Type 1: Under the Doctrines of Discovery, the discovering power has a fiduciary duty to the native inhabitants of the discovered land. The interests of the native inhabitants over their territory take precedence over the interests of the European discoverers. This is why treaties were seen as necessary. A treaty usually involves an exchange, for example – beads and trinkets in exchange for land. The handing over and acceptance of the beads and trinkets makes the overall transaction appear to be in the natives’ interests. Another way of looking at this is that the European discoverer has a duty to PROTECT the pre-existing interests that the natives have over native lands.

Type 2: Under a English monarchy system, the crown has a duty to protect their subjects from foreign attacks. This is a wider part of defending the territory from foreign attack. This is a type of PROTECTION – it is based on a relationship between crown, territory and subject. This relationship has conditions of Crown allegiance for the subjects, and duties to subjects for the Crown under the Magna Carta.

In Australia, a Frankenstein monster version of these two forms of protection has formed.

There was no treaty with the natives. Instead the territory was acquired by the British through treaties and transactions with third parties – including with the Dutch in 1824, and a treaty of federation between the colonies themselves. The natives became subjects of British law by being inhabitants in British Crown territory – territory which was acquired by the British by fraudulent means. The natives are not “British Subjects” in the usual sense of the meaning – those having a relationship and allegiance to the British Crown (which comes with certain privileges).

But the natives have become “British Subjects” in the sense of being “subjects” of British law – subjects in the same way that a lighthouse in England is subject to British law. This is clear when reading the reasoning in the court case R v Lowe. The court decided to treat the murdered Aboriginal man as if he were a British Subject for the purposes of the case. The reason was not for protection of life of an Aboriginal man as a British Subject with a relationship of allegiance to the Crown – but because the incident happened on British dominion/soil. R v Lowe was the start of Aboriginal people being like lighthouses, or Flora and Fauna – objects subject to British law.

R v Lowe was a hook, a foot-in-the-door that was gradually extended upon using other court cases.

The notion of protection has two different meanings, and it has always been ambiguous which of these two meanings is the basis of Aboriginal protection policies from the state. This explains why protection often paradoxically involves destruction – with official government Protectors running massacres. For outward appearances, to the international observer watching in terms of the Doctrines of Discovery – protection means protecting native’s interests in their land, and at least pretending to put those interests ahead of the discovering power’s interests. But domestically in Australia – protection had the second meaning which spelt destruction of Aboriginal people who interfered with the British Crown’s allegiant subjects (squatters) enjoyment of their rights under the Crown’s law.

The Australian Constitution Act is partly written for outward appearances, and partly for internal administration. The exclusion of people of the aboriginal race (small ‘a’ in aboriginal because it was an adjective in the original text) in the races power was to look like it was for the protection of the interests of the natives. This is protection of native people’s interests who are colonised under Discovery doctrines. This should have been a reasoning put forward in the Hindmarsh Island case – the basis that federal legislative power should only be used to make laws for the benefit of native people due to the fiduciary duty of a colonising power. There are US court cases that could have been used to justify this position, and US court cases have been used in other Australian cases. But much weaker reasons were used because the Hindmarsh Island case was a collusive case for further extension of colonial power.

Aboriginal people’s own free enjoyment of their interests in their land played second fiddle to the interests of white British land owners – and this still is the case today. Native title consists of whatever is left over after squatters have what they want.

Of the two kinds of Protection – it is the first type that needs to be re-emphasised. The native people’s territorial interests take precedence and require protection over the territorial interests of the occupying colonial state. This is more recently emphasised in UN General Assembly resolutions 1514 and 2625. It is our right as peoples under colonial subjugation on our own lands to territorial integrity, and our right to freely determine our political status.

The colony on the other-hand would rather emphasis the second type of protection (as allegiant Crown subjects) as it implies we are simply a minority, with no right to make laws over our own land, or to have homeland/s of our own.

I recently found out that the South Pacific Island Protection Acts (1872 and 1875) were repealed by John Howard in 1999.

I used to think that these acts have not much to do with Aboriginal sovereignty. If you read the acts, and consider their context – they work on the assumption that the Australasian colonies are fully part of the British Dominions. The acts only protect the rights of tribes who are outside of British Dominions and in the Pacific. The acts do not protect the rights of any tribes in what is now Australia, with the exception of Torres Strait Islander tribes who were not part of British Dominions at the time of the acts.

But I since figured out that these acts may be important for Aboriginal sovereignty for another reason. And it is related the repeal of these acts.

I found it interesting that this was repealed in 1999 because it was the year of the republic referendum. I have also noted that the Pacific Island Protection Act is a very special act. It is a special act – not so much because it is to do with protecting the interests of tribes, but because it is in regard to extra-territorial jurisdiction of the imperial system.

The repeal of the Acts

The full repeal of the Pacific Island Protection Act happened in two steps, one step in London 1986 and the other in Canberra 1999. Periodically – for example every year or every few years – a form of legislation housekeeping takes place in common law parliaments, and many old acts are changed and repealed in bulk en masse.

