Aboriginal Australia and the Sovereignty Revolution

Michael Anerson at Tent Embassy (Tracker)

Michael Anderson explains the Sovereignty case that is currently being pursued by the Aboriginal 'New Way Movement' with Sue Leigh on 3CR's 'Wednesday Hometime (1/2/12)'.

Michael explains the 1875 Act and that Lawyers in London have insisted that this act is absolute law. He provides details of why the English government has no jurisdiction over Aboriginal people, what is being done about it and what's the next step ...

Included on this page is some of Michael's recent media releases related to the act.

The Sovereignty Debate - Aboriginal and White Australia

Goodooga, northwest NSW, 5th January, 2012

A statement on the current sovereignty debate - Aboriginal Australia, White Australia
By Michael Anderson ©

Introduction

This is not a debate about the legitimacy of either or. This is a debate about the need to conclude a messy and genocidal history. It is about working together to get it right and to settle grievances and disputes in a fair and just manner.

It can become ugly, but only if the dominant society rejects outright our legitimate claim to continuing sovereignty and dominion over our lands, natural resources and the naturally occurring biodiversity.

Over the millennia conflicts have come and gone and always at the end settlements through negotiations are agreed to. This debate and confrontation can end just as easily as it started, but we must all agree to talk and negotiate in order to locate peaceful and lasting settlements if we are to become an Australian society unified in common purpose and cause, always respecting each other’s background, religious beliefs and right to say NO to the destruction of Mother Earth.

We can prosper with great effect if we commit to protecting Mother Earth, which must be one of our pre-negotiation agreements and commitments.

The substantive issues of our continuing sovereignty and dominion

1.00 The response of the NSW governor’s office to my letter of 14th November 2011 was not surprising; in that latter I requested a copy of the NSW proclamation of the ‘Order in Council’ in respect to Queen Victoria’s recognition and affirmation of Aboriginal sovereignty and dominion over our lands.

In a letter dated December 8th, signed by the Official Secretary and Chief of Staff, Mr. Noel Campbell said that the Governor’s Office does not keep records dating back to 1875 but advised that we should consult the NSW State Records Authority. He then concluded the next paragraph by saying that both Acts were repealed by virtue of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Act 1999.

1.01 In response, I wrote the following:

I am well aware of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Act 1999. I can only assume that given your response, the New South Wales attorney-generals have failed to inform you of the international law relating to conventional practices and international laws that preclude one state from repealing an Act of another sovereign parliament. Moreover, the Commonwealth Criminal Code Amendment Slavery and Sexual Servitude Act of 1999 merely repealed the Pacific Islanders Protection Acts of 1872 and 1875 respectively so that they are no longer on the public records.

1.02 This I can understand. However, the purpose and intent of each of these Acts and their effects remain and have not been affected.

Treaties and the import of new law/laws

Furthermore, the New South Wales Attorney-General’s office has also failed to inform you of the Australian High Court decision in ‘Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh’ [1995]. At the conclusion of this High Court’s ruling, there was a joint press release, published in print media throughout Australia, part of which said:

1.03 “JOINT STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, SENATOR GARETH EVANS, AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, MICHAEL LAVARCH

M44

10 May 1995

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND THE HIGH COURT DECISION IN TEOH

This statement is to clarify the Government's position following the High Court's recent decision in the Teoh Case. That decision concerned the way in which administrative decisions are made under the Migration Act but could have implications for the way the provisions of a treaty may operate in Australian law generally.

Prior to the High Court decision, it was established that ratification of a treaty did have some, albeit limited, significance in Australian domestic law - the treaty provisions could be used to resolve an ambiguity in legislation; could provide guidance on the development of the common law, particularly where the treaty declared universal fundamental rights, and could quite properly be taken into account in the exercise of a discretion by a decision-maker under legislation without the decision being invalidated as a result.

However, it was also clearly established in a succession of High Court cases that treaties entered into by the Australian government, while creating rights and duties as a matter of international law, did not form part of Australia's domestic law unless and until they had been so incorporated by legislation, and could not give rise to rights and obligations unless they were so enacted into law.

The High Court reaffirmed in Teoh that provisions of treaties do not form part of Australian law unless they have been incorporated by legislation. At the same time, however, the Court developed a new way in which treaties could affect some administrative decisions. The High Court held that merely entering into a treaty could give rise to a legitimate expectation that government decision-makers would make decisions consistently with Australia's obligations under the treaty. It was not necessary for any legislation governing the decision to refer to the treaty. Indeed the provisions of the treaty could apply even where the person affected by the decision did not raise - or even know about - the treaty in question. This was the case in Teoh itself, where the Court decided that there was a legitimate expectation that the decision maker under the Migration Act would take the relevant Article of the Convention on the Rights of the Child into account in coming to a decision not to give resident status, notwithstanding that the applicant did not know about the Convention and the decision-maker did not raise it.

It may be only a small number of the approximately 920 treaties to which Australia is currently a party that could provide a source for an expectation of the kind found by the High Court to arise in Teoh. But that can only be established as individual cases come to be litigated. In the meantime, the High Court decision gives little if any guidance on how decision-makers are to determine which of those treaty provisions will be relevant and to what decisions the provisions might be relevant, and because of the wide range and large number of decisions potentially affected by the decision, a great deal of uncertainty has been introduced into government activity. It is not in anybody's interests to allow such uncertainty to continue.

For that reason, the Government is taking action to restore the position to what it was understood to be prior to the Teoh Case.

This action is of the kind foreshadowed by the High Court itself. In its judgment, the Court acknowledged that the expectation in question can be displaced by 'statutory or executive indications to the contrary': there can be no legitimate expectation if the actions of the Parliament or the Executive are not consistent with that expectation. So far as the Executive is concerned, the Court made it clear that it was open for Government to make a statement about the effect that the obligations undertaken in international law by reason of treaty ratification are intended to have in the domestic law of Australia.

We now make such a clear and express statement. We state on behalf of the Government, that entering into an international treaty is not reason for raising any expectation that government decision-makers will act in accordance with the treaty if the relevant provisions of that treaty have not been enacted into domestic Australian law. It is not legitimate, for the purpose of applying Australian law, to expect that the provisions of a treaty not incorporated by legislation should be applied by decision-makers. Any expectation that may arise does not provide a ground for review of a decision. This is so, both for existing treaties and for future treaties that Australia may join. The Government intends to legislate to reinforce this statement and put beyond any doubt the status of these unlegislated international obligations. We will be seeking approval for the necessary legislation to be introduced into Parliament later in these sittings. In the meantime, this statement has been issued to avoid, to the fullest extent possible in the circumstances, the inevitable uncertainty flowing from the High Court decision.”

I have included this statement because it raises a number of key issues.

1.04.1 On the question of assimilating a set of rights into Australian law, there can be NO doubt nor question as to the intent and purpose of sections 7 and 10 of the Pacific Islanders Protection Acts 1872 and 1875 in respect to Britain’s recognition of the “independence of Aboriginal sovereignty and dominion over our places (land)” and its application to the state colonies at the time.

1.05 I base this statement on a legal fact. When we read section 7 of the text of the original and real Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1875, clearly there are no ambiguities. A copy of this document is located on the records in the Office of the Parliamentary Council at Whitehall, London. To quote:

“Nothing herein or in any such Order in Council contained shall extend or be construed to extend to invest her Majesty and her heirs and successors with any claim or title whatsoever to dominion or sovereignty over any such islands or places as aforesaid, or to derogate from the rights of the tribes or people inhabiting such islands or places, or of chiefs or rulers thereof, to such sovereignty or dominion, and a copy of every such Order in Council shall be laid before each House of Parliament within thirty days after the issue thereof, unless Parliament shall not then be in session, in which case a copy shall be laid before each House of Parliament within thirty days after the commencement of the next ensuring session.”

