The Great Australian Party (GAP)


Rod Culleton and Wayne Glew teamed up as candidates for the right-wing “Great Australian Party” (GAP) in the 2019 Federal Election. Based in an ideology of constitutional conspiracy and popularism, they ran on the platform that they were going to “restore the Commonwealth”.


Wayne Glew ran as a Great Australian Party candidate in the 2019 Federal Election but subsequently resigned and distanced himself from the party due to pseudo legal ideological differences surrounding the Great Australian Party being “registered” with what he considered a foreign entity – the Australian Government.


The Great Australian Party (GAP) was formally registered by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) on 7 April 2019, initiated by former senator Rod Culleton, to stand candidates for the Senate at the 2019 Australian federal election. Rod Culleton had previously been elected in the 2016 Australian federal election as a senator for Western Australia, but subsequently found to have been ineligible and was disqualified. Policies of the party included the removal of personal income tax, nationalization of the Commonwealth Bank and abolishment of the Family Court of Australia. The Party also proposed to implement trials by jury only in criminal matters, naming of young criminals who are serial offenders and that criminal offenders would have the sale of their property used as a possible deterrent. The Australian: “Former senator Rod Culleton’s plans for political comeback“:


The Party primarily proposed the restoration of the “true” Constitution of Australia. Rodney Culleton had on numerous occasions declared the Australian legal system is invalid and thus so are Australian Courts, refusing to co-operate on numerous occasions by refusing to hand over documents or attend public examinations. Culleton continued to refer to himself as a “senator-in-exile” and sought to appeal his disqualification to the Privy Council of the United Kingdom. SMH: “‘Senator in exile’ Rod Culleton pens bizarre letter to PM claiming Western Australia ‘not part of the Commonwealth’“:


On 24 April 2019, the AEC referred Culleton’s Senate nomination form to the Australian Federal Police “to examine if a false declaration has been made under provisions of the Criminal Code Act 1995, relating to his status as an undischarged bankrupt and the prima facie disqualification of such persons to be chosen or to sit as a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives under section 44(iii) of the Constitution”. ABC: “Former One Nation MP Rod Culleton’s Senate election bid referred to federal police“:


The AEC stated that, while it did not have power to reject a fully completed nomination form or to make its own assessment of a candidate’s eligibility, it had been aware from a High Court judgment that Culleton had been a declared bankrupt and, upon checking the National Personal Insolvency Index, had found that he was currently listed as an undischarged bankrupt. SMH: “Disqualified once, Rod Culleton referred to police over ‘false declaration’ for Senate“:


On 2 May 2019, the AEC confirmed that Culleton’s Party controversially may be eligible for public funding just for appearing on the ballot paper. This is despite a bankrupt being “incapable of being chosen” as a member of parliament, pursuant to section 44 of the Constitution. The AEC also stated they did not have the power to decide if a candidate is ineligible. Rodney Culleton responded to these events:


The AEC also referred his eligibility to the Australian Federal Police for the same reasons in the 2022 Federal Election. AEC Statement: Mr Rodney Culleton’s candidate nomination:

ABC: “Former One Nation senator Rod Culleton referred to federal police by Australian Electoral Commission“:

Restoring the British Empire

What Rodney Culleton understood as the current “unconstitutional” issues, and the path forward in the “restoration of the Commonwealth” were outlined in Rod Culleton’s Prayer to the UK House of Lords (7 November 2018) and Rod Culleton’s letter to Queen Elizabeth II (18 January 2019). The main contentions, (and the reasons in submissions to the UK High Court in Rodney Culleton and Ors v Peter Quinlan and Ors CO/588/2020), was regarding the title of “Queen of Australia” (or in legal terms, the divisibility of the Crown, particularly related to the Royal Styles and Titles Act 1973), and the constitutionality of the Australia Acts 1986 that established complete independence from the UK. The party’s faithful members had desperately been waiting for a ruling from the UK High Court on this matter, that would reinstate the “Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” in it’s place, hence the “restore the Commonwealth” motto.

In the simplest terms, Rodney Culleton is seeking a restoration to the time when Australia was still a dominion of the British Empire and was still beholden to the Westminster Parliament, prior to the collapse of the British Empire with the Balfour Agreement 1926, enacted into law with the Statute of Westminster 1931, and the subsequent recognition of the divisibility of the Crown with the Royal Style and Titles Acts 1953 and 1973. Not only the complete independence achieved by virtue of the Australia Acts 1986, but a complete denial of most of the prominent historic events pertaining to this nation since federation.

One of the fundamental sovereign citizen motifs is the belief that the government has been usurped and replaced with an imposter, and attempt various strategies to get back into “the correct jurisdiction”. The US Posse Comitatus believed that the British had invaded by stealth and parked a ship in dry dock in Washington DC, operating under “maritime admiralty law”. They seen themselves as “state nationals” with absolute rights, while US citizens had “contracted” their rights away to become mere denizens of this “corporation”. They would point out any changes since the 12th Amendment as being unlawful and void, and evidence of this “correct jurisdiction” which they claimed. 

