Just to be clear, I’m not ‘attacking’ the Sovereign Union or Michael Anderson here. I am just confused.
This post I will focus on the alleged doctoring of text – but there are other problems with this article.
As for the original article – TL;DR – Michael Anderson claims there are versions of the Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1875 that have been doctored from the original Act, and are circulating in Australia and on the Internet. And these have been doctored to delete the words ‘her heirs and successors‘ from section 7.
Yes, there was a deletion of text from the 1875 act.
But the deletion itself is not a mystery.
This below is grabbed off the Sovereign Union post. For some reason the Sovereign Union article links to the pre-Fiji 1872 Act that doesn’t even include the edit that the article discusses. But the article also includes this screenshot to the correct 1875 Act, and to section 7. Saving of rights of tribes – which I lifted here, and added the red box to.
The red box refers to an amendment of section 7. It says;
This section is printed as amended by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vic. c, 22).
An Act for further promoting the Revision of the Statute Law by repealing Enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary. [25th July 1898.]
And in this Statute Law Revision Act, the deletion of her heirs or successor is noted (bolded by myself for emphasis);
1. The enactments described in the first part of the schedule to this Act are hereby repealed, subject to the provisions of this Act and subject to the exceptions and qualifications in the said schedule mentioned; and every part of a title, preamble, or recital specified after the words “in part, namely,” in connexion with an Act mentioned in the said schedule may be omitted from any revised edition of the statutes published by authority after the passing of this Act, and there may be added in the said edition such brief statement of the Acts, officers, persons, and things mentioned in the title, preamble, or recital, as may in consequence of such omission appear necessary.
…
THE SCHEDULE.
FIRST PART.
…
c. 51. – The Pacific Islanders Protection Act, 1875.In part, namely,—Section seven, the words “her heirs or successor”
There you have it; there was text removed by this Statute Law Revision Act.
But it looks like the original words should have been “her heirs or successor“; not “her heirs and successors”.
In the Sovereign Union article, Michael Anderson says he has a photocopy from the London archives that says “her heirs and successors” – but he hasn’t posted his photocopy.
So overall, it is very confusing. Given that there’s no proof provided, I’m skeptical that there was any tampering.
I caught up on a recent “Truth Telling & Treaty Circle” meeting hosted by The Greens.
Michael Mansell was one of the guests. He talks about sharing of power and “reserved seats” at 43minutes 53sec. Reserved seats is something that is fresh in my mind that I just wrote about recently.
I’m pretty sure that Michael Mansell is on the inside and knows what’s going on. His role has always been to anchor Aboriginal expectations, and to give them ideas of what they should ask the governments for. Tip: learn what “anchoring bias” is if you don’t know already.
Here I will number, and put in some of his quotes from the video, and then add my comments in between.
Quote 1.
The fourth topic is a sharing of power. At the national level, you would expect that we would have power among the decision makers in Canberra as well as at the local level. One idea is to have six Aboriginal seats out of the 76 Senate seats dedicated to Aboriginal candidates.
Mansell
Mansell puts forward a proposal for having six Aboriginal seats. Six is a special number of Senate seats – because according to the Australian Consitution Act, every “Original State” must have six seats;
Until the Parliament otherwise provides there shall be six senators for each Original State. The Parliament may make laws increasing or diminishing the number of senators for each State, but so that equal representation of the several Original States shall be maintained and that no Original State shall have less than six senators.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1901) Section 7
I have suggested that the Uluru Statement is a proposal for a new State. There’s no minimum requirement for seats in a new State. But if our expectations are now being managed into having exactly six senate seats – maybe we are to become an “Original state” rather than a new State. What’s an Original State?
The States shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called ―a State.
Original States shall mean such States as are parts of the Commonwealth at its establishment.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp): Covering clause 6
I think there’s enough room there to retrospectively squeeze “First Nations” into that definition of “Original States”. There were Aboriginal people around, on so-called Commonwealth territory in 1901.
Makes me wonder…. “Original” – where have I heard that word before? Original Sovereign Tribal Federation… etc. There are some people that have been insisting that we stop using the word Aboriginal and use Original instead. Is that actually to trick us into asserting that we are an “Original State” as per the Constitution Act?
* I put a header-picture of a Ouroboros on this post; to represent that the proposed First Nations state will simultaneously be the “Original” state and the last state; it is both the first and the seventh. In the same way, we are ironically called the “First Australians” when; if all goes to the colonial plan, we will also become the “Last Australians”.
Quote 2.
It would be like the old ATSIC elections. Aboriginal people would either choose to be on the general electoral roll or on the Aboriginal roll.
