13b – Australia Act 1986 – Invalid

Commonwealth of Australia Vs Australia Act 5


This entry was posted on June 4, 2018 by TrueBlue Observer

Commonwealth of Australia or not?

There is a lot of discussion about Australia’s status as a nation. According to the political parties the Australia Act severed Australia from government by the British Crown and established a separate and sovereign Australia.  But did it?

Commonwealth? Didn’t The Australia Act 1986 Sever That?

In 1986 the Parliament voted in The Australia Act 1986, which is the short title of each of a pair of separate but related pieces of legislation: one an Act of the Commonwealth (i.e. federal) Parliament of Australia, the other an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In Australia they are referred to, respectively, as the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK). These nearly identical Acts were passed by the two parliaments, because of uncertainty as to which of the two had the ultimate authority to do so. The Acts came into effect simultaneously.

They brought in this Act using Section 51 (xxxviii.) The exercise within the Commonwealth, at the request or with the concurrence of the Parliaments of all the States directly concerned, of any power which can at the establishment of this Constitution be exercised only by the Parliament of the United Kingdom or by the Federal Council of Australasia.

This mysterious power confers on the Commonwealth, in cooperation with the States, the power to do anything for Australia which only the United Kingdom could do at the time of federation.

Section 51 (xxxviii) actually reflects Australia’s colonial status in 1901, while lessening its effect by authorising Australians to do most things affecting Australia for themselves. However, this section is so ambiguous that both the British and Australian Parliaments were unsure who had the ultimate authority to change Australia’s legal status. That they acted without at least a referendum of We the People shows that they were acting unlawfully. Under Section 128, any change to the Constitution must be voted on by We the People voting in a referendum. The Australia Act sought to substantially change the status of our Constitution….in effect abrogating it in favour of a new Constitution written by the political parties colluding with each other.

They either ignored, or were not aware of Sections 61 to 68 of our Constitution.

The intent of The Australia Act (Cth and UK) was supposed to eliminate the remaining possibilities for the UK to legislate with effect in Australia, for the UK to be involved in Australian government, and for an appeal from any Australian court to a British court.

Section 61 to 68 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act UK 1900 and Section 61 to 68 of the Commonwealth Constitution 1900 establishes the Executive Government of the Commonwealth of Australia not of Australia. These Sections ensure that our status as the Commonwealth of Australia cannot be changed, as we are and always have been since Federation part of the British Parliament and the Queen (Monarch).

The Prime Minister is the Foreman of the Legislature, part of the Federal Government. This is merely a matter of tradition, as the Constitution does not mention a Prime Minister, or the powers that should limit one. The PM has         No Other Authority, Nor Any Say Between The People (Who Are The Commonwealth) and the Monarch.


The above pic = The true Commonwealth of Australia Coat of Arms

The Governor General is the Highest Authority in government acting on behalf of the Crown, along with the Executive, and the GG is the only Authority mentioned in the Constitution.  For the Queen to sign the Australia Act, is required to hold a referendum in England, and most probably the Empire, to get the permission of the Commonwealth to give away one of Her Realms, in this case the Continent of Australia.

That did not happen!

At the very least it would require permission from the House of Lords, the Keepers of Her Realms and then go to the British Parliament first.

Remember HM Queen Elizabeth II is only the Monarch of the Empire, not the owner. If the Australia Act got past those hurdles it would then have to go to The People of the Commonwealth of Australia by referendum. It did not!

That Referendum would have to come from The People to the Governor General for permission to remove the Constitution, but this cannot happen because the union between Great Britain and Australia is indisolvable. The first eight sections are an Act of the British Parliament and cannot be changed.

The People are the Commonwealth NOT the Government – The People are the States NOT the Government.

It is the Crown in Right of The Commonwealth, not the government.

The Crown is bound by the Constitution which is Quasi Sovereign and The Will of The People.

The Queen is the Monarch and is bound by the Constitution under the authority of the Crown – She is not the Crown.

Our Forefathers and the Framers of Our Constitution were too smart for the liars that have sat in Our Parliament since 1919 when PM Billy Hughes, an ALP man, tried to sever our Commonwealth Status and start us on the road to becoming a Republic by enrolling Australia as a Founding Member of the League of Nations – the forerunner to the United Nations.


politicians, left and right, and Shorten think they are going to get around Our Constitution to create a Republic. But no matter what they do they cannot get around the fact that it would require a Referendum throughout the British Empire to break it up, Not Just England. Not just Australia. And certainly not by a postal vote!


The Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 done by all States were void as the so-called Act needed 3 entrenched Referendums just to become an Act.

This proves that all State so-called Governors sold their souls to the Political Parties. This = TREASON

The three Entrenched Referendums are

No 1 We are a Constitutional Monarchy, The Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 was for a sovereign, independent federal nation. To become a sovereign independent nation we had to vote the Queen out of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. THERE WAS NO SUCH REFERENDUM.

No 2 Section 13 of the Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985.

13 Amendment of Constitution Act of Queensland

(1) The Constitution Act 1867-1978 of the State of Queensland is in this section referred to as the Principal Act.

The sections within this Section 13 are referendum entrenched

” Requirement For Referendum

Section 53. Certain measures to be supported by referendum.

(l) A Bill that expressly or impliedly provides for the abolition of or alteration in the office of Governor or that expressly or implied in any way affects any of the following sections of this Act

Namely: Sections 1, 2, 2A, 11A, 11B, 14 and this

Section 53: shall not be presented for assent by or in the name of the Queen unless it has first been approved by the electors in accordance with this section and a Bill so assented to consequent upon its presentation in contravention of this subsection shall be of no effect as an Act.

No 3 Section 14 of the Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985.

14 Amendment of Constitution Act of Western Australia

(1) The Constitution Act 1889 of the State of Western Australia is in this section referred to as the Principal Act.

Legislature as constituted by this Act empowered to alter any of its provisions

73  (2) A Bill that

(a) expressly or impliedly provides for the abolition of or alteration in the office of Governor; or

(e) expressly or impliedly in any way affects any of the following sections of this Act, namely sections 2, 3, 4, 50, 51, and 73, shall not be presented for assent by or in the name of the Queen unless

(f) the second and third readings of the Bill shall have been passed with the concurrence of an absolute majority of the whole number of the members for the time being of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly, respectively; and

(g) the Bill has also prior to such presentation been approved by the electors in accordance with this section, and a Bill assented to consequent upon its presentation in contravention of this subsection shall be of no effect as an Act.

The Australia (Request and Consent) Act 1985 Act No. 143 of 1985 was after The Australia Act 1986 No. 142, 1985

The Australia Act 1986 No. 142, 1985 was enacted to the Queen of Australia and under the Political Parties Definition of Australia, as registered with the Brigalow Corporation. The Queen of Australia is merely a name on the company registration. She is not a real person. Nor does she exist with a real crown. In fact, the Queen of Australia Crown (left) has dipped arches, whereas the Imperial Commonwealth Crown (right) has raised arches, as shown here:


The Australia Act 1986 UK was enacted under the Definition of The Commonwealth of Australia as established under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.


Political Parties their Religious mates, the Judiciary and their Professors or Law are GUILTY OF TREASON, TREACHERY, AND SABOTAGE of our once-great Commonwealth of Australia.


 Information supplied by Wayne Glew


2003 the Parliament removed the Crown and replaced it with State using the Acts Amendments and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act 2003 (WA) s Amendments about the Crown, (without referendum)
121. Bail Act 1982 amended
122. Children’s Court of Western Australia Act 1988 amended
123. The Criminal Code amended
124. Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1991 amended
125. District Court of Western Australia Act 1969 amended
126. Family Court Act 1997 amended
127. Juries Act 1957 amended
128. Justices Act 1902 amended
129. Local Courts Act 1904 amended
130. Supreme Court Act 1935 amended

Criminal Code Compilation Act 1913


See s37-39 on scans pictured.

