“Sovereignty Never Ceded” – Pacific Islander Protection Act 1875

Gillard on Australia Day - what is losing a shoe compared to an entire continent?

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The PIPA1875 was mentioned, and dubiously repealed, by CCA1999 (Anti-Slavery and Sexual Servitude Act).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If you read the CCA1999 amendment carefully, it states the PIPA1875 is repealed only “so far as they [PIPA1875 & various Slavery Acts] are part of the law of Australia or of an external Territory.”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.

Who deleted the phrase ‘her heirs and successors’?

Further Resources and Related Articles

Original Sovereign Tribal Federation

Aboriginal Australia and the Sovereignty Revolution

Where to now in push for Sovereignty?

The defining phase in our struggle

Fact Sheet on Why to Vote “NO” to Constitutional Reform: URGENT MATTER FOR ALL AUSTRALIANS!

2 Responses to ““Sovereignty Never Ceded” – Pacific Islander Protection Act 1875”
  1. John T. says:


    1/ Firstly, I must disagree with you that the PIPA does not mention slavery. About that time, slavery was outlawed but blackbirding continued under the euphamism of indentured labour and the Pacific slave trade was legalised, regulated and taxed by the PIPA.

    2/ But the key issue I have with your, and others’ analysis, is that the PIPA act is specifically for natives outside of British colonies and it specifically identifies the Australian states as British colonies (Section 2 1872 Act). How can this in any way be construed to be relevant to the Australian colonies?

    3/ The crucial section 7 is one sentence. The only sovereignty referred to is the British Crown’s, specifying the limits to it outside of its colonies. When the second part of the sentence says “to such sovereignty” it is referring to the matters of the first part of the sentence. It does not introduce a new notion of native sovereignty. What is attributed to the tribes is “rights” – common law rights under the crown’s sovereignty. This is clearly reinforced in section 8 regarding Fiji (that became a British colony in 1874, after the 1872 PIPA). Section 8 determines that the rights of the tribes in Fiji remain in place until the colonial parliament passes legislation to extinguish them.

    I wonder if you had considered these issues and if so I would be interested to hear your comments, as a fellow bush-lawyer.

    John Tracey

  2. karl vogt says:

    interesting act .. the PIPA of 1875.
    but really. it doesn’t matter what was passed in english parliament after it.
    after all they removed their sovereignty over australia and other pacific islands so they can’t just change their minds and take it back again which is what they would be required to do in order for ANY legal instrument, law, law enforcement body, form of government to have any power at all.

    that’s the entire point!
    they removed their sovereignty…which means they no longer had any ‘ownership’ or control or say in the occupation or use of the country.

    subsequent laws would have no effect as australia, new zealand etc would be outside of their jirisdiction by act of parliament

    in a nutshell not a single court, government or law enforcement body in australia etc is legitimate and neither is the GG or the union jack in the corner of our flag.

    queen victoria gave the aborigines their country back. non-aboriginal australia has merely refused to akcnowledge or implement it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: