In the Referendum Council Final Report, some legal advice is reproduced regarding sovereignty.

Here is the advice as in the report (I broke it into chunks and added the numbers in for further reference). In the report it is on page 12.:

1. Phillip’s instructions assumed that Australia was terra nullius, or belonged to no-one.

2. The subsequent occupation of the country and land law in the new colony proceeded on the fiction of terra nullius.

3. It follows that ultimately the basis of settlement in Australia is and always has been the exertion of force by and on behalf of the British Crown. No-one asked permission to settle.
No-one consented, no-one ceded.

4. Sovereignty was not passed from the Aboriginal peoples by any actions of legal significance voluntarily taken by or on behalf of them.

Referendum Council Final Report

In this post, I will go through each number, and dissect this advice and give some commentary.

---

1. Phillip’s instructions assumed that Australia was terra nullius, or belonged to no-one.”

Firstly, in 1788 Australia didn’t exist. Phillip’s instructions do not mention Australia, they refer to “Our Territory of New South Wales and its Dependencies”.

Secondly: The instructions use the word “Our” in “”Our Territory of New South Wales and its Dependencies”, which indicates possession. The territory is assumed to belong (or at least be reserved for) the British before the First Fleet arrives. If it belongs to the British, then it isn’t a terra nullius.

Maybe this could have been worded alternatively like – “British claim over the territory of New South Wales was made under an assumption that it was a terra nullius.” But without the British coming clean – we can’t know what they assumed.

---

2. The subsequent occupation of the country and land law in the new colony proceeded on the fiction of terra nullius.

The occupation proceeded based on presumed British ownership claims. We don’t know for sure if those British claims and related Acts of State were based on terra nullius – we can only speculate.

Based on my own speculation – I think colonisation proceeded in a complex and non-uniform way. The British have several different and overlapping grounds for territorial claims – some based on terra nullius, others not – even early on. Different parts of Australia were colonised in different ways. For example, the letters patent that established South Australia were not based on terra nullius. The basis of British claims over New Holland and Van Diemen’s Land were never “locked in”, because no one effectively challenged them. In other words – they got 6+ different stories ready-to-go, but never had to use them. The only stories out of these 6+ that were used are 1. ‘Captain Cook discovered Australia’, and 2. ‘terra nullius’. If the Dutch had set themselves up on the west or north coast of New Holland, British claims would have adjusted to one of the alternative stories.

What I find interesting about the advice in general, but particularly in this sentence 2., is the limitation of discourse to land law – instead of law. I think it’s because in the initial Port Jackson area, land tenure law was used as the foot-in-the-door for the reception of English law, which led to presumed British sovereignty. The cart came before the horse.

But don’t forget – it is not just our land that is under occupation – we as peoples are under occupation. They impose their law on us; on our person, on our physical bodies, on our culture, on our symbols and intellectual property. Also – territory is more than just land, so this does not address the occupation of waters and airspace which is also part of sovereignty.

---

3. It follows that ultimately the basis of settlement in Australia is and always has been the exertion of force by and on behalf of the British Crown. No-one asked permission to settle.
No-one consented, no-one ceded.

“No-one asked permission to settle.” Settlement: as a means of acquiring sovereignty of a no-man’s land, does not need permission – because you can’t get permission from a “no-man”. If the British got permission from Aborigines to “settle”, then it wouldn’t be settlement anymore – it would be something else. In the context of providing legal advice on sovereignty – this is a very confusing thing to write.

Maybe they are using the term ‘settlement’ to mean the domestic settling of the frontier, and not of acquiring sovereignty. But Mabo 2 uses the term “settlement” as a method to acquire sovereignty – so this just makes things confusing. Acquisition of sovereignty by settlement of a terra nullius with force = a contradiction in terms.

