The Changing Of The Guard

As well as the idea that the Constitution wasn’t set up for the flesh and blood man, I’ve been under the impression that the country Australia was actually a corporation. So when I researched the Acts database for the blog I wrote about the Constitution I was wondering what else I might find.

One of the databases I was using to research was Austlii Database. I have been aware of this database for a number of years now and one of the things that has been annoying was the fact that the Acts between 1951 and 1972 have been missing. So what I did was contact the people who update this database (it is a voluntary organisation) and ask them why this was the case. This was the reply I got:

The colonial history project grant funded the recent scanning, OCRing and creation of the 1901-1950 Acts.

We received a dump from the Attorney-General’s old SCALEplus online database which started in 1973.

We have the raw data available for the 1951-1972 Acts as of a week or so ago, but have yet to find the time to create the files for the database. Hopefully, we’ll get them added within the next few weeks.

Ask and ye shall receive. 🙂

It is interesting to note that one of the things that Heather Tucci-Jarraf continues to say is that absolute data will begin to come out under complete transparency. So what did this new upload of these Acts show.

After checking a couple of Acts in the 50s and 60s I then had a look at 1972, and finally to the last Act in 1972 this is what I found.

Repatriation (Torres Strait Islanders) Act 1972 (NO. 139, 1972)
[Assented to 2 November 1972]
B E it enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows:-

Now compare this to the first Act passed in 1973.

Social Services Act 1973 (NO. 1, 1973)
[Assented to 16 March 1973]
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives of Australia, as follows:—

So what was originally written in the Constitution, ‘the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty’ has now been converted to ‘the Queen’. Which is interesting as I recall from a few years ago someone telling me how in their research, what we know as ‘the Queen’ is actually the Prime Minister. (I don’t have links to the evidence at the moment). Further what was formally know as ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ is now known as ‘Australia’. So what does this mean? Is Australia a country, a corporation, what is it?

Interesting to say the least. I wonder what else will show up.

Who is the Australian Constitution for?

I have always thought that the Constitution was a document created for the people, that is the flesh and blood man and woman. But now I am not so sure.

In the document (a scanned copied of which can be found here) there is reference to person, persons and people. I don’t want to go too deep as to when each is or isn’t used, what I‘m more interested in is the definition that they use. The reason being is that in all my research over the years, the term person seems to be what has caused the greatest amount of discussion and confusion. So if you look in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, which was the second bill to be passed once the Commonwealth of Australia was formed, it states the following:

22. In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears-
(a) “Person” and “party” shall include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual:

Ok so I thought, as this is a legal document, why don’t I take a look at a legal dictionary that would have been used around the time of the Constitution’s creation. The reason being, I have known for a number of years that any legal document gets created using terms whose meanings are often arse backwards to what we usually use in day to day conversations. So I looked up the word person from Black’s Law Dictionary 1st Edition, published in 1891. In there it states the following:

Persons are divided by law into natural and artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us; artificial are such as are created and devised by human laws, for the purposes of society and government, which are called “corporations” or “bodies politic”.

So I think to myself, ok, they are saying in the Constitution the definition for a person is a “body politic or corporation” which as we can see from Black’s Law is in reference to an artificial person and not the flesh and blood man/woman. Ok, so what about the word individual? I couldn’t find a definition in the 1st edition so I looked under the Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition (published 1910) and this is what it says:

As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class , and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons.

Ok, so an individual could be a natural person by this definition. But I’d like to look into the last part in a bit more detail as I’ve learnt from experience that these cunning buggers aren’t into the kind of absolute honesty and truth as espoused by The One People.

So lets just look at the last part may, in proper cases, include artificial persons and see what Black’s Law has to say about these words. The term may in Black’s 1st states:

“MAY”, in the construction of public statutes, is to be construed “must” in all cases where the legislature mean to impose a positive and absolute duty, and not merely to give discretionary power.

So we see in legal land it doesn’t mean a possibility, which is what tells me.

That which is fit, suitable, adapted, and correct.
Peculiar; naturally or essentially belonging to a person or thing

A general term for an action, cause, suit or controversy, at law or in equity.

Embraced; comprehended; comprehending the stated limits or extremes. Opposed to “exclusive”.

And incidently, there is a Maxim of Law which states:

Inclusio unius est exclusion alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.

Finally, for completeness, here is the definition for artificial person:

Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons.

So the upshot of all this is that it would appear that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act has nothing to do with the flesh and blood man and woman, but instead was created for the benefit of artificial persons.

Is this a good or bad thing? I’ll leave the reader to decide for themselves.


All documents used have been for private non-commercial use only.