The grassroots complaints on the Referendum Council Convention processes

The Referendum Council on an unlimited budget have deliberately mesmerized the First Nations delegates in a glamour environment to coerce them into agreeing
The Referendum Council have deliberately mesmerized the First Nations delegates in a glamour environment to coerce them into agreeing to an ambiguous outline of what they want and thus allowing the council virtually a freehand in the delivery of the final report to government.

The political confrontation that occurred at the National Convention was caused by the very apparent stacking of the meeting by the organisers (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Studies, AIATSIS), no doubt supported by the Referendum Council with a budget of over $800 million.

What was visually clear during the whole process was the apparent divide between members of the Referendum Council.

For some of the elected delegates it was clear that when they were talking about issues that were not supportive of the Referendum Council's ambitions, Noel Pearson and/or Pat Anderson were constantly leaving the meeting to have counsel with Mark Leibler, the Zionist Co-chair of the Referendum Council. It became clear that he is the puppet-master ... to manufacture the appearance of consent to constitutional reform for First Nations Peoples to be assimilated into the colonial constitution of the occupying power.

  

1. Matthew Ryan representing Maningrida, NT, community questions why should the discussion be confidential when it is about his People as well. they didn't come to watch TV!
2. Viv Malo, Kimberley Gooniyandi radio journalist expresses her frustration at not being allowed to even report on such an important convention, which affects all First Nations Peoples.

  

3. Robbie Thorpe, an elected delegate is disgusted at the Referendum Council's processes & shares that the gift passed on to younger generations is 'sovereignty never ceded'.
4.Gwenda Stanley, Gomeroi, an elected delegate brings a message of 'No Consent' and criticises the invitation-only process at the 12 Regional meetings.
5. Chris Tomlins, Aranda, reminds the press of the nuclear threat from Pine Gap near Alice Springs.

  

6. Owen Torres articulates the growing understanding that the Commonwealth of Australia does not have legal standing in the international community of Nations
7. On 24 May 2017 by the campfire, Griller, articulates some of the fatally flawed processes of the Referendum Council. This followed by a very apt song by Stephen Albert.
8. Over 30 elected delegates shocked the Referendum Council meeting when they WALKED OUT over the deceitful 'manufacturing of consent' that was taking place before their eyes.

  

9. After his first pro-Referendum speech, Phillip Wilykuna came back to say how his people really know nothing about the process and need proper interpretation into their own languages and need more time.
10. Over 30 elected delegates shocked the Referendum Council meeting at Yulara when they WALKED OUT over the deceitful 'manufacturing of consent' that was taking place before their eyes.
11. On 23 May 2017, after the highly significant Walkout of over 30 elected delegates and observers from the Referendum Council's National Convention, the Referendum Council called a press conference to say only a few had walked out.

  

12. Gracelyn Smallwood is Professor of Nursing at Central Queensland Uni and Adjunct Professor at the Division of Tropical Health & Medicine at James Cook Uni, Qld & believes in demonstrations.
13.Perfecting Trickery: Referendum Council
On his return from Uluru, Ghillar details the rigged processes, trickery, of the Referendum Council’s National Convention and the subsequent media spin.
14. On 27 May 2017 Ghillar, Michael Anderson, reflects of the impact of the Referendum Council's agenda and trickery on First Nations Law & culture of this island continent.

  

15. In reality what did not take place at the Referendum Council Convention at Yulara/Uluru was proper discussion on the two primary questions:1)Which way are we to go? & 2)What are our choices, our pathways?
16."Noel Pearson could only present one pathway – be in the constitution first, then talk about Treaty/Treaties, but that is wrong legal advice, because as soon as First Nations Peoples become constitutionally recognised by a Constitutional head of power, it can be argued that the Convention at Uluru consented to be governed as Australian citizens. If this were successful and the outcome of anything going forward, then there can no longer be sovereign treaties, only domestic treaties, controlled by the existing colonial laws of Commonwealth and State governments." Ghillar, Michael Anderson, 30 May 2017
17.In a plenary session the elected delegates were totally frustrated at not being afforded the right to discuss in whole matters they were mandated with & the stifling of those voices by the organisers resulted in the walkout of more than 30 delegates and observers. This walkout could have been avoided had here been provisions for open discussion in the plenary sessions on the issues discussed at he Regional Dialogues.

  

18.Driving across the Central Desert on 27 May 2017 Ghillar, Michael Anderson, relays the continuing strength of First Nations Law and Culture.
19. Critique by Ghillar of wrong legal advice from two law professors on Referendum outcomes in lead-up to the Referendum Council meeting at Uluru 24-26 May 2017
20. Tjilpi (Senior Lawmen), Wati (Lawmen) and Pompa (Law Women) now speak about how the authority of the Tjukurpa Law is what gives the sovereign Peoples & Nations dominion, in the absolute sense, over their Lands and Territories. Whiteman law is an imposed law and they no longer accept that the whiteman law is to prevail on or within their Country.