In UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 – the Friendly Relations declaration, there is a section on colonialism. There is a chunk of text about ending colonialism and about the right to independence for colonised peoples – and near the end of that chunk of text is this paragraph:

Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625,
October 24 1970

This paragraph must have sent chills down the Australian state. Australia had just spent a decade getting changes to the race power in the constitution through – but this clearly tells them that those race power changes are not enough. The government needs to represent the whole people belonging to the territory. But the government in fact – only represents people who are not of the territory – the “settlers”, plus immigrants naturalised by the settler polity. Both settlers and immigrants are there without a treaty. The government discriminates based on race. The constitution contemplates the states denying the vote based on race. The denial of vote has historically applied to Aboriginal people.

The entire colonial apparatus runs using the British crown as their source of authority. The problem is the British Crown does not have authority over the land, or the people of the land.

The Parliament enacting clause change (1973)

At the start of 1973, the Australian parliament started using a different enacting clause for their legislation.

An enacting clause is very important. It is to indicate the source of authority that an act is done under. For example – in the name of the King, in the name of God etc. It gives the act a stamp of authority.

The enacting clause for Australian acts changed between the closing of Parliament in 1972 into 1973.

At the end of 1972 the clause was;

BE it enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows:

At the start of 1973 the clause was;

BE IT THEREFORE enacted by the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives of Australia, as follows:

This is a pretty big change, with no real explanation. It signals a possible change in the authority that Parliament acts under. It’s a precursor for more changes to happen in 1973.

The Royal Style and Titles Acts – 1953 and 1973

Enter – the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth). This act is just a couple of years after the UN Friendly Relations Declaration. It was act number 114 for the year.

This superseded the previous Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 which was only a few decades old at this stage. The 1953 titles were made especially for Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation, and similar acts were passed in other commonwealth nations around the same time.

The 1953 coronation royal title for Australia was:

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

(source)

One thing I want to point out – is that the 1953 title has by the Grace of the God of the United Kingdom, not the God of the entire world/universe. This title is often written incorrectly. For example wikipedia has it as 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. Note in wikipedia, full-stops are replaced with commas, and a single “the” is dropped – such errors are very commonly replicated. The removal of a single “the” widens the jurisdiction of the “God” referred to from just the UK to the entire universe. Overall the changes significantly change the meaning of the title. **

**Edit 13/06/22: I did some more digging and found this is incorrect. See post here.

Below is the new 1973 title they decided to use is;

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

(source)

This is not just a different title, but a different Crown. Head of the Commonwealth here does not refer to the Commonwealth of Nations as in the 1953 style, but to the Commonwealth of Australia.

Which God?

It is conveniently ambiguous whether God in the 1973 title refers to the God of the United Kingdom, the God of Australia, or the God of the Universe. In this post linked here I argue that the ceremony during the Uluru Statement may have been a coronation, this ties in nicely with this God becoming in future retrospectively a local Aboriginal God.

So what happens when Queen Elizabeth II of the UK passes away and her successor is coronated “Queen of Australia”? Who is going to coronate her successor? The Archbishop of Canterbury has a link to a local God of the United Kingdom as spiritual head of the Church of England, but he has no connection to whoever/whatever is the God of Australia. The Archbishop of Canterbury cannot coronate the “Queen of Australia”. Only Aboriginal people have the requisite local authority, hence the ceremony concocted by the Referendum Council at Uluru.

Perhaps this problem of Godly jurisdiction is why lately there has been talk of Church of England reunification with the Catholic Church. Reunification may help resolve this problem as many parts of the British colonial Empire under the authority of the Church of England are in a similar situation. Reunification would create a mega-church with near global authority, and would smoke-and-mirror the problem away for remaining British colonies.

A.C.T. Representation Act

Act number 111, very shortly before the Royal Style and Titles Act was the Australian Capital Territory Representation (House of Representatives) Act 1973.

This act gave the people living in the Australian Capital Territory (A.C.T.) representation in Parliament. Before this time, there was no representation in Parliament for people living in the A.C.T. Note that this act to create new seats is also along the same theme of ensuring Australia’s government represents the whole people belonging to the territory according to the UN Declaration on Friendly relations. Australia cannot try to claim it represents all of the people without having parliamentary representation for people living in A.C.T..

The fact that this act was passed around the same time as the Royal Styles and Titles Acts is anecdotal evidence that both acts are related to a similar goal.

Why didn’t the Federal Government do anything with the new 1967 power?

There’s been commentary on how after the 1967 referendum, the Federal government got powers to make laws for the Aboriginal race, yet they didn’t do anything with those powers until the early 70’s. This makes perfect sense.

The referendum was for the benefit of changing the outward appearance from the international observer of constitutionally having a state representing people of the Aboriginal race. It was essentially for show – not for Aboriginal rights or Aboriginal welfare.

Nothing happened with the power until 1972, after the Friendly Relations declaration had shifted the dynamic. It was also when Whitlam was elected which provided a good cover for the flurry of changes that came into place.

Royal Powers Act 1953 is still in effect

In 1953 was the Royal Powers Act. One very interesting thing about this is that it is still in effect to this day.

Here is section 2 of the act;

2  Exercise of statutory powers by the Queen

             (1)  At any time when the Queen is personally present in Australia, any power under an Act exercisable by the Governor‑General may be exercised by the Queen.

             (2)  The Governor‑General has the same powers with respect to an act done, or an instrument made, granted or issued, by the Queen by virtue of this section as the Governor‑General has with respect to an act done, or an instrument made, granted or issued, by the Governor‑General himself or herself.

             (3)  Nothing in this section affects or prevents the exercise of any power under an Act by the Governor‑General.

             (4)  In this section, references to the Governor‑General or to the Queen shall be read as references to the Governor‑General, or to the Queen, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council.

As soon as “the Queen” is personally present in Australia, she can exercise her power. The question is, which Queen?

This might be why in 1986 that the Queen physically came to Canberra to sign the Australian version of the Australia Act. This was a job for the “Queen of Australia”, not the imperial crown. She relinquished Aboriginal sovereign administrative power to the Australian parliament, signing her name as the autochthonous “Queen of the Aborigines”.

I find it interesting that this act is still in effect – it shows that the colony still holds the power of the imperial Crown as a back-up, and is not ready to let go just yet. This should be a dead letter and would have been repealed by now if Australia were truly independent.

Conclusion/Summary

The UN Declaration on Friendly Relations requires that a State has a government representing all of the people of the territory.

Australia is a federation of colonies, none of which have a treaty with the people of the land. Australia’s government runs under a foreign Crown, and does not represent the people of the land. It is therefore vulnerable to a decolonisation challenge, and challenge of it’s territorial integrity according to the Friendly Relations declaration.

Territorial integrity is more than just Land Rights. It is full sovereignty over territory. Aboriginal territorial integrity overrides Australian territorial integrity under the Friendly Relations Declaration.

The way Australia is trying to get around this is to manufacture a new local Australian Crown which represents the land and the people of the land and their autochthonous (local, Aboriginal) sovereignty. This manufacturing of the new Crown began after the Friendly Relations declaration – the time where it’s necessity became clear. Similar changes happened across the Commonwealth of Nations, not just in Australia. The local Crown is rightfully an Aboriginal Crown. Australia is conducting a coup of the Aboriginal nations’ Crown, and gradually appropriating that Crown for themselves by conflating it administratively with the British Imperial Crown. They have done this through creation of new styles and titles, and new Parliamentary enacting clauses amongst other things.