Constitution

Quo Warranto Senators

Quo Warranto Senators

Notice to Murray Watts, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has been served.

QuoWarrantoSenators (scanned pdf)

An editable Word doc version will also be made available as soon as possible.

Posted by admin in Constitution

POLICE ACT 1892 – SECT 10

Western Australian Act

POLICE ACT 1892 – SECT 10

10 .         Engagement to be subscribed by officers and constables

No person shall be capable of holding any office, or appointment in the Police Force, or of acting in any way therein, until he shall have subscribed the following engagement, namely —

I, A.B., engage and promise that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen, in the office of [ Commissioner of Police, inspector, sub-inspector, or other officer, or constable, as the case may be ], without favour or affection, malice, or illwill, until I am legally discharged; that I will see and cause Her Majesty’s peace to be kept and preserved, and that I will prevent, to the best of my power, all offences against the same; and that, while I shall continue to hold the said office, I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.

And the said engagement shall be subscribed in the presence of and attested by a Justice or commissioned officer of the Force.

        [Section 10 amended: No. 91 of 1975 s. 4.]

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/pa189275/s10.html

Posted by admin in Constitution
Notice to Commissioner of Police

Notice to Commissioner of Police

Notice to Col Blanch, Western Australian Police Commissioner of Police.

In part:

“This matter arises in light of new proposed legislation (Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2021 and proposed amendments foreshadowed Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972) “The Acts claiming inter alia, to affect our private land rights through the Legislature of Parliament of Western Australia.”

First Notice

FirstNoticeColBlanchNoticeOfConstitutionalDeparture (August 8th 2023, 5 page pdf)

We encourage everyone to print this out, Sponsor (autograph/sign under “Sponsor” on last page),
email it to:
commissioner@police.wa.gov.au or col.blanch@police.wa.gov.au

and then post by Registered Mail to:

Col Blanch,
acting as Commissioner of Police,
WESTERN AUSTRALIA POLICE ABN 91 724 684 688, Trading as Western Australian Police,
Police Headquarters,
6th Floor,
2 Adelaide Terrace, East Perth,
Western Australia.

Second Notice

Reminder to Notice of Constitutional Departure – Police – Official Sep2023 (September 7th 2023, 2 page pdf)

Third Notice

Reminder to Notice of Constitutional Departure – Police – Official Oct2023 (October 4th 2023, 2 page pdf)

Fourth Notice

Legislative Assurance & Constitutional Prohibition-CoP-Dec2023 (December 12th 2023, 3 page pdf)

Constitutional Report 1988 Extracts

(sent with fourth Notice) Select Extracts Constitutional Report 1988-DD (7 page pdf by Darren D)

Addendum

(also sent with fourth Notice) Addendum – References for Constitutional Authority (4 page pdf)

 

Posted by admin in Constitution, General

Rally Tuesday 15th August 2023, 12pm Parliament House

Parliament House,
Tuesday 15th of August at 12pm

Join the Rural Action Movement at OUR Parliament House, Tuesday 15th of August at 12pm.
Rally together and stand for our farmers and our food security!

The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2021 is more than a threat to farmers, food security and your property!

The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2021 has very little to do with racial issues, it is largely about controlling farmers and land in a way that has never been done in history. “Sustainable” for the globalists is NOT sustainable for We The People, including our farmers.

Speakers will include Greg Kenney, President Rural Action Movement, Rod Culleton, Vice President Rural Action Movement and former Senator, Len Harris, former Senator, and Darren Dixon, Constitutional advisor, addressing matters at the Legislature level.

International singing star Kelly Newton-Wordsworth will open the assembly!

Please circulate the flyer below!

RAMRallyFinal (A4 pdf)

Posted by admin in Constitution, General

Official Notice to WA Department of Premier and Cabinet, Anthony De Paulo Buti on record

Live stream from 29th June 2023, Rod Culleton questions Department of Premier and Cabinet over validity of process, and thus law, Western Australia Constitution Act 1889, s2 Legislature, and Western Australia Interpretation Act 1984.

OFFICIAL NOTICE_WA_Parliament (pdf)

From the Notice:

Questions for Answer
1) In order to become binding law on the people of Western Australia, has the Aboriginal Culture Heritage Act 2021(ACT), fully satisfied the Democratic requirements to overcome the prohibition at ss 2(2)(3) Constitution Act 1889 (WA), in order to become valid law?

2) Notwithstanding the effects of COVID, what evidence can be provided by your department validating official notice of the proposed Act to each registered property owner listed on the Registry of Title at Landgate;

3) Will the proclamation of the Aboriginal Culture Heritage Act 2021 be in full compliant to s 5 Interpretation Act 1984 for Royal Assent, being the executive power of the United Kingdom?

4) How may this Act override the rights of a Bona Fide proprietor (Fee Simple) pursuant to s 63 Transfer Land Act 1889 (TLA)?

5) What evidence does the WA Government rely on in order to grant a right of claim” to any third party to trespass on the rights of a property owner protected by indefeasibility at law? And

6) How may the land of a bona Fide Proprietor be liable to a said Act that has not fulfilled the requirements of s 58 Transfer Land Act 1889 (including, but not limited to, ss20 to 62 TLA and s 37 (1) ((a) to (f)),(2) Interpretation Act 1984 ?

 

Western Australia Constitution Act 1889
Constitution Act 1889
(pdf)
https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_185_homepage.html (URL)

2. Legislature to be constituted in Western Australia
(1) There shall be, in place of the Legislative Council now subsisting, a Legislative Council and a Legislative Assembly:
and it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the said Council and Assembly, to make laws for the peace, order, and good Government of the Colony of Western Australia and its Dependencies: and such Council and Assembly shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have all the powers and functions of the now subsisting Legislative Council.
(2) The Parliament of Western Australia consists of the Queen and the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly.
(3) Every Bill, after its passage through the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly, shall, subject to section 73, be presented to the Governor for assent by or in the name of the Queen and shall be of no effect unless it has been duly assented to by or in the name of the Queen.

Western Australia Interpretation Act 1984, Part II, s5, Terms used in written laws.

Her Majesty, His Majesty, Queen, King, or Crown means the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, and Head of the Commonwealth and includes the predecessors and the heirs and successors of the Sovereign;”

 

Transfer of Land Act 1893 (current)
https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/law_a829_currencies.html
58. Instruments not effectual until registered
No instrument until registered in manner herein provided shall be effectual to pass any estate or interest in any land under the operation of this Act or to render such land liable to any mortgage or charge or to make any dealing in respect of Crown land effective, as the case requires; but upon such registration the estate or interest comprised in the instrument shall pass or as the case may be the land shall become liable in manner and subject to the covenants and conditions set forth and specified in the instrument or by this Act declared to be implied in instruments of a like nature, or the dealing in respect of Crown land is made effective, as the case required.
[Section 58 amended: No. 81 of 1996 s. 32; No. 31 of 1997 s. 97.]

62. Notice to be published before effect given to order
(1) Before making any such order the court or judge or Commissioner shall cause notice of the intention so to do to be advertised once at least in one newspaper published in the city of Perth or circulating in the neighbourhood of the land and shall appoint a time within which it shall be lawful for any person interested to show cause against such order being made.

 

Black’s Law Dictionary
Lawyer
A person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel, or solicitor. Any person who, for fee or reward, prosecutes or defends causes in courts of record or other judicial tribunals of the United States, or of any of the states, or whose business it is to give legal advice in relation to any cause or matter whatever.

Lawyer noun
One who is versed in the law, or is a practitioner of law; one whose profession is to prosecute or defend suits in courts, or advise clients as to their legal rights, and aid them in securing those rights. It is a general term, comprehending attorneys, counselors, solicitors, proctors, barristers, Serjeants, and advocates.

Posted by admin in Constitution

FOI – Head of Power

FOI23154 – FOI Decision Letter and Attachment A (complete letter)

Freedom of information request FOI23/154 – Decision letter
The purpose of this letter is to give you a decision about your request for access to documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) which you submitted to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PMC) and which was transferred under s 16 to the Attorney-General’s Department (the department).


Your request


You made an FOI request to PMC on 7 March 2023 in the following terms

I seek the law made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, binding on all the courts, judges and people of every State and every part of the Commonwealth for the valid creation of a title for the King to adopt in relation to Australia and its Territories.

I seek the document or instrument containing the enumerated head of power to create the Act known as the Royal Styles and Titles, made under the constitution, binding on all the courts, judges and people of every State and every part of the Commonwealth.

On 8 March 2023 the department accepted transfer of your request from PMC.

On 20 March 2023 the department acknowledged your request.

A decision for your request is due by 6 April 2023.


My decision


I am an officer authorised under section 23(1) of the FOI Act to make decisions in relation to freedom of information requests made to the department.

In making my decision, I have taken the following into account:

the terms of your request

advice provided to me by officers with responsibility for matters to which your request relates

the provisions of the FOI Act, and

the Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under section 93A of the FOI Act
(the Guidelines).

Section 24A of the FOI Act relevantly provides that an agency or Minister may refuse a request for access to a document if all reasonable steps have been taken to find the document and the agency is satisfied that the document:
is in the agency’s possession but cannot be found, or

does not exist.


When considering a decision to refuse access under section 24A of the FOI Act, the Guidelines relevantly
provide at paragraph 3.89 that an agency or minister should take comprehensive steps to locate documents, having regard to:

the subject matter of the documents

the current and past file management systems and the practice of destruction or removal of documents

the record management systems in place

the individuals within an agency or minister’s office who may be able to assist with the location of documents, and

the age of the documents.

To identify the documents for your request, I arranged for staff likely to be able to identify documents to undertake comprehensive searches of relevant departmental information holdings. In particular, a departmental staff member with responsibility for processing FOI requests interrogated the department’s records management system using search terms which were developed with reference to the information provided in the scope of your request. Despite these efforts, no relevant documents were identified.

Having regard to the above, I am satisfied that reasonable steps to locate the documents to which you have sought access were undertaken. I am also satisfied that the documents do not exist within the department’s records holdings. I have therefore decided to refuse access pursuant to section 24A of the FOI Act.

Posted by admin in Constitution
Australia – The Concealed Colony

Australia – The Concealed Colony

From live stream video 27th January 2023
From the book “Australia – The concealed colony”

A couple of pages Australia – The concealed colony (pdf)

Copy of Annexure 3 (perhaps send to your “representative”)
2 page letter Annexure 3 (pdf) 10.6.1999 by Robyn Webber, Director, Chamber Research Office, Parliament House, Canberra

Copy of Annexure 10
2 page letter Annexure 10 (pdf) by Adele Byrne, from the Office of the Australian Attorney General, ~ July 1997

Copy of Annexure 16
2 page letter Annexure16 (pdf) 6.7.1999 by Janet Power from the Office of the Australian Attorney General

This book has been hidden from the Australian people for many many years, now they have access to it once more.
From the book “The information in the book belongs to the Australian people”.
Copyright © 1999 Institute of Constitutional Education and Research PO Box 9112, Seaford Mail Delivery Centre, SEAFORD, VICTORIA AUSTRALIA 3198.

The full text of this book can be viewed here: https://archive.org/stream/AustraliaConcealedColony1/AustraliaConcealedColony1_djvu.txt

The COMPLETE book, scanned, saved as a pdf – FOR the People of Australia is available on the GAP Member pages.
Members are encouraged to share. Restricting it to the Members pages to limit the downloads!

**Rod will be sharing his letter he writes to the wo/man acting as a “public officer” to the Members area asap.

Posted by admin in Constitution

FOI requesting the instrument used to create the Federal Court of Australia refused

FOI requesting the instrument used to create the Federal Court of Australia refused

Former Senator of the 45th Parliament, Rod Culleton made a freedom of information request, requesting the instrument, or otherwise information, that demonstrates that the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 complied with section 58 of the Commonwealth Constitution, in becoming law:

  1. to establish the Federal Court of Australia;
  2. to establish the authority to issue writs in the name of the Federal Court of Australia, and
  3. to establish the role of the Chief Executive Officer for the Federal Court of Australia.

The officer authorised under section 23(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 replied that he was satisfied that reasonable steps to locate the documents were undertaken. He also added that the documents cannot be found or do not exist within the department’s records holdings, and therefore refused access pursuant to section 24A of the FOI Act 1982.

