VIDEO: NITV News - The Euahlayi Nation has declared independence from the Commonwealth
VIDEO: BBC World News: Sovereignty declared by Euahlayi Nation with Ghillar Michael Anderson - London October 2016
Indigenous Estate like a Fata Morgana
| 23 January 2016 | |
| 23 January 2016 |
Ghurriebhurrah
People of the Native Orchid clan of the Euahlayi Nation
Goodooga, 23 January 2016
Ghillar Michael Anderson, Leader of the Euahlayi Nation, Convenor of the Sovereign Union and former director of Ngurampaa Ltd. compares the Indigenous Estate with a fata morgana “as soon as you have a closer look it disappears into nothing”.
The Australian Government presents to its own citizens and to the United Nations, that the land purchased by the ILC (Indigenous Land Corporation) would belong to the “Indigenous Estate”, what implied that this land bought by taxpayers’ money is actually owned by Aboriginal People, when in fact the government continues to own the land.
“The Indigenous Land Corporation assists Indigenous Australians to acquire land and to manage Indigenous held land so as to provide economic, environmental, social or cultural benefits.” states the official website of the Australian Government.
The reality is very different.
Just imagine a Mr X had stolen everything from you and then Mr X comes to you and says he wants to buy a car for you to compensate you for your loss. Mr X buys the car in your name but he wants a grant arrangement set in place, so as to show that he purchased it for you. You say fair enough and you sign everything he holds in front of you, to get your car. But In the fine print, Mr X’s condition of purchase is that he is the only one who is permitted to drive the car. Yes, it is in your name on paper, but in reality it means nothing. This is the way the Indigenous Land Corporation purchases most of the land in name of Aboriginal people.
The Indigenous Land Corporation purchased the properties Mogila and Currawillinghi for the descendants of the rightful original land owners, the members of the Ghurrie Clan of the Euahlayi (Yuawlarraay/ Yawaalaarray) as compensation for admitted colonial wrong doings in 1998. The ILC created a Deed of Grant with the clause that the Original Land Owners had to lease the land back to the ILC trading as Mogila Merino Pty. The oral reason given to the Ghurrie by the ILC staff was that the Ghurrie would owe the ILC money for the acquisition of 24.000 sheep. And that, when the ILC had profited the $860.000, they would hand over all the business and the property to the Ghurrie. The ILC even reported this to the Australian Parliament.
The ILC staff informed the Ghurrie members that they (the ILC) had to have security over the Land until the debt was repaid. The Elders agreed but did not realise that a caveat without further conditions was to be issued in favour of the ILC.
The ILC ran the business on Mogila trading as Mogila Merino Stud. They never provided any annual statements, to show that the debt was being paid down. The lease for the just under 100.000 acres property was $1 (dollar) per year, which was paid in the form of a $1 jar of cookies.
Ngurampaa Ltd was set up by ILC as a not-for-profit organisation and they promised the Elders that they would do all the paperwork for ASIC and Taxation. The Indigenous Land Corporation collected blank signatures from the Elders for tax returns!
ILC never filed any tax returns (which would have been pretty simple as Ngurampaa Ltd did not even have a bank account – you don’t need a bank account for jar of cookies) or ASIC company reports. When the Ghurriebhurrah forced ILC to end the lease in 2002, the new directors did not know that Ngurampaa Ltd was already in court to be wound up. ILC certainly knew this to be the case.
The government owned and controlled Indigenous Land Corporation tried to have Ngurampaa Ltd. wound up, by not filling paperwork. They did this, because they thought the property would automatically come back to the ILC.
The ILC never provided any financial statements to guide the Ghurrie members as to how much they had been paying down in terms of the debt that ILC alleged the Ghurrie owed them. It has been revealed by a chart found on Mogila Station that Mogila Merino Stud were selling Stud Ram and at least 5000 lambs and mutton per year, they also sold approximately 800 bales of wool at an estimated average price of $800 per bale. In the 5 years the ILC conducted business on Mogila their income is shown to be around $2.3million and they did NOT pay one cent to repay the debt they alleged the Ghurrie owed them.
