Aboriginal History: “Dream Time”

 

Warramurrunggundji; her dreaming was first recorded for Europeans in 1881 by Paul Foelsche, an Inspector of Police. In this version she had travelled down from the North across dry land, as there was no water upon the earth. Finding good country at what is now Port Essington on the Coburg Peninsular she made a large fire and when this burnt down the sea rose up to its present level, while inland fresh water filled all the springs and waterholes. She left there the first people, whom she gave them language, laws and instructed them about plant medicines. She travelled inland carrying her babies in dilly bags and leaving many more people also with instructions about language, law and where to find foods and plant medicines and their uses. She was later to become the Rainbow Serpent. Baldwin Spencer recorded in 1912; that to the Gagadu people she was Imbromebera and her consort’s name was transcribed as Wuraka. She wore a head ring, from which hung dilly bags full of yams, and in her hand carried a large digging stick. She had emerged from the sea, heavily pregnant. She was to meet her consort, who came walking through the sea from the west. He was so big that his head was well above sea level and as he emerged from the sea,  mountains were formed. They left spirit children where they met. She instructed them on the Law which included there pharmacopeia and gave them their language. They continued to travel inland.

 

To the Aboriginal people of the Kimberly region of Western Australia their mythology (theology) also includes a large Spirit man emerging from the sea and pushing up mountains and hills where he stepped ashore from the sea, his name is Wanjana. Wanjana Man is responsible for the original people and he too was to instruct them on law and their pharmacopeia.

The aboriginal people of Arnhem Land and Kakadu believe that the Mimi Spirits, who are the spirits of their ancestors (not all people are to become Mimi Spirits) continue to teach this knowledge. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parts of Plant Used: Bark
Therapeutics:   Minor skin lesions, diarrhoea
Preparations and uses: 

Wash: A handful of the red, sticky, inner bark, (Cambium) freshly collected, is pounded and boiled in 500-700ml water. To relieve the abdominal pain of diarrhoea, the liquid is used over the whole body and a long strand of the inner bark is wrapped around the abdomen.

The wash is applied once a day to heal sores and cuts.

Splint:

When carefully removed in sections from the tree, the bark retains its cylindrical shape. Rigid tubes of various sizes can be obtained from either trunk or branches, and tied around fractured limbs.

Bark and Wood:

As an analgesic the ashes of the wood are mixed with water and smeared over the affected part of the body, and are claimed to relieve minor aches and pains.

Needles:

To soothe sore eyes.

 

The bark, wood and needle are used to repel insects.     

It is a Myth that aboriginal people of the Australian deserts (Anagu), used Australian Blue Cypress to moisten there skin.
 

History: Macassan   

From the port of Macassar (now Ujung Pandang in Sulawesi) Indonesia, annual voyages were made to the Northern Territory Arnhem Land coast from approximately 1650-1750 till 1906 to gather and process trepang (bech-de-mer or sea cucumber) as a commercial enterprise. Northern Cypress Pine was undoubtedly shipped back when there was room; there are extant houses in Ujung Pandang incorporating Northern Cypress pine timber.

 

History: European and Chinese in the Northern Territory.

The Dutch had sailed past the Top End of the Northern Territory of Australia and explored the Gulf of Carpentaria as early as 1603 and the French had begun to collect plants as early as 1802. The British had established Fort Dundas on Melville Island, from (1824-28), Fort Wellington at Raffles Bay (1827-29), and Port Essington (1838-49).

 Ludwig Leichhardt recorded in his Journal of an overland expedition in Australia. (1845 September 10) “During the night, we heard the well-known note of what we called the “Glucking bird,” when we first met with it in the Cypress pine country……… ”

 

Ludwig Leichhardt was to descend the Escarpment of what is now the World Heritage Kakadu National Park, escarpment, between Jim Jim and Twin Falls, and meet Aboriginal people, at what is Garnamarr. (Black Cockatoo Dreaming) It was to his excitement they knew some English. He asked where he was, and was informed, “Land of the Gagadu” people.

 He wrote in his Journal “Kakadu” (His native Tongue was German and Kakadu translates to Cockatoo.)

