People of the Commonwealth

The People of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900

Justice M D Kirby stated in a 1997 oration:“Monarchical government tends to be strong and centralised – formerly in the person of the sovereign but now in whoever the Parliament elects to govern.”

In Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises P/L, Justice Lionel Murphy said:“The authority for the Australian Constitution then and now is its acceptance by the Australian people.”

Law schools well into the 60’s and later, taught that the historical origins of the Australian Constitution, and they alone, gave that document its legal authority.

Chief Justice Mason in the Aust Capital Television case observed:“The Australia Act 1986 (UK) marked the end of the legal sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament and recognised that ultimate sovereignty resided in the Aust people.”

Justice McHugh in McGinty v WA said:“The political and legal sovereignty of Aust now resides in the people of Australia.”

Justice Toohey in the Public Law Review 1993 stated:“Where the people of Australia, in adopting a Constitution, conferred power upon a Commonwealth Parliament, it is to be presumed that they did not intend that those grants of power extend to invasion of fundamental common law liberties.”

Justice Cooke in Fraser v State Service Commission said:“This is perhaps a reminder that it is arguable that some common law rights may go so deep that even Parliament cannot be accepted by the Court to have destroyed them.”

People, Person, Persons, Citizen, Individual
In the Commonwealth of Australia Act (UK) 1900, the word People is found 25 times; Person 24; Persons 6; Individual 0 times; Citizen in s44 only.

What do these words legally mean?
To determine that in Australian law we first go to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 , which is the "dictionary of meaning" for all words used in Australian legislation.
If the word is not found in there, then we take the meaning from a legal dictionary, in this case Blacks Law Dictionary #1 1891

People - (from Blacks): a state, as in the people of the state of the Commonwealth
Person - (from AIA 1901): includes a body corporate, office, commission, authority, committee, tribunal, board, institute, organization or other body however described.
(from Blacks): 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 "body politics."
Persons - (from AIA 1901): expressions used to denote persons generally (such as " person ", "party", "someone", "anyone", "no‑one", "one", "another" and "whoever"), include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual;
Citizen - (In English law from Blacks): An inhabitant of a city. The representative of a city, in parliament. When it is designed to designate an inhabitant of the country, or one amenable to the laws of the nation, “subject” is there employed.
Individual - (from AIA 1901): means a natural person.
(from Blacks): 'natural' is that which cannot be separated.

Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members. Ann Rand http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individualism.html

The legal meaning of People does not show in Aust legislation until the EPBC Act 1999 - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/epabca1999588/s528 Definitions that "environment" includes: (a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities

The word citizen is only used in the 1900 Constitution at s44, and appears to indicate that only a subject can hold office under this Constitution, being that a subject is an entity owing allegiance to that Crown and governed by its laws (common law), while a citizen does not, but owes allegiance to a foreign power (government).
Of course, where a foreign individual makes the choice to become a naturalized citizen under the 1900 Constitutional structure, they are then subject to the Crown and able to stand for office.

This was the focus of Sue v Hill & Anor 1999 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1999/30.html

So, a Person / Persons / People / Citizen are artificial words for an Entity.
An Individual is a natural, flesh and blood, thinking, feeling man or woman.

Now, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is an act OVER the entities of persons. You will find no reference to an individual, because an act cannot govern over an individual. And the act only refers to person / persons.
Therefore because our entity status, both singular and plural (person/s) was contained in the 1900 const, govt could not rule over that entity without permission, so they created a new entity for the new jurisdiction of environment - that being people.
It is our thought that all new restrictions are not over the person/s of the 1900 constitution, or over the individual (living, breathing) but over the people under the environmental jurisdiction.
In effect, you are being "protected" from yourself.
However, again, there was no agreement of the people to be re-created as another entity.

State of the Commonwealth
A state is not a physical land mass, but a political entity.
So, we have the state of the commonwealth, being the people.
The state of the Federal Parliament, being the Parliamentary structure as defined in the 1900 Constitution.
The state's of NSW, Vic, etc, being the Parliamentary structure governing the assets of that state on behalf of the owner of the land, Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and assigns.

Our Protection
As a subject of the Queen comes your ownership of land and your common law protection. Which defines what we know is our protection.)

Section 117 - as a subject of the Queen, and a resident of the state (of the Commonwealth), I shall not be subject in any other State (being NSW, VIC, etc) to any disability of discrimination which would not be equally applicable to me if I were a subject of the Queen in such other State.
WITHOUT
Section 128 - my agreement at referendum.

[Disability: The want of legal ability or capacity to exercise legal rights, either special or ordinary, or to do certain acts with proper legal effect, or to enjoy certain privileges or powers of free action. At the present day, disability is generally used to indicate an incapacity for the full enjoyment of ordinary legal rights.
Discrimination: to show a difference in treatment]

So, the States (NSW, etc) cannot make different laws in opposition or that remove my rights as a person of the Commonwealth (state) and a subject of the Crown, who holds my protection of ownership and personal rights.

Each State can make different parliamentary laws for the purpose of maintaining the assets of the Crown, but I am not an asset and that is their only Constitution 1900 area of jurisdiction.
So, as an individual I have the right to a religion of my choice, to thoughts, etc of my choice, because they are the only rights of pure and unconstricted ownership I can claim individually.

To participate in private ownership makes me a subject of the Crown and therefore subject to her protection under Common Law.

To my understanding, to be a member of the People of the Commonwealth, means I step into an entity role for the purpose of creating a stable community/society in which I can live peacefully as a subject of the Crown, and privately on my land or in my home as an individual.

However, we may interpret these words, our protection is in our agreement.

If we as an individual have not agreed, how then can we as an individual be enforced into a contract?

If we as a People have not agreed at Referendum, how then can the People be enforced into a contract?