COAG – Council of Australian Government
In May 1992, COAG was established to debate and co-ordinate government activities between the Federal, state and local governments.
It is the peak intergovernmental forum in Australia.
COAG is the "modern" restoration of the 1855 Federal Council of Australasia, wherein the independent colonies had a trade agreement.
Members are not voted in by the people.
They are the Prime Minister, the Premiers of each state and territory and the President of the Australian Local Government Association.
Some activities have included a review of Government Services.
Reform packages for early childhood
Nation building and jobs partnerships
Intergovernmental agreements on Federal Financial Relations
Bushfire inquiry
Economic Implications of an ageing Australia
National Water Initiative
Foot and Mouth Disease
Corporations & Government
Subsequently all states who have turned corporate in their own right, are outside the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) and inside the Australia Act and can reprint all acts back to statutory legislation.
This allows the Australia Act to be the definitive constitution for a republic in all but name.
According to Law Alert, during the last week – 1 week only, the following 76 act & bills were brought in to be discussed, amended and passed
ACT: 8 including Rates & Land Taxes
Cth: 30 including Water Appropriation & Federal Magistrate Courts Amendments
NSW: 3 including Criminal Assets Recovery
QLD: 2 including Constitution Preamble Amendment
SA: 7 including Constitution Appointments
TAS: 5 including Police Offences Amendment
VIC: 13 including Local govt Act, Planning Legislation, water Amendment
WA: 8 including Mining, Environment, Crown Land & Planning Amendments
All together for 2009, the Federal and State Parliaments have passed or amended 2,313 new Bills, Acts and Regulations.
All are statutory laws of the new corporations protected by the Queen of Australia, sealed to the Great Seal of Australia and/the State Seals & inside the Australia Act 1986.
Showing posts with label Australia Act 1986. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australia Act 1986. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Government Creation of a new Constitution
Balfour Declaration 1926
This Declaration accepted the growing political and diplomatic independence of the Dominions, in the years after WWI.
It also recommended that the governors-general, the representatives of the King who acted for the Crown as de facto head of state in each dominion, should no longer also serve automatically as the representative of the British government in diplomatic relations between the countries.
In following years, High Commissioners were gradually appointed, whose duties were soon recognised to be virtually identical to those of an ambassador.
Labor PM James Scullin, acted within its precepts and insisted on picking the new Governor-General rather than taking the person chosen by King GeorgeV. George was forced to agree by the Imperial Conference 1930.
Royal & Parliamentary Titles Act 1927
This act modified the King’s title, proclaiming that he was no longer King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland & of the British Dominions, but rather of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions.
This meant that the unified Crown that had been the centre point of the Empire was replaced by multiple crowns worn by a “shared monarch.”
Before 1927, King George V reigned as King in Australia, NZ, Canada and etc, with them all being dominions of the United Kingdom. After 1927, he reigned as King of Australia and etc.
.jpg)
Great Seal of Australia & the Queen of Australia
This Declaration accepted the growing political and diplomatic independence of the Dominions, in the years after WWI.
It also recommended that the governors-general, the representatives of the King who acted for the Crown as de facto head of state in each dominion, should no longer also serve automatically as the representative of the British government in diplomatic relations between the countries.
In following years, High Commissioners were gradually appointed, whose duties were soon recognised to be virtually identical to those of an ambassador.
Labor PM James Scullin, acted within its precepts and insisted on picking the new Governor-General rather than taking the person chosen by King GeorgeV. George was forced to agree by the Imperial Conference 1930.
Royal & Parliamentary Titles Act 1927
This act modified the King’s title, proclaiming that he was no longer King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland & of the British Dominions, but rather of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions.
This meant that the unified Crown that had been the centre point of the Empire was replaced by multiple crowns worn by a “shared monarch.”
Before 1927, King George V reigned as King in Australia, NZ, Canada and etc, with them all being dominions of the United Kingdom. After 1927, he reigned as King of Australia and etc.
While the King did not seem to grasp the significance, the Irish did, and immediately separated themselves from the new UK monarch.
