have no participation. The research shows that Indigenous land title cannot be extinguished.
The research also suggests the frame transformation can be reversed by effective epideictic rhetoric.
As an example of colonial judicial policy, in the 1931 case of Eshugbayi Eleko v Officer Administering the Government of Nigeria,
83 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council crafted a highly pejorative formula for application of local customary law. They inferred that natives were barbarous, and that British colonisers were a civilising influence.
Sovereignty & Recognition Part 1
A presentation to generate discussion and debate over Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Australian Constitution. Part 1 Introduces Sovereignty and looks at our Nations as Sovereign States. This is an introductory level analysis only.
Caution: the following video contains voices and images of those who have passed
Sovereignty and Recognition Part 2
Sovereignty and Recognition Part 2 highlights how Native Title transfers Land Acquisition and Sovereignty for retrospective Nations to the Australian Government via Australian Common Law. This is an introductory level analysis only.
Sovereignty and Recognition Part 3A
Here is part 3 of a series of you tubes to help breakdown Sovereignty and Recognition for our grassroots mob. Sovereignty and Recognition Part 3A was recorded at Musgrave Park, Brisbane for a Mirrabooka Sovereign Sisters Event on Yuggera lands. This is an introductory level analysis only. The you tubes are compiled by Alice Haines an active campaigner for anti recognise https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwm2TIs57fk
Sovereignty and Recognition Part 3B
Here is part 3 of a series of you tubes to help breakdown Sovereignty and Recognition for our grassroots mob. Sovereignty and Recognition Part 3B was recorded at Musgrave Park, Brisbane for aMirrabooka Sovereign Sisters Event on Yuggera lands. Part 3B is the second half of the Part 3A youtube also recorded at Musgrave Park. Part 3A looks at Recognition and Reconciliation terminologies. This is an introductory level analysis only. The you tubes are compiled by Alice Haines an active campaigner for anti recognise.
Constitutional Change Timeline
Where did it all start
1788
Govern Phillips Instructions to gain the consent of the natives
1844
Queen Victoria also stated that they were not to interfere with us, nor buy lands from us that would affect our livelihood.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/885335475878438/permalink/892526565159329/
1965
Sir Robert Menzies in 1965 told the Government in a Parliamentary Hearing that by not having Aboriginal People on the Constitution protects them against discriminatory laws.
Since 1967 any Legislations made for ‘Aboriginal’ people are unlawful within the Constitution.
Reference: SPEECH BY THE RT. HON. SIR ROBERT MENZIES K.T.C.H.Q.C.M.P ON CONSTITUTION ALTERATION PARLIAMENT) BILL 1965 AND CONSTITUTION ALTERATION REPEAL OF SECTION 127 ) BILL 1965 Transcript
http://pmtranscripts.dpmc.gov.au/browse.php?did=1192
1967
Harold Holts Referendum did not make us Subjects(Citizens) either, which is demonstrated in the Loves and Tomms vs Commonwealth 2020. They thought removing a negative from “Their” founding document in 1967 gave them the right to create a positive, however the positive was never clearly stated and documented.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/885335475878438/permalink/892526565159329/
1972
Tent Embassy
To many it came as a shock when in April 1971 the Northern Territory Supreme Court decided against Aboriginal people and in favour of a mining company to have access to Aboriginal land. Australian common law, the justice concluded, did not recognise Aboriginal land rights. [2]
Aboriginal people travelled to Canberra to ask the Prime Minister of the time, William McMahon, to give them title to their land, royalties from the mining operations, a right to consent to or reject further development on their land, and the land to be returned once mining operations finished.
The Prime Minister promised to look at ways to protect Aboriginal interests, but 9 months later, on the eve of Australia Day 1972, announced that, instead of granting Aboriginal people title to their land, his government would ask Aboriginal people to apply for new 50-year general purpose leases over such land. They would also have to prove that they put that land to ‘reasonable’ economic and social use. Aboriginal people had no title to mineral and forest rights. [2]
Angered by this announcement, Aboriginal people gathered in Sydney and decided that on Australia Day 1972 four representatives would travel to Canberra to protest against this decision.
They were Michael Anderson from Walgett, Billy Craigie from Moree, Bert Williams from Cowra, and Tony Coorey from Tweed Heads.
The four erected a beach umbrella surrounded by placards in front of Parliament House proclaiming it an ‘Aboriginal Embassy’.
Source: Aboriginal Tent Embassy, Canberra – Creative Spirits, retrieved from https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/aboriginal-tent-embassy-canberra#what-led-to-the-creation-of-the-aboriginal-tent-embassy
1980
Noonkanbah proclamation
Made at Noonkanbah on the 10th August 1980 by Don Mcleod, representing First Nations People gathered there, reflects the voice of thousands of Originals who are not being heard:
“Before the coming of the white man, there was a law for all men and time. This Law guaranteed the undisputed tenure of the Land from generation to generation. The collective rights, titles and interests of the people were protected by this Law. The people lived in a state of virtue and democracy under the Law without recourse to kings, princes or police. Let it be known that this Law of the land continues to guide us up to the present time. Next to the food we eat, it is the thing which keeps us alive and which we cherish most. Let it be known that, in spite of our misery, the Land and its Law provide hope for us. The white man has never understood our Law nor taken it seriously…
http://nationalunitygovernment.org/content/noonkanbah-blockade-and-yungngora-peoples-battle-country
1984
Bob Hawke personally removed land rights from the national political agend
1986
Bob Hawke enacted the Australia Act
1991
The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody presents its final report and recommendations to the Australian Parliament, including calling for a process of national reconciliation. The Australian Parliament unanimously passes the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act 1991 (Cth), formally launching a process of national reconciliation and formally establishing the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CAR).
CAR’s vision was for A united Australia which respects this land of ours; values the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage; and provides justice and equity for all.
The process of Reconciliation formally began as a result of the Report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in 1991.
1992
The High Court recognises native title in the landmark Mabo v Queensland
1993
Australian Parliament passes the Native Title Act.
1995
The Australian Government officially recognises the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander flag
1998
Hindmarsh Island Bridge decision
The High Court of Australia hands down the Hindmarsh Island Bridge decision, which leaves open the possibility that section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution can be used by the Commonwealth to impose racially discriminatory laws upon Aboriginal people.
1999
Constitutional Referendums on a Republic and New Preamble
Australia holds a referendum to decide whether to become a republic, and whether to adopt a new preamble to the Constitution which acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Prime Minister Howard proceeds with wording for the preamble that had been rejected by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and many Indigenous land councils
2000
Mark Leibler was appointed to the inaugural board of Reconciliation Australia, serving as Co-Chair from 2005-2011. In 2010 the then Australian Prime Minister, the Hon Julia Gillard MP, appointed Mark Co-Chair of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians.
The Roadmap For Reconciliation
The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation delivers its Australian Declaration towards Reconciliation and the Roadmap for Reconciliation. The report reinforces Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander aspirations for a treaty and constitutional change.
2007
ATSIC ABOLISHED
New Commitment to Constitutional Preamble
Shortly before the 2007 election, Prime Minister John Howard announces the government’s intention to hold a referendum to symbolically recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in a new preamble to the Constitution.
