Evidence Commonwealth of Australia is registered to do business in Australia

Sophia Wrightman made this Freedom of Information request to Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Australian Securities and Investments Commission did not have the information requested.

From: Sophia Wrightman

Delivered

Dear Australian Securities and Investments Commission,

CIK: 0000805157
Company Name: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/8...

Please provide documentation that the Commonwealth of Australia (as recorded above) is registered as per the the ASIC guidelines to do business in Australia.

Yours faithfully,

Sophia Wrightman

Link to this

Locutus Sum left an annotation ()

The request must be refused but to get the information is easy. Section 12(1)(b) of the FOI Act (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/c... says that you cannot get access under FOI to documents that you can get easily if you pay for them. Company and business registration is easy to get from ASIC but you must pay. So, ASIC will refuse the application.

Good news is also here. You can easily see that the Commonwealth is registered to business in Australia. You can look here (abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?abn=61970632495) for example. You can also search for the ABN of any other department of the Commonwealth Government. Each department name is registered as a trading name for the Commonwealth. Also abbreviations like DEEWR (http://abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.a... are registered for business.

Link to this

Sophia Wrightman left an annotation ()

Thanks Locutus Sum. The subsidiary companies such as the ones you linked to (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND DEREGULATION) are viewable in the public view of the Australian Business Register (ABR). The "COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA", the parent company is not.

The parent company is listed as a Non Registered Entity (Nret):
http://www.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gn......
https://connectonline.asic.gov.au/Regist...

The listed documents there that require payment to view are not what I would like clarification on.

I would like to see the ASIC guidelines that grants the company: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA registered with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ASIC (CIK: 0000805157) to do business in Australia without registration in Australia.

Link to this

Sophia Wrightman left an annotation ()

Correction: "U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)" not "U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ASIC " (as in previous annotation)

Link to this

From: FOIrequest
Australian Securities and Investments Commission


Attachment 4186 001.pdf
96K Download View as HTML


Dear Ms Wrightman

Please see attached correspondence:

2
Matthew Povey
(Authorised decision-maker under subsection 23(1) of the FOI Act)
for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission

From: Sophia Wrightman <[FOI #444 email]>
To: FOI requests at ASIC <[ASIC request email]>
Date: 16/10/2013 10:20 AM
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Evidence Commonwealth of
Australia is registered to do business in Australia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

***
This email message has been processed by MIMEsweeper
***
Dear Australian Securities and Investments Commission,

CIK:                 0000805157
Company Name:                 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

[1]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/8...

Please provide documentation that the Commonwealth of Australia (as
recorded above) is registered as per the the ASIC guidelines to do
business in Australia.

Yours faithfully,

Sophia Wrightman

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #444 email]

Is [ASIC request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Australian Securities and Investments Commission? If so,
please contact us using this form:
[2]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/cont...

Write your response as plain text. Only send PDF documents as a last
resort. Government guidelines make it clear that PDF is not an acceptable
format for you to use in the delivery of government information.
[3]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[4]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

Link to this

Locutus Sum left an annotation ()

It was predictable.

It is worthwhile to read the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/c... and the Corporations Act 2001 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/c....

Link to this

From: Sophia Wrightman

Delivered

Dear FOIrequest,

Thank you for your information. Could you please clarify that there was no obligation in 2006 for the Commonwealth of Australia to register under any legislation administered by ASIC while performing business in Australia listed as Telstra 3 Share Offer?

http://www2.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/o...

If the Commonwealth of Australia was obligated to do so, please provide any current or past documentation that substantiates this as I am unable to find this in any public listing.

Yours sincerely,

Sophia Wrightman

Link to this

Sophia Wrightman left an annotation ()

"For your information, there is no obligation on the Commonwealth to register under any legislation administered by ASIC."

This suggests that the Commonwealth of Australia is not subject to the ASIC terms or ASIC guidelines when doing business in Australia. The Commonwealth of Australia is listed in ASIC records doing business in Australia with the Telstra 3 Share Offer in 2006 (http://www2.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/o...

Link to this

dave left an annotation ()

Sophia Wrightman left an annotation (November 01, 2013)
Hi Sonia, I did this in 2011. I have conformation that they are a foreign registered company from ASIC.
However for them to step outside ASIC guidelines you have to show they have conducted business here.
Their 14000 subsidiary companies have . But the corporation as themselves?
Thats the issue at hand.
And the answer is yes. When they took telecom or telstra from public ownership to privatisation it went into their name as the corporation itself.
which you will find on their prospectus at USSEC

Anyhow thats what ASIC isnt being straightforward about.
Hope it helps you,
Dave (can be found on southernfreeman.com)

"For your information, there is no obligation on the "Commonwealth to register under any legislation administered by ASIC."

This suggests that the Commonwealth of Australia is not subject to the ASIC terms or ASIC guidelines when doing business in Australia. The Commonwealth of Australia is listed in ASIC records doing business in Australia with the Telstra 3 Share Offer in 2006 (http://www2.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/o...

Link to this

Link to this

dave left an annotation ()

A better question might be - if they did business here, would they not be obligated to register here as per your legislation

Link to this

From: Sophia Wrightman

Delivered

Dear Australian Securities and Investments Commission,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

FOI request: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/e...

For clarity, please note this FOI request specifically regards the entity listed as:

CIK: 0000805157
Company Name: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/8...

Unless specifically stated otherwise, it is implied that "the Commonwealth" mentioned in the previous and any future responses to this FOI request by ASIC regards the same entity listed here:

CIK: 0000805157
Company Name: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/8...

Please clarify if this is not the case in any future responses.

Yours faithfully,

Sophia Wrightman

Link to this

Locutus Sum left an annotation ()

It looks as if this is intended to be a request for Internal Review. But, if it is a request for Internal Review, it is helpful to the agency (and to you) if you say so very clearly. I do not think that the expression "Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews" is a request for review. It is a request to have your email transmitted to another person. You will think that I am being pedantic but the Act is very precise.

It is also important and helpful to tell the agency what decision there is that you want them to review. It is not reasonable to make the agency look at webpages so it can discover your reviewable decision.

I looked at the letter that was sent for you. You could reply and say, "On 16 October I applied for access to ... . On 28 October you refused to give me access because, you said, the document I want does not exist or it can not be found. " And then it would be helpful to tell the ASIC for what reason you think that the document should be found. Maybe, for example, you think that they did not look in the right places, or maybe they looked for the wrong document because they did not understand your request, or they did not search on the computer with the correct terms for a search.

My reason for these suggestions is because people on Right to Know very often appear to become angry with government departments when the departments do exactly what the applicant says but it is not what the applicant wants.

Please accept my suggestion. It will only need to be a short follow-on email to ASIC.

Link to this

Sophia Wrightman left an annotation ()

"I have spoken" - this was a way to clarify the previous request for an internal review to assist ASIC in providing specific information. It doesn't stand alone as a request. If ASIC and myself are talking about different entities, this needs to be stated clearly. I request only information on the entity that is listed in US SEC as linked above. I am not requesting information of any other entity with a similar name. If a response by ASIC regards a different entity that is not relevant to this request in any previous or future responses, that information is inaccurate. I request accurate information rather than inaccurate information hence the note of clarification to assist ASIC in that regard.

Link to this

Henare Degan left an annotation ()

Hello,

I have removed an abusive annotation on this request. Threatening and abusive behaviour is unacceptable on Right To Know.

Please ensure annotations meet our moderation policy (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/requ... and don't hesitate to contact us if you'd like to bring something to our attention (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/cont....

Let's all be awesome to each other and focus on what this site's about - helping open up our government through FOI.

Cheers,

Henare
Right To Know administrator

Link to this

From: FOIrequest
Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Dear Ms Wrightman,

We refer to your email below which we will take to be a request for an
internal review of the FOI primary decision of Mr Matthew Povey of 16
October 2013.

We note also that you also sent an email of 1 November 2013 requesting
information,  which will be addressed in the context of  the response to
your  request for internal review of Mr Povey's decision.