Mr. Culleton said that the AEC and the Australian Government Solicitors recently threatened legal action against the Great Australian Party in the Federal Court of Australia, a jurisdiction declared to have no prerogative and/or judicial power linked to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

Authorised by Ian Nelson for the Great Australian Party, 65 Cardinal Cct, Caboolture, 4510

Posted by GAP in Constitution
ADF decides not to overturn Port of Darwin China deal

ADF decides not to overturn Port of Darwin China deal

ADF decides not to overturn Port of Darwin China deal

Australia may NEVER get the Port of Darwin back from Beijing as bureaucrats find there is ‘no national security risk’ to the deal – despite China trying to tank the Aussie economy

Key facts:

  • Australian Defence Force (ADF) decides not to overturn controversial China port deal
  • Landbridge signed a $506million agreement to control the Port of Darwin
  • The 99-year lease has come under criticism as tensions dramatically sour
  • Relations between Canberra and Beijing have reached critical low point
  • ADF officials have deemed the port is not a ‘national security’ issue
  • Chinese companies control 2.4% of Commonwealth land

Bureaucrats in the Australian Defence Force have determined there is ‘no national security risk’ that would justify stripping a Chinese company of its 99-year lease to control the Port of Darwin – despite soaring hostilities between the Commonwealth and China.

Landbridge signed a controversial $506million agreement with the Northern Territory government back in 2015 to take control of the strategically important asset.

The surrender of a key port next to a major military base housing thousands of American marines caught then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull off guard and enraged US president Barack Obama whose administration said it was ‘blindsided’.

It has since come under intense scrutiny from military and economic analysts as diplomatic relations between Beijing and Canberra have dramatically soured.

Back in May, the Prime Minister quietly asked for an urgent review into the Chinese deal as national security experts warned it was a ‘strategic own goal’.

But Defence has now handed over their report to the National Security Committee of Cabinet finding that unpicking the agreement would not be wise.

Former Howard government minister and now chair of the international engagement committee of the Business Council of Australia, Warwick Smith, said the heads of Defence, Home Affairs, ASIO and ASIS, do not consider the Port of Darwin as a ‘high-priority issue’.

‘It was subject to Defence ­consideration at the time. They went through it in ­detail. They found a lease… It was a reasonably good return for what was a basically low level piece of port area,’ he told The Australian.

‘My view is that defence have probably come to the right conclusion. National security concerns have changed over the last five years, and I appreciate that. But there’s not a lot to be gained by picking apart a port lease like this when there are other ­investments taking place in our country.

‘It doesn’t gain on the security side. It unpicks a commercial ­arrangement that sends a negative signal. I don’t think it’s the wisest thing to do right now.’

At the time of the review, Michael Shoebridge, the director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s defence program said he wondered whether operating the port is in the ‘company’s commercial interests’ amid ‘the strategic environment they find themselves’.

‘I think it’s obvious that if the Darwin port lease was being considered today, the result would not be to lease it to a Chinese-owned company for 99 years,’ he told the Sydney Morning Herald.

‘It seems a strategic own goal for one of the best parts of Darwin Harbour to be in the control of a Chinese-owned operator.’

China is now the largest foreign owner of land in Australia with Chinese companies in control of 2.4 per cent of Commonwealth land, according to the 2020 Register of Foreign Ownership.

Posted by GAP in Constitution
Constitution series: Covering Clause 2

Constitution series: Covering Clause 2

Constitution series: Covering Clause 2

Covering Clause 2

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

NOTE: To point out a very interesting anomaly, it is alleged that the Parliament of the Commonwealth did not have authority or the power (ultra vires) to create the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973. Such an Act is inconsistent or incompatible with Covering Clause 2 of the Constitution Act and section 1 of the Commonwealth Constitution. No Parliament has any authority or the power to create any Law, Statute, Regulation or any other instrument of Law that is inconsistent or incompatible with the Constitution Act or section 1 of the Commonwealth Constitution which of course is part of the Constitution Act.

Royal Style and Titles Act 1973

WHEREAS, in accordance with the Royal Style and Tiles Act 1953, Her Majesty, by Proclamation dated 28th May, 1953, adopted, as the Royal Style and Titles to be used in relation to the Commonwealth of Australia and its Territories, the Style and Titles set forth in the Schedule to that Act:

AND WHEREAS the Government of Australia considers it desirable to propose to Her Majesty a change in the form of the Royal Style and Titles to be used in relation to Australia and its Territories:

NOTE: The words “Government of Australia” is inconsistent or incompatible with section 1 of the Commonwealth Constitution.

Section 1 Legislative power:

The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called “The Parliament”, or “The Parliament of the Commonwealth”.

Royal Style and Titles Act 1973.

AND WHEREAS the proposed new Style and Titles, being the Style and Titles set forth in the Schedule to this Act, retains the common element referred to in the preamble to the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953:

Royal Style and Titles Act 1953.

AND WHEREAS the Style and Titles appertaining to the Crown at the time of the enactment of the Statute of Westminster, 1931 had been declared by His then Majesty King George V. in a Proclamation in pursuance of the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927 of the United Kingdom, and were, in consequence of the establishment of the Republic of India, subsequently altered with the assent as well of the Parliaments of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:

Royal Style and Titles Act 1973

BE IT THEREFORE enacted by the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives of Australia, as follows:

1. This Act may be cited as the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973.

2.

(1) The assent of the Parliament is hereby given to the adoption by Her Majesty, for use in relation to Australia and its Territories, in lieu of the Style and Titles set forth in the Schedule to the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953, of the Style and Titles set forth in the Schedule to this Act.

(2) The Proclamation referred to in subsection (1) shall be published in the Gazette and shall have effect on the date upon which it is so published.

We need to keep in mind the words of Covering Clause 2

Covering Clause 2

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

Royal Style and Titles Act 1973

Schedule

Section 2

Royal Style and Titles

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.

In 1973 the Commonwealth Government created the Royal Style and Titles Act of 1973, which in turn creates the Queen of Australia.

Covering Clause 2

The Annotated Constitution written by Quick and Garran make the following comments; Page 320 and 323, (relevant part only).

HISTORICAL NOTE

The clause as originally drawn in the Sydney Convention, 1891 (which became the Constitution Act 1900), the words “in the sovereignty” was substituted for “Kings and Queens.” “This Act shall bind the Crown.”

The words “in the sovereignty” was substituted for “Kings and Queens.” point out the influence that Australia had in the creation of the Constitution Act.

The words “Sydney Convention of 1891” was one of the Constitutional Convention Debates and that the framers of the Commonwealth Constitution had all around the Country and used those Constitutional Convention Debates to formulate such Constitution.

The Annotated Constitution written by Quick and Garran make the following comments; Page 320 and 323, (relevant part only).

CROWN NOT BOUND UNLESS NAMED.

It is a recognized principle in the construction of Statute law that in any case where the Crown would be ousted of an existing right, it is not bound, affected, or reached unless named therein either expressly or by necessary implication.

The rights of the Crown are not barred by any Statute of Limitations, unless it is expressly named therein; and this rule extends to cases where the right of the Crown is merely nominal.

PREROGATIVES (Rights).

These are the residuary fractions and remnants of the sovereign power which, unimpaired by legislation and revolution, remain vested in the Crown. They are the products and survivals of the Common Law and are not the creatures of statutes. Statute law tends gradually to invade and diminish the domain of prerogative.

  1.  Section 1 of the Constitution, providing that the legislative power shall be vested in a Federal Parliament consisting of the Queen, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.
  2.  Section 59, restricting the period within which the Queen may disallow laws assented to by the Governor-General.
  3.  Section 62, creating an Executive Council to advise the Governor- General as the Queen’s Representative.
  4.  Section 74, limiting the right of appeal to the Queen in Council.

PREROGATIVES CONFIRMED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

Certain well-known and long-established powers of the Crown instead of being negatived are confirmed by the Constitution, such as:—

(1.) Section 5.—The Governor-General may convene, prorogue, and dissolve the Federal    Parliament. (The saga of Whitlam)

Prorogue.

  1. To postpone or defer.
  2. To discontinue a session of without dissolution.
  3. To suspend or discontinue a legislative session.

(2.) Section 62.—The Governor-General may choose and summon members of the Executive Council to advise him.

(3.) Section 64.—The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such Departments of State as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

(4.) Section 68.—The Governor-General shall be the Commander-in- Chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth.

No doubt, most or the whole, of these and other powers vested in the Governor-General will, in accordance with what have been elsewhere referred to as the “Understandings and Conventions of the Constitutions,” be exercised by the Queen’s Representative in a Constitutional manner, that is, on the advice of responsible Ministers.

Her Majesty’s Heirs and Successors.

The Annotated Constitution written by Quick and Garran make the following comments; Page 323 and 328, (relevant part only).

 

The Succession to the Crown was, after the revolution of 1688, settled by the Bill of Rights 1688.

Sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

SOVEREIGNTY

The relation of the Commonwealth to the Empire, and the relation of the Federal and State Governments of the Commonwealth to one another, can hardly be appreciated apart from a sound study of the principle of sovereignty.

Before attempting any definition of sovereignty, it is advisable to call attention to the necessity of avoiding confusion between four distinct uses of the word:—

  1. Legal sovereignty—as when we speak of the sovereignty of the British Parliament;
  2.  Political sovereignty—as when we speak of the sovereignty of the people;
  3.  Titular (supposed) sovereignty—as when we speak of the sovereignty of the Queen;
  4.  Delegated Sovereignty— as when we speak of the sovereignty of the British Parliaments delegated right of self-government on British colonies (Australia is one).
  1. LEGAL SOVEREIGNTY: Sovereignty, then, is an attribute, and the most essential attribute, of a State, that is, of an independent political community. It is defined as “original, absolute, unlimited, universal power over the individual subject and over all associations of subjects. The legal sovereign is that person, or determinate body of persons, which possesses, in a State, a power which in point of law is absolute and unlimited. Such a body is the British Parliament. Such a body are the electors of the Commonwealth of Australia again organized under the Constitutional. True political science seems to point to the conclusion that sovereignty is incapable of legal limitation, either from without or within. A sovereign body cannot be legally controlled by another body, for then that which controls would be sovereign.
  2. POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY: Political sovereignty has been incidentally defined in our discussion of legal sovereignty. As a legal conception, a sovereign is one whose commands, whether just or unjust, wise or unwise, the courts will enforce. With political sovereignty the courts have nothing to do. They cannot recognize the “general will” of the political sovereign, but only the manifestation of that will as declared by the legal sovereign. That body is politically sovereign or supreme in a State the will of which is ultimately obeyed by the citizens of the State. As a matter of law, some jurists (One who has thorough knowledge of the law; esp., a judge or an eminent legal scholar) have contended that the Queen is the supreme administrator and supreme legislator, acting by and with the advice of ministers in matters of administration, and by and with the advice and consent of Parliament in matters of legislation. For good or for evil, the movement in favour of the Referendum—which finds a place in this Constitution as a means for the alteration of the organic law tends in this direction.
  3. TITULAR (supposed) SOVEREIGNTY: This term is used to designate the king, or queen, of the United Kingdom; often also in the phrase ‘Our Sovereign Lord the King,’ or ‘Our Sovereign Lady the Queen,’ in Acts of Parliament and proclamations.
  4. DELEGATED SOVEREIGNTY: In all the constitutional Acts passed by the British Parliament conferring the right of self-government on British colonies, it is expressed or implied that the sovereignty is vested in the Queen. This form of expression is in accordance with traditional theory and usage and it has been continued as a matter of courtesy, notwithstanding (Despite) the fact that the form is at variance with the reality and the substance as elsewhere pointed out, the Queen shares with the Houses of the British Parliament in the sovereignty of the British Empire. Within the limits of their constitutional Acts and charters, such governors and parliaments may exercise all the ordinary authority of a sovereign, in the same way as the Queen in the British Parliament, subject only to the same moral checks and restraints. The constitutional Acts of the colonies of Great Britain are illustrations of this delegation of sovereign power. Most of these colonies possess Statutory Constitutions, conferring on their respective legislature, together with the Queen, represented by a governor, authority to legislate for the peace, order, and welfare of the people within their respective territories. The Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth is an even more notable instance of the same process. But colonies, dominions, or commonwealths, having such a system of government, substantially free and practically independent, are still subject to the original sovereign body, the Queen in the British Parliament. That power, though dormant, is not extinguished or abandoned by the delegation.

In Australia the people are sovereign over and above all parliaments, but not either the Queen or the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Authorised by Ian Nelson for the Great Australian Party, 65 Cardinal Cct, Caboolture, 4510

Posted by GAP in Constitution