2008
Apology to the Stolen Generations
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd presents the Apology to the Stolen Generations. The Australia 2020 Summit is held, with the final report noting the ‘strong view that recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ rights needs to be included in the body of the Constitution, not just in the Preamble
Yolngu and Bininj Leaders present a Statement of Intent to Prime Minister
The Prime Minister is presented with a Statement of Intent from Yolngu and Bininj Leaders, who express their desire for constitutional protection for traditional land and cultural rights
2010
Establishment Of The Expert Panel
Prime Minister Julia Gillard establishes the Expert Panel on the Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution
2012
Julia Gillard launches “You Me Unity”, a campaign designed to encourage conversation about updating the Constitution to recognise Indigenous peoples.
That was ditched and quickly became the Recognise Campaign
* The Expert Panel’s report to government in early 2012
* A Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples convened in June 2012
* The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act (Cth) passed unanimously in February 2013
* The Joint Select Committee lapsed with the calling of the federal election in September 2013 and was reconvened later that year.
2013
Recognition Act
The Gillard government, with support from the Opposition, passes the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2013, to provide an interim form of recognition of Aboriginal people.
Tony Abbot signs off on Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council
‘Statement to the House of Representatives’ Wednesday, 12 February 2014
Source: http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-02-12/statement-house-representatives-closing-gap
2014
Empowered Communities by Noel Pearson
The project aims to design a new governance model for the regions to ensure more customised and coordinated government initiatives and to provide greater empowerment of local Indigenous leaders over the activities in their communities.
Joint select parliamentary committee formed
Parliament forms a joint select parliamentary committee, chaired by Senators Ken Wyatt and Nova Peris, to advance the work of the Expert Panel.
2015
Referendum Council established, council appointed by Prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten
2016-2017
First Nations Constitutional Dialogues
The Referendum Council runs 13 First Nations Regional Dialogues to discuss options for constitutional reform, and to ensure that Aboriginal decision-making is at the heart of the reform process.
2017
Recognise campaign to be abandoned: report
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/recognise-campaign-to-be-abandoned-report/3stfe2zk1
The Uluru Statement
The Referendum Council holds a National First Nations Constitutional Convention at Uluru to ratify the decision making of the Regional Dialogues. The Convention delegates draft and overwhelmingly endorse the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which is issued to the Australian people. This calls for a constitutionally entrenched First Nations Voice to Parliament, and a Makarrata commission to oversee a process of treaty-making and truth-telling. The Referendum Council hands down its final report, which endorses the Uluru Statement from the Heart and its call for Voice, Treaty and Truth. The Turnbull government rejects the call for a Voice to Parliament
Referendum Council organised the First Nations National Constitutional Convention. Over 250 Indigenous peoples gathered at Uluru to consider what constitutional recognition might look like. This is where the Uluru Statement from the Heart was born. The Statement calls for an enshrined Voice in the Constitution, and a process of agreement-making that must include Voice, Treaty, Truth.
Although the Uluru Statement is beautifully crafted, it’s only one Statement. It is impossible for it to represent the more than 250 First Nation groups in Australia.
2018
Recommendation for Co-design
A Joint Select Committee of Parliament to consider the work of the Referendum Council, chaired by Senators Patrick Dodson and Julian Leeser, undertakes its work. In its final report, it finds the Voice is the only viable recognition proposal and recommends that the government ‘initiate a process of co-design [of the Voice] with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’.
2019
Co-Design Process
In the pre-election budget the government commits $7m to a Voice co-design process and $160m to running a referendum. Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt, announces a ‘co-design’ process to determine the structure and functions of the Voice. The constitutional enshrinement of the Voice was excluded from the terms of reference.
2021
Sydney Peace Prize
The interim report on the Indigenous Voice Proposal is released. Stage two of the ‘co-design’ process commences, inviting feedback on the proposals on the design of the Voice. The Uluru Statement wins the Sydney Peace Prize with co-laureates Pat Anderson, Megan Davis and Noel Pearson.
2022
Anthony Albanese is elected as the new Prime Minister of Australia
The Labor Leader Albanese reconfirms his commitment to implement the Uluru Statement in full during his victory speech upon the Australian Labor Party defeating the Liberal National Party in the May federal election.
For the full timeline from the Statement of the Heart Website:
Authors note:
The Uluru Statement proposes three key elements for sequential reform: “Voice, Treaty, Truth”.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/what-is-the-uluru-statement-from-the-heart-20190523-p51qlj.html
The Uluru statement was not written by blackfellas at Uluru it was written by “non-Indigenous “constitutional conservatives””. https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2017/06/03/the-making-the-uluru-statement/14964120004739
Vote ‘NO’ To Constitutional Change broke a story highlighting 5 key areas of the Statement that was outrageous and generally culturally insulting. 2nd point in particular was noted by one of our administrators who raised a concern that the statement “hands over our kids culture which is inclusive of land and spiritual as a gift to the colonial Government.” https://www.facebook.com/VotenoToConstitutionalChange/photos/a.353446334725850.77935.350355421701608/1480557095348096/?type=3&theater
The language in the Document Statement is carefully crafted by non-Indigenous expertise to disguise the fact that Aboriginal People are not getting rights and all culture and land is being handed over to the Government as a ‘gift’.
Furthermore “The Uluru statement did not endorse inserting any kind of constitutional clause banning racial discrimination, a clause that previous inquiries had recommended.” https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2017/06/03/the-making-the-uluru-statement/14964120004739
If Delegates at the meeting were not aware that they endorsed the full handover of culture and land as a gift to the Australian Government then the whole Uluru Statement from the Heart is clearly Null and Void.
Let’s Talk Constitutional Reform
Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Australian Constitution, it’s the right thing to do – a simple message sold with a fancy website, TV commercials and the backing of $10 million from the Federal Government. On the surface, Constitutional recognition seems like a step in the right direction. Tiga Bayles is hosting a panel debate on this issue to find out what it could really mean for First Nations peoples.
Let’s Talk Sovereignty
Let’s Talk Decolonisation
Indigenous peoples across the globe have experienced a violent and devastating history at the hands of colonialism, and Australia is no exception. But is colonisation something of a bygone era? In consideration of all that has happened, what does decolonisation look like and is it a tangible process? How does it relate to the individual, our everyday lives, the future of all Aboriginal people, and as distinct tribal groups? Let’s Talk Decolonisation, our fourth filmed panel discussion, takes an in depth look at the fundamental questions surrounding decolonisation.
Let’s Talk Treaty
Let’s Talk Treaty panelists include, Wayne Butcher, Monica Morgan, Warren Mundine & Nicole Watson, hosted by Tiga Bayles.
We all know Yothu Yindi’s hit song Treaty. But what is Treaty? When it comes to relations between Indigenous peoples and colonial powers, treaties are simply formal agreements that set down the terms and conditions by which two or more groups can coexist. The British Empire signed treaties with many of the tribes of Americas, and the Maori of New Zealand. But no treaty was ever signed with the First Nations here.
More & more people are talking about this Voice to Parliament!!
🤷🏾🤷🏾♀️ Everyone all over the country is talking about it, but what does mob from out bush reckon? We asked some people from Ntaria what they think.
https://www.facebook.com/ICTVAustralia/videos/954059422499139
What do these mob from out bush reckon about the Voice to Parliament?
https://www.facebook.com/ICTVAustralia/videos/236535568844429/
Will The Voice to Parliament help Indigenous people who live in remote communities???
https://www.facebook.com/100063625509473/videos/1295129504415221
Proof the Voice To Parliament is the same as The Recognise Campaign
Even the Government’s gammin Uluru Statement from the Heart theatrics did not result in support for Constitutional Recognition.
So they played with the words, slipped in stuff after the fact, and what do you know – Constitutional Recognition is on the table. Voices at Uluru weren’t heard – how ironic.
Referendum Council Final Report : https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf
Michael Mansell’s recollection of events : https://solidarity.net.au/highlights/indigenous-activists-speak-out-why-the-voice-wont-do-anything-to-end-racist-injustice/?fbclid=IwAR0MpZl38ZgMNe8YAmWzW3y83KBMHIFxzV0Q_89H0eaw8WKG3tyvU–KURs
Source:
https://m.facebook.com/groups/885335475878438/permalink/888483752230277/
Statement from the Deanbilla Goompi Declaration
“Rebutting the Voice”
The Historical Black Voice of Commonwealth Colonial Resistance
Signed by the Goompi Deanbilla Elders and Community Members
Goenpul Jandiawal statement:
…
[Excerpt]
“The Voice will legally validate Original First Nation People’s subservience to the commonwealth colonial constitutional sovereignity authority.”
Michael Mansell
Unlike true Aboriginal sovereignty, the Voice will see white people decide what is good for us while we advise them, writes Michael Mansell.
Guyala Bayles Will not Support the Voice
Guyala Bayles slammed ‘illegitimate’ government
She will not be supporting Voice to Parliament saying it will set our mob back
‘Our mob already have a voice but who’s listenin?’: Guyala Bayles’ poem on why she’s not supporting the Voice to Parliament
A senior Tiwi Islands elder has slammed the Indigenous voice to parliament and launched a stinging attack on Anthony Albanese for what he says is a failure to consult Aboriginal communities on the proposal.
Francis Xavier Kurrupuwu said Aboriginal people on the Tiwi Islands were “completely confused” due to a lack of consultation.
Wayne Thorpe
We need to have a voice about the PARLIAMENT of AUSTRALIA. I choose to maintain our soveriegn rights. Say NO to their colonial blanket.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/885335475878438/permalink/887929738952345/
Alison Kngwarre
How can we trust this government
Speaking out: Gary Foley lends his voice to the Indigenous community opposing the Voice
Greg Phillips views on the proposed voice
ULURU STATEMENT ‘FROM THE HEART OF GOVERNMENT CONTROL’
Matthew Ryan representing Maningrida community, NT, here he questions why should the discussion be confidential when it is about his People as well.
The Uluru Statement from the Heart is not a grassroots movement – it was government funded with many First Nations people not invited, many didn’t even know anything about it, and many who use English as a second language still don’t know about it.
In Matthew Ryan’s case, he wasn’t invited but turned up anyway, and excluded from the discussion. He, like many others, questioned why should the discussion be confidential. One of the many stories surrounding the Uluru Statement that was and is still covered-up by the government and mainstream media, including ABC and SBS(NITV).
https://www.facebook.com/groups/885335475878438/permalink/888478695564116/
Professor Irene Watson
Calls for constitutional change, or the Voice to Parliament, do not give me hope or confidence as to how the proposed constitutional changes will ameliorate ongoing colonial legacies.
. The idea of a Voice to Parliament will remain a tool of the Australian governments, the colonists and will not advance Aboriginal sovereignty.
– Professor Irene Watson
Tanganekald, Meintangk Boandik First Nations
Putting our Law on top-Senior Law Man Murray George
Want of Jurisdiction-Bejam Noonuccal-Denis Walker-Gathering of Nations
Bejam Noonuccal aka Denis Walker, son of Oogeroo Noonuccal (Kath Walker) uses a Tindale’s map of tribal boundaries to explain how Peoples have ‘domain and range’ and at the big ceremonies is where regional governance takes place. Bejam also creates a distinction between the Crown’s police who ‘enforce Crown law on you and genocide you’ and blakfella police in the true sense of ‘those who know the Law enough to create the peace in Country’.
He articulates ‘Oldest in time, best at law’ and Australia is a colony under an Act of the UK parliament asserting a de facto illegal sovereignty and domain
Strong Law and culture-Napanungka Nellie Patterson
Senior Law woman Napanungka Nellie Patterson gives her background of working hard to keep the Tjukurpa Law and Stories really strong for the owner people and the Earth, Munda, and encourages younger ones not to fall for the trap of “lollies, chocolate and drinks” which lure the weak ones the wrong way.
She accuses governments of killing the people and stealing everything and making her people ‘poor people’ when they should be ‘really really rich’.
Napanungka Nellie Patterson says ‘No’ to mining the land for minerals and to the APY Executive Council’s control over APY lands ‘wrong story talking’.
Our Law is really strong, really strong culture for Mother Earth and Ananou.
Our men are really strong, the women are same strong. We have to teach the young to carry on really strong….
‘Ayers Rock (Uluru) is my grandmother’s country.’
Uncle Kevin Buzacott
Transforming the Future
Recognition is for white Australia
Marbak, from the Barkendjah Nation
“They’re discussing our future behind closed doors, they haven’t invited us, the majority of Aboriginal people living in NSW and there’s 200,000 of us, don’t even know these meetings are taking place. I wasn’t invited, my son wasn’t invited either, and we’re from Dubbo.”
On the last day of the meetings, Marbak talks to the group gathered at the RSL. “I’m a fighter, a song writer, a sovereign man. I’ve lived classified as flora and fauna, I’ve lived without running water, without electricity and I had no fixed address, my father was a drover and I grew up wiping my ass with a stick,” he says before asking his friend Alan Coe (Marbk forgot his glasses), to read aloud a letter he’d written to the first people of this land.
The letter begins…
Recognition is a white word for white Australia.
The constitution of Australia is the most racist, white supremacist founding document in the world and we’re glad we’ve refused to be part of that.
This constitution is our proof that we never ceded our sovereignty to the white trespassers.
The Australian government is a signatory to the UN declaration that relates to First Nations People’s. We demand they comply with the document they signed under international law in 2009.
Without first having land rights, we can’t have human rights.
We can’t close the gap we didn’t create. We demand our land back so we can control it; our future rests on this, securing the future for our grandchildren’s children.
Vital info for all Australians
These legal instruments are fraudulent in that they say one thing and mean another. So the legal Maxim explained in the video needs to be used for mob writing declarations to Vote No etc
‘non est fatum’ in law is a plea that a written agreement is invalid because the defendant was mistaken about its character when signing it. Here it is explained by Professor Gary Lilienthal, International Constitutional Lawyer at the Sovereign Union ‘Gatheriing of Nations’ in 2016.
Gary Lilienthal co-wote the following paper:
THE AUSTRALIAN ‘SONGLINES’: SOME GLOSSES FOR RECOGNITION See: https://bit.ly/3v5GlRG
In Australia, successive governments have sought to extinguish ‘native title’, preferring English feudal socage, but not the Australian Indigenous systems of land title.
Australian governments want courts, constituted overwhelmingly by non-indigenous,lawyers, to decide land disputes as for feudal socage. Therefore, this article suggests a need to understand this attempted radical reframing of Australian Indigenous titles toland, through the convenient lens of Goffman’s frame analysis.