Mansell
I don’t know what he is talking about here. During the ATSIC era of the 90’s, Aboriginal people could not choose one roll or another – they more or less HAD TO BE on the general electoral roll if they wanted to vote in ATSIC elections. Here is relevant part of the ATSIC act;
Persons entitled to vote at Regional Council elections
101. A person is entitled to vote at an election for the members of a Regional Council if and only if:
(a) the person is an Aboriginal person or a Torres Strait Islander; and
(b) either:
(i) the person’s name is on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll and the person’s place of living as shown on that Roll is within the region for which the Regional Council is established; or
(ii) the person is entitled to vote at the election pursuant to rules made under subsection 113 (3).
Maybe it’s ‘expectation management’ – and priming Aboriginal people under the future arrangement to not expect to “double-vote” in the Senate. In the 90’s there was double-voting, with people voting in both the ATSIC elections and the mainstream Australian elections. I’ve said before, if there is a perception of double-voting, that will be an excuse to get rid of Aboriginal reserved seats. One person, one vote, equality, democracy…etc ..blah blah…
Or maybe they think that blackfullas will be more likely to enroll if they don’t also have to enroll in the mainstream electoral roll.
However Mansell’s alternative of having separate electoral rolls “based on race” will be a just as good an excuse as double-voting to bring it all down. I can hear the cries of “apartheid” already. The problem is there is no honest education on the “First Nations” landless State arrangement. Such education will clearly show mainstream Australians that Aboriginal reserved seats are not based on race. That education needs to have started 5 years ago.
Quote 3.
In each of the six states, Aboriginal people would elect one Aboriginal senator who would be accountable back to those voters. That means that the white people would vote for 11 of the 12 senators and aboriginal people would vote for one each in each of the states.
Mansell
This is concerning. He is suggesting we get second-hand seats from the states – rather than our own fresh, dedicated senate seats. It will also leave N.T. without an Aboriginal seat, which is odd given the demographics.
IMHO, reserved seats should not be attached to imposed colonial territorial boundaries. It’s an inappropriate arrangement for our representation; they are artificial lines that cut through nations and have little to do with our identity. Eg. when we call ourselves “Murri”, we ignore the QLD/NSW border.
Reserved seats which are divorced from state boundaries are commensurate with the nature of non-territorial federalism, that’s how it works in Belgium.
The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 Section 7
The biggest problem with using second-hand senate seats is that it makes it a LOT easier to get rid of later. The electorate for each of the seats Mansell proposes will be dually compatible with both an “Aboriginal State” electorate, and a colonial “State” electorate. It’s a pivot point. Allocate it as a reserved “Aboriginal” seat, then switch it back into the State-based electorate when assimilation is done – the seat can then be neatly re-absorbed back into the colonial state’s quota. With non-territorial seats, this would not be possible – because the Aboriginal electorate would form a single electorate with a number of seats with nothing to do with the colonial States.
Also remember – the State agreement-making terms are not binding under international law; and I’m guessing that’s where the “reserved seats” will be allocated – so the reserved seats will not have international protection. The signs are there – the seats will be set up to fail – it’s only a matter of time before they dissolve back where they came.
They probably HAVE TO give us 6 Senate seats, at least initially. So don’t think they doing us a big favour in negotiations when they offer up 6 Senate seats.
Quote 4.
That saves amending the constitution, which becomes very complicated if you just take six of the seats out of the existing 76.
Mansell
Recycling second-hand senate seats from the states is easier he reckons, because otherwise the constitution needs changing. I just want to point out here – that amendments to the number of seats actually happens through legislation. Example: see The Representation Act 1983, not through amendment of the Constitution Act.
But there is something else that Mansell might be referring to here, and that is the proportional seat allocation. This is from section 7;
Until the Parliament otherwise provides there shall be six senators for each Original State. The Parliament may make laws increasing or diminishing the number of senators for each State, but so that equal representation of the several Original States shall be maintained and that no Original State shall have less than six senators.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1901) Section 7
and this from section 128;
No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1901) Section 128
These sections make it complicated to add a new State, because adding a new State with it’s new seats will necessarily diminish the proportionate representation of all of the other States. Under section 128 in particular – means that adding a fresh new set of seats for the First Nations state will require approval of a majority of electors in ALL states.
This standard; the majority of electors in ALL states, is even more difficult to overcome than the double-majority (majority electors in the majority of states) of a normal constitution act text modification.
But the Uluru Statement requests a constitutional reenactment and not a text modification. This means the normal Section 128 rules might not apply. Would this majority of ALL states rule to change proportional representation still apply in case of a constitutional reenactment? I don’t know – it’s a very complicated question, and it’s completely new ground for Australia. Pop over to the Indigenous Constitutional Law blog and you can see them discussing how hard it is to change the constitution – it is as if they are priming the masses for sweeping modifications of the Referendum Machinery Act to help push this referendum through. Maybe that’s because they really want to adhere to their existing written Constitution for the sake of continuity of Australia’s international legal personality; even in case of a full constitutional reenactment. In that case, the Referendum Machinery Act is the better lever to use, and borrowing second-hand senate seats also makes the referendum easier to pass (requiring a double-majority instead of majority-all).
Quote 5.
In addition to those six seats at the national level you would expect there’d be local empowerment at the local and regional level and the state levels…
Mansell
The House of Representatives is not mentioned at all, Mansell only talks about the Senate then moves onto local government. So what’s up with the new First Nations state and their representation in the House of Representatives?
Compare these two clauses in the Constitution Act carefully;
The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate.”
Section 7
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth“.
Section 24
The people of the First Nations state must directly choose their Senators, but not necessarily their MP’s. So maybe there will be no reserved Aboriginal House of Representative seats – hence why Mansell skipped over the topic completely – hoping no one notices.
Since the number of House of Representative seats is calculated using the census data, and since 1967 we are already counted in that number for the State’s reckoning; our fair allocation of House of Representative seats has already been taken and absorbed into the mainstream States. To add insult to injury, these extra seats created from newly counting us in the census were stolen from us and given to the States; and by us having those seats allocated numerically from being counted in the census (meaning we have theoretical representation) enabled the power to pass laws “for us”. “For us” should logically have been interpreted as meaning “on our behalf”, as in the same way a parliament is supposed to operate on behalf of the people they represent. Then the High Court decided in the Kartinyeri case that the power could be used for passing laws to our detriment. We got House of Representative seats in 1967; they were immediately stolen; squatters are still sitting in them since more than half a century; and those seats are still today being used to pass racist laws against us. And the High Court thinks that’s all fine and dandy.
Why is no one talking about this? Where are our seats? Or, why are they passing laws “for us” when Kartinyeri implies we have no representation?
There are currently only 2 Aboriginal MP’s in the House of Representatives – and this is the maximum in the entire history of Australia – most of this time (from 1901 to 2010) that number was zero. Right now – that’s 2 out of 151 total seats, or 1.3%; whereas our population is currently about 3% of the total. So pro-rata, right now we should have about 5 seats – we are still grossly under-represented; even if you count Burney and Wyatt (who don’t represent us anyway – they were elected by Australians, not us).
Fun fact: The first Aboriginal MP, Ken Wyatt, assumed office on the eve of the 240th year anniversary of Cook’s Proclamation of sovereignty at Possession Island. And it was more than 43 years after seats were made for us – that one of us actually sat in them.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again – we are being taken for a ride. We are offering the colony full sovereignty and their chance for full independence in exchange for the absolute minimum they can possibly get away with. I don’t know how this could be any worse.
Much of the strategy behind James Cook’s first voyage was based on the work of Alexander Darlymple. Darlymple catalogued and translated many Spanish documents during the British occupation of Manila, and key information that Darlymple found was exploited during Cook’s voyage.
In the preface of the book is this rather interesting paragraph. Darlymple refers to another book by Charles de Brosses;
M. DE Brosses has, in his table of voyages made a very judicious arrangement under the three heads of MAGELANICA, AUSTRAL-ASIA, and POLYNESIA; by this means we see at once the situation, as well as time of the several discoveries : his translator has only given, in his table of contents, a general list of the voyages, without distinguishing into what quarter they were made; although the different heads have often no affinity. As M. DE Brosses’ table is a very valuable compendium of chronological discoveries to the south, I have taken the liberty to insert it, with the authors he refers to; I have added such voyages as he has omitted, and the authorities which have escaped his research : distinguishing them by an asterisk*. I have inserted another head of partition, Australia, comprehending the discoveries at a distance from America to the eastward.
Charles de Brosses coined the term Polynesia to mean most of the islands in the Pacific. Later that meaning was shrunk to a smaller sub-region in the Pacific. Magelanica was the area around south America. Austral-asia was Australia and New Zealand, lying on the edge of the Spanish lake (the Pacific Ocean).
Darlymple has suggested using the term “Australia” for discoveries “at a distance from America to the eastward”. Darlymple writes about the need to distinguish which quarter of the world new discoveries are in. Quarter meaning the earth split into 4 by the Equator and the Treaty of Tordesillas and Treaty of Saragossa. He must be referring to “the eastward” as in – the far east and south quarter of the world. In other words, west of Guinea and in the southern hemisphere, including the Indian ocean, but not including the Spanish lake/Pacific Ocean. Exactly where New Holland is.
Darlymple has taken Brosses’s concept of Austal-asia, renamed it Australia, and tried to shift it’s meaning to refer to the south and Portuguese east quarter of the world.
In a chart that sets the scene at the start of the book, Darlymple uses the term “New Holland” for what we know as Australia. Darlymple uses the terms “Terra del Espiritu Santos” or “Manicola” to refer to the pacific islands discovered by Quiros.
Darlymple’s chart with “Terra del Esp. Santo or MANICOLA” with Bay of St Phillip and St James marked.
