The Law Concerning the Commonwealth of Australia – 101
The Law Under a Constitutional Monarchy
– Outline –
It is taken as evident that there are no material facts or evidence that denies the following points of fact as true in that:
The Commonwealth of Australia is:
- The Crown is a trust and the Commonwealth of Australia is a resultant trust established by an act of the British Parliament, An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 (Imp) known as the foundation Act.
- The Imperial Parliament, in establishing the Commonwealth of Australia, reflected the popular mandate carried by referenda of the people, of the several colonies in Australia, according to their landholding at the time before 1900.
- The enactment of the foundation Act belongs to the Parliament of the United Kingdom as per passage through the House of Commons and the House of Lords with the assent of Queen Victoria.
- The Proclamation Declaring the Establishment of the Commonwealth provides, that on September 17 1901, the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty in Council declares that “the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia.”
- The liability of the Commonwealth of Australia is expressed, ‘under the Crown of the United Kingdom’.
- The allegiance in the Commonwealth of Australia is expressed to be bound, ‘under the Crown of the United Kingdom’ for which the second clause of the foundation Act performs and which section 59 of the Constitution anchors.
- The executive and legislative powers were vested in Queen Victoria, as trustee for the Crown, as at sections 1 and 61 of the Commonwealth Constitution.
- The trusteeship is thereafter extended, at the second clause, exclusively into the successive monarchs in and of the Crown of the United Kingdom.
- The foundation Act, establishing the Commonwealth of Australia, reflects the high contracting parties as being the people in the several States.
- The terms and conditions for the administration of the Commonwealth of Australia belong to the people, as settled by section 128 of the Constitution, exclusively reserving the alteration of the Constitution to them.
- The conversion of the several colonies into States within the Commonwealth is reliant upon the foundation Act as a whole, and thus subservient to it as a whole.
- The saving of the colonial constitutions, subject to Chapter V of the Commonwealth Constitution, is held by the fifth clause, all times, to the identity of the identity of the Sovereign at the second clause.
- The colonial constitutions are expressed to continue, subject to Chapter V of the Commonwealth Constitution, within the ‘indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom’.
- The authority for the respective Governors office of a colony, from which each of the constitutions is derived, is the Letters Patent of the Imperial Monarch.
- The Letters Patent for the office of Governor for Western Australia does not recognise the Queen of Australia as Letters Patent 1986 have not come into force pursuant to the last clause that requires its application on the Australia Act 1986 coming into force and effect.
- Allegiance is the reciprocal arrangement whereby the Crown is bound to protect rights titles and interests as the raison d’être of the Crown.
- There is no allegiance, in the Commonwealth of Australia, compelled by law to the Crown other than that as expressed in the foundation Act.
- Allegiance is compelled at the fifth clause of the foundation law taken to hold every one of the people to the Commonwealth “under the Crown of the United Kingdom” of the Preamble.
- Allegiance holds the Crown to the reciprocal duty which, in the case of the Commonwealth of Australia, is the people’s protection that includes that duty of the Queen to exercise the vested powers with oversight at section 59.
- The fifth clause binds the Crown courts to the protection due by allegiance.
- The Crown’s protection is guarded by section 128 of the Constitution, by denying alteration of the Queen’s performance by other means than that by referendum.
- The outcome of the referenda determined in 1999, where the adoption of a preamble without the Crown of the United Kingdom was promoted and refused, confirms the allegiance and the will to maintain the Commonwealth of Australia.
- The will of the people, as the Crown’s raison d’etre, binds the Crown through the circularity of the allegiance/protection relations to rights.
The Property right of the people:
- The Commonwealth, as a unification of the people of the several colonies under the Crown of the United Kingdom is held as property in common in which all members of the community hold equally.
- The Commonwealth is a property right of every Australian by allegiance to the Crown.
- The Crown of the United Kingdom is constitutionally a property right of every Australian by control at s 128 of the oversight provision at s 59.
- The property right of the people includes rights, titles and interests.
- Every one of the people has a right to the Commonwealth.
- Every one of the people has title to the Commonwealth.
- Every one of the people has an interest in the Commonwealth.
- Every one of the people may assert a judgment void that is against their right, affected directly or collaterally.