Kind Regards

FOIrequests

From: Sophia Wrightman <[FOI #444 email]>
To: FOI requests at ASIC <[ASIC request email]>
Date: 04/11/2013 10:07 AM
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Evidence
Commonwealth of Australia is registered to do business in
Australia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

***
This email message has been processed by MIMEsweeper
***
Dear Australian Securities and Investments Commission,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information
reviews.

FOI request:
[1]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/e...

For clarity, please note this FOI request specifically regards the entity
listed as:

CIK: 0000805157
Company Name: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

[2]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/8...

Unless specifically stated otherwise, it is implied that "the
Commonwealth" mentioned in the previous and any future responses to this
FOI request by ASIC regards the same entity listed here:

CIK: 0000805157
Company Name: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

[3]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/8...

Please clarify if this is not the case in any future responses.

Yours faithfully,

Sophia Wrightman

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #444 email]

Write your response as plain text. Only send PDF documents as a last
resort. Government guidelines make it clear that PDF is not an acceptable
format for you to use in the delivery of government information.
[4]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[5]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Grant Moodie
Australian Securities and Investments Commission


Attachment Right to Know FOI Internal Review.pdf
163K Download View as HTML


Ms Wrightman,

Please find attached my internal review decision in relation to this
matter.

Regards
Grant Moodie | Special Counsel | Chief Legal Office | ASIC | ' 61 2 9911
2408  | 7 61 2 9911 2414  | * [1][email address]

 

 

Please consider the environment before printing this document

 

 

NOTICE

This e-mail and any attachments are intended for the addressee(s) only and
may be confidential. They may contain legally privileged or copyright
material. You should not read, copy, use or disclose them without
authorisation. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the
sender as soon as possible by return e-mail and then please delete both
messages. This notice should not be removed.

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Link to this

Locutus Sum left an annotation ()

The decision maker has been very kind to give more explanation and not only to say, "No, the document does not exist".

You might ask why he says, "there was no obligation for the Commonwealth of Australia to "register" under any legislation administered by ASIC ..." . The answer is that in very many cases, it must be assumed that the Commonwealth (the Crown) is "not bound" by its own laws. I remind always of the divine right of Kings, for which reason Charles I lost his head! The book "Statutory Interpretation in Australia" written from DC Pearce and RS Geddes has some useful pages in the topic "Crown presumed not to be bound by statutes". I do not know what libraries have this book but also there is a good article it is possible to download "Options for the doctrine of Crown immunity in 21st century Australia" from Dr Anthony Gray. (It is at http://prints.usq.edu.au/5690/2/Gray_AJA... ) . Also there are some sections of Wikipedia on Sovereign Immunity.

For understanding the Commonwealth and corporations it can be informational (and confusing) to look at the Corporations Act (I gave links for austlii in another annotation). Section 5A is "Application to the Crown":
(2) Chapter 5 (expert Part 5.8) binds the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, or each of the States, of the Capital Territory, or the Northern Territory and of Norfolk Island.
(3) Chapters 6, 6A, 6B, 6C and 6D: (a) bind the Crown in right of the Commonwealth; and (b) do not bind the Crown in right of any State, of the Capital Territory, or the Northern Territory or of Norfolk Island.
(4) A provision of Chapter 5D, 6CA or 7 only binds the Crown in a particular capacity in circumstances (if any) specified in the regulations.
(5) Nothing in this Act makes the Crown in any right liable to a pecuniary penalty or to be prosecuted for an offence.

I put all of it here only for a reason to show it is not all so obvious.

Link to this

From: Sophia Wrightman

Delivered

Dear Grant Moodie,

I very much appreciate your thorough response to my FOI request. If possible, I'd like more clarity on this:

"The Commonwealth of Australia was however subject to Chapters 6D and 7 of the Corporations Act 2001 in relation to the Telstra 3 share offer."

Given the Commonwealth was subject to the Corporations Act 2001, is the Commonwealth a corporation according to ASIC guidelines? If so, would ASIC have in its records this corporation's officeholders, members and shareholders? If not, could you please provide the guidelines that ASIC use to determine that the Commonwealth is not or has never been a corporation according to ASIC.

