Sweaty Betty: the Queen of Australia

Has Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland broken Her own law, European law and International law?
Who is advising this woman?


How much do you know about Australia’s constitutional/political system:
Past & Present? Try this simple TRUE / FALSE TEST.

1. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 is United Kingdom legislation. TRUE / FALSE?

2. Under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 sovereignty rests with the Queen and not with the Australian people. TRUE / FALSE?

3. That Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is appointed to Her position as Queen by the U.K. Parliament. TRUE /FALSE?

4. That the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 describes the Commonwealth of Australia as a colony. TRUE / FALSE?

5. That under ‘Australia’s’ Constitution all Australian politicians, judges, lawyers and many others must swear allegiance to a Sovereignty that has not existed for more than 80 years. TRUE / FALSE?

6. That the ‘Australian’ Constitution – being a colonial Act of the U.K. Parliament – does not contain any elements of civil rights (such as; the right to private property, freedom of expression and freedom of movement, etc). TRUE / FALSE?

7. That under the ‘Australian’ Constitution the unelected Governor-General is commander in chief of the Australian military forces and that he holds this position because he is the Queen’s representative. TRUE/ FALSE?

8. That Australia is the only O.E.C.D. nation not to have an enforceable Bill of Rights. TRUE / FALSE?

9. In the years 1973, 1983, 1985 and 1986 the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia consistently rejected Bills of Rights for the Australian people and consequently have denied Australian citizens even the fundamental human rights enshrined in the U.N.’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966; although the Australian government was a signatory to that Covenant. TRUE / FALSE?

10. That unenacted British law (common law) continues to be applied in Australian courts even though those to whom it is applied are denied all entitlements under British law (and this situation can apply to tourists to Australia). TRUE / FALSE?

11. That under section the Commonwealth Crimes Act, 1914 (Cth) Australians raising the above issues could conceivable be found guilty of treason and executed. If not, then why is this still law in Australia?

If you answered 100% TRUE to each and every question not only are you 100% correct, you are also not an Australian politician, judge, lawyer or academic. CONGRATULATIONS !!

(For an in depth analysis of Australian political philosophy and practice refer to Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll).

Yes, that’s right – The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, 1900 is legislation of the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster being enacted into law on the 9th of July, 1900 to come into effect on the 1st of January, 1901. Which of course, it did.

Under that Act – being an Act of the U.K. Parliament – sovereignty rests with their Queen. The Oath of Allegiance which still must be used by all of Australia’s politicians, judges, public servants and others is contained in a Schedule to the Act and reads, "I, A.B do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. SO HELP ME GOD!"

Largely unrecognized by most people, because its not something that grabs the attention, the Monarchs of the United Kingdom have been Statutory Monarchies since the Act of Settlement, 1701 (U.K.) That is, the Kings and Queens of the U.K. have been appointed for 306 years by an Act of the Westminster Parliament. The oath of allegiance quoted above makes this crystal clear: "…Her heirs and successors according to law," and, what’s more, the law that decides Queen Elizabeth’s heirs and successors is not Australian law, its purely U.K. law and always was!

This hardly noticed fact has some interesting consequences .It means that the U.K. Parliament is the supreme authority in the U.K. – with or without a monarch, after all they appoint them! It means that currently a monarch of the U.K. cannot be a Roman Catholic and remain as the monarch.( see the Act of Settlement 1701). Parliamentary Oaths Bill) Essentially and literally, the U.K. Parliament is the supreme Authority within Australia’s political system and has been since Captain James Cook landed at Botany Bay on the east coast of the Australian continent in 1770. The chain of command runs like this: U.K. Parliament> the Monarch> the Australian Governor-General> the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia (from which is selected a government).

As an extreme example, but one that proves the point: if the U.K. decided to become a republic where would that leave the so-called independent nation of Australia? The Australian political, judicial and public service systems cannot operate without a Monarch who is appointed by the U.K. Parliament!!

Also and unrecognized by the Australian public at large, ‘their’ constitution works simply because it is no longer adhered to. Take, for example, the powers of the Queen’s representative, the Governor-General. This individual can act under the ‘Australian’ Constitution like a dictator! The fact that since 1901 he (and it has always been a he) has not done so is beside the point. The dismissal of the popularly elected Labor Party federal government in 1975 by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr demonstrated to all who cared to see that in the late twentieth century the non-elected Queen’s man was still a force to be reckoned with in the free democracy of backward looking Australia.

Moreover (and here the situation becomes truly laughable) the ‘Australian" Constitution – being trapped in a time-warp at the end of the 19th century - only recognises the Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which is a political entity that has not existed since the ratification of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1922!

So, what are the practical, down to earth consequences of all this?
First, that the Australian people have been denied their freedom, independency and sovereignty since at least 1945, when Australia became a member of United Nations. That the Australian people have been denied an effective say as to how they run their country and hence their own lives! Second, that the obligations contained in all of the international treaties to which Australia – through its governments - is a signatory may be unenforceable. This could have very wide implications. Third, of debatable importance but of definite interest, will be how Australia’s politicians, judges and lawyers try to justify themselves. They can either admit that they knew the truth and therefore that they were parasites of the system, or they can admit their ignorance and thereby the fact that they were negligent by not understanding the very basis of the profession from which they have all happily gained so much. It will be an excruciation choice but one made all the more so for Australia’s highest Judges – the various Chief Justices – by the fact that important documents explaining the situation in detail were delivered to them by courier as long ago as 1999

So why was this action taken? The truth, in part, can be found in the fact that very few were particularly interested and those with vested interests, definitely not. The Australian people were hoodwinked and with the exception of those who did well from the established status quo, all Australians knew there was a problem but few recognized the cause.

But surely Australia’s politicians knew that the political system, which had given them so much, was flawed? Unfortunately, the majority did not! A politician needs no formal qualifications to attain high office and history shows that the average Australian politician is below average! Moreover, any new idea, much less any new critical idea based on history, law and exhaustive research, must begin as a minority opinion and there are no vote-winners in minority opinions. Why rock the boat, particularly when you have a first-class cabin (albeit on the Titanic)?

Some may wonder why the media never ‘picked up’ on the story before, but the answers are obvious. In Australia the media is interested in sensationalism and sport. Sensationalism sells and sport is one of Australia’s few fields of successful endeavour. If the international media was at any time interested – and for the most part it was not – their investigative journalism skills vanished after any of their initial suspicions were refuted by the Australian government’s own Department of Foreign Affairs. One telephone call was all it took, for modern investigative journalism always takes the line of least persistence!

In short, the rest of the world was preoccupied. Moreover, the parasitic existence of the United Nations as a self-congratulatory organization for those involved in its self-perpetuating, busy-body activities can be all too clearly seen by anyone who wishes to take even a cursory look! That august body never raised a finger to even try to prevent one of its founding members from continuing to breach its own Charter (in particular Articles 2, 4, 6, 102 and 103, all of which guarantee the right of self-determination!). Most of those now making the loudest and most sincere bleating were formerly lead-sheep in an infrastructure that allowed and fostered Australia’s political system and they all did very well, indeed.

The machinations of the United Kingdom’s power-brokers were largely motivated by a polished reticence to relinquish the trappings of empire. By applying their legislative power to lands no longer under the sovereign authority of the U.K. parliament and in jurisdictions no longer dependencies of the U.K., the very best that can be said is that Queen Elizabeth II was misled and the laws of Her own kingdom subverted.

The lack of any effective action by ‘those in the know’ to redress the problem – both in the U.K. and Australia – and despite numerous opportunities to do so, is proof of many things, not least being that corruption gives power and absolute corruption gives absolute power. The United Kingdom’s courts failed to do the right thing – with Justice Lightman admitting that the Australian Prime Minister, John Winston Howard flew to London and put pressure on him!!

With the problem ready to replicate itself in Canada and New Zealand and the possibility and consequences of such action spreading, perhaps we should all wish the British people the best of their own luck! They may yet need it, because even if the U.K. government has a brilliant ‘Spin-Doctor’ the world can be a very lonely – if more democratic – place.
Ignorance of the law is no defence; all the more so if you were instrumental in putting that law in place!

So why not visit Australia – a land lost in time? Simply ‘put a shrimp on the barbie’ and settle back and watch the nation struggle to reclaim its 19th century colonial past as it struggles into the 21st century backwards.

Never happy with its advance from being a child of Britain to a sovereign adult nation, Australia may yet declare its adolescent longings to the world: almost free, semi-independent, burdened by responsibility, awkwardly immature and not quite certain why it feels so proud of its ‘hand-me-down’ Constitution, borrowed legal system and second-hand politics.
Believe it, or not!




e-mail:: alberthfish@yahoo.co.uk

add a comment on this article