Tasmania has a red lion in it’s heraldry. The image below shows the shields of state. Tasmania’s is the red lion – bottom right;

The funny thing about Tasmania’s red lion is no one seems to know where it came from. This below from a Tasmanian government source:

A proclamation which appeared in the Hobart Town Gazette on 25 September 1876, and accompanied by illustrations, officially proclaimed three flags for the colony of Tasmania. These flags were the Governor’s flag, the flag for Government vessels and the flag for merchant vessels.

For reasons unknown the proclamation was revoked soon after. However, the flag for Government vessels, the Blue Ensign with lion passant on a white shield or badge in the fly of the flag, was subsequently adopted for general State Government use, but was not officially gazetted until 3 December 1975.

There is no official record of the reason for using the lion. Lions have featured prominently in European heraldry for centuries, and it has been supposed that the lion symbolises the colony’s loyalty to Great Britain.

I did some checking, and they got basic facts wrong here. Here’s the correct timeline:

• An initial proclamation with illustrations on 9 November 1875
• A revocation of the previous proclamation on 23 November 1875 (image below)
• A new proclamation in 25 September 1876 (image below, there were no accompanied illustrations as per gov quote above) Note the Colony flag is reserved for the use of government vessels only, merchants use a plain red ensign.
• A more recent proclamation 3 December 1975 which declared the blue-ensign-based flag being the State flag (image below)

The first proclamation (that was revoked) has been reported on the interwebs as being of a gold lion facing to the right*. But the revocation of that proclamation (image above) refers to revoking a red lion. So something isn’t adding up.

** HELP ME: anyone want to verify – go to a big Australian library, see if they have The Hobart Town Gazette, 9 November 1875, No. 5080. I think there are three gazettes with the same date (which is unusual for a normally once-a-week publication) look for the one with No 5080 top right corner on the title page. It should have an illustration of some flags on the article somewhere inside the gazette. I would like to see the proclamation text. I found some archived Hobart Gazettes here – but the one I am after is missing. **

Anyway – the final design used ended up being a red lion passant.

In heraldry, “Passant” is a description of the attitude, or posture of the lion. Passant means the lion has three paws on the ground, and it’s head is looking forward facing to the viewer’s left. A lot of speculative commentary (eg. the gov site I quoted above) on the use of a lion passant in Tasmania supposes a link to Great Britain. But English royal lions typically come in threes, are gold coloured, and/or they are “passant guardant” – which means the lion’s head is turned toward the viewer. Yes, there have been variations over time, and Great Britain is not just England. But still – a single red lion passant seems to come from nowhere.

Possible link to a Belgic Lion

Looking at Tasmania’s history in the context of the initial first discovery claim of Van Diemen’s Land by Abel Tasman, the Anglo-Dutch Treaties of 1814 and 1824 – perhaps the Tasmanian heraldry lion is a Belgic Lion. The Dutch had First Discovery over Van Diemen’s Land, and it seems that the British acquired Van Diemen’s Land through Treaty/s with the Dutch. In that context – I’m thinking it makes sense to acknowledge that fact, perhaps by using Dutch heraldry for the colony and naming it after the discoverer (Tasman -> Tasmania).

The Treaty of 1824 – the representatives signing on the Dutch side – the King, an ambassador and minister for colonies were members of the Royal Order of the Belgic Lion;

And His Majesty The King of the Netherlands, Baron Henry Fagel, Member of the Equestrian Corps of the Province of Holland, Counsellor of State, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Order of the Belgic Lion, and of the Royal Guelphic Order, and Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of His said Majesty to His Majesty The King of Great Britain; – And Anton Reinhard Falck, Commander of the Royal Order of the Belgic Lion, and His said Majesty’s Minister of the Department of Public Instruction, National Industry, and Colonies:

The King here, is William I of the Netherlands of House Orange-Nassau. The Royal Order of the Belgic Lion was new – it was instituted in 1815. The treaty of 1824 happened not long after the Napoleonic wars, so the Netherlands were undergoing major constitutional change after being occupied by Napoleon.

The symbol of the Belgic lion – leo belgicus – is both a map of the Low Countries (modern-day Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, part of France) and heraldry. I think it’s kind of cool.

The lion-map has three feet on the ground, the front paw raised, the head and body facing right.

This is the opposite way around from the left-facing red Tasmanian lion. But – the original Tasmanian (gold) lion was facing right. Here’s the 1875 governor flag (from wikipedia)

Looking through a lot of different heraldry, a lone, right-facing lion is pretty unusual. Left facing is very common. Maybe it was a right-facing Belgic lion – but they flipped it’s not so obvious.

Town of Orange

In New South Wales there is a town called “Orange”. It was named after the son of William I of the Netherlands of House Orange-Nassau, William II. The son did military service and fought for the British in the Peninsular war, where NSW surveyor Thomas Mitchell worked in topographical intelligence.

So the town was named after the son of the King who signed the Anglo-Dutch treaty of 1824 (House Orange-Nassau).

I already wrote about this here, but there was initially an invisible Dutch/British border on the Australian mainland. The town of Orange lies just on the Dutch side of the line. The line fell with the 1824 treaty. The town of Orange was named just a couple of years after the 1824 treaty.

So all-up, here are some potential, secret hat-tips to the 1824 treaty:

• The name Tasmania.
• The name of the town of Orange, NSW
• The mystery lion of Tasmanian state heraldry

Maybe I’m stretching a bit with the lion – but I find it all very strange. It’s heraldry – the whole point of heraldry that is to show continuation, and to link back into history, bloodline or place. To use a lion for Tasmania, but use a black swan for Western Australia doesn’t otherwise make sense.

Also why are government sources getting basic facts wrong about their own heraldry, they don’t know or don’t care what their symbols mean? Why can’t I find the one gazette with the original proclamation in it online – but I found the correct, seemingly otherwise complete series of the Hobart Gazette to which it belongs?

We are peoples’ under active colonial occupation.

There is a mandate from the UN and the international community at-large to end colonialism.

So what can we do to bring an end the occupation, on our terms?

I think an acceptable solution will never come through using colonial systems. The colonial system is railroading our people into having our sovereignty retrospectively recognised as being the founding component of Australian sovereignty (replacing the British Crown). What this will mean in the long-run is that everything the colony has done – the genocides, murder, theft, rape, removals, forced indoctrinations etc. will have been done in our own name. It will be as if we genocided ourselves. You can’t genocide yourself – so – there is no genocide under this scenario. It will be as if we were never even colonised at all. There will be no justice under this foundation.

This is not limited to acts committed against ourselves. We will become the foundation of authority for everything Australia has done as a nation state. This includes overseas wars. We are the ones who authorised all wars that Australia has ever entered, including controversial ones. Yet we had no say in the matter.

You might think this is impossible to rewrite history in such a dramatic way. But it has happened in the past, as I have touched on in my onion analogy. Another example of the British rewriting history retrospectively is in the Statute of Westminster 1931. The Westminster Statutes were made after World War II, but involved backdating constitutional arrangements back to before the war. Yes – Constitutional foundations can be backdated, and it has happened before.

The only way out at this stage, in my opinion – is to think outside the box.

We already have our own ways of doing things, of making collective decisions. Together, we have a lot of power when we stand together. Here are the steps I think we need to do, to break free and assert our true power.

1. Formalise our representation on our own terms.

We have our ways of doing things as communities. We have our way of making decisions. The problem is, people outside do not respect our ways. This is a huge problem, and leads to outsiders manipulating/cherry picking “leaders” to suit their own agenda – and not the wishes of our communities.