Thanks again for you help.

Yours sincerely,

Sophia Wrightman

Link to this

Henare Degan left an annotation ()

Hello,

I've once again had to remove annotations on this request that did not meet our simple moderation policy: annotations are to help people get the information they want, or to give them pointers to places they can go to help them act on it. We reserve the right to remove anything else.

The Right To Know website is only for making, and helping other people make, FOI requests. There are thousands of other websites on the internet for people to discuss those requests - social networks like Facebook or Twitter, forums, comments sections, or your own blog.

As we suggest in our moderation policy (https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/requ..., if you'd like to discuss the contents of a request, the facts presented in a request, or the validity of a government policy, you're most welcome to post an annotation with a link to a forum, campaign website, or social media page.

Unfortunately we'll have to disable further annotations on this request if these simple guidelines aren't followed.

Thank you,

Henare
Right To Know administrator

Link to this

From: Grant Moodie
Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Ms Wrightman,

I will respond to you as a matter of good faith.  

The Commonwealth of Australia is not a corporation. There are no ASIC
guidelines that ASIC uses to reach that determination because it is a
matter of constitutional law. The Commmonwealth of Australia is a body
politic established by the Commonwealth Constitution. The Commonwealth
Constitution was passed as part of a British Act of Parliament which took
effect on 1 January 1901. Chapters I, II and III of the Constitution
confer the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the Commonwealth
on three different bodies which are established by the Constitution - the
Commonwealth Parliament, the Commonwealth Executive and the Federal
Judicature. This is known as the "separation of powers" doctrine under
constitutional law. If you wish to obtain further information about the
Constitution, there are many textbooks on the subject which I invite you
to research.

Regards
Grant Moodie | Special Counsel | Chief Legal Office | ASIC | ' 61 2 9911
2408  | 7 61 2 9911 2414  | * [1][email address]

 

 

From: Sophia Wrightman <[FOI #444 email]>
To: Grant Moodie <[email address]>
Date: 06/12/2013 07:33 PM
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Evidence
Commonwealth of Australia is registered to do business in
Australia

show quoted sections

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #444 email]

Write your response as plain text. Only send PDF documents as a last
resort. Government guidelines make it clear that PDF is not an acceptable
format for you to use in the delivery of government information.
[2]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[3]https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...
3. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/help/offi...

Link to this

From: Sophia Wrightman

Delivered

Dear Grant Moodie,

Thank you for verifying that "The Commonwealth of Australia is not a corporation" and that rather it "is a body politic", which is "a term applied to a corporation" (Black’s Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/body-politic....

Thank you for verifying also that "The Commonwealth of Australia is not a corporation" but that it was "subject to Chapters 6D and 7 of the Corporations Act 2001 in relation to the Telstra 3 share offer".

Thank you also for verifying that "The Commonwealth of Australia is not a corporation" but is represented as a "company" with filings "on the website of the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States (the SEC)" for "offers of debt securities in the US" (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/8....

It is implied therefore that "The Commonwealth of Australia" is a corporation in acts and representation as verified above but has been misrepresented to you as being "not a corporation".

Given ASIC is a subsidiary of this holding corporation (The Commonwealth of Australia), does ASIC have any provisions on record that deal with the misleading or deceptive conduct of it's holding corporation? Also would ASIC have any guidelines on record for separating from its holding corporation, given the actions of its holding corporation would bring ASIC into disrepute?

I do appreciate your responses given in good faith - thank you again. My queries are also given in good faith as I feel that learning about our relationship with The Commonwealth of Australia is vital to all Australians.

Yours sincerely,

Sophia Wrightman

Link to this

From: Grant Moodie
Australian Securities and Investments Commission

Ms Wrightman,

Thank you for your email.  

I confirm my previous comments that the Commonwealth of Australia is not a
corporation.

I also confirm that ASIC is not a subsidiary of any corporation.  ASIC is
a statutory body corporate established by section 7 of the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989 and is continued in
existence by section 261 of the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission Act 2001.  

Regards
Grant Moodie | Special Counsel | Chief Legal Office | ASIC | ' 61 2 9911
2408  | 7 61 2 9911 2414  | * [1][email address]

 

 

From: Sophia Wrightman <[FOI #444 email]>
To: Grant Moodie <[email address]>
Date: 11/12/2013 03:24 PM
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Evidence
Commonwealth of Australia is registered to do business in
Australia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

***
This email message has been processed by MIMEsweeper
***
Dear Grant Moodie,

Thank you for verifying that "The Commonwealth of Australia is not a
corporation" and that rather it "is a body politic", which is "a term
applied to a corporation" (Black’s Law Dictionary:
[2]http://thelawdictionary.org/body-politic....

Thank you for verifying also that "The Commonwealth of Australia is not a
corporation" but that it was "subject to Chapters 6D and 7 of the
Corporations Act 2001 in relation to the Telstra 3 share offer".

Thank you also for verifying that "The Commonwealth of Australia is not a
corporation" but is represented as a "company" with filings "on the
website of the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States
(the SEC)" for "offers of debt securities in the US"
 ([3]http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/8....

It is implied therefore that "The Commonwealth of Australia" is a
corporation in acts and representation as verified above but has been
misrepresented to you as being "not a corporation".

Given ASIC is a subsidiary of this holding corporation (The Commonwealth
of Australia), does ASIC have any provisions on record that deal with the
misleading or deceptive conduct of it's holding corporation? Also would
ASIC have any guidelines on record for separating from its holding
corporation, given the actions of its holding corporation would bring ASIC
into disrepute?

I do appreciate your responses given in good faith - thank you again. My
queries are also given in good faith as I feel that learning about our
relationship with The Commonwealth of Australia is vital to all
Australians.

Yours sincerely,

Sophia Wrightman

show quoted sections

Link to this

Locutus Sum left an annotation ()

If you combine what Mr Grant Moodie has said and the section 5 of the Corporations Act, you can obtain the following.

The Commonwealth is not a corporation and also, because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Commonwealth is mostly (but not always) not bound by its own laws. So the Commonwealth was not bound, overall, by the Corportations Act and it did not have any obligation to comply with many of the sections

But section 5A(3) ("Application to the Crown") of the Corportations Act says: "Chapters 6, 6A, 6B, 6C and 6D: (a) bind the Crown in right of the Commonwealth" so you can see that this explains why Mr Moodie has said "The Commonwealth was however subject to Chapter 6D ..."

Section 5A(4) says "A provision of Chapter 5D, 6CA or 7 only binds the Crown in a particular capacity in circumstances (if any) specified in the regulations." . In this manner you can see why Mr Moodie said "The Commonwealth was however subject to Chapter ... 7". There must be something in the regulations relevant to the Telstra Share offer. Of course, it is unnecessary for the regulations to speak exactly of a Telstra Share offer. Maybe they say only something about the sale of assets of the Commonwealth or another thing like that.

I did not look at the regulations for the Corporations Act. It is possible I think that you can find them at AustLII (http://www.austlii.edu.au) and also with the Commonwealth legislation site (http://www.comlaw.gov.au)

Link to this

Mark Page left an annotation ()

The Commonwealth of Australia is actually not listed as a "company" on the SEC website. When you look at the filings on that site, it files each year an "Annual report for foreign governments and political subdivisions". If you look up a company on the same SEC site (e.g. Apple Computer), they just file an "Annual report". So the SEC website correctly identifies the Commonwealth of Australia as being a "foreign government" rather than a "company".

Link to this

Sophia Wrightman left an annotation ()

Hi Mark - have a look at this link in SEC:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/8...

Under "Company Name:" is "COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA"

Link to this

From: Sophia Wrightman

Delivered

Dear Grant Moodie,

Thank you for confirming the Commonwealth of Australia is not a
corporation. Corporations are by definition legal persons. To confirm, would you be able to clarify that the Commonwealth of Australia is not a legal person?

If the Commonwealth of Australia is a legal person, does ASIC have on record information pertaining to the type of legal person it is? For example when the Commonwealth of Australia was listed in ASIC records as having ownership of Telstra and offering its sale, what type of legal person did Commonwealth of Australia present itself as?

