Response to Tim Dwyers Letter Template

The Adelaide Freedom Rally was recently (30/03/2023) provided a Letter Template from local personality Tim Dwyer.
I would describe Tim as quite sincere, who attended our ALOR Seminar last July, in which Professor Augusto Zimmermen and Sydney Solicitor Robert Balzola were the main speakers. I encouraged Tim to probe deeply the views of these legal minds who hold standing in a University and several Supreme Courts around Australia. The recordings of these papers are on our Rumble video channel for those interested for the Sunday question time in particular to listen to Tim's input into the overall discussion.

The following Opinion is provided, without my comment, from an acquaintance who is versed in this area, that places some thoughts onto the table of ideas.

Comments on the  Tim Dwyer Letter

Tim is obviously a good Aussie patriot. Philosophically he is right in pointing out that the real power lies with the people, and without associative action we will be colonised by China, which is certainly true. However, having one’s heart in the right place does not show that his interpretation of the law is correct. He follows the general line of Sovereign Australia of holding that most, if not all of the laws passed by at least federal parliament are invalid as “no lawful oath, therefore no lawful authority.” As he says:

“for 30 years NOT 1 member of parliament has sworn a lawful Oath/Affirmation of Office therefor NOT one Bill, Act or Treaty is Lawful including Local Council Rates, fines or Fee.”


What is his evidence? In the Rumble video he bases this on members he contacted who did not have a copy of the oath they swore. Does that show there was no oath sworn? Perhaps not. Here is a radical Leftist Aboriginalist Lidia Thorpe being sworn in:


I doubt she has a copy of the oath or cares.



From the Commonwealth Parliament Website,Members%20of%20Parliament,sign)%20an%20oath%20or%20affirmation


‚ÄúThe Australian Constitution requires that those elected to the Senate and the House of Representatives swear or solemnly affirm their allegiance to the Crown.  Senators and members are required to both ‚Äòmake and subscribe‚Äô (sign) an oath or affirmation.  The same oath and affirmation have been used since Federation and can only be changed by constitutional referendum.

Section 42 of the Constitution states:

Every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor-General, or some person authorised by him, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule to the Constitution.[38]

The Schedule to the Constitution contains the wording of the oath and affirmation:


I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law. So Help Me God!


I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her heirs and successors according to law.[39]

NOTE - The name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the time being is to be substituted from time to time.[40]

In the Senate, a senator must be sworn in before sitting in the Senate or participating in its proceedings, but there is nothing to prevent a senator performing other official functions before taking the oath or affirmation. Thus the Senate appoints senators to committees, and senators may participate in the proceedings of those committees, before they have been sworn.[41]

In the House of Representatives a member cannot take part in any proceedings of the House until sworn in. This includes not participating in the work of committees until members have been sworn.[42]

At the first meeting of a new Parliament the oath or affirmation is normally administered by a person authorised by the Governor-General, usually a Justice of the High Court. After reading the judge’s authorisation to the House, the Clerk of the House of Representatives tables the returns to the writs for the general election, then calls members elected, usually in groups of 10 to 12, to the Table of the House to make the oath or affirmation and subscribe the oath or affirmation form. Members not sworn in at this stage may be sworn in later in the day’s proceedings or on a subsequent sitting day by the Speaker, who receives a commission from the Governor-General to administer the oath or affirmation. Members elected at by-elections during the Parliament are also sworn in by the Speaker.[43]

Advice from the Attorney-General’s Department has confirmed that members making the oath of allegiance are not bound to use the authorised version of the Bible:

The oath of allegiance need not necessarily be made on the authorised version of the Bible, although this has been the common practice. A Member may recite the oath while holding another form of Christian holy book, or, in respect of a non-Christian faith, a book or work of such a nature. The essential requirement is that every Member taking an oath should take it in a manner which affects his or her conscience regardless of whether a holy book is used or not.[44]

In September 2010, Ed Husic, Member for Chifley (NSW), became the first Muslim to be sworn into the federal parliament. The Age reported that:

For the first time an MP, Labor’s Ed Husic, took the oath while holding a Koran rather than a Bible. The Koran belonged to his parents, immigrants from Bosnia.[45]”


What Happened When There were Members of Parliament Not Sworn in Correctly? The Site Continues:


“The problems that can arise when members of parliament are not sworn correctly were evident in June 1901, one month after the commencement of the first Parliament. Donald Cameron, member for the electorate of Tasmania, claimed, in a personal explanation, that:

… a large proportion of the members of this House, including myself, have not been properly sworn.[46]

Cameron said that when he arrived with other members to be sworn by the Governor-General, he:

… saw a number of honorable members sign their names on sheets of vellum before they attended. I did not do so. When I arrived with other honorable members in the room where we were to be sworn in, as I understood, I listened most attentively; but I was never called up … and I was never asked to make and subscribe the oath of allegiance.[47]

Following discussion, the then Prime Minister, Edmund Barton, stated that:

I submit to the House that the honorable member should tender himself to the Speaker to be sworn now, in order to save any question arising hereafter.[48]

The Speaker asked Mr Cameron to ‚Äòtake a seat behind the Bar of the House‚Äô while the necessary papers were obtained.[49]  House of Representatives Debates records that:

The honorable member for Tasmania, Mr Cameron, having re-entered the chamber, subscribed the oath.[50]”


Are the Sovereign Australian Right? Sadly, No!

Here is how parliament has dealt with this issue of lack of oath in the past; it was not a problem for them:

‚ÄúIn September 1901, Attorney-General, Alfred Deakin, advised that, in his opinion, the direction in section 42 of the Constitution, that a member of the federal Parliament ‚Äòshall before taking his seat make and subscribe‚Äô the oath of allegiance, was ‚Äòdirectory and not absolute‚Äô in the sense that ‚Äòneglect of the requirement does not invalidate what is done afterwards‚Äô.[51]  This has been interpreted to mean that:

… the validity of parliamentary proceedings would not be affected by the participation in them of members who had not complied with s 42.[52]

Members of the federal parliament do not incur a penalty if they participate in proceedings of the Senate or the House of Representatives without fulfilling the requirement of section 42. This is very different to the approach in the United Kingdom Parliament where:

Should a Member take part in parliamentary proceedings without having sworn the oath or made the affirmation, the penalty is £500 for every offence, together with vacation of his or her seat …

There have been cases where Members and Peers have inadvertently neglected to take the oath and they have sometimes been relieved of the consequences of their omission by an Act of Indemnity. Such an Act cannot, however, prevent a Member’s seat from being immediately vacated; a new writ must be moved for at once.[53]”



The ultimate test of this approach will be the response of the High Court of Australia to the claim that most of the existing statutory laws of at least the Commonwealth are invalid. That is the case developed in the letter to the CEOs of the councils. Here it is almost certain that the High court would reject the application for review, on any number of grounds, including lack of standing of the applicant, that there are no “special interests,” or private rights of the individual at stake. And supposing that the case did get review, how likely would it be for the High Court to accept the argument that most of the laws of Australia are invalid?

In Coe v Commonwealth [1993] HCA 4, the High Court considered, whether there was an Aboriginal nation exercising sovereignty in Australia. Despite Mabo there was no sovereignty that could co-exist with the sovereignty of the Crown. Thus, mutatis mutandis, this would also apply to individuals as well, so Tim’s case would collapse on this precedence.

Should the letter writing be done? It may be useful in rallying the troops, but this has been tried in the past, since the 1990s, and has not got anywhere. There are no magical legal arguments to save the day; it must be hard grind political action at the grass roots.




Stay Informed

When you subscribe to the blog, we will send you an e-mail when there are new updates on the site so you wouldn't miss them.



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Monday, 24 June 2024

Captcha Image