In 1986, the British/Imperial parliament did a mass cleanup of some cobwebs. Here are a few interesting Imperial acts that may have some relevance to Australia that were completely repealed in 1986 just after the Australia Acts passed (full list here):

• Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1875: is an Act to ensure British subjects who are in the Pacific to protect the rights and interests of the local inhabitants. I wrote on a bit about it here

• The British Settlements Act 1887 is: An Act to enable Her Majesty to provide for the Government of Her Possessions acquired by Settlement. It is about giving her majesty the power to establish courts and related activities in terra nullius possessed lands.

• The Nauru Island Agreement Act 1920 was a dead letter since 1973, but it wasn’t until 1986 that it was repealed. It was an agreement to for Australia administer/plunder phosphate in Nauru in a spoils sharing deal with New Zealand and the UK.

I will concentrate on the Pacific Islanders Protection Act for this post – but the other two are also interesting and related to colonialism and the Australia Acts: I might write more about them later.

Timeline

Here’s a timeline of a few things I’m going to put together here;

• Pacific Islanders Protection Act – Two related acts, 1872 and 1875
• Federation – 1901
• Australia Act (Commonwealth) – Assent 4 December 1985, Commenced 3 March 1986
• Australia Act (Imperial) – Assent February 1986, Commenced 3 March 1986
• Statute law repeals act (Imperial) – 2nd May 1986, where the Imperial Pacific Islanders Protection Act was repealed in London
• Criminal Code Amendment Sexual and Slavery Servitude Act 1999 (Commonwealth) assent 24 Aug 1999 – where the Australian Pacific Islanders Protection Act was repealed in Canberra
• Republic Referendum – 6 November 1999
• Amending Acts 1990 to 1999 Repeal Act 2016 – February 2016
• Uluru Statement – May 2017

The Pacific Islanders Protection Act.

For the purposes of this post, concentrate more on WHO and WHERE this act applies, not so much WHAT the act is about. So please forget about slavery, protecting tribes or Blackbirding for now. The special thing about this act is the WHO and WHERE – the jurisdiction of the act.

The 1875 act sets out laws that apply to British Subjects who are temporarily NOT in British dominions. If you are a British Subject, you are normally resident in the Australasian colonies, and you take a trip into the Pacific – this Act applies to your behavior. The laws apply to you even when you are not on British soil, and British soil here includes the Australasian colonies. So these are extra-territorial laws. Wherever an Englishman goes, his law is taken with him.

In a way, a colony runs entirely extra-territorially, because a foreign Crown is the authoritative head of the colony, and assents to all laws. Legislative, administrative and executive function may gradually be shifted to happen on “Australian soil”, however the final assent and sign-off is executed by the foreign Crown.

The Pacific Islanders Protection Act was special because it was a two-hop, extra-territorial act. It was for British Subjects, normally resident in the colonies, regarding their behavior in a third location (the Pacific). It was not a law for ALL British Subjects in the Pacific.

Note the sequence and timing of how it was repealed in sequence with the Australia Acts;

• Pacific Islanders Protection Act – Before Federation, in 1875
• Australia Act (Commonwealth) – Assent 4 December 1985, Commenced 3 March 1986
• Australia Act (Imperial) – Assent February 1986, Commenced 3 March 1986
• Statute law repeals act (Imperial) – 2nd May 1986
• Criminal Code Amendment Sexual and Slavery Servitude Act 1999 (Commonwealth) assent 24 Aug 1999
• Republic Referendum – 6 November 1999

In 1986, the Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1875 was taken off the Imperial books. This happened AFTER the Australia Acts, so it had no effect on Australian law because the Australia Acts created a separation between Imperial laws and Australian laws. The Statute law repeals act (Imperial) 1986 had no effect except cleaning up dead paperwork on the London side.

The Criminal Code Amendment Sexual and Slavery Servitude Act 1999

Moving on to 1999: this is where things get interesting. The Criminal Code Amendment Sexual and Slavery Servitude Act 1999 was passed in the lead-up to the 1999 Republic Referendum. This act repealed – in Australian law; the Pacific Islander Protection Act 1872 and 1875, and other imperial acts relating to slavery. This act basically re-enacted and modernised imperially inherited anti-slavery laws.

In jurisdictional scope, the Criminal Code Amendment Sexual and Slavery Servitude Act 1999 (I’m just going to call it the 1999 slavery act) is way more extensive than the Pacific Islanders Protection Act. The 1999 slavery Act overall does not just apply to Australian subjects/citizens whilst abroad in a specific region. Specifically, the sections regarding sexual servitude apply to actions committed overseas, and apply regardless of citizenship or residency status in Australia! This is extraordinary because a Crown normally has jurisdiction over Crown subjects and over Crown lands – yet this 1999 Act extends beyond both factors at the same time.

This act is perhaps Australia’s first home-grown, extra-territorial Act. This makes it a milestone of legislative independence. It has removed two-hops laws against slavery, and made a direct and distinctly Australian, extra-territorial, modern anti-slavery law.

This slavery act was assented to just before the failed 1999 Referendum when Australia was supposed to become a republic. I believe this special extra-territorial act was part of preparations to facilitate decolonisation of Australia via integration. Integration as a decolonial strategy (preambular recognition – 1999, YouMeUnity, Recognise) was dumped with the Uluru Statement. The 1999 slavery act was later repealed in 2016, not long before the Uluru Statement. The lifetime of the 1999 slavery act lines up perfectly with Australian policy towards decolonisation by integration.

Think about it – for Australia – perhaps all land is extra-territorial, because Australia has not yet properly secured it’s land through treaty. For decolonisation via integration/preambular recognition to happen, parliament needs to be able to “grab” the ability to legislate for territory it hasn’t gotten through treaty. Parliament demonstrates this extra-territorial jurisdiction using the 1999 slavery act. But the Uluru Statement has a treaty built-in, so demonstrating extra-territorial jurisdiction isn’t needed, as the treaty will secure the land. Hence the extra-territorial 1999 slavery act wasn’t needed, and was repealed before the Uluru Statement.

TL;DR

The real significance behind the Pacific Islander Protection Act is not about saving the rights of the tribes, it is about jurisdiction.

The British empire passed laws that apply to British Subjects who are normally resident in external British realms, but who are temporarily outside of those realms.

Australia one-upped that, and passed laws that apply to persons who are not Australian citizens, who are not even Australian residents, and for acts committed outside of Australian territory.

A head of a Commonwealth (a crown) has jurisdiction over acts committed on it’s territory, and has jurisdiction over it’s subjects even when those subjects are not present in the territory. So, as a constitutional monarchy – what basis of authority does the Australian Parliament have to pass legislation to prosecute acts committed by non-subjects outside of the Australian Crown’s territory?

I would argue that the 1999 slavery legislation is ultra vires (beyond their right authority). They are a law unto their own.

Another thing I would say is: don’t use the Pacific Islander Protection Act as a tool to argue for tribal autonomy or sovereignty. Not only did the acts never protect our rights to begin with, but the legislation that replaced it between 1999 and 2016 was very draconian in it’s jurisdictional scope. Bringing up the Pacific Islander Protection Act as an argument for tribal autonomy is like putting a sticker on your back saying “please use your fake Australian Crown to make laws over us”. We should be doing the opposite, and telling the colony to back-off and stick their laws where the sun don’t shine – at least until there is a political settlement.

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.

(re-writing this for clarity and because I’m revisiting and trying to better trace what happened: 5/5/2022.)

The Australia Acts 1986 includes a modification (see end of post for relevant part) to section 11A of the Queensland Constitution Act 1876-1978. Section 11A of the Queensland Constitution is about the office of Governor. Under the Queensland Constitution itself – this section 11A cannot be modified without a Queensland referendum. BUT THERE WAS NO QUEENSLAND REFERENDUM IN THE 80’s!

Does this mean that the Australia Acts itself is of no effect of an Act, because it would need a referendum in Queensland for it to be properly enacted?

See what the Queensland Constitution act says:

Queensland Constitution Act 1876-1978 (this particular section 53 was added in 1977)

Certain measures to be supported by referendum

53.(1) A Bill that expressly or impliedly provides for the abolition of or alteration in the office of Governor or that expressly or impliedly in any way affects any of the following sections of this Act namely—sections 1, 2, 2A, 11A, 11B; and this section 53 shall not be presented for assent by or in the name of the Queen unless it has first been approved by the electors in accordance with this section and a Bill so assented to consequent upon its presentation in contravention of this subsection shall be of no effect as an Act.

Section 11A can’t be touched without a QLD referendum. But somehow 11A was changed by the Australia Acts – and with no QLD referendum. Reading the above, it sounds like the entire Australia Acts are of no effect because it was not approved by electors in QLD.

There seems to be a lack of contiguity in Queensland’s constitution.

To fix, Queensland parliament appears to have done a clean-up job and reenacted almost the entire constitution as the Constitution of Queensland 2001 – also without a referendum. What power do they have to do this???

They left the old remnant 1876 constitution looking like a pile of crumbs – repealing most of it. Some parts are left behind. 11A is there, but with the Australia Acts amendments (done without QLD referendum), and other clauses to allow them to steal Aboriginal land in – section 30 regarding selling waste lands of the Crown, and section 40 which allows the state to steal and sell our minerals.

See link here and the image above for what is left of the real constitution – most sections are “repealed”. Click here for an older version before it was butchered.

*Just found this link here – I’m not the first to find this and it seems like Queensland’s constitution is a massive rabbit-hole of deceit.

Australia Acts

13  Amendment of Constitution Act of Queensland

             (1)  The Constitution Act 1867‑1978 of the State of Queensland is in this section referred to as the Principal Act.

             (2)  Section 11A of the Principal Act is amended in subsection (3):

                     (a)  by omitting from paragraph (a):

                              (i)  “and Signet”; and

                             (ii)  “constituted under Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom”; and

                     (b)  by omitting from paragraph (b):

                              (i)  “and Signet”; and

                             (ii)  “whenever and so long as the office of Governor is vacant or the Governor is incapable of discharging the duties of administration or has departed from Queensland”.

             (3)  Section 11B of the Principal Act is amended:

                     (a)  by omitting “Governor to conform to instructions” and substituting “Definition of Royal Sign Manual”;

                     (b)  by omitting subsection (1); and

                     (c)  by omitting from subsection (2):

                              (i)  “(2)”;

                             (ii)  “this section and in”; and

                            (iii)  “and the expression ‘Signet’ means the seal commonly used for the sign manual of the Sovereign or the seal with which documents are sealed by the Secretary of State in the United Kingdom on behalf of the Sovereign”.

             (4)  Section 14 of the Principal Act is amended in subsection (2) by omitting “, subject to his performing his duty prescribed by section 11B,”.

(Also available on Anchor LINK and spotify.)

In 2017, the Referendum Council held a Constitutional Convention at Yulara, and the result was the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

There has been some criticism about this process. But today I am going to talk about how the process was designed, and how there is a very high chance that it will be accepted by the international community as a legitimate exercise of self-determination in a decolonial sense.

Keywords: Referendum Council, Kirribilli Statement, Act of Free Choice, West Papua, Indonesia, Musyawara

As horrible as this bill is going to look like at the end – it will pass, because it’s related to the Uluru Statement and the project to usurp Aboriginal Sovereignty for the Australian people.

It is necessary to create complete religious freedom for the colonial project to legitimize itself. Here I will explain why.

Trip back in history…

In Phillips First Fleet instructions, there’s a couple of drafts available. One of the major differences in the drafts is to do with having freedom of religion vs. setting up Church of England/Anglican church as the official church. It’s interesting that was such an important detail worth considering in Phillips instructions, given the sheer logistics of the First Fleet voyage. Think about it – Arthur Phillip had a tonne of responsibilities, but some were worried what the religious status of the colony should be. I think in the end, the religious stuff was left out completely from the instructions (but I’m not 100% sure because this is one of those “missing” founding documents).

But initially in the Colony, church services were Church of England/Anglican and were compulsory on paper. Your rations would be cut if you don’t go to church, but in practice this was not enforced. Catholics (mostly Irish) were discriminated against, and couldn’t have their own Catholic services until some time later.

The official religion of the governing system is important because it is the ultimate source of Authority of the whole government. Everything sits under the Crown, and the Crown is coronated and gets authority from God via the Church. This is not a trivial issue. This is the basis of authority of the whole system we are talking about. That is why people can swear oath on the bible in Court – because the bible sits on top of the whole system.

So what is the official religion of the Australian system?

There are TWO crowns, sitting parallel to each other.

THE FIRST CROWN is The Queen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms who is coronated in The Church of England. This Queen is the head of State. This Crown has authority over British Subjects which includes Australian people. But this Crown has no TREATY with Aboriginal people – and has no authority over Aboriginal people or Aboriginal Land.

The SECOND CROWN has not yet been coronated. This is the Crown that SovCits call the fake treasonous Crown – with it’s own title, coat of arms, parliament house, etc. BUT SovCits got it wrong – the second Crown is not fake, it is a symbolic placeholder. The second Crown is the “Queen of Australia”. It is a symbolic-only Crown, it is a head on a coin – not a person. Queen Elizabeth II was NEVER coronated as “Queen of Australia” – she was coronated Queen of UK and the Commonwealth of Nations. The “Queen of Australia” is a title representing the sovereignty of AUSTRALIA. “AUSTRALIA” includes “First Australians”, Aboriginal land, the white squattocracy, convicts and immigrants. But what is the source of authority and/or religion of this second Crown – and who is going to coronate this Crown?

The two crowns together running parallel have enough power between them to run Australia. Problem is one of the Crowns hasn’t gone through ceremony.

Coronation of the Australian People

Remembering that “First Nations” have asserted “spiritual sovereignty” in the Uluru Statement. It is these First Nations spiritual sovereigns who will coronate the “Queen of Australia” – the Australian people – the SECOND CROWN.

The “First Nations” have legitimacy through their strong spiritual connection to country, in the same manner as a European Pope or Archbishop has a connection to God. And just like a Pope coronates a European King or Queen, First Nations will use their spiritual sovereignty to coronate the Australian people, then the Australian people will be sovereign.

As the Spiritual Sovereign stands in the chain of authority ABOVE the “Queen of Australia”, the spiritual sovereign must be completely free of spiritual restriction from the Queen.

The Australian people (represented symbolically by the “Queen of Australia”) cannot be coronated while they are imposing restrictions on Aboriginal religious practice. They must bow down to the spiritual authority. So any and all restrictions must be lifted. Under Aboriginal law – there is discrimination based on sex, for example, there is men’s business and women’s business. Current Australian law may be a restriction on this, and restrictions must be lifted – even if just temporarily for the Coronation to happen.