1.06 During my visit to London in December 2011 to locate the original copy of the Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1872 and 1875, its bills and its purpose, I was advised that with respect to an ‘Order in Council’, it is in itself “absolute law” when it comes from the monarch exercising their ‘prerogative powers’. In this regard it is important to know that an ‘Order in Council’ can come from two sources;

1. From the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons to the monarch, or

2. by the reigning monarch exercising of the royal ‘prerogative’.

“An ‘Order in Council’ becomes “Absolute Law” within the common law of the places [colonies] where it is intended to be applicable.”

1.07 Therefore, unlike a treaty, the Pacific Islanders Protection Acts of 1872 and 1875 respectively, both having their genesis in the British parliament and by the ‘Order in Council’ of the reigning monarch, became part of the domestic law of the colonies in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia, as well as New Zealand and other islands in the Pacific where Britain was exploring and laying claim to various dominions.

1.08 For the purposes of this debate it is essential to understand and have cognizance of the effects of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 (28 & 29 Vict. c. 63). This is an Act of the parliament of the United Kingdom. Its long title is "An Act to remove Doubts as to the Validity of Colonial Laws".

1.09 (i) As stated in the internet by the Wikipedia group, The purpose of the Act was to remove any apparent inconsistency between local (colonial) and British ("imperial") legislation. Thus it confirmed that colonial legislation (provided it had been passed in the proper manner) was to have full effect within the colony, limited only to the extent that it was in contradiction with ("repugnant to") any Act of Parliament that contained powers which extended beyond the boundaries of England to include that colony. This had the effect of strengthening the position of colonial legislatures, while at the same time restating their ultimate subordination to the Westminster Parliament.

(ii) Until the passage of the Act, a number of colonial statutes had been struck down by local judges on the grounds of repugnancy to English laws (whether or not those English laws had been intended by Parliament to be effective in the colony).

(iii) By the mid-1920s it was accepted by the British government that the Dominions would have full legislative autonomy. This was given legislative effect in 1931 by the Statute of Westminster which repealed the application of the Colonial Laws Validity Act to the dominions (i.e. Canada, the Irish Free State, New Zealand and Newfoundland, and the Union of South African State).

(iv) The Statute of Westminster took effect in Australia in 1942 with the passing of the statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 with retroactive effect to 3 September 1939, the start of World War II. The Colonial Laws Validity Act continued to have application in individual Australian States up until the Australia Act 1986 came into effect in 1986.”

2.00 It certainly would not be in the interests of the federal and or state/territory governments to attempt to argue that each of the colonial states failed to proclaim the law (‘Order in Council’) arising from the Pacific Islanders Protection Acts because the Order in Council is prescriptive and unequivocal. At this time the governors were responsible for carrying out all such ‘Orders in Council’, according to the Letters Patent, which call upon the appointed governors of the states to call together a parliament. The Letters Patent are the only authority that gives Australian states and federal governments their legitimacy. In this case the governors were and continue to be extensions of the English monarch by proxy, which placed a legal obligation on them to have these 1872-75 Acts proclaimed in each of the colonial states.

Separation of powers

2.01 The Australia Act of 1986 clearly establishes the formal separation of powers between Australia and the United Kingdom’s parliament and the UK’s legal institutions, amongst other things.

2.02 The fundamental legal principle established by the Australia Act 1986 is that after the coming into effect of this Act it says at section 3. (2) “No law and no provisions of any law made after the commencement of this Act by the parliament of a State shall be void or inoperative on the grounds that it is repugnant to the laws of England, or to the provisions of any existing or future Acts of the parliament of the United Kingdom or to any order, rule or regulation made under any such Act, and the powers of the parliament of a State shall include the power to repeal or amend any such Act, order, rule or regulation in so far as it is part of the law of the State.” /i>

2.03 In respect of repeals of the Pacific Islanders Protection Acts, the Australian federal government along with each of the states and territories as a consequence of the 1986 Australia Act can now repeal an Act of the British parliament that remains on and in Australian statutes. In the case of the Pacific Islanders Protection Acts of 1872-75 the Australian federal government has repealed both Acts so that in 1999 they were no longer on the public records. But the effects of the Pacific Islander Protection Acts remain law.

2.04 This is confirmed from the study of each of the repeals both in the United Kingdom and Australia of the Pacific Islanders Protection Acts of 1872 & 75 as the legal effects are and have been preserved.

2.05 The problem that the Australian parliaments have, however, is their inability to diminish the legal effects of the original Act from Britain, despite Australia gaining its autonomy from the British parliament and its legal institutions. The Australia Act of 1986 did not alter the purpose and effects of the intent of the laws that came from England during the colonial period. In fact our sovereignty and dominion continue to be preserved.

2.06 Unlike an international treaty, the Pacific Islanders Protection Acts 1872-75 do apply to each of the states identified in the Act and there is no reason why it would be necessary to have a debate about “legitimate expectations”. The terms of the Acts, intended for each of the Australian colonial states including New Zealand through the ‘Order in Council’ constitute absolute law and the fact that there is a specific ‘Order in Council’ at section 10 of the same Pacific Islanders Protection Acts 1872-75 to have it proclaimed within each of the colonial states and New Zealand sets apart any arguments that may arise in respect of its intended purposes to apply to Australian and New Zealand domestic law.

2.07 So what does this mean for Australia and New Zealand? It is my interpretation that if we are to follow the reasoning of former Foreign Affairs Minister, Gareth Evans, and his counterpart, the Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch MP, it is of NO consequence as to whether the parliaments of the states failed to introduce their own laws in respect of the confirmation of Aboriginal sovereignty and dominion over their places. It is a legal fact that the Pacific Islanders Protection Acts 1872-75 created unequivocally and in unambiguous terms the law that Aboriginal sovereignty and dominion over us and our places are and continue to be universal in English common law, a law that had to be observed by each of the colonial states.

2.08 The Pacific Islanders Protection Acts of 1872-75 were not a set of laws that could be left up to the exercise of discretion of the leadership of each of the states. The Pacific Islanders Protection Acts were laws that were themselves created by the same parliament and monarchy that gave each of the Australian states and the federal government their own legitimacy without a revolution as happened in the United States of America. Unfortunately this permits leaders like the former prime minister, John Howard, to say, “Australia was a country that developed by peaceful settlement”, which in turn permits the Australian state and federal governments to suppress the true history of the Aboriginal resistance and the violence that went with this resistance and that to this day continues, in particular the violence from the states themselves.

A question of repeal

2.09 On the question of the law today, given that each of the Pacific Islanders Protection Acts of 1872-75 have now been repealed both in England and Australia.

3.00 Let me first address the repeals that have occurred in the English parliament.

a) When we read the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1986. {1986 Chapter 12} we must have legal cognizance of the following text therein.

Paragraph one says, “An Act to promote the reform of the statutes law by the repeal in accordance with recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effects are preserved) are no longer of practical utility, and to make other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments.” [2nd may, 1986]

b) Paragraph 2 states; BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in the present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows-

Part 2 at (4) of page 1, establishes the following; “Subject to Subsection (3) {which deals with the repeal of The dentist Act 1878 and Medical Act 1886 only} above, this Act does not repeal any enactment so far as the enactment forms part of the law of a country outside the British Islands; but Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide that the repeal by this Act of any enactment in the Order in Council shall on a date so specified extend to any colony”.

3.00 It is therefore imperative that we as sovereign Aboriginal nations have particular cognizance of the English parliament’s Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1986. {1986 Chapter 12} and I emphasise that which is cited above: “An Act to promote the reform of the statutes law by the repeal in accordance with recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effects are preserved) are no longer of practical utility, and to make other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments.” [2nd may, 1986]

3.01 I now address the John Howard government’s repeal of the Pacific Islanders Protection Acts of 1872-75. Australian Parliamentary Hansard 1999 recorded that the Pacific Islanders Protection of 1872-75 Acts were of no further use and should no longer be on the public records. It needs to be noted that this repeal does nothing to affect the continuing sovereignty and/or dominion as there are no specific sections and/or clauses that have impact, impairment or the suggestion of the abolition of these lawfully recognized rights.