In Darlymple’s literal translations of Quiros’s memorials, he consistently uses the spelling Australia – as in “Australia del Espirito Santo”. I went and found the original memorials that Darlymple has translated.
Another example from another memorial (on page 245 of Darymple’s book, the Sixth memorial), Austrialia is now Australia.
This might not have been Darlymple’s error, as he may have used indirect sources.
But what is interesting about his book is that Darlymple uniformly uses the spelling “Australia”, and not the literal Austrialia or Austral. He was called out by Spanish writers for this.
He has used this spelling as both referring to a specific quarter of the world, and in translations of Quiros’s memorials describing Quiros’s discovered land. Darlymple might not know whether or not Quiros’s land actually lies in that specific quarter of the world. That question is what Cook’s first and second voyages were set out to determine. Cook was sent out instead of Darlymple, but the two voyages were Darlymple’s idea.
Speculative charts by the French (eg. Brosses and Bellin charts below, look at the north Queensland coast) show Quiros’s land as connected to New Holland.
Cook’s first voyage went up the east coast of Australia. He made a very short landfall at Yarrabah near Cairns. The bay in question from the direction Cook approached would have resembled the map of Quiros’s land made by Prado y Tovar. The position of Fitzroy Island in relation to the bay resembles Sakau in relation to Big Bay in Espiritu Santo in Vanuatu. Sakau is on Prado Y Tovar’s chart.
Cook made an excursion here at Yarrabah to look for fresh water in a mangrove swamp. He was probably expecting the large River Jordan as named by Quiros. But it was not, so he moved along.
It was shortly after this brief excursion that Cook allegedly smashed his ship on a reef and went into the Endeavour River at Cooktown. This site does not match Prado Y Tovar’s chart well, but it matches Quiros’s description of the bay with two rivers at latitude 15 degrees. Cook was clever to throw some cannons overboard to “reduce weight”. These cannons are in lieu of leaving inscriptions and markings, they prove he was there. The cannons were later found by an American expedition in the 70’s. Cook got everyone else to play along – no doubt Banks and others writing journals would have been on non-disclosure agreements as condition on being on this secret mission.
Something amusing – when Cook eventually departed the Endeavour River, he wrote;
Saturday, 4th. In the P.M., having pretty moderate weather, I order’d the Coasting Anchor and Cable to be laid without the barr, to be ready to warp out by, that we might not loose the least opportunity that might Offer; for laying in Port spends time to no purpose, consumes our Provisions, of which we are very Short in many Articles, and we have yet a long Passage to make to the East Indies through an unknown and perhaps dangerous Sea; these Circumstances consider’d, make me very Anxious of getting to Sea.
To paraphrase – We have to go because we are running out of supplies. Not – Hurrah! we finally got the ship ready and are leaving at our first opportunity.
Read the proceeding days of journal entries. Nothing happens. It sounds like they are waiting around for no reason. They spent 51 days in the bay and river fixing the ship. Yet just before that, at the reef in just a few days they managed good-enough emergency repairs to sail-on to the river. Two days to do a difficult repair of plugging a hole while at sea, then 51 days being the first Europeans to enjoy a tropical North Queensland holiday.
The overly-lengthy 51 day stay was simply to be there longer than Torres. Torres was in the bay at Espiritu Santo for 50 days. They were waiting around, they were not repairing.
Cook’s tropical holiday in Cooktown, along with Darlymple’s new proposed geographic region both served to conflate Quiros’s Australia with New Holland. This excursion up the east coast of New Holland was predetermined. The idea of renaming New Holland to Australia is older than Flinders – it was set in motion by Darlymple before Cook even left on his first voyage.
In this submission we explain the reasons behind our consensus view that the Voice be constitutionally enshrined, and that the government commit to a referendum to enshrine the First Nations Voice in the Australian Constitution after the current design process is concluded.
What we mean by “constitutionally enshrined” is that the existence and core function of the Voice should be included in the written text of the Constitution, alongside a power enabling the Commonwealth Parliament to determine its composition, additional functions, powers and procedures in legislation.
If the Uluru Statement proposal asked for the Voice to be included in the written text of the Constitution Act, there would be no need for these experts to qualify this statement with the four words; “What we mean by…”. These 40 experts should not have to offer up an interpretation on what “constitutionally enshrined” means. The meaning of constitutional enshrinement should be crystal clear from the offer alone.
How many experts were working on the original Referendum Council process? How many millions of dollars were spent on legal consultants? And apparently at the time, none of them thought to include something as basic in the Referendum Council Final report as clarifying exactly what “enshrined in the constitution” means! Honestly, how hard is it?!
This qualifier; “what we mean by….” is a tell-tale sign that what I have written on this before (here and here) is correct. The proposal does not ask for a change to the text of the Constitution Act.