He travelled on, reaching Victoria Settlement at Port Essington on 17 December 1845. His Journal of that day states “The stringy-bark and the drooping tea-tree were the only useful timber near the settlement. The Cypress-pine (Callitris) could, however, be obtained without any great difficulty from Mount Morris Bay, or Van Diemen’s Gulf. On the Vollir, we came on a cart road which wound round the foot of a high hill; and, having passed the garden, with its fine Cocoa-nut palms, the white houses, and a row of snug thatched cottages burst suddenly upon us; the house of the Commandant being to the right and separate from the rest. We were most kindly received by Captain Macarthur, the Commandant of Port Essington, and by the other officers, who, with the greatest kindness and attention, supplied us with everything we wanted…………..After a month’s stay at Port Essington, the schooner Heroine, Captain Mackenzie, arrived from Bally, on her voyage to Sydney, via Torres Strait and the Inner Barrier, a route only once before attempted with success. We embarked in this vessel, and arrived safely in Sydney, on the 29th of March.” Ludwig Leichhardt was last seen on the 3 April 1848 attempting to cross Australia from the Condamine River in Queensland to the Swan River in Western Australia.  It is assumed he perished in the Great Sandy Desert.

 

 

It was in 1855 that the great botanist Ferdinand von Mueller who was on an expedition with A.C. Gregory to try and find Ludwig Leichardt, when the Holotype of Callitris intratropica was taken, near the Township of Timber Creek in the Victoria River district of the Northern Territory.  

    

On 6th July 1863 Letters patent were issued from Britain, revocable at will, annexing the Northern Territory. The construction of a Government house in 1865 by Captain Bloomfield Douglas in what was to be a failed settlement was made from Northern Cypress. In the 1870’s a successful attempt to establish a settlement in what we now no as Darwin was undertaken. The Government residence, also built by Captain Bloomfield which still stands today, incorporated stone and a Northern Cypress pine.

 

A letter dated 8th March 1878 to a South Australian parliament Minister states:

 

“The Flying Cloud is still profitably employed in bringing Cypress Pine from Indian Island, and the quantity she can bring during a (?voyage?) will be fully equal to the expense of her maintenance. It is now on up cheaply at Manders and Barlows Steam Saw Mill.”

 

Indian Island was a designated forest reserve in 1889 for Northern Cypress pine, the first forestry reserve in the Northern Territory. It was not until 1908 that propagation trials began of Northern Cypress pine by the curator Nicolas Holtze began in what is today’s Northern Territory’s capital city (Darwin) botanical gardens.

In 1910 the Technological Museum, New South Wales published Baker and Smith, Pines of Australia.

 

In 1911 Nicolas Holtze was sent to Indian Island and reported on the 31st of May 1911, on the growth and regeneration of the remaining Cypress pine. He concluded that: 

 

“….the species is a very slow growing tree and that any steps in afforestation must be taken well ahead of the exhaustion of natural supplies.”                

 

Northern Cypress pine was also used extensively where available on the construction of the overland telegraph line, which began in 1870. Northern Cypress pine poles have been known to stand for as long as 120 year’s.

 

Railway construction started in 1886/7; Northern Cypress pine was to be used on bridges and level crossings. 

 

Licences were issued to Chinese to cut timber on the Alligator Rivers from 1889 in what is now the World Heritage Kakadu National Park. 

 

Joe Cooper originally a buffalo shooter in approximately 1914 began to ship logs to Darwin sawmills and was eventually to establish his own sawmills on Melville Island. His son in 1939-41 was cutting 10,000 super feet per week, sourced from the Cobourg Peninsular, from what is now a flora and fauna nature reserve to supply the Australian Army.

 

The historic mining town of Pine Creek, referred to in the Australian literary classic “We of the Never, Never” by Jeanie Gunn (originally Playford) was named after Northern Cypress pine, which grew along the creek.

 

The demand for Northern Cypress pine was strong and its supply useful.

 

 In the late 1950’s classical Cypress pine plantations were being planned, and trials established, on the mainland of Australia, by the then government of the Northern Territory who were the Commonwealth Government of Australia, near Darwin and on Melville Island.