- Every one of the people may rely upon the courts to the manner and extent that the Crown is bound, as per the fifth clause, extending from the allegiance relationship.
Dynamics of the Constitution and the Clauses:
- The clauses express, with particularity, the meaning and intent for the performance of the Commonwealth.
- The Commonwealth is expressed as ‘one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth’ ‘taken as a self-governing colony’ ‘under the Crown of the United Kingdom’ where the monarch, for the purposes of the Constitution, the preamble and clauses, acts ‘in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom’.
- No power is available to the Commonwealth Parliament to make legislation that may conflict with, or reach to, the foundation Act except s 128 for the Constitution.
- The clauses of An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia are not alterable under the terms of the preamble that defines the unification of the people in the Commonwealth, as ‘indissoluble’.
- The Commonwealth, as under the Crown of the United Kingdom, is subject to the law maxim: “It is natural for a thing to be unbound in the same way in which it was bound.”
- The intent and meaning of the several clauses is evident that each clause expresses its performance in accord with the preamble.
- An alteration of the performance of the clauses would be an alteration of the Commonwealth of Australia as established and proclaimed.
- The fifth clause mandates the performance of the high contracting parties to honour that which was entered into.
- The fifth clause gives effect to guard the Commonwealth as ‘indissoluble Federal Commonwealth’ and ‘under the Crown of the United Kingdom’.
- The fifth clause, compels the performance of the other clauses including the Constitution.
- The second clause expresses the identity of the Sovereign as being strictly ‘in the sovereignty of the United kingdom”.
- The second clause, as compelled by the fifth, is a current constitutional circumstance for the Commonwealth of Australia.
- The second clause extends to the current monarch, as indivisible.
- The second clause, as an expression of indivisibility, prevents the Queen adopting an alternative title as otherwise provided by the Royal Titles Act 1953 (UK) where the constitutional circumstances of a dominion may allow.
- The Indivisible clause, with reference to the Commonwealth of Australia, is UK law and predates the doctrine of divisibility that is without an underwriting law.
- The Queen, in Her Majesty, may not do what is not available by law.
- The Constitution at sections 1, 58, 59 and 61 reflects the liability of the Crown of the United Kingdom.
- The Constitution at section 59 provides for oversight by the government of the United Kingdom of address, through the Queen, to the disallowance of laws that offend.
- The fifth clause compels the authority, at the Preamble and second clause, for application in section 59 to be of the Crown of the United Kingdom.
- The ‘disallowance’ provision placed in the Constitution at section 59, entrenches the Crown of the United Kingdom by operation of allegiance and section 128.
- The Constitution at section 59 may not suffer a ‘virtual repeal’ by interpretation of second clause that denies the express performance of the Queen ‘in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom’ in the ability to disallow a Commonwealth law.
- There have been no exercise of section 128, for referenda, on the removal or interpretation of section 59, to be otherwise as expressed and intended, nor the dissolution or alteration of the ‘federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom’.
The Statute of Westminster 1931:
- Section 8 restates the inability “to confer any power to repeal or alter the Constitution or the Constitution Act of the Commonwealth of Australia …. otherwise than in accordance with the law before the commencement of this Act”
- Section 9 restates the inability “to authorize the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia” the lawmaking powers of the States that are not within the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament or its government.
- There was no attempt by the government or the Parliament to put into place the necessary constitutional changes to overcome the barriers in adopting the Statute of Westminster 1931.
- The Coronation Oath, administered to the Queen on June 2 1953, is a precondition to any function that the Queen may engage in the exercise of Her duty.
- Elizabeth II solemnly promised and swore “to govern the Peoples of Australia according to their respective laws and customs”
- The laws for the people of Australia include, et al, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and the allegiance to the Crown as therein reflected.
- It is not apparent that there is licence to relieve this obligation from the Queen; as administered under oath.
- It is not apparent that an office of the Queen other than the Queen of United Kingdom as present at Coronation had taken the oath as lawfully recognised to receive the authority, so administered, and take upon the execution of obligation and duty, so promised.
