Problematic aspects: [1] The "design" publication has no legal standing, not now, and possibly never. It comprises only one non-official, pretentious entity's assertions. Where it assets that [the voIce] "will", its authors purport to direct matters which its authors have no authority over except that publication's own contents. [2] Re "The report says, “Each Local & Regional Voice will be different but all will be community-designed and led." This appears to be problematic, or indeed absurd, because a "community-led" entity by definition has no designated leadership other than its communal, joint decision-making, presumable somewhat akin to Athenian pure democracy, except perhaps for the addition of all women and youth down to an unspecified age. The authors on the one hand claim that 'local and regional' entities 'will' decide their own 'structure' and 'population', but on the other hand they 'will' [A] "be community-designed and led.", and [B] have 'gender balance'. [3] The Report's 'gender balance' proposal is completely vacuous due to the operation of the 2013 'transgender' amendment to the Sex Deiscrimination Act. [4] Re "The National Voice and the 35 Voice Districts are to operate as an intertwined whole with links to and from the National and District Voices.", as well as “Each Local & Regional Voice will be different but all will be community-designed and led.", does that mean that the 'National Voice' will be 'intertwined' with the whole of each 'local and regional' "community-led" voice assembly? [5] The so-called "report" purports to establish its authors' centralised control of an independent fourth arm of constitutionally-authorised Government at the national level, and not necessarily respectful of, or restricted by, the laws of the otherwise-sovereign states. [6] Incidentally, [i] the Calma-Langton report includes two legal terms which trigger legally-potent protections of "procedural fairness", namely 'obligations' on the rest of government towards 'the voice', and 'legitimate expections' of 'the voice' for procedural fairness; and [ii] where the proposal in the Act for the referendum says 'the voice may make representations ...", in Australian Administrative Law, "may" does NOT mean "may", it means "must". [Finance Faciities v Tax Comm HCA case 1971 127 CLR 106 refers.]
Thank you for this summary and insights. The First Nations people I'm connected with are ALL emphatically against the 'voice'. They identify:
~ lack of proper consultation
~ lack of proper representation in the process
~ obfuscation and manipulation of vital info
~ govt/bureaucratic inability/refusal to address concerns or even respond to questions - despite some of these being tabled via FOI requests
In my region, the govt wanted to arrange a land grab, so they imported non-locals who then claimed to have traditional connections to the land - even trying to obliterate the local language and people as fictional. These intruders made a deal with the govt - who then went ahead with the land takeover. The original tribe took the govt to court, and have proved in court this was a fraudulent act. But the govt has proceeded regardless. This is now being pursued at International Criminal Court.
The activity and promotion around the 'voice' mirrors this weasel logic.
Currently, there are many first nations people who actually have NO IDEA this thing is happening. There is NO voice for them: the antithesis of what this movement claims to be. And the network across the tribes shows frustration that the majority of them have been sold out by the few who are happy to take the money, make some noise, and profit from the lies.
Thanks for this background. I think it important to understand the Voice proposal from the practical perspective of indigenous people themselves and the diversity of views and experiences that exist in indigenous communities. The idea that they are all of one view doesn't fit what we know of human behaviour.
Essentially, yes. And for as long as the 'official' narrative is driven by fanatical biased promotion that excludes the diversity of voices, needs, views, and visions of the 300+ first nations tribes - those fanatics are promoting a lie - and therefore must be called out for it, and their version rejected.
I assume you''re aware of 'black cladding.' I was 'invited' to be involved in such an exercise but chose to politely stay out of it. Serious scamming gong on!!!
Yes, Ken. Thanks for highlighting this. Something many - even with the First Nations communities - have not known.
Thank you for your integrity in declining.
I am still in the phases of naivety where I get shocked by such goings-on.
I am connected with some First Nations folks who are themselves networking across most of the tribes' elders. They assure: "no" is the predominant sentiment for the 'v*ice", and that they are aware:
~ the average Australian has good intentions, feels bad about the past but, through ignorance, are being manipulated into thinking "yes" will make things better. They don't know that most First Nations were not consulted - or are being misrepresented and railroaded just as much as everyone else
~ their priority is to reassure everyone, to come together in unity, where everyone's input and needs are valued - regardless of race, gender, ideology - as Australians - and to build a prosperous future for all
~ to achieve this, they feel the first, vital step is to educate the uninformed
~ towards this goal, they are currently developing info material and an awareness campaign
Problematic aspects: [1] The "design" publication has no legal standing, not now, and possibly never. It comprises only one non-official, pretentious entity's assertions. Where it assets that [the voIce] "will", its authors purport to direct matters which its authors have no authority over except that publication's own contents. [2] Re "The report says, “Each Local & Regional Voice will be different but all will be community-designed and led." This appears to be problematic, or indeed absurd, because a "community-led" entity by definition has no designated leadership other than its communal, joint decision-making, presumable somewhat akin to Athenian pure democracy, except perhaps for the addition of all women and youth down to an unspecified age. The authors on the one hand claim that 'local and regional' entities 'will' decide their own 'structure' and 'population', but on the other hand they 'will' [A] "be community-designed and led.", and [B] have 'gender balance'. [3] The Report's 'gender balance' proposal is completely vacuous due to the operation of the 2013 'transgender' amendment to the Sex Deiscrimination Act. [4] Re "The National Voice and the 35 Voice Districts are to operate as an intertwined whole with links to and from the National and District Voices.", as well as “Each Local & Regional Voice will be different but all will be community-designed and led.", does that mean that the 'National Voice' will be 'intertwined' with the whole of each 'local and regional' "community-led" voice assembly? [5] The so-called "report" purports to establish its authors' centralised control of an independent fourth arm of constitutionally-authorised Government at the national level, and not necessarily respectful of, or restricted by, the laws of the otherwise-sovereign states. [6] Incidentally, [i] the Calma-Langton report includes two legal terms which trigger legally-potent protections of "procedural fairness", namely 'obligations' on the rest of government towards 'the voice', and 'legitimate expections' of 'the voice' for procedural fairness; and [ii] where the proposal in the Act for the referendum says 'the voice may make representations ...", in Australian Administrative Law, "may" does NOT mean "may", it means "must". [Finance Faciities v Tax Comm HCA case 1971 127 CLR 106 refers.]
Thank you for this summary and insights. The First Nations people I'm connected with are ALL emphatically against the 'voice'. They identify:
~ lack of proper consultation
~ lack of proper representation in the process
~ obfuscation and manipulation of vital info
~ govt/bureaucratic inability/refusal to address concerns or even respond to questions - despite some of these being tabled via FOI requests
In my region, the govt wanted to arrange a land grab, so they imported non-locals who then claimed to have traditional connections to the land - even trying to obliterate the local language and people as fictional. These intruders made a deal with the govt - who then went ahead with the land takeover. The original tribe took the govt to court, and have proved in court this was a fraudulent act. But the govt has proceeded regardless. This is now being pursued at International Criminal Court.
The activity and promotion around the 'voice' mirrors this weasel logic.
Currently, there are many first nations people who actually have NO IDEA this thing is happening. There is NO voice for them: the antithesis of what this movement claims to be. And the network across the tribes shows frustration that the majority of them have been sold out by the few who are happy to take the money, make some noise, and profit from the lies.
It's a disingenuous, manipulative power grab.
Thanks for this background. I think it important to understand the Voice proposal from the practical perspective of indigenous people themselves and the diversity of views and experiences that exist in indigenous communities. The idea that they are all of one view doesn't fit what we know of human behaviour.
Essentially, yes. And for as long as the 'official' narrative is driven by fanatical biased promotion that excludes the diversity of voices, needs, views, and visions of the 300+ first nations tribes - those fanatics are promoting a lie - and therefore must be called out for it, and their version rejected.
I assume you''re aware of 'black cladding.' I was 'invited' to be involved in such an exercise but chose to politely stay out of it. Serious scamming gong on!!!
Yes, Ken. Thanks for highlighting this. Something many - even with the First Nations communities - have not known.
Thank you for your integrity in declining.
I am still in the phases of naivety where I get shocked by such goings-on.
I am connected with some First Nations folks who are themselves networking across most of the tribes' elders. They assure: "no" is the predominant sentiment for the 'v*ice", and that they are aware:
~ the average Australian has good intentions, feels bad about the past but, through ignorance, are being manipulated into thinking "yes" will make things better. They don't know that most First Nations were not consulted - or are being misrepresented and railroaded just as much as everyone else
~ their priority is to reassure everyone, to come together in unity, where everyone's input and needs are valued - regardless of race, gender, ideology - as Australians - and to build a prosperous future for all
~ to achieve this, they feel the first, vital step is to educate the uninformed
~ towards this goal, they are currently developing info material and an awareness campaign