I'm unable to find this on ASIC public records, so any help locating this is much appreciated.

Thanks again for you prompt responses.

Yours sincerely,

Sophia Wrightman

Link to this

Sophia Wrightman left an annotation ()

Locutus Sum, if the Commonwealth of Australia has sovereign immunity would indicate it being a Sovereign state. You're not saying it is a Sovereign state? The Crown is a Corporation sole, but seems the Commonwealth of Australia has an identity crisis especially in its capacity to make the Telstra offer.

Link to this

From: Grant Moodie
Australian Securities and Investments Commission


Attachment attachment.gif
19K Download

Attachment attachment.gif
65K Download

Attachment attachment.gif
77K Download

Attachment attachment.gif
72K Download

Attachment attachment.gif
8K Download

Attachment attachment.gif
51K Download

Attachment attachment.gif
49K Download

Attachment attachment.gif
40K Download


Ms Wrightman,

Thank you for your further email, which does not constitute a proper
request (or proper further request) under the FOI Act.

Nonetheless, I will respond to your question as a matter of good faith.
This will be my last response.

The Commonwealth of Australia is a legal person. As mentioned to you
previously, the kind of legal person it is is a body politic.

The extract below is from "Government Contracts: Federal, State and Local"
(2009), by Nicholas Sneddon. It might be helpful to you.  

When the Commonwealth of Australia offered for sale its stake in Telstra
under the T3 share offer, it represented itself as the body politic known
as the Commonwealth of Australia.    
 

Grant Moodie | Special Counsel | Chief Legal Office | ASIC | ' 61 2 9911
2408  | 7 61 2 9911 2414  | * [1][email address]

 

 

From: Sophia Wrightman <[FOI #444 email]>
To: Grant Moodie <[email address]>
Date: 17/12/2013 03:55 PM
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Evidence
Commonwealth of Australia is registered to do business in
Australia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

***
This email message has been processed by MIMEsweeper
***
Dear Grant Moodie,

Thank you for confirming the Commonwealth of Australia is not a
corporation. Corporations are by definition legal persons. To confirm,
would you be able to clarify that the Commonwealth of Australia is not a
legal person?

If the Commonwealth of Australia is a legal person, does ASIC have on
record information pertaining to the type of legal person it is? For
example when the Commonwealth of Australia was listed in ASIC records as
having ownership of Telstra and offering its sale, what type of legal
person did Commonwealth of Australia present itself as?

I'm unable to find this on ASIC public records, so any help locating this
  is much appreciated.

Thanks again for you prompt responses.

Yours sincerely,

Sophia Wrightman

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Sophia Wrightman

Delivered

Dear Grant Moodie,

For clarity on the line my queries and for the benefit of others, seems a body politic is defined by being a corporation elsewhere:

"A term applied to a corporation, which is usually designated as a “body corporate and politic.” The term is particularly appropriate to a public corporation invested with powers and duties of government."
- Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/body-politic/

"A body politic is a metaphor in which a nation is considered to be a corporate entity"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_politic

That definition doesn't appear to apply in material coming from the Commonwealth of Australia:

"The term ‘body politic’ is considered to cover any artificial legal entity having a separate legal personality. These entities have perpetual succession. They have the power to act, hold property, enter into legal contracts, sue and be sued in their own name, just as a natural person can."
ATO - http://help.abr.gov.au/IC/Resources/Glos...

Hence the reason for seeking clarification. In any case, thanks again for helping in this regard.

Yours sincerely,

Sophia Wrightman

Link to this

Sophia Wrightman left an annotation ()

Further another Black's law definition for body politic is:

"the term that applies to the people as a whole where each citizen agrees that it is to be governed by the common laws, rules and regulations."

Law Dictionary: http://thelawdictionary.org/body-politic-2

Implied is each and every Australian is an authority that agrees to be governed under terms a government needs to meet. And that this authority extends to an agreement with the Crown each Australian has (in right of the Commonwealth i.e. with our permission and consent) to hold our property in trust.

Would the sale of Telstra be a breech of trust?

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Australian Securities and Investments Commission only: