Thursday, July 28, 2016

The Australian Census 2016 - What you really need to know?

Not many serf's would be aware of the (real) state of 'law' on an occupied land like Australia.

Why Occupied?

Because first and foremost the (British) occupiers of this continent have not negotiated a treaty, as opposed to the occupiers of New Zealand who have a treaty (irrespective of how dodgy - called the Treaty of Waitangi) with the native population.

Therefore, the people in Australian government to this day are in dishonour.

In law this continent is a penal colony of the British empire and is administered as such.

Therefore, there is no such stature as 'Freeman' on this continent. Never was and never will be.

So, fast forwarding the 'invasion' of 1788, subsequent lack of treaty, installation of Martial Law, to an alleged set of rules for the people of a government to follow.

A document was drafted for the formation of a government containing a set of rules that the people of a government must abide by.

This document is called the 'Australian Constitution', or in legal terms (a law is defined by an Act, in this case the long name being) An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia.  It's final draft was dated the 9th of July 1900, and (allegedly/officially) given Royal Assent on the 1st of January 1901, thereby making it officially 'law'.

You can download this document (approx 600KB) from the link below:

Also, there are some explanatory notes to this document called the 'Constitution', which were put into a book called THE ANNOTATED CONSTITUTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH (By John Quick and Robert Garran), or "Quick and Garran" for short. While this book is not 'law', it is however a document that explains the actions and intentions of the lawmakers of the day with regards to creating the Australian Constitution.

This book to date, has been referred to in 165 cases within the High Court of Australia.

We recommend the digital scan (approx 74.6MB) from the Toronto Library from the following link:

So what has this got to do with the Census you might say?


The Constitution stipulates that the Australian government be called the 'Commonwealth of Australia', containing the Coat of Arms as in the document.

The Constitution defines that all laws are to be made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

So let's go to 2016.

In your letter box you may have received a letter from a 'business' called the Australian Bureau of Statistics. 

You will note that the ABS is using the 'Kangaroo and Emu' Coat of Arms in their correspondence.

So let's dig a little deeper in to this shall we?

What you did not get told is that their ABN (Australian Business Number)is 26 331 428 522, and it's called the Bureau Of Statistics of Western Australia. See illustration below.

1). So why is a 'Commonwealth Government Entity' whose business location is allegedly in the ACT have a business name of Bureau Of Statistics Western Australia?

2). Is this business a real government entity, as per Australian Constitution?

3). Is this 'business' conducting business lawfully?

4). Are the entities Australian Government and Parliament of Australia lawful entities as defined by the Australian Constitution - since the High Court uses it?

5). Can the ABS 'force' you to fill in a piece of paper with your signature if you do not wish to do so?

6). What 'lawful' Act can they rely on for it to be mandatory for you to fill in this paperwork?

7). How can you trust a government that does not enact the will of the people?

8). How can you trust the people in government who are in dishonour?

9). How can you trust the administration with your private information, who have not negotiated a treaty with the Indigenous population?

10). What real guarantees do you have of your information being 'anonymous'?

11). What penalties are in force (read - laws in place) if your privacy is breached?

12). Does the machine called the 'government' really need this information from you, or do they just want to see if you do not lie (make false statements - as supported by your 'signature'), therefore making you 'criminally' liable ???

No comments: