Did the PM swear the wrong Oath?

Julia GillardSome people believe the Australian Government is illegal – that an immense conspiracy has been running since 1972 (some believe it started earlier). One of their key pieces of evidence is a video which, they say, shows Prime Minister Julia Gullard swearing the wrong oath of office.

In this article I’ll conclusively prove that Julia Gillard has taken all the correct Oaths of office.

This is the third article in my series of articles that will examine every piece of “supporting evidence” that the conspiracy theorists use to support their claim. In the first article, Is the Australian Government a US Corporation I conclusively prove that the Commonwealth of Australia is NOT a privately owned company registered with the US SEC.

My second article, Is the Australian Coat of Arms a US trademark?, proves that the Australian Coat of Arms are NOT privately registered trademarks in the USA.

The Evidence showing the WRONG Oath being taken!

This video is the source of all the problems. It shows Julia Gillard, on 14th September 2010, swearing an oath to the Governor General, Quinten Bryce. The words she spoke are:

“I, Julia Eileen Gillard, do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will well and truly serve the Commonwealth of Australia in the office of Prime Minister.”

Supporters of the conspiracy theory say that Gillard used the wrong words – the wrong oath – which doesn’t mention the Queen. And that Gillard used the wrong oath because she is part of the conspiracy and doesn’t want to swear allegiance to the Queen but just to the allegedly illegal private company called the Commonwealth of Australia. Nothing could be further from the truth!

The Evidence showing the RIGHT Oath being taken!

This is the video that the conspiracy theorists never show you. It shows Gillard, and the rest of her ministers taking the correct oath on 28th September 2010, after the election had been held. (The relevant bit of the video starts at 2:20)

The words of the Oath taken are:

“I do solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that I will be faithful
and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second, Her heirs and successors according to law.”

They then sign bits of paper with the same oath written on it.

Why are there two different oaths?

Cover of Australian ConstitutionThe Prime Minister of Australia must take two oaths:

  1. the oath that must be taken by all members of parliament
  2. another oath that must be taken by the members of the Federal Executive Council.

OATH FOR ALL MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Every member of parliament must swear an oath or affirmation of allegiance, as specified in section 42 of the Australian Constitution:

42 Oath or affirmation of allegiance

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 this Constitution.

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

Oath

Queen Elizabeth III, 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!

Affirmation

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.

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.

All members of parliament take this oath on the first sitting day of parliament after an election.

OATH FOR MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

There’s a different section of the Australian Constitution which deals with the swearing in of the Federal Executive Council.

What’s the Federal Executive Council? Here’s how the Introduction to the Constitution (page 8 ) explains the Federal Executive Council:

The Federal Executive Council, which is referred to in various provisions of the
Constitution, and in the expression ‘Governor-General in Council’, comprises all past and current Ministers. However, only current Ministers take part in Executive Council business, and usually only two or three Ministers attend meetings of the Council with the Governor-General. Unlike the Cabinet, the Executive Council is not a deliberative body. Its principal functions are to receive advice and approve the signing of formal documents such as regulations and statutory appointments.

From the constitution:

CHAPTER II – THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT

62 Federal Executive Council

There shall be a Federal Executive Council to advise the Governor-General in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the Governor-General and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure.

Notice that the constitution just says they have to be “sworn” but doesn’t specify what they must say! Compare that to the wording in section 42 for the general oath which states the oath must be taken “in the form set forth in the schedule to this Constitution”.

If the oath had to be in a specific form the Constitution would have stated that, as it did in section 42. The fact that section 62 doesn’t state the specific words means that the words can be changed without changing the constitution.

It is this oath that we see Gillard taking in the first video. The conspiracy theorists don’t know that the Prime Minister had to take this second oath, and therefore, they thought that it was the oath mentioned in section 42 of the constitution, but that the words had been changed without a referendum.

(I’ve contacted the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and was told that the wording for the oath or affirmation for the Federal Executive Council is not specified in the Constitution nor in any legislation and that, therefore, it’s a matter of choice for the government at the time, and successive governments since 1993 have adopted their own form of words.)

Conclusion

The video evidence proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that the correct Oaths have been sworn. The prime Minister has sworn allegiance to the Queen. Therefore one of the central pillars of the conspiracy theory has been demolished.

I don’t expect this to make any difference to the leaders of this conspiracy theory, though. I expect that they will ignore what they’ve read in this article and continue to blog about how the wrong oath has been taken. Why would they do that? I’ll leave it to you to draw your own conclusions. Personally, I think they like being the centre of attention – they like being an “expert” that people “respect”. What would they blog about if they didn’t have this conspiracy to talk about?

Another Oath taking

A reader brought this next video to my attention. It shows Gillard, and the rest of her ministers taking the oath for the Federal Executive Council on 24th June 2010, after Kevin Rudd had been deposed but before the election. (The relevant bit of the video starts at 2:20)

More information about the Federal Executive Council

Here’s a link to the official Federal Executive Council Handbook which explains all aspects of what it is and how it operates. Here’s the Wikipedia entry

State Parliaments

In case anyone wants to claim the same about the state parliaments here is a video of NSW Senators being sworn in July 12 2011.

If you know of any other videos of the swearing in of state parliaments please post the links in the comments section below.

The Constitution of Australia

This is a pdf of the current Constitution of Australia with the introductory notes mentioned earlier (it’ll ask you to save the pdf to your computer).

This is another good site where you can see the Constitution of Australia and some explanations of it’s evolution.

Read the other articles in this series

Category(s): Australian Government, Debunking     [ Bookmark the permalink ]     
Receive notification of future posts: By email     By rss
Receive email notifications when new comments are added to this post.
Comments (6)
Page 1 of 1
  1. Gaz:

    Well researched and written. Thank you for doing that for us!
    I too have been sifting through this illegal Govt conspiracy mess and it is great to read something that is well laid out, rational and logical for once.
    Keep up the good work 🙂

  2. Lau Guerreiro:

    Thanks.

  3. Mighty Mick:

    Very well written. I have come across your work while researching the legal fiction person that is created at birth via a birth certificate and bond, known as the strawman, which in turn has led me through some Common Law, some Admiralty Law, then commercial companies masquerading as governments (as claimed by some). and finally here.

    I’ve read our constitution. Now I’m doing my best to understand it and the underlying mechanics of it. Your work indicates a very high comprehension of the issues in play, yet explains it without legalese or superfluous jargon. It’s very refreshing.

    Thanks for taking the time and effort to do so.

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Thanks for your kind words Mick.
      It’s warms my heart to know that the work I did has value to someone.

  4. Jimfox:

    Lau, having just been introduced to your work, ( I just left a comment on the coat of arms), I feel that anything that can be debunked should be debunked. So, in Vids 1 & 3, Julia is being sworn in as PM. In these 2 Vids, there is no sworn allegiance to the queen. In Vid 2, Julia & her ministers just say, ” I Do ” Not one of them actually swear the oath, &, while i am not sure on the legality of this form of allegiance, ( could it be like swearing to tell the truth in court), i think it needs a little more study. It is such a can of worms. Just the fact that the High Court has ruled that Britain is a Foreign Power makes it strange that we should pledge allegiance to their Monarch. The fact that we are a Sovereign Nation, & a republic by default, yet still refer to the Constitution as ” ours”, a document written by the British, that only they can change, leaves us with a can of worms that is now a 44 gallon drum of worms. Mate, i like your work, but as a conspiracy theorist, ( & have been all my life … i’m 65 ), lets have more discussion on this … ok?

    • Lau Guerreiro:

      Hi Jimfox,
      Yes, I think its the same as swearing to tell the truth in court,
      and also when you say “I do” in a marriage ceremony.
      And also when you sign your name on a contract – you don’t have to write the entire contract out yourself, you just agree to abide by the contract by signing it.
      Taking an oath is a verbal contract that you sign verbally.

Page 1 of 1
Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Receive notification of future posts: By email     By rss
Receive email notifications when new comments are added to this post.