The Australia Act 1986 and Australian independence

3.02 The principal difference between the Commonwealth and UK versions of the Australia Act lies in the reference, appearing in the long title and preamble to the Commonwealth version but not present in the UK version, to Australia as "a sovereign, independent and federal nation. While this might be understood as a declaration of independence, it can also be understood as an acknowledgement that Australia was already independent, leaving open the question of when independence had been attained. There is no earlier declaration or grant of independence”.

3.03 At no material time has any of these alterations, amendments, repeals and/or declarations, etc, mentioned the abolition of the continuing sovereignty of our people nor has any law been created to rescind Aboriginal dominion over our lands, waters, natural resources and the naturally occurring biodiversity of our lands and waters.

3.04 From this analysis I propose the following considerations:

(a) At what point does the Australia Act of 1986 and/or any other law or known ‘Order in Council’ diminish the legal recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty and takes away by law our dominion over our lands, water, nature resources, gas, oil and our biodiversity naturally occurring within and throughout our dominions if there are no specific words to this effect?

If they did this, then our question is, where, when and how did we lose our sovereignty and dominion?

3.05 If this question can be answered and the law/laws are identified then we ask the following questions:

1. On what date did this happen?

2. What are the terms of this/these law/laws?

3. Where is/are the prior and informed consent treaty/treaties?

4. What, if any, compensation and/or restitution has been agreed to by all parties?

5. Along with all the other questions that do come to mind that are too many to list here.

WHAT AND WHERE TO FROM HERE

THIS IS OUR CHOICE

Actions

There are many forms and types of actions that we could take and initiate, but this is something that I recommend we do as United Sovereign States from within Australia. To do otherwise will be detrimental to all of us as sovereign peoples and sovereign nations.

Lets Talk! (to use brother Tiger Bayles’s radio talkback quote)


Michael Anderson near the Aboriginal fish traps in Brewarrina NSW
(pic: Brigitte Simon-Enderl) | Brewarrina - Google Map

Michael Anderson's Media Statement

London, 9 December 11

The High Court Mabo judgment (No. 2) only got it half right; by this I mean that the sovereign status of our people gives us rights in ownership and title to all Crown lands in Australia. This is affirmed from the Order in Council from England in 1875 through the Pacific Islanders Protection Act.

So far my trip to London has made it patently clear that an Order in Council is law and can only be taken away by another Order in Council from the monarch and cannot be taken away by Parliament.

Where we have been cheated by the Australian Parliament was through their act to engage the "Magnificent Seven" Aborigines to work with the Government to formulate a code of laws to restrict our ability to take ownership as sovereign Peoples to the remaining lands and waters that had not been usurped. That is, these lands are known in Australia as 'Crown lands' and they belong to us unencumbered as sovereign nations' land. The Magnificent Seven, without being fully informed, worked to circumvent our ownership of these lands.

The High Court Mabo judgment said that all Crown lands were available for claim. Clearly the Wilson v Anderson case of 2002 was Australia's stand against Aboriginal sovereign rights to secure by statute State leasehold lands for non-Aboriginal people.

Part of the Land Rights struggle that we now face is to gain compensation for the land that has been usurped by force from our nations.

The doctrine of adverse possession is a possessory right by occupation and we Aboriginal Peoples, as sovereign true owners of the occupied lands, must now stand and fight for the right to be compensated. This compensation right must include compensatory measures for the wealth that the government gains through our naturally occurring resources.

