“Sovereignty Never Ceded” – Pacific Islander Protection Act 1875
First a little background to my experience. I have been reading legal acts, policies, papers, contracts, and court transcripts for more than 15 years now. I am not a lawyer, or para-legal of any type, but I believe I have extensive self-training in interpretations and definitions regarding law. I have self-represented on several occasions (both wins and losses) and assisted others who have self-represented in their cases (advice, research, writing & compiling affidavits etc). I’ve not yet had a court tell me my interpretation of any law to be incorrect – even when ruled against my favour. Those are my “qualifications” – take from it what you will.
I have read the entire Pacific Islander Protection Act 1875 (PDF) AND the Pacific Order in Council 1893-95 (PDF) AND the Commonwealth Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Act 1999. Section 7 of the PIPA1875 is clear as day and stands … even after amendments included therein the POIC1893-95 and CCA1999.
My analysis of why the PIPA1875 is still valid law ….
To repeal or amend any section of the PIPA1875, the Act must be specifically referred to. This was done in the POIC1893-95 to define the only “natives” under jurisdiction of the Crown, as those who have ever boarded a British naval vessel (Aborigines & Pacific Islanders need to stay away from those things to remain sovereign), or otherwise having come under a DUTY of allegiance to Her Majesty or successors (I guess this would apply to Indigenous police, politicians, or other such govt positions requiring allegiance to the Crown).
The Australia Act 1986 does not overturn or repeal PIPA1875 as brought into law by Queen Victoria’s Orders in Council. Additionally, no state or territory has passed any law that rescinds the Orders in Council.
The PIPA1875 was mentioned, and dubiously repealed, by CCA1999 (Anti-Slavery and Sexual Servitude Act). Current govt and court interpretation of this hogwash of an amendment, is an attempt to dupe the Aborigines out of their lawfully protected right to sovereignty.
If you read the CCA1999 amendment carefully, it states the PIPA1875 is repealed only “so far as they [PIPA1875 & various Slavery Acts] are part of the law of Australia or of an external Territory.” This statement does not repeal the PIPA1875 at all, but actually confirms the intent and functions of PIPA1875 as already recognised to be contained within Australian law. There is no doubt the CCA1999 makes slavery etc. a crime – that is it’s intention and purpose – but it has zero to do with sovereignty rights (in fact it clearly states nationality is not a factor regarding crimes of slavery).
It’s suspicious really, that the CCA1999 repeals the PIPA1875 which makes absolutely NO REFERENCE to slavery at all. PIPA1875 simply applies protections to the sovereignty of native peoples, and outlines Her Majesty’s juristiction over British subjects (of which both are clearly defined in the POIC1893-95) wherever they are in the world. CCA1999 states these provisions are contained within Australian law – Question is, are they? or is the repeal a sly attempt to remove the law granting sovereign rights, leaving Aboriginal people with no such law in place? As noted above, the PIPA1875 must be mentioned to amend or repeal it — other than the two instances discussed, nowhere else does it appear in Australian law. The CCA1999 can only be referring to POIC1893-95 (an amendment to PIPA1875) and therefore the provisions laid out by PIPA1875 must still stand.
Regardless, international law does not allow one country to repeal an Act of another country.
There is no doubt the PIPA1875 is as valid today as it ever was.
I found this article interesting … someone knows the validity and power of PIPA1875 and is trying to hide it.
Further Resources and Related Articles