I have an issue with the assertion that “the exertion of force has always been ‘by and on behalf of the British Crown“. Over time, Australia has become increasingly administratively independent. The force “by and behalf of” over time has shifted towards the States and the Commonwealth and to the Australian people. It’s not all on the British Crown – let’s not forget that there is now a “Queen of Australia”. There are State governments, each with their own Crown, who forcibly extinguish Native Title. Let’s not forget there was the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADC) in 1987 which occurred after the Australia Acts 1986. The recommendations for the RCIADC were not enacted by the newly-administratively-independent local colonial administration, and this failure cost more Black lives. The claim that exertion of force is on the British Crown is very concerning to me, because I think we are being set-up so that after constitutional reform – if there are any reparations from the British Crown they will go directly to the Australian administration (who were partly responsible) instead of to the actual survivors of genocide.

“No-one consented, no-one ceded”. – This is a tricky one, I’ll get back to this at the end after I deal with 4…

---

4. Sovereignty was not passed from the Aboriginal peoples by any actions of legal significance voluntarily taken by or on behalf of them.

This is in regards to actions taken, or not taken by “Aboriginal peoples”. I’m assuming this here does not include Torres Strait Islander peoples, as they are in a different situation.

Note that this doesn’t say – “there was no treaty in the establishment of Australia” – because that wouldn’t be true. Australia is a treaty – it is a federation of States/colonies, the word federation derives from a word meaning treaty. Aboriginal people were never involved in any of the treaties that form the foundation of Australia.

---

Back to point 3 earlier – “no-one consented, no-one ceded”.

Well, it may be the case that the Dutch consented and ceded New Holland and/or Van Diemen’s Land to the British. Whether that happened or not, and whether that was valid or not, would be a technical question for an international court to determine. The question could be something like:

Did the Anglo-Dutch treaty of 1824 include the territories of New Holland and Van Diemen’s land, and did it transfer sovereignty of those territories from the Dutch to the British?

I think (if you could miraculously get it into an international court – pretty much impossible) the answer would be “no”. Firstly – the lands were not specifically mentioned in the treaty (although the actions of the British suggest they considered the lands to be part of the treaty – see video from about 26 min). Secondly – the Dutch merely had right of preemption based on the Doctrines of Discovery, they never went further than that in their claims. Thirdly – the Dutch did not have any diplomatic relationships with; did not politically represent; nor negotiate any terms in the interests of, or on behalf of; the Aboriginal inhabitants of New Holland and Van Diemen’s Land in the 1824 treaty.

For the “yes” arguments for the question above – there was a change in international recognition from the Dutch to the British. Before 1788, New Holland was Dutch in maps, and other European powers stayed clear of the place in implied recognition of Dutch claim. International recognition of British sovereignty over the territory happened gradually after 1824, as they made new establishments across the land beyond the Great Dividing Range. The treaty marked the formality behind this shift.

But the British put many of their eggs in the basket for a “yes” answer for the technical question above. They never bothered with a treaty directly with Aboriginal nations. Now they are trying to fix this by sneaking us in under the Australian political representation system so they can speak with a sovereign, autochthonous (indigenous) voice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible link to a Belgic Lion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Town of Orange

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are peoples’ under active colonial occupation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Formalise our representation on our own terms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is important?

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

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

Different cultures have different values at their core.

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

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

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

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

3. Assert our position Internationally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can you see the parallels?

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

Are we (Aboriginal women) daughters of Eve?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is how it has been transcribed in Australian legislation:

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

Note that there is an extra “the” transcribed.

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

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

What’s the difference in the extra “the”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FYI – Titles in other Commonwealth countries

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cook’s Possession Claim

Starting with James Cook’s claim of possession;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phillip’s Instructions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oddities and mismatches

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

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

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

The Labor government just won the federal election, and the new Prime Minister has announced his full support of the Uluru Statement.

I have not blogged about the Uluru Statement for a while now, so it’s a good time for an update. I’m not going to write about the Uluru Statement in any detail here, but the goal of this post is to place it in a context.

The decolonisation era

The constitutional convention at Yulara was held in 2017, coinciding with the 50th year anniversary of the 27 May 1967 referendum. This May 2017 date seemed to be a soft-target date for getting “something” done in the years leading up to the convention. The date – 27 May – is still being floated now as a candidate for a future Voice referendum.