Clearly the Samuel Griffith Society of lawyers, which protects Australian Constitution rights, got it right when they advised John Howard in 1998 that it would be at his government's peril if they affirmed government ownership of natural resources in the Native Title Act or any other Act of the Australian State. One of the most important points made in this advice was that should Aborigines be successful in arguing their case for sovereignty then the Australia State would have to repay to Aboriginal Peoples all monies derived from the exploitation of our natural wealth. It goes without saying that the white legal experts in Australia are very wary and concerned about the High Court's statement in Mabo when the judges referred to Australian State as having a skeletal framework. In this regard the High Court said:

42. The fiction by which the rights and interests of indigenous inhabitants in land were treated as non-existent was justified by a policy which has no place in the contemporary law of this country. The policy appears explicitly in the judgment of the Privy Council in In re Southern Rhodesia in rejecting an argument (66) ibid., at p 232 that the native people "were the owners of the unalienated lands long before either the Company or the Crown became concerned with them and from time immemorial ... and that the unalienated lands belonged to them still". Their Lordships replied (67) ibid., at p 234-

"the maintenance of their rights was fatally inconsistent with white settlement of the country, and yet white settlement was the object of the whole forward movement, pioneered by the Company and controlled by the Crown, and that object was successfully accomplished, with the result that the aboriginal system gave place to another prescribed by the Order in Council".

Whatever the justification advanced in earlier days for refusing to recognize the rights and interests in land of the indigenous inhabitants of settled colonies, an unjust and discriminatory doctrine of that kind can no longer be accepted. …

It is important to understand that the High Court in Mabo went on to say in para 42 that:

The expectations of the international community accord in this respect with the contemporary values of the Australian people. The opening up of international remedies to individuals pursuant to Australia's accession to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (68) See Communication 78/1980 in Selected Decisions of the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol, vol.2, p 23 brings to bear on the common law the powerful influence of the Covenant and the international standards it imports. The common law does not necessarily conform with international law, but international law is a legitimate and important influence on the development of the common law, especially when international law declares the existence of universal human rights. A common law doctrine founded on unjust discrimination in the enjoyment of civil and political rights demands reconsideration. It is contrary both to international standards and to the fundamental values of our common law to entrench a discriminatory rule which, because of the supposed position on the scale of social organization of the indigenous inhabitants of a settled colony, denies them a right to occupy their traditional lands. It was such a rule which evoked from Deane J. (69) Gerhardy v. Brown [1985] HCA 11; (1985) 159 CLR 70, at p 149 the criticism that -"the common law of this land has still not reached the stage of retreat from injustice which the law of Illinois and Virginia had reached in 1823 when Marshall C.J., in Johnson v. McIntosh (70) (1823) 8 wheat, at p 574 (21 US , at p 253), accepted that, subject to the assertion of ultimate dominion (including the power to convey title by grant) by the State, the 'original inhabitants' should be recognized as having 'a legal as well as just claim' to retain the occupancy of their traditional lands".

43. However, recognition by our common law of the rights and interests in land of the indigenous inhabitants of a settled colony would be precluded if the recognition were to fracture a skeletal principle of our legal system. The proposition that the Crown became the beneficial owner of all colonial land on first settlement has been supported by more than a disregard of indigenous rights and interests. It is necessary to consider these other reasons for past disregard of indigenous rights and interests and then to return to a consideration of the question whether and in what way our contemporary common law recognizes such rights and interests in land.? Crown title to colonies and Crown ownership of colonial land distinguished.

As Aboriginal Peoples we must now truly understand that Australia's claim in title to our lands, waters and natural wealth is more than 'on shaky ground'. The High Court Mabo decision has determined that:

44. In the trilogy of cases cited earlier in this judgment (71) Supra, pp 12-15: Attorney-General v. Brown; Randwick Corporation v. Rutledge; the Seas and Submerged Lands Case, it was said that colonial land became a royal demesne - that is, that the Crown became the absolute beneficial owner in possession of all colonial land - on first settlement, the event which conferred sovereignty on the Imperial Crown. Curiously, in Williams v. Attorney-General for New South Wales (72) [1913] HCA 33; (1913) 16 CLR 404, at p 439, Isaacs J. said it was unquestionable that -
"when Governor Phillip received his first Commission from King George III. on 12th October 1786, the whole of the lands of Australia were already in law the property of the King of England".

Fortunately for Aboriginal Peoples, the Order in Council in the Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1875 clearly contradicts this assertion in para 44.

As Peoples it is now imperative that we unite and rebuild as sovereign independent nations, in order to claim our sovereign title and rights throughout Australia. This will be a major political and legal fight, but it is our future for not just us, but for our children and our grandchildren.

Over the next few days I will have confirmed our sovereign status within Australia under international law. Presently I can say that the shutting down of the National Aboriginal Conference (NAC) in 1985 was not about the NAC's failure to represent their constituency, but rather it was about its success in beginning to shatter the skeletal framework of the Australian State, later referred to in the High Court Mabo judgment.

Michael Anderson's Media Statement

NSW - December, 2012

I'm travelling to England from the 4th December to commence discussions on the liberation of my people from the tyrannical colonial rule that Aboriginal people have been subjected to since the English invasion.

From the time of invasion Aboriginal people have always fought off the white. The English Admiralty's instruction to try and find peace with us did not occur; instead the discourse between those who came and stayed and who wandered out stealing Aboriginal lands at the point of the gun beyond the approved boundaries set by the colonial governors of the time.

Since this time, whites have murdered, raped our women and girls, stole our children in the case of the churches, and we endured government indentured slavery of children to the rich and farmer groups.

This will never be taught in the Australian schools. Germans learn to this day in their schools of the tyranny and dictatorship of Adolf Hitler and his murderous regime.

The fact that the British parliament have in their statute books an act that recognise the continuance of Aboriginal sovereignty and dominion over our people and lands is now a major political and legal blunder on the part of the Australians and the British.

The judges in Mabo knew this as well and they failed to alert the Australian government that they have a real problem. The Magnificent Aboriginal Seven who conspired and collaborated with the Keating government to hide the real facts, and supported a regime to hide the truth from Aboriginal people, must now be wondering what lies ahead for them and their colonial regimes they have supported and continue to support to this day, knowing of their treason against their own people.

No matter how they care to look at this, this is real and we will soon get to the end of it. Our old people of the past have always said that Queen Victoria gave us land and our human rights, but they failed to articulate in a manner that could stand against the dominant white's society at the time and they were cheated and deceived. This will not be the case now.

The organizations that have been set up by the governments do not have the mandate from the people and can in no way sell us out from this day. It is time for the real leadership to stand up and be counted as the pretenders will have no say on where we go in the future. As far as many of my people are concerned, the nominated government spokespersons do not represent the communities who are being targeted by Jenny Macklin and Tony Abbott through their black advisors.

Our law men and women are our leaders. The white man's ways have let us down, they never succeeded. Now we must do it our way and England will pay for it.

This ambassadorial trip will permit me to go to the International Court of Justice in The Hague as well as having discussions in the European Court of Human Rights. Our time for pro-active political and legal action has come. Liberation and freedom is occurring all over the world and so too will it be for Aboriginal people. Australia and England can only have the head in the sand for so long before they have to look up in order to survive.

No amount of talking and promising status or offers of positions for the collaborators will be able to stop this sovereignty movement nor will any interlopers be able to change our directions. This Aboriginal Embassy is a 'people' s' movement and soon will become a movement of nations marching towards freedom from the tyrannical Australian rulers.

The martial law that is being promoted as an intervention in the Northern Territory will be the Australian ship that will turn Australia into another South Africa and we will make sure that the English know of this. We will commence a campaign amongst some of the CHOGM nations to have Australia be the first to be investigated under their proposed human rights body that is being spoken of. Either way, because the queen's representative, the governor-general, is exercising the queen's prerogative in Australia and assenting to the tyrannical laws targeting Aboriginal people, we will commence proceedings in the European Courts of Human Rights and we will find out if the indemnity of the queen's actions is valid when it comes to human rights violations against people who have been subjected to her approved political rulers.

Contact Michael Anderson ghillar29@gmail.com or (02) 7401 442 453