The states of Australia all have ABN's, as do their respective parliaments. On the Australian Business Register they are State Government Entities. As are their subsequent departments like the police. As these a corporations and corporations work with contracts. What contract does the average person have with these entities that makes them subject top their corporate statutes?
QLD Corporate Contracts Missing
- Thread starter cuttyshatface
- Start date
State Government Entities are not corporations. If you look at what is a State Government Entity on the Australian Business Register website, you'll see they are:
- Government departments
- Government agencies
- Organisations established by government to carry on an enterprise, or by legislation for a public purpose, but is not an 'entity' (government double-speak).
Secondly, the social contract we each participate in is to abide and conduct ourselves in accordance with the laws of Australia; local, state and federal. Sitting alongside that is the common law (ie court made laws) - which is where you will find the basic tenets of contract law, for example.
In Queensland we have the Constitution Act 1867 which sets out at section 2: "Within the said Colony of Queensland Her Majesty shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the said [Legislative] Assembly to make laws for the peace welfare and good government of the colony in all cases whatsoever." Then you've got Acts like the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. And so on.
The 'contract' we have, to use your term, is that we agree to abide by society's rules in return for being allowed the freedom to participate in it.
Does that answer your question? It wasn't really clear.
- Government departments
- Government agencies
- Organisations established by government to carry on an enterprise, or by legislation for a public purpose, but is not an 'entity' (government double-speak).
Secondly, the social contract we each participate in is to abide and conduct ourselves in accordance with the laws of Australia; local, state and federal. Sitting alongside that is the common law (ie court made laws) - which is where you will find the basic tenets of contract law, for example.
In Queensland we have the Constitution Act 1867 which sets out at section 2: "Within the said Colony of Queensland Her Majesty shall have power by and with the advice and consent of the said [Legislative] Assembly to make laws for the peace welfare and good government of the colony in all cases whatsoever." Then you've got Acts like the Parliament of Queensland Act 2001. And so on.
The 'contract' we have, to use your term, is that we agree to abide by society's rules in return for being allowed the freedom to participate in it.
Does that answer your question? It wasn't really clear.
Hi, Thank you so much for your reply to my question. I do admit my question wasn't very clear. Ill try to break it up into more specific relevant parts
In response;
Part 1 - Government Business
All state government departments or agencies all have credit reports available from Dunn & Bradstreet with a credit rating. Why would different departments of the same government need their own credit score. Dunn & Bradstreet do credit reports for Business. Here check this out EDGAR Search Results
The social contract we apparently participate in was never produced to me for review, or anyone I can think of. In law everything has to be from somewhere, nothing can be from nowhere so enforcing this "social" contract must have its footing somewhere. In the Australian Constitution 1901 and Queensland Constitution 2001 it refers to the people as sovereign, where the government is subject to, the government in turn has created "person's" who are subject to the government. Im sure you have seen this in court before where a man or woman that is in court does not identify with the name that is being charged and the magistrate or judge threaten to put out a warrant for not appearing when they are clearly there and have been conversing with the magistrate or judge.
There are a few points in your post, so I’ll respond to each of them in turn:
1. You’d have to ask D&B why they’ve prepared a credit report for a government entity. That they have is not indicative of anything in particular. As for the ‘different departments’ angle, each department is run independently in practice. While they are connected, there are three separate branches of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Government departments form part of the executive, and each one has their own budget and power to contract – so they are their own financial entity. It would therefore make sense to have separate credit reports if they’ve got them at all.
2. As to your link of the EDGAR Search Results, that’s a page from the US Securities and Exchange Commission. I fail to see what the relevance is to the issues at hand.
3. The social contract isn’t an actual document, and is only a tag to apply to a social theory. It’s the ongoing relationship between the members of society to agree to co-operate for social benefits. You don’t review it – you either participate in it or not. Some parts are elective, some parts are enforceable. An example of the former is participating in the workforce to earn an income and pay tax. You can’t be forced to do so (before considering other factors). An example of the latter is refraining from murdering people. If you do so, you’re liable to be removed from normal society and imprisoned. Much more complicated in practice, but those are the concepts.
4. I think you’ve misunderstood the concept of sovereignty. In the context of the State and Federal Constitution, individual people are not sovereign – the ‘people’, as a whole group of people and not an individual person, are sovereign. Government is reflective of the wishes of society as a whole; not necessarily of the individual. For example, the Constitution of Queensland 2001 states in the preamble: “The people of Queensland, free and equal citizens of Australia … adopt the principle of the sovereignty of the people, under the rule of law, and the system of representative and responsible government, prescribed by this Constitution.” Acceptance of the system of government is implicit in this concept of sovereignty.
5. Your last point appears to allude to the ‘freeman on the land’ type of thinking. Let me be clear – it’s bollocks. The theory is a spurious fantasy made up to pick and choose which laws of society someone chooses to live by. We don’t get that luxury. Otherwise, there would be chaos. I would suggest judges adopt the attitude you’ve described (which I’ve never seen, to be honest) out of frustration at someone who is clearly trying to be difficult, rather than waste time debating concepts most people freely accept.
To be absolutely clear, the freeman on the land argument is invalid. I’ve seen it tried in contract law, and tried on me. It’s so easily picked apart that it’s laughable.
1. You’d have to ask D&B why they’ve prepared a credit report for a government entity. That they have is not indicative of anything in particular. As for the ‘different departments’ angle, each department is run independently in practice. While they are connected, there are three separate branches of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Government departments form part of the executive, and each one has their own budget and power to contract – so they are their own financial entity. It would therefore make sense to have separate credit reports if they’ve got them at all.
2. As to your link of the EDGAR Search Results, that’s a page from the US Securities and Exchange Commission. I fail to see what the relevance is to the issues at hand.
3. The social contract isn’t an actual document, and is only a tag to apply to a social theory. It’s the ongoing relationship between the members of society to agree to co-operate for social benefits. You don’t review it – you either participate in it or not. Some parts are elective, some parts are enforceable. An example of the former is participating in the workforce to earn an income and pay tax. You can’t be forced to do so (before considering other factors). An example of the latter is refraining from murdering people. If you do so, you’re liable to be removed from normal society and imprisoned. Much more complicated in practice, but those are the concepts.
4. I think you’ve misunderstood the concept of sovereignty. In the context of the State and Federal Constitution, individual people are not sovereign – the ‘people’, as a whole group of people and not an individual person, are sovereign. Government is reflective of the wishes of society as a whole; not necessarily of the individual. For example, the Constitution of Queensland 2001 states in the preamble: “The people of Queensland, free and equal citizens of Australia … adopt the principle of the sovereignty of the people, under the rule of law, and the system of representative and responsible government, prescribed by this Constitution.” Acceptance of the system of government is implicit in this concept of sovereignty.
5. Your last point appears to allude to the ‘freeman on the land’ type of thinking. Let me be clear – it’s bollocks. The theory is a spurious fantasy made up to pick and choose which laws of society someone chooses to live by. We don’t get that luxury. Otherwise, there would be chaos. I would suggest judges adopt the attitude you’ve described (which I’ve never seen, to be honest) out of frustration at someone who is clearly trying to be difficult, rather than waste time debating concepts most people freely accept.
To be absolutely clear, the freeman on the land argument is invalid. I’ve seen it tried in contract law, and tried on me. It’s so easily picked apart that it’s laughable.
Similar threads