On the 19th October, 1973, Gough Whitlam, used the Royal Styles Act to create the Queen of Australia, this act being reprinted on 22 April 2002.
Monarch of Australia
Her current Australian title is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
She is regarded as a legal personality of the Australian State, and is referred to as her Majesty the Queen in Right of Australia or Regina in law cases.
As such all state lands are called Crown land, state owned buildings and equipment are called Crown held property, copyright for all government publications are called Crown
copyright.
Employees of the Crown may be required to recite an oath to the Crown. Parliamentarians, members of the judiciary must do so as well.
The Queen of Australia cannot be sued in foreign courts without her express consent.
Symbols
State Coat of Arms are now replacing the Sovereign’s Coat of Arms in the courts of Australia.
The Commonwealth Coat of Arms is now known as the Coat of Arms of Australia.
In 2004, an Australian barrister, David Fitzgibbon established in the High Court of London, that the Queen had used the wrong stamp to approve the appointment of the new governor-General. The court agreed. The Queen had used the Great Seal of Australia instead of the Great Seal of Britain.
Westminster System
Although four Prime Minister’s had refused to ratify the Westminster Statute, in 1942 John Curtin was forced to, by the entry of the Japanese into WWII, when it became obvious the British could not protect Australia.
In order to seek an alliance with the US, the Australian
Parliament formally adopted the Statute of Westminster 1931, a statute which allowed our Parliament to act independently of the British Parliament and Government.
This act demonstrated to the international community that Australia was an independent nation.
It also meant that any laws the parliament made which were repugnant to British laws would no longer be invalid.
The Governor-General now assents to all bills with the Great Seal of Australia.
On the 19th October, 1973, Gough Whitlam, used the Royal Styles Act to create the Queen of Australia, this act being reprinted on 22 April 2002.
Monarch of Australia
Her current Australian title is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
She is regarded as a legal personality of the Australian State, and is referred to as her Majesty the Queen in Right of Australia or Regina in law cases.
As such all state lands are called Crown land, state owned buildings and equipment are called Crown held property, copyright for all government publications are called Crown
copyright.
Employees of the Crown may be required to recite an oath to the Crown. Parliamentarians, members of the judiciary must do so as well.
The Queen of Australia cannot be sued in foreign courts without her express consent.
Symbols
State Coat of Arms are now replacing the Sovereign’s Coat of Arms in the courts of Australia.
The Commonwealth Coat of Arms is now known as the Coat of Arms of Australia.
In 2004, an Australian barrister, David Fitzgibbon established in the High Court of London, that the Queen had used the wrong stamp to approve the appointment of the new governor-General. The court agreed. The Queen had used the Great Seal of Australia instead of the Great Seal of Britain.
Westminster System
Although four Prime Minister’s had refused to ratify the Westminster Statute, in 1942 John Curtin was forced to, by the entry of the Japanese into WWII, when it became obvious the British could not protect Australia.
In order to seek an alliance with the US, the Australian
Parliament formally adopted the Statute of Westminster 1931, a statute which allowed our Parliament to act independently of the British Parliament and Government.
This act demonstrated to the international community that Australia was an independent nation.
It also meant that any laws the parliament made which were repugnant to British laws would no longer be invalid.
The Governor-General now assents to all bills with the Great Seal of Australia.
Changes under the Westminster System
* The Westminster system is a series of procedures for operating a legislature.
* The Prime Minister is recognized as the presiding and actual head of the government and head of the executive branch.
* The Queen / Governor-General holds a ceremonial position only.
* A cabinet executes executive authority.
* A multi-party system
* Parliament can be dissolved and elections called at any time.
* Parliamentary Privilege allows the legislature to discuss any issue it feels is relevant, with no fear of consequences
* Government or legislature interpret the results of Plebiscites and may ignore them if desired.
* The Governor-General ceased to be the representative of the British government and a British High Commissioner was from then on appointed.
* The Governor-General now has the responsibility of appointing a prime minister.
* Westminster governments usually do not have a very strong tradition of Separation of Powers.
* The Westminster system is a series of procedures for operating a legislature.
* The Prime Minister is recognized as the presiding and actual head of the government and head of the executive branch.
* The Queen / Governor-General holds a ceremonial position only.
* A cabinet executes executive authority.
* A multi-party system
* Parliament can be dissolved and elections called at any time.
* Parliamentary Privilege allows the legislature to discuss any issue it feels is relevant, with no fear of consequences
* Government or legislature interpret the results of Plebiscites and may ignore them if desired.
* The Governor-General ceased to be the representative of the British government and a British High Commissioner was from then on appointed.
* The Governor-General now has the responsibility of appointing a prime minister.
* Westminster governments usually do not have a very strong tradition of Separation of Powers.
Australia Act 1986
The power of the Westminster Statute allowed the Australian Parliament to request that the British Parliament enact the Australia act 1986.
This effectively terminated the ability of the British Parliament and government to make laws for Australia, even at their request, and meant that any law previously passed on behalf of Australia could now be done so by the new Australian Parliament and government.
It removed the right of the monarch to exercise their power in Australia unless personally present.
In Sue v Hill 1999, the High Court declared that the UK is a “foreign power”.
This means that such laws as the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689 and etc are the laws of a foreign country and no longer able to be accessed by Australians.
The power of the Westminster Statute allowed the Australian Parliament to request that the British Parliament enact the Australia act 1986.
This effectively terminated the ability of the British Parliament and government to make laws for Australia, even at their request, and meant that any law previously passed on behalf of Australia could now be done so by the new Australian Parliament and government.
It removed the right of the monarch to exercise their power in Australia unless personally present.
In Sue v Hill 1999, the High Court declared that the UK is a “foreign power”.
This means that such laws as the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689 and etc are the laws of a foreign country and no longer able to be accessed by Australians.
Royal Coat of Arms & Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain
.jpg)
Great Seal of Australia & the Queen of Australia
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
State Governments of Australia in 2009
The Constitution refers to a State. That being “a State” of the Commonwealth of Australia (Chapter 5).
The reference to “the State” is to the State of the Commonwealth of Australia and its external territories.
To clarify the term “the State” and its effect within today’s laws. The best way to explain this is take the meaning of “the State” from the South Australian Acts Interpretation Act 1919 (SA) at s4A, where it says this about the State:
Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA)
Section 4A headed, Date of establishment of the State “For the purposes of the law of the State, the State will be taken to have been established on the twenty-eighth day of December, 1836.”
Therefore, in each government, The State is the entity created at its inception as a colony, prior to the Federation when that state became A State. The State being an independent entity, A State being a confederated entity.
In other words, the Constitutional states are still in existence, the govts of those states have simply returned to operating under their original colonial constitutions.
Have we returned to being prisoners under military rule then?
Now as a consequence of holding (keeping) Chapter 2 and the reading down (ignoring) of Chapters 1 and 3 specifically, the Executive Government of the Commonwealth and the Executive Governments of “the States” are exercising extraordinary powers through the process known as COAG which is based on a process of Statutory agreements alienated (separate) from the Constitution.
What is now created? –
The reference to “the State” is to the State of the Commonwealth of Australia and its external territories.
To clarify the term “the State” and its effect within today’s laws. The best way to explain this is take the meaning of “the State” from the South Australian Acts Interpretation Act 1919 (SA) at s4A, where it says this about the State:
Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA)
Section 4A headed, Date of establishment of the State “For the purposes of the law of the State, the State will be taken to have been established on the twenty-eighth day of December, 1836.”
Therefore, in each government, The State is the entity created at its inception as a colony, prior to the Federation when that state became A State. The State being an independent entity, A State being a confederated entity.
In other words, the Constitutional states are still in existence, the govts of those states have simply returned to operating under their original colonial constitutions.
Have we returned to being prisoners under military rule then?
Now as a consequence of holding (keeping) Chapter 2 and the reading down (ignoring) of Chapters 1 and 3 specifically, the Executive Government of the Commonwealth and the Executive Governments of “the States” are exercising extraordinary powers through the process known as COAG which is based on a process of Statutory agreements alienated (separate) from the Constitution.
What is now created? –
- An independent jurisdiction without limit, or restriction,
- that was in existence before Federation (Colonies)
- with the exception, that British Law no longer applies by virtue of the Australia Act.
- Therefore; there is no applicable jurisprudence obtainable from within Chapters 1 or 3 of the Constitution.
- The jurisprudence is now held solely within the Statutory Instrument (govt legislation) and again is alienated from the Constitution.
So, the Crown now resides in the “hands” of the Governor, who is under the advisement of the Federal Executive.
The Executive has assumed the role of Governor, therefore the Crown now resides in the hands of the Executive.
Therefore all state legislation made by the
executive=governor=crown is binding.
The Executive Government of Australia in 2009
The Australian Constitution is divided into “Jurisdictions” (i.e. parliament, executive, crown, judiciary)
Chapter 1 – The Parliament
Chapter II – the Executive
Chapter III – the Judicature
Govt have “read down” (ignored) Ch I & III.
They have found a loophole and “created” a new “constitution” out of Chapter II s61, s62 and s63. Hence the Australia Act 1986.
Thus – the Governor-General exercises the power of the Queen (61), under the advisement of the Federal Executive Council (62), therefore this provision of this constitution referring to him shall be construed as referring to him acting in advice (63).
In other words, the GG works in with the Executive to exercise the powers vested in him.
S63, therefore allows the Executive to assume the role of the Governor-General as Head of State.
This has created an entirely new jurisdiction INSIDE the Australian Constitution – the jurisdiction referred to by the High Court in several cases. Note: In most legislature “This Act binds the crown in each of its capacities”.
Remember, the Australian Constitution is STILL IN PLACE. This new structure operates like a cancer INSIDE the Aust Constitution.This new jurisdiction is known as the law of the body politic, or the law of public policy (e.g EPBC Act 1999, Local Govt Act 1995 & etc) .
It has allowed, over the previous 20 years, the dramatic amendments (parliamentary supremacy) to the Judiciary Act 1903 specifically during the Hawke/Keating years and more aggressively through the Howard years.
This jurisdiction (public policy) has the ability to create laws that remove, or weaken all and any provisions (Common law) normally found under the jurisdictions of Chapter 1 and 3 (remember they are being ignored).
The public policy jurisdiction (Statute law Miscellaneous Provisions) has its own Courts (Tribunals, or Committees), Rules of Court and employs a different type of public servant, that being a person, or authority in the service of the Government (assumed Crown) as differentiated from, in the service of the Crown.
In nearly all circumstances in the provisioning of statutory instruments made under this jurisdiction, the so called Government public servants attain the authority of “authorised officers” exercising similar powers to police officers (Crown employees) which include powers of search, power to obtain documents, power to demand answers to questions at a time and place of their choosing and the power to prosecute.
This jurisdiction operates WITHOUT restriction, or limitation. Nearly all the States, particularly Qld, make all law under this jurisdiction and there is absolutely no provision for cross-vesting between these two jurisdictions. Cross-vesting being the ability for a court to recognize both or either common law and/or civil law (ie. mercantile, admiralty).
In other words, this parliamentary supremacy has created a new form of law under public policy, new courts to administer that law and new public servants to police that form of law. The new courts do not have the ability to adjudicate under any form of common law, but at all times can only operate under civil law.
Who closes it down when govt finds a loophole – this time in the very structure of the governance of our country?
We, the people do!
Chapter 1 – The Parliament
Chapter II – the Executive
Chapter III – the Judicature
Govt have “read down” (ignored) Ch I & III.
They have found a loophole and “created” a new “constitution” out of Chapter II s61, s62 and s63. Hence the Australia Act 1986.
Thus – the Governor-General exercises the power of the Queen (61), under the advisement of the Federal Executive Council (62), therefore this provision of this constitution referring to him shall be construed as referring to him acting in advice (63).
In other words, the GG works in with the Executive to exercise the powers vested in him.
S63, therefore allows the Executive to assume the role of the Governor-General as Head of State.
This has created an entirely new jurisdiction INSIDE the Australian Constitution – the jurisdiction referred to by the High Court in several cases. Note: In most legislature “This Act binds the crown in each of its capacities”.
Remember, the Australian Constitution is STILL IN PLACE. This new structure operates like a cancer INSIDE the Aust Constitution.This new jurisdiction is known as the law of the body politic, or the law of public policy (e.g EPBC Act 1999, Local Govt Act 1995 & etc) .
It has allowed, over the previous 20 years, the dramatic amendments (parliamentary supremacy) to the Judiciary Act 1903 specifically during the Hawke/Keating years and more aggressively through the Howard years.
This jurisdiction (public policy) has the ability to create laws that remove, or weaken all and any provisions (Common law) normally found under the jurisdictions of Chapter 1 and 3 (remember they are being ignored).
The public policy jurisdiction (Statute law Miscellaneous Provisions) has its own Courts (Tribunals, or Committees), Rules of Court and employs a different type of public servant, that being a person, or authority in the service of the Government (assumed Crown) as differentiated from, in the service of the Crown.
In nearly all circumstances in the provisioning of statutory instruments made under this jurisdiction, the so called Government public servants attain the authority of “authorised officers” exercising similar powers to police officers (Crown employees) which include powers of search, power to obtain documents, power to demand answers to questions at a time and place of their choosing and the power to prosecute.
This jurisdiction operates WITHOUT restriction, or limitation. Nearly all the States, particularly Qld, make all law under this jurisdiction and there is absolutely no provision for cross-vesting between these two jurisdictions. Cross-vesting being the ability for a court to recognize both or either common law and/or civil law (ie. mercantile, admiralty).
In other words, this parliamentary supremacy has created a new form of law under public policy, new courts to administer that law and new public servants to police that form of law. The new courts do not have the ability to adjudicate under any form of common law, but at all times can only operate under civil law.
Let’s make this even simpler to understand.
Look at your body, it operates under the laws of nature, thriving with the proper food, liquid, exercise. Natural rights each of us are entitled to.
A cancer creeps in, finds a home in a portion of your body and proceeds to build its own structure. With the end aim of taking over & perhaps killing you.
There is nothing illegal about this cancer, it comes from your own body, feeds from your own body, but it is against the law of nature as it creates its own kingdom INSIDE your body, taking over your right to health.
Look at your body, it operates under the laws of nature, thriving with the proper food, liquid, exercise. Natural rights each of us are entitled to.
A cancer creeps in, finds a home in a portion of your body and proceeds to build its own structure. With the end aim of taking over & perhaps killing you.
There is nothing illegal about this cancer, it comes from your own body, feeds from your own body, but it is against the law of nature as it creates its own kingdom INSIDE your body, taking over your right to health.
Now we constantly hear reference to tax loopholes – usually found by the wealthy with the assistance of high-priced lawyers. Govt get wind of these loopholes and close them.
Government have simply found a loophole in the Constitution – except it is a loophole that is turning the people of Australia into slaves, with no personal liberties, no right of ownership and no ability to protect themselves legally.
Government have simply found a loophole in the Constitution – except it is a loophole that is turning the people of Australia into slaves, with no personal liberties, no right of ownership and no ability to protect themselves legally.
Who closes it down when govt finds a loophole – this time in the very structure of the governance of our country?
We, the people do!
This is what govt have been working to create since possibly the inception of the Australian Constitution 1900. The Framers of the Constitution are quoted in the Commentaries on the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia by Sir Robert Garran (1867 - 1957) - It was the great ambition of the framers of the Australian Constitutions of 1855–6 to acclimatize, in the colonies which they were then helping to found, the system thus known as Responsible Government.
This brings us to a review of some of the objections which have been raised to the application of the Cabinet system of Executive Government to a federation. These objections have been formulated with great ability and sustained with force and earnestness by several Australian federalists of eminence, among whom may be mentioned the names of Sir Samuel Griffith, Sir Richard C. Baker, Sir John Cockburn, Mr. Justice Inglis Clark, and Mr. G. W. Hackett, who have taken the view that the Cabinet system of Executive is incompatible with a true Federation. (See “The Executive in a Federation,” by Sir Richard C. Baker, K.C.M.G., p.l.)
In support of this contention it is argued that, in a Federation, it is a fundamental rule that no new law shall be passed and no old law shall be altered without the consent of (1) a majority of the people speaking by their representatives in one House, and (2) a majority of the States speaking by their representatives in the other house; that the same principle of State approval as well as popular approval should apply to Executive action, as well as to legislative action; that the State should not be forced to support Executive policy and Executive acts merely because ministers enjoyed the confidence of the popular Chamber; that the State House would be justified in withdrawing its support from a ministry of whose policy and executive acts it disapproved; that the State House could, as effectually as the primary Chamber, enforce its want of confidence by refusing to provide the necessary supplies. The Senate of the French Republic, it is pointed out, has established a precedent showing how an Upper House can enforce its opinions and cause a change of ministry. On these grounds it is contended that the introduction of the Cabinet system of Responsible Government into a Federation, in which the relations of two branches of the legislature, having equal and co-ordinate authority, are quite different from those existing in a single autonomous State, is repugnant to the spirit and intention of a scheme of Federal Government. In the end it is predicted that either Responsible Government will kill the Federation and change it into a unified State, or the Federation will kill Responsible Government and substitute a new form of Executive more compatible with the Federal theory. In particular, strong objection is taken to the insertion in the Constitution of a cast-iron condition that Federal Ministers must be members of Parliament. Membership of Parliament, it is argued, is not of the essence of Responsible Government, but only an incident or an accidental feature, which has been introduced by modern practice and by statutory innovation.
This brings us to a review of some of the objections which have been raised to the application of the Cabinet system of Executive Government to a federation. These objections have been formulated with great ability and sustained with force and earnestness by several Australian federalists of eminence, among whom may be mentioned the names of Sir Samuel Griffith, Sir Richard C. Baker, Sir John Cockburn, Mr. Justice Inglis Clark, and Mr. G. W. Hackett, who have taken the view that the Cabinet system of Executive is incompatible with a true Federation. (See “The Executive in a Federation,” by Sir Richard C. Baker, K.C.M.G., p.l.)
In support of this contention it is argued that, in a Federation, it is a fundamental rule that no new law shall be passed and no old law shall be altered without the consent of (1) a majority of the people speaking by their representatives in one House, and (2) a majority of the States speaking by their representatives in the other house; that the same principle of State approval as well as popular approval should apply to Executive action, as well as to legislative action; that the State should not be forced to support Executive policy and Executive acts merely because ministers enjoyed the confidence of the popular Chamber; that the State House would be justified in withdrawing its support from a ministry of whose policy and executive acts it disapproved; that the State House could, as effectually as the primary Chamber, enforce its want of confidence by refusing to provide the necessary supplies. The Senate of the French Republic, it is pointed out, has established a precedent showing how an Upper House can enforce its opinions and cause a change of ministry. On these grounds it is contended that the introduction of the Cabinet system of Responsible Government into a Federation, in which the relations of two branches of the legislature, having equal and co-ordinate authority, are quite different from those existing in a single autonomous State, is repugnant to the spirit and intention of a scheme of Federal Government. In the end it is predicted that either Responsible Government will kill the Federation and change it into a unified State, or the Federation will kill Responsible Government and substitute a new form of Executive more compatible with the Federal theory. In particular, strong objection is taken to the insertion in the Constitution of a cast-iron condition that Federal Ministers must be members of Parliament. Membership of Parliament, it is argued, is not of the essence of Responsible Government, but only an incident or an accidental feature, which has been introduced by modern practice and by statutory innovation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
