how to develop your own website


Valid Government Does Not Exist In Australia!


A brief background paper by Former Solicitor Wayne Levick BA LL.B outlining the serious defects in Australia's governmental and judicial system prepared for the information of Parliamentary Members and others.

To learn that to become a Member of the House of Representatives or the Australian Senate is, in fact, 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.

PLEASE do not do that!

The fundamental facts which give rise to the accuracy of this statement are indeed very 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"

1) 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 Constitution was, is, and remains conditional upon the first 8 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.

The Australian people do not have ultimate control over the Australian Constitution. (Confirmation: In mid July 1995 the Lord Chancellor, 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."

2) Australia is an Independent sovereign nation.

As the result of Australia's World War I contribution the United Kingdom granted Australia Independence. The instrument through which this was achieved was the Treaty of Versailles. The ratification of this action was finalised in the Senate on October 1st 1919. Australia immediately became a Member State of the League of Nations and the International Labour Organisation.

Membership of these organisations is only available to Sovereign nation states.

(Confirmation: 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. Citing, in the process, the 1917 Imperial War Conference resolution, the 1919 Peace Conference and confirmations arising during the 1923 Imperial Conference.

The report states at Chapter 4 paragraph 13:

"Australia became an independent member of the League of Nations and the International Labour Organisation in 1919 ..."

and at 4.14:

"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 pp. 48, 49, paras 4.12, 4.13, 4.15; ISBN 0 642 24418 9).

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/pre1996/treaty/report/c04

Or the PDF Version:

Chapter 4 – Parliament of Australia

3) 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. From that moment the laws of their former colonial master becomes ultra vires. For it to be otherwise is to offend the first principle of international law--The right to self-determination!

From October 1st 1919 'An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia' became ultra vires with regard to Australia. Its continued use by minority interest groups - political parties - to claim the power to establish a parliament to govern over the Commonwealth of Australia, that is, the Australian people, 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.

4) 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, 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!

5) Every Member and Senator has willingly 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 the 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. But because the Monarch is subordinate to the UK legislature (ie "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).

6) Extra note of explanation: The "Queen of Australia" is purely titular.

If indeed such an Office exists at all it does so without legal authority. The Office; "Queen of the United Kingdom" is subordinate to the United Kingdom Parliament.

Since the Bill of Rights 1688 and 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 "Statute 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. (Confirmation: the content of the above Acts and the Queen's own website).

In 1973 in her private life as Mrs Elizabeth Guelph (for she had no authority from 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 1953 Royal Styles and Titles Act and 'created' the "Queen of Australia". Such an Office does not exist in UK law.
And, 'An Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia' is UK law.

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.
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 appointed by and representing a purely titular"Queen of Australia".

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.

7) Recent confirmations establishes 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.
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 50 years Australia has been an independent sovereign nation State.

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 50 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 people of Australia overwhelmingly rejected the 'Preamble to the Constitution' question which included,

"We the Australian people commit ourselves to this Constitution"

Thus the question must now be asked; how can the present parliament 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 of 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 in the world (outside of the United Kingdom Parliament).

Effectively this results in a legal limbo any in dependent observer would conclude is bizarre. In short, the Australian Parliament is not a valid organ representing the Sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia and can not pass any laws which can have valid application within Australia, or anywhere else for that matter.

Clearly the Commonwealth Government of Australia is invalid. And as a consequence no law made in the Australian Parliament has valid application in Australia, or anywhere else for that matter. The only law that can be validly applied in Australia is international law.

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.

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 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 Courts at all levels. But judges have studiously refrained from confronting the associated conclusions.

Having exhausted all possible avenues for domestic remedy and recognising 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.

Make no mistake - Australia is in the midst of a revolution.

The Institute of Constitutional Research and Education and its associated connections across Australia as well as its friends within academic and political institutions across the world are working tirelessly in an attempt to ensure that the necessary objectives are achieved peacefully and legally through diplomatic and political means.

ICE&R does not indulge in the area of legal opinion or jurisprudential theory. In all of its representations and presentations the Institute relies entirely on the original documents of history or at the least certified copies of original documents.

Nevertheless elements exist within the Australian community which are less patient There have been many confirmed incidents of informed individuals resorting to force after referring to Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. Invariably such incidents involve citizens who have been unduly and persistently imposed upon by bureaucrats and lesser individuals wielding power that it is known they do not legitimately possess.

Our country is currently in the process of being 'remade'. Perhaps you, the reader, are in a position to lend assistance to this process.

At the very least, wisdom dictates that you insist that senior members of the Government, the Opposition, and your local Federal Member reveal to you the true state of affairs so that you may protect your interests.

© Copyright 2022 Basic Fraud - All Rights Reserved