The 1967 Referendum was in one way – very successful, as it had a high “Yes” vote. In another way, it was an absolute failure.

7 years beforehand in 1960, the members of the United Nations in the General Assembly passed a landmark resolution to rid the world of colonialism. They set a plan into action.

Franchise colonies were to be decolonised in a transparent process overseen by the “Special committee”/C24 committee. Settler colonies were to be decolonised in domestic processes led by settler-colonial states themselves. The result is there are two different, but parallel decolonisation processes are running side-by-side.

The action of C24 committee decolonising franchise colonial states ironed out a lot of the technical details as to how decolonisation happens. These details then fed back into the processes run behind domestic walls in settler-colonial states.

In Australia, the first attempt at decolonisation was during the 60’s. It was an attempt at “Integration” of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by granting them “equal citizen rights”. Integration is one of the three main pathways established by the UN as a valid form of decolonisation. In Australia, this included a lot of different sub-projects – the biggest being the 1967 referendum itself. The 1967 Referendum succeeded, Aboriginal people got “equal citizen rights”, and according to the UN rules, Australia was temporarily decolonised.

Temporarily. The 1967 referendum was ultimately a failure, because it’s goal was to decolonise Australia. But a spanner was thrown in the works from Africa.

Spanner in the works

After 1967, all seemed well and good. The Australian Federal Government had a new, reformed races power that it didn’t even use for several years. It didn’t need to use it – the 1967 referendum was to simply change the constitution to make it appear from the outside that all people of the Australian territory are equal in terms of citizen rights.

But something happened in Africa. In 1965, a white, settler minority, in a franchise colonial state went rogue from their European Crown, and declared independence. The UN rules were changed in response. The change in rules closed a loophole that Australia had relied on, and undid all of the work done in the 60’s including the 1967 Referendum. This is why 1967 was ultimately a failure.

1970 was the 25th year anniversary of the United Nations Charter. In commemoration, the Friendly Relations declaration was made. The African “spanner” was embedded inside of this declaration in a section on colonialism. The new rules meant that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people now have to decide themselves that they want to integrate. Affirmative consent is now needed.

1970 to the Uluru Statement

From 1970 onwards, there has been a continual conga-line of committees, reports, panels, rep bodies, proposals – all working towards the goal of decolonising Australia. It has taken many different forms, and has also been continually shaped by the ongoing and parallel decolonisation of franchise colonial states by the C24 committee, and also by contemporary international Human Rights law.

The Uluru Statement is simply the end of a long conga-line of expensive fails. But after so many failures, this current proposal is fully optimised.

Firstly – the basic political solution was engineered. Next – the proposal was optimised for the benefit of corporations, of “Australians”, and to minimise Aboriginal claims for reparatory justice. On top of that, experts in risk management have identified and put in place strategies to minimise risks of failure.

The marketing of the proposal to different groups is also very well thought-out. It is a bit like a slimy used-car sales tactics. It is not based on outright lies – that would legally be fraud and risk invalidating it. But there is plenty of creative use of language, exploitation of common misunderstandings and exploiting a general apathy for politics. Smoke and mirrors. There is a lot of appeal to emotion, especially to white-guilt. Aboriginal dissent to the proposal is being carefully neutralised by re-framing and re-direction. Often, dissent is redirected in a way where it still looks like dissent, but it actually supports the proposal.

How do I know this? I have been watching very closely. I have reverse-engineered the proposal in a technical sense. I can see what is happening. It’s genius what they are doing. Every time I think I see they made a ‘mistake’ – I bite my tounge/keyboard, I wait a few months, a few years… I wait, and watch. Then the ‘mistake’ is fixed. As far as I can tell, the ‘mistakes’ are now all ironed out. It’s show time.

