Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) trick First Peoples into surrendering their homelands forever

Our people are surrendering their homelands forever with Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) without understanding they are whitewashing their own history, under the invaders' law.

This surrendering trick takes effect before the deed of grant of land is issued to the shires of the whole area. In this way compensation is also avoided.

JUMP DIRECTLY TO THE 'ILUA' DECEIT SECTION

Ghillar, Michael Anderson 14 April 2016

At a meeting held recently in Atherton, north Queensland, with leaders and members of Mbarbrum, Ngardjon, and Yidinji Nations, the extent of the fraud that is being committed against First Peoples in this country was further revealed.

In presenting evidence to these Nations it was pointed out how England and the colonialists were in full knowledge of the wrongdoings and the extent of the illegalities that were occurring. In fact, in the early 1800s Ellis Bent, the Deputy Judge Advocate, addressed his concerns to Lord Bathurst about the illegalities that were going on in the colony of New South Wales. He expressed deep concern that not only was the Governor exercising power and authority he did not have, but Bent also stated in his correspondence to Lord Bathurst dated 1 July 1815 that he found it impossible to permit the Governor to abrogate acts of parliament and to create a system wholly adverse to the spirit of the law [emphasis added].

Ellis Bent drew attention to the excesses of the Governor's power when he asked about the general orders passed from time to time to the Governor (Macquarie):

In 1815 Lord Bathurst withdrew Ellis Bent and his brother from the colony of New South Wales and returned them to England, in a feeble attempt to protect the illegalities of Governor Macquarie's proclamations. In their place John Wylde was commissioned to be the Deputy Judge Advocate on 1 January 1816 and Baron Field was appointed judge on 14 May 1816, but, although Lord Bathurst had personal relations with these two men the changes made little difference. The two judicial appointees were unable to admit the illegalities of any of the Governor's proclamations.

By 1819 Lord Bathurst had found himself in a difficult situation because he finally admitted that it was necessary to obtain parliamentary sanction from England for that which had been done by Governor Macquarie without authority (ultra vires).

Transcript: When Ellis Bent, the Deputy Judge Advocate, expressed concerns that Governor Macquarie was exercising power and authority he did not have, Bent was shipped back to England to protect the illegalities of Macquarie's proclamations.

Lord Bathurst managed to get protection for Governor Macquarie's proclamations dealing with the levying of rates and duties in the colony of New South Wales, but did not obtain any other protections in respect to other proclamations, including proclamations of martial law against the Wiradjuri in central New South Wales and others.

Governor Macquarie realised that the restrictions of the English parliament to validate his actions were of great deal of concern for him, because the sanctions did not deal with the whole of the problem. Macquarie was very disturbed about these decisions and he was forced to understand the dangers of his position and his lack of authority. In this regard, Governor Macquarie wrote to Lord Bathurst on 23 February 1820:

So Governor Lachlan Macquarie's land grants, proclamations of martial law against First Peoples and other proclamations of governance in the colony of New South Wales, along with other actions of the Governor, must now be scrutinised very closely.

(illustration adapted from cartoon by John Spooner, 2000)

These illegal acts of the past are fraudulent acts.

The Colonial Law Validity Act 1865 only dealt with certain types of proclamations of governance. Close study of the Colonial Law Validity Act 1865 does not provide for the legalising of land grants and/or proclamations of martial law against the Aboriginal population. This certainly could not be admitted given that they erroneously suggested from the outset this country had not had previous settled populations, with settled laws and customs of their own. The Aboriginal defiance and resistance was indeed an Act of State based on pre-existing and continuing sovereignty.

In 1875 Queen Victoria in all her wisdoms, no doubt with the advice of her Privy Council, issued Orders-in-Council that were incorporated into the Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1875 at Sections 7 and 10:

[ http://nationalunitygovernment.org/content/australia-using-superior-forc... ]

When we search the government gazetted notices of this time and soon thereafter none of the colonies adhered to these Orders-in-Council. The rulers of these colonies were committing treasonous acts. The laws of England relating to Orders-in-Council and Letters Patent issued by the monarch are absolute law for England, its colonies and dominions and can only be undone by another Order-in-Council by the reigning monarch for that law to cease. In respect of the Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1875 this has never been done. Lawyers today cannot win the argument that the Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1875 did not relate to the mainland of Australia and its islands, because the 1875 Act had to be read as one with the Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1872 which defined the reach of the act as:

Former PM John Howard's pathetic attempt repeal the imperial Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1875 in the Commonwealth of Australia Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Act 1999 was a sloppy act of legislative draughtmanship. Moreover, he and his legislative draughtmen knew full well that the laws that were created by the Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1875 remained in force.
 

JUMP TO BEGINNING OF THE FULL ARTICLE - 'Native Title Act perpetuates the fraud'

That Mabo and Wik decisions were attacked mercilessly by the Howard government. Tim Fischer, Deputy Prime Minister boasted that there would be bucket loads of extinguishment, regarding the Howard government's response to the decisions.

Now we see how the Native Title Act 1993 as amended is a sleezey deceitful and fraudulent way of trying to correct the illegalities of the past. This is very evident when we read the Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs). It must be first observed that they are only contracts. Contracts can be overturned if one of the parties is not fully aware of the intent, purpose and functions of that contract. I now asked whether Aboriginal people who are parties to these contracts, as native Title applicants and claimants, understand what they have signed up to?

Some of these ILUAs have no commencement date and no end date, or, in the alternative, have a start date but no end date. Furthermore, there are open-ended indemnity clauses with no specification as to what the proponent parties are indemnified against. There are also clauses in these ILUAs, which seek consent for the validating of all agreed acts. The definition of an Agreed Act is:

This is not a proper definition because it does not relate to any specific matter. Moreover, one specific part of an ILUAs states that part of the agreed act is for strategic land management purposes under the trusteeship of Shire Councils, and the compliance of all other state rules and agreements that have had no Aboriginal input in the past. Another absolute legal arrangement in these ILUAs is that it is agreed that the Native Title claimants:

In other words the wrongdoings of the past colonial era are now in the same category as future acts! It is totally illegal to try and bind anyone to an unspecified future act. A future act would need to be defined in a statement to that effect in the ILUA itself and the claimants need to be made aware of this.

On the question of Right To Negotiate (RTN) regarding future acts, it is written into ILUAs:

So the Commonwealth Government tries to free itself from the law by another fraud. The ILUA also adds two other factors, which I am confident most applicants and claimants have no knowledge of the ramifications and consequences of.

On the question of the surrendering of Native Title the ILUA states that:

The ILUA goes on further to state:

This speaks for itself and I am sure our people do not understand the true nature of the consequences. We can assume that in the vast majority of cases the ramifications and consequences have not been fully explained to our people by their lawyers.

On the question of Compensation, it is generally agreed in these ILUAs that compensation arises and is described in section 24EB of the Native Title Act, but it is generally followed by a statement in the ILUA which reads:

How in the world can any of our people agree to something like this, if it was explained clearly? Was the ILUA ever translated into the mother tongue?

Surely our people understand that our fight is worth fighting.

Our people have to stop thinking about themselves and the now and look long term to the future of their children and their grandchildren's children.

No longer can our people be too easily swayed into to agreeing with 'I may as well benefit now, never mind our children'. This happens with the politics of poverty.

Grinding poverty is the ace of the government, but there is no statute of limitation on fraud.

('The details'll be along later' - Geoff Prior - Canberra Times 27 April 2007 - Image edited)

Contact: Ghillar Michael Anderson
Convenor of Sovereign Union of First Nations and Peoples in Australia
and Head of State of the Euahlayi Peoples Republic - Contact Details