Rodney Culleton demonstrates this perception with his desperate desire to “return” to the framework of the British Empire, and points to these changes as evidence of the “correct jurisdiction” he claims. Right down to wanting to be heard in a court with a coat of arms preserved merely for its heritage value, and believing that it has some special significance on proceedings. Identically to the applicant in Kosteska v Magistrate Manthey & Anor [2013] QCA 105:

“It was also argued that her Honour was “severely constrained” in respect of the orders she could make by the “British Coat of Arms” which appeared above the bench. Apparently, the presence of this representation (of what is actually the Royal Coat of Arms) required that the law which was to be upheld in all proceedings was the common law of England “in all of its might and majesty”. But, says Ms Kosteska, that requirement was ignored. There are occasions (thankfully very rare) when a submission is made that is so misguided, so erroneous and so lacking in any understanding of the basics of Australian law that one is faced with a truly sublime absurdity. This is such an argument. The presence of a coat of arms in a courtroom is merely a symbol of authority. It provides no power. It creates no duty.”

The myth is nothing new, there is a literal library of precedent involving identical claims regarding the Great Seal of Australia and the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973. The premise was first rejected by the High Court nearly 25 years ago in Joosse v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [1998] HCA 77 (at 20), and since then it has been raised and rejected in dozens of cases. In fact, after being rejected here, one David Fitzgibbon took this argument all the way to the UK High Court 17 years ago in Fitzgibbon v HM Attorney General [2005] EWHC 114 (Ch), which not only upheld the principle of the divisibility of the Crown, citing the UK Court of Appeal in R v. Foreign Secretary ex parte Indian Association of Alberta [1982] 1 QB 892 regarding the Queen of Canada, but also dismissed the matter as the UK courts have no jurisdiction to interfere in the affairs of an independent member of the British Commonwealth, citing Buck v. Attorney General [1965] Ch 745. 

Elizabeth II herself personally Assented to, and made the Proclamation for the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 while in Australia on the 19th October 1973. The Proclamation by the Queen was published in the Government Gazette (No 152, 19 October 1973), along with the Royal Warrant for the Great Seal of Australia. As recognised in Hopes v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2016] WASC 198 regarding the power to enact the 1973 Act (from 51), the royal style and titles was actually adopted by royal proclamation – that is, by a prerogative act of the Queen, and was within the executive power of the Commonwealth by its very subject matter and within the legislative power of the Commonwealth as either incidentally conferred by section 51(xxxix) of the Constitution, or deduced from the nature and status of the Commonwealth as a national polity.

There was no referendum required for this change in title under section 128, as it did nothing to alter the text of the Commonwealth Constitution, but merely the interpretation of covering clause 2 and section 117, as the High Court is empowered to do by the interpretive powers of original jurisdiction under section 76. (See Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30, (at 54, 67, 82, 93, 74-97) Re Patterson [2001] HCA 51 (from 226), Singh v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] HCA 43 (at 39-41, 57-58, 131-133, 226-227, 263), and Volume 1 of the Final Report of the Constitutional Commission 1988 (from 2.129 -2.138).

Similarly regarding the constitutionality of the Australia Acts 1986, which has been upheld numerous times by the High Court, including in Attorney-General (WA) v Marquet [2003] HCA 67 ruling it was passed in reliance on section 51(xxxviii) which gives the Commonwealth Parliament power to legislate at the request and consent of the State parliaments, and accepted as valid in both Shaw v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 72 and Sue v Hill [1999] HCA 30, as well as other cases.

The Australian version was reserved for Her Majesty’s pleasure, which was given by Elizabeth II and subsequently assented by the Governor General on 4th December 1985, followed by Elizabeth II personally granting assent to the UK version on 17th February 1986, along with a Proclamation on 24th February 1986 that it would commence on 3rd March, which was right before she flew to Australia and personally assented the Proclamation on the 2nd March for the Act to commence the next day. (See Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No S 85 of 2 March 1986, page 87 in article “The Australia Act 1986“).

The common myth is the Australia Act 1986 altered the Constitution without a referendum, yet not a single provision of this legislation altered anything about the Commonwealth Constitution, but solely dealt with the States relationship with the UK. It actually provides in section 5 that “the Commonwealth Constitution is not affected”

The federal ties to the UK were already severed by section 2 of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. Section 2 is identical in wording to section 3 of the Australia Act 1986, except one applies to the Commonwealth, the other to the States. Hence the stated purpose of the Australia Act 1986 was for “…the States to be brought into conformity with the status of the Commonwealth of Australia as a sovereign, independent and federal nation”. 

Even the loss of the ability to appeal from State courts to the UK Privy Council by section 11 is consistent with section 74 of the Constitution, which merely provides that any laws limiting such appeals “…shall be reserved by the Governor-General for Her Majesty’s pleasure.” and the Australia Act 1986 was.

In the last video Rodney Culleton claims: “Jim McGinty got rid of the Crown in 2005…” He had already attempted this contention in the courts several times, first in Culleton [2016] FCA 1193 where McKerracher J said (from 24):

“Mr Culleton may not be aware that this issue has been raised before in the Supreme Court of Western Australia and, in particular, a number of attempts have been made to advance the same argument and the contention has been rejected as being unarguable or dismissed with even stronger criticism. In particular, I refer to Shaw both at first instance (Shaw v Attorney General [2005] WASC 149) and on appeal (Shaw v McGinty [2006] WASCA 231), Glew at first instance (Glew v The Governor of Western Australia [2009] WASC 14) and on appeal (Glew v Shire of Greenough [2006] WASCA 260) and on an application for special leave to the High Court from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Glew where the argument was dismissed as ‘entirely lacking in legal merit’ on the special leave application by Gummow and Heydon JJ: Glew v Shire of Greenough [2007] HCA Trans 520. So this argument has been well and truly looked at in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, at first instance and on appeal, and has been considered, albeit briefly, in the High Court of Australia.

It is clear that the citizen’s duty of allegiance and a judge’s duty of allegiance is still owed to the Crown in its various forms, but the point of the legislation, as observed by Wheeler JA in Glew v Shire of Greenough [2006] WASCA 260 is that the legislation changes the terminology only, not the constitutional reality. That is, it does not attempt to alter the relationship between the Crown and the various bodies contained within the Acts which were amended by the Courts and Legal Practice Act. Her Honour noted in that case (at [18]) that there was no constitutional prohibition upon the alteration of the terminology which refers to the Crown or to Her Majesty. Further, the changes of terminology contained with the Courts and Legal Practice Act are consistent with constitutional reality.”

And then again in Balwyn Nominees Pty Ltd v Culleton [2016] FCA 1578 where Barker J said (at 131):

“All previous attempts to raise this issue have equally been rejected as without any legal merit. See Shaw v Jim McGinty in his capacity as Attorney General & Anor [2006] WASCA 231 upholding Shaw v Attorney General for the State of Western Australia & Anor [2005] WASC 149; Glew & Anor v Shire of Greenough [2006] WASCA 260; Glew v The Governor of Western Australia (2009) 222 FLR 416; [2009] WASC 14. In Glew v Shire of Greenough, Wheeler JA (with whom Pullin and Buss JJA agreed) observed, at [17] and [18], that 2003 State legislation bringing about the change in terminology did not effect any change to constitutional reality. It did not attempt to alter the relationship between the Crown and the various bodies contained within the Acts amended. Her Honour said: “There is no constitutional prohibition upon the alteration of the terminology which refers to the Crown or to her Majesty. Further, the changes of terminology contained within the Acts Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act 2003 are consistent with constitutional reality.”.

In other words, this amendment didn’t “get rid of the Crown” at all, it merely changed the terminology.

Because of my actively informing members of these pertinent issues on their Facebook pages, I was subsequently blocked from even viewing any page associated with the Great Australian Party.

GAP blocked

Nevertheless, his followers blindly believed that somehow Rodney Culleton would succeed in the UK High Court, and regularly donated money to the party on these grounds. While Rodney Culleton’s application to the UK High Court was inevitably rejected on the papers by Dame Judith Farbey DBE, the President of the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal of Queen’s Bench Division of the UK High Court in 2021, the donations in the prior period of nearly two years enabled the apparent bankrupt to purchase a massive coach in order to continue spruiking the flawed concepts to more gullible people for donations.


On 8 May 2019 a group of intoxicated Great Australian Party supporters campaigning outside a polling booth in Cockburn, WA verbally abused a 70 year old woman and her husband. The West Australian: “Elderly woman verbally abused by ‘gang’ of Great Australian Party supporters outside Cockburn polling booth“:


In the 2019 Federal Election, the party fielded two Senate candidates in each of New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia but did not gain a seat in parliament. Their national first preference vote in the Senate was 0.23% (34,199 votes), ranging from 1.16% (12,698 votes) in South Australia to 0.14% (5,194 votes) in Victoria, while in Culleton’s home state of Western Australia it received 0.22% (3,196 votes), less than two hundredths of the votes required for election.



The Great Australian Party candidate for Newcastle Barry Futter failed to make disclosures as required by s 304(2) and s 309(2) of the Electoral Act 1918 (Cth), which resulted in the Commissioner of the Australian Electoral Commission being granted an order that Futter pay civil penalties in the amount of $12,600, as well its costs of the proceeding in Electoral Commissioner of the Australian Electoral Commission v Futter [2021] FCA 876 that the respondent did not participate in either.

In August 2020, the Great Australian Party and the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation signed a memorandum of understanding based on their shared aim to “stand down the illegal corporation harming us all”. SMH: “Alt-right seeks Indigenous help for fight with ‘illegal’ government“:


On 12 February 2021, Rodney Culleton announced the Great Australian Party’s first Senate candidate in the 2022 Federal Election, former celebrity chef Pete Evans.


SBS: “‘Dangerous publicity stunt’: Expert slams Pete Evans’ run for Senate“:


Rod Culleton’s “Notice of Prohibition and Disclosure” served on the secretary of the Governor-General David Hurley in Canberra, 25 January 2022:

Rodney Culleton v the Queen of Australia_Moment

See also the articles:

Leave a Reply