- The Australian Style Manual for authors editors and printers, revised by Snooks & Co sixth edition, at page 169 provides that “Upper-case numerals are always used for the titles of monarchs and popes” and illustrates the Monarch’s name as; Elizabeth II
The Royal Titles Act 1953 (UK):
- The Royal Titles Act 1953 (UK) relies on ‘the divisibility of the Crown’ a doctrine which is not underwritten by law.
- The House of Lords has not addressed the doctrine for ‘the divisibility of the Crown’ to the law.
- The principle of an ‘indivisible Crown’ operating at the time of federation reflects the liability and responsibility of the Crown its actions for which principles are essential as held by the law of contract.
- The identity of the Sovereign is provided for by the second clause of the foundation Act for the Commonwealth of Australia as exclusively “in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom”.
- The Royal Titles Act 1953 (UK) provides licence for the Queen to adopt titles for exercise of functions in lieu of Her Title and according to the constitutional circumstances of the member dominions of the Commonwealth of Nations.
- The Royal Titles Act 1953 (UK), by the act of adoption in requiring the Queen to act “in lieu of the style and titles at present appertaining to the Crown”, is a denial of Her Majesty’s exercise of powers in Right of the United Kingdom.
- The application of the term, ‘appertain’ to the ‘style and titles’ signifies that the style and titles are to belong, or be connected as a rightful part, to the Crown.
- There is no rationale for the practice under the licence of a UK law that provides the Queen to adopt any title to be exercised without the oversight of the Government or Parliament of the United Kingdom.
- There is no rationale for the terms ‘adopt’ and ‘in lieu of’ to co-exist in performance unless the corporate office of the “style and titles at present appertaining to the Crown” acted in principle of mother/child relationship or one of initial and resultant trusts.
The Royal Powers Act 1953:
- The Royal Powers Act 1953 is an act to cloak the Queen’s alternate title with powers to operate in lieu of the Queen’s coronation powers and duties.
- The Royal Powers Act 1953 is the recognition by the Commonwealth Government that the office of the Queen, by alternate title, is separate and distinct to that of the Queen’s “style and titles at present appertaining to the Crown”.
- There is no power within the Constitution for the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws for the Sovereign.
The Royal Style and Titles Act 1953:
- The Commonwealth Parliament, by passage of the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953, attempted to establish an alternate title to the Queen’s “style and titles at present appertaining to the Crown” for use in the Commonwealth of Australia.
- The Federal Court of Appeal held in Piccinin v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation  FCAFC 282 that the Queen of United Kingdom is separate and diverse from the Queen of Australia.
- An adoption of an alternate title to that of Her Majesty, acting with the advice of Her ministers of the United Kingdom, is a violation of the constitutional law both of the Commonwealth and that of the States a contempt of right in the Commonwealth of Australia.
- The name of the title enacted is expressed as ‘Elizabeth the Second’ without uppercase Roman numerals as is evident in the Queen’s royal title at Coronation and as required by the Australian Style Manual.
The Royal Style and Titles Act 1973:
- The Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 is expressed as an amendment to the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 carrying the expression of the previous Act as ‘Elizabeth the Second’.
- The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, from 2004 until the present, has confirmed the lack of a power that the Parliament must have in order to make laws concerning the Sovereign, by consistent results of the information finding.
- An exercisable right, acknowledged by the High Court in the 1948 Uniform Tax Case, is enliven by the evidence of a lack of power for a Commonwealth law, in that it fails the ‘sufficiency connection’ to the Constitution, as expressed: “A pretended power made in excess of power is not and never has been law at all. Anybody in the country is entitled to disregard it.”
- There is no known path, available by referendum, to provide the Commonwealth Parliament a power to make laws for the Sovereign, whilst the allegiance is compelled by the fifth clause to the foundation Act.
- Under the principle the ‘The King can do no wrong’ the Queen cannot not do against what the law provides, the Queen may not adopt a title in lieu of “the style and titles at present appertaining to the Crown” “of the United Kingdom” for the purposes of the Commonwealth of Australia.
- The Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 is not ‘judicially considered’ law of the Commonwealth.
The Australia Act 1986 (Commonwealth):
- The parliaments of the several States, in requesting the termination of any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, by passage of the Australia Acts Request Act 1985 in the respective State parliaments, breached their respective constitutions that find their authority and oath compliance to be within the letters patent of the respective Governor.
