Book ACJ   cover 2 001  Final Cover

My Books


Australia’s Constitutional Journey


10 thoughts on “Australia’s Constitutional Journey

  1. Australia’s Unanswered Philosophical Questions

    The basic problem with the 19th century British Act, which certain select Australians are still using as their Constitution, stems from the fact that fundamental philosophical questions have not been addressed. In fact, there does not seem to be any philosophical basis for the British Act and certainly nothing that is intended to relate to the people.
    The reason only a few “certain select people” use the British Act is because it has never ever been presented to any eligible voter in Australia for their acceptance or approval. That is an indisputable fact.
    These are some of the philosophical questions that need to be answered,

    “For whom is the Constitution written?”

    • Is it written for the Queen?
    Not really. She is just an inconsequential figurehead without any constitutional executive authority. She is useful to whatever Government is in power when they choose to enforce their particular policies by exerting the overriding authority of the “Crown”. One of these policies of the UK Parliament was to ensure that the Commonwealth of Australia would remain “an indissoluble Commonwealth under the Crown”. (As written in the opening paragraph of the British Act.) This was intended to ensure the people of Australia would always remain “subjects” of the monarchy and Australia would never become an independent nation.
    • Is it written for the colonial Parliaments?
    As all the initial meetings were initiated exclusively by the colonial parliamentarians and some senior colonial public servants in Australia, the creation of the Senate was seen as an assumed, but known deceitful way, to protect the interests of the colonial Governments against a centralise Federal Government. John Macrossan told the “convention” in 1891 that political parties would control the Senate and the interests of the colonies would be subverted to the interests of the parties. However, in this respect, it is probably correct to assume the Constitution was written for the benefit of the colonial governments, especially as they were the organisations that initiated the process.
    • Is it written for the politicians?
    Most definitely it was written for the benefit of the politicians because, apart from one banker, the other forty nine members of the final, closed shop “conventions” were made up of past or present members of the various houses of the colonial Parliaments. This assertion is proven in several ways, but probably the most obvious one is the provision in Section 50(i) of Clause 9 allowing the politicians to determine their own “powers, privileges and immunities.” That is akin to giving the inmates the keys to the asylum, and in terms of any democratic principles, it should be the very thing entirely in the hands of the people to determine.
    • Is it written for the lawyers?
    Although it was primarily written by lawyers, as the majority of the politicians at those final conventions were lawyers, but most importantly, Sir Samuel Griffiths, Australia’s first Chief Justice of the newly formed High Court, was the chairman of the drafting committee. Hence, the whole thrust of the draft document was written from the perspective of the legal profession, which implies that Clause 9 of the British Act should really only be read and understood by legally trained people. It is probably fair to assume the document wasn’t written for the direct benefit of the legal profession, as the author’s standing in the colonial societies related far more to their positions as politicians. Hence, the realistic and logical assumption is that the document was really aimed at preserving the political status quo of the founding members.
    • Or is it written for the people?
    With absolute certainty it can be said there was no intentional benefit for the people being in any way the driving force behind the creation of the British Act. This is demonstrated in a couple of obvious ways. The very first evidence is the lie contained in the first five words of the Act – “Whereas the people have agreed…” At no time in the history of Australia has the British Act ever been presented to one single eligible voter in Australia for their acceptance or approval. That is an absolutely indisputable fact. Secondly, the words “Whereas the people…” does not confirm any form of propriety ownership in the hands of the people. It simply says the people are given something, which without any proof whatsoever, they have agreed to accept without question.
    Those few opening words are totally different to the opening words of the United States Constitution, which commences with the statement “We, the people….” That opening statement clearly identifies “the people” as the proprietary owners of the document, even though that concept has later been corrupted by the politicians and the Courts.
    If anyone cares to research the archives of the “convention” documents they will find several references to the fact that various proposals were condemned as “ultra-democratic.” There is also the reference in the 1891 records where the idea of giving “the people”, meaning the few eligible male voters, a say, was quickly rejected on the basis of “caution and tact and being too risky” because of “the people’s” “lack of understanding of the issues involved.”
    Hence, it would be fair to say that “democracy,” and any democratic principles were never a motivating issue for the creation of the British Act.

    The answers to each of those questions above, also depend in some respects to the answer to the next unaddressed question,

    “What is the purpose for having a Constitution?”

    • In the case of Australia, the fundamental purpose for creating the 19th century British Act was to amalgamate the six, semi-autonomous colonies into a single enlarged colony of the UK to be called the Commonwealth of Australia.
    Although this action was supported by the UK Government the principle driving force behind its creation were some of the senior, Australian based, colonial politicians, and some senior public servants. Obviously, there were many colonial politicians against the concept of federation, as is proven by the ability of the “anti-Billites” to force quotas applying to the “yes” votes in the NSW, Victoria and Sth Australia referendums of 1888 and 1889. This opposition voice to Federation was totally excluded from the various “conventions held in 1887.
    It is interesting that when the first referendum in 1888 failed to achieve the quotas, the five Premiers from NSW, Queensland, Victoria, Sth Australia, and Tasmania, got together in January of 1899, and unilaterally amended the approved draft for Clause 9 of the British Act without any further recourse or reference to a subsequent convention.

    “Who were to be the beneficiaries of this action?”
    • From all accounts, the main beneficiaries were the Parliaments of the colonies in securing coordination in defence (the report from Maj Gen Sir Bevan Edwards that sparked the first attempt at coordination in 1889), coordination of customs and excise between the colonies, and later, a uniform railway system. Mostly, this was related to commercial activities.

    “In what way was the “Constitution” of benefit to the people?”
    • There certainly was no interest in developing any type of “Bill of Rights” in regard to the individual male citizens (women and aborigines were always mostly ignored, except in a few isolated occasions in WA and SA local elections) Some of the few concessions that were allowed the people were the opportunity for the eligible male voters to vote for the election of candidates for the Houses of the Federal Parliament.
    Initially, the qualifications for the few male voters was related to the qualifications applicable to the voters of the colonial legislatures. Some of those qualifications included multiple votes for the wealthier electors.
    There was a limited and restricted “right” to trial by jury, but only in respect to issues if the charge is indicted. (Section 80 of Clause 9 of the British Act) There was also the provision that there should be no religious test related to any position in the public office, “under the Commonwealth.” (Section 116 of Clause 9 of the British Act)
    Because of the lack of definitions in this British Act, many of the terms used are open to various forms of interpretation, as is the above one, “under the Commonwealth.” Although trial by jury (Section 80 if Clause 9 of the British Act) is restricted to indictment it can be argued that it must apply to both Federal law and State law, as the word “Commonwealth” is short for the “Commonwealth of Australia.” (Clause 6 of the British Act) Were the word “Parliament” to be used, then trial by jury would only refer to Federal law, and not State law.

    “What other purpose is there in having a Constitution?”
    • Generally speaking, a nation’s Constitution is also regarded as the nation’s Primary Law. This means that it is the basis for a society that accepts the concept of “rule of law.” That concept is said to be one of the foundation stones for a democratic system. Under a democratic system, the concept of rule of law can only be effectively applied if it is accepted by a significant majority of the people living in any given society. If the people are not given the opportunity to express their approval for accepting the concept of “rule of law” then the concept becomes an imposition. There is no evidence that the people were ever given that opportunity in Australia.
    The criteria for acceptance depends on two main factors. First, the people need to have a reasonable level of education so they can read and understand the way the laws are written. The second factor is that the laws must be written in a way that reasonably educated people can read and understand them without needing training in law. Such training is necessary to comprehend the jargon and whatever historical background might be related from precedents and tradition.
    If a law cannot be created as a stand-alone instruction, without any need to refer to any earlier laws or judgments, then it should be considered “bad” lawmaking.
    All laws are ultimately made to affect people in some way. All laws will always inhibit the freedom of individuals to do whatever they wish, but “good” lawmaking should attempt to minimise the encroachment of an individual’s freedom.

