Why the sovereign assemblies and citizens Have No Standing in Australia

Ideas should be judged by their results, not by the confidence with which they are asserted. The claims made by groups such as the several new sovereign State Assembly fail this test decisively. They promise freedom from law while delivering exposure to legal trouble, financial loss, and social disorder. The reason is simple, their theories collide head-on with how Australia actually governs itself, under federal law, under Northern Territory law, and under the basic moral requirements of a functioning society (Mutual support).

Australia is not governed by personal declarations or private assemblies. It is governed by the Australian Constitution, which establishes Parliament, courts, and executive authority. Laws are made by elected legislatures, interpreted by independent courts, and applied uniformly. This is not a matter of opinion; it is the operating system of the country. No private group can override it by asserting an alternative “jurisdiction,” whether called “land and soil,” “natural law,” or any other appealing phrase.

In the Northern Territory, the situation is no different in principle. Territory laws apply to everyone within the Territory. Courts derive their authority from statute. Police powers are defined by law. Taxes, licences, and court orders are enforceable whether one “consents” or not. The notion that an individual can opt out by declaration misunderstands law at a basic level. Consent is relevant when signing a contract; it is irrelevant when obeying public law. Gravity does not stop working because someone refuses to believe in it, and neither does statute.

Supporters of these movements often insist they are merely “organising” or “assembling.” Peaceful discussion is lawful, and beliefs, however mistaken, are not illegal or crimes. But the line is crossed when talk turns into imitation of state power, like issuing pseudo-court documents, claiming authority over others, instructing people to ignore lawful orders and lawful directions, or presenting oneself as an alternative government. At that point, the activity risks fraud, impersonation, and obstruction. This is not my opinion; this has been set by precedents. Courts across Australia have been clear, such arguments carry no legal weight and attempts to deploy them tend to end badly for those who try. (with 3 historical exemptions that were deemed unconstitutional, however not worth the states time and money to correct).

The practical consequences are predictable. Followers are told they can refuse fines, licences, taxes, or court appearances. Reality intervenes. Enforcement proceeds. Penalties increase. Vehicles are impounded. Licences are suspended. Matters escalate from inconvenience to crisis. What was sold as liberation becomes a lesson in how power actually works. The movement’s leaders move on to the next recruit; the adherent is left to deal with the bill.

There is also a moral issue, not merely a legal one. A society survives because people accept reciprocal obligations. This is the fundamental of all civilisations, trade. You cannot demand the protection of police while denying their authority. You cannot use roads while rejecting road rules. You cannot invoke rights while disowning responsibilities. These movements teach a one-way view of citizenship, take what you want, reject what you owe. That is not principled dissent; it is opportunism dressed up as philosophy.

History shows that when rules become optional, the strong dominate the weak. Law exists not to flatter authority, but to restrain it, and to restrain everyone else as well. Replacing law with private assertions of sovereignty does not limit power; it fragments it. The result is not freedom, but confusion, followed by force when confusion fails. Those who romanticise “self-rule” rarely explain how disputes are resolved when two self-declared sovereigns disagree. Courts exist precisely because shouting matches and power struggles are poor substitutes for justice.

The Magna Carta is often quoted as if it granted personal sovereignty to individuals, but it did nothing of the sort. Its purpose was to limit the absolute power of the King by recognising the rights of the Lords, not to empower the common people. Later instruments, such as the English Bill of Rights, shifted power away from the Crown to Parliament, not to individuals acting on their own authority. Parliament, in turn, governs through representatives elected by the people, exercising authority on the public’s behalf. This is a transfer of power within institutions, not a dissolution of authority into personal sovereignty.

A nation may be sovereign, but a citizen is not; citizens hold rights, not sovereign power. In Australia, those rights exist only within the boundaries of the Australian Constitution, which defines how power is created, limited, and exercised. Claims that Australia’s corporate registration or its participation in international trade somehow cancels constitutional authority misunderstand the issue entirely: those registrations relate to taxation and external commerce, not to the source of law or legitimacy. The Constitution remains the supreme authority, and individual rights flow from it, not from medieval charters misread to justify modern fantasies of personal rule.

Look, I get it, the appeal of these movements is understandable. Bureaucracy frustrates. Governments err. Courts can be slow and impersonal. But abandoning lawful remedies for fantasy remedies is not reform; it is retreat. Real change requires persuasion, elections, and lawful challenge, not the pretence that words (magic or otherwise) can cancel institutions.

There is a dangerous confusion in these circles between grievance and heroism. Men like Mr Freeman, or those responsible for the killings in Queensland, are sometimes elevated as symbols of resistance. They are not. Condemning police misconduct during COVID, conduct that was excessive, coercive, and in some cases morally indefensible, does not require celebrating the murder of officers who were simply doing their jobs. The Victorian and Queensland police who were killed did not deserve to die, whatever one thinks of broader institutional failures. Shooting police who have not fired, or even threatened to fire, is not courage; it is fear masquerading as conviction. That is the tragic deception many sovereign-style groups sell: they offer frightened, frustrated people a story in which violence feels justified and responsibility disappears. The pattern is consistent, first the intimidation of security officers in public, then trespass onto private land, then claims of discrimination, followed by escalation with police. At its core, this ideology does not respect private property, lawful authority, or the rights of others. It treats entitlement as a substitute for contribution and grievance as a licence to take. That is not liberty. It is the breakdown of the very rules that make freedom, safety, and coexistence possible.

In the end, the test is straightforward. A legitimate system produces predictable, lawful outcomes. An illegitimate theory produces excuses when reality intrudes. By that standard, these Assembly’s, Groups and citizen tribunals offers neither lawful authority nor practical benefit. It offers only a story, one that collapses the moment it meets Australian law, Northern Territory law, or the simple demands of living together in a society where rules apply to everyone. From the author.

The opinions and statements are those of Sam Wilks and do not necessarily represent whom Sam Consults or contracts to. Sam Wilks is a skilled and experienced Security and Risk Consultant with 3 decades of expertise in the fields of Real estate, Security, and the hospitality/gaming industry. Sam has trained over 1,000 entry level security personnel, taught defensive tactics, weapons training and handcuffs to policing personnel and the public. His knowledge and practical experience have made him a valuable asset to many organisations looking to enhance their security measures and provide a safe and secure environment for their clients and staff.