05 Do States have Powers to make Councils Valid?
Do States have the legal power to allow Councils to operate as “independent Legislative Bodies”?
Incidentally, why can’t we stop the Japanese whalers ?
The rest of the world knows that “Australia” or “Commonwealth” means “Commonwealth of Australia” in a geographical sense. We are mushrooms or have our heads in the sand. Japan took a lot of our write ups into the International Court of Justice and so did East Timor.
So waddya mean, “in a geographical sense” … I hear ye cry … ?
Geography = The study of the physical features of a land.
Environment = the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates.
It’s meant to confuse.
When they illegally changed the Constitutional Definitions and called “Australia” or “Commonwealth”, means “Commonwealth of Australia” “in a geographical sense” If they called them Mickey Mouse, it would have been picked up. But by doing it this way, they kept the names which everybody knows and then using the common vernacular of words to keep everybody thinking that they mean our Parliament and Government and our “The Constitution”; “Australian Constitution”; “Commonwealth Constitution”; “Constitution of the Commonwealth”. ALL are outside the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 Proclaimed and Gazetted.
No one can change the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 Proclaimed and Gazetted unless its done under Section 128. (Referendum)
So from that time forward NO so called Commonwealth Law is valid. It was also enacted outside the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 … “BE IT THEREFORE enacted by the Queen, (Note: Most Excellent Majesty removed) the Senate and the House of Representatives of Australia, ….. ” (Australia in a geographical sense)
The Political Parties created their own “Australia” “Commonwealth” meaning “Commonwealth of Australia” outside the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 Proclaimed and Gazetted
Clause 6 Definitions
The Commonwealth shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act.
The States shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called “a State.” Original States shall mean such States as are parts of the Commonwealth at its establishment. Not (the “State” as per Big Brother)
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (The Lawful one)
Constitutional and Official Definitions
17. In any Act. unless the contrary intention appears
(a) “The commonwealth” shall mean the commonwealth of Australia:
(b) “Australia” includes the whole of the Commonwealth
Acts Interpretation Act of 1973 (The Corrupt one)
Constitutional and Official Definitions
4: (1) Section 17 of the Principal Act is amended—
(a) by omitting paragraphs (a) and (b) and substituting the following paragraph:-
“(a) ‘Australia’ or ‘the Commonwealth’ means the Commonwealth
of Australia and, when used in a geographical sense, does not include an external Territory;”
If you don’t believe, maybe you should read this:
Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) HCA 24 (12 September 1996)
DAWSON J. … It may be observed that a legislature wishing to enact a statute ordering that all blue-eyed babies be killed would hardly be perturbed by a principle of law which purported to deny it that power.
Now compare that to this – copied out of the South Australia legislation site ,,, their own site at
Legislative power of the State
The Parliament of South Australia is entitled to legislate on any matter for the peace, welfare and good government of the people of the State of South Australia.
There is no principle of separation of powers in the State constitution nor is the State’s legislative power subject to a requirement to preserve fundamental human rights. State legislation must be consistent with the Australia Act 1986 of the Commonwealth.
Can you believe it? Do they actually claim they are not required to preserve fundamental human rights. ?? … so they believe they can do what they like ?
The Australia Act 1986 is Australia in a “geographical sense” … that is fact. But that Act is nothing more than fantasy. It is NOT a Constitutional Act. It has never been approved via Referendum under Section 128.
So from that time forward, NO so-called Commonwealth Law is valid. QED