 

In May 1978 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia Reported on the Northern Territory Forestry Program. The report states:

 

Program Objective

2. In examining expenditure on the forestry program the Committee took as its starting point the stated policy objectives for the program in its various forms since 1959.

3. Originally entitled ‘The Forestry Programme on Reserves for Wards’, combining forestry production aims with the training of Aboriginals, the program has since developed into a routine production excise of some magnitude, whose stated objectives are:

-the identification and, where appropriate, reservation of potentially productive forest              land;

- the development, management and protection of potentially productive forest land;

-the establishment of forest and timber industries based on the sustained yield management of Territory forests;

- the conservation of forest land for both production and other forest values including soil, water, wildlife and recreation; the creation of employment and training opportunities for Aboriginals in rural areas.

                         

“The Committee recommended that:

1.      Given the dearth of useful research into all aspects of planting, protection, processing and marketing, the planting of softwood be discontinued.

2.      should it be decided that partial or total Territorial self-sufficiency in timber products desirable, at least ten years of research into all the factors in (1) above be undertaken to establish the feasibility of a revised planting program and the form that the program should take.

 

And recommendation

   

6.   Existing softwood plantations on Melville Island be maintained but, subject to (2) above, not expanded and that the Howard Springs and Gunn Point plantations be written off as production areas.”

 

The reason given was economics.

 

8. “To illustrate this point we would refer to the planting of Cypress pine (Callitris intratropica) which was the only species planted on a commercial scale until 1974. With an original benefit-cost ratio of 1:2.7 it was given a rosy economic prospectus as late as 1971 only to be virtually abandoned as a plantation species a mere three years later, by which time benefit –cost ratio had been progressively downgraded below 1:1.”

 

 The Northern Territory was granted self government in 1978 and the Commonwealth of Australia had handed the forests and the related infrastructure and plant and equipment, to the Northern Territory under the terms of the Self Government act 1978.

 

The now new Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory custodian of the Forests on Melville Island and the Mainland continued to expand the Forest’s on Melville Island.

 

In 1986 the Forestry department of the Northern Territory was disbanded, prior to it’s disbanding thinning trials had been commenced at Howard Springs Forestry Reserve, on the Callitris intratropica stands, the results are impressive. Although there was no market as yet for the thinning’s (culled) trees, other than mulch.

 

 In reference to the Northern Territory’s “Memorandum to Counsel” brief to Lex Silvester By-Law 13 Permit and Miscellaneous Licence

 

Between: Vincent Joseph Collins Plaintiff and Northern Territory of Australia.

 

Tabled documents Australian Senate, “Inquiry into Forestry and Mining Operations on the Tiwi Islands” by Mr Vince Collins, 20 May 2009, Darwin. Page 2           

 

1.                                 “The area known as Howard Springs Forest Reserve was declared a park in 1985 pursuant to section 12 (1)(a) of the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (“the Act”)

2.                                 As a result of the declaration, the Conservation Commission of the  Northern Territory ……..It was subsequently determined that all forest compartments in the Reserve  were in need of crop thinning to promote mature forest development, and that it would be desirable to permit commercial thinning operations in the Reserve.

3.                                  As no Plan of Management (pursuant to section 18 of the Act) had been implemented, the approval of the Administrator was sought and obtained for the performance of ‘functions’ by the Commission in the Howard Springs Forestry Reserve.

4.                                 On 30 April 1993, Collins and the Commission executed a By-Law 13 Permit and Operational Agreement for a period of one (1) year to permit Collins to thin cypress pines on a specified part (Compartment 13B) of the Howard Springs Forest Reserve.”

5.                                 On 15 March 1994, Collins wrote to the Commission seeking access to the Park to obtain woodchips for extracting essential oils over a ten (10) year period……………………”

6.                                 On 5 September 1994, Peter Egan, for the Director of the Commission, wrote to Collins advising that the Commission supported his application to extend the thinning operations at Howard Springs Forest Park. The specified permit term agreed to was five (5) years with a possible five year extension, subject to sufficient resource remaining to sustain the thinning operation, subject to sufficient resource remaining to sustain the thinning operations. Also, the agreement was subject to the outcome of any future Plan of Management,

13.                            On 19 April 1995, Collins attended at the Commission offices and

signed the amended By-Law 13 Permit and Operational Agreement. The Director of the Conservation Commission subsequently queried whether he had authority to deal with the land at Howard Springs in the event that the Commission ceased to be responsible for the land, and declined to execute the Permit or Operational Agreement.”

 

 

The legal advice of the Northern Territory of Australia of that advice states: (Also tabled before the Senate)

 Page 2

 “Question (a)

Does Mr Collins have an enforceable Permit and Operational Agreement with the   (then) Conservation Commission arising from the offer of a five year term, with a five year ‘option’, in respect  of the subject lands, accepted by Mr Collins on 19 April 1995?”

Page 8

19.    “The answer to question (a) is yes.”  September 2001

 

 

On the 12 December 2002 Tony Fitzgerald Senior Mediator, of Resolve a division of Anglicare Top End, wrote to the Hon Dr Peter Toyne MLA, Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Parliament House, State Square, Darwin, N.T, 0800.

 

“Dear Minister

 

RE: VINCE COLLINS’ EVALUATION

 

We refer to your undated written instructions received in April 2002 to conduct an evaluation into claims upon the NT Government advanced by the abovenamed.

 

In response to your instructions we submitted an “evaluation process” proposal by letter dated 16 May 2002. The proposal was accepted with slight modification by both parties.

 

We now advise:

 

1.      pursuant to the proposal Mr Collins submitted his documents in early October   2002, and the government submitted its documents in May of the same year.

4.      the formal evaluation was conducted on Friday, 18 October 2002. The   evaluation was attended by Vince and Marianne Collins, (claimants), Paul Wharam (from NTG) and provided over by the writer. The evaluation commenced at 9:30 a.m. and concluded at 11:15 a.m.

5.      prior to the evaluation the writer had read all the documents supplied by the parties.

We now enclose our evaluation and shall provide you with our bill of costs in due course……..

1.      ENFORCABLE CONTRACT

The basis of Mr Collins’ claim is that he had an enforceable with the NT Government by way of a “Permit and Operational Agreement” with the NT Conservation Commission which he (Collins) signed on 19 April 1995.

 

Whether or not the contract is enforceable is arguable. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on this point, it will be subject of lengthy analysis in court. At least two NT Government lawyers (Goffin and Jacobs) are satisfied that the contract is enforceable and one other government lawyer (Schneider) says the opposite. The government’s counsel (Silvester-advice given 26 October 2001) was satisfied as to the existence of an enforceable contract.

 

2.      PERIOD OF CONTRACT

At least 5 years from either October 1994 (the commence date of the original “Permit and Operational Agreement”) or April 1995 (when Collins signed an “Amended Permit and Operational Agreement”) (“The Forest Agreement”).

 

This period does not take into account a “five year option to renew” which Collins also asserts

 

3.      Loss

            2.1 In January 1996 the NT decided to revoke the” Forest Reserve” at Howard Springs over which Collins held his enforceable contract (the Forest Agreement )and create a “park”, thereby preventing Collins from operating pursuant to the Forest Agreement.

            2.2 By preventing Collins from operating pursuant to his agreement, the NT breached the agreement and thereby rendered itself liable to Collins in Damages as a consequence of that breach.

            2.3 Silvester’s advice to the NT (26 October 2001 paragraphs 19, 59) concurs with this analysis of “breach” and theoretical entitlement to damages.

            2.4 As I read his opinion, Silvester then further advises as follows advises as follows ( my summary and interpretation of Silvester’s paragraphs 62, 65, 66, 70-75)-

            2.4.1 Collins’ right to damages was terminated when he voluntarily relinquished his interest in the Forest Agreement in return for an equity share of Blue Cypress Holdings P/L.

            2.4.2 Collins “fell out” (sic) with his co-ventures in Blue Cypress Holdings and attempted to revive his rights under the Forest Agreement (see paragraph 72).

            2.4.3 As Collins had failed to perform the Forest Agreement prior to the revocation of the Forest Reserve in January 1996 and prior to relinquishing his interest in that Agreement in March 1996, he is either estopped or unable to quantify damages (ie actual loss ) arising from the breach of contract by the NT.