    “Should a Constitution have a Bill of Rights?’
    • The concept of individual freedom is largely conditioned by philosophical principles as to how people choose to relate to each other in a given society. For example, what do we mean by the term “human rights” when we know that the only “rights” that can exist are those that can be sustained?
    The concept of “rights” is an entirely human construct and has nothing natural about it. Every “right” conceived by us humans ALWAYS comes with a responsibility, and an obligation, to ensure that the “right” is applicable to everyone and is not used to discriminate.
    The most fundamental “right” everyone should have is the “right to life”. If that “right cannot be guaranteed and sustained, all other “rights” are pointless. Throughout history, the “right to life’ has been the single most abused “right” that has ever been conceived.
    It is essential that if the people choose to create a Bill of Rights, it is absolutely imperative that the “Bill” must be included as part of the nation’s Constitution. There should never be any provision for Parliament to amend the Bill of Rights except through a referendum of the people.
    No Bill of Rights should ever be created through legislation, as that automatically recognises the Government as the arbiter of what “rights” the people may, or may not have.
    It also means that any Government in power at any given time can cancel a “right” and manipulate the allocation of “rights” on a discriminatory basis. This would be a very valuable political bonus if it were to help a party’s electoral prospects.

    “Is a major purpose for creating a Constitution aimed at defining the way a society is structured and functions?”
    • It would seem axiomatic that whenever a group of people get together there will always be an agreed set of rules about how each individual should relate to other individuals in the community. Essentially, that set of rules forms the basis for a “Constitution”. However, the community needs to consider how they will address a situation if some of the members do not abide by the rules. This is a “management” issue and the people need to decide what they are going to do about that situation.
    • There would seem to be three basic options available. One option is to apply a democratic principle and allow everyone to participate in making a decision. That, of course, can be a complicated and time-consuming process before achieving a majority or unanimously agreed decision.
    Another option is let one member of the community make the decision on behalf of everyone else. This is the basis for a dictatorial system where one person is given, or through force, takes over the control of the community.
    The third option is to allow anarchy to rein free and accept the chaos that will follow when anyone can do whatever they like.
    • It is a fact of human nature that we are not all created the same. History has shown us that there will always people who aspire to lead others, and there are always people who are willing to be led as followers. There are always some people who choose independence and refuse to be either leaders or followers. Now, leaders basically have two choices in the way they can lead a society. They can do it by force and make the society bend to their will, or they can lead through cooperation with the people and support the overall improvement of the society. The first system is dictatorial and the second system is democratic. Fundamentally, these are the only two options there are to forming a Government. Of course, there are variations in the way these options are applied.
    • A dictatorial system can come in the form of monarchical system or an oligarchical system. Both are the same in that the rulers are found in an elite group, either based on inheritance or wealth and sometimes, both. There is a third type of dictatorial system that comes out of the “barrel of a gun,” or in the past, the “tip of a sword.”
    Similarly, with democratic systems, they come in several forms because there does not seem to be any one commonly accepted definition of what a “democracy” actually is, or how it should be applied.
    The generalisation of “For the people, by the people and of the people” is a rather subjective principle that is interpreted in many different ways. It does put people in the forefront of the system, but as we all know, human nature simply won’t allow all the people to speak with one unified voice.

  2. In answer to a questing asked in Quora, I offered the following:
    Which model is the best economic model?
    The best economic system is one that addresses the following parameters. To understand how a nation’s economy works, we need to understand four basic things. The first is the money supply, what is its purpose, how it is created, and who owns the authority to create money? The second thing is the measure of the nation’s population, whether it is growing or shrinking, the gender ratio, categorising it by age, and the geographical distribution. The third factor is the productive capacity of the nation, in terms of its ability to produce what is needed and wanted, both domestically and internationally. And finally, the consumption capacity of the nation.
    It should be patently obvious there is absolutely no point in producing anything if it is not going to be consumed. That represents a waste of time, of effort, of resources, and money, and not forgetting the unnecessary pollution that is a byproduct of all forms of production.
    It is also an apparently unknown, but surprisingly obvious fact, that production does not produce one single dollar of profit until that production is consumed. Consumption then is the critical factor of the capitalist system and can only be achieved if the customer has the necessary purchasing power. In the final analysis, it is ALWAYS the people who are the customer. All mass production is aimed at the people having sufficient purchasing power to consume the products produced. That is precisely why every policy of austerity will always achieve exactly the opposite result to its claimed intent.
    Hence, for a capitalist system to survive it is essential that the consumption side of the economic equation must be supported, especially when the thrust of progress is deliberately aimed at reducing the work force through automation and artificial intelligence.
    While the capitalist system has proven to be a very effective system in achieving quite spectacular productive effectiveness, it has only done so through the benefit of public support in providing the massive infrastructure planning and implementation of facilities. Not the least is the public support in providing purchasing power to the many “customers” who have been displaced from the workforce and are ill-equipped to fit into the capitalist agenda.
    What this means is that the only feasible and honest economic system for any nation is a mixed economy where the capitalist system is aligned with it social responsibilities to support the customer base for all the people needed to ensure the profit that is the measure of capitalism’s success.

  3. The following question was asked on the Quora website and I replied as follows

    How are the heads of the state and the head of the government elected in your country?

    The Australian Head of State is the British Monarch and that role is filled on a hereditary basis. There is no Head of Government written in the 19th century British Act to form the Commonwealth of Australia, which is the Act that the politicians and lawyers assume as Australia’s Constitution. The British Act has never been presented to one single voter in Australia for their approval or acceptance.

    The politicians and lawyers basically ignore the British Act in terms of the way the Government is described in Clause 9 of the Act. Instead, they use a modified version of the English Westminster system of Government. The British Act gives full and total dictatorial power to the Monarch’s appointed representative in Australia. The position is titled, Governor-General, and as happened in 1976, the then Governor General, Sir John Kerr, used Section 5 of Clause 9 of the Act to dismiss the House of Representatives, “by proclamation or otherwise”. The House of Representatives is the larger House of the Parliament and generally includes the majority political party that forms the elected Government. It is the Governor General who selects and appoints, according to the British Act, the Ministers to control the bureaucratic Departments that represent the Government.

    As there is no such body as a political party described in the British Act and no provision for a political party to form a Government, fundamentally, the way Australia is governed is unconstitutional. In practice, the majority political party in the House of Representatives choose one of their elected members to take up the unconstitutional and undefined position of Prime Minister. The PM is then considered to be the Head of Government, and according to the unwritten conventions of the Westminster system, is supposed to be superior to the Governor General. Sir John Kerr put paid to that myth when he decided to actually read the British Act, an exercise that, probably, not one elected Member of Parliament has ever bothered to do.

    Press ThisTwitterFacebookGoogle

  4. Book Offers
    APRIL 30, 2018
    The purpose of writing these three books is educational. The hope is to make people aware of the flaws and disregard associated with the 19th century British Act that is still, to this day, Australia’s Primary Law. The latest book is the culmination of an ongoing project started in 1998 and it offers a foundation for a modern political and governmental system that is less corruptible by money and one that makes our elected representatives more accountable to the people.

    This third book is the product of a great amount of research and acknowledgment of the political experience displayed by our politicians over the past century. The book presents a draft for a new and proper people’s Constitution for an independent Australia. A draft that takes in the flaws and discrepancies in the British Act and suggests some practical alternatives that will benefit the Australian people.

    Copies of these books are available in an eBook format or as a PDF version to anyone interested. Please contact the author at