Formalising our forms of representation sets clear expectations to outsiders as how they must deal with us. By formalisation – I mean communities getting together, nominating spokespersons, coming to agreements about who those spokespersons can speak for and what they can speak about. In many cases, the basis of this is already there in our communities. But – once communities have formalised representation – they can be very clearly asserted to ‘the outside world’. It is more about letting people outside clearly know the terms of engaging with us.

This formalisation may be a very complicated process. To really accurately reflect our cultural systems – there may be several over-lapping systems of representation, because our governance is very complex. Normally, the rest of the world works on much simpler and flatter structures. This formalisation process is further complicated by the disruption of our traditional systems by colonialism itself.

But the key things to keep in mind is to foster a system where;

• spokespeople are accountable,
• where it is clear and known who they speak for,
• measures are taken to avoid conflicts of interest of spokespeople,
• and a system where gubba-cherry-picked fakers will stand out like dogs balls.

This may mean we need to compromise somewhat, and adopt a “flatter”, idiot-proof structure for the purposes of dealing with the “outside world”; while maintaining our more complex structures internally. I think this is kind of what the Tent Embassy does, and generally does well IMO – but sadly they are ignored.

2. Formalise our values, from which priorities and goals will flow

Every culture has a set of core values. These values are, in my opinion, the basis of the culture. People often think that stuff like food, dance and stories is culture – but I think that these elements are more like containers of culture. They are very important as they carry the culture, and without them culture will fall away – but ultimately – Culture is Values.

What is important?

Family, connection, country, money, individual freedoms, not leaving anyone behind, personal status, material wealth, saving-face, purity, obedience, respecting elders….????

I do not list, or prioritise specific Aboriginal values here – I just give some examples from different cultures because this is a discussion that needs to happen on a community-by-community basis. Different communities may have different values and prioritise those values differently.

Different cultures have different values at their core.

Values always remain – even where our language and stories have been beaten out of us. Our values survive.

Those values are the basis of setting the way forward. The colonial system has a different set of values – which are very different to ours. Our collective priority, and our ancestral duty is to maintain our values, and not to succumb to those colonial values that conflict with ours.

When our core values are identified – it will make setting priorities and finding a way forward much easier. It will also make it easier for outsiders to see where we are coming from, and make them less afraid of us.

Identifying values will also make us stronger as communities, as we stand behind those values together. Fakers and sell-outs will stand out – because they do not adhere to our value systems.

3. Assert our position Internationally

When we have proper spokespeople, our values, priorities – we have the foundation to stand up internationally. We can stick a firecracker under the colony’s bum.

We leverage our proper spokespeople to establish diplomatic relations internationally – as people independent and separate from Australia. This is our right to do this under international law. As a collective under colonial occupation, we are not Australian. We maintain a status separate and distinct. To establish diplomatic relations with other countries will assert that position.

This could happen – for example, sending a diplomatic delegation to Fiji. Then the Fiji Prime Minister rolls out the diplomatic carpet, and welcomes the delegation as representatives of whatever Aboriginal nation/s they represent. It could also happen by doing a treaty with another country. The treaty doesn’t have to be anything major – the main point is that there is one. These actions are very significant – as it would represent diplomatic recognition.

Historically – the doctrine of terra nullius was probably a result of Abel Tasman. Abel Tasman diplomatically recognised the Maori (by interacting with chiefs, and getting in fights with them), but he did not recognise the people of Van Diemen’s Land because there was no interaction (see Tasman’s instructions vs. his actions – he implied there was no sovereign). On James Cook’s third voyage, William Anderson the ship’s surgeon claimed the people of Van Diemen’s Land are the same stock of people as on the east coast of New Holland. Anderson claimed that people in Van Diemen’s Land had the same name for “Kangaroo” as the people in the Endeavour River. This meant the status of non-recognition in Van Diemen’s Land was extended to mainland New Holland (as they are same stock of people with shared language). This was a stretch of the truth, because the British knew at this time of the existence of the Bass Strait because Tobias Furneaux had discovered it in secret. The British later had to recognise Maori sovereignty because Tasman (the Dutch) had already recognised them. That is why the Maori got a Treaty, and we didn’t.

