The first unambiguous recorded European sighting of the east coast of New Holland was in 1770 by James Cook on his first expedition. The sighted point of land was named Point Hicks, as it was first seen by the second-in-charge Lieutenant Zachary Hicks. But there is a problem with Point Hicks. According to Cook’s records, it lies more than 20km out to sea. This is a very unusual error for Cook – who was known for his exceptional navigation and cartography skills.

There are a few different hypothesis’s to explain why Cook placed Point Hicks far out to sea. None of them are satisfactory in my opinion.

One is that he saw a weather phenomenon – a phantom cloudbank that resembled land. However this explanation doesn’t make sense because it was not just Point Hicks that was misplaced, but an entire section of coastline. Some land is also on Cook’s chart as sea. Furthermore, cloudbanks are temporary illusions – but Cook was in the area for several hours. Later on, Matthew Flinders and others verified the presence of long-lingering, local cloudbanks – but given that Flinders works for the same “team” as Cook, it’s possible Flinders was doing a cover-up job and simply lied about the presence of cloud banks to cover for Cook’s deceptions.

Another explanation recently put forward by Margaret Cameron-Ash is that Cook secretly discovered the Bass Strait, and placed Point Hicks and a short section of coastline in the wrong place in order to obscure the Bass Strait. I think this sounds a bit more plausible – but it still does not make sense. The fudged coastline only obscures a very small fraction of the Strait. It is such a small fraction that it’s pointless – it would have made more sense for Cook to simply leave everything south of nearby Cape Howe (where the coast sharply turns northward) off the official chart completely and pretend that Cook was never south of Cape Howe. I think Margaret Cameron-Ash is correct that the Bass Strait was secretly discovered by the British – but I just think it happened afterwards on Cook’s second voyage by Tobias Furneaux. Margaret Cameron-Ash is probably giving us a limited hangout.

I have a hypothesis which I think makes more sense that any other explanation put forward so far. I have already explained it in a video, but I will write it again here.

The real secret instructions

My hypothesis as follows here. Cook had a second set of secret instructions – instructions so secret that have still never seen the light of day.

Everyone has heard the “story” of how in 1768-1771 Cook went to Tahiti, observed the transit of Venus, and then opened his so-called secret and sealed instructions to discover a southern land of great extent. But these instructions were never really secret in the first place. The mission (minus detailed specifics) of searching for a large southern land was published in London newspapers before Cook even left England. Under the Doctrines of Discovery, there is nothing nefarious about claiming Aotearoa/Staten Landt/New Zealand because no European power had ever formally claimed discovery of it. The only previous sighting was by Abel Tasman, and Tasman merely charted a small part of it. The Dutch – despite 127 years of knowing of Aotearoa, never formally claimed possession of it. There is no need for Cook’s so-called secret instructions to be secret.

But my hypothesis is that Cook’s real secret instructions were to find and claim any parts of Van Diemen’s Land/New Holland that lie eastward of Abel Tasman’s eastern-most claims of discovery. As such land would presumably be contiguous with greater New Holland, this gives reason for the mission to be secret as it is moving-in on formal Dutch possession claims. Cook was secretly and explicitly instructed to sail up the eastern coast of New Holland, and to land on the mainland on sections that lie east of the longitude of Tasman’s Prince-flag. Cook’s instructions were to start charting the east coast at Latitude 38 degrees south, and then head along the coast north and through the Torres Strait.

The impetus for this mission is that the British had recently ‘discovered’ the Torres Strait in Spanish records during the British occupation of Manila. As the Dutch had treaties with the Sultanate of Tidore (in modern day Western New Guinea), this newly found presence of the Torres Strait reveals that the Dutch have no treaty with any lands contiguous with the greater New Holland land mass. That means – New Holland or at least parts of it is possibly up for grabs for discovery. Cook was to try and get the British foot in the door by claiming possession of an extreme eastern section between the Torres Strait (north) and Latitude 38 degrees South (south) for the British Crown. An extreme eastern section makes the most sense due to precedents set long ago in the Treaty of Saragossa.

Why down to latitude 38 degrees south? A possible reason is that Abel Tasman’s chart of Van Diemen’s land approximately covers latitude 44 south to 41 south – a span of 3 degrees of latitude. 41 degrees south, plus another margin of 3 degrees northward gives a latitude of 38 degrees south. This gives the Dutch the coast they have discovered and doubled it in terms of degrees of latitude. Another reason is that 38 degrees south looks not unreasonable for Cook’s cover story of heading from New Zealand to Batavia.

Consent of the Natives

If you read Cook’s not-so-secret instructions carefully and in their entirety (instead of relying on out-of-context snippets normally fed to us by colonial propaganda), you will note that Cook was instructed to make some limited formal possession claims with the consent of the natives. This instruction to gain consent specifically applies to a possible “Continent or Land of great extent” lying between Tahiti and Tasman’s Staten Landt/New Zealand (or perhaps to Staten Landt itself if it is of great extent). But such a land does not exist. Cook was not instructed to gain consent of the natives over anything discovered after charting New Zealand, including New Holland.

It is a big misconception that is currently doing the rounds (here for example), that Cook was instructed to get consent of the natives New Holland (assuming it is inhabited) and he failed. But there was no discrepancy. Cook followed the known instructions to the letter, including doing the possession ceremony from an off-shore island.

The reason for the lack of instruction to gain consent from the natives of New Holland is perhaps due to the discourse of Abel Tasman. Tasman’s own instructions were to plant a “Prince-flag” in cases of discovery where there is no sovereign.

All continents and islands, which you shall discover, touch at and set foot on, you will take possession of on behalf of Their High Mightinesses the States General of the United-Provinces, the which in uninhabited regions or in such countries as have no sovereign, may be done by erecting a memorial-stone or by planting our Prince-flag in sign of actual occupation, seeing that such lands justly belong to the discoverer and first occupier; but in populated regions or in such as have undoubted lards, the consent of the people or the king will be required before you can enter into possession of them, the which you should try to obtain by friendly persuasion’ and by presenting them with some small tree planted in a little earth, by erecting some stone structure in conjunction with the people, or by setting up the Prince-flag in commemoration of their voluntary assent or submission; all which occurrences you will carefully note in your Journal, mentioning by name such persons as have been present at them, that such record may in future be of service to our republic.

Instructions to Abel Tasman

In 1642, Tasman planted a Prince-flag in Van Diemen’s Land/Tasmania at what he named Frederick Henry Bay (currently near Marion Bay due to Matthew Flinders doing a rename/cover-up-job for Furneaux). This flag planting can be seen as an assertion by the Dutch East India Company that there is no sovereign there. At this time, the Bass Strait was unknown, so the act of Tasman planting the flag also implies there is no sovereign in Van Diemen’s land/New Holland – as they were considered to be one contiguous land mass (Doctrines of Discovery principle of contiguity). Tasman then sailed on to Aotearoa where he had diplomatic interactions with the Maori, but did not plant a Prince-flag there. So through Tasman’s actions, he diplomatically recognised that Aotearoa had sovereign/s, but not Van Diemen’s Land and also by implication – New Holland.

Tasman’s flag planting is a possible origin for the terra nullius myth. The British followed Tasman’s suit and diplomatically recognised the Maori and not the natives of New Holland. This non-recognition has led to confusion over our legal status which continues to this day, as well as genocide, mass land theft, assimilation policies etc. There are some aspects of colonialism that are unique to Australia compared with other settler-colonial states, I think most of these aspects can be traced to this initial non-recognition. The attempted extermination of the natives of Van Diemen’s Land was a particularly concentrated effort, because it is more important that land be fully “cleared” because it is where Tasman planted his terra nullius flag. Survivors of the Black Line in Van Diemen’s Land were relocated to other nearby islands (non-contiguous lands), this relocation was a purposeful exercise. Tasman did not just plant a Prince-flag, but also planted a seed of genocide which the British fully nurtured.

What went wrong with Cook’s instructions?

The problem is that when Cook made land on the east coast of New Holland at about 38 degrees south, the coastline was not running north-south as expected, but was running east-west and slightly north of 38 degrees south (see map below). Upon approach to the coast, Cook found himself travelling parallel to the coast instead of perpendicular as expected.

This meant Cook had a problem. It was impossible to fulfil his instructions. As the coastline was not observed to reach down to 38 degrees south, it was not possible to chart the coastline from this latitude. So Cook fudged the coastline in his accounts so that it reached 38 degrees south in order to fulfill his secret mission.

There is other circumstantial evidence that support this hypothesis;

1. Cook’s Point Hicks lies exactly at 38.0S. As Margaret Cameron-Ash has noted, this is a very round number, as if someone made it up while sitting at a desk.
2. At the Torres Strait on Possession Island, Cook claimed possession of the coastline down to exactly 38 degrees south This would be a sketchy claim if Cook had not first charted land at 38.0 degrees south.
3. When Cook was crossing from New Zealand to New Holland, in the first half of that stretch he went north of 38 degrees south, then corrected his course to stay south of this line (see image below). This correction is completely unnecessary if he were simply “heading to Batavia for repairs”.

Ancestors at work?

This is one of two cases I have found where it seems the coastline has conspired to reveal British trickery and false claims over our land. If the coast did not turn sharply westward at Cape Howe just a smidgen north of 38 degrees south as it does, there would not be this smoking gun left behind in Cook’s charts.

The other example of “conspiring coastline” is Tobias Furneaux being caught out on his Adventure in Van Diemen’s Land by mistaking Storm Bay for Fredricks Henry Bay. His chart, the errors in it, along with his written narratives are also a smoking gun as to what the British were really up to with the Adventure. I will do a more detailed post on this in the future.

These examinations of voyages and finding these smoking guns is important – because they are the original lies on which all other lies are grounded. As in the Goanna song – “someone lied”. Real “Truthtelling” should begin at the foundational level – not building on top of fresh lies such as “we are the First Australians” or we were “British Subjects”. We, and our lands retain a separate and distinct status from all colonial-occupier institutions as per UN General Assembly Resolution 2625.

These little details show that the British had a premeditated intention to claim and colonise New Holland before Cook ever set sail on any voyage. The British discovery of Australia was not serendipitous and out of nowhere, nor was it a made claim up after-the-fact to find a new place to dump prisoners after the American Revolution.

Ironically, the 250 year anniversary of Cook’s voyage and a planned “reenactment” of the voyage was upset by devastating bushfires in this exact same area as “Point Hicks”. The Corona/Crown virus then finished off the whole circumnavigation spectacle. The title image for this blog post is a photo taken by Rose Fletcher on New Years Day 2020 of the sky filled with smoke from these bushfires – a sky resembling the Aboriginal flag. At the time this photo was taken, thousands of people were trapped by bushfires in Mallacoota and sheltering on the same coastline Cook had doctored on his fraudulent chart.

The land needs it’s custodians to care for country. The ancestors have sent a message from the site of one of the original lies. The false reenactment of Cook’s voyage was stopped. It’s time to stop making up new lies as to what happened, it’s time to acknowledge the the full sovereignty and ownership of the people of the land, to recognise the laws of the land, and work from a more honest and truthful basis.

I have not blogged for a while because I have been working on this video.

I have made a brand new youtube channel to host it.

This video covers history from the papal bulls to Cook’s second voyage.

This part is in response to an article on the Sovereign Union website Who deleted the phrase “Heirs and successors”?

Just to be clear, I’m not ‘attacking’ the Sovereign Union or Michael Anderson here. I am just confused.

This post I will focus on the alleged doctoring of text – but there are other problems with this article.

As for the original article – TL;DR – Michael Anderson claims there are versions of the Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1875 that have been doctored from the original Act, and are circulating in Australia and on the Internet. And these have been doctored to delete the words ‘her heirs and successors‘ from section 7.

Yes, there was a deletion of text from the 1875 act.

But the deletion itself is not a mystery.

This below is grabbed off the Sovereign Union post. For some reason the Sovereign Union article links to the pre-Fiji 1872 Act that doesn’t even include the edit that the article discusses. But the article also includes this screenshot to the correct 1875 Act, and to section 7. Saving of rights of tribes – which I lifted here, and added the red box to.

The red box refers to an amendment of section 7. It says;

This section is printed as amended by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1898 (61 & 62 Vic. c, 22).

This Statute Law Revision Act of 1898 is;

An Act for further promoting the Revision of the Statute Law by repealing Enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary. [25th July 1898.]

And in this Statute Law Revision Act, the deletion of her heirs or successor is noted (bolded by myself for emphasis);

1. The enactments described in the first part of the schedule to this Act are hereby repealed, subject to the provisions of this Act and subject to the exceptions and qualifications in the said schedule mentioned; and every part of a title, preamble, or recital specified after the words “in part, namely,” in connexion with an Act mentioned in the said schedule may be omitted from any revised edition of the statutes published by authority after the passing of this Act, and there may be added in the said edition such brief statement of the Acts, officers, persons, and things mentioned in the title, preamble, or recital, as may in consequence of such omission appear necessary.

…

THE SCHEDULE.

FIRST PART.

…

c. 51. – The Pacific Islanders Protection Act, 1875.In part, namely,—Section seven, the words “her heirs or successor”

Statute Law Revision Act, 1898

There you have it; there was text removed by this Statute Law Revision Act.

But it looks like the original words should have been “her heirs or successor“; not “her heirs and successors”.

In the Sovereign Union article, Michael Anderson says he has a photocopy from the London archives that says “her heirs and successors” – but he hasn’t posted his photocopy.

So overall, it is very confusing. Given that there’s no proof provided, I’m skeptical that there was any tampering.

Image by Lilliane YC from Pixabay

I caught up on a recent “Truth Telling & Treaty Circle” meeting hosted by The Greens.

Michael Mansell was one of the guests. He talks about sharing of power and “reserved seats” at 43minutes 53sec. Reserved seats is something that is fresh in my mind that I just wrote about recently.

I’m pretty sure that Michael Mansell is on the inside and knows what’s going on. His role has always been to anchor Aboriginal expectations, and to give them ideas of what they should ask the governments for. Tip: learn what “anchoring bias” is if you don’t know already.

Here I will number, and put in some of his quotes from the video, and then add my comments in between.

Quote 1.

The fourth topic is a sharing of power. At the national level, you would expect that we would have power among the decision makers in Canberra as well as at the local level. One idea is to have six Aboriginal seats out of the 76 Senate seats dedicated to Aboriginal candidates.

Mansell

Mansell puts forward a proposal for having six Aboriginal seats. Six is a special number of Senate seats – because according to the Australian Consitution Act, every “Original State” must have six seats;

Until the Parliament otherwise provides there shall be six senators for each Original State. The Parliament may make laws increasing or diminishing the number of senators for each State, but so that equal representation of the several Original States shall be maintained and that no Original State shall have less than six senators.

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1901) Section 7

I have suggested that the Uluru Statement is a proposal for a new State. There’s no minimum requirement for seats in a new State. But if our expectations are now being managed into having exactly six senate seats – maybe we are to become an “Original state” rather than a new State. What’s an Original State?

The States shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called ―a State.

Original States shall mean such States as are parts of the Commonwealth at its establishment.

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp): Covering clause 6

I think there’s enough room there to retrospectively squeeze “First Nations” into that definition of “Original States”. There were Aboriginal people around, on so-called Commonwealth territory in 1901.

Makes me wonder…. “Original” – where have I heard that word before? Original Sovereign Tribal Federation… etc. There are some people that have been insisting that we stop using the word Aboriginal and use Original instead. Is that actually to trick us into asserting that we are an “Original State” as per the Constitution Act?

* I put a header-picture of a Ouroboros on this post; to represent that the proposed First Nations state will simultaneously be the “Original” state and the last state; it is both the first and the seventh. In the same way, we are ironically called the “First Australians” when; if all goes to the colonial plan, we will also become the “Last Australians”.

Quote 2.

It would be like the old ATSIC elections. Aboriginal people would either choose to be on the general electoral roll or on the Aboriginal roll.

Mansell

I don’t know what he is talking about here. During the ATSIC era of the 90’s, Aboriginal people could not choose one roll or another – they more or less HAD TO BE on the general electoral roll if they wanted to vote in ATSIC elections. Here is relevant part of the ATSIC act;

Persons entitled to vote at Regional Council elections

101. A person is entitled to vote at an election for the members of a Regional Council if and only if:

(a) the person is an Aboriginal person or a Torres Strait Islander; and

(b) either:

(i) the person’s name is on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll and the person’s place of living as shown on that Roll is within the region for which the Regional Council is established; or

(ii) the person is entitled to vote at the election pursuant to rules made under subsection 113 (3).

ATSIC Act 1989

Maybe it’s ‘expectation management’ – and priming Aboriginal people under the future arrangement to not expect to “double-vote” in the Senate. In the 90’s there was double-voting, with people voting in both the ATSIC elections and the mainstream Australian elections. I’ve said before, if there is a perception of double-voting, that will be an excuse to get rid of Aboriginal reserved seats. One person, one vote, equality, democracy…etc ..blah blah…

Or maybe they think that blackfullas will be more likely to enroll if they don’t also have to enroll in the mainstream electoral roll.

However Mansell’s alternative of having separate electoral rolls “based on race” will be a just as good an excuse as double-voting to bring it all down. I can hear the cries of “apartheid” already. The problem is there is no honest education on the “First Nations” landless State arrangement. Such education will clearly show mainstream Australians that Aboriginal reserved seats are not based on race. That education needs to have started 5 years ago.

Quote 3.

In each of the six states, Aboriginal people would elect one Aboriginal senator who would be accountable back to those voters. That means that the white people would vote for 11 of the 12 senators and aboriginal people would vote for one each in each of the states.

Mansell

This is concerning. He is suggesting we get second-hand seats from the states – rather than our own fresh, dedicated senate seats. It will also leave N.T. without an Aboriginal seat, which is odd given the demographics.

IMHO, reserved seats should not be attached to imposed colonial territorial boundaries. It’s an inappropriate arrangement for our representation; they are artificial lines that cut through nations and have little to do with our identity. Eg. when we call ourselves “Murri”, we ignore the QLD/NSW border.

Reserved seats which are divorced from state boundaries are commensurate with the nature of non-territorial federalism, that’s how it works in Belgium.

The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate.

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 Section 7

The biggest problem with using second-hand senate seats is that it makes it a LOT easier to get rid of later. The electorate for each of the seats Mansell proposes will be dually compatible with both an “Aboriginal State” electorate, and a colonial “State” electorate. It’s a pivot point. Allocate it as a reserved “Aboriginal” seat, then switch it back into the State-based electorate when assimilation is done – the seat can then be neatly re-absorbed back into the colonial state’s quota. With non-territorial seats, this would not be possible – because the Aboriginal electorate would form a single electorate with a number of seats with nothing to do with the colonial States.

Also remember – the State agreement-making terms are not binding under international law; and I’m guessing that’s where the “reserved seats” will be allocated – so the reserved seats will not have international protection. The signs are there – the seats will be set up to fail – it’s only a matter of time before they dissolve back where they came.

They probably HAVE TO give us 6 Senate seats, at least initially. So don’t think they doing us a big favour in negotiations when they offer up 6 Senate seats.

Quote 4.

That saves amending the constitution, which becomes very complicated if you just take six of the seats out of the existing 76.

Mansell

Recycling second-hand senate seats from the states is easier he reckons, because otherwise the constitution needs changing. I just want to point out here – that amendments to the number of seats actually happens through legislation. Example: see The Representation Act 1983, not through amendment of the Constitution Act.

But there is something else that Mansell might be referring to here, and that is the proportional seat allocation. This is from section 7;

Until the Parliament otherwise provides there shall be six senators for each Original State. The Parliament may make laws increasing or diminishing the number of senators for each State, but so that equal representation of the several Original States shall be maintained and that no Original State shall have less than six senators.

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1901) Section 7

and this from section 128;

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1901) Section 128

These sections make it complicated to add a new State, because adding a new State with it’s new seats will necessarily diminish the proportionate representation of all of the other States. Under section 128 in particular – means that adding a fresh new set of seats for the First Nations state will require approval of a majority of electors in ALL states.

This standard; the majority of electors in ALL states, is even more difficult to overcome than the double-majority (majority electors in the majority of states) of a normal constitution act text modification.

But the Uluru Statement requests a constitutional reenactment and not a text modification. This means the normal Section 128 rules might not apply. Would this majority of ALL states rule to change proportional representation still apply in case of a constitutional reenactment? I don’t know – it’s a very complicated question, and it’s completely new ground for Australia. Pop over to the Indigenous Constitutional Law blog and you can see them discussing how hard it is to change the constitution – it is as if they are priming the masses for sweeping modifications of the Referendum Machinery Act to help push this referendum through. Maybe that’s because they really want to adhere to their existing written Constitution for the sake of continuity of Australia’s international legal personality; even in case of a full constitutional reenactment. In that case, the Referendum Machinery Act is the better lever to use, and borrowing second-hand senate seats also makes the referendum easier to pass (requiring a double-majority instead of majority-all).

Quote 5.

In addition to those six seats at the national level you would expect there’d be local empowerment at the local and regional level and the state levels…

Mansell

The House of Representatives is not mentioned at all, Mansell only talks about the Senate then moves onto local government. So what’s up with the new First Nations state and their representation in the House of Representatives?

Compare these two clauses in the Constitution Act carefully;

The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise provides, as one electorate.”

Section 7

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth“.

Section 24

The people of the First Nations state must directly choose their Senators, but not necessarily their MP’s. So maybe there will be no reserved Aboriginal House of Representative seats – hence why Mansell skipped over the topic completely – hoping no one notices.

Since the number of House of Representative seats is calculated using the census data, and since 1967 we are already counted in that number for the State’s reckoning; our fair allocation of House of Representative seats has already been taken and absorbed into the mainstream States. To add insult to injury, these extra seats created from newly counting us in the census were stolen from us and given to the States; and by us having those seats allocated numerically from being counted in the census (meaning we have theoretical representation) enabled the power to pass laws “for us”. “For us” should logically have been interpreted as meaning “on our behalf”, as in the same way a parliament is supposed to operate on behalf of the people they represent. Then the High Court decided in the Kartinyeri case that the power could be used for passing laws to our detriment. We got House of Representative seats in 1967; they were immediately stolen; squatters are still sitting in them since more than half a century; and those seats are still today being used to pass racist laws against us. And the High Court thinks that’s all fine and dandy.

Why is no one talking about this? Where are our seats? Or, why are they passing laws “for us” when Kartinyeri implies we have no representation?

There are currently only 2 Aboriginal MP’s in the House of Representatives – and this is the maximum in the entire history of Australia – most of this time (from 1901 to 2010) that number was zero. Right now – that’s 2 out of 151 total seats, or 1.3%; whereas our population is currently about 3% of the total. So pro-rata, right now we should have about 5 seats – we are still grossly under-represented; even if you count Burney and Wyatt (who don’t represent us anyway – they were elected by Australians, not us).

Fun fact: The first Aboriginal MP, Ken Wyatt, assumed office on the eve of the 240th year anniversary of Cook’s Proclamation of sovereignty at Possession Island. And it was more than 43 years after seats were made for us – that one of us actually sat in them.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again – we are being taken for a ride. We are offering the colony full sovereignty and their chance for full independence in exchange for the absolute minimum they can possibly get away with. I don’t know how this could be any worse.

Image by Gordon Johnson from Pixabay

I just noticed this post on the Indigenous Constitutional Law blog titled Submission: The imperative of constitutional enshrinement. This as a submission to the co-design consultation by 40 public law experts.

A short section I want to comment on;

In this submission we explain the reasons behind our consensus view that the Voice be constitutionally enshrined, and that the government commit to a referendum to enshrine the First Nations Voice in the Australian Constitution after the current design process is concluded.

