Sunday 8th of March 9:12 AM
This was written in simple terms to explain how and why the Office of “Queen of Australia” cannot exist at law. In a 1988 Constitutional Commission report it was also confirmed the “Queen of Australia” was not for law making purposes. They had no lawful means of creating a new authority, so instead they ended up with a titular authority.
titular: adjective holding or constituting a purely formal position or title without any real authority.
It cannot be denied that almost every Member and Senator has committed an Act of treason by swearing and subscribing to an oath to serve the “Queen of Australia” foreign to the Commonwealth of Australia and its supreme law. To confirm this, the Cth Constitution 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.
It follows, that quite clearly this constitutes an act of treason against the sovereign people of the Commonwealth of Australia. The Oath appears as the schedule to the Cth Constitution Act and is outside of the actual Constitution (s1 to s128), and is beyond the reach of Section 128, and cannot be altered by any authority outside of the UK Parliament. The people only have the right to change Sections 1 to 128 of Clause 9 of the Act, with the Australian Government being left with no right to change anything whatsoever.
The “Queen of Australia” is purely titular. If such an Office exists at all, it does so without any lawful 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 by the English/UK Parliament, and not by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia or its de facto known as The Australian Parliament.
In 1973, Queen Elizabeth the Second amused Gough Whitlam by acknowledging the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973, which repealed the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1953, and created the statutory instrument “Queen of Australia”. Such an Office does not exist in UK law or more importantly, under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK).
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 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. Any law made under the Constitution cannot be given valid Royal Assent by a Governor-General (or Governor) appointed by and representing the de facto “Queen of Australia" period.
Even if it was possible to alter the Cth Constitution so that it recognises 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. But as already stated, clause 1 to 8 and the schedule itself, is simply beyond the people’s authority to change.
Attempts to "patch up the Constitutional mess" continued by the concealment of the truth from the people by passing the Australia Acts (Cth & UK) through both the UK Parliament and the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1985, to commence in 1986. Both of these Acts are an attempt to infringe the sovereignty of the People of the Commonwealth of Australia, but have no lawful or constitutional validity.
Some see the Australia Acts as a replacement constitution. This is simply false. The Australia Acts were a cover up for the mess Gough Whitlam had created in 1973, and the Queen only acknowledged the Australia Acts (UK & Cth) by signing the top of the front page.
What’s been done about the Australia Acts?
At the time of writing this article, former Senator Rodney Culleton’s advisors are in London challenging the Australia Acts validity in the High Court of Justice, where they finally won jurisdiction and successfully filed (CO/588/2020) on the 7th of February 2020.
After three (3) long years of searching tirelessly through UK Parliament Hansards of the debates on the Australia Acts, one of Culleton’s advisor finally got a break. Darren believes he was visited by the now deceased Lord Robert John Maxwell-Hyslop in spirit to give him what he was searching for - Jurisdiction in the UK Courts, and they got it.
As Darren Dickson puts it, “Lord Maxwell-Hyslop knew we were coming.” Hyslop didn't agree in the hansard debates on the Australia Act and is quoted in the UK Parliaments Hansard as saying:
“My appeal is for clear and competent drafting of Bills rather than such incompetence, which is only just legally complete, but is not what it could have been or should have been. That is the point I wish to place on record. If the Bill should be tested, as it could be in the British court, an Australian court or, in cases of conflict of jurisdiction, in any other court in the world, I would prefer to have a simple and what should be dignified measure stating clearly what it does instead of starting with avoidable ambiguities without explanation until clause 16. I think that the protest ought to be made even on this occasion, and I assure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that I shall continue to make such protests if he employs the same draftsmen."
Culleton and his advisors are currently awaiting a response from the defendants Kim Beazley, Governor for Western Australia, and John Quigley, Attorney-General for Western Australia.