This is why they need this Religious Discrimination Bill – to remove all restrictions on the spiritual sovereigns to allow them to freely coronate the “Queen of Australia” and to give Australian people the land and full temporal sovereign power.

Churches like Hillsong etc will also temporarily have freedom to discriminate, which might upset everyone but it is necessary as part of the plan to usurp Aboriginal Sovereignty.

The Bill must pass.

The concept of a “Commonwealth” was originally an idea from an influential political philisopher, Thomas Hobbes.

In this post, I am going to look a his Commonwealth concept, and I will comment on how this concept fits in with the Commonwealth of Australia, with the Commonwealth of Nations (as the sucessor to the British Empire), and with Aboriginal peoples’ sovereignty.

The texts quoted here come fromHobbes’ book, Leviathan, chapter 7, you can read here.

Men love Liberty and Dominion over others

Chapter 7 opens with this paragraph:

The End Of Common-wealth, Particular Security The finall Cause, End, or Designe of men, (who naturally love Liberty, and Dominion over others,) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, (in which wee see them live in Common-wealths,) is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of Warre, which is necessarily consequent (as hath been shewn) to the naturall Passions of men, when there is no visible Power to keep them in awe, and tye them by feare of punishment to the performance of their Covenants, and observation of these Lawes of Nature set down in the fourteenth and fifteenth Chapters

Hobbes

Men “naturally love Liberty and Dominion over others”, especially when driven by the illusion of the Ego. And the Western, individualist-centric mindset feeds into this by cultivating a system where each individual plays a game to strive for their most contented life – playing against everything and everyone else. A dog eats dog world which is replicated on another scale in a nation eats nation world.

I think this paragraph from Hobbes also ties in nicely with an observation I made in my post, A Roadmap to Self-Determination where I wrote:

 the principle of non-interference in international law is born out of war. It is born out of an expectation that if you agree to not interfere with others – they won’t interfere with you. The root of this is not empathy, but fear and an expectation of reciprocity

In the European/Western cultures, there is a deeply-seated belief that the only reason why an individual would follow a law is if they are forced to out of fear. And that fear must be administered by a centralised authoritative figure – whether it be God, a King, a Lord, a Parliament, or someone else who sits on-top of a hierarchy who will punish law-breakers. This belief can also be seen in some circles of ultra-religious Christians – Christians who think that atheists must be incapable of following any laws at all.

However, this is not a universal belief. Many other cultures that are not built on the individual; but on family units, small communities or tribes do not ascribe to this. In smaller groups and communities, each individual has capacity to build and nurture closer relationships with others around them – hence people are connected and can empathise with those around them. It is that empathy and respect which is the motivation to follow laws – not fear. Harming a complete stranger is much easier than harming a close friend. Also in smaller communities, every person has a chance at exercising a share of power, of building their own niche in that community.

In large mega-societies, power is distributed very unevenly. Jordan Peterson says hierarchies are inevitable because of very old biochemical pathways that have evolved into serotonin seeking behaviors – behaviors so evolutionarily ancient they can be observed in lobsters. I agree with Jordan Peterson’s reasoning that hierarchies are inevitable – however hierarchies themselves can be broken down into complex networks of smaller hierarchical units. This is what Aboriginal society does very well, and is also a reason why Aboriginal society is so difficult for outsiders to understand – because it is so complex. Hierarchies are formed as a function of serotonin seeking behavior on part of individuals in context of societal values. Fostering societal values that can build healthy societal hierarchies is something that, in my opinion, western society does very badly.

Highly-centralised power

The Generation Of A Common-wealth

The only way to erect such a Common Power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of Forraigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their owne industrie, and by the fruites of the Earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly; is, to conferre all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills, by plurality of voices, unto one Will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or Assembly of men, to beare their Person; and every one to owne, and acknowledge himselfe to be Author of whatsoever he that so beareth their Person, shall Act, or cause to be Acted, in those things which concerne the Common Peace and Safetie; and therein to submit their Wills, every one to his Will, and their Judgements, to his Judgment. This is more than Consent, or Concord; it is a reall Unitie of them all, in one and the same Person, made by Covenant of every man with every man, in such manner, as if every man should say to every man, “I Authorise and give up my Right of Governing my selfe, to this Man, or to this Assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy Right to him, and Authorise all his Actions in like manner.”

So here is the heirachy, placing all of the power of the people into a singularity – the head of the Commonwealth. This concept is represented in the artwork on the cover of the book;

In this Commonwealth, the King is the HEAD OF STATE, and the people are the BODY POLITIC. Look on the clothing the King wears – it is made of many faces of the King’s subjects. The HEAD and the BODY together are sovereign over the land, this illustration shows this really well.

The people submit their authority to the Common-wealth or the King, and the King has an obligation to act in the right of the subjects and to protect the subjects – especially from foreign invasion, which is a big concern in Europe where they all invading each other all the time.

This done, the Multitude so united in one Person, is called a COMMON-WEALTH, in latine CIVITAS. This is the Generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather (to speake more reverently) of that Mortall God, to which wee owe under the Immortall God, our peace and defence. For by this Authoritie, given him by every particular man in the Common-Wealth, he hath the use of so much Power and Strength conferred on him, that by terror thereof, he is inabled to forme the wills of them all, to Peace at home, and mutuall ayd against their enemies abroad.

The immortal god in the sky chooses his favourite Mortal God/Leviathan/King to win various wars with other Kings. If a King loses a war, it may be because he has lost favour with the immortal God. And the people of the various Common-wealths owe their support to whichever King they are under, and that King is supposed to protect them from foreign enemies.

Protecting the subjects against foreign enemies is, I think, one possible interpretation of the concept of “protection” as in historical Aboriginal Protection acts. The Crown has Protection Acts to protect Aboriginal peoples against enemies abroad such as French, Dutch or other would-be colonisers. This action would imply that Aboriginal peoples are themselves Crown subjects. But many “protectors” were also leading massacres against Aboriginal people. This makes sense if those Aboriginal people massacred are also “enemies abroad”, unbelieving heathens who do not lick the boot.

Definition of a Common-wealth

The Definition Of A Common-wealth And in him consisteth the Essence of the Common-wealth; which (to define it,) is “One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutuall Covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the Author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their Peace and Common Defence.“

A Common-wealth is One person, of whose Acts a great Multitude. If there is ONE PERSON per ONE COMMONWEALTH, let’s look at the situation of the Commonwealth of Nations vs the Commonwealth of Australia.

Australian people are part of more than one Commonwealth. How are these Commonwealths structured?

Look at the coronation oath of Queen Elizabeth II:

Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the
Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other
Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws
and customs?
Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.

This was one single oath to the peoples, one ceremony with an oath to the peoples of the list of nations enumerated. I mocked up this illustration below of the coronation of the Queen of the Commonwealth of Nations. The different colours represent the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon.

The coronation ceremony was conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, spiritual head of the Church of England, in accordance with the Doctrine of Two Swords. Part of the ceremony reflects this – as the Sword of State was presented to Elizabeth II, she placed it on the alter, and then a peer took it from the alter after paying 100 shillings. The Archbishop has coronated a woman as a Queen of England, as his church has spiritual authority in England.

But who has the authority to coronate a “Queen of Australia”, the head of the “Commonwealth of Australia”?

I will put a graphic below to show what I mean This illustration below shows the “Queen of Australia” is and it’s relation to the peoples of Australia and the Queen of the Commonwealth of Nations.

Coronation of the Queen of Australia

I think there was an attempt to coronate the “Queen of Australia” by the Referendum Council. The Uluru Statement asserts “Spiritual Sovereignty” – much like the Archbishop of the Church of England has spiritual sovereignty. The Uluru Statement also says that this spiritual sovereignty co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown. This is consistent with the Doctrine of Two Swords. In some schools of thought, it is the spiritual sovereign who coronates the temporal/material sovereign (although there are variations on who gives who what sword).

The “Queen of Australia” is an abstraction for the sovereign body of the Australian people. It is a head on the back of a coin, much like the Statue of Liberty/Libertas is a symbol of the state in the United States. Queen Elizabeth II was never coronated as “Queen of Australia”, the title was created during her reign. This ideally should be sorted before her successor as head of the Commonwealth of Nations is coronated.

The Aboriginal members of the Referendum Council made an offer of ceremonial objects and sharing of sovereignty to the Australian people. This is a coronation of the Australian people – giving them temporal/material sovereignty, while the First Nations people retain spiritual sovereignty.

The Archbishop of Canterbury does not have the spiritual authority to do this.

An Australian Coronation ceremony based on European law.

Here is the result below. A completely independent republic, the “Queen of Australia” figuratively representing the republic itself, and the Common-wealth of states (colonies plus the acceded “First Nations” state), Republic coronated by Aboriginal spiritual sovereigns, a Republic with full temporal sovereignty over the Australian/Aboriginal land. Aboriginal spiritual sovereignty is held in high esteem symbolically. But symbolic only – sorry, “separation of church and state, b*tches”. Expect plenty more welcomes, pats on the back, and acknowledgements of “Aunties”, “Uncles” and “traditional elders”, and talk of the “worlds oldest culture” blah blah blah… but no material support. If the republic wouldn’t throw money and land at a church, the same goes for spiritual sovereigns.

Attaining Sovereign Power

So – reading further through Hobbes’ book;

The attaining to this Soveraigne Power, is by two wayes. One, by Naturall force; as when a man maketh his children, to submit themselves, and their children to his government, as being able to destroy them if they refuse, or by Warre subdueth his enemies to his will, giving them their lives on that condition. The other, is when men agree amongst themselves, to submit to some Man, or Assembly of men, voluntarily, on confidence to be protected by him against all others. This later, may be called a Politicall Common-wealth, or Common-wealth by Institution; and the former, a Common-wealth by Acquisition.

In context of Australia and looking at what actually happened with colonisation, I have no idea which of these ways sovereign power of the Queen of Australia was attained over Aboriginal people. I suppose Aboriginal people came under the British Crown by Acquisition/force – however we are not children of England, nor have we ever surrendered under war, submitted or agreed to be protected.

Retrospectively though, if First Nations coronate the “Queen of Australia”, it would be a legitimate political Common-wealth under the definition Hobbes gives here – with the Australian people submitting to the Parliament, who is in-turn authorised by the spiritual sovereigns. Given that Australia has officially called itself a Commonwealth since Federation in 1901, the Queen of Australia must have existed since at least then. People talk of “elders past, present and future…”, so my guess is that old Queen Victoria will retrospectively made a past elder, as she was the first Queen of Australia the Common-wealth.

Sovereign Citizen’s idea of Australia as a “Corporation”

Sovcits have this idea that there was treason, and the real Queen was usurped by a corporation that is listed on the New York Stock exchange – or something to that effect. Here’s an example… https://web.archive.org/web/20220107003210/https://commonlaw.earth/a-simple-explanation-about-government-treason/

I think they are right that there really is something going on – but I think their interpretation is way off.

There are two crowns – one for the Commonwealth of Nations, one for the Commonwealth of Australia.

The newer Crown for the Commonwealth of Australia is being built-up in parallel as an independent, autochthonous Crown to replace the old colonial empire Crown. The new Crown will usurp Aboriginal sovereignty for the Australian people.

Sovereign citizens have noted the steps playing out, and blame a socialist plot to usurp the old Crown. But most of the steps noted on this SovCit page linked here make perfect sense under a transitional Crown model.

For example – removing “defender of the Faith” from the Queen of Australia title – this makes sense as Australia is supposed to be a secular state, plus the Crown has done a shit job at defending Aboriginal spirituality/faith – which is supposed to be the new basis of the Republic.

Another example;

Whitlam changed the name of the government from the “Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia” to the “Parliament of Australia”. Australia is the landmass! The People are the Commonwealth of Australia.

Yes, very well observed. But the change is needed because the British Crown never properly acquired sovereignty over the land itself. But the “Queen of Australia” will be the sovereign head of the “Parliament of Australia” including the land and Aboriginal people once the “Indigenous Voice” is enshrined.

SovCit Australian nationalists have it all upside-down. The new corporate Crown was made FOR THEM so they don’t have to share a foreign British Empire Crown. The Crown NEEDS a revolution to install the new Crown, and needs one soon (ideally before the next coronation). And the Crown probably needs revolutions in other Common-wealth lands as well. The current happenings (Truck convoys) in various Common-wealth countries right now smell to me like engineered revolutions, like Euromaidan in Ukraine or other western-backed “regime-change” “colour revolutions”. The truck convoys and burning down parliament doors could also be to weed out would-be revolutionists to keep an eye on them, while the real revolution happens by paper (eg – see paper here section Declaration of autochthony (a ‘disguised’ constitutional revolution) in the halls of Parliament.

The Referendum Council have done a really stupid thing in making offers of sovereignty on behalf of First Nations to the “Australian People”, because they have in effect authorised this false-flag LARP burning of Old Parliament House doors and the other mess created by Australian nationalists. Expect to see more chaos, and more movements – both Government and otherwise – trying to hunt down and indoctrinate “Elders” to do “Treaties” with. Whichever movement secures treaties, will have sovereignty over the land.

The Uluru Statement Process

The Referendum Council’s goal was to come up with a solution for Australia to decolonise according to the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. As part of this, a political solution must be put forward having due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned. How well does the solution meet this criteria of having due regard?

Let’s look at the process behind the Dialogues. They involved a series of invite-only meetings across Australia. There were roughly 13 regional meetings, each capped at 100 participants. From these meeting attendees, some were then chosen to go to the final convention at Uluru/Yulara. So at most – there were 1300 participants in total who had a say in this process.

If we roughly estimate the total Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population – it is about 800,000 people as of 2016. 1300 participants from 800,000 is a very small proportion.

The western Papua “Act of Free Choice”

Now let’s look in comparison at the Act of Free Choice which was a process run in western Papua in 1969. This was a UN supervised decolonial process in which the people of western Papua expressed their will and their right to self-determination. The people of western Papua needed to be treated separately in the process because as a peoples, they are culturally and ethnically distinct from the rest of Indonesia.

In the Act of Free Choice, a “referendum” was held to allow the people of western Papua to express their will. The total population of western Papua was at the time, about 800,000. This makes comparisons with the Uluru Statement process easy – as it is coincidentally about the same as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population in Australia as of 2016.

The Indonesian military hand-picked 1024 Melanesian people from western Papua who voted unanimously on a proposal to join western Papua with Indonesia. This is how western Papua decolonised and became part of Indonesia.

There were widespread allegations of death threats and blackmail associated with the vote. It is also very suspicious that the vote was unanimous. Despite this, the UN and international community seems to support this so-called Act of Free Choice.

Comparison of processes

In western Papua, 1024 hand-picked persons chose the fate for 800,000 colonised peoples of western Papua. The United Nations and the International community stood by this, even though a very small proportion of people actually expressed their will. If this very small vote is accepted – it sets an extremely low bar for any future decolonisation processes in other parts of the world.

This may the low bar that the Referendum Council was intending to meet. A maximum of 1300 out of a population of 800,000 is proportionally very similar.

Why did Australia support East Timor independence, but has not supported western Papua?

Perhaps the reason why Australia has not stepped up against supporting the people of western Papua is because they want to avoid being seen as hypocrites later on. Australia can hardly complain about Indonesia/the UN with their support of the dodgy “Act of Free Choice”, when Australia themselves are planning to stoop just as low in the future.

Australia – while initially late to the party – in the end supported East Timor’s independence. However, East Timor was historically a Portuguese colony, and was separate to the Dutch East Indies which surrounded it. Under the principle of Uti possidetus juris as applied in a decolonial context, East Timor is it’s own, separate case, standing on it’s own. Uti possidetus juris means (very rough oversimplification here – but anyways..) an old colony becomes one, single new independent nation upon decolonising. It was, in some respects, in Australia’s interest to support East Timor – as it helps uphold Uti possidetus juris as a decolonisation principle. Upholding this principle may help Australia to decolonise itself in a unified way – without being split territorially. To be consistent with upholding the Uti possidetus juris principle, Australia should also support Indonesia’s claim over western Papua, as it is part of the Dutch East Indies historically.

Why is western Papua part of Indonesia anyway?

The reason western Papua is seen as part of the Dutch East Indies – ironically may be to do with the actions of Queensland. Going back historically, before Cooks 1770 voyage, at least some parts of western Papua island were on the territorial fringe of the Dutch East Indies due to treaties conducted by the Dutch with the Sultanate of Tidore.

But the big line on the map – the border that divides western Papua/Indonesia from Papua New Guinea at 141 degrees East, was drawn on the map during Queensland’s annexation of Papua in 1883.

The annexation by Queensland was in response to some propaganda, fabricated, fear-fantasy pumped up by Australian newspapers about Germans annexing it if the British did not annex it first. A German geographer named Emil Deckert did a talk in Dresden for the Verein fuer Erdkunde (Geography special-interest club). The talk was about what a good idea it would be for Germany to colonise New Guinea. This was not an official government position – it was a personal opinion, in a special interest club – something which happens every day (Germans are kind of big on “Vereins”, I see posters for them everywhere here, although not so many since COVID). The Sydney Morning Herald translated and published his talk as if it were an official German government position – which led to Queensland pre-emptively annexing half of New Guinea. I can vouch that the translation of the talk itself was accurate, but it was presented out of context. Many decades later on, western Papua was scooped-up by Indonesia from the other side of that 141 degrees east line.

Conclusion

Main point of this post is to show that – as gammon as such a tiny representative sample (less than 1%) the Referendum Council actually asked is – there is already precedent for it to be accepted by the International community, because a gammon process HAS been accepted in the case of western Papua.

The colony has planned this scheme out in a LOT of intricate detail. It wouldn’t surprise be if they were actually using the Act of Free Choice as their “bar” to meet, given how closely the numbers line up. We are talking 1024 delegates for western Papua process vs. an unknown, but maximum of 1300 for the Referendum Council – from similar ballpark number of total population of 800,000. The Referendum Council used funding as an excuse to limit participation and hosting dialogues – yet they had all the money in the world to spend on ‘experts’ and ‘consultants’ at the big end of town, and had enough to fly everyone to Yulara – which is probably not the most economical place if the goal is including as many people as possible for a set amount of $$’s.

But being such a low bar, is not a completely bad thing. Because it means you only need to get 2000-odd Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people together to put together a competing alternative on the table. Note – you can’t just have 2000 of your buddies from your own circle, it needs to be geographically and situationally diverse. By situationally diverse – I mean you would need to include old-skool Traditional Owners, people from Stolen Generations, people from the Missions, etc. The time is golden right now to start thinking about alternatives and putting them out to the people.

This year I will concentrate on reaching out to new audiences with a podcast. My podcast has been created, and is available on Spotify, and should be listed in Google podcasts in a few days time.

I will keep working on this blog as a log of me discovering new information. The podcast is mostly for getting out to mob very important findings that I have already blogged about.

I also plan to post podcasts as audio-videos on my youtube channel. This is mainly because I like listening to talks on youtube and I know others like to.

You can listen to the first, and so far only podcast episode here;

The episode above will compliment an online presentation I will make for Invasion Day, which will be up on Youtube on that date. There will also be a podcast version of the presentation posted