The missing element historically was international recognition. It’s not too late to do this. International recognition would force a Treaty with terms negotiated by Aboriginal peoples that are internationally enforceable. Under the current colonial-railroad-proposal – the Treaty itself will be internationally enforceable – but Aboriginal-negotiated terms will NOT be internationally enforceable. In the long-run, any treaty offered without us first attaining international diplomatic recognition will not be worth the paper it is written on. Ask the people of Kashmir who had a similar structure of treaty – the negotiated terms have since been flushed down the loo as they are only domestically enforceable. This was even though the negotiated terms were enshrined in article 370 of the Constitution of India itself – they were still broken!

The devil in the Uluru Statement treaty is not in the detail – it is in the structure. We need to get recognition OUTSIDE first – to force a properly structured treaty that will allow us to negotiate internationally enforceable treaty terms and to continue our culture (= our VALUES).

A few years ago I was watching a documentary about the Neolithic revolution (this looks like part of it), and had a light-bulb moment – I realised that the story in the bible in the book of Genesis might be about the Neolithic revolution.

The Neolithic revolution happened in the Fertile Crescent (present day Iraq). It is one of several places in the world where agriculture was developed independently. By agriculture: I mean intensive planting which requires people to babysit the crops (as opposed to throwing seeds on a suitable area and coming back later), and also animal farming which requires the animals to be kept confined, fed, watered etc.

In the bible, to me at least – it seems that there are clearly two different Adam/Eve stories that have been mashed together. For example, in one version Eve was created from clay alongside Adam as his equal, but in the other version she was created after Adam from his rib. I think this is a mixture of the story of Lilith and of Eve to create one character. I think Lilith is the hunter-gatherer woman – wise, ancient, knowledgeable, well-rounded, Adam’s equal – but demonised as barbaric, savage, overly sexual and a baby-killer. Eve is the agricultural wife – subservient to Adam, nurturing, shuts her mouth, and takes care of the farm and house.

Adam and Eve live in the Garden of Eden – where everything is provided for them. They just have to follow some laws. Eve talks to a serpent who encourages her to eat from the forbidden tree of knowledge. Eve eats from the tree, and successfully encourages Adam to also eat. Both know that this is against God’s law. They knowingly break God’s law – and as a consequence are permanently locked out of the Garden of Eden. Outside of the garden, life is hard and involves back-breaking work and disease. They live in fear of retribution from God – who is a thunder and lightning god in the first few books of the bible. Eve becomes subservient chattel (property) of Adam.

This story has parallels with the Neolithic revolution. Before the Neolithic revolution, people were believed to be nomadic hunter-gatherers (I am not buying this 100%, but let’s go with it for now). Perhaps by chance, a group of women – camping, digging for yams and looking after young children while the men were out hunting, noticed some fruits growing in the compost heap where the group throw food scraps. The women experiment, are successful, and supplement the family diet with an improvised crop. Around the same time, others experiment keeping animals. This is great until bad weather sets in, and a storm wipes out the women’s crop. Or other things can go wrong – such as disease in higher density semi-permanent camps with animals, or gradual loss of knowledge (eg bush medicine) and breaking of laws. In which case, the camp packs up, and moves back into their law and into a more hunter-gatherer lifestyle. But eventually, perhaps the agricultural lifestyle becomes successful, produces more children surviving till adulthood, many more mouths to feed, which leads to dependency on that agricultural lifestyle, the need for military conquest for more land, more crops, etc… At some point, there is no going back.

Can you see the parallels?

• Hunter-gatherers have many spirits – or many different factors to consider that can make-or-break their survival. They can talk to snakes. For a hunter-gatherer, a storm god is not an especially scary god. They can see a storm coming days in advance if they pay attention, plenty of time to find shelter. Agriculturalists on the other-hand are very heavily dependent on good weather. They are terrified of a storm which can destroy their crop and literally cause them to starve to death. Adam and Eve were at the mercy of the storm God outside of the Garden of Eden.
• Eating from the tree of knowledge (taboo eating from fruits growing in the scrap pile!?) permanently kicked them out of the garden. They became dependent on the technology they had developed. More food, more mouths to feed, more food needed…There was no going back. Much like mobile phones today – once dependency is there, it’s very difficult to reverse.
• Disease – Adam and Eve suffered disease after being kicked out of the Garden. Living in close quarters with animals would lead to new diseases that would not have affected hunter-gatherers in the Garden of Eden. Plus – new diseases (eg. from drinking faeces-contaminated water, rats, bird/swine flu) would be expected and the people would not have knowledge to prevent or treat them.
• Women became property of men, Eve becomes subservient to Adam. Permanent and semi-permanent settlements means someone MUST stay around, someone must “own” parcels of land and take the extra responsibility for crops/animals/land and housekeeping. Women with childbearing responsibility are the obvious choice for such roles. Men take on a more military/defense/offense role and become successful from being violent. Women/land packages are men’s reward for being good brutes. Women lose their status as equals with men, they are valued for attributes that directly benefit men – child-bearing capability, physical attractiveness and nurturing qualities. These are qualities which would not have had as high priority in a hunter-gatherer society; where women would be valued for more specialised survival skills, leadership, medicine, crafts and ancient knowledge.
• Adam and Eve were talking to snakes in the garden. Once out of the garden they seem to have lost that connection. They gained knowledge, but also lost connection with the spirits of the land. They probably lost a LOT of ancient knowledge as they had to cut down sacred sites and sacred sites of other people just to feed themselves.
• Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel. Abel farmed animals, Cain farmed crops. Cain murdered Abel out of jealousy, and was punished by God by being ‘driven from the soil’ and made to go nomadic. The development of crop growing would have not happened overnight. Failed crops due to bad conditions forced groups to periodically return to old hunter-gatherer ways.
• The story is from Mesopotamia – which is from the same part of the world that the Neolithic revolution actually happened.

Are we (Aboriginal women) daughters of Eve?

If Eve lived in the fertile crescent in Mesopotamia as early as 11000BC, then Aboriginal people (male and female) with direct maternal blood-lines cannot possibly be female-line descended from Eve, because we have been geographically separated from Mesopotamia much longer than that. The proof is in our blood – in our mitochondrial DNA. And for direct paternal-line men – likewise, they are not on Adam’s bloodline. The evidence is in their Y Chromosomal DNA. We are probably not the only ones in the world either, we are just one of the more clear-cut examples.

We don’t need to be saved from the “original sin” because we never knowingly broke our law! We kept true to our law! We never chose to eat from the tree of knowledge.

Do-gooder Catholics, Jewish people and Christians – you – the descendants of Adam and Eve; you have broken back into the Garden of Eden, started massacring and stealing the land of the law-abiding people inside. Stop trying to make us eat from the tree, just so you can justify your actions and save us with Jesus!

When Queen Elizabeth II was coronated, many different realms of her Commonwealth of Nations passed legislation, all roughly similar, related to Queen Elizabeth II’s title in each realm.

In a previous post I wrote was about the Royal Styles and Titles Act in 1973 in Australia. This more or less replaced the 1953 Royal Styles and Titles Act in Australia.

While digging around I found something interesting. In Australia, the 1953 legislation has been mis-transcribed.

Here is the original scan – which you can find here after clicking “PDF”;

Note in the Schedule old-school text where it reads: “by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom“.

Here is how it has been transcribed in Australian legislation:

“by the Grace of the God of the United Kingdom“.

Note that there is an extra “the” transcribed.

Yes – this could be a simple transcription error. On balance, I’m 50:50 as to if it was an error, or deliberate.

However, this perked my interest because I know there is an issue here to do with the chain of authority. Power must be backed-up by authority, and God sits at the very top of the pyramid of authority.

What’s the difference in the extra “the”

The mis-transcription of “Grace of God of the United Kingdom” as “Grace of the God of the United Kingdom” may have an effect on the meaning.

Consider that there is a separate church called the Church of England. This separation goes back to Henry VIII who wanted to annul his marriage with Catherine of Aragon. The pope wouldn’t allow it, so Henry VIII reformed the Catholic church into his own thing. The Church of England spawned off from the Catholic Church.

Now – Henry VIII may have spawned off a fresh new “God” for this reformed church. If that is the case then this transcription error in Australian legislation changes the meaning. “The God of the United Kingdom” would refer specifically to the (spawned) Church of England god, whereas “God of the United Kingdom” would refer to a shared god – the god of Roman Catholics and all it’s child/reformed churches.

This is a question of contiguity of authority. Which god sits on top? A fresh Henry VIII one? Or the Catholic one?

I think 50:50 this may have been deliberate mistranslation – a “just in case” – that they later decided to not use. The main reason to not use the mis-transcription (fresh Henry VIII God) is that the Catholic Church is behind the Doctrines of Discovery Papal Bulls in the first place. Colonialism was done wielding the authority of the Papal Bulls. So – it’s probably in England’s best interest to NOT pretend to have spawned a fresh God, because it allows England to take full advantage of the original Catholic God’s thumbs-up to rape and pillage foreign lands.

I looked to see if any other Commonwealth nation also mis-transcribed this part, and none have.

Note that Australia is the only British settler state to not have properly secured authority over territory with a treaty. Every other settler state has at least treaty over part of it’s territories to fall back on if authority comes into question. The mis-transcription for Australia, and for only Australia, makes sense as Australia’s authority is fully reliant on whatever “god” is in the United Kingdom. This is why they might want to use the mis-transcription: It allows the option for the Church of England (and the Church of England ONLY) to be the top source of authority. It means that socially progressive evolution in the Catholic Church will be less likely to come along and spoil things for the British empire, and force British hands to restitute victims of colonialism. But this turns out, is not necessary. The Catholic church is not progressive, they also have blood on their hands. They are along for the ride – currently actively helping wash away the sins of the British Empire. In fact, they are leading the way – there has been a strong and early link between Catholic institutions and the genesis of the Uluru Statement.

Like I said – I’m 50:50. It could also be a simple transcription error.

FYI – Titles in other Commonwealth countries

This is just for interest: here is a comparison of the 1953 titles of various Commonwealth countries;

Canada: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

New Zealand: Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

United Kingdom: Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

Australia: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Australia and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

This post, I’m going to explore the beginnings of the colony of New Wales, also known as New South Wales, and where it’s borders lay.

Cook’s Possession Claim

Starting with James Cook’s claim of possession;

Having satisfied myself of the great Probability of a passage, thro’ which I intend going with the Ship, and therefore may land no more upon this Eastern coast of New Holland, and on the Western side I can make no new discovery, the honour of which belongs to the Dutch Navigators, but the Eastern Coast from the Latitude of 38 degrees South down to this place, I am confident, was never seen or Visited by any European before us; and notwithstanding I had in the Name of his Majesty taken possession of several places upon this Coast, I now once More hoisted English Colours, and in the Name of His Majesty King George the Third took possession of the whole Eastern coast from the above Latitude down to this place by the Name of New (*South) Wales, together with all the Bays, Harbours, Rivers, and Islands, situated upon the said Coast;

The asterixis is because some versions have New Wales, some have New South Wales.

Cook has claimed possession of the whole Eastern coast including all the Bays, Harbours, Rivers and Islands situated upon the said Coast from the latitude of 38 degrees south to “this place” (Possession Island, west of Cape York).

What does this claim include? Rivers means river catchments. Cook has claimed possession of land east of the Great Dividing Range. However, Cook doesn’t know how far the rivers extend inland. He doesn’t know that the Great Dividing Range hugs not far inland of the east coast. Here is a map showing what he has actually claimed;

Below is a map showing what Cook may think (tell him he’s dreaming!) he is claiming;

I have included a made-up river system here to demonstrate – Cook had no idea what he actually claimed. The British will not know what Cook claimed until they explore inland to find where the east coast rivers originate.

Phillip’s Instructions

In 1788, the First Fleet arrived. Governor Phillip had the following instructions;

With these Our Instructions you will receive Our Commission under Our Great seal constituting and appointing you to be Our Captain General and Governor in Chief of Our Territory called New South Wales extending from the Northern Cape or Extremity of the Coast called Cape York in the Latitude of Ten Degrees thirty seven Minutes south, to the Southern Extremity of the said Territory of New South Wales, or South Cape, in the Latitude of Forty three Degrees Thirty nine Minutes south, and of all the Country Inland to the Westward as far as the One hundred and Thirty fifth Degree of East Longitude, reckoning from the Meridian of Greenwich including all the Islands adjacent in the Pacific – Ocean within the Latitudes aforesaid of 10 º 37′ South, and 43º 39′ South, and of all Towns, Garrisons, Castles, Forts, and all other Fortifications, or other Military Works which may be hereafter erected upon the said Territory, or any of the said Islands, with directions to obey such Orders and Instructions as shall from time to time be given to you under Our Signet and Sign Manual, or by Our Order in our Privy Council; You are therefore to fit Yourself with all convenient speed, and to hold yourself in readiness to repair to Your said Command, and being arrived, to take, upon the execution of the place and trust We have reposed in You, and as soon as conveniently may be with all due solemnity to cause our said Commission under our Great Seal of Great Britain constituting you Our Governor and Commander in chief as aforesaid, to be read and published.

Note here, Governor Phillip is being appointed governor of “OUR TERRITORY called NEW SOUTH WALES”. This would indicate territory that is already British territory, and it makes a direct link with Cook’s claim of First Discovery by referring to the name New South Wales.

But the territorial limits given here in Phillip’s commission extend beyond “OUR TERRITORY”. This is necessary because the British do not know how far Cook’s claim of rivers extends inland. The British are casting the net wide to be on the safe-side, because they simply don’t know how far the rivers go inland.

BUT – the appointment of a governor over this extended area is not the same as claiming British possession of lands outside of Cook’s claim. These instructions pertain to a mere administrative arrangement for the role of Governor.

This appointment is incorrectly and commonly read as a demarcation of the boundary of New South Wales at 135 degrees east – the line that runs down the middle of the continent. But areas beyond the Great Dividing Range were never claimed as “Our territory” under British First Discovery. The Governor only has authority over “OUR TERRITORY”, that ALSO lies within his administrative limit. To administer lands and Aboriginal people outside of that claimed area is Ultra Vires (outside of proper authority) even if the Doctrines of Discovery themselves are considered valid.

Oddities and mismatches

There are a few other oddities between Cook’s claim and Phillip’s commission.

One is about Islands. Cook claimed islands adjacent (“situated upon”) to the coast. Phillip’s commission extended to islands in the Pacific between two latitudes. This makes a mismatch.

So where does that leave islands such as Goat Island (the island in Sydney harbour recently returned to the Aboriginal Community), Groote Eylandt in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Kangaroo Island, Mer – the island of Edward Koiki Mabo? Neither fall inside of Cook’s claim or in Phillip’s commission. They are not in the Pacific (or for Mer – too far north), and they are not “situated upon” Cook’s explored coastline. Notice that many such islands have been ‘given back’ somewhat. Kangaroo Island an exception, possibly because the British found it to be uninhabited when they first found it.