            2.4.4 The NT Government is not liable in damages to Mr Collins.”

 

2.5  The parties are at odds over the question of actual entitlement to damages. Collins and his lawyers assert that the Forest Agreement has always remained on foot; that no agreement was reached with Blue Cypress; that at no stage did Collins relinquish his interest in the Forest Agreement to Blue Cypress; and that Collins’ previous lawyers (who were also equity share holders in Blue Cypress) acted without his instructions during discussions with Blue Cypress.

 

Collins’ lengthy statutory declaration (declared 5 June 1998) refers (see Collins’ documents Annexe 1)

        

4.3 Discounting for Contingencies

 

Accordingly, I assess that Mr Collins is entitled to damages in the sum of $375,329 (being 50% of the loss calculated at paragraph 4.2 above) arising from the breach by the NT of the Forest Agreement.”

 

 

In the High Court book number D2 of 2008 Northern Territory vs. Collins  Volume 1 of 3 page 351 is a copy of the Provisional Specification of Australian Standard Patent 742711 it had been tabled in the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory on 18 February 1999 by the then Mr Peter Toyne, MLA.

 

He also tabled the advice of the Tiwi Land Council internal solicitor Mr John Hicks dated 17 May 1997, to the Tiwi Land Council regarding intellectual property rights, as well as Ministerial Memorandum of the Northern Territory of Australia in reference to a letter dated 29 September 1995 by the Australian Essential Oil Company Pty Ltd.

 

All are a prima facie case that the Section 28 Notice under the Australian Patents Act 1990, filed by WR McGilvray of 575 Myall Creek road, Coraki NSW 2471 is a False Document under 12a of the Patents Act, containing false “Statutory Declarations” and “Forgeries.” claiming 119 of the 1990 Patents Act, before IP Australia and the High Court of Australia by the Northern Territory of Australia.

 

If they are true then it is an admission to “Theft from the Land” 12a of the Patents Act, and a “Conspiracy to defeat Justice” in the Federal Court case of DG 8 of 96, also 12a of the Australian Patents Act.

 

Collins had been granted a Standard Patent from IP Australia on the 7 day of November 2002, after the failure of both a Section 27 & 28 notice before IP Australia by W.R. McGilvray who had claimed on January 21, 2002 before, Mr Trevor Bruhn Delegate of the Commissioner IP Australia 119 of the Patents Act, in regards to the now granted Patent 74271.

 

  119 Infringement exemptions: prior use

(1) A person may, without infringing a patent, do an act that exploits a

product, method or process and would infringe the patent apart

from this subsection, if immediately before the priority date of the

relevant claim the person:

(a) was exploiting the product, method or process in the patent

area; or

(b) had taken definite steps (contractually or otherwise) to

exploit the product, method or process in the patent area.

Note 1: This section applies in relation to a patent granted as a result of an

application filed on or after the commencement of Schedule 6 to the

Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 2006 (which repealed and

substituted this section).

Note 2: Section 119 of this Act as in force before the commencement of that

Schedule continues to apply in relation to patents granted as a result of

earlier applications.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if, before the priority date, the

person:

(a) had stopped (except temporarily) exploiting the product,

method or process in the patent area; or

(b) had abandoned (except temporarily) the steps to exploit the

product, method or process in the patent area.

Limit for product, method or process derived from patentee

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a product, method or process the

person derived from the patentee or the patentee’s predecessor in

title in the patented invention unless the person derived the

product, method or process from information that was made

publicly available:

(a) by or with the consent of the patentee or the patentee’s

predecessor in title; and

(b) through any publication or use of the invention in the

prescribed circumstances mentioned in paragraph 24(1)(a).

 

 The Tiwi Land Council a Commonwealth Statutory Authority, had formed a commercial arm known as Pirntubula Pty. Ltd.,  A.C.N. 009 633 934. Who from 1986 managed the plantations on Melville Island, until according to the Statement of Claim in the Federal Court of Australia in DG8 of 96 filed by Pirntubula Pty Ltd. and available in the Northern Territory lands title office page 5, paragraph 13 attached to Caveat No. 359422.  

 

IT STATES:

 

 “On or about 17th March 1988, Pirntubula and Midmel orally agreed to join together as Joint Venturers for the purpose of managing, developing, harvesting, processing and distributing certain “crops” from the ‘Melville Island Plantation’. The expression ‘crops’ refers to cypress and Caribbean pine plantations and the expression  “Melville Island Plantation” refers to 1650 hectares of cypress pine and 220 hectares of Caribbean pine planted at or near Pickataramoor on Melville Island (which plantation is hereinafter referred to as “the forest”).”

 

Paragraph 14 states:

 

“The agreement referred to in paragraph 13 above was reduced to a written agreement which Pirntubula and Midmel executed on 4th December 1989. At the trial of this action the applicants will refer to the said written agreement (hereinafter referred to as “the joint venture agreement”) for its full terms and effect.”

 

The Joint Venture needed to be ratified by the Federal Minister for Aboriginal affairs, who on the 16th day of September 1990 placed his signature to affect the lease

 

The Statement of Claim issued by Pirntubula on page 54 at paragraph 113.

   States:

 

“No operations of any sort whether pursuant to the joint venture or otherwise are being carried out by MFP or either of Pirntubula or Midmel on the leased area.”

 

Council for Pirntubula Pty Ltd in DG8 of 96, Mr Downes declared before the Federal Court of Australia on the 26/11/1997. Refer page 45 court transcripts.

 

“Your Honour, there is one outstanding issue in this case which divides the parties utterly......................since December 1995. absolutely nothing has been happening, although it will be said against that that that is as a result of the Tiwis refusing permission for people to go onto the island to carry out the joint venture.” 

 

His Honour stated to Council for Pirntubula Pty Ltd in DG8 of 96 (refer page52 of the Federal Court transcripts)

 

His Honour: “You acknowledge that your opponent says that is not so, that the joint venture is still alive, your answer to that is, well, good luck to you but there is nothing there on the joint venture, it is all worthless.”

 

Mr Downes: “Yes, your Honour. that is so.”

 

His Honour: “I mean, we are going to have not four weeks but seven weeks to resolve that.”

 

Mr Downes: “The answer to that question, your Honour, is yes. That is what the bulk of this evidence is directed to: whether this joint venture continues to exist or not. That is the issue between the parties as I tell your Honour.”

 

His Honour: “Well, if the joint venture has come to an end…”

 

Mr Downes: “If my learned friend wants to withdraw his….”

 

His Honour: “…neither of you get anything, and if the joint venture continues alive neither of you get anything.”

 

Mr Downes: “Yes”

 

              

 

The Section 28 claim of WR McGilvray states that from 25 September 1995 an entity called Australia Cypress Oil Company was harvesting plantation Callitris intratropica, and that on the 2 October 1995 was producing using the patented process to produce the patent product and that the Australian Essential Oil Company Pty Ltd was offering for sale the patented product, and that the “Tiwi people are direct beneficiaries of sales of all Blue Cypress.”

 

In reference to the Northern Territory’s Memorandum to Counsel brief to Lex Silvester By-Law 13 Permit and Miscellaneous Licence

 

Between: Vincent Joseph Collins Plaintiff and Northern Territory of Australia.

 

The tabled documents in the Australian Senate Committee:

 Enquiry into Forestry and Mining Operations on the Tiwi Island by Mr Vince Collins, 20 May 2009, Darwin. Page8 paragraph 44.

 

The earliest an entity called the Australian Cypress Oil Company was granted a licence to harvest Callitris intratropica was 8 October 1997.

 

The Tender Document submitted, submitted by the Australian Cypress Oil Company Pty Ltd. A.C.N. 072 060 523 shows that the entity was registered on the 5 day of December 1995, it also states:

 

Part 6:  “SCHEDULE OF INFORMATION DATA”

 

6.1  “At present, timber for processing and recovery of essential oil is being harvested from the Melville Island plantations and is shipped by road to our research and development facility in Northern New South Wales.”

 

6.4.1 “Outline of Essential Oil extraction process”

 

“1 The harvested logs are debarked, chipped and milled;

 

2        The milled is loaded into baskets and subjected to steam at various regimes of pressure, in an approved and tested pressure vessel;

3        The steam and the various tranches of vaporised oils are drawn off and condensed sequentially, and the resultant condensates are separated into water and oils. The water is returned for further processing and the tranches of oils are drawn off and stored in suitable oil impervious containers.

4        The primary Essential oil is subjected to further processing using propriety methods developed by the Company which remove certain toxic compounds and standardise the resultant primary Essential Oil in terms of hue, colour intensity, organoleptic qualities, other physical properties and chemical constituent ratios.”

 

The tender states that Australian Cypress Oil Company Pty Ltd had applied for and was granted CAS number 180287-43-8 for the registration of its essential oil according to 6.5 0f their tender document, Friday, July, 1997.

 

Australian Blue Cypress Essential Oil has a different CAS number of 187348-13-6.

 

It is an admission that the Northern Territory was to enter into a contract with the Australian Cypress Oil Company Pty Ltd to use the Process Method and produce the blue oil of Baker and Smith 1910.

The method and the oil produced in regard to Baker and Smith 1910 was found to be different, to the Essential Oil described in Australian Patent 742711, by IP Australia a Commonwealth Authority, when it sealed the Patent 742711on the 7 day of November 2002.

The Australian Patents Act 1990 12a states:

(1) For the purposes of this Division, a person cannot commit theft of land, except in the following cases:

(a) the case where the person appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing it or causing it to be severed;

(b) the case where:

(i) the person is a trustee or personal representative, or is authorised (by power of attorney, as liquidator of a company or otherwise) to sell or dispose of land belonging to another; and

(ii) the person appropriates the land, or anything forming part of it, by dealing with it in breach of the confidence reposed in the person.

(2) For the purposes of this section, land does not include incorporeal hereditaments

 

The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976

States: 27(3)

Powers of Land Council

(1) Subject to this Act, a Land Council may do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connexion with the performance of its functions and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may:

(3) A Land Council shall not, without the approval of the Minister, enter into, or permit a Land Trust holding land in its area to enter into, a contract involving the payment or receipt of an amount exceeding $1,000,000, or, if a higher amount is prescribed, that higher amount.  

The Tiwi had resigned as Directors as late as March 28 1996 from Melville Forest Products Pty Ltd. The solicitor for the Tiwi Land Council John Sydney Hicks, who was also Secretary to Melville Island Products Pty Ltd resigned also on March 28 1996. According to the Section 28 Notice by WR McGilvray, JURLIQU Pty Ltd was being supplied Australian Blue Cypress Oil from 31 March 1996.

 Contained within the affidavit of Lewis Allen Janover in DG8 of 96, exhibit LJ 2, is proof that the earliest contact and dealing with the operations and Operations Manager of the Melville Island Plantation, Kelvin Stuart, who was also operations manager of Melville Island Products Pty Ltd was on the 23 of November 1995. It is a hand written note from Kelvin Stuart to John Hicks, when a delegation from The Australian Essential Oil Company Pty Ltd first visited the Melville Island Plantation, the visit had been arranged by the Northern Territory.

WR McGilvray of The Australian Essential Oil Company Pty Ltd had written to the Minister for Primary Industry’s NT, Mick Palmer 29 September 1995 proposing an Essential Oil Project (refer Ministerial Memorandum page 218, High Court Book D2 of 2008 )

The Northern Territory aware from the 3 of January 1997 that a deed of grant of option had been reached between Pirntubula Pty Ltd and the Australian Cypress Oil Company Pty Ltd and that according to the letter Monday December 30, 1996 by the Managing Director of the Australian Cypress oil Company Pty Ltd, Christopher Eddy to the Deputy Chief Minister of the Northern Territory of Australia, was in possible breach of  27(3) of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (NT)1976 and on the recommendation of the NT Minister for Primary Industry Mick Palmer.

The Northern Territory also by January 3 1997 new that litigation proceedings against   Midmel Pty Ltd and Mr Hugh Middendorp who is a 1/3 share holder of Australian Patent 742711. Had begun in the Federal Court of Australia the proceedings included that the Callitris intratropica plantation’s on Melville Island was less than the money to harvest and that no activity pursuant to the agreement was taking place and breach of Fiduciary of Duty against Mr Hugh Middendorp. (Refer statement of claim Pirntubula DG8 of 96 13 November 1996 against Midmel) also refer 12a of the Australian Patents Act. 11.2 Complicity and common purpose.

(1) A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence by another person is taken to have committed that offence and is punishable accordingly.

(2) For the person to be guilty:

(a) the person's conduct must have in fact aided, abetted, counselled or procured the commission of the offence by the other person; and

(b) the offence must have been committed by the other person.

(3) For the person to be guilty, the person must have intended that:

(a) his or her conduct would aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of any offence (including its fault elements) of the type the other person committed; or

(b) his or her conduct would aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence and have been reckless about the commission of the offence (including its fault elements) that the other person in fact committed.

(3A) Subsection (3) has effect subject to subsection (6).

(4) A person cannot be found guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence if, before the offence was committed, the person:

(a) terminated his or her involvement; and

(b) took all reasonable steps to prevent the commission of the offence.

(5) A person may be found guilty of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence even if the other person has not been prosecuted or has not been found guilty.

(6) Any special liability provisions that apply to an offence apply also for the purposes of determining whether a person is guilty of that offence because of the operation of subsection (1).

(7) If the trier of fact is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a person either:

(a) is guilty of a particular offence otherwise than because of the operation of subsection (1); or

(b) is guilty of that offence because of the operation of subsection (1);

but is not able to determine which, the trier of fact may nonetheless find the person guilty of that offence.

11.2A Joint commission

 

145.4 Falsification of documents etc.

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the person dishonestly damages, destroys, alters, conceals or falsifies a document; and

(b) the document is:

(i) kept, retained or issued for the purposes of a law of the Commonwealth; or

(ii) made by a Commonwealth entity or a person in the capacity of a Commonwealth public official; or

(iii) held by a Commonwealth entity or a person in the capacity of a Commonwealth public official; and

(c) the first-mentioned person does so with the intention of:

(i) obtaining a gain; or

(ii) causing a loss.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years.

 

The Tiwi Land Council legal advice17 May 1997 from John Hicks exhibited in the High Court Book D2 of 2008 appears as an admission of “Breach of Fiduciary of Duty” by the Land Council Trustees in DG8 of 96, to Mr Hugh Middendorp. Refer Volume1, page 367. 

 

The Memorandum to Council of the Northern Territory Regarding Collins

By Law 13 Permit Howard Springs Forestry Reserve was tabled in Australian Senate Committee Tiwi Forestry and Mining enquiry.

IT STATES:

(42. Because of the dissension in Blue Cypress Holdings Pty Ltd, and because of other expressions of interest, the DLPE decided to call tenders for the removal of trees from the Howard Springs lands, as well as two other plantations in the Berrimah and Gunn point areas. Those were to replace Miscellaneous Licence 1839 which expired in March 1997)

(43 Tenders were called for the clearing of the plantations in the Berrimah area in June and July 1997 and for the grant of a miscellaneous licence in that regard. Australian Cypress Oil Pty Ltd (“Australian Cypress Oil”) was the only party to submit a tender, and this was accepted in August 1997. Collins did not submit a tender.)

(44 Australian Cypress Oil was subsequently issued with Miscellaneous Licence 1854 on October 1997.

(45 A tender for the clearing of the Howard Springs lands and the Gunn Point plantation closed in September 1998. Two tenders were received, one from Australian Cypress Oil and another from Boler Enterprises. Again, Collins did not submit a tender. Australian Cypress Oil was the successful tenderer and two separate miscellaneous licences over the Howard Springs plantation and the Gunn Point were issued in May 1999, after approval to clear more than 50% of the land had been obtained from the then Northern Territory Planning Authority.

(46 Australian Cypress Oil continues to harvest cypress pines for extraction of essential oils. Collins is in dispute with Australian Cypress Oil over its alleged use of his patented extraction method. Australian Cypress Oil has continued to hold miscellaneous licences to the three plantation areas until recently. The DLPE plans to call for tenders again shortly.