It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

a sovereign state in australia...The Principality of Hutt River

page: 1
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
well this is interesting...i did a quick search and found nada...so here goes...

www.principality-hutt-river.com...

The Principality of Hutt River is situated 595 km north of Perth, Western Australia and is about 75 square km in area, consisting of some 18,500 acres of land. Hutt River is an Independent Sovereign State having seceded from Australia on the Twenty First Day of April 1970 and is of comparable size to Hong Kong (not the New Territories).


i only found out about this yesterday so i wanted to share....this is kinda cool....a farming family had the government come down on them and demand quotas from their wheat farming,these quotas would have destroyed their ability to profit and even function....


in November 1969 they received a Wheat Quota of 1647 bushels for the 18,500 acre property. Under this new Quota it would have taken five hundred years to crop the same average amount of wheat that had been harvested in the previous twenty years. The gross proceeds would not have even paid the interest on the hire purchase on two four-wheel drive tractors that were in use. This did not allow any return for maintenance of their homes and families, no income on which to survive let alone profit.. Naturally this was considered an intolerable situation in which to be placed. The matter of an appeal to remedy this situation was immediately considered. It was found that the Western Australian Government had in fact no legislation to judicially validate their action. However there was a Wheat Quota Bill before Parliament being discussed. The bill contained two clauses which were of grave concern: 1. No appeals would be allowed against the quotas granted: and: 2. No compensation would be allowed for any losses suffered as a result of quotas.


so the Casley family submitted a protest


A protest was therefore lodged with the Wheat Quota Board, the Premier of Western Australia and the Governor of Western Australia, Sir Douglas Kendrew. No reply was received from the Wheat Quota Board or the Premier of Western Australia. However, the Governor took the matter up, calling for Ministerial advice. The Governor duly passed down the Ministerial advice that no alteration whatsoever would be allowed to the Casley’s Western Australian State Government wheat quota.


well that didnt work a new strategy was needed so....

How to effect a reversal of the Governor's decision was a tough question. The necessity to do so was imperative. Therefore it was decided to appeal to Her Majesty with a call for Independence. This would draw attention to the actual gravity of the situation. Further, a claim under the Unjust Enrichment would add further weight.


so the government being the sneaky sods they are attempt to pass a bill through parliament that would legally allow the government to acquire rural land


The day after the claim was lodged there were Ministerial moves. Two weeks later a bill was introduced into Parliament whereby the Government would have the power to resume any rural lands. The exercising of such power to resume any rural lands by the Western Australian Government upon the Casley families, should the bill have become law, may well have been an easy answer to the claim on the West Australian Government.


the Casley families must have had some good legal advice


By this time they were not only annoyed and gravely concerned, but were also frightened. A family meeting was called to consider the gravity of the situation. At this meeting a law was discussed which states that if the economy has been taken and a threat to the loss of the lands exists, a self-preservation Government may be formed. It was decided to exercise this entitlement and serve a formal secession notice. This would effect a judicial block against any resumption of their lands under Western Australian administrative law, as the law states that all administrative laws existing cease immediately upon secession and must be re-legislated.



So on the twenty-first day of April 1970, formal notice of secession was duly served on the Western Australian State Premier Sir David Brand, the State Governor Sir Douglas Kendrew, the Acting Prime Minister of Australia Mr John McEwen, and the Governor General of Australia, Sir Paul Hasluck.



Having seceded from the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Western Australia required that the people of the Province elect a Government. A Board of four Administrators with Leonard George Casley as the Administrator was duly elected to govern the seceded area which the Board named the HUTT RIVER PROVINCE. Adoption of a Provincial Flag was also a judicial requirement with which the Board duly complied. Then the British Diplomatic Laws of recognition of a new foreign Government were followed. Firstly it is a Royal Prerogative to recognise a new foreign Government; and secondly in the Principle in Law when it is under consideration to give such recognition it is specified that validity is not the question, and that the right of the Government to speak for the people it represents is to be considered.


so when there is a will there is a way
...there were some serious attempts to stop this but it all failed they are still there to this day...they even export goods and some 40000 tourist visit each year....they had to litterally declare war on the australian government...from the wiki :

In 1976, Australia Post refused to handle Hutt River mail, forcing mail to be redirected via Canada. Following repeated demands by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) for the payment of taxes, on 2 December 1977 the province officially declared war on Australia. Leonard Casley notified authorities of the cessation of hostilities several days later.[10] The declaration was simply legal maneuvering, Casley wrote to the Governor-General; "Sovereignty is automatic to a country undefeated in a state of war...and if the state of war is not recognized by the other party, once the notice is given then these conventions apply to their relations." Casley believes that he had effectively set a persuasive precedent for international recognition of Hutt River under the Geneva Convention.[8] In 1980, the mail service was restored after a Perth court ruled that Hutt River currency and postage stamps were valid and legal within the principality. In 2013, Casley stated that the ATO sent a new tax demand in 2012 to which he responded with a legal document supporting status as a "foreign national and non-resident of Australia."[8] Hutt River residents are still required to lodge income tax forms but are classed by the ATO as non-residents of Australia for income tax purposes; thus income earned within the province is exempt from Australian taxation.[2][8][11] The province displays ATO documents supporting that no tax is paid but the ATO cannot verify the provinces tax status as they cannot by law comment on the affairs of individuals. However, Casley admits to making annual "gifts" to the Shire of Northampton.[12] The province levies its own income tax of 0.5% on financial transactions by foreign companies registered in the province and personal accounts. While the principality maintains it does not pay taxes, the Australian government's current official position is that it is nothing more than a private enterprise operating under a business name.[13]


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 27-11-2014 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

so even though there was a pretty huge attempts by the government to shut them down....they all failed.....one up for the people
this Casley family are really quite likeable in my book....i wouldn't mind betting the tax office to this day are still trying to find a way in ....



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Yea Mate, they are an Aussie Legend.

We even have been known to drink a round of tinnies in there honor.

It is a classic case of someone one-upping a stupid Government.

If Australia wanted to do something about it, they could. They could declare war and send in the SAS. Actually, it is common knowledge that a single tank would win such a war. But the Governments would fall like dominoes at the next elections.

Of course, that assumes that the Hutt River Province does not have any treaties with other Nations. They never comment.



P



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
S&F this is really cool info thanks for sharing! I am from Perth and had never heard of this or the family before reading this thread! I wonder if things would play out differently if that had happened now vs back then though.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Shana91aus

There were laws passed to make sure it could not be repeated.

Succession is no longer an option.

At the time it was a very big deal and had repercussions for Governments.

P



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358




Yea Mate, they are an Aussie Legend. We even have been known to drink a round of tinnies in there honor.


well i will i be drinking a round myself from now on in their honor



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shana91aus
S&F this is really cool info thanks for sharing! I am from Perth and had never heard of this or the family before reading this thread! I wonder if things would play out differently if that had happened now vs back then though.




no doubt the government look for ways to keep this little gem hidden...and as pheonix replied below laws would have been passed...i am betting they spent a long time ironing out any possible loop holes



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 08:53 PM
link   
LOL! I have never heard about this place.


There is another principality off the coast of Scotland or something. It was raided by commandos at one time too I think. Or something like that, now I have to go and find it.


good on 'em I say.
www.sealandgov.org...

edit on 27-11-2014 by weirdguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
They're nothing more than a micro-nation declaring sovereignty over Australian land.

From memory, the Australian government has to agree to all forms of secession for a region to be truly sovereign. It's why no existing state in Australia could ever go independent, because Canberra would have to agree to it first. The Australian government doesn't recognise the Principality of Hutt River as a sovereign entity, therefore it is not one.

Despite it not being a sovereign state, it is still an interesting enigma in that they do hold some independence over their own land.



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital




Despite it not being a sovereign state, it is still an interesting enigma in that they do hold some independence over their own land.


....just the fact that the tax office has no power there is interesting in itself



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Most definitely. I think the entire subject is interesting, and i would say that the Principality of Hutt River is almost like an unrecognised autonomous region. The government doesn't recognise the Principality of Hutt River's independence or authority over the land, but it still allows it to hold a degree of autonomy and freedom within its borders.

It's definitely a strange, yet interesting case.

Thanks for posting it on ATS.
edit on 27-11-2014 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Here's some information from the Australian government, which may be worth a read:


AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT DOES NOT RECOGNISE THE HUTT RIVER PROVINCE



AB07/10 23 October 2007

The Australian Ambassador to the United Arab Emirates, Jeremy Bruer, today said the Embassy had learned that an office purporting to represent the “Hut River Province” was operating in Dubai and allegedly selling travel documents. The Ambassador said the Australian Government did not recognise the "Hutt River Province", legally or in any other way.

The area of land which is described as the "Hutt River Province" is a privately-owned wheat-growing property on the Hutt River, north of Geraldton in the State of Western Australia. It has no special status. It has no separate sovereignty and remains subject to the Australian Constitution and the laws of Australia.

Following from its policy of not recognising the "Hutt River Province", the Australian Government does not recognise the "royal titles" nor titles of office, such as "Head of State", "State minister" and "Minister for Foreign Affairs" assumed by the family owning the property nor the use of terms such as "consulates" and "principality" in relation to the "Hutt River Province".

Documents purporting to be "passports" issued by the "Hutt River Province" are not recognised as valid passports by the Australian Government.


www.uae.embassy.gov.au...


'Hutt River Province' and international business companies



Warning to potential investors

The Australian Government does not legally or otherwise recognise the so-called 'Hutt River Province'.

The ATO has identified a situation where non-residents of Australia have been offered the chance to purchase international business companies and other entities purportedly incorporated or registered in the 'Hutt River Province'.

We are concerned that the companies and other entities may be sold as part of a tax avoidance or evasion arrangement.

You should avoid any arrangements involving 'Hutt River Province' international business companies and any other entities as well as any associated international dealings because they have no legal basis and could be illegal.


www.ato.gov.au...



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

interesting....this place is clearly still a very infected thorn in the governments side...

thankyou for posting that



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital




Here's some information from the Australian government, which may be worth a read:


It is from 2007 and is actually the most up to date information from our Government.

They don't pay taxes, it is as simple as that. The problem the Government has in this case, is they have no desire to test the case in court, because they will lose and be told to recognize the state.

So it just simmers on like a kettle that never boils.

P



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

Or maybe the government doesn't want to face the back-lash from we the Australian public. As you well know we love an underdog . Combine that with the she will be right attitude . Definite vote loser .



posted on Nov, 27 2014 @ 11:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: daaskapital




Here's some information from the Australian government, which may be worth a read:


It is from 2007 and is actually the most up to date information from our Government.


Yeah, and the other source is from 2012. So their stance hasn't changed much, lol. The government still points to the first article as a reference to queries on the Principality of Hutt River.


They don't pay taxes, it is as simple as that. The problem the Government has in this case, is they have no desire to test the case in court, because they will lose and be told to recognize the state.

So it just simmers on like a kettle that never boils.

P


Perhaps. Is there any reason as to why the Australian government would lose the case though? From what i understand, Australia must agree to allowing any entity to form a sovereign state on its lands. The Principality of Hutt River was declared on Australian territory after all...

They probably just think it is more trouble than what it is worth, lol.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

At the time they did it, they were allowed too. The law at the time supported the succession which is why no subsequent government either State or Federal has tried.

P



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

The material in the OP says they seceded based on a law allowing the formation of a self-preservation Government in the instances of threats of the economy being taken and a loss of the lands.

If that law applied to civilians and property holders, the question must be asked if sovereignty and independence came with the establishment of a self-preservation Government.



posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

thanks to Constitutional Law.

The OP's thread reminded me of many cases that relied on Constitutional Law and appealed to the High Court to overturn legislature.
Good for them.




posted on Nov, 28 2014 @ 02:45 AM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

It was a long time ago. At the time I studied the laws that allowed succession. As I recall it, there was a great deal more involved than that. What you are reading here is presumably the Hutt River Province view, or their current legal view, minus the arguments they do not want to just give to the Government short of a court challenge.

You are also getting straight Government denials saying that the Province has no standing. Obviously these denials are just silly. The Provence does exist and local Authorities do respect it. So I put them into the category of MORE GOVERNMENT LIES.

There were some court cases I believe or they were getting ready for them. Either way, there is more to it than first appears. A lot more. If the Government had a leg to stand on, they would have acted. This is an International embarrassment to them.

They have not acted because they can't.

P



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join