  5. With respect to the upcoming ANZAC Day ceremonies, here is a speech that ought to be said, but will never be heard.
    The ANZAC Speech
    ‘It’s an Australian tradition that we’re told what to do, but not why we’re expected to do these things. Today, I want to ask why and how we might more honestly honour the ANZAC sacrifice. Have we ever questioned if their sacrifice was in vain or not? How can we tell?
    Is our token assembly today what they’d want? Or is there something else? Is there something they wanted so badly that they were prepared to die for it?
    Nobody is prepared to die just to be honoured in a yearly speechfest. If the ANZAC diggers died for something noble, what was it?
    One of the last of the remaining ANZACs from the Great War, Ted Smout, told us that war achieves nothing. It is waste on a grand scale. His efforts, and those of his fellow diggers, he said, served no purpose. They died for nothing.
    Our British masters regarded our troops as cannon fodder for the least winnable battles of that war. Our army suffered more deaths, and more hospitalisation for wounds, illness and injury than any of the armies of Britain, Germany, France, Canada, or the United States. More than half those Australian soldiers who survived were discharged medically unfit. Of those not discharged that way, sixty percent applied for pension help after their return. That means four out of five surviving servicemen were damaged or disabled in some way.
    Despite all of that, Britain didn’t want us at the table during the Versailles Peace Conference. In their eyes, we’d served our purpose and we could go home and be done with it. We were, after all, just a colony, not a nation in our own right.
    That’s why I put that question to every true Australian who cares about what befell these men, what did they die for?
    When a government they chose by their vote … sends off such a massive contingent of its finest sons … like Ted Smout … to a war in which they’ll find they died for nothing … his own words and his colleagues, not mine … they have grounds for a revolt at home—a revolution no less violent and bloody than the war these men were ordered to engage in without knowing why; without knowing the truth behind it, without knowing who planned it and why. Who are we to believe? The soldier who bore the dreadful cost of the butchery … or the butchers who directed it? Those who watched from a safe distance at home, gaining secret advantage from the misery and suffering of the combatants while denying them the independence and national sovereignty they’d won for all Australians?
    It’s too late to tell Ted Smout, and all of his comrades, they were wrong; that they did indeed die for something noble. That something was our Nationhood. Our independent nation status in the eyes of the world community. But it was a prize their masters at home didn’t care enough about to enshrine in our history. The acid test for us here today is this: are we willing to die for what they won for us by their sacrifice?
    The test of what we value isn’t conducted by merely gathering to say a few fine words then whooping it up.
    It was Montgomery who said the most able General of that war, was John Monash. Monash said of his men that they had the greatest spirit of all; a spirt that’s part of our Australian nature. It flowered again at Kokoda, where small forces defeated large out of sheer grit, determination, and spirit. Monash would beseech us not to stow that spirit away, but use it in the defence of Australia. We need it every day of our lives … fighting our own battles here at home. We need it more today than in that war. The dead we honour still want what their sacrifice achieved… but lost in the stillbirth of an independent Australian nation. Until we recognise that, there’s no point kidding ourselves we honour our war dead with empty rituals like this.
    At that infamous Peace Conference in Versailles, on the 28th of June, 1919, our Prime Minister, Billy Hughes, fought the British king and his Prime Minister, and won on the behalf of our war dead, independence and sovereignty for Australia as a nation. He fought for an end to the British Act that formed the Commonwealth of Australia as a colony of Great Britain. That, Ted Smout and your brave comrades, is something worth fighting for! On his return to Australia, Hughes’ efforts to make the necessary new Constitution for a free Australia were blocked in the Parliament. A Parliament led by that arch Anglophile, the Australian-born Viscount, Stanley Bruce, a man his critics said, was more English than the English. He replaced the brave Hughes as Prime Minister to lead the most treasonous federal government in our shameful history. Hughes was forced to withdraw the independence Bill from Parliament, thus condemning us to our servile status as a British colony. Hughes said: ‘our soldiers had earned that national status for us, and our parliamentarians threw it all away. They threw away the freedoms countries historically go to war to secure for themselves. Is that what we celebrate today—our failure to match the valour our war dead showed on the field of battle? Or is it to paper over the disgrace we bear in peacetime defeat? Looking down on us today, their hearts are filled with shame for us all. Why, they ask, did we choose to abandon our egalitarian values they lived and died for? Only then can we show them—not tell them, but show them, by proper action—that they didn’t die for nothing. We can remember our war dead by remembering the politicians who betrayed this nation in the decades after that Great War. All those politicians who revered their imperial Royal tyrants as their masters. The politicians who made us their obedient servants and willing victims. We can go on ignoring the century-old plight of those we say we honour today … or we can, at this eleventh hour, show moral and physical courage that has been sorely lacking in our leaders. Let us ask ourselves: are we, the people, up to it?
    That question, and our answer to it, is all this sacred day was ever about—all it can ever be about.

  6. Since the posts below, I have had two further books published that deal with Australia’s Constitutional position, The second book was the result of a request to explain the current British Act in a straight forward and clear manner, in the form of a series of lessons, originally for teaching at High School level.
    Eventually, those lessons were revised for the benefit of a wider audience and published in a book titled, “The Australian Constitution as it is Actually Written”.
    This second book resulted in a request to set out what I considered might be a reasonable draft of a Constitution that could serve as a foundation for constructive dialogue and the generation of ideas for improvement.
    That challenge has led to the publishing of this third book, “Where to, Australia?”
    This third book is relatively unique in the annuls of constitutional literature, as it develops a complete draft Constitution with the aim that it can be read and understood by any person with a reasonable level of education.
    No one needs a law degree to read and understand this Constitution. It is fundamentally the correlation of hundreds of submissions from ordinary people located all around Australia.
    This book comes in two parts. The first part is an explanation of the reasoning and purpose behind each Chapter of the draft Constitution. This first part is interspersed with typical colloquial dialogue between two people, questioning and clarifying various points raised in each Chapter, The second part of the book is the full draft Constitution, aimed as creating a starting point for open discussion and improvement. Hopefully, this might arrive at the point where the draft could become acceptable for presenting to the Australian people for their approval.
    Each of these books are available free in either eBook versions or as a PDF version.
    Anyone interested in obtaining copies can contact the author at