Before the Indigenous Land Corporation left Mogila in the drought in 2002, they sold 17,000 sheep. None of this sale income was written off against the debt or handed over to the Ghurrie. What became clear was that the ILC needed this money to cover the costs of being prosecuted by WorkCover for not having Insurance when one of the Aboriginal workers had an accident on Mogila that left him quadriplegic. The ILC had to pay millions of dollars compensation.
The Ghurrie commenced business with 1200 starving sheep that the ILC left behind, not because of any kindness but because the property is so big they just could not find them in time before they left. They also left behind a starving stock horse that we found barely alive in a paddock with no feed at all. We deeply regret that we did not report the starving animals to the RSPCA.
In their parting letter the ILC promised $15,000 for fencing material that had been taken by members of the ILC board of directors who were white neighbouring farmers. Besides the fencing material, nearly all useful equipment disappeared between the inventory and the takeover by the new directors. The Ghurrie, however, did their own full inventory of the remaining assets. The Ghurrie are still waiting for the $ 15,000 for the fencing material, which was much needed at this time, as the property was completely run down.
Fences were down everywhere, not even one windmill or trough was in working order, water pipes were broken and left unattended so while some areas of the country where flooded by bore water, the stock had no water in the next paddock because of the broken pipes.
Without any help from the ILC or any other governmental body, Ngurampaa Ltd started trading and it went well until in 2012 the worst drought ever seen to hit the area. We then survived three years with floods without any government or ILC aid, as Ngurampaa Ltd was not entitled to low interest loans due to the caveat, which is held by ILC. ILC refused to have the caveat lifted so that we could apply for a loan. The first flood alone in 2010 caused damages exceeding $60,000.
In 2012 it stopped raining, since than we are experiencing the 1 in 100 year drought. We are in the same situation as all other farmers in the drought affected area, except for the fact, that Ngurampaa Ltd could not borrow money at the bank or apply for a low interest drought loan due to the ILC caveat. Again we asked ILC for help in form of lifting the caveat, again it was denied without reason. As a direct consequence of the caveat, Ngurampaa Ltd is now in liquidation.
The only reason for the liquidation is the caveat, otherwise we could have easy borrowed money as the land is worth approximately $13 million. We could not even get an overdraft of $10 from our bank because of the ILC.
The Indigenous Land Corporation praises itself in wonderful words and high quality brochures that claim they are there for Aboriginal People in Australia. In reality the government created with the ILC a State in a State. The only bank you can go to for a loan is ILC and ILC has the power to say yes or no, without any explanation. Of course they said No to us, they want our land.
The official reason for the caveat is, that the land that the ILC has purchased belongs to the “Indigenous Estate” and shall be protected from being sold. ILC contradicts itself by selling on the open market properties that they purchased for Traditional Owners, against their will. This happened for example in Menindee and on the Murray River in Victoria and other places.
The Commonwealth government reports to International bodies that they do wonderful things for the Aborigines and show them the Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander Act 2005 as amended which includes the ILC and IBA (Indigenous Business Australia), but the International community are NOT aware of how the Commonwealth Government’s instrumentalities work internally.
The ILC are now sitting like crows on a tree, waiting for the Ghurrie to give up. The Liquidation orders would never have occurred if the Ghurrie had equal suffrage in the business world. We never wanted any help from the Indigenous Land Corporation. We want to operate equally in the commercial world and not under totalitarian rules of the ILC. It is the year 2016 and not the old welfare days, when blankets were handed out as loans only to our people who were detained in Aboriginal Reserves by the Aboriginal Protection Board; not for any crimes they committed but because they were Aborigines.
The Ghurrie are fighting a heavy weight championship fight with their hands tied behind their backs.
It is assured that the Ghurrie will not give up. The Oppressor State got this land as a result of a crime, Genocide. As Prime Minister Keating said in his Redfern speech, “we came, we took, we did the murders, we took the land, we took the children” etc etc.
The Ghurrie now occupy land that was purchased under the 1998 Land Fund as ‘ for dispossesssion’ and compensation. The ILC made it impossible for the Ghurrie to operate as all other white farmers and grazers do in this country. They prevented the Ghurrie from operating equally in the commercial world. Unfortunately, the Ghurrie are NOT the only Aboriginal people who have suffered this way at the hands of the Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC).
We are calling for the Australian Government to amend the Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander Act 2005 (ATSI Act) as amended. Our primary focus is Part 4 - The Indigenous Land Corporation. This Act exempts criminal and corporate illegalities from the Commonwealth Criminal Code. Section 5A of the ATSI Act 2005 as amended - Application of the Criminal Code - states that: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code (except Part 2.5) applies to all offences against this Act; And as a notation in this section 5A, it reads:
“Part 2.5 of the Criminal Code (which deals with corporate criminal responsibility) is excluded from applying to offences against this Act by subsection 199(10)” .
This establishes a regime of legal corruption and nothing can be done about it. The ILC has had the Commonwealth Government appoint to the Board of the ILC a known associate of Mr Abe Saffron, an identity well-known to the police.
The ILC purchased the Ayers Rock Resort at Yulara for $300 million, which is now valued on the ILC books $225 million. “ILC do not tell us how to survive in the business world”, states Ghillar Michael Anderson. “Just let us cut the cord and promise never to bother us again.”
The Ghurriebhurrah are asking the members of the Parliament to conduct an enquiry into the operations of the ILC and the real benefits the Traditional Owners gain. In most cases the ILC itself conducts the business on the purchased lands. They give themselves loans for their businesses and they praise themselves for having Aboriginal people trained as stockhands. In the 21st century it should be their job to train Aboriginal people to run their own business on their own land and not to only train them as labour on white-managed farms as in the last century.
Contact: Ghillar Michael Anderson 0499 080 660
ghillar29@gmail.com
Ghurrie clan leader,
Head of State of the Euahlayi Peoples Republic
23 January 2016
In support of the Ghurriebhurrah
In response to a written application, the Indigenous Land Corporation purchased two pastoral properties under the 1998 Commonwealth Land Fund. The ILC divested their ‘Interests’ in the lands on the June 22, 1998 and on January 27, 2000.
When divesting the Lands, the ILC staff who were responsible for the transfer of the said lands, acted corruptly. The corruption was permitted under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 as amended. That is, under section 191D, Grants may be subject to conditions
(1B) An instrument determining terms and conditions under subsection (1A) is not a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003
The employees informed the traditional owners that they (the ILC) had to be granted the right to lease the properties under their trading name Mogila Merino Stud, for 5 years with an option for a further 5 years, so as to regain the ‘Money’ ($860,000) that they said, the ILC had loaned to Ngurampaa Limited, the company the ILC registered for the traditional owners, as the land title holding entity.
In 2004, the Australian Tax Office wrote to the directors of Ngurampaa limited that they owed the Tax Office $86,000 on the loan that was allegedly granted to Ngurampaa Limited.
After lengthy enquiries by Ngurampaa Ltd’s accountants, it was learnt that the ILC had loaned itself the money. That is, they loaned Mogila Merino Stud the money and NOT Ngurampaa Limited.
The directors of Ngurampaa Limited (now in liquidation) also learnt that the ILC had made certain commitments to the Senate Estimates Committee and at the same time misled the committee when Mr. Wilson (the ILC representative said on Hansard that:
Senator Secker queried Mr Wilson when he asked:
Wilson responded in the following:
The traditional owners, who were involved in the signing of the documents that resulted in the divestment of the lands to Ngurampaa Limited, said that the ILC had placed a bundle of documents on the table for them to sign. In saying this, the ILC staff present, informed the people that they (the Traditional owners) had to lease the property back to them as the (ILC) had to recover the money that was leant to them (Ngurampaa Limited) Included in these bundle of documents was a document granting them (ILC) a caveat.
When the ILC registered the caveat on Mogila, (caveat No: 6931426T) they responded to the question of the “Nature of the estate or interest in the land?” The ILC wrote, “An equitable interest in the land”. The question went on, by virtue of the instrument referred to below Nature of instrument: ILC recorded:
Section 191S of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander Commission, 1989 as amended, only deals with corporations who have had monies lent to them or who owes money to ILC for their Guarantee to borrow money to buy land. In both cases Ngurampaa limited owes the ILC NO money. The money that ILC write of is the alleged monies that they loaned to themselves when they (ILC) traded as Mogila Merino Stud.
When the directors of Ngurampaa Limited looked at the illegal acts of the ILC it was brought to our attention that the ILC is protected from any wrong doings even if they of a criminal nature.
Section 5A, Application of the Criminal Code
Note 1: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.
Note 2: Part 2.5 of the Criminal Code (which deals with corporate criminal responsibility) is excluded from applying to offences against this Act by subsection 199(10) .
And
Section 199 (10) reads:
Conduct of directors, employees and agents
- Where, in proceedings for an offence against this Act, it is necessary to establish the state of mind of a body corporate in relation to particular conduct, it is sufficient to show:
- that the conduct was engaged in by a director, employee or agent of the body corporate within the scope of his or her actual or apparent authority; and
- that the director, employee or agent had the state of mind.
- Any conduct engaged in on behalf of a body corporate by a director, employee or agent of the body corporate within the scope of his or her actual or apparent authority shall be taken, for the purposes of a prosecution for an offence against this Act, to have been engaged in also by the body corporate unless the body corporate establishes that the body corporate took reasonable precautions and exercises due diligence to avoid the conduct.
- Where, in proceedings for an offence against this Act, it is necessary to establish the state of mind of a person other than a body corporate in relation to particular conduct, it is sufficient to show:
- that the conduct was engaged in by an employee or agent of the person within the scope of his or her actual or apparent authority; and
- that the employee or agent had the state of mind.
- Any conduct engaged in on behalf of a person other than a body corporate by an employee or agent of the person within the scope of his or her actual or apparent authority shall be taken, for the purposes of a prosecution for an offence against this Act, to have been engaged in also by the first-mentioned person unless the first-mentioned person establishes that the first-mentioned person took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the conduct.
- Where:
- a person other than a body corporate is convicted of an offence; and
- the person would not have been convicted of the offence if subsections (3) and (4) had not been enacted;
- the person is not liable to be punished by imprisonment for that offence.
- A reference in subsection (1) or (3) to the state of mind of a person includes a reference to:
- the knowledge, intention, opinion, belief or purpose of the person; and
- ) the person's reasons for the intention, opinion, belief or purpose.
- A reference in this section to a director of a body corporate includes a reference to a constituent member of a body corporate incorporated for a public purpose by a law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory.
- A reference in this section to engaging in conduct includes a reference to failing or refusing to engage in conduct.
How is at all possible for the Commonwealth government to create a statute that provides excuses and exemptions for the illegal conduct of the Statutory Corporate body and its staff?
In the case cited above Mr. Wilson, a senior staff member of the ILC, misled the Parliamentary Committee and he is excused for this.
Ngurampaa Limited conducted a pastoral grazing business which depended solely on “rain”. The fact that Ngurampaa limited experienced 3 floods in consecutive years 2010-12 and in 2012, the land was also declared drought affected. In the past 3 years calls for assistance from the ILC fell on deaf ears because of personality clashes and the fact that ILC informs all that they speak to that ILC will get Mogila back into their hands.
Ngurampaa Limited was constrained by the ILC who continues to maintain a tight grip on the caveat interests and it is this that they use to create a ‘Mexican stand-off’. Knowing that Ngurampaa Limited could not borrow any money, including being ineligible for Government Disaster and drought relief funding, because it is essential to be able to give a mortgage interest over the land to get the government aid.
The ILC gave the property over in a deplorable condition, sold sheep that they said belonged to Ngurampaa Limited (24,000); leased Mogila for a $1 cookie jar per year for 5 years, mislead the traditional owners to get them to sign documents that they had no legal advice on, told the traditional owners lies about money owing, got the people to sign a caveat that they knew nothing about nor even understood what a caveat is and nothing can be done about any of it.
The Australian Commonwealth Government has created a legislative “escheat” regime within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 as amended. The legal definition is “The power of a State to acquire title for which there is no owner”. As a background it is said that:
‘historically, reasons existed for escheat apart from the absence of heirs to inherit a decedent’s property. When corporations were subject to strict regulations, it was unlawful for a corporation to own property in any way not permitted by its state-granted charter. Any property beyond that needed by the corporation for the operations of its business, or in excess of the amount designated in its charter, or held for a period of time beyond that which was permitted, was subject to an escheat’.
As Aboriginal People we now need to ask what does this all mean in reality? Do we own the land that we gain back in the form of native title or Land purchased for ‘Redress for dispossession’ as compensation for admitted wrongful colonial acts, or have we never left the Aboriginal protection/welfare period, that is, the ILC writes into all its land grants CONDITIONS of GRANT. In these conditions Aboriginal people cannot use the land in any other way than that approved of by the Commonwealth Government agents in the ILC. There is NO way for Aboriginal people to participate in the private sector business world unless ILC approves. That is the land cannot be used in the same way as non-Aboriginal people where the land is used as the basis of an economic program and banks etc permit overdrafts, loans etc for their businesses and to assist them to develop their businesses.
Under the ILC regime there is NO equal suffrage.
When Aboriginal people fail to make it in the business world all goes back to the central government in the ILC and they can make use of it because they have an endless amount of Taxpayers money to back all that they do.
It is also important to understand that what we have for Aboriginal Peoples is a communistic governing regime over all of our affairs. As an example the story that is cited here, as well as the National Parks ‘ownership’ - it is ours in name only. If we want this, then our People are forced into signing the documents, if we want our names on it on CONDITIONS that the Government controls it in perpetuity. When Courts approve a Native Title claim the majority are Non-Exclusive. While on the other hand, all white people seek an assurance that their lands are exclusive possession, but not so for Aboriginal land.
The exclusively possessed lands, such as that in the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth Government legislated to set aside the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act, to introduce the Northern Territory Emergency Response regulations otherwise known as the “Intervention’.
In Western Australia our people are NOT aware of what exclusive possession means and as a consequence, the Western Australian Government is seeking to overturn this and take back the land as non-exclusive possession.
In concluding this expose, it is worth noting that the Governments of today are returning to the old Protection/welfare days. An example of this is the statute of State of New South Wales, ‘Aboriginal Protection Board’ said at Section 15, that:
“Every blanket or other article issued by the Government or by the board to any aborigine shall be considered to be on loan only, and to be the property of the board, and any unauthorised person other than an aborigine who has in his possession or custody any blanket, or other article or portion thereof, which reasonably appeal's from the marks thereon or otherwise to have been so issued shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
We cannot end without having first drawn people’s attention to what the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 2005 at SECT 4A: Minister may make determinations about what constitutes misbehaviour
(2) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make a determination providing that specified behaviour is taken not to be misbehaviour for the purposes of this Act.
The New South Wales Aboriginal Protection Act 1909 said at Section 8, 2) The board may remove from a reserve any aborigine who is guilty of any misconduct, or who, in the opinion of the board, should be earning a living away from such reserve.
And here we are in 2016, nothing has changed. Yes we may live in better housing, have the SO Called FREEDOM of others to mix with other people without fear of prosecution, but we are under their control in every way possible. Our freedom is only guaranteed if you choose to assimilate otherwise, to be an Aborigine, is to be controlled by statute of the oppressors in charge of the invading State.
Ghillar Michael Anderson 0499 080 660
ghillar29@gmail.com
Head of State of the Euahlayi Peoples Republic