As Australia has such a complicated foundational problem, the Uluru Statement solution is a complicated solution. If I try to simplify it – it ends up sounding ridiculous because I am fighting through a sea of misunderstandings. I’m scared my efforts won’t be enough. I’m scared that it’s too late to stop.

I try my best to explain what I have found in my blog. I write in lengthy detail, it might be boring to read. The historical stuff is also important because it all fits together. Maybe I sound pretentious, I am not really – I am just an INTP. I am not a wanna-be academic, I am expressing myself. Normally I don’t bother sharing my ideas because by the time I put my theories together I have gotten bored and already moved onto the next “thing”. But this time is different because it is so important for our people.

I know my target “audience” of my work will be very small. I’m not doing this for clicks.

My goal is that our people know what they are entitled to as colonised peoples, and they can use that information to make their own choices. The Uluru Statement will limit choices, and will set our people up for permanent failure.

They have stolen an entire continent. This is NOT a “gammon advisory-only body”, it is far more complicated. No expense is too high to spend securing their Stolenwealth. Do not underestimate this proposal.

In 1998 there was a high profile court case called Kartinyeri v Commonwealth. This was part of a larger drama which played out for years decades. I remember it being on TV all the time – where people would make snarky remarks about “secret women’s business” and dodgy, private developers being supported by taxpayers.

You can google it yourself (if you want to go down a rabbit-hole) but to briefly summarize for the purposes that I’m going to write about: this is what happened.

• A developer wanted to build a bridge to Hindmarsh Island.
• Some Aboriginal women objected, citing that to build a bridge would violate their women’s law. The Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act (1984) could possibly support the women’s claims and stop the construction of the bridge.
• John Howard passed the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act (1997). This basically cancelled the The Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act (1984) for the purposes of building the bridge.
• The women challenged the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Act in court (Kartinyeri v Commonwealth(1998)). They argued that the Bridge Act was a law that relied on the races power in the constitution, and that it was invalid because the races power can only be used to pass laws beneficial to the Aboriginal race as per the result and the “vibe” of the 1967 referendum. The court decided against the women and said – the vibe of the referendum doesn’t matter, the wording of the races power matters and there is nothing in the wording limiting Australia to freely pass racially discriminatory laws.

I think the Kartinyeri case was a collusive lawsuit of the colonial variety. The end result was that the federal government ended up with not only the power to racially discriminate against the “Aboriginal race”, but also the power to hone-in that discrimination to apply not just to “a race”, but to a small, localised group of Aboriginal women. From this case onwards, the government are not even using the power as a “races power” anymore. The scope and flexibility of the power has been greatly extended. This was demonstrated during the NT intervention – where is was used in a regionalised manner and only applying to certain Aboriginal communities.

I think it is INSANE that this is still the case today. The races power is ridiculous. It isn’t even used “for the people of any race” – it is used to single-out political communities.

Hindmarsh Island

The location of this bridge is relevant, and tells a larger story. Here is a map showing where Hindmarsh Island is, with very rough reddish-shading where the Murray Darling Basin is;

It is in South Australia. It’s at the mouth the Murray Darling catchment. The Murray Darling runs into a big lake, and inside that lake lies Hindmarsh Island. The Murray Darling Catchment is significant in terms of British colonial claims over the land, click this text to see a previous post on this.

Here is a map from that post;

This story links in with the Myall Creek Massacre trial. The Myall Creek Massacre was as far as I know, the ONLY massacre of Aboriginal people (out of literally hundreds of them) that the British bothered prosecuting. WHY??

The reason they prosecuted is that the British Crown cherry-picked this case to demonstrate that the were “protecting” the interests of the natives within the “no-man’s land”. It was a way for the British to imply to the international community (ie. other colonial powers) that they have First Discovery over the no-man’s land, without having to make an explicit declaration.

For the British to make an explicit First Discovery declaration over the no man’s land would be a problem, because to do so, it would be necessary to specify which land is, and which land is not already under British/Dutch/other First Discovery. By 1838 when the massacre trial was held, this was already a very complicated and unclear situation due to the 1824 Anglo Dutch Treaty. It is still now unclear who has First Discovery over what parts. At best, one can guess some scenarios. I have speculated on some scenarios throughout this blog, but these are more “best-fit” scenarios inferred from British behavior. I am a blogger, not the International Court of Justice or a Colonial power – I am just reading the room.

Under the Doctrines of Discovery, a river basin can be treated as a single geographical unit. So the British can possibly extend this implied First Discovery claim (via exercise of protection in the Myall Creek massacre trial) to include the entire Murray Darling basin.

The state borders in south-east Australia are drawn up to take advantage of the basin claim, with QLD, NSW, VIC and SA all having a bit of Murray Darling basin in them. QLD and NSW have direct Cook-explored coastline. VIC also has Cook explored coastline if you ignore his fudging of the map at Point Hicks. This is all done to hedge bets on alternate basis’ for British First Discovery claims across different colonies. SA does not have Cook-explored coastline, but has the river mouth (claim the mouth, claim the basin= Doctrine of Discovery principle). The First Discovery claim of SA is 100% reliant on the British extended Murray Darling basin claim, as Cook never went anywhere near SA. I think this is the main reason why there was a difference in the status of Aboriginal people in SA in the letters patent establishing the colony compared to eastern-seaboard states – as the British knew their First Discovery claim was particularly fragile there, necessitating better treatment of the natives (at least on paper).

That demonstration of “protection” done in Myall Creek massacre trial was effectively overturned in Hindmarsh Island controversy. The court basically ruled that the races power can be used against the interests of the natives. Under the Doctrines of Discovery, protection of natives means protection of ALL their interests. Colonisers need to at least pretend that moving-in on native people’s land is in the native peoples’ benefit – at minimum by making an agreement involving exchange of blankets and flour. The argument in the High Court was whether or not the races power is limited to beneficial laws. Under the Doctrines of Discovery – yes – the First Discovering power has a fiduciary obligation to the natives – this means only beneficial laws are allowed. But unfortunately, this is not the argument used by the lawyers arguing that side. They chose a much weaker argument. They used the argument from the movie, The Castle. “It’s the vibe of it” (“it” being the 1967 referendum). This backfired, and now the races power is used against our interests.

This is a big deal. It is a shift in Australia’s colonial foundation. The implication of that is – as of Kartinyeri v Commonwealth, the British are no longer maintaining their implied First Discovery claim over the Murray-Darling, as they have thrown the fiduciary duty out to the dogs. Note – they are doing this in 1998.

1998. ONE YEAR BEFORE THE 1999 REPUBLIC REFERENDUM!

This is the British wiping their hands of responsibility it as much as possible before Australia becomes a republic. It’s tying-up loose ends.

Poetic irony…

In Myall Creek Aboriginal people were massacred. At Myall Creek, the British Crown decided to protect the lives of those Aboriginal people who were massacred. (Not that it really helped, in the long-run it drove future massacres underground)

Some of the massacre victim’s blood perhaps flowed into the creek, down and around Hindmarsh Island, then out to sea.

The British used the blood of massacre victims, and the trial to open up and claim more land in the river basin for themselves. They put on a façade to the world of protecting the natives.

After the British took all the land, at Hindmarsh Island 160 years later, the perfect case went through the courts to decide – nah, we don’t give a toss about Aboriginal interests, and we will discriminate against Aboriginal people as we please. The location is so ironic – that it is as if this location was hand-picked especially for this case.

Australia’s foundation story is like a cross between a metaphorical snowball of lies, and an onion.

There was a foundational lie at some stage, which just kept accumulating more and more lies, like the snowball getting bigger while rolling down a snowy hill.

But in the case of Australia’s foundational story, the snowball has a structure like an onion. There are distinct layers. When something needs to be hidden – they simply add a new layer on the outside.

There are at least three layers in the onion. There may be more, but I will write here about the layers I have found:

The inside layer is that the Dutch discovered New Holland, which later changed hands to the British in a complex legal settlement. Aboriginal people were the natives of New Holland – who according to the British interpretation of the legal settlement made with the Dutch became trespassers circa year 1836, and were therefore legally cleared off the land.

The middle layer is the one that lasted the longest amount of time. James Cook discovered the entirety of “Australia” for the British. The British then moved themselves in, treating the land as if it were a terra nullius.

The outer layer is the newest layer. It started growing in about the 1980’s, and hasn’t finished growing yet. The implementation of the Uluru Statement will finish off this layer and will also hide all the layers underneath. This outer layer is that Aboriginal people are the “First Australians”. They settled “Australia” 60,000 years ago, they were subsequently joined by a latter wave of British settlers, and then by people of other ethnicities. As Aboriginal people only had a spiritual interest in the land, they had no concept of materialism. Therefore, their land could not be stolen as they had no concept of ownership.

Personal anecdote

I just wanted to share a related personal anecdote. I went through about 10 years worth of Australian school curriculum history. I learnt the “middle layer” exclusively – the terra nullius curriculum. I was in grade 6 when terra nullius was overturned. The school curriculum must have taken a few years to catch up with the High Court – because up until grade 9 (when I stopped history as a subject) school was still embedded with the terra nullius doctrine. As an Aboriginal student, this was very awkward and embarrassing to sit through some lessons. It made me feel like society places a value less than zero to being Aboriginal. Our existence was not even worth acknowledging.

In retrospect, I am grateful for the experience. It taught me that “facts” are open to interpretation, and it taught me to take everything with a grain of salt. It bred a natural skepticism, and helped nurture an ability for seeing things from perspectives other than my own. It’s an ability that has served me well in life.

When I got to grade 12, my school was about to have it’s annual awards night. I didn’t study very hard, because I only needed to get pass grades to get into my chosen university course. So as my grades were good but not great, I didn’t expect to have to go to the awards night. But I, along with another student named Mitchell Johnson got special invitations to the awards. I expected that Mitchell would get the sports student of the year as he was very good at tennis and cricket (he went on to become a famous cricket player). But I didn’t know why I was invited to the awards night.

At the awards night, right at the end of the night when there was only a handful of awards left including dux – I was announced as the school’s inaugural “Aboriginal Student of the year”. I was shocked, confused, conflicted and angry when I heard my name announced. My own people’s identity had been denied by the school curriculum through most of my education, and now I’m getting an award for being Aboriginal?! WTF?? But as I was walking up to the podium get my award, I got a message from my ancestors. I won’t say here what the exact message was. But it immediately calmed me. Nobody would ever know how furious I was when I heard my name announced that night.

What happened that night was that I experienced a “glitch in the Matrix”. I never really understood until now – that I was caught in-between the layers of the onion.

The making of the outer layer

Many people welcome the recent acknowledgment of past atrocities such as the Stolen Generations and the massacres.

But a word of caution…. False narratives are always made from a mixture of both truth and fiction.

The cheating husband will not lie more than he has to. He will construct a story that is mostly true, otherwise it becomes too hard to keep up with all the lies. The more elements of the story that are blatantly false – the higher the chance of being caught-out.

The same goes for the outer layer of the onion. It has elements of truth – yes, there were stolen generations and massacres. And these truthful elements are not in the terra nullius onion layer, so it may appear that the outer layer is more truthful. But a small spoonful of truth helps the swallowing of the lies. Overall the “First Australians” narrative is a lie – simply there to obscure what is underneath, and to create a nice, clean foundation story for Australia.

Real truth-telling is dissecting the onion and peeling back the layers. It is not covering up everything with more lies.

There is a line in the Uluru Statement that says:

“With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.”

In this post, I will write about what “substantive constitutional change” means.

Substantive:

One of the meanings of the word substantive is: considerable – serious, big or significant.

But another meaning is: Of, or relating to the substance of a thing.

Substantial => Substance. Makes sense!

Constitutional:

The other word here is constitutional. This can mean one of two different things;

• One is that it is to do with the Commonwealth of Australia Contitution Act. This is a DOCUMENT, that is sometimes described as “Australia’s birth certificate”. This is also called the Big “C” constitution.

• Another meaning of the word constitution is the MAKE-UP OF SOMETHING. Australia is made up of a federation of colonies that call themselves “States”. If the fundamental make-up of Australia would change, but without changing the words on the “birth certificate” – that would still be a “constitutional change”. This is also called Small “C” constitution.

What is “substantive constititional change”

Put this together – “substantive constititional change” could mean a couple of different things.

• It could mean a big overhaul of the Constitution Act, as in the document. A significant re-writing of the “birth certificate” document.
• It could also mean a change to the substance of the make-up of Australia.

Pretty much everyone is being misled to believe that it is a change to the Constitution ACT – the birth certificate. But it isn’t. No one’s putting forward any suggestions as to what to put in a significant re-write.

The Uluru Statement asks for a fundamental change to the federation, to the make-up of Australia itself.

It substantially changes the federation by retrospectively adding a FIRST NATIONS STATE as a landless, seventh state.

“First Nations” are sovereigns of the soil, and by retrospectively becoming part of the federation of Australia, First Nations will replace the sovereignty of the British Crown as the source of authority on which Australia and it’s institutions run. This is what the second part of this line the Uluru Statement is referring to when it says:

“this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood”

This does not need any change to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. To add a new state (or in this case, retrospectively recognise a First Nations state, pretending like it was always there) does not need a change to the words of the Constitution Act. It can be enacted through a declaration. In this case, this will be done by the Declaration of Recognition, part of the reforms that no one talks about.

The Referendum

Another thing to note is that the word “referendum” DOES NOT APPEAR in The Uluru Statement. It appears in the “OUR STORY” annex to the Uluru Statement in the Referendum Council Final Report, but only in reference to the 1967 referendum. THE ULURU STATEMENT DOES NOT ASK FOR A REFERENDUM! The Referendum Council recommended a referendum – but that is just that – merely a recommendation.

It is not the referendum that we need to worry about.

They will continue with the circus show – arguing over whether the Voice should “be enshrined” first, or the Agreement-making, blah blah blah…. The Voice-Treaty-Truth order doesn’t matter – because THERE IS NO ORDER! Read the Referendum Council Final Report – it does not ask for any particular order! The arguing over the order is just to drum up controversy and press.

More circuses/drama is drummed up over how such-n-such politician, or such-n-such party is bad because they want to co-design a voice first (even though the Referendum Council Final Report specifically asks for that!), or such-n-such is bad because they don’t call a referendum yesterday.

Don’t be distracted by the circus!

HOW TO STOP THE ULURU STATEMENT

If we want to protect Aboriginal sovereignty – we need to listen to Tony Abbott!

Tony Abbott said:

“The first thing is that we’ve got to come up with some words, an amendment that is meaningful for Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders. It’s got to speak to, it’s got to sing to them, OTHERWISE THEY’LL WASH THEIR HANDS OF IT”

Abbott said this because he knows – that’s how we have the power to stop any government-engineered reforms. By WASHING OUR HANDS OF IT!

So wash your hands of everything that the Statement asks for.

• No Treaty from the government. This includes anything called “agreement making”, and treaty with State governments.
• No Truthtelling from the government. Government can “tell the truth” if they want. You can continue to stand in the truth – just don’t take special govt money to do it.
• No Voice. Boycott it!

Boycott until the government admits that it’s failed, and is off the table.

Note also this. There are many people and organisations that are actively PUSHING us towards at least one of these elements of Voice/Agreement Making/Truth – even those who pretend they are against the Uluru Statement. Eg. “We don’t want to be in the constitution, we want a Treaty”. If a treaty is made while the Uluru Statement is still on the table – the treaty will be what’s called an Instrument of Accession, and any terms that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people negotiate will be only enforceable domestically. It will be a GAMMON TREATY. There can be no proper treaty with any Australian government until the Uluru Statement is ABOLISHED.