    Australia Day does commemorate the founding of the colony of Australia, which in truth, was based on the occupation by a foreign force. After the country was split up into several colonies, they eventually decided to come together as the Federated Colony of Australia under a UK law passed in Britain in 1900. This Act is divided into 9 parts in which one part is titled, the Constitution.
    As of 2012, the Colony of Australia still uses this Act of the British Parliament as their Constitution, which puts us in breach of the United Nations Charter Articles 2.1,2.4, 102 and 103, which prohibit an “independent” member from using the laws of any other member nation.
    So, in a strict legal sense, as long as Australia continues to use the law of a ‘foreign’ country as their Constitution; no matter what anyone may say, think or wish, Australia cannot be an independent, sovereign nation, but must remain a colony of Britain.
    The late Professor G. Clements, Eminent UK QC and emeritus Professor in Law at Cambridge University clearly understood the true legal position of the Australian Constitution when he remarked,
    ‘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 …’

    Graham Paterson Says:
    January 26, 2014
    It is totally untrue that the Australian Constitution is a democratic document as democracy wasn’t remotely part of the process. It was only through the persistence of Dr, John Quick that a few selected people, those with property, but certainly not any women, got to have a vote at all. Both the colonies of Queensland and Western Australia refused to allow a vote at the first referendum, but Queensland did take part in the second one after the first was defeated.
    In addition, those few selected voters, some who were entitled to multiple votes, were only asked if they wanted federation, the acceptance of the constitutional draft was assumed as very few people ever got to read the draft, or were allowed to comment on it.
    In fact, several proposals for involvement of the people got shot down in flames as being ultra- democratic.
    On the other hand, your statement about the Constitution being the most important document in everyone’s life is correct. It is a document designed and written by lawyers cum politicians, to perpetuate the Westminster system of the colonial era, where the government is the sole source of political power to make the laws that control the people.
    As for your comment about Referendums, there has only been 19 referendums in the past 100 years, and every one of them have been initiated by the Government – not one has been allowed to be initiated by the people, who rightfully, should be the “owners” of the Constitution. In the course of the 19 referendums, the government has tried to slip in an additional 25 amendments, often unrelated to the primary amendment, but the commonsense of the people has seen all but 8 of these 44 amendments for what they really are – a grab for more power by the Federal Government.
    Actually, it is quite a shame that we celebrate Australia Day as it really represents a land grab by the British to create a new colony. It would be an even greater travesty of the truth to celebrate a Constitution Day in honour of a purely colonial document that is still the law of a foreign country.
    What Australian’s must eventually do is for the people to write their own truly Australian Constitution and divorce ourselves from all political and legal ties to the UK. Only then can we claim to be a truly sovereign and independent nation.

  8. The Australian Constitution is a farce!
    It is supposed to be the primary law of the colony, or Dominion, as the Brits decided to rename us. Whatever Australia is, one thing it is not – and that is a sovereign and Independent nation.
    We are all “doms” in the KingDOM of Britain – all subservient subjects of the British Crown, and if that isn’t enough, our politicians, and the High Court of Australia, have been trying to hide the true status of Australia for the past 90 years.
    They have been passing laws since 1942 trying to make Australia look Independent. That was the Westminster Act, but when that didn’t work, they tried the Australia Act in 1986.
    Neither of these Acts are legal because, both Acts significantly change the pseudo Constitution, and both Acts had to be approved through a Referendum before they could become legitimate. Of course, that was never done, because the politicians knew neither Act would survive, hence both Acts are ultra vires – or of no account.
    When I speak of the “pseudo” Constitution, which is currently in use in Australia, it is not the draft Constitution that was put to the few selected people in 1899 and passed at the referendum. Britain demanded, and obtained, some 70 amendments to the draft before they would put it to the British Parliament. This amended Constitution was never resubmitted to the eligible voters in Australia before it was passed in the British Parliament and subsequently proclaimed in Australia on the 9th July 1900.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s