- The Australia Act 1986 (Cth) cannot be Commonwealth law as it did not receive assent, pursuant to the Constitution at s 58 as controlled by the second clause, as it is apparent it relies upon the assent of the Queen of Australia.
- The Australia Acts, by attempting the removal of the authority of the United Kingdom for having effect to our laws, cannot avoid the violation of the people’s inherent right of, and legitimate expectation to, the protection of the Crown.
Contempt of the Commonwealth, the Constitution, and the Queen:
- The Royal Style and Titles Acts and the Royal Powers Act 1953 cannot avoid the violation of the second clause of the foundation Act as an act of sedition.
- The Royal Powers Act 1953, the Royal Style and Titles Acts and the Australia Acts amounts to revolution by unlawful means
- The Australia Acts, by attempting the removal of the authority of the United Kingdom for having effect to our laws, is a contemptuous affront to the obligation of, and right of, oversight by the Government of the United Kingdom.
- The Crimes Act 1914 at Section 24AA provides for Treachery by revolution at (1)(a)(i): “A person shall not do any act or thing with intent to overthrow the Constitution of the Commonwealth by revolution …” where at (3) it is provided that: “A person who contravenes a provision of this section shall be guilty of an indictable offence, called treachery.”
- The Crimes Act 1914 at Section 24A, includes for seditious intention, the contempt of the Sovereign the promotion against “the Government or Constitution of the Commonwealth, against the Sovereign or the Government or Constitution of the United Kingdom” or the “attempt to procure the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter in the Commonwealth established by law of the Commonwealth”.
- The Crimes Act 1914 at 24B provides for seditious enterprise, 24C provides for offences where one “engages in or agrees or undertakes to engage in, conspires with, counsels, advises or attempts to procure the carrying out of a seditious enterprise” and 24 D, provides for the use of seditious words.
- The Criminal Code 1913 (WA) provides for the meaning if sedition at section 44 as “To bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt; To excite disaffection against the Sovereign, or the Government or Constitution of the United Kingdom, or of the Commonwealth of Australia, or of Western Australia as by law established, or against either House of Parliament of the United Kingdom, of the Commonwealth of Australia, or of Western Australia, or against the administration of justice; To excite Her Majesty’s subjects to attempt to procure the alteration of any matter in the State as by law established otherwise than by lawful means ….. “
- The Criminal Code 1913 (WA) provides for the protection of political rights at section 75 as ”by violence, or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise of any political right by another person”.
- The Criminal Code 1913 (WA) provides for the judicial obedience to the law of the Constitutions by application to criminality at section 173 as “employed in the Public Service, or as an officer of any court or tribunal, perversely and without lawful excuse omits or refuses to do any act which it is his duty to do by virtue of his employment”.
- The Criminal Code 1913 (WA) provides generally for the obedience to statute law by application to criminality at section 177 as “without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on him, does any act which he is, by the provisions of any public statute in force in Western Australia, forbidden to do or omits to do any act which he is, by the provisions of any such statute, required to do unless some mode of proceeding against him for such disobedience is expressly provided by statute”.
- The Constitution Act 1889 of Western Australia provides the prohibitive clause to bills devoid of Her Majesty’s proper Royal Assent at section 2(3) as ”shall be of no effect unless it has been duly assented to by or in the name of the Queen”.
Fidelity confirmation at 1999:
- The people of the several States, in having rejected the alteration of the constitutional monarchy as established for the Commonwealth of Australia in 1900 both by the offer of a ‘republican model of government’ and an ‘Australian preamble’ devoid of the Crown, confirmed the contract as expressed by the Preamble to be united under the Crown of the United Kingdom.
Application against law or rights:
- In accord with the authorities on ‘void judgements’ that abound, any action that is taken, or made against the law or one’s rights, are from its inception and forever continues to be, absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree.
and it is believed that none exists. Accordingly, it is to be held that the jurisdictions that may be lawfully applied in the courts is that of the Commonwealth of Australia under the Crown of the United Kingdom, for federal matters, and that of a State of the Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom for the respective state matters.
This document awaits correction.