To learn that to become a Member of the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia is to commit an act of treason against the sovereign people of Australia will no doubt result in a reaction of incredulity. In fact it would be reasonable to anticipate that the reader of such a statement would be inclined to immediately reject this paper without further examination of its content.
Similarly, the bold assertion that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp) (seehttp://www.aph.gov.au/sen…/general/constitution/preamble.htm) is invalid at first appears ludicrous. As the fundamental law of the Australian Nation, if it were invalid, then all Australian Governments – Commonwealth, State and Territorial – have no legal basis for their continued existence, no valid authority to pass and enforce legislation, and no authority to enter contracts or bind the Australian people by Treaty.
The consequences could be catastrophic, both within Australia and internationally. Yet, the consequences should not influence a disinterested analysis of the basis of that situation. This paper in part, presents these bases.
The fundamental facts which give rise to the accuracy of the above statements are indeed simple and were succinctly stated a few years ago by the late Professor G. Clements (an eminent UK QC and emeritus Professor in law at Cambridge). He summed up the situation thus,
“The continued usage of the Australian Constitution Act (UK) by the Australian Governments and the judiciary is a confidence trick of monstrous proportions played upon the Australian people with the intent of maintaining power. It remains an Act of the United Kingdom. After joining the League of Nations in 1919 Australia became a sovereign nation. It had no further legal power to use, alter or otherwise tamper with another nation’s legislation. Authority over the Australian Constitution Act lies not with the Australian government nor with the Australian people, it rests solely with the UK. Only they have the authority to repeal this legislation …”.
Differing legal opinion cites the establishment of Australia as an independent sovereign nation over a wide range of dates. These include, but are not limited to:
with the proclamation of the Commonwealth of Australia Act (Imp)
with the signing of and unanimous vote by the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia in acceptance of the Treaty of Versailles.
by the declaration of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee of the Imperial Conference.
by the Balfour Declaration
by the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia enacting the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942 (Cth) back dated to 1939.
by the Commonwealth of Australia becoming a foundation member of the United Nations and subsequently enacting the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945.
with the passing of the Australia Acts (both UK & Cth)
alternatively, the less controversial but flawed gradual evolution during the 20th century explanation.
Which ever date is chosen does not alter the consequences of the breach of Sovereignty, for Prof. O’Connell states:
“Whatever form the change in sovereignty may take it involves a disruption of the legal continuity… These rules form a body of doctrine known as the law of state succession…”
(International Law, P. D. O’Connell, Vol. 1, 2nd ed. 1970, p. 365-368)
However contrary to much of domestic Australian legal opinion, Australia became an independent sovereign nation following Mr. William Morris Hughes, Prime Minister and Commonwealth Attorney-General, together with Sir Joseph Cook, signing the multi-lateral Treaty of Peace at Versailles, France in June 1919. This included the Covenant of the League of Nations, along with many other important documents in International Law. Particular attention should be paid to clauses I, X, XVIII, and XX of the Covenant. (go to
The ‘Australian’ Constitution is United Kingdom law.
In “An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia”, the 9th clause of which is usually referred to as the ‘Australian Constitution’ was, is, and remains conditional upon the first 8 covering clauses of that Act, a current Act of domestic law of the United Kingdom Parliament.
Under Section 128 of Clause 9, minor alterations to the Constitution may be made by the Australian people. However, the Australian people may not alter, in any way, Clauses 1 to 8 of the Imperial Act. Since the Australian people have only ever had the right to change sections 1 to 128 of clause 9 of that Act, it follows that covering clauses 1 to 8 remain law in Australia.
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act passed through the UK Parliament in June 1900, to commence as law in Australia on the 1st of January 1901. Since the people of Australia have only ever had the right to change Sections 1 to 128 of Clause 9 of this Act, it follows that covering clauses 2, 6 and 8 remain law in Australia. (See Joosse v ASIC HCA 1998 159 ALR 260 or go to http://www.austlii.edu.au/…/other/hca/trans…/1998/M35/1.html ) This means that British colonial law still operates in Australia and that Australia is a self governing colony of the United Kingdom as stated in that Act (see clause 8). However, the High Court of Australia has recently ruled that the United Kingdom is a foreign power, and that the UK Parliament cannot have any effect on the Governments of Australia (Sue v Hill HCA 30 of 1999 or seehttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/1999/30.html). Hence, if British colonial law continues to operate in Australia, then this constitutes a clear breach of international law, along with the duties and responsibilities of the Australian and the United Kingdom governments, as both were Foundation Members to the League of Nations, and the United Nations. The Covenant and the Charter of both bodies, respectively, bind these nations.
The Australian people do not have ultimate control over the ‘Australian’ Constitution. In mid-July 1995 the Lord Chancellor of the UK in answer to a Parliamentary question asked in the UK Parliament about the Australian Constitution, stated:
“The British Constitution Act 1900 was for self government. It was never intended to be and is not suitable to be the basis for independence. The right to repeal this Act remains the sole prerogative of the United Kingdom. There is no means by which under United Kingdom or international law this power can be transferred to a foreign country or Member State of the United Nations. Indeed, the United Nations Charter precludes any such action”.
(This response was confirmed by letter from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, dated 11th Dec 1997, under the hand of Mark Armstrong, Far Eastern and Pacific Dept)
Australia is an Independent sovereign nation.
“By this recognition Australia became a Nation, and entered into a family of nations on a footing of equality. We had earned that, or, rather, our soldiers had earned it for us. In the achievement of victory they had played their part and no nation has a better right to be represented than Australia.”
(William Morris Hughes, Prime Minister of Australia, House of Representatives, Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, 10th September, 1919)
During the ‘Great War’, the United Kingdom held Imperial War Conferences, to which the Dominions were finally invited to in 1917, as a result of their contributions to the war effort. It was at the 1917 Conference that the UK resolved to start the Dominions on the path to independent nationhood. Resolution IX stated:
The Imperial War Conference are of the opinion that the readjustment of constitutional relations of the component parts of the Empire is too important and intricate a subject to be dealt with during the War and that it should form the subject of a special Imperial Conference to be summoned as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities. They deem it their duty, however, to place on record their view that any such readjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing powers of self-government and complete control of domestic affairs, should be based on a full recognition of the Dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth…”
Further, both as the result of the Dominions’ World War I contributions, and the forceful position advanced by the United States President, Woodrow Wilson at Versailles, the United Kingdom, initially reluctantly, granted the Dominions the right to attend the Peace Treaty negotiations in their own right. This was followed by King George V instructing the Australian Governor-General, R. M. Ferguson, to issue a Head of State full powers document on the 23rd April 1919, being in “good and due form” authorising Mr. Hughes and Sir Joseph Cook to attend the Peace Conference and to negotiate, and sign the Treaty of Peace, on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia. The emancipation of the Australian nation was recognised by the other signatories to the Treaty by these other independent nations allowing Australia, and the other former Dominions, to sign as separate nations. The United Kingdom no longer signed Treaties on behalf of Australia. The instrument through which this was achieved is also known as the Treaty of Versailles. (see http://history.acusd.edu/…/versaillestreaty/vercontents.html ) The unanimous ratification of this action was finalised in the Commonwealth of Australia Parliament on October 1st 1919. Australia immediately became a Member State of the League of Nations and the International Labor Organisation. Membership of these organisations was only available to sovereign nation states.
As recently as November 1995, the Australian Parliament through the release of a report by the ‘Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee’ restated the historical events leading up to the achievement of independence, referring to the 1917 Imperial War Conference Resolution IX at para. 4.12, and clearly stated at para. 4.13 that Australia was now a sovereign nation:
“Australia became an independent member of the League of Nations and the International Labour Organisation in 1919.”
and further in 4.13:
“This admission to the League and the International Labour Organisation involved recognition by other countries that Australia was now a sovereign nation with the necessary ‘international personality’ to enter into international relations “.
(‘Trick or Treaty? Power to Make and Implement Treaties, ISBN 0 642 24418 9 or see http://www.aph.gov.au/…/commit…/legcon_ctte/treaty/index.htm )
On July 14, 1996, investigators working in the archives of the League of Nations, held in Geneva by the Swiss Government, found the original copy of the Leaguer of Nations Covenant. Interspersed among the text is a commentary in italics by Sir Geoffrey Butler, KBE, Fellow in International Law and Diplomacy at Corpus Christie College, Cambridge University.
The discovery of the original copy of the Covenant revealed Sir Geoffrey’s commentaries had been part of this crucial document from the beginning, not added later as historians had believed.
Full significance of Article I of the Covenant has never been widely understood by the people of Australia, whose future was irrevocably altered by the Treaty of Versailles of June 28, 1919.
Sir Geoffrey Butler’s comments went to the heart of the events. His commentary on Article I states:
“It is arguable that this article is the Covenant’s most significant measure. By it, the British Dominions, namely New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Canada have their independent nationhood established for the first time. There maybe friction over small matters in giving effect to this internationally acknowledged fact, but the Dominions will always look to the League of Nations Covenant as their Declaration of Independence. That the change has come silently about and has been welcomed in all corners of the British Empire is the final vindication of the United Empire Loyalists.”
The law of one nation may not be used to govern over another nation.
From the moment people gain independence they have a claim to, and possess the right of, self-determination. They are sovereign over their affairs (see the Covenant of the League of Nations, Art. 10, and the Charter of the United Nations, Art. 2 paras 1 and 4;http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml , together with resolutions 2131 [xx] 1965 & 2625 [xxv] 1970).
From that moment, the laws of their former colonial master become ultra vires. For it to be otherwise is to offend both common sense and the first principle of international law – the right to self-determination! If this is not so, than the United States of America remains today as a collection of colonies of Great Britain! From October 1st 1919 ‘An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia’ became ultra vires, with regard to Australia. Its continued use by political parties to claim the power to establish a parliament to govern over the Commonwealth of Australia, that is, the Australian people, (see Quick & Garran “The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth” 1901 at page 366) constitutes an offence against international law. It represents political interference by the United Kingdom and a denial of Australian citizens’ inalienable right to self-determination.
From October 1st, 1919 the British Monarch became irrelevant to Australia. From October 1st 1919 Australia became a republic. From October 1st, 1919 it has been necessary to create a political and judicial system capable of bridging the legal void created when sovereignty changed from the Parliament of the United Kingdom to the people of Australia. That necessity still exists.
If confirmation of this change in Australia’s status from a “colony” to being “accepted fully into the community of nations of the whole world” is required, the Balfour Declaration 1929 ( seehttp://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/places/cth/cth11.htm), the Report of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee 1926 – Extracts at page 348, ( see ‘II. ¾STATUS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND THE DOMINIONS’ describing the Dominions as “autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs”), and Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations make interesting reading.
By using UK law to claim power, parliamentarians and others become agents of a foreign power.
By relying on this current Act of domestic law of the Parliament of the United Kingdom the Australian Parliament is definable as an extension of the Parliament of the UK. The Governor-General, State and Territory Governors, individual parliamentarians, Senators and all others involved in government, including members of the judiciary, are definable as agents of the UK. That is, agents of a power foreign to the Nation State, the Commonwealth of Australia. This scenario manifests right down to the policeman on the beat!
The much-vaunted Statute of Westminster Act 1931 (UK) (seehttp://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/places/cth/cth12.htm) was a thinly veiled attempt to patch up a broken legal system for the Dominions. Since it was design to operate beyond the shores of the UK, it failed the requirement under Article XVIII of the Covenant of the League of Nations as it was not registered with the Secretariat, and therefore never became a valid international instrument. It had no operational effect beyond thew shores where it was created, the United Kingdom.
Every Member and Senator has committed an Act of treason by swearing and subscribing to an oath to serve the government of a power foreign to Australia.
To underline this, the Constitution (embraced by Australian parliamentarians) at section 42, dictates that they must all swear and subscribe an oath of allegiance to the current Monarch in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. (Confirmed by letter from the Parliament of Australia, House of Representatives dated 10th June 1999 and signed by Robyn Webber, Director, Chamber Research Office). But because the Monarch is appointed under the provisions of UK legislation and is therefore subordinate to the UK legislature (i.e. ‘the Queen in Parliament’) in point of legal fact, Parliamentarians, Senators and others have actually sworn an oath of allegiance to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Quite clearly this constitutes an act of treason against the sovereign people of Australia. The Oath appears as the schedule to the Act and being outside ‘The Constitution’ is beyond the reach of Section 128, and thus, may not be altered by any authority outside the UK Parliament.
Further, The ‘Queen of Australia’ is purely titular. If indeed such an Office exists at all it does so without legal authority.
Since the Bill of Rights of 1688, the Act of Settlement of 1701, and the Act of Union 1706, the Monarch has been appointed, first by the English Parliament and then, by the UK Parliament. The Queen is a ‘Statutory Monarch’. As such she has no powers separate from the UK Parliament. In fact the official, descriptive title is ‘The Queen in Parliament’. In her Office, the ‘Queen’ has no legal power to make decisions. She may only endorse and/or carry out decisions made by the Ministers that appointed her. (seehttp://www.royal.gov.uk/today/parlia.htm ) Further, the monarch has not executive function within the Commonwealth, her role being purely titular. (see http://www.fco.gov.uk/news/keythemehome.asp?8)
In 1973, in her private life as Mrs Elizabeth Guelph (for she had no authority from the UK Parliament which possessed no power with regard to matters relating to an independent Australia), she chose to amuse Gough Whitlam, the then Prime Minister of Australia, by signing the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973, which repealed the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953, and ‘created’ the “Queen of Australia”. Such an Office does not exist in UK law or, in particular, under the ‘Australian’ Constitution.
‘An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia’ is UK law and by definition (clause 2 of the Act) the only Monarch that the Constitution (clause 9 of the Act) recognises is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Thus, even if it could be established that the Constitution has valid application, any law made under the Constitution cannot be given valid Royal assent by a Governor-General or Governor appointed by and representing a purely titular “Queen of Australia” (see the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973 (Cth) http://www.austlii.edu.au/…/le…/cth/consol_act/rsata1973258/ )
Further, taking into account the full content of the Act, even if it were possible to alter the Constitution so that it recognised the “Queen of Australia”, a referendum under S128 relating to the adoption of such an Office would be necessary. Such a referendum has never been conducted!
Attempts to “patch up the Constitutional mess” continued the concealment of the truth from the Australian people
Adopting the Statute of Westminster 1931 (UK) in 1942, and making it commence retroactively from the 3rd September 1939, was an attempt to rule out any illegality of involvement in WWII by not having formally declared war on Germany 3 years earlier. The Statute was adopted at the time the newly appointed Prime Minister was declaring war on Japan, and the Australian Parliament needed to be sure of it’s power to do so.
The concealment continues with 2 more documents. The first being “The Letters Patent Relating to her Office of Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia” which was gazetted on the 24th August 1984 after being signed 3 days earlier at Balmoral in the United Kingdom. Under UK law, the writs of the sovereign die with the sovereign. But when Queen Victoria died on the 21st January, 1900, no new Letters Patent were issued until August 1984! This was 4 (not 5) monarchs later. These Letters Patent also had a clause to cover any ‘invalid’ Commission or appointment or any action taken by someone so commissioned or appointed without authority. This is the effect of clause VII.
The next document(s) created to continue the concealment was the passage of the Australia Acts (see web address for Australia Acts (Cth) & (UK)) through both the UK and the Australian Parliaments, in 1985, to commence in 1986. Contrary to international law, both of these Acts attempted to infringe sovereignty of another nation, were not registered as required under the Charter of the United Nations to have extra-territorial effect, and consequently, can not be relied on in any international forum. Notwithstanding the international status of the Australia Act 1986 (Cth), the preamble and several clauses clearly indicate that British colonial law was continuing in the sovereign independent Australia, and that from the commencement of this Act, all such colonial law, as well as the UK government, will have no effect. If this was not the case, than there would not be any need to have an Australia Act, let alone 2 of them.
There are several major structural problems associated with the Australia Act (Cth), and since it is continually referred to in judicial decisions, it is worthwhile noting these problems.
(1) First, it does not remove all existing British law used in Australia. It only refers to new British law. Any Australian lawyer can testify that the Commonwealth and State Statute books are pregnant with British law, the most obvious being the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
(2) Second, the termination of British law in Australia that is supposed to occur with this Act, when challenged, will be determined in a court which is dependent for it’s existence on the very same British law!
(3) Thirdly, Australia continues to have a monarch who derives her power from the British Parliament, and she remains the Executive Head of Government of the six Australian States. So to exercise her power in those States, her power must be seen as an extension of power of the UK Parliament.
(4) Lastly, at the very time that the Australia Acts came into law in Australia to prevent the UK Government from interfering in Australian matters (see also Sue v Hill HCA 30 of 1999), the Letters Patent relating to the Governors of South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia was signed off by none other than Sir Anthony Derek Maxwell Oulton, KCB, QC, MA, Ph.D., Permanent Secretary, Lord Chancellors Office, UK Parliament!
Recent confirmations establish invalidity of the political and judicial system currently being applied in Australia.
While all of this is relevant and pertinent, it is as well to be aware that on, 19th December 1997 the Office of Legal Council of the General Secretariat of the United Nations volunteered and thus confirmed that Australia has been a sovereign State from the 24th October 1945 at the latest. This was confirmed by letter dated 19th December 1997, from the Acting Director and Deputy to the Under-Secretary-General, Office of the Legal Counsel, under the hand of Paul C. Szasz.
On the 5th November 1999, the UK Government through their High Commission in Canberra, volunteered and thus confirmed that the UK British Nationality Act 1948 legislated that Australia was not a protectorate of the United Kingdom, so both the UN and the UK have confirmed that for at least 53 years Australia has been an independent sovereign nation State. This was confirmed by letter dated 5th November 1999, from the Chief Passport Examiner, British High Commission, Canberra, under the hand of Mrs Carole Turner.
As a consequence, under both international and UK law the UK Parliament’s ‘An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia’ has been ultra vires in relation to Australia for at least 53 years. So, for purposes of definition and resolution there is no fundamental need to look any further back into history.
It is also most pertinent to note that on the 6th November 1999 the entire people of Australia, by referendum had for the first time, the opportunity to have their say regarding the acceptance or otherwise of the Constitution under which they are governed. They overwhelmingly rejected the ‘Preamble to the Constitution’ question which included,
“We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution”
(The proposition was rejected in every State and Territory of Australia on a national basis of 60.66% to 39.34%. see end note.)
Thus the question must now be asked: “How can present Australian parliaments possibly continue to exist under the terms of a Constitution to which the people have refused to be committed?”
So it is that the Australian Parliament; relying for its existence, as it does, on a law which can no longer have application in Australia, remains a puppet, in legal terms, of the United Kingdom Parliament. Currently, the only way Australian Commonwealth Bills can be allegedly passed into Acts of law is by having them assented to in the name of a Monarch, who has no legal standing in any forum anywhere in the world. Clause 2 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act rules that, for the purposes of that Act, all references to the Queen lie in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. However, the Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 1921, which was ratified on 15th January 1922, brought into existence the Irish Free State. In 1937 the Irish Free State became the Republic of Erie. Hence, “Ireland” ceased to exist as a legal entity on 15th January 1922.
At the same time, the sovereignty of Great Britain and Ireland ceased to exist. The establishment of the new sovereignty of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was formalised through the United Kingdom Parliaments Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. The United Kingdom would constitute an international joke if at the beginning of the 21st Century it masqueraded as still existing in the 78 year defunct sovereignty of Great Britain and Ireland! But, to this day every Australian Parliamentarian, Senator, and Judge swears and subscribes an oath to the Monarch in the same 78 year obsolete sovereignty! Effectively, this results in a legal limbo any independent observer would conclude is bizarre. In short, the Australian Parliament is not a valid organ representing the Sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia and cannot pass any laws which can have valid application within Australia, or anywhere else for that matter.
Clearly the Commonwealth Government of Australia is invalid.
As a consequence, no law made in the Australian Parliament has valid application in Australia, or anywhere else. The only law that can be validly applied in Australia is international law, and possibly the common law of Australia.
The simple fact of the matter is, there is a fundamental and urgent need to place before the Australian citizenry a new, if interim, Constitution under which they are prepared to be governed with a view to allowing the appropriate mechanisms to be established which would enable a democratically decided Constitution to be agreed to and implemented.
However, there maybe serious consequences for the international community as a result of invalid Australian Governments entering into both international treaties and contracts. This arises because the “Australian” Constitution creates the structure of the Australian Federal Government together with establishing the States and Territories (see Chapter V being ss. 106 to 120 of cl. 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act). These governments, being established under that Act of the UK Parliament, are also then invalid, as is their legislation. Any treaties, contracts or agreements entered into by them must be void. In this context it must be noted that the Australian Federal Government – which is responsible for signing treaties – could not at any time, under International Law, have validly represented the Sovereign People of Australia. At any time, therefore, it could be argued that any, each and every one of such treaties maybe declared invalid and not binding on signatory States. This inturn represents a threat to the protection of, inter alia, commercial and intellectual property, patents, contracts, extradition orders, peace treaties and defence alliances.
Regarding contracts, by way of a simple example, multi-national insurance companies having entered into insurance contracts which operate within the territory of Australia or under Australian law may hold contracts which are void ab initio owing to a fundamental breach of the insured’s duty of disclosure. The documents which unequivocally demonstrate the issues outlined above are inherently public documents which have been easily accessible for years.
A broader issue, likewise, arises with regard to the quantum of any damages claim that could foreseeably be made against the UK before the European Court of Justice, because given that the High Court of Australia has ruled that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Imp) is not ultra vires in Australia, and that all subordinate legislation is still subject to the limitations imposed by that domestic law of the UK, is Australia still therefore, a colony of the UK? If so, will citizens in Australia be granted their full rights as European Citizens resident in a colony of a Member State, including the right to freely enter each Member State and trade therein without restriction or penalty (other than those prescribed by the law of the EEC for members of the European Community)? Will damages be appropriate for the period that residents of Australia were denied such access to these European markets?
Has the UK denied the citizens resident in Australia, who by referendum on 6th November 1999, rejected the continued use of the domestic British Law, the right to self determination in contravention of International Law, the treaty establishing the European Community, the Charter of the United Nations and other treaties?
Has the UK, by subterfuge, attempted to conceal from the European Community, the real nature and depth of it’s continued involvement in the governments of Australia? If so, at what cost?
Alternatively, do the Member States of the European Union, having recognised the sovereign independence of the Australian people owe a duty, under Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations and under Articles 2 and 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, to prevent continued illegal dominance of Australian citizens by the UK? Are such States liable for damages if they remain inactive in this regard?
Given that the High Court of Australia has declared that even though citizens resident in Australia are governed under domestic British Legislation, they are denied the fundamental Human Rights conferred on British citizens by the same UK Parliament through both common law and through the accession of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (See the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK)). Are judicial officers within Australia – all of whom are appointed under UK legislation and commissioned by Governors and Governors-General appointed by the UK Parliament – in breach of the said Covenant? If so, to what extent will liability be found to rest with the UK Parliament, given that despite official declarations as to Australia’s independence, that Parliament has maintained a colonial regime in Australia through force majeure?
Moreover, the status of many people who have been granted Australian Citizenship under the provisions of the National Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) has – in a limited number of cases – already been questioned, for apart from the established arguments as to the invalidity of the ‘Australian’ Constitution, which inturn renders the National Citizenship Act 1948 invalid, there exists no power within the Constitution to create other than British citizens (see s. 51 xix)!
YES! THE SITUATION IS EXTREMELY SERIOUS! And yes, by definition, Australia currently exists in a state of legal anarchy! And yes, there is reason to believe that the international community is very concerned. After all, what is the worth of an international treaty which has been signed by an authority which does not validly represent the sovereignty of the State?
Over a number of years senior political identities of all persuasions within Australia including Prime Ministers, Attorneys-General and other senior Cabinet Minister together with minor party leaders have been fully briefed.
The documents of history have been presented to Australian Courts at all levels. Currently there are matters before other courts outside of Australia.
Having exhausted all possible avenues for domestic remedy and recognizing that, in fact, the situation is so serious that there exists a very real potential for a total breakdown in ‘law and order’, an appeal for assistance has been advanced to the entire international community.
The mechanism by which this was achieved has been by way of a 480 page submission individually presented to all 185 Member States of the United Nations as well as to, Kofi Annan the General Secretariat, the Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Committee and the Security Council.
The document includes a request for the establishment of an International Criminal Tribunal to prosecute individuals who can be shown to have inhibited the inalienable right of Australian citizens to self-determination by knowingly subjecting Australian citizens to British colonial law within the sovereign territory of the Commonwealth of Australia.. It is clear that along the way the situation will be, by necessity, brought before the International Court of Justice. Advice from three continents is that there exists no counter argument, and that therefore the outcome is a forgone conclusion.
All nations have received the submission. No nation has returned or rejected it. Many nations have confirmed and/or are actively giving their support to the Sovereign People of Australia. For obvious reasons these nations cannot, at this stage, be named.
It is to be hoped that Australia’s unique constitutional conundrum and associated problems flowing therefrom can be expeditiously and peacefully rectified, however it is incumbent upon lawyers, academics, politicians and others to be fully aware of the situation and its implications so as to be able to offer informed advice when this is sought.
The authors believe that this advice will be required shortly, particularly by governments and businesses within those nations which are Australia’s trading and defence partners. Moreover, there is cause to apprehend that citizens, former citizens and corporations domiciled in those nations against which Australia declared war- beginning on 3rd September 1939 – may wish to pursue claims for reparations under Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice ( seehttp://www.un.org/Overview/Statute/chapter2.html) because a declaration of war is an action under international law only capable of being performed by a sovereign power. Any seizure of property and assets belonging to such nations was illegal. The terms of section 3(1)and (2)of the Australia Acts 1986 (UK and Cth) constitute a clear admission by both Australia and the UK that colonial law was, at least up to 1986, being applied in Australia.
It is our hope that by not indulging in legal opinion or jurisprudential theory, but rather by relying entirely upon original documents of statute law and history (most of which are easily ascertainable), we have gone some way to answering this need.
(End Note: 6th November Referendum Results)
Total Votes Counted 11,785,035
Results Yes 4,591,563 No 7,080,998 Informal 112,474
Thus, by the only national vote ever held in which all citizens were entitled to vote on the issue, the proposition was rejected in every State and Territory of Australia on a national basis of 60.66% to 39.34%, clearly establishing that the Australian population did not commit themselves to be ruled by a controlled colonial constitution)
FROM DAVID ICKE’S FREEDOM ROAD EZINE NOVEMBER 2001