What we mean by “constitutionally enshrined” is that the existence and core function of the Voice should be included in the written text of the Constitution, alongside a power enabling the Commonwealth Parliament to determine its composition, additional functions, powers and procedures in legislation.

If the Uluru Statement proposal asked for the Voice to be included in the written text of the Constitution Act, there would be no need for these experts to qualify this statement with the four words; “What we mean by…”. These 40 experts should not have to offer up an interpretation on what “constitutionally enshrined” means. The meaning of constitutional enshrinement should be crystal clear from the offer alone.

How many experts were working on the original Referendum Council process? How many millions of dollars were spent on legal consultants? And apparently at the time, none of them thought to include something as basic in the Referendum Council Final report as clarifying exactly what “enshrined in the constitution” means! Honestly, how hard is it?!

This qualifier; “what we mean by….” is a tell-tale sign that what I have written on this before (here and here) is correct. The proposal does not ask for a change to the text of the Constitution Act.

Image by Gentle07 from Pixabay

Ever since the 80’s or maybe even earlier, there has been discussion about Aboriginal people having “reserved seats” in parliament. In this post I am going to write about what that means.

The Bicameral Westminster system

The parliamentary system in Australia is a bicameral system based on the Westminster system. Bicameral means there are two houses. In the British system, the two houses are called the House of Lords and the House of Commons.

The House of Lords consists of designated seats that represent the “Lords Spiritual” and the “Lords Temporal”. The spiritual lords are bishops of the Church of England. Temporal lords are chosen from the nobility. This is a closed, elite house. The House of Lords meets in a room with red upholstery and is also called the upper house.

The House of Commons is elected by the subjects. Commons because it’s for “commoners”, people from communities; Crown subjects. The House of Commons meets in the room with green upholstery and is also called the lower house.

I point out the red and green upholstery because it’s handy in telling them apart when watching them in action on TV. It’s also something that has been replicated in other countries such as Australia, India and Canada.

Bicameral Australia

In Australia this two chamber system has been replicated, but it works differently. The Senate is the red house equivalent to the House of Lords, and the House of Representatives is the green house equivalent to the House of Commons. The way these houses work is set out in The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act aka “the constitution”.

Reserved seats in the Constitution

Each State in Australia has a number of “reserved seats” in both the Senate and in the House of Representatives. The number of seats each state has, and formulas for changing that number was agreed to at the time of federation. Unlike in Britain – where the House of Lords is chosen by membership of special nobility classes – the seats in Australia are all by popular election by people of each State. They are all “reserved seats” because every seat is allocated to a state or territory.

The Uluru Statement is a request for a new federated entity for “First Nations”. This is much like a new state. As a new state is being proposed, there is a chance for this new state to have it’s own “reserved seats” – just like other states already have. That means – Aboriginal-only seats in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. When you hear someone talk about “reserved seats for Aboriginal people” – this is an indicator that federalism of an Aboriginal state is on the cards. “Reserved seats” have been discussed for a while, perhaps since the 80’s.

When a new state is established, it is up to Parliament to determine the extent of representation of the new State;

121 New States may be admitted or established

The Parliament may admit to the Commonwealth or establish new States, and may upon such admission or establishment make or impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation in either House of the Parliament, as it thinks fit.

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

The newly proposed State can make an offer along the lines of – “we will only join the Commonwealth if we can have x number of seats”. Parliament can then say yes or no. So it’s something that is determined between the parties at the time of admission.

The initial numbers of reserved seats upon a state’s accession to the federation is important, because the initial numbers put a floor on representation as they cannot be easily changed later – see section 128;

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, section 128

This is why it is critical that the extent of representation in the Senate and in the House of Representatives for a new state is set clearly up-front. This is not what is happening in the case of the Uluru Statement – as zero “reserved seats” were requested in the Uluru Statement “take-it-or-leave-it” offer. At the end of the day – there will be no reserved seats – because there was no minimum set in the original offer. If Aboriginal people want reserved seats, the Uluru Statement needs to go in the bin, and a new offer that has minimum seat numbers needs to be put in it’s place.

How could reserved seats work?

Firstly a disclaimer – as long as the Uluru Statement sits on the table – to even discuss reserved seats is a waste of time – because reserved seats will not be protected under the current proposal (due to contract law technicalities and the way the offer was made). But if an alternative proposal were to replace the Uluru Statement – here is some food-for-thought.

Authentically mirroring the Westminster system

If the Westminster system were faithfully replicated in Australia, the Senate would be the equivalent of the House of Lords. Like the House of Lords; it would consist of spiritual leaders and hereditary land owners. In Australia, that would mean Law-women, Law-men, and Traditional owners. The whole Senate would be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander; and I don’t mean in a racial sense – but persons with a deep connection to lore. I’d imagine that everyone in the Senate would be traditionally initiated, and a good proportion of them would be from specific bloodlines. It may include persons without bloodlines if they have gone through lore and are accepted; this would depend on what the lore itself allows. The Senate would not be popularly elected, but appointed through Aboriginal traditional means. The House of Representatives could remain much the same as it is now to represent settlers. Of course, it will be a cold day in hell before any colonial muppet would suggest such a thing. But this is something that is reasonable and has precedent when you consider at how the traditional Westminster system works. Scratch the Senate – replace it with a Black “House of Lords” that runs under traditional lore.

Alternatively, federalism with reserved seats can be a solution.

Federalism of First Nations as a new state is not the worst idea in the world – it is more devil in the detail of the Uluru Statement itself that is the problem. If First Nations were to become a New State – at bare minimum there should be a similar reckoning of representation in seats as other states. Every Aboriginal person can only vote once, because each person should belong to only one state – eg. if they vote for reserved Aboriginal Senate seats, they cannot also vote for reserved Queensland Federal Senate seats. If the Voice actually happens – double-voting will be it’s downfall. Australians will bitch and moan endlessly about “the aboriginals” voting twice. This is impossible to argue against.

Australians have their set ideas about what a real “state” is – and they will not see First Nations as a true state because of it’s lack of defined territory. Non-territorial federalism is doomed without broad ‘expectation management’ and education about the First Nations state, and this education is not happening. Another reason why “Land back” should have been included. Average Joe understands Michael Mansell’s proposed “seventh state” because it has land, but Average Joe sees the landless “Voice” as a racist third chamber, even though the Voice and the seventh state are basically the same thing.

The main “pro” of reserved seats is that it allows keeping key functional parts of a system that most people are familiar with. Familiarity means certainty and stability.

The main “con” is that creating reserved seats is trying to Macgyver a system that was built on our destruction. Another major con is that it is assimilatory by nature for us to be represented in Parliament at all.

Bigger changes are needed

My own idea is that there needs to be much larger changes if a Macgyver/retrofit approach is to happen. They would at minimum include setting boundaries on government power, because there is little restriction on power as it stands now – they currently walk all over us with impunity.

There needs to be last-resort discretionary veto power held by traditional law holders – whether it be an elders council, or a position similar to the a non-executive Head-of-State role. We should absolutely have some form of veto powers to make up for more than two centuries of illegal occupation. The Crown and the Governors/Governor-General have always held such powers, and having a symbolic head of state with extensive reserve powers is common in many countries. It is hypocritical to deny us veto on one hand, and yet boast in preambular statements (eg. in State constitutions) about respecting the value of our traditional and sacred connection to land and waters. Reserved seats or an advisory-only Voice alone are not enough.

.In 1906, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal Moran published a book called ‘Discovery of Australia by De Quiros in the Year 1606‘. In this book, Moran puts forward a hypothesis that the bay of Quirós’s New Jerusalem is not Big Bay in Espiritu Santo, but in Port Curtis in Gladstone, Queensland. His main argument relates to the size of the bay as described by Quiros – that Espiritu Santo’s Big Bay is not grand enough.

One of the strongest pieces of evidence to the contrary of Moran’s hypothesis is Prado y Tobar’s map. Port Curtis looks nothing like it.

Moran discounts Prado y Torbar’s map as being vindictive – a result of the fallout with Quiros.

The map of the newly-discovered land, which was drawn by Diego de Prado y Tobar […] unmistakably presents to us the Santo Island. […] [Prado y Tobar] pursued De Quiros with singular venom and undisguised hostility. […]All through De Quiros’s subsequent career we find that this offender pursued him with unceasing enmity. […] That Santo was one of the islands discovered by De Quiros is unquestionable[…]; but when Prado y Tobar forwards the map of Santo as proof that the statements of the captain regarding his discovery of the great Austral Land were without foundation, I cannot but regard it as an additional argument in favour of my contention, that Santo cannot be the grand Austral continent of which De Quiros speaks and of which he claimed to be the discoverer.

Moran’s idea is that Quirós, Torres and Prado y Torbar had visited Espiritu Santo, and then subsequently went to Queensland/Port Curtis where New Jerusalem was established. Prado y Torbar then labelled a map of Espiritu Santo as New Jerusalem in order to discredit Quirós. Moran gives many more arguments to support his view that Port Curtis is the site of New Jerusalem. I won’t go through all of them, but it is not a long book if you would like to read his arguments yourself.

I think it’s fantasy that Quirós landed in Port Curtis. The description of the natives having houses with palm leaved rooves surrounded by fruit trees, pigs, black sand beaches and earthquakes sounds like Vanuatu and not like Gladstone/Port Curtis. The latitude of Gladstone also does not match, but Espiritu Santo in Vanuatu is spot-on. Occam’s Razor = Quirós exaggerated. This idea of Quirós having landed in Queensland was even taught in Catholic schools for some time, and still inhabits corners of the internet.

Moran also writes;

Another common difficulty against the opinion which I have adopted recalls to mind the fact that hitherto every writer on the geography of the South Seas has regarded Santo as the Great Southern Land discovered by De Quiros. It cannot but be presumptuous, it is said, to advance an opinion contrary to such a consensus of expert writers.

Like I wrote in part one, terra australis incognita and Quirós’s discovered land had together become synonymous with the great southern continent in the minds of Europeans. But Espiritu Santo is only a very small landmass on a globe.

Moran has attempted to transplant the legend of Quirós’s great southern land and it’s terra australis incognita label to New Holland. He is not the only one to try.

What would motivate Moran to try to transplant Quirós’s discoveries to Queensland? Perhaps because he is Irish and Catholic. Early on in the New South Wales convict settlement the Church of England was the only church allowed to practice. Many Irish political prisoners were also Catholic and initially forced to go to Anglican services – which would have made them feel even more persecuted. It would be comforting for Catholics to find that Quirós (a Catholic) discovered and claimed possession of “Australia” for the Catholic Church.

Moran’s book in 1906 was proceeded by his writings in The Australian Catholic Record in 1895 covering similar arguments. Keep in mind here also – this hypothesis is coming out around the time of the federation of Australia. Given the different statuses of the colonies – and the colony borders being strategically drawn up seemingly in anticipation of threat from other European challengers, forming an ‘indissoluble federation’ at this time helps bind it all together. By identifying New Holland as Quiros’s terra australis incognita helps erase the words New Holland off the map to replace with a British federation of colonies.

In the 1890’s Queen Victoria was getting very old, and federation may also have been a way to make arrangements less chaotic on her passing which happened only a few weeks after federation. I can’t help but see parallels with the situation today, with the Australian Catholic University playing a central role in the Uluru Statement through it’s support of Uphold and Recognise, and an aging Queen putting the finishing touches on succession plans.

I tried to write a follow-up post to The Invention of Australia (Part 1), but I went down so many different rabbit-holes while writing part 2 that I have decided that I will make this post into a timeline, and then follow up with more posts going into these events in the timeline.

The main point I want to show here is that the British wanted to claim New Holland – which was already claimed by the Dutch. The terra Australis incognita became synonymous with the discoveries of Quirós due to his over-exaggerated and widely published accounts of Austrialia del Espiritu Santo; an island in Vanuatu. The British exploited this by conflating Quirós’s accounts and naming of the island with New Holland, and through the magic of words transformed New Holland into a British-owned “Australia”. “Captain Cook discovered Australia for the British” was the end resulting narrative.

It is good to see how this happened, because this narrative of “Captain Cook discovered Australia for the British” is now being dismantled, and very similar tricks are being used to construct the replacement narrative. The replacement is that Australia was settled 50,000 years ago by the “First Australians” coming across on a land bridge. It is just as warped as the story it replaces – especially from a political perspective as the so-called “First Australians” were never part of the Australian polity.

So here is the timeline, I will edit this as I go to add posts in this series;

• 1605-1606 Quirós/Torres Voyage (see PART 1)
• 1642 Abel Tasman’s voyage formally claims possession of Van Diemen’s Land
• 1762-1764 British occupation of Manila (Philippines) where Torres’ journals are stashed away
  • Dalrymple goes through Manila documents, finds Torres’ account of the Torres Strait and Espiritu Santo
• 1770 Cook’s 1st voyage that “discovered Australia”. (see PART 1 about how he was looking for Quirós’s bay with two rivers.)
• 1771 Alexander Dalrymple releases book An Historical Collection of Voyages and Discoveries in the South Pacific Ocean revealing to wide audiences the existence of the Torres Strait – just after Cook has exploited that knowledge. Darlymple suggests using the term “Australia” to apply to a quarter of the globe (southern eastern hemisphere)
• 1773 Tobias Furneaux probably discovers the Bass Strait in a covert mission
• c1800 Matthew Flinders suggests using the name “Australia” as a geographical term
• 1806 Torres’s account published with permission of Dalrymple by James Burney (English) in A Chronological History of Discoveries in the Pacific V2. This book uses the term Australia or Australia del Espiritu Santo to refer to the Vanuatu island, and uses the Great Terra Australis to refer to the New Holland continent.
• 1814 Flinders publishes his book A voyage to Terra Australis about New Holland
• 1824 Anglo-Dutch treaty leads to British expansion into New Holland. Moreton Bay settlement established at Redcliffe.
• 1832 “Western Australia” named
• 1876 Quirós’s journal published in Spanish (Historia del descubrimiento de las regiones austriales, Zaragoza/Luis de Belmonte Bernandez). This translation calls out earlier English translations of material (eg. Burney) in the footnotes for incorrectly spelling Austrialia as Australia.
• 1895 Cardinal Moran suggests Port Curtis as being discovered by Quirós
• 1901 “Australia”, the political entity formed. Queen Victoria dies
• 1904 Quirós’s journal published in English (Markham/Hakluyt society).