They cannot repeal this Act as its created by UK. (See Attached)
UCC 1-30 all rights reserved without prejudice.
Hansard files
Extract from Hansard
[ASSEMBLY – Tuesday, 25 February 2003]
Ms Sue Walker; Mrs Cheryl Edwardes; Mr Jim McGinty

Extract from Hansard

[ASSEMBLY – Thursday, 4 December 2003]
Mr Jim McGinty

Extract from Hansard

[ASSEMBLY – Tuesday, 16 December 2003]
Speaker; Mr John Kobelke; Mr Max Trenorden; Mr Rob Johnson; Mr Phillip Pendal; Mr Colin Barnett; Dr Janet
Woollard; Mrs Cheryl Edwardes; Mr Jim McGinty; Mr John Bradshaw


5 replies – “Commonwealth of Australia Vs Australia Act”

  • Matt milini
    With or without referendum the treasonous maggots do what they want eg Australia Act, local gov act. These acts are repugnant to our Constitution thus making state constitutions, laws and courts invalid. Their foundation of lies and deception is crumbling. We the people will restore
  • Rob
    If this is true, how is it that not one (1) Judge or Barrister is screaming from the roof tops about this?  Surely, there is at least one (1) person from “legal world” who has a conscience about what you are saying?Well, in any event, from other items I’ve read and the various videos available, I do believe that there are behind the scenes players that pull the strings of certain politicians and those politicians will be looked after once (if it happens) a constitutional crisis comes along if the wool is pulled over our eyes (like the bandana wearing man who regularly writes about Australia “losing its connection to an antiquated non relevant family…”  See below
    • Mike Holt
      Some Judges, like Sir Harry Talbot Gibbs (deceased) have and are, but most are now “employed” by the treasonous and unlawful corporate governments and therefore they are paid in unlawful decimal currency. They are bound to The Firm and must act as servants of the The Firm, not for We the People.
  • Robert
    Why isn’t that traitor hawks arrested 4 treason and also his attorney general why isn’t the queen arresting him and the treasonous bastard politicians nowadays too the constitution is meant to b number 1 law how r they getting away with this treason
    Response to Rob June 29

    The Political Parties own the Justices of this High Court of Australia created by and for the Political Parties since 1979.

    The Political Parties owned private Justices are telling us

    Chief Justice French in his speech “The Judicial Function in an Age of Statutes  
    “As with the common law, there are statutes in which broad terms are used which are capable of application to a wide range of fact situations. Where that is so, it means that Parliament has left the courts to work out the appropriate application of the statute on a case-by-case basis. A new kind of common law evolves derived from many decisions applying the same broad statutory language.= TREASON

    High Court of Australia – Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Victoria [2002] HCA 27  (26 June 2002)


    CALLINAN JJ GLEESON CJ  statement of Viscount Haldane that “The root principle of the English law about jurisdiction is that the judges stand in the place of the Sovereign in whose name they administer justice, and that therefore whoever is served with the King’s writ, and can be compelled consequently to submit to the decree made, is a person over whom the Courts have jurisdiction”.

    Re Wakim [1999] HCA 27 (17 June 1999)
    KIRBY J. : “ A legislature cannot, by preambular assertions, recite itself into constitution power where none exists. ” = TREASON

    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. ”       DAWSON is telling us that this Australian Government and its Parliament of Australia is a TOTAL DICTATORSHIP. = TREASON

    Newcrest Mining (WA) Ltd v Commonwealth [1997] HCA 38 (14 August 1997)  KIRBY J. : “ One highly influential international statement on the understand of universal and fundamental rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That document is NOT a treaty to which Australia is a party. Indeed it is not a treaty at all. It is not part of Australia’s domestic law, still less of its Constitution.
    Australia is a party – Australia’s domestic law, its Constitution.= Australian Constitution. The word Australia is UNDER the Political Parties definition of Australia created by and for the Political Parties in 1973  = TREASON

    These so called judges are telling us that the Australian Government its Parliament of Australia, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) are NOT acting UNDER the Founding and Primary Law, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 as Proclaimed and Gazetted = TREASON

    The Political Parties removed the Common Law of England in 1988 = TREASON

    The Political Parties each under their own Party’s Constitution and policies are a TOTAL DICTATORSHIP = TREASON

    OUR “Common Law of England” is entrenched in Clause 5 of the Founding and Primary Law, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 as Proclaimed and Gazetted
    The Political Parties Australian Constitution doesn’t recognize the Preamble and the first six Clauses = NO people, NO God, NO Her Most Excellent Majesty, NO Crown of the United Kingdom, NO Short Title, NO Act to extend to the Queen’s successors, NO Proclamation of Commonwealth, NO Commencement of Act, NO Operation of the Constitution and laws, Changed Definitions = TREASON