Over the past few years, some of you may have come across research, conversation and debate about the apparent re-branding of the Commonwealth of Australia to the simpler Australia, apparently in 1973.
The tenor is that Whitlam broke 'the law' in 1973 by changing the Commonwealth of Australia into Australia, and by changing the name of the country, the Commonwealth of Australia into Australia.
It is a lovely, affirming philosophy for some, but, similar to the accusations that Whitlam created the Queen of Australia in 1973, false.
So, now is the time to illustrate the intriguing tale of how a country changes its name.
On June 19, 1973, the Acts Interpretation Act 1973 was assented to by the Governor-General, Sir Paul Hasluck. Hasluck was a former Liberal parliamentarian who was appointed Governor-General in April 1969 by the soon to be concluded, McMahon Liberal government.
This act made two significant changes.
1. S.4 (1) amended the Acts Interpretation Act 1901-66 by deleting paragraphs (a) & (b) and replacing those paragraphs with "a
provision declaring that the term 'Australia' or the term 'The
Commonwealth' should mean the 'Commonwealth of Australia.'" 1.
Please note that this excerpt does not state that the Commonwealth of Australia means either 'Australia' or the 'Commonwealth'. That type of re-definition would be an attempt to alter the Constitution outside of the referendum process.
2. Additionally, S.4 (2) amended the definition of the term "The Gazette" whereby the 'Commonwealth of Australia Gazette' was changed to the 'Australian Government Gazette'.
Now. In the realm of jurisprudence, you may argue that the original grant of power given to parliament, by the English parliament, to make laws meant always using the referendum process, as opposed to their practice of making statutory law.
If this is the case, and parliament only held a remit to make law via the referendum process, then, every piece of statutory legislation is invalid.
If, however, if the Constitution does confer on parliament the ability to make statutory law, then all of the statutory changes are completely 100% valid.
The most compelling evidence that this is the correct interpretation of the two situations is that parliament has followed this statutory law creation process since 1901 with full knowledge of the English parliament and their subordinates, the English royal family.
The most compelling evidence that this is the correct interpretation of the two situations is that parliament has followed this statutory law creation process since 1901 with full knowledge of the English parliament and their subordinates, the English royal family.
It is reasonable to presume that if the franchise head office in England was not happy with the way one local franchise was creating its internal laws that it would intervene and change it.
It is worth noting, that these changes, at least officially, have nothing to do with incorporation or bankruptcy, if you take the evidence that exists from the time, namely, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates that tells us that;
"The Bill also contains provisions to give effect to the Government's intention to use, wherever possible, the term 'Australia' to signify the Australian nation. This involves adopting the name 'Australian Government Gazette' in place of the 'Commonwealth of Australia Gazette', the use of the imprint "Government Printer of Australia' instead of 'Commonwealth Government Printer' on official documents and the use of the term 'Australia' instead of 'Commonwealth' in legislation." 2.
"The Bill also contains provisions to give effect to the Government's intention to use, wherever possible, the term 'Australia' to signify the Australian nation. This involves adopting the name 'Australian Government Gazette' in place of the 'Commonwealth of Australia Gazette', the use of the imprint "Government Printer of Australia' instead of 'Commonwealth Government Printer' on official documents and the use of the term 'Australia' instead of 'Commonwealth' in legislation." 2.
There is no law or no logical reason for the Australian Government to change it's name in the aforementioned manner in order to incorporate or be taken over by America as a bankrupt entity.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Australian Law Journal - Volume 48, January 1974 p.2
2. Commonwealth Parliament Debates, 24th May, 1973, p.2642
Both images are taken from the Acts Interpretation Act 1973 and can be downloaded here; https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C1973A00079/Download
You are quite correct that the names don't indicate an incorporation or a bankruptcy. You are however, incorrect in stating that Whitlam was not involved, as Whitlam's documents released under the Freedom of Information act show many letters back and forth to England wherein he discussed the change of titles to the Queen of Australia with the Queen's secretary, and indicated also that he no longer liked to use the term Commonwealth of Australia. Both the name change and the title were in place by the 19th Oct 1973, when the Statute Law Revision Act shows around 200 acts were changed in 1 day - from the Cth of Aust - to Aust. I can send you a copy if you wish.
ReplyDeleteAre you also aware that under the term Australia, the Parliament cannot run court cases as the High Court have stated that title - while not illegal - has no law-making or judicial authority whatsoever?
You are missing the key element in this that was vital to the current situation. In the Constitution the people only vote for the Parliament in Ch I. The Australian Government is well documented as a body of the Executive at Ch II. There is absolutely no voting requirement in the Constitution wherein the people are supposed to vote for the Executive - which is not a law-making body, but only authorised to action the laws created by the Parliament, within constitutional constraints.
So voting for the Australian Government is not constitutional. The name change appears to have had the intent to mask the non-constitutional changes that have since occurred under the administrative system now operating in assumed authority. Whitlam may not have come up with the whole idea of the deception - but he certainly assisted in its implementation.
Are you also aware that when he took over with Barnard in the duumvirate for 5 days - Hasluck sat in as the third man of all executive meetings. That meant the 3 legs of the separation of powers were in the hands of 2 men - Whitlam as the PM and Attorney-general, Hasluck with the royal prerogative. Lots of work was done in those 5 days according to the released documents.