For some, this is not important. “Why should I worry about that?” or perhaps they have deferred any double-checking to the organisation calling itself government. Is this the fox that guards the hen house scnario? Do most of the population take for granted that government is government and that there’s no possibility its been subverted?
If so, it would make a mockery of laws written on treason – they wouldn’t be needed? Section 24 the original Crimes Act 1914 on Treason reads:
Any person who within the Commonwealth or within any Territory
a) instigates any foreigner to make an armed invasion of the commonwealth or any part of the Kings dominions, or
b) assists by any means whatever any public enemy,
shall be guilty of an indictable offence and shall be liable to the punishment of death.
Would the establishment of a government that was not the one defined in the original constitution be considered as “assisting a public enemy”?
The Official Name of Government
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act of 1900 (UK) refers to Government as the “Government of the Commonwealth”
Today, all mail comes with the “Australian Government” letter head, no matter what department is concerned… who are they?
So which is it?… Do we go by the Constitution of 1900? … or do we presume that everything is OK?
Some questions to ask may be:
- What page of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) is the “Australian Government” defined – or even mentioned?
- Is the “Australian Government” one and the same as the Government of the Commonwealth as defined within the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia 1900 (UK)?
- If they are one and the same, what is the difficulty in referring to the Government of the Commonwealth… even occasionally?
- Is the Australian Government used in the context of the official name of government matching the spirit (or the vibe…?) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)?
Some will say that King George granted the Kangaroo and Emu as a Coat of Arms in 1908 and then a revised version in 1912 as shown on the website www.itsanhonour.gov.au. This is claimed by some as legitimate justification to seal Acts from Parliament… but is it? (Which Parliament?)
Bear in mind the following:
1. Acts from Parliament require Royal Assent before becoming ‘law’:
2. We are told there is a ‘separation of power’ whereby the Governor-General (or Governor in each state) acts as the monarch’s representative:
Which Seal Would The Monarch Use?
In 1913, Letters Patent constituting the Office of Governor of the State of Victoria and its Dependencies in the Commonwealth of Australia were proclaimed… under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom.
That’s one year AFTER King George granted the Coat of Arms (Kangaroo & Emu) to Australia…and five years after the first time.
Twelve years later in 1925, the Office of Governor of the State of Queensland and its Dependencies in the Commonwealth of Australia were proclaimed… AGAIN under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom.
So there’s two examples of the Great Seal of the United Kingdom being used after the grant of the Australian Coat of Arms. This would prompt questioning the use of each seal and how they apply.
It seems too easy to presume the Coat of Arms is officially sanctioned for sealing Acts that the monarch would, even if by his/her representative the Governor-General.
It is interesting to find six separate registered trademarks for “Australia” – each being a variant of the Coat of Arms.
Some have said that it makes sense to trademark the seal used by countries to ensure no one copies it or uses it maliciously. Two things contradict that point of view:
- The Great Seal of the United Kingdom does not appear to be registered with the US Patent & Trademark Office
- The Crimes Act 1914 provides for penalties for forging an official mark:
Surely breach of trademark is the realm of corporations – particularly when forging such marks is defined as a CRIME?
Next, the Coat of Arms is seen beside the “Australian Government” – just observe any ‘department’ to see for yourself. Perhaps these questions can be asked of any office using the trademarked Coat of Arms:
- Is the Australian Coat of Arms an official stamp or mark of the Department?
- Is the Department a department of the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia as defined within the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)?
Likely the first answer will be yes. If the second question can not be answered, in writing, where an individual takes responsibility for any confirmation of belonging to the Government of the Commonwealth, we have another Frequently Unanswered Question. Further, it might be taken to mean that if the department’s seal is the Australian Coat of Arms… yet they can’t confirm they are of the Government of the Commonwealth, that the Australian Coat of Arms is a corporate instrument.
See what happened when this question was asked of Australian Customs and Border Protection Services:
Note that even the request was twisted by ‘Customs’. The original request asked for:
Evidence that the Australian Customs & Border Protection Service is a department of the de jure Government of the Commonwealth of Australia (not the “Australian Government”)