Always was always will be -----> ABORIGINAL LAND
Media Release 12 August 2013
Goodooga, Euahlayi Nation, in upper western
region of NSW Euahlayi Nation declares independence and asserts
pre-existing and continuing Statehood Ghillar, Michael Anderson,
Convenor of the Sovereign Union and now Convenor of the Provisional
Euahlayi Peoples Executive Council said today:
On 3 August 2013 in
Dirranbandi, Queensland, a meeting of key Euahlayi family members and
Elders concluded that a letter be forwarded to Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth II, informing her that the People of the Euahlayi have
asserted their preexisting and continuing Statehood.
This decision
follows on from previous correspondence with Buckingham Palace. On 24
July 2010 I wrote under my natural and given Euahlayi name, Ghillar, to
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II asking the following questions: a) Can
you provide us with the documents, where war was declared against the
Peoples of the Euahlayi Nation or where b) The Peoples of the Euahlayi
voluntarily ceded their sovereignty to Great Britain.
Our most recent
correspondence reminds Her Majesty that on 24 August 2010 her Senior
Correspondence Officer, Mrs Sonia Bonici, wrote from Buckingham Palace
that: “As a constitutional Sovereign, Her Majesty acts through her
personal representative, the Governor-General, on the advice of her
Australian
Ministers and it is to them that your appeal should be
directed.” I also received a letter addressed to ‘Ghillar’ from the
Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General signed by Mark
Fraser OAM, Deputy Official Secretary to the Governor-General,
responding for and on behalf of Queen Elizabeth II’s, Australian
representative saying that: I regret to advice you that I cannot add
anything further to my reply of 7th July and I am unable to supply any
of the documents that you seek. Clearly, the Heads of Government within
Australia are unable to produce any legitimate documents, which provide a
legal right for their continuing governance over our lands and waters
within our borders.
Provisional Euahlayi Peoples Executive Council
and the Senior Council of Euahlayi Elders, Dirranbandi, Qld, on 3 August
2013 Left to Right - Sitting: Elizabeth Connor (Executive Council);
Henry Noble (Elder); Darcy Washington (Elder); Rosemary Weatherall
(Elder); Melanie Waters (Elder). Left to Right - Standing Frontline:
Ghillar (Michael Anderson) [Executive Council]; Jason Dries [Executive
Council]; Lindsay Noble (Elder); Lyla Dries (Elder); Mavis Eckford
(Elder); Margaret Crump. Dr. Mayrah Dries (executive Council); Lenese
Cooper (Elder)
Back Row: Jason Dries Jnr; Gordon Weatherall
(Executive Council); Neville Anderson; Pam Touma (Executive Council) and
Edgar Draper.
We can understand Australia’s fears when we assert
our sovereignty. In Mabo [2] 1992 the High Court of Australia said that
the issue of continuing Aboriginal sovereignty, is a question, that
belongs to another jurisdiction and cannot be dealt with by any
municipal courts. (That is, local Australian courts including the High
Court of Australia). According to Justice Brennan in the High Court Mabo
No.2 judgment: The Crown’s acquisition of sovereignty over the several
parts of Australia cannot be challenged in an Australian municipal
court. [at para 83]
Moreover, the Mabo [2] judgment expressed grave
concerns since, recognising a continuing propriety interest in land
under Aboriginal law and custom, creates some serious legal dilemmas.
This is evident in their judgment at paragraph 43, where, the judges
show in many ways, concern, that Australia’s claim to sovereignty over
Aboriginal people and their land is compromised. The judgment shows
extreme concern when they say at paragraph 44 that: …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 interest.
The Euahlayi Declaration of Independence
asserts that we are the First Nation State to occupy our lands and
waters, governed by our Law and customs. If the Australian State has a
legal and political problem in respect to their sovereignty and
governance because of our declaration of Statehood, then it is their
right to negotiate with us about the future of their role within our
borders. In other words, if they want a relationship with us they need
to negotiate with us.
The fact that the Commonwealth government is
proposing a referendum to include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders
in their racist Constitution from Britain affirms our pre-existing
continuing statehood.
We have always asserted that our sovereignty has
never been ceded to the colonising power. Australia’s relationship with
the British Crown and Australia’s future as a nation is for them to sort
out. A complementary authority for our action comes from the American
Declaration of Independence.
During the imperial expansion of the
European nations Great Britain lost a civil war on the American mainland
to George Washington and his supporters from the then existing thirteen
American colonial states. Representatives of these thirteen states,
including such famous men as George Washington, George Adams and Thomas
Jefferson (all of whom were later to become Presidents in their own
right) were among those who signed the American Declaration of
Independence.
American Statehood was later confirmed in their
Supreme Court in the case Underhill - v - Hernanadez , 168 U.S. 250
(1897). This case established a legal principle, which is now accepted
in the international community as a legal international doctrine which
concludes: …the acquisition of territory by a sovereign state for the
first time is an act of state, which cannot be challenged, controlled or
interfered with by the courts of that state.
This is often viewed by
First Nations Peoples as being a non-acceptable principle based on
colonialism. Nevertheless, First Nations Peoples in America have had
their independent sovereignties recognised and are treated sovereignty
to sovereignty with many First Nations in the process of becoming
economically independent. On 9 July 2013 the American Ambassador
affirmed this during a public discussion in the Great Hall of Parliament
House, Canberra, with Prof George Williams on the Australian
Constitution Day, appropriately named ‘AusCon Day’. The discussion was
livestreamed by the ABC Big Ideas programme. We also know that for a
long time the Commonwealth Government has been very worried about the
right of First Nations to assert their sovereignties and want to avoid
the American model at all costs. On 3 March 1981 Minister for Aboriginal
Affairs, Peter Baume advised:
It may be that, the development of
the NAC [National Aboriginal Conference] - albeit a development based on
Australian law - an Australian Aboriginal ‘community’ is developing and
will develop to the point where, if the United States models are
followed, it might conceivably become appropriate to speak of an
arrangement of that organised community and the Commonwealth as a
‘treaty’. However, the Attorney-General recently advised the Prime
Minister in a letter dated 15 July 1980, that having regard to the
connotations of the word ‘treaty’ in international context, it would be
very desirable to avoid the word ‘treaty’ in relation to the agreement,
and that instead a term such as ‘Makarrata’ might be used if, upon full
examination, it was found appropriate. He went on to say that it would
be possible to include in the arrangement as if they were a community
separate from the Australian community, and provisions to ensure that
the arrangement was not conceived as being analogous to a treaty between
separate nation States.’ In considering whether such provisions should
be included account should be taken of any risk that, in the absence of
sufficiently explicit provisions to the contrary, a claim might be made
that the agreement accorded a status on which Aboriginals could base a
right of ‘Self-determination’ as a ‘people’. …
I note that the
resolution by the NAC requests a treaty of commitment between the
Australian government and the ‘Aboriginal nation’. For the reasons
mentioned above the use of that word should be avoided by the
Commonwealth.
The Euahlayi Declaration of Statehood and the
formation of the Euahlayi provisional executive council of parliament
appropriately preceded the International Day of the
World’s
Indigenous Peoples, 9 August 2013, which had as this year’s theme:
Indigenous peoples building alliances: Honouring treaties, agreements
and other constructive arrangements: The theme aims to highlight the
importance of honouring arrangements between States, their citizens and
indigenous peoples that were designed to recognize indigenous peoples'
rights to their lands and establish a framework for living in proximity
and entering into economic relationships. Agreements also outline a
political vision of different sovereign peoples living together on the
same land, according to the principles of friendship, cooperation and
peace.
Contact: Ghillar, Michael Anderson 0427 292 492 Convenor Euahlayi Nation Executive Council and Sovereign Union
