Bruce Pascoe's Secret Land Treaty with King George V
Bruce Pascoe ‘became quite critical of the assessor [of his Dark Emu manuscript]: “it seems to me the assessor is offended by the thesis and the patronage is deeply offensive to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who have had enough of having fingers wagged in front of their face.”
- from an Internal memo of 24 January 2012 of AIATSIS indicating that the Aboriginal Institute staff were harangued by Pascoe after they rejected his Dark Emu manuscript for publication (p2)
Pascoe says that Aboriginal people get nothing more than other people on the same level of income, in terms of family and child support.
“Just normal funding for the underprivileged in society is what Aboriginal people get,” he said. “Because I own land, it’s presumed that I got it easy from the government –that’s really hurtful.”
- Ethnic Council of Shepparton and District Inc, July 14, 2019
‘Stolen children, stolen land, stolen freedom…’
- Wathaurong Too Bloody Strong by Bruce Pascoe (Editor), 1997 by Pascoe Publishing Pty Ltd
Well, Truth-Telling works both ways and many Australians find that when commentators such as Bruce Pascoe accuse them of owning land that was ‘stolen’ from Aboriginal people they feel, ‘that’s really hurtful’.
In fact, many Australians have had enough of Bruce Pascoe ‘wagging his finger in front of their faces’ accusing them of living on ‘stolen land’.
Australians, whether they are descendants of convicts, settlers, immigrants, refugees or indeed Aboriginal people, have complete legal title to any land that they own. Their titles were issued by the Crown, which holds sovereignty over the whole of Australia on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia and all Australians. The Crown created a number of land title types, such as freehold, pastoral leases and indeed even Native Title, and then issued, and continues to issue, titles to land owners as required.
In fact, this is how even Bruce Pascoe acquired his own bit of ‘stolen’ land from the Crown.
We have located a direct line of title ownership from Bruce Pascoe right back to 1922 when King George V granted 121 acres of Crown land to one, Clement Arthur Baker, the first owner Bruce Pascoe’s land on the river near Mallacoota.
In 2012, after the Titles Office was digitised, the land was transferred from George Johnson to his widow Diane. She then sold the land to Bruce Pascoe in 2018 for $600,000
In 2018, Pascoe acquired his own bit of ‘stolen’ land from Diane Johnson for $600,000
In 2018, Pascoe acquired his own bit of ‘stolen’ land from Diane Johnson for $600,000
As usual, just 15 minutes of research is all that is required to show that Bruce Pascoe’s pronouncements are just made up rubbish.
Theft and the Handling of stolen goods are crimes:
CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 72 - Basic definition of theft
(1) A person steals if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
(2) A person who steals is guilty of theft; and "thief" shall be construed accordingly.
VICTORIAN CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 88 - Handling stolen goods
(1) A person handles stolen goods if knowing or believing them to be stolen goods he dishonestly receives the goods or brings them into Victoria, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in bringing them into Victoria or in their retention, removal, disposal or realization by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so.
(2) A person guilty of handling stolen goods is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to level 4 imprisonment (15 years maximum).
(3) Where a married woman handles stolen goods, the fact that the person from whom she receives the goods is her husband shall not of itself constitute a defence to a charge under this section.
If Australians were on ‘stolen’ land they would soon have the police knocking on their doors (see also our previous post here). The reason why our titles are safe is because the land was not stolen, despite what self-serving, political activists like Bruce Pascoe say.
If Bruce Pascoe really believed Aboriginal land was ‘stolen’, why doesn’t he transfer ownership of his own ‘stolen’ land to its ‘rightful’ owners, the local Aboriginal Land Council?
We will keep a watching brief at the Titles office to see when this transfer occurs - but we are not holding our breath.
Update as of 26 June 2022
A recent reader, Graeme, made the following comment, which we have replied to as below:
New comment from Graeme on Bruce Pascoe's Secret Land Treaty with King George V:
‘What a nonsense article. Not sure if you are being fooled, or just trying to fool others.
Thirty years ago, the High Court determined that these lands were not a Terra Nullius, however they were claimed by the Crown as if they were, when the Crown began granting out parcels of the lands, as if these lands were the Crown's to grant out.
That's where the stolen comes into it.’
Our response to Graeme
In June 1993, the Commonwealth Government published a discussion paper booklet, Mabo. The High Court Decision on Native Title.
This Discussion Paper clearly spells out the legal position of the Mabo judgement and its consequences with regard to land titles in Australia. At no point does the High Court say that any Aboriginal land was ‘stolen’.
Instead, the court simply recognised a new form of land title, which it called ‘native title’, designed to overcome past injustices and to formalize the right that some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, ‘were entitled as against the whole of the world to the possession, occupation, use and enjoyment of [a particlar piece of ] the land…’
In fact, the Mabo judgement also confirmed the superior rights of the Crown even though the court rejected the ‘doctrine of terra nullius.’ The court simply said that ‘native land title rights survived settlement, though subject to the sovereignty of the Crown.’
That is, the Crown did not ‘steal’ any land but rather, when it legally assumed sovereignty over Australia, the court says that the Crown did not pay sufficient regard to the land title rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. The Mabo decision was designed to re-instate those rights where applicable and had nothing to do with questions of sovereignty. The Crown’s sovereignty over all the land in Australia is beyond question, as was re-affirmed in Mabo.
Excerpt from Mabo Discussion Paper
Excerpt from Mabo Discussion Paper (cont)
Excerpt from Mabo Discussion Paper
Excerpt from Mabo Discussion Paper (cont)
It is a complete misreading of the Mabo judgement to say that the High Court supports the wild claim that the British ‘stole’ the land from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The British arrived in 1788 and under the international law of the time legally claimed NSW as a colony by settlement. This is accepted by international law today as well as by Australia’s High Court and by the 193 countries in the United nations.
Activists can shout and repeat their mantra about ‘stolen land’ as much as they want, but this wont make it true.
Even Bruce Pascoe at the end of the day had to give up on this delusional ‘stolen land’ ideology and make a legally recognised, commercial deal with the legacy of King George V, so that he too could obtain his own Crown Title to a little block down on the river in Yuin land, in this great country of ours.