The research question is whether Anglo-Australian frame transformation of the Indigenous land titles into mere religion, song and art, extinguishes land title. The article tries to show that Australian indigenous land title is communal allodial title, as a bundle of subsisting rights by operation of Australian Continental Common Law, which therefore cannot be extinguished by the fraud inherent in frame transformation.
Indigenous land title is true communal allodial title, beset by a fraudulent colonial occupation, suggesting a lack of internal reason in colonial policy and administration. Successive governments have tried to frame transform the highly sophisticated and ancient indigenous legal and social system, including sophisticated celestial mapping and navigation systems, into mere religious art.
This frame transformation is reversible by epideictic rhetoric. The Indigenous system is transmitted phylogenetically, in which governance government officials can have no participation. Indigenous land title cannot be extinguished.
Suppressing Our Voice – Invite Only Process
Short video showing the way our mob are treated at these secret invite only meetings.
There is clearly no free, informed, prior consent for the Voice To Parliament and they are spreading misinformation without hesitation to bamboozle mob
Video of mob holding vote no posters
Deekay
https://www.facebook.com/groups/885335475878438/permalink/886728592405793/
Alice in Uluṟu
https://www.facebook.com/groups/885335475878438/permalink/889528315459154/
Ally posts
https://www.facebook.com/groups/885335475878438/permalink/888288205583165/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/885335475878438/permalink/886422292436423/
Veteran Gunnai activist Robbie Thorpe believes including First Nations people in the Constitution equates to “tacking us onto the back of the White Australia Policy 100 years later”.
“If we do consent to that Constitution, we’re giving up our sovereignty in a sense, and legitimizing what’s happened to us over the last two hundred years in this country,” says Mr Thorpe, a producer at Melbourne’s 3CR.
Aotearoa (New Zealand) is also in the process of reviewing its Constitution, which happens to include both a Bill of Rights and the nation’s founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi. An agreement with First Nations people and a Bill of Rights are both documents absent from Australia’s legal groundings. Two central focuses of New Zealand’s Constitutional Conversation, instigated by the Maori Party, are the role of the Treaty and Maori representation in Parliament.
First Nations philosophers Mary Graham (Kombumerri/Waka Waka) & Lilla Watson
According to Chairman of the Centre of Indigenous Cultural Policy Bob Weatherall, Constitutional recognition is yet another paternalistic government policy. “Nothing has changed,” says Mr Weatherall (Gamilaraay). “It’s just a new Act and new provision that’s being imposed on us, keeping our people down. We’ll still have the dominant society over the top of us who make laws and policies that continue to deprive us of our basic human rights and fundamental freedoms.”
In 2010, the Gillard government handpicked an ‘expert panel’ to make recommendations in regards to amending the Constitution. Palawa lawyer Michael Mansell claims the panel’s proposal to remove the race power (section 51xxvi) is redundant as they simply replace it in a new section (51a). This new section will preserve the parliament’s ability to pass laws “for the benefit” of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples [e.g. Northern Territory Intervention].
Mansell also condemns the proposed new section 127a which will confirm English as Australia’s official language and recognize Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages as part of our national heritage. He says the call “stinks of racism” and that First Nations people have “the right to maintain our languages against assimilation”.
On the other hand, you have New Zealand’s recognition of Maori as one of the nation’s three official languages, alongside English and sign language.
Gumbaynggirr university student Gabi Briggs believes this proposed amendment will make it more difficult to recuperate and revitalize First Nations’ languages. “Those on the ‘expert panel’ and in government see Aboriginal culture as secondary to the culture of the colonizers and making English the official language of Australia marginalizes our cultures once again.”
Gumbaynggirr historian Gary Foley says Constitutional recognition is a joke and a waste of time. “Government only ever pumps millions of dollars into things that are essentially meaningless, things that are designed to divert our attention from the real issues.”
Amnesty Internationals Monica Morgan (Yorta Yorta) says Constitutional recognition fails to address the issues of sovereignty and Treaty.
http://www.989fm.com.au/smashingthemyths/constitutional-recognition-is-a-good-thing/
NATIONAL: The Expert Panel’s report’s decision to bypass sovereignty and self-determination is a great failing, writes MICHAEL MANSELL*.
The Constitution is both a source and a limitation of power. It establishes Federal and State legislatures and limits each government to stay in its own yard.
It establishes the High Court to decide disputes between bickering governments.
The Constitution is the political manifesto of the nation. It is by virtue of the potency of the Constitution that recognition of Aboriginal rights must be so carefully approached.
Crafting a constitution that deals with dispossession, and political and cultural rights for Aboriginal people, while acknowledging the real purpose for the existence of the constitution, requires some intense deliberation.
The Australian constitution is no human rights document as it “was not the outcome of a revolution, or a struggle against oppression. It was designed to give effect to an agreement for a federal union, under the Crown, of the peoples of formerly self-governing British colonies”.
The constitutional charter for how white people were to govern themselves and others, pay and spend taxes, and apply British law, remains the same today as it was in 1901.
The constitution recognises parliament’s rights over people, but not people’s rights. With that in mind any recognition of Aboriginal people has to deal with power.
The 1967 referendum did precisely that but instead of power over Aborigines being handed back to Aborigines, the 1967 referendum merely transferred Aboriginal affairs from one government to another.
Recognition must naturally be advantageous to Aborigines, otherwise there is little point to the exercise.
If the constitution is to ‘recognise’ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are the views of a handful of government appointed people or the aspirations of the broader Aboriginal community to be listened to?
Take the submission by the Central Australian Aboriginal organisations to the Two Hundred Years Later enquiry (conducted in 1983 to look at the “feasibility of a Makarrata or compact with Aboriginal people).
It stated, in part: ‘We have never conceded defeat and will continue to resist this ongoing attempt to subjugate us.
“The Aboriginal people have never surrendered to the European invasion and assert that sovereignty over all of Australia lies with them.
“The settler state has been set up on Aboriginal land. We demand that the colonial settlers who have seized the land recognise this sovereignty and on that basis negotiate their rights to be there.”
Australia is vaguely familiar with freedom of speech but the concept of freedom of a people has escaped attention. For 200 years Aboriginal people have been dominated to an extraordinary degree.
The current NT intervention laws are a product of that domination. Yet Julia Gillard’s expert panel left untouched the supremacy of parliaments to decide policy and law on behalf of Aborigines.
Effectively, the expert panel legitimises the invasion of Aboriginal lands, with whites having the right to govern and Aborigines the right to be governed.
The bottom line for the panel is to promote assimilation. They make no mention of sovereignty or self determination, the two most important rights Aborigines are entitled to.
The will of the Indigenous peoples must prevail. ‘Allowing’ Aboriginals to decide their fate must be a right, not a privilege to be granted by government.
What greater statement could the people of Australia make to Aboriginal people than ‘here is your freedom!’
Expressing that freedom in the constitution binds the parliaments. Don’t hold your breath for Julia Gillard to lead the way on human rights while she watches the polls. It is for the people of Australia to place their mark on the type of society they wish to live in and be respected for.
Altering the constitution to provide for the freedom of Aboriginals to choose frees the nation of guilt for the past by taking responsibility for the present, and giving Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders a future of their choice.
By avoiding the “will of the people’ debate, the expert panel made sure the public never gets to deal with the idea of political freedom. The appropriate constitutional amendment should be, “Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders are sovereign peoples with the right of self determination”.
Those words do three things.
First, they acknowledge the sovereign status of the people of Australia before, and after, invasion.
Second, that the Indigenous peoples of Australia, like all other peoples of the world, ‘freely determine their political status’.
Third, negotiations between government and Aboriginal people are equal.
Political representation for Aboriginals would be a matter of choice too: either through an Aboriginal government (the argument that there cannot be two governments in Australia ignores the fact there are six State, two Territory and 560 local governments in addition to the Federal government) or guaranteed seats in the parliaments as is the case in New Zealand.
These type of arrangements would be authorised by the APG constitutional amendment. The authorised document might be a treaty. The date of the signing could be a new national day to replace the race-based January 26th. The expert panel recommended four changes to the constitution:
First, “an acknowledgement that the Indigenous peoples ‘occupied’ the continent and continue to connect with traditional lands.
This acknowledgement to be placed in the body of the constitution instead of in the preamble”.
Such words create no rights to sue on, nor obligation on government. The use of ‘occupation’ instead of ownership and sovereignty indicates a defeatist attitude. They also recommend removing the existing s51 race power but put race back in a new section! Somehow the panel believed its approach would stop anti-Aboriginal laws.
Their proposal is naïve. Under a different head of power, the constitution allows amendments to a law made for the benefit of a race, as was the case of the Hindmarsh Bridge case.
Protection for heritage given under Aboriginal heritage laws were taken away by an amendment. Whether a law is positive or negative is up to the parliament that makes it, not the constitution or the courts.
The third recommendation was to delete s25 which allows States to control voting based on race. The section has never been used and would be struck down by a contrary Commonwealth law even if a State ever tried to use it.
The removal of s25 might make Julia Gillard look good but it will do nothing for Aboriginal people. The fourth, and most controversial recommendation, was to make English the national language.
It is one thing to note that English is used more than Aboriginal in Australia. It is quite another to promote the superiority of the language of one race over that of another.
The call stinks of racism. It is our right to maintain our languages against assimilation.
The expert panel’s suggestion comes from a completely antiquated mind-set, but also runs counter to all the international instruments protecting Indigenous languages which Australia is signatory to, but consistently breaches.
It will serve to legitimise the long standing lack of adequate action from Australian governments to try to save Aboriginal languages.
In just over 200 years, Australian Aboriginal languages have suffered the largest and most rapid loss known worldwide.
Of the original 250 languages, over 200 are no longer spoken and only 18 are now spoken by people in all age groups – as Australia’s own Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Comissioner told the United Nations in 2010.
At this rate all Aboriginal languages could be dead in 10 to 30 years. What message does this statement by the Expert Panel give? Mick Gooda works for the Human Rights Commission.
How he can maintain the integrity of his office while endorsing English language over Aboriginal language is difficult to imagine.
The Greens forced Julia Gillard to propose constitutional reform and it might prove a good distraction from her poor record on Aboriginal affairs. She should not lead the debate. At the present, she could not sell wheat to a chook farm.
Her performance in Canberra over Tent Embassy protests did little to change opinion on her abilities as a leader, or her attitude towards Aboriginals.
Looking cowed and weak, Julia Gillard’s handling of race issues went downhill from the time her security dragged her to her car.
Not once did she later acknowledge that Aboriginal people had every reason to be angry.
Instead she praised her security and promoted Warren Mundine and Gooda, illustrating how she is willing to divide Aborigines for her own gain.
Aborigines won’t trust her to lead constitutional reform. By the way, the burning of the Australian flag is not illegal and the High Court would strike down a prosecution for burning a piece of coloured rag as a constitutional guaranteed freedom of speech.
As if to completely seal the issue, Julia Gillard’s expert panel member Mick Gooda rushed to condemn Aboriginal protestors in order to ingratiate himself with the Prime Minister. In that single foolish moment, Mick Gooda killed the constitutional changes he sought.
*Michael Mansell is a prominent Tasmanian Aboriginal lawyer and activist.
http://tracker.org.au/2012/02/guest-tracker-constitutional-report-won%E2%80%99t-right-past-wrongs/
We want peace and harmony, not all this devide and conquering
No Voice , No treaty.
The Australian Government is fraudulently locking us into a contract without any consult.
Say NO, let’s collaborate and work together.
The Tribes say no to a Indigenous Voice to Parliament and No to a Treaty, because they have not been consulted and do not want to have others making decisions for them they are not aware of. To enter anyone into a contract or agreement there must be full disclosure and informed consent, there has been no consultation with most of the Tribal people. The Aboriginal people pushing it can only speak for their own Country and not others, to do otherwise is breaking our law. The Treaty and Voice are nothing but corporate agreements and a trap for the Tribal People across these lands and we Say NO!
Elders and Lawmen and Women of the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation challenge the Prime Minister
In order for the various Australian governments to complete the fraud of unlawfully usurping the Sovereign status and authority of the Original Tribes of this island continent it requires the icing on the cake of a constitutional inclusion which it will be claimed has the effect of skull-dragging the Tribes under the jurisdiction of the parliaments of the Commonwealth and the various states and territories.
Dissimulatione tollitur injuria – is a term not many would be aware of – it is a legal maxim which when translated says that “Injury is wiped out by reconciliation”.
It is easy therefore to comprehend the true meaning behind John Howard’s smug quip that he supports ‘practical reconciliation’.
In a press release dated `9th August 2010, ANTaR’s president, Janet Hunt states that:
“Australia’s Constitution includes no reference to the unique place, history and rights of Indigenous peoples in our nation”.
The reason the Constitution does not include a reference to Our ‘unique place, history and rights’ is because the Constitution does not and was never meant to have any authority in respect of the Original Tribes.
Ms hunt continues,
“It (the Constitution) also offers no protection against racial discrimination, and it has been interpreted as enabling governments to legislate to the detriment of Indigenous peoples”.
For once someone has stated the truth (although possibly unintentionally) about the misinterpretation of the Constitution and its’ relevance to the Original Tribes, as when first created, the ‘Constitution’ held at Section 51.26 that the Commonwealth could make laws for anyone other than for people of the ‘Aboriginal race’. This being due to the fact that the Sovereign status of the Original Sovereign Tribes had been ensured 25 years previously in the Pacific Islander Protection Act Amendment of ~2nd August 1875 Sections 6 and 7.
Further, the Sovereignty of the parliament of the Original Tribes could not be usurped by the Sovereignty of the Parliament of the UK. This rule applies equally for Aotearoa (New Zealand) and other Pacific jurisdictions, (Halsbury 3rd Edition, volume 36-statutes paragraph 559 at page 337 of that volume).
The Constitution has indeed been INTERPRETED as enabling governments to legislate to the detriment of indigenous peoples. However this misinterpreted claim of right has been erroneously and apparently intentionally assumed by various governments for the criminal benefit of corporate greed.
The Original Sovereign Tribal Federation is the voice of many Tribes across this continent, with Our membership growing daily, and we put the Commonwealth, states and territories on Notice that We intend to be taken seriously in Our stand on Our status as the True blood-line connected, Lodial title holding Sovereigns on this content.
The Original Sovereign Tribal Federation challenges the Prime Minister (an office not found ANYWHERE in the boundary of the Constitution by the way) to come and sit in circle with Our Elders and Lawmen and Women to negotiate to create a better way forward. We know we can do it – Where is the Crowns representative?
Gary Simon Jagamarra & Gunham Badi Jagamarra (Mark McMurtrie)
Co-Convenors and Secretariat
Original Sovereign Tribal Federation (OSTF)
An example of submission submitted: As a Goori from the Biripai Thungutti Marrawon more commonly known today as Hastings & Macleay valleys of Mid North Coast NSW, In relation to the submission to The Panel on Indigenous Constitutional Recognition- submit the following: Any recognition for Aboriginal people must: Acknowledge Aboriginal people as Sovereign owners of Australia as the First Nations of the land to ensure human rights are not comprimised by any acknowledgement. Ensure that any rights for the 1st Nations of Australia meet as minimum the standards established in Canada, NZ & USA as fellow British penal colonies of parlimentary representation, recompense for loss and trauma sufferred establishing Australia
Rules of contracts are very specific, those contracting must have capacity ( knowledge & education pertaining to all aspects) and with that a fair and equal meeting of the minds!
As a fraudulent corporation they only serve themselves and their fellow thieves, they serve no people!
Why should the Indigenous or the rest of the people keep bowing to a Monarch that has no legal claim upon this Country….and be subjected to a Constitution that we don’t even own…..
The Constitution was a Document that was forged by the British to appease the people at the time here because Britain knew they were about to lose this Country the same as the Americas
Time to Claim Sovereignty and rewrite another Constitution and a Bill of Rights – David Grayson
As has been stated, they rely on unlawful admiralty law, the law of contracts. Rules of contracts are very specific, those contracting must have capacity ( knowledge & education pertaining to all aspects) and with that a fair and equal meeting of the minds! If one party is larger, more knowledge ie; a corporation masquerading as a government that party holds a fiduciary responsibility to protect and hold harmless the lesser party? In short all contracts with them are invalid, unconscionable and unenforceable technically! Apart from there being no constitution, having no Sovereign rights to form Government they continue outside their own rules and any international rules pertaining to settlement or occupation! As a fraudulent corporation they only serve themselves and their fellow thieves, they serve no people!
Mr Anderson spokesperson of the Sovereign Tribal Union, wrote that Australia shows it doesn’t have a mature capacity to articulate foreign policy under international law.
” … Australia clearly fails to articulate sound social justice policies, but rather confronts First Nations people under the original ‘rules and disciplines of war’ and thereby applies rules of a police state as a methodology to continually confront Aboriginal people around this country. Statistics of the imprisonment and arrest rates is clear evidence attesting to these police actions.”
Australia is a colonial power with a constitution which is an Act of the British parliament; Australia in breach of UN Conventions and fails to comply with treaty body procedures; and Australia still has no effective law against genocide.
Australia is a country that constantly violates international treaties in respect to its human rights abuses within its own borders, as recorded in the many submissions to UN treaty bodies on the treatment of First Nations Peoples and refugees.
Furthermore, Australia’s colonial mindset is exemplified in its attitude towards the imprisonment of Aboriginal people. We are but 3% of the population but the imprisonment rate is increasing. The imprisonment of Aboriginal women is up by 60% between 2000 and 2010. We are alarmed by the way Australia criminalises ‘otherness’.
No permission to use Uluṟu Name
https://www.facebook.com/groups/885335475878438/permalink/886340779111241/
The State Treaty Process Can’t Be Trusted
Did you hear it stated this is nothing to do with the voice?
Hmmmmm I beg to differ
The Uluru Statement proposes three key elements for sequential reform:”Voice, Treaty, Truth”.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/what-is-the-uluru-statement-from-the-heart-20190523-p51qlj.html
The Uluru statement was not written by blackfellas at Uluru it was written by “non-Indigenous “constitutional conservatives””.
Vote ‘NO’ To Constitutional Change broke a story highlighting 5 key areas of the Statement that was outrageous and generally culturally insulting. 2nd point in particular was noted by one of our administrators who raised a concern that the statement “hands over our kids culture which is inclusive of land and spiritual as a gift to the colonial Government.” https://www.facebook.com/VotenoToConstitutionalChange/photos/a.353446334725850.77935.350355421701608/1480557095348096/?type=3&theater
The language in the Document Statement is carefully crafted by non-Indigenous expertise to disguise the fact that Aboriginal People are not getting rights and all culture and land is being handed over to the Government as a ‘gift’.
Furthermore “The Uluru statement did not endorse inserting any kind of constitutional clause banning racial discrimination, a clause that previous inquiries had recommended.” https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2017/06/03/the-making-the-uluru-statement/14964120004739
If Delegates at the meeting were not aware that they endorsed the full handover of culture and land as a gift to the Australian Government then the whole Uluru Statement from the Heart is clearly Null and Void.
Original post:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/885335475878438/permalink/892843338460985/
Blood money: Why mining giants are backing an Indigenous Voice to Parliament
Warning: post contains images of elders no longer with us, across the seas
For the past 500 years every Pope of the Catholic Church has ignored repeated requests to rescind doctrines which grant the authority to essentially kill, enslave and confiscate the land of Indigenous People who do not accept Catholic religion and remain so called “pagan /heathens” from having other faiths.
With all due respect this is not to say that Catholic’s agree with these doctrines, as many do not even know they exist. As Grandmother Agnes Baker Pilgrims says so clearly, “ No one is even alive today that had anything to do with the creation of these Doctrines.”
“Unfortunately, relationships between nation-states and tribal peoples in the Americas, Africa, and Oceania rests on the the doctrines that can be traced directly to three papal bulls: Dum Diversas (June 18, 1452). Romanus Pontifex, January 8, 1455. and Inter Castera, May 4, 1493. These papal bulls gave dominion to Europeans over lands that our tribal nations have occupied for thousands of years, and the outright theft of entire continents from our indigenous people worldwide. It has been over 500 years since these papal bulls were written, yet they remain the spiritual, legal, and moral foundation for exercising jurisdiction over tribal people by nation states today.” Grandmother Long wrote
Grandmother Long asked Pope Benedict “to remove these Papal Bulls. An act like this would create a global healing of all the injustices suffered by indigenous people . . .and could also bring healing to those who committed these injustices.” (there is a mystical sense of healing all generations, past as well as present and future).
Queen Should Pay
First in Time – Possum Skin Declartion
Mark McMurtrie
https://www.facebook.com/groups/885335475878438/permalink/898803151198337/
Alice Haines
https://m.facebook.com/groups/885335475878438/permalink/898412191237433/
Noonkanbah Declaration
https://m.facebook.com/groups/885335475878438/permalink/898377001240952/
Kaiyu Bayles Declaration of Sovereignty to Queen
Kaiyu Bayles Declaration Persona Non Grata
Deanbilla Goompi Declaration
Want of jurisdiction uncle Bejam Noonuccal
https://www.facebook.com/groups/885335475878438/permalink/892888851789767/
Barunga Statement
https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/barunga-statement
How to get Sovereignty recognised in 3 steps
Sovereign Union
We have the right to free ourselves from tyranny and oppression. We have the right to our own identity and nationality. We have the right to determine freely our own economy. We have the right to determine our own political affiliations and governance. We have the right to own all our the natural resources on and within our lands and waters.
By 1983, the NAC had concluded that the Commonwealth of Australia was merely a colonial state with the status of self-government and that they ruled in right of the Crown of Britain only. Having drawn this conclusion, the NAC then agreed to send a formal political diplomatic delegation to four key African Nations. The media briefly reported this diplomatic mission, which included former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, as Australia’s leading non-Aboriginal statesman, Ossie Cruse, as the elected NAC diplomat, and myself as his Advisor and Director of treaty research. This delegation ensured a high-level status for this mission, which made it possible for us to meet with joint parliamentary committees on foreign affairs in Nigeria and the Nigerian Vice-President, in the absence of the President. The high level diplomatic mission also met with President Nyerere of Tanzania and the President of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe. Later we met with the foreign minister of Kenya and had formal meetings, whilst in transit, with government officials of India and with leading government officials of Saudi Arabia who hosted us at the Riyadh international airport.
It is also important to acknowledge that this high level diplomatic mission concluded with us meeting with the full plenary session of World Council of Churches in Geneva, where we addressed them about our issues and later with the lawyers and the head of the International Labor organisation (ILO).
The media portrayed this diplomatic mission as a campaign to have the African nations boycott the looming Commonwealth Games in Brisbane. This was fake news and so far from the truth. Our endeavours were to inform these former British colonies of the NAC Treaty negotiations and to gain their support in ensuring an international oversight of our negotiations by having the Commonwealth Heads of Government (CHOGM) establish special observers of the Treaty process.
Today we are in a much lesser position than the NAC was in 1983. Negotiations are not being established from a position of strength, but rather from a deficit position, which is depicted by the Uluru Statement when they say we are powerless.
The overall conclusion of the NAC, at that time, was the realisation that it was Britain we should have been negotiating with and not the colonial authorities of Australia.
VOTING NO ON THE VOICE TO PARLIAMENT – FACTS!
“We recognise that this land and its waters were settled as colonies without treaty or consent.”
Prime Minister John Howard, 11 May 2000
The High Court recognises the inherent Aboriginal sovereignty does not result from grant by the Australian Constitution or any other settler document or institution, it does not require recognition by a government or court in order to activate it. The legitimacy of the Australian nation’s sovereignty depends upon Indigenous people’s acceptance of the Australian Constitution.
In Australia, the High Court has been less inclined to explore the issue, despite occasional invitations. Asking the Court an international law question of whether the Crown in Australia validly holds sovereignty over the continent in the external sense of the word does raise difficulties. The authority of the High Court is derived from the Australian Constitution. Asking the Court to question Crown sovereignty requires it to question it own legitimacy. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Court has refused to examine the question, stating it is a ‘non-justiciable’ issue for Australia’s domestic courts.
Aboriginal sovereignty is pitted against the existing system. Aboriginal sovereignty becomes an oppositional force. It becomes a threat to territorial integrity; to system of government as Australia the country it’s self is a sovereign country with the oldest surviving civilization in the world who still hold their sovereignty and LORE. Due to no treaty being signed.
Questions to ask oneself as an Aboriginal person, the traditional owners and custodian of this land from the oldest civilization in the world dating 65,000 years will I acknowledge and accept the Australian constitution? Freely rejecting Aboriginal Sovereignty, Lore and ownership of Australia.
As a non indigenous person you must ask yourself whether you will be an enabler of the disposition, opposition and oppression of the traditional owners and custodian right to their Sovereignty, Lore, customs, clans, tribes and nations within their homelands of Australia.
Learn more Sydney Law review
Kaiyu Bayles Crown Put On Notice
The crown put on notice – Illegal government to cease and desist oppressing First Nations people.
The Crown and it’s representatives of Australia, you have officially been put on notice as alien and unwelcome (persona non grata).
Please be advised that by continuing the harm you, the government, the crown and all their agents inflict on the Original People of the land mass commonly known today as Australia, you are in fact directly guilty of the tort of misfeasance in your position as a public official acting on and behalf of the Crown Corporation of London.
– The tort of misfeasance is where a “public officer” misuses his authority knowing it will cause a loss harm or damage to men and women
There is no Agreement or Covenant, Land Sale Receipt or any Document of Consent between the Commonwealth & Australia and any of the Tribal Nations of the south that justifies the theft of our sovereignty, lands & benefits from our natural resources.
This government and previous governments continually created legislations and policies, excluding & discriminating against the true Sovereigns of these lands. When the Sovereigns of these lands clearly are not Australian Citizens in any way form or fashion. These laws have led to the devastation of our Culture & Governance practices & are causing havoc.
The legacy of theft, murder & destruction, crime & injustice imposed upon the Original People incurred by Non-Sovereign British Australian governments within these lands continues to go unaddressed, our aim is to address these crimes against the Original Sovereigns under Common Law, Natural Law, Spiritual Law or another Law system in our lands.
The General Assembly of the United Nations – if that very expensive body is worthy of any respect whatsoever – for the first time rectify the gross, glaringly obvious human rights abuses of some of its most respected, ‘democratic’ Member States by:
Establishing an International Tribunal to investigate, with a view to the confirmation of the allegations contained in this article and as a result have all Australian (New Zealand and Canadian) governments at all levels declared invalid under plain and long established international law.
To establish within those countries International Criminal Tribunals to prosecute individuals who have aided and abetted the continuing breach of international law through the application of United Kingdom law within the territories of these sovereign and independent nation states.
To initiate and maintain procedures necessary to ensure the security of people residing (both individually and collectively) within the territories of those countries up to and until the successful implementation of constitutions agreed upon by way of plebiscites conducted amongst ALL mature peoples of those countries.
And to declare the representatives of Australia, New Zealand and Canada in the United Nations General Assembly to be persona non grata until such time as representatives are nominated by the governments of Australia, New Zealand and Canada which validly represent the sovereignty of their peoples.
-Persona Non Grata
(Latin) an unwelcome person. A diplomat who is no longer welcome to the government to which he is accredited.
We hope to address and begin to remedy the many issues of past acknowledging the Truth (& Reconciliation process), with proper governance, consultation and negotiation we may be able to stop the ongoing deceptions & injustices imposed upon the First People of these lands & survive the systemic genocide practices imposed.
The Australian Constitution is not a legitimate document & any Recognition of the First People within this document will still be illegitimate. On the subject of Treaty between the British Australian government & Sovereigns of these lands cannot occur due to the fact that Australia is a Non-Sovereign Country as I understand we cannot Treaty with non-Sovereigns.
As the Original Inhabitants of this land mass, we are not consulted appropriately concerning laws applied to our Mother Earth, ‘We do not own the Land, we are of the Land!” first & foremost, We reject Australian Government Native Title Agreements & every illegal transaction over Our Lands, our lands & Spirituality cannot be governed by non-Sovereign foreigners. In addition we reject British Law, Admiralty Law, Corporate Law, the Aboriginal label that binds our people to Australian & British legislations as breach to Gods Law “abide by the laws of the lands”.
Particularly when Justice for the Sovereigns of these lands has been overlooked and ignored by the powers that be, until True Justice & Reparations crimes & criminals will continue to go unpunished causing further imbalance, inequality & disharmony within our lands.
We trust you will do all in your power to cease and desist the illegal practice of forcibly removing children and entire communities from their homelands, imposing inhumane laws, policies and conditions on the Original Tribes of the lands commonly known as Australia.
“Let me assure anybody who cares for the Aboriginal people of Australia that once we are moved from our place of origin, we will not only lose our identity, we will die a traumatised tragic end. We must stop this, and we must remain on our country. It’s not [simply] attachment to the land, it’s survival of a cultural practice that is still alive in spite of what has been thrown at it.” A woman from the Northern Territory town of Elliot
Amnesty International Report (2011): Aboriginal Peoples’ right to homelands found that:
…These policy initiatives fall below international human rights standards, in particular the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Central to the declaration are the rights of Indigenous peoples to own, live on and develop their lands; to consultation and free, prior and informed consent; and to culture.
Please be advised you have now been officially notified and further action will be taken if there is no improvement in human rights standards here in Australia.
A class action has already begun to demand justice for the theft of land, human rights abuses and ongoing discriminatory practices, policies and legislations.
Looking forward to hearing back from you at your earliest convenience.
Regards,
Kaiyu Moura
Good News!!!!
We now have somewhere to share all the creations from out bush
Shop Online: http://redblackyellowshop.com.au/
If you love what we do, why not buy us a coffee n help us help community
We’re volunteering our time to keep you up to date n ahead of the game. Work with us to continue doing what nobody else can, shout us a coffee please if you appreciate our work and want to see more from us.
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/FreeRangeKaiyu
Humanise Decolonise Indigenise To Thrive
Our Latest Blog Posts
We are not supported by subscribers or any contributions of any type and can no longer continue without support. We have achieved all this without running water or a reliable power source. Volunteering our time over the last 10 years, mainly Kaiyu Bayles the site owner
Teamwork makes the dream work
NB if you would like a limited edition necklace or bracelet, please email me your postal address where we can send it at kaiyubayles@protonmail.com Once you’ve made the contribution via link above
#1MobRising
Creator – https://linktr.ee/KaiyuBayles
Our story out bush in pictures – https://www.facebook.com/groups/673179429790935/mediahttps://www.facebook.com/groups/673179429790935/media
Our Journey So far – Videos
Marrukakilikan – Thriving Back On Country
Marrukakilikan – one who is in a state of wellbeing, happiness, or one who is patient if in adversity. In my mother’s language, Gringai of the hunter valley.
After over 150 years of our families living in cities or towns since invasion, we want to grow our kids up on their ancestral land. We know the negative affects of western diet and lifestyle are creating cycles of suffering and have experience a huge amount of grief and loss because of this. We want better for our kids, we want them to know what being healthy is and we want them to learn how to break the cycles that plague our communities.
Even current research clearly shows living on country, eating a traditional diet and practising your culture improves wellbeing
Coming from Redfern, inner city Sydney and surviving all sorts of adversity ourselves, we hope by creating videos of our journey we’ll show other city dwelling mob that its still possible to go back to the old ways. If I can do it anyone can.
We would like to teach our children how to live a long happy life, as free of the worries of the western world as possible. To create a space where we can revive our old ways n thrive again as we did before the boats came. By 2022 we hope to set up bush school where they learn to grow, hunt n heal as well as the basics in bushcrafts.
Here we will share videos, photos and information about our journey. Hoping other families who are interested, get inspired and spark more fires of change in their communities.
To see ‘Our journey so far‘, checkout our album
If you have time have a listen to this interview i did with Professor Kerin O’Dae who did a trial taking blackfullas back to the bush.
In just seven weeks eating bushtucker, mob who returned to the bush from the city lost weight and all their health markers (insulin resistance, blood pressure, cholesterol levels) normalised.
Decolonise Your Diet- https://989fm.com.au/podc…/decolonise-your-diet-episode-7/
The family have been very blessed to meet and learn from some special people, we learnt NLP back in the 80’s from the Australian pioneer Neville Yomans, we have experienced the long lasting and life changing effects of using holotropic breathwork and Quantum bioresonance. With mum being one of the first First Nation Naturopaths in Australia, we have been raised using natural medicines and have kept up to date with alot of the latest natural breakthrough products and modalities. We do not give health advice, just sharing what we know works best for us after 40 years of relying on natural medicines
Our Philosophy – 2 Way Strong
We want our children to not just grow up strong in our culture and the new ways, but to thrive with the best of both worlds.
Heres our secrets and tips to really thrive in this mess no matter where you are
The Most Powerful Frequencies In The World
https://rolls.bublup.com/HoloTechSourceDirectives/HoloTech
https://blackoxygenorganics.com/science/151620501
Same Tech As Med Beds Available For Everyone Now!
To book a heavily discounted session today, hit the link at the bottom of the screen and Kaiyu will be in touch to book your session.
You can also set up a subscription to have wellbeing sessions done with you weekly or monthly. See options at end of page
Distant Healing And The Science
And if ur wondering how this can work remotely this might answer ur questions The science behind non local healing is “quantum entanglement”. I’ve done remote non local healing for 30+ years. With wave particle duality time & distance are non factors. Eileen Day Mckusick on How Distance Healing Works
Distant Healing Intention Therapies: An Overview of the Scientific Evidence “The “nonlocal” connections of quantum entanglement have been convincingly demonstrated,20,44–46 establishing that instant physical correlations over macroscopic distances, as well as connections that transcend time, are no longer startling theoretical possibilities but empirical facts.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4654780/
How do the frequencies in the Genius work?
The sophisticated and proprietary voice engine software in the Genius Insight assesses many qualities of your voice. It then converts that information to a wave form that can be further interpreted by the Genius Insight as frequency. This frequency is compared to various Hz frequencies in the Genius. These frequencies range from 0-10,000 Hz. A working knowledge of the coherent frequencies of organs, chakras, meridians and other known frequencies is then used to program the frequencies stored within the Genius and used in the various panels.
How do I know the information is accurate?
Biofeedback is not a diagnostic tool for an medical condition or disease. Its only function is to identify where there is reactivity in the energy field, and then feed back frequencies that can assist in clearing the reactivity. Think of this as trying to tune into a radio station but you hear static. The role of biofeedback is to clear the static so that your frequency comes in loud and clear. The experience of reducing reactivity often results in experiencing more vitality, more energy, more clarity of mind, etc.
The Genius Insight Technology
What can I expect?
When running your first biofeedback session, you often begin to move energies that have been stuck for a long time. It is natural to feel a little tired after your first session and then very refreshed within a short time. You may even notice a perceptible lift in your energy and vitality over the next week. A good amount of time to run a session is 15 minutes per day. It’s recommended to drink at least 8 ounces of water after a session.
Who developed the Genius Insight? The Genius Insight was developed by Ryan Williams along with his team at Insight Health Apps. Ryan has been in the world of quantum biofeedback for over 20 years. He had the vision to see that an application based software, one that did not need bulky wires and boxes, could help more people access this exciting technology at a considerably lower price point. He was able to bring together developers in this industry who assisted him in creating the Genius. Ryan, a South African native, now lives and works in beautiful Carpinteria, California.
For a decade we have maintained the website and over 10 pages and groups on social media unassisted. If you appreciate the big stories, digs and urgent actions we get out please support our work, subscribe by hitting the black button or donate here –
In these days especially out bush, a little goes a long way, so please dig deep and share.
Thank u and love u all in advance
Kaiyu and the tribe our bush 🖤💛❤️🔥🙏🏾✨✨✨
Creator – Kaiyu Bayles Link Tree
Our Journey So Far
Marrukakilikan – one who is in a state of wellbeing, happiness, or one who is patient if in adversity. In my mother’s language, Gringai of the hunter valley.
thrivalinternational 