APPENDIX I
(A) Magna Carta 1215.
(39) No freeman shall be captured or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.
(40) To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.
(B) Extract from the Statute issued by Edward I, in confirmation of the Charters, November 5, 1297.
"...and that our justices, sheriffs and mayors, and other ministers, which, under us, have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the said charters, pleaded before them in judgement, in all their points, that is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law."
(C) Bill Of Rights 1689.
(5) That it is the right of the subjects to Petition the King, and all Commitments and Prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.
(D) Crimes Act 1914.
(24F) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this Part makes it unlawful for a person:-
(a) to endeavour in good faith to show that the Sovereign, the Governor-General, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Territory, or the advisors of any of them, or the persons responsible for the government of another country, has or have been, or is or are, mistaken in any of his or their counsels, policies or actions;
(F) Postage exemptions for material sent to the Governor-General and the State Governors:-
Information from the stamp below must be printed or written on the top left corner of envelope to the Governor-General or State Governors. All information abbreviated as given on stamp must appear on the envelope:
EXEMPT POSTAGE
Post. Serv. Act. 1975
Part III; Div. 1. Sec. 14(5a).
Showing posts with label Governor-General. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Governor-General. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
My Will - Part 7
(7) IS THERE A PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE TO THE PARTY SYSTEM?
As was stated in Chapter 5:-
"the only true Constitutional and legal reason for the existence, and the only true legal purpose, of the Parliament, the institution of the Monarchy, and the offices of the Governor-General and State Governors - IS TO GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THE PEOPLE ASK FOR. NOT WHAT OTHERS THINK THE PEOPLE OUGHT TO HAVE.
Keeping this in mind leads to the logical next step, i.e. to look briefly, but closely, at what the Commonwealth and State Constitutions provide for the establishment and operation of a true democratic Parliament_as previously defined:-
• The Parliament MUST consist of the Queen, or Her Vice Regal representatives, acting in consort with both Houses of the Parliament.
• Including the Senate, but excepting the so-called Upper Houses of the five States, the Constitutions provide that the people shall have the power to elect parliamentary representatives to those other so called Lower Houses.
• The elected representatives have, within limits, the right of laying down rules and procedures for operating their own House of the Parliament and, subject to the boundaries of the respective Commonwealth and State Constitutions (and the judicial interpretations thereof), to enact laws for the order and good government of the people and, where clearly expressed, the written WILL of the people.
• As stated in other chapters, the Queen or Her Representatives have the sole legal right to appoint and dismiss Her Ministers of the Crown.
• If the Houses of the Parliament wish to remove a Minister, the only legal power available to them - short of a special Act of the Parliament to do so - is to petition the Queen or Her Representative to dismiss the Minister or Ministers concerned, and the Queen will do so unless the people ask Her not to do so.
• The removal, or dismissal of a Minister or Ministers does not legally mean the dismissal of a government, for the government is permanently vested in the institution of the Monarchy and the Queen cannot be dismissed unless Her people, i.e., a majority of the electors, request the Queen to divest Herself of ALL AND EVERY POWER AND AUTHORITY WHICH THE MONARCHY HOLDS ENTRUST FOR THE PEOPLE, TO BE USED AS THE PEOPLE DIRECT.
• The removal of Ministers by the Queen, or Her Representatives, only means replacing them with other appointees of the Queen, and has no more legal significance than that. It is only the unwarranted interference of party politics which has given rise to a false understanding of the legal and Constitutional facts.
• Electors, in each electorate, have the legal power to select and elect one Member to the so-called Lower Houses and, in the Federal system, State Senators.
• Upon election, these Members and Senators have the legal power to select and elect their respective Speaker and President and, additionally, to appoint as many standing, or temporary, committees of the House, or Joint House Committees, as they consider necessary within the bounds of the Constitution.
• These committees can hold legal enquiries, command the appearance of any person or persons before them; command the production of any written, printed, typed or photostated material or matter and, generally, commit any person, for contempt of the House to prison, for not longer than the life of that Parliament, i.e., 3 years.
• With proper dignity, and sense of conscience, a Member may speak absolutely freely and fearlessly in his House of Parliament. This right comes down to Parliamentarians from the 'British Petition of Rights' and the 'Bill Of Rights: Both these ancient British quasistatutes are the basis of the judicially defined legal function and duty of a Parliamentarian, as referred to in this work.
• In a correctly functioning Parliament (which no House of Parliament presently is) every Member has the right to ask leave of the House to present a Bill for an Act on any subject matter within the legal boundaries of the Constitution. Although a Member, theoretically, has the right to present a Bill, under the operation of the party system, he is allowed to do so only if the party leaders can see some political mileage for that party in that Bill, to the discomfort of their opponents.
• If he chooses to use them, every Member has unlimited research facilities available to him, both within the Houses of Parliament and within universities, colleges, big and small organisations and so forth. Few of these bodies would not be happy to make their research facilities available to a Member, so it is his own fault if he does not possess a well-informed mind on the various matters coming before him in his House of Parliament.
• In each House of Parliament, the role of House attendants is, within the rules of that House, to assist the Member in every way to fulfil that Member's judicially defined function and duty. The House attendants, in every Parliament in Australia, are an example of the finest service and a credit to themselves and the House they serve.
• Ministers of the Crown, in their paid capacity as administrators of departments of State are legally responsible direct to the Queen, or Her Representative, i.e., the Governor-General or appropriate State Governor. Unless incompatible with the respective Constitutions and Parliamentary legislation, all direction from the Queen must be obeyed by the Ministers who are also legally bound to correctly and properly enforce all legislation relating to their specific department.
• It is not within the Constitutional or legal power of Ministers to determine what business, or order of business, the Houses of the Parliament shall deal with. That is solely in the hands of the Members of each House. Unfortunately party manipulation interferes with the Members direct legal control over their own affairs in their House, and this is a fact that Members of all parties have complained about from time to time but do not exert their legal authority to stop it.
• Through either Mr. Speaker or Mr. President, or both, the Queen or Her Representative may transmit message and requests that the House or Houses amend, reconsider, or introduce any Bill, except in the so-called Upper Houses no Financial Bills shall be initiated in that House.
• If the Queen or Her representative is asked by the Majority of the people to direct either or both Houses to do a lawful thing, then those Houses have no legal alternative than to carry out the clearly expressed written WILL of the people.
• As stated in Chapter 2, the Members of each House are required, within that House, to act with a dignity, decorum and solemnity not less than that of a judge in his court. Members who do not, or who refuse to, act with judge-like solemnity - and few Members do so act - are guilty of a gross violation of their judicially defined function and duty, and of their Oath or Affirmation of Office, and the Speaker or President is equally guilty if he does not, in the strongest terms, and possible lawful ways, strictly enforce that conduct of solemnity amongst the Members.
• The Speaker and the President are the sole direct legal contact between each House of Parliament and the Queen or Her Representatives. Ministers of the Crown illegally usurp the authority of the Speaker and or the President when they try to act as if THEY were the direct contact.
• Contrary to the long-standing cliches, party political and otherwise, Ministers of the Crown are not legally responsible to Parliament or the Houses of the Parliament.
• Parliament, as previously stressed in this work, consists of the Queen, or legal government, and the Houses of Parliament acting in consort. The Queen is the supreme legal government and the Houses of the Parliament are the legislative-forming bodies. The Minister can be legally responsible only to the legal government, that is the Queen or Her appropriate Commonwealth and State Representative.
• Members have complete legal power to bring public servants before the bar of the House for any purpose whenever the House deems it is vital to do so. It is completely outside of the legal jurisdiction of a Minister to direct his departmental officers not to give information to the House when called before the bar of that House. It is only party politics which makes this illegal act of Ministers possible, despite resort to the authority of the Solicitor General and or standing works like "May's Parliamentary Practices". Such authorities are wholly and solely based upon pure party political practices and not upon legal grounds sustainable in court.
• If Members of Parliament really exercised the true legal authority they have to bring top public servants before the bar of the House and make them disclose the real or theoretical basis of much of the advice that these officers give their Ministers, then you would see the beginning of the end of bureaucracy and the emergence of true public service at all levels. It must be obvious to everyone that, because of internal empire-building and internal office and interdepartmental politics Ministers do not always get the impartial factual advice that they are entitled to receive and, of a consequence, many fine departmental officers have to carry a public odium that is not warranted. It is time, therefore, that senior Officers, at least, should be made to carry the full responsibility of the advice they give their Ministers and, from this writer's inside knowledge most such officers would welcome this responsibility.
• The Queen, Her Governor-General and State Governors are directly responsible, not to the Houses of Parliament nor political parties but, to the people in the respective Constitutional areas.
• Except where any Constitution, or a lawful statute within that Constitution, lays down that the Queen - or Her appropriate representative - shall act, in relation to a specified matter, only with the advice of the Executive Council (be it Federal or State) there is no legal compulsion for the Queen to do so. Nor is there any legal compulsion for the Queen or Her Representative to give the Royal Assent to any legislation, unless directed to do so by the clearly expressed written WILL of the people.
• The Federal and State Executive Councils do not legally have to be composed wholly of Ministers of the Crown. This is just a non-legal party political practice to keep party control over the machinery of government and of Parliament. The Commonwealth and State Constitutions all provide that the appropriate Executive Council shall be comprised of all Ministers of the Crown and such other persons whom the Queen, or Her Representative, may care to appoint as advisors in particular subjects or matters.
• The Constitutions of the Commonwealth and State give the Queen, and Her appropriate representatives, the sole power and authority, at anytime of their choosing, to dissolve the so-called Lower House and send those Members back to the electorate. If directed by the written WILL of the people the Queen or Her Representative, MUST dissolve the Lower House.
This is one of the two most vital powers of control over parliamentarians and parliament that the people possess. The other is the power to ask the Queen to give them the specified results they want from the parliamentary machine.
• ALWAYS REMEMBER THIS VITAL FACT: IF IT IS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE, AND THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WANT IT, THEN THE QUEEN HAS THE FINAL POWER TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE PEOPLE GET WHAT THEY WANT, AND NO COURT WOULD RULE AGAINST THE EXERCISE OF THE QUEEN'S POWER IN THAT RESPECT.
• It is obvious that it is not in the best interests of the political parties, and certain other writers, that you should have the above knowledge; for your understanding of, and use of, that knowledge means the end of party manipulations; the end of Party control over the voice and vote of Members of Parliament, and this is unarguable.
• It is stressed again that it is the lawful duty and obligation of every elector continuously to inform his Federal and State Members of Parliament, and State Senators, of what his WILL is on everything that comes before Parliament or should come before the Houses of the Parliament. In not performing your lawful duty and obligation you are giving Members and Senators a plausible excuse for not carrying out their judicially defined legal duty and legal function, thus enabling party manipulators and controllers to retain their dictatorship over the voices and votes of your Members and Senators and of the machinery of Parliament to to impose their will upon you.
Shorn of all legal jargon, the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and the six Australian States provide for the operation of an almost perfect form of democratic parliament IF YOU, THE PEOPLE, choose to apply the power and authority which those Constitutions give to you.
THE SOLE AND ONLY LEGAL LIMIT TO THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF THE QUEEN IS THE UNKNOWABLE EXTENT OF WHAT HER PEOPLE, AT ANY TIME OF THEIR CHOOSING, MAY DIRECTLY REQUEST OF HER.
As was stated in Chapter 5:-
"the only true Constitutional and legal reason for the existence, and the only true legal purpose, of the Parliament, the institution of the Monarchy, and the offices of the Governor-General and State Governors - IS TO GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THE PEOPLE ASK FOR. NOT WHAT OTHERS THINK THE PEOPLE OUGHT TO HAVE.
Keeping this in mind leads to the logical next step, i.e. to look briefly, but closely, at what the Commonwealth and State Constitutions provide for the establishment and operation of a true democratic Parliament_as previously defined:-
• The Parliament MUST consist of the Queen, or Her Vice Regal representatives, acting in consort with both Houses of the Parliament.
• Including the Senate, but excepting the so-called Upper Houses of the five States, the Constitutions provide that the people shall have the power to elect parliamentary representatives to those other so called Lower Houses.
• The elected representatives have, within limits, the right of laying down rules and procedures for operating their own House of the Parliament and, subject to the boundaries of the respective Commonwealth and State Constitutions (and the judicial interpretations thereof), to enact laws for the order and good government of the people and, where clearly expressed, the written WILL of the people.
• As stated in other chapters, the Queen or Her Representatives have the sole legal right to appoint and dismiss Her Ministers of the Crown.
• If the Houses of the Parliament wish to remove a Minister, the only legal power available to them - short of a special Act of the Parliament to do so - is to petition the Queen or Her Representative to dismiss the Minister or Ministers concerned, and the Queen will do so unless the people ask Her not to do so.
• The removal, or dismissal of a Minister or Ministers does not legally mean the dismissal of a government, for the government is permanently vested in the institution of the Monarchy and the Queen cannot be dismissed unless Her people, i.e., a majority of the electors, request the Queen to divest Herself of ALL AND EVERY POWER AND AUTHORITY WHICH THE MONARCHY HOLDS ENTRUST FOR THE PEOPLE, TO BE USED AS THE PEOPLE DIRECT.
• The removal of Ministers by the Queen, or Her Representatives, only means replacing them with other appointees of the Queen, and has no more legal significance than that. It is only the unwarranted interference of party politics which has given rise to a false understanding of the legal and Constitutional facts.
• Electors, in each electorate, have the legal power to select and elect one Member to the so-called Lower Houses and, in the Federal system, State Senators.
• Upon election, these Members and Senators have the legal power to select and elect their respective Speaker and President and, additionally, to appoint as many standing, or temporary, committees of the House, or Joint House Committees, as they consider necessary within the bounds of the Constitution.
• These committees can hold legal enquiries, command the appearance of any person or persons before them; command the production of any written, printed, typed or photostated material or matter and, generally, commit any person, for contempt of the House to prison, for not longer than the life of that Parliament, i.e., 3 years.
• With proper dignity, and sense of conscience, a Member may speak absolutely freely and fearlessly in his House of Parliament. This right comes down to Parliamentarians from the 'British Petition of Rights' and the 'Bill Of Rights: Both these ancient British quasistatutes are the basis of the judicially defined legal function and duty of a Parliamentarian, as referred to in this work.
• In a correctly functioning Parliament (which no House of Parliament presently is) every Member has the right to ask leave of the House to present a Bill for an Act on any subject matter within the legal boundaries of the Constitution. Although a Member, theoretically, has the right to present a Bill, under the operation of the party system, he is allowed to do so only if the party leaders can see some political mileage for that party in that Bill, to the discomfort of their opponents.
• If he chooses to use them, every Member has unlimited research facilities available to him, both within the Houses of Parliament and within universities, colleges, big and small organisations and so forth. Few of these bodies would not be happy to make their research facilities available to a Member, so it is his own fault if he does not possess a well-informed mind on the various matters coming before him in his House of Parliament.
• In each House of Parliament, the role of House attendants is, within the rules of that House, to assist the Member in every way to fulfil that Member's judicially defined function and duty. The House attendants, in every Parliament in Australia, are an example of the finest service and a credit to themselves and the House they serve.
• Ministers of the Crown, in their paid capacity as administrators of departments of State are legally responsible direct to the Queen, or Her Representative, i.e., the Governor-General or appropriate State Governor. Unless incompatible with the respective Constitutions and Parliamentary legislation, all direction from the Queen must be obeyed by the Ministers who are also legally bound to correctly and properly enforce all legislation relating to their specific department.
• It is not within the Constitutional or legal power of Ministers to determine what business, or order of business, the Houses of the Parliament shall deal with. That is solely in the hands of the Members of each House. Unfortunately party manipulation interferes with the Members direct legal control over their own affairs in their House, and this is a fact that Members of all parties have complained about from time to time but do not exert their legal authority to stop it.
• Through either Mr. Speaker or Mr. President, or both, the Queen or Her Representative may transmit message and requests that the House or Houses amend, reconsider, or introduce any Bill, except in the so-called Upper Houses no Financial Bills shall be initiated in that House.
• If the Queen or Her representative is asked by the Majority of the people to direct either or both Houses to do a lawful thing, then those Houses have no legal alternative than to carry out the clearly expressed written WILL of the people.
• As stated in Chapter 2, the Members of each House are required, within that House, to act with a dignity, decorum and solemnity not less than that of a judge in his court. Members who do not, or who refuse to, act with judge-like solemnity - and few Members do so act - are guilty of a gross violation of their judicially defined function and duty, and of their Oath or Affirmation of Office, and the Speaker or President is equally guilty if he does not, in the strongest terms, and possible lawful ways, strictly enforce that conduct of solemnity amongst the Members.
• The Speaker and the President are the sole direct legal contact between each House of Parliament and the Queen or Her Representatives. Ministers of the Crown illegally usurp the authority of the Speaker and or the President when they try to act as if THEY were the direct contact.
• Contrary to the long-standing cliches, party political and otherwise, Ministers of the Crown are not legally responsible to Parliament or the Houses of the Parliament.
• Parliament, as previously stressed in this work, consists of the Queen, or legal government, and the Houses of Parliament acting in consort. The Queen is the supreme legal government and the Houses of the Parliament are the legislative-forming bodies. The Minister can be legally responsible only to the legal government, that is the Queen or Her appropriate Commonwealth and State Representative.
• Members have complete legal power to bring public servants before the bar of the House for any purpose whenever the House deems it is vital to do so. It is completely outside of the legal jurisdiction of a Minister to direct his departmental officers not to give information to the House when called before the bar of that House. It is only party politics which makes this illegal act of Ministers possible, despite resort to the authority of the Solicitor General and or standing works like "May's Parliamentary Practices". Such authorities are wholly and solely based upon pure party political practices and not upon legal grounds sustainable in court.
• If Members of Parliament really exercised the true legal authority they have to bring top public servants before the bar of the House and make them disclose the real or theoretical basis of much of the advice that these officers give their Ministers, then you would see the beginning of the end of bureaucracy and the emergence of true public service at all levels. It must be obvious to everyone that, because of internal empire-building and internal office and interdepartmental politics Ministers do not always get the impartial factual advice that they are entitled to receive and, of a consequence, many fine departmental officers have to carry a public odium that is not warranted. It is time, therefore, that senior Officers, at least, should be made to carry the full responsibility of the advice they give their Ministers and, from this writer's inside knowledge most such officers would welcome this responsibility.
• The Queen, Her Governor-General and State Governors are directly responsible, not to the Houses of Parliament nor political parties but, to the people in the respective Constitutional areas.
• Except where any Constitution, or a lawful statute within that Constitution, lays down that the Queen - or Her appropriate representative - shall act, in relation to a specified matter, only with the advice of the Executive Council (be it Federal or State) there is no legal compulsion for the Queen to do so. Nor is there any legal compulsion for the Queen or Her Representative to give the Royal Assent to any legislation, unless directed to do so by the clearly expressed written WILL of the people.
• The Federal and State Executive Councils do not legally have to be composed wholly of Ministers of the Crown. This is just a non-legal party political practice to keep party control over the machinery of government and of Parliament. The Commonwealth and State Constitutions all provide that the appropriate Executive Council shall be comprised of all Ministers of the Crown and such other persons whom the Queen, or Her Representative, may care to appoint as advisors in particular subjects or matters.
• The Constitutions of the Commonwealth and State give the Queen, and Her appropriate representatives, the sole power and authority, at anytime of their choosing, to dissolve the so-called Lower House and send those Members back to the electorate. If directed by the written WILL of the people the Queen or Her Representative, MUST dissolve the Lower House.
This is one of the two most vital powers of control over parliamentarians and parliament that the people possess. The other is the power to ask the Queen to give them the specified results they want from the parliamentary machine.
• ALWAYS REMEMBER THIS VITAL FACT: IF IT IS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE, AND THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WANT IT, THEN THE QUEEN HAS THE FINAL POWER TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE PEOPLE GET WHAT THEY WANT, AND NO COURT WOULD RULE AGAINST THE EXERCISE OF THE QUEEN'S POWER IN THAT RESPECT.
• It is obvious that it is not in the best interests of the political parties, and certain other writers, that you should have the above knowledge; for your understanding of, and use of, that knowledge means the end of party manipulations; the end of Party control over the voice and vote of Members of Parliament, and this is unarguable.
• It is stressed again that it is the lawful duty and obligation of every elector continuously to inform his Federal and State Members of Parliament, and State Senators, of what his WILL is on everything that comes before Parliament or should come before the Houses of the Parliament. In not performing your lawful duty and obligation you are giving Members and Senators a plausible excuse for not carrying out their judicially defined legal duty and legal function, thus enabling party manipulators and controllers to retain their dictatorship over the voices and votes of your Members and Senators and of the machinery of Parliament to to impose their will upon you.
Shorn of all legal jargon, the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and the six Australian States provide for the operation of an almost perfect form of democratic parliament IF YOU, THE PEOPLE, choose to apply the power and authority which those Constitutions give to you.
THE SOLE AND ONLY LEGAL LIMIT TO THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF THE QUEEN IS THE UNKNOWABLE EXTENT OF WHAT HER PEOPLE, AT ANY TIME OF THEIR CHOOSING, MAY DIRECTLY REQUEST OF HER.
My Will - Part 5
5) WHAT IS THE TRUE LEGAL ROLE OF THE QUEEN AND HER VICE REGAL REPRESENTATIVES?
Over the last few years, as referred to in previous Chapters, there has surfaced the clear lines of what used to be a more subtle underground campaign to mislead the Australian People in accepting the concept that a republic is far superior in every way for Australia; that the monarchy is an out-dated mediaeval idea, having no logical place in modern thinking, whatever that may mean, no real relationship with this nation, and no real power or authority in our Parliamentary system.
YET NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!
As stated in Chapter 4:
Whatever it is physically possible to do, and the people want, the Queen has the final legal power to see that they get it, no matter how politicians may protest.
The sole and only legal limit to the power and authority of the Queen is the unknowable extent of what Her people, at any time of their choosing, may directly request of Her.
Put even more simply: the only true Constitutional and legal reason for the existence, and the only true legal purpose, of the Parliament, the institution of the Monarchy, and the offices of the Governor-General and State Governors:-
Is to give the people what the people ask for. Not what others think the people ought to have.
If the Australian people are too lazy and indifferent to ask for what they want, then they can blame only themselves if politicians and political parties impose their own ideologies on them.
It is legally unchallengable that the party system, with its direct and indirect powers of manipulating politicians and people, has quite illegally striven to drive a wedge between the people and the final source of all their Constitutional and legal powers, i.e., the institution of the Monarchy, as a prelude to transferring the unlimited power of that Monarchy into the hands of the controllers and manipulators of political parties, including the final party political control over the Armed Forces of the nation; a control which, at present, is legally vested in the Queen to ensure that, where directly expressed to Her, the WILL of the people shall at all times prevail.
In Chapter 3 it was stressed that Ministers of the Crown are not, and never legally can be, the "Government" of the State or Commonwealth that the Government was legally non-elective, and that an expansion of that statement would be given in this Chapter.
Both the written Constitution of the Commonwealth and the so called unwritten Constitutions of the six Australian States vest the "government" exclusively in the institution of the Monarchy, to be legally exercisable_in almost every case_by the Governor-General in the Commonwealth and the State Governors in the States.
Thus, constitutionally and legally, the Government CANNOT BE ELECTED for it remains permanently embodied in the institution of the Monarchy. It can "govern" only according to the direct or indirect expressed WILL of the people, for that is its legal role as the protector of the people.
The legal WILL of the people can only be expressed in two ways: indirectly through elected Parliamentarians by "MY WILL" letters or directly through the Queen's Vice Regal Representatives likewise. There is no other legal way that that WILL can be expressed. Electing a candidate to Parliament does NOT express it. All that an election does is to put a person into a House of Parliament whom the electors believe will faithfully carry-out the written WILL of the people as and when so expressed.
Over the years the party system has cleverly hidden the fact that the people have the legal freedom at all times to express their WILL direct to the Queen, no matter what politicians and others may try to claim.
The Queen is the permanent "government" with a perpetual "mandate" to govern according to the clearly expressed WILL of the people. It is obvious, then, that no political party can lawfully occupy the Constitutional seat reserved in perpetuity for the Monarchy, no matter what political scientists, text- book writers, academics, politicians, political parties and other theorists may claim.
This writer codified the powers of the Monarchy back in 1941 in the following sentence, and it still stands to be challenged before the High Court, if legal minds feel competent to do so:- "THE POWER, PEROGATIVES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE MONARCHY, THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL, AND STATE GOVERNORS, ARE THE BRAKES WHICH THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE CAN APPLY AT ANY HOUR (without having to wait for any general election) TO BRING MINISTERS AND POLITICIANS TO A COMPLETE AND SUDDEN STOP, SO AS TO RECEIVE FROM THEM, THE ELECTORS, EITHER FRESH INSTRUCTION, REPRIMAND, OR DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE. "
Over the last few years, as referred to in previous Chapters, there has surfaced the clear lines of what used to be a more subtle underground campaign to mislead the Australian People in accepting the concept that a republic is far superior in every way for Australia; that the monarchy is an out-dated mediaeval idea, having no logical place in modern thinking, whatever that may mean, no real relationship with this nation, and no real power or authority in our Parliamentary system.
YET NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH!
As stated in Chapter 4:
Whatever it is physically possible to do, and the people want, the Queen has the final legal power to see that they get it, no matter how politicians may protest.
The sole and only legal limit to the power and authority of the Queen is the unknowable extent of what Her people, at any time of their choosing, may directly request of Her.
Put even more simply: the only true Constitutional and legal reason for the existence, and the only true legal purpose, of the Parliament, the institution of the Monarchy, and the offices of the Governor-General and State Governors:-
Is to give the people what the people ask for. Not what others think the people ought to have.
If the Australian people are too lazy and indifferent to ask for what they want, then they can blame only themselves if politicians and political parties impose their own ideologies on them.
It is legally unchallengable that the party system, with its direct and indirect powers of manipulating politicians and people, has quite illegally striven to drive a wedge between the people and the final source of all their Constitutional and legal powers, i.e., the institution of the Monarchy, as a prelude to transferring the unlimited power of that Monarchy into the hands of the controllers and manipulators of political parties, including the final party political control over the Armed Forces of the nation; a control which, at present, is legally vested in the Queen to ensure that, where directly expressed to Her, the WILL of the people shall at all times prevail.
In Chapter 3 it was stressed that Ministers of the Crown are not, and never legally can be, the "Government" of the State or Commonwealth that the Government was legally non-elective, and that an expansion of that statement would be given in this Chapter.
Both the written Constitution of the Commonwealth and the so called unwritten Constitutions of the six Australian States vest the "government" exclusively in the institution of the Monarchy, to be legally exercisable_in almost every case_by the Governor-General in the Commonwealth and the State Governors in the States.
Thus, constitutionally and legally, the Government CANNOT BE ELECTED for it remains permanently embodied in the institution of the Monarchy. It can "govern" only according to the direct or indirect expressed WILL of the people, for that is its legal role as the protector of the people.
The legal WILL of the people can only be expressed in two ways: indirectly through elected Parliamentarians by "MY WILL" letters or directly through the Queen's Vice Regal Representatives likewise. There is no other legal way that that WILL can be expressed. Electing a candidate to Parliament does NOT express it. All that an election does is to put a person into a House of Parliament whom the electors believe will faithfully carry-out the written WILL of the people as and when so expressed.
Over the years the party system has cleverly hidden the fact that the people have the legal freedom at all times to express their WILL direct to the Queen, no matter what politicians and others may try to claim.
The Queen is the permanent "government" with a perpetual "mandate" to govern according to the clearly expressed WILL of the people. It is obvious, then, that no political party can lawfully occupy the Constitutional seat reserved in perpetuity for the Monarchy, no matter what political scientists, text- book writers, academics, politicians, political parties and other theorists may claim.
This writer codified the powers of the Monarchy back in 1941 in the following sentence, and it still stands to be challenged before the High Court, if legal minds feel competent to do so:- "THE POWER, PEROGATIVES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE MONARCHY, THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL, AND STATE GOVERNORS, ARE THE BRAKES WHICH THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE CAN APPLY AT ANY HOUR (without having to wait for any general election) TO BRING MINISTERS AND POLITICIANS TO A COMPLETE AND SUDDEN STOP, SO AS TO RECEIVE FROM THEM, THE ELECTORS, EITHER FRESH INSTRUCTION, REPRIMAND, OR DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE. "
My Will - Part 4
(4) WHAT IS PARLIAMENT, AND ITS FUNCTION?
Most of us use our words loosely, sometimes particularly so. Thus, we drift into a habit of using words and phrases, without stopping to think what they really mean and convey.
Take the word "Parliament"… We all say that "Parliament is meeting" or "sitting" or that "So and so is going to Parliament". At first sight it may seem a mere splitting of hairs to state that, except when both Houses of the parliament (Queensland has but one House) and the Queen, or Governor-General or State Governor, is present together, it is a physical and legal impossibility for a Parliament to meet.
This is because, in Constitutional law, Parliament both legally and physically consists of the Queen - or Her Representative, i.e., the Governor-General in the Commonwealth and State Governor in a State - and both Houses of the Parliament, in Queensland ONE House of Parliament.
Thus, Parliament, as such, does NOT debate anything. Parliament is solely and simply a law-making machine, and nothing else. The pivot of that machine is the institution of the Monarchy, or in Australia in the Monarch's absence the Governor-General in the Commonwealth and State Governors in the States. This will be explained further in the next Chapter.
It is common practice, when commenting on party political control over the operation of the parliamentary mechanism, to refer to the 'Westminister System'. Indeed, in the inter-party confrontations and power struggles, the phrase 'the Westminister System' is hurled, with explosive expletives, that the other side is destroying that 'democratic System'.
Critical analysis reveals that that phrase has no legal relationship whatever to strict Constitutional law, the law that actually binds each and every one of us in our daily lives. (Here the Reader is asked to refer back to the third last paragraph of the 'Introduction' to this Book.)
It is extremely doubtful if the users of the phrase 'the Westminister System: themselves, have any clear understanding of its true meaning. Simply put it means the practices and usages of the various British political parties in controlling, and using, the legal machinery of the British Parliament in the interests, and for the sole purposes, of party political ideologies and power struggles.
The phrase, the Westminister System' has nothing to do with the legal law of the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and six States of Australia. It is only sacrosanct to Australian politicians, and parties, where it can be publicly used to suit their propaganda purposes. Its use is completely hypocritical and must be exposed for the absolute legal falsehood that it is.
To operate Parliament we have four (4) distinct and separate areas of legal responsibility (in Queensland only three because it has only one House of Parliament):
1. The electors, who have a duty and obligation asset out in Chapter 1.
2. The so-called, and mistakenly-called, Lower House, i.e., the House of Representatives in the Commonwealth, the Legislative Assembly in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and the House of Assembly in Tasmania.
3. The mistakenly-called Upper House, i.e., the Senate, and the Legislative Council in each State, excepting Queensland.
4. The Queen, or Her Representative, as above mentioned.
What is the function and duty of each of these four areas of Constitutional and legal responsibility?
(a) As pointed out in Chapter 1, the electors have a specified legal duty and a lawful obligation.
The legal duty is to vote at election time.
The lawful obligation is to keep your State and Federal Members and your State Senators fully informed, at all times, about what is your WILL.
It has always been a fundamental principle of British and Australian law that, within the limits of statute and - where applicable - common law, YOU, and YOU ALONE, are solely responsible for the preservation of what you believe to be your lawful inherent freedoms and privileges; that if you are too lazy and indifferent to exercise the lawful avenues open to you to protect and retain those freedoms and privileges_provided always that you demonstrate your responsibilities with respect to those freedoms and privileges - then you have nobody but yourself to blame for your laziness and indifference.
(b) THE SO-CALLED "LOWER HOUSE"
IF the Members of the, so-called, Lower House strictly carry out their judicially defined function and duty, then that House is a place where the WILL of the people is given effect to in the form of "A Bill For An Act" to do so and so, and in the formulation of that Bill the Members of that House are constantly before the "bar of public Conviction" not mere opinion.
(c) THE HOUSES OF SECOND THOUGHTS
IF the Members of the, so called, Upper House strictly carry out their judicially defined function and duty, then that House performed its legal responsibility of also being a House of second thoughts; of being a counter-check to ensure that the clearly expressed written WILL of the electors is correctly translated into legislation.
In strict constitutional law both Houses act, or would act, if it were not for party interference, as a constant check upon each other as a safeguard against the misuse of the laid down Constitutional powers of each House.
(Of course, this rarely happens because of the constant party political control exerted over the voice and votes of the Members of each House. Where it does happen, it does so only because no party is in control of both Houses and, as practical experience demonstrates, in the final analysis opposing parties are primarily concerned in trying to destroy each other.)
(d) THE QUEEN
If the Australian People only knew it, the Queen is the final legal protector of the whole of the people, without regard to party, race, colour or creed; a final check against the peculiarities of the operation of party politics in the control over the machinery of Parliament, and of the voices and votes of politicians.
No Bill for an Act can become law without the Royal Assent being given; an assent that can be withdrawn within twelve months of its being given. This final Royal check enables the people, if they only knew it, to determine whether or not they wanted the Act and to ask the Queen to withdraw the Royal Assent if they did not, or to request that the legislation be amended, according to their WILL.
Even after 12 months, for there is no actual constitutional time limit, the electors have the legal power to ask Her Majesty to re-submit any Act of Parliament for amendment or repeal according to their WILL. It is also the legal privilege of the people to ask the Queen to have any legislation, that the People WILL, brought down and passed in both Houses of the Parliament.
PUT SIMPLY:
Whatever it is physically possible to do, and the people want, then the Queen has the final legal power to see that they get it, no matter how politicians may protest.
The sole and only legal limit to the power and authority of the Queen is the unknowable extent of what Her people, at any time of their choosing, may directly request of Her.
This would also explain the reason for the campaign to replace the monarchy with an Australian republic. Forgetting their judicially defined function and duty, many politicians, as well as political parties and others, like to believe that their party shall have the final determination of political power and what the people shall have.
TO SUM UP THIS CHAPTER:
• Parliament is only a machine to make laws in accordance with the written WILL of the people on the subject matter of the law.
• The Houses of Parliament are both complementary to, as well as being a check on, each other in their legal functioning.
• The Queen is the final check and will, at all times, give assent to the clearly expressed written WILL of the people, irrespective of parties and politicians.
• The function of the electors, apart from voting, is constantly and clearly to inform their Parliamentarians of their WILL on any subject or issue.
• If the Houses of Parliament disregard the written WILL of the people on any matter, then the people have the legal power, and responsibility, to directly inform the Queen that THAT legislation is NOT in accordance with their written WILL, and request Her to have it annulled or amended accordingly.
• With respect to the so-called Lower House of Parliament it is the legal privilege of the people to directly ask the Queen, through Her Vice Regal Representative concerned, to dissolve that House so that they, the people, may proceed to the election of a fresh set of Parliamentarians.
Most of us use our words loosely, sometimes particularly so. Thus, we drift into a habit of using words and phrases, without stopping to think what they really mean and convey.
Take the word "Parliament"… We all say that "Parliament is meeting" or "sitting" or that "So and so is going to Parliament". At first sight it may seem a mere splitting of hairs to state that, except when both Houses of the parliament (Queensland has but one House) and the Queen, or Governor-General or State Governor, is present together, it is a physical and legal impossibility for a Parliament to meet.
This is because, in Constitutional law, Parliament both legally and physically consists of the Queen - or Her Representative, i.e., the Governor-General in the Commonwealth and State Governor in a State - and both Houses of the Parliament, in Queensland ONE House of Parliament.
Thus, Parliament, as such, does NOT debate anything. Parliament is solely and simply a law-making machine, and nothing else. The pivot of that machine is the institution of the Monarchy, or in Australia in the Monarch's absence the Governor-General in the Commonwealth and State Governors in the States. This will be explained further in the next Chapter.
It is common practice, when commenting on party political control over the operation of the parliamentary mechanism, to refer to the 'Westminister System'. Indeed, in the inter-party confrontations and power struggles, the phrase 'the Westminister System' is hurled, with explosive expletives, that the other side is destroying that 'democratic System'.
Critical analysis reveals that that phrase has no legal relationship whatever to strict Constitutional law, the law that actually binds each and every one of us in our daily lives. (Here the Reader is asked to refer back to the third last paragraph of the 'Introduction' to this Book.)
It is extremely doubtful if the users of the phrase 'the Westminister System: themselves, have any clear understanding of its true meaning. Simply put it means the practices and usages of the various British political parties in controlling, and using, the legal machinery of the British Parliament in the interests, and for the sole purposes, of party political ideologies and power struggles.
The phrase, the Westminister System' has nothing to do with the legal law of the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and six States of Australia. It is only sacrosanct to Australian politicians, and parties, where it can be publicly used to suit their propaganda purposes. Its use is completely hypocritical and must be exposed for the absolute legal falsehood that it is.
To operate Parliament we have four (4) distinct and separate areas of legal responsibility (in Queensland only three because it has only one House of Parliament):
1. The electors, who have a duty and obligation asset out in Chapter 1.
2. The so-called, and mistakenly-called, Lower House, i.e., the House of Representatives in the Commonwealth, the Legislative Assembly in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and the House of Assembly in Tasmania.
3. The mistakenly-called Upper House, i.e., the Senate, and the Legislative Council in each State, excepting Queensland.
4. The Queen, or Her Representative, as above mentioned.
What is the function and duty of each of these four areas of Constitutional and legal responsibility?
(a) As pointed out in Chapter 1, the electors have a specified legal duty and a lawful obligation.
The legal duty is to vote at election time.
The lawful obligation is to keep your State and Federal Members and your State Senators fully informed, at all times, about what is your WILL.
It has always been a fundamental principle of British and Australian law that, within the limits of statute and - where applicable - common law, YOU, and YOU ALONE, are solely responsible for the preservation of what you believe to be your lawful inherent freedoms and privileges; that if you are too lazy and indifferent to exercise the lawful avenues open to you to protect and retain those freedoms and privileges_provided always that you demonstrate your responsibilities with respect to those freedoms and privileges - then you have nobody but yourself to blame for your laziness and indifference.
(b) THE SO-CALLED "LOWER HOUSE"
IF the Members of the, so-called, Lower House strictly carry out their judicially defined function and duty, then that House is a place where the WILL of the people is given effect to in the form of "A Bill For An Act" to do so and so, and in the formulation of that Bill the Members of that House are constantly before the "bar of public Conviction" not mere opinion.
(c) THE HOUSES OF SECOND THOUGHTS
IF the Members of the, so called, Upper House strictly carry out their judicially defined function and duty, then that House performed its legal responsibility of also being a House of second thoughts; of being a counter-check to ensure that the clearly expressed written WILL of the electors is correctly translated into legislation.
In strict constitutional law both Houses act, or would act, if it were not for party interference, as a constant check upon each other as a safeguard against the misuse of the laid down Constitutional powers of each House.
(Of course, this rarely happens because of the constant party political control exerted over the voice and votes of the Members of each House. Where it does happen, it does so only because no party is in control of both Houses and, as practical experience demonstrates, in the final analysis opposing parties are primarily concerned in trying to destroy each other.)
(d) THE QUEEN
If the Australian People only knew it, the Queen is the final legal protector of the whole of the people, without regard to party, race, colour or creed; a final check against the peculiarities of the operation of party politics in the control over the machinery of Parliament, and of the voices and votes of politicians.
No Bill for an Act can become law without the Royal Assent being given; an assent that can be withdrawn within twelve months of its being given. This final Royal check enables the people, if they only knew it, to determine whether or not they wanted the Act and to ask the Queen to withdraw the Royal Assent if they did not, or to request that the legislation be amended, according to their WILL.
Even after 12 months, for there is no actual constitutional time limit, the electors have the legal power to ask Her Majesty to re-submit any Act of Parliament for amendment or repeal according to their WILL. It is also the legal privilege of the people to ask the Queen to have any legislation, that the People WILL, brought down and passed in both Houses of the Parliament.
PUT SIMPLY:
Whatever it is physically possible to do, and the people want, then the Queen has the final legal power to see that they get it, no matter how politicians may protest.
The sole and only legal limit to the power and authority of the Queen is the unknowable extent of what Her people, at any time of their choosing, may directly request of Her.
This would also explain the reason for the campaign to replace the monarchy with an Australian republic. Forgetting their judicially defined function and duty, many politicians, as well as political parties and others, like to believe that their party shall have the final determination of political power and what the people shall have.
TO SUM UP THIS CHAPTER:
• Parliament is only a machine to make laws in accordance with the written WILL of the people on the subject matter of the law.
• The Houses of Parliament are both complementary to, as well as being a check on, each other in their legal functioning.
• The Queen is the final check and will, at all times, give assent to the clearly expressed written WILL of the people, irrespective of parties and politicians.
• The function of the electors, apart from voting, is constantly and clearly to inform their Parliamentarians of their WILL on any subject or issue.
• If the Houses of Parliament disregard the written WILL of the people on any matter, then the people have the legal power, and responsibility, to directly inform the Queen that THAT legislation is NOT in accordance with their written WILL, and request Her to have it annulled or amended accordingly.
• With respect to the so-called Lower House of Parliament it is the legal privilege of the people to directly ask the Queen, through Her Vice Regal Representative concerned, to dissolve that House so that they, the people, may proceed to the election of a fresh set of Parliamentarians.
My Will - Part 3
3) WHAT IS THE LEGAL FUNCTION AND DUTY OF A MINISTER OF THE CROWN?
Over the years you have been encouraged to believe, quite incorrectly, that:-
Ministers of the Crown are the government.
Legally they are not.
The party with the greatest support in Parliament has the right to become the government and to appoint its own Ministers to govern the State or Commonwealth.
Legally this is not so.
Ministers of the Crown are responsible to Parliament and, through Parliament, to the People.
Legally this is not so.
The Ministers of the Crown, or government, have been elected with a mandate from the People; a mandate to carry out the entire policy and platform of the party (platforms which the majority of electors have never seen, let alone studied).
Legally this is quite false.
Not one of the above beliefs could withstand constitutional challenge in the Courts. They are wholly and solely political party propaganda without one scintilla of Constitutional and legal truth. They are party political practices developed to suit political parties and have no legal connection with the Commonwealth and State Constitutions. They are falsely called "conventions of the constitution"
Ministers of the Crown ARE NOT and LEGALLY NEVER CAN BE the government, for, as will be shown in later Chapters, the TRUE LEGAL GOVERNMENT is non-elective, residing in perpetuity in the institution of the Monarchy and is exercised, for the Monarchy, by the Governor-General in the Commonwealth, and State Governors in the States.
That is precisely, and legally, what the words "Governor-General" and "Governor" mean:
ONE WHO LEGALLY GOVERNS
Ministers of the Crown are not legally nor constitutionally responsible to the Houses of the Parliament nor to the people. They are solely responsible to the Queen through the offices of Governor-General and or State Governors, as the case may be.
Consequently, Ministers of the Crown can have no mandate of any kind from the people, neither can the political party which claims, quite legally wrongly, to appoint them. Any such claims are pure party propaganda with no legal basis whatever.
Irrespective of whether they be Federal or State Ministers of the Crown they have precisely ONE LEGAL FUNCTION and one LEGAL DUTY:-
(a) Their legal function is to administer departments of State on behalf of the Queen and in accordance with parliamentary legislation relating to their specific department.
(b) For this legal function they are paid salaries out of Crown revenue and, like other departmental officers, they are paid servants of the Crown, excepting that other paid public servants are generally secure in their appointment until retirement whilst Ministers are wholly dependent upon the Monarchy (through its Representatives) and can be dismissed at will by that Monarchy.
(c) The legal DUTY of the Ministers of the Crown is that, by virtue of being Ministers, they become AUTOMATICALLY honorary advisors, to the Queen through Her Representatives.
(d) As honorary advisors they AUTOMATICALLY are Members of the Executive Council (State or Federal) which is set up by the Constitutions to give advice to the Queen, or legal government of the Commonwealth or the State.
As already stressed above, Ministers of the Crown are the paid legal servants of the permanent government, and their legal responsibility is directly, and can only be, to that legal government and to no one else.
On the other hand, the permanent legal government or Monarchy IS WHOLLY AND SOLELY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE, AND TO NO ONE ELSE. But this vital knowledge has, for party political purposes, been carefully kept from the Australian People. This is why the People do not realise, and have no real knowledge of, the full significance of what the institution of the Monarchy legally means in their daily lives. This will be explained in further Chapters.
A Prime Minister, or Premier, or Minister, who claims to speak as the government, without first stating that he "is authorised by Her Majesty's Government"- Commonwealth or State as the case may be- is, whether he realises it or not, making a legally false claim.
Under Commonwealth and State Constitutions ALL MINISTERS of the Crown STAND EQUAL TO EACH OTHER IN LAW, none is subordinate to the other, all are equal before Her Majesty. Thus, in cold hard legal law, no Prime Minister or State Premier has any legal power of control over the other ministers, unless a specific Act of Parliament gives him that control for specific purposes AND ONLY for that purpose.
The correct legal role of a Minister of the Crown is that he can only speak as a Minister of State in relation to his department. He speaks as the paid public head administrator of his department and in no other capacity.
Under the non-legal practices of party politics, Ministers are in consistent breach of their true legal role when they claim to speak for "the government" or as "my government".
Over the years you have been encouraged to believe, quite incorrectly, that:-
Ministers of the Crown are the government.
Legally they are not.
The party with the greatest support in Parliament has the right to become the government and to appoint its own Ministers to govern the State or Commonwealth.
Legally this is not so.
Ministers of the Crown are responsible to Parliament and, through Parliament, to the People.
Legally this is not so.
The Ministers of the Crown, or government, have been elected with a mandate from the People; a mandate to carry out the entire policy and platform of the party (platforms which the majority of electors have never seen, let alone studied).
Legally this is quite false.
Not one of the above beliefs could withstand constitutional challenge in the Courts. They are wholly and solely political party propaganda without one scintilla of Constitutional and legal truth. They are party political practices developed to suit political parties and have no legal connection with the Commonwealth and State Constitutions. They are falsely called "conventions of the constitution"
Ministers of the Crown ARE NOT and LEGALLY NEVER CAN BE the government, for, as will be shown in later Chapters, the TRUE LEGAL GOVERNMENT is non-elective, residing in perpetuity in the institution of the Monarchy and is exercised, for the Monarchy, by the Governor-General in the Commonwealth, and State Governors in the States.
That is precisely, and legally, what the words "Governor-General" and "Governor" mean:
ONE WHO LEGALLY GOVERNS
Ministers of the Crown are not legally nor constitutionally responsible to the Houses of the Parliament nor to the people. They are solely responsible to the Queen through the offices of Governor-General and or State Governors, as the case may be.
Consequently, Ministers of the Crown can have no mandate of any kind from the people, neither can the political party which claims, quite legally wrongly, to appoint them. Any such claims are pure party propaganda with no legal basis whatever.
Irrespective of whether they be Federal or State Ministers of the Crown they have precisely ONE LEGAL FUNCTION and one LEGAL DUTY:-
(a) Their legal function is to administer departments of State on behalf of the Queen and in accordance with parliamentary legislation relating to their specific department.
(b) For this legal function they are paid salaries out of Crown revenue and, like other departmental officers, they are paid servants of the Crown, excepting that other paid public servants are generally secure in their appointment until retirement whilst Ministers are wholly dependent upon the Monarchy (through its Representatives) and can be dismissed at will by that Monarchy.
(c) The legal DUTY of the Ministers of the Crown is that, by virtue of being Ministers, they become AUTOMATICALLY honorary advisors, to the Queen through Her Representatives.
(d) As honorary advisors they AUTOMATICALLY are Members of the Executive Council (State or Federal) which is set up by the Constitutions to give advice to the Queen, or legal government of the Commonwealth or the State.
As already stressed above, Ministers of the Crown are the paid legal servants of the permanent government, and their legal responsibility is directly, and can only be, to that legal government and to no one else.
On the other hand, the permanent legal government or Monarchy IS WHOLLY AND SOLELY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE, AND TO NO ONE ELSE. But this vital knowledge has, for party political purposes, been carefully kept from the Australian People. This is why the People do not realise, and have no real knowledge of, the full significance of what the institution of the Monarchy legally means in their daily lives. This will be explained in further Chapters.
A Prime Minister, or Premier, or Minister, who claims to speak as the government, without first stating that he "is authorised by Her Majesty's Government"- Commonwealth or State as the case may be- is, whether he realises it or not, making a legally false claim.
Under Commonwealth and State Constitutions ALL MINISTERS of the Crown STAND EQUAL TO EACH OTHER IN LAW, none is subordinate to the other, all are equal before Her Majesty. Thus, in cold hard legal law, no Prime Minister or State Premier has any legal power of control over the other ministers, unless a specific Act of Parliament gives him that control for specific purposes AND ONLY for that purpose.
The correct legal role of a Minister of the Crown is that he can only speak as a Minister of State in relation to his department. He speaks as the paid public head administrator of his department and in no other capacity.
Under the non-legal practices of party politics, Ministers are in consistent breach of their true legal role when they claim to speak for "the government" or as "my government".
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Background to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900
History
Original settlement in Australia was under military law, for the purpose of penal colonies. Gradually private settlement grew until by the mid 1800’s, 5 states were colonized – SA, QLD, NSW, Vic & Tas, with private settlement existing in WA under Crown Colonies.
In 1885, the Federal Council of Australasia was formed, consisting of Vic, Tas, QLD & SA , and included the Crown Colonies of WA & Fiji.
This Council dealt mainly with matters of trade between the various colonies. Constitutional Conventions began in the late 1880’s and the final referendum was held in June 1899.
After some changes were made by the British Parliament, The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was passed on 5 July 1900 and given Royal Assent by Queen Victoria on 9 July 1900. On 1 January 1901 the Proclamation of the Commonwealth of Australia was held in Centennial Park, Sydney.
The new Act was an act of the British Parliament as well as ratification of the Constitution of Australia.
The Preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessings of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established; And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen; Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same…….
To Clarify
We must all remember that the words of the Preamble were carefully chosen after over 10 years of conventions, public discussion & referendums, so those words are vital to understand.
1. The People – not parliament or government or councils or public servants.
2. from NSW, VIC, SA, QLD & TAS – with the allowance of admitting other Australasian colonies (such as WA)
3. humbly – without pride
4. relying – depending and trusting
5. on the blessings – guardianship, protection and favour
6. of Almighty God – therefore the people included God in this agreement
7. agreed – came to a common consent and understanding
8. to unite – join together, make one, combine
9. under one – beneath a single
10. indissoluble – that which can not be dissolved, undone or destroyed
11. Federal – a league or compact between two or more states.
12. Commonwealth – where the states retain powers of self-government in respect to the states concerns, but form an integral part of a larger government or nation.
13. under the Crown – sovereign power in the monarchy, especially in relation to the punishment of crimes
14. of the United Kingdom & Ireland
15. and under the Constitution hereby established – the organic and fundamental law of a nation, establishing the character and conception of its government, laying the basic principles to which its internal life is to be conformed, organizing the government, and regulating, distributing and limiting the functions of its different departments and prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers.
16. enacted – established by law and decree
17. by the Queens’s Most Excellent Majesty – Queen Victoria
18. and with the advice – opinion, instructions
19. and consent – agreement
20. of the Lords Spiritual – the archbishops and bishops who have seats in the house of lords
21. and Temporal – those lay person who have seats in the house of lords
22. and Commons – the class of subjects of Great Britain who are not members of the royal family and nobility, and are represented in the house of commons.
23. in this great parliament assembled – all of them together
24. and by the authority of the same – by the legal power, right to command of the whole parliament.
Put together….
The people of the five independent colonies, depending on the protection and favour of Almighty God, consented to join together beneath a single indestructible agreement, wherein the independent colonies joined together to form a combined government, still allowing for state concerns, with the Queen as the sovereign authority for crimes and the foundation laws of the Constitution providing the structure of the government.
A very simple, easily understood agreement.
Why is God in the Constitution?
The Queen is the head of the Church of England.
She holds our constitutional power.
The Oath of office taken by all politicians, which is a pledge to the Queen.
Every year before the start of the legal year, all justices and barristers go to church to uphold that part of their oath.
Common Law and The Crown
The Queen’s authority particularly lay in the matter of the punishment of crime using common law.
The ancestry of common law lies in the Ten Commandments and is the ancient unwritten law of England.
It is the principles and rules of action, relating to the security of persons and property.
It is not, has never been and can not be Roman law, modern civil law, canon law, maritime law, kangaroo law or any other system.
The Governor-General
Because the Queen did not reside in Australia, she placed her representative in the form of the Governor-General here.
His role was to approve any change to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) in the form of a Referendum and/or a Law.
The difference between a Law and Legislation being that –
* a Bill is raised in the Lower House, debated and discussed. If passed, this bill goes to
* the Senate, which must cross-reference the bill with the Constitution to make sure the bill does not interfere with it in any way. Once approved the bill goes to the
* Governor-General for approval. He then stamps it with the Seal of the Crown.
* That Law cannot be amended or changed without the same process in place. Legislation however, is a matter of government decision-making and can change from day to day, as the government wishes.
In the event a person feels that the legislation has removed his Constitutional rights, he may take it to court.
The final arbiter being the High Court of Australia, who are charged with the protection of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution.
Please note however, they are also the guardians of the State Constitutions.
Original settlement in Australia was under military law, for the purpose of penal colonies. Gradually private settlement grew until by the mid 1800’s, 5 states were colonized – SA, QLD, NSW, Vic & Tas, with private settlement existing in WA under Crown Colonies.
In 1885, the Federal Council of Australasia was formed, consisting of Vic, Tas, QLD & SA , and included the Crown Colonies of WA & Fiji.
This Council dealt mainly with matters of trade between the various colonies. Constitutional Conventions began in the late 1880’s and the final referendum was held in June 1899.
After some changes were made by the British Parliament, The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was passed on 5 July 1900 and given Royal Assent by Queen Victoria on 9 July 1900. On 1 January 1901 the Proclamation of the Commonwealth of Australia was held in Centennial Park, Sydney.
The new Act was an act of the British Parliament as well as ratification of the Constitution of Australia.
The Preamble to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)
Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessings of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established; And whereas it is expedient to provide for the admission into the Commonwealth of other Australasian Colonies and possessions of the Queen; Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same…….
To Clarify
We must all remember that the words of the Preamble were carefully chosen after over 10 years of conventions, public discussion & referendums, so those words are vital to understand.
1. The People – not parliament or government or councils or public servants.
2. from NSW, VIC, SA, QLD & TAS – with the allowance of admitting other Australasian colonies (such as WA)
3. humbly – without pride
4. relying – depending and trusting
5. on the blessings – guardianship, protection and favour
6. of Almighty God – therefore the people included God in this agreement
7. agreed – came to a common consent and understanding
8. to unite – join together, make one, combine
9. under one – beneath a single
10. indissoluble – that which can not be dissolved, undone or destroyed
11. Federal – a league or compact between two or more states.
12. Commonwealth – where the states retain powers of self-government in respect to the states concerns, but form an integral part of a larger government or nation.
13. under the Crown – sovereign power in the monarchy, especially in relation to the punishment of crimes
14. of the United Kingdom & Ireland
15. and under the Constitution hereby established – the organic and fundamental law of a nation, establishing the character and conception of its government, laying the basic principles to which its internal life is to be conformed, organizing the government, and regulating, distributing and limiting the functions of its different departments and prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of sovereign powers.
16. enacted – established by law and decree
17. by the Queens’s Most Excellent Majesty – Queen Victoria
18. and with the advice – opinion, instructions
19. and consent – agreement
20. of the Lords Spiritual – the archbishops and bishops who have seats in the house of lords
21. and Temporal – those lay person who have seats in the house of lords
22. and Commons – the class of subjects of Great Britain who are not members of the royal family and nobility, and are represented in the house of commons.
23. in this great parliament assembled – all of them together
24. and by the authority of the same – by the legal power, right to command of the whole parliament.
Put together….
The people of the five independent colonies, depending on the protection and favour of Almighty God, consented to join together beneath a single indestructible agreement, wherein the independent colonies joined together to form a combined government, still allowing for state concerns, with the Queen as the sovereign authority for crimes and the foundation laws of the Constitution providing the structure of the government.
A very simple, easily understood agreement.
Why is God in the Constitution?
The Queen is the head of the Church of England.
She holds our constitutional power.
The Oath of office taken by all politicians, which is a pledge to the Queen.
Every year before the start of the legal year, all justices and barristers go to church to uphold that part of their oath.
Common Law and The Crown
The Queen’s authority particularly lay in the matter of the punishment of crime using common law.
The ancestry of common law lies in the Ten Commandments and is the ancient unwritten law of England.
It is the principles and rules of action, relating to the security of persons and property.
It is not, has never been and can not be Roman law, modern civil law, canon law, maritime law, kangaroo law or any other system.
The Governor-General
Because the Queen did not reside in Australia, she placed her representative in the form of the Governor-General here.
His role was to approve any change to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) in the form of a Referendum and/or a Law.
The difference between a Law and Legislation being that –
* a Bill is raised in the Lower House, debated and discussed. If passed, this bill goes to
* the Senate, which must cross-reference the bill with the Constitution to make sure the bill does not interfere with it in any way. Once approved the bill goes to the
* Governor-General for approval. He then stamps it with the Seal of the Crown.
* That Law cannot be amended or changed without the same process in place. Legislation however, is a matter of government decision-making and can change from day to day, as the government wishes.
In the event a person feels that the legislation has removed his Constitutional rights, he may take it to court.
The final arbiter being the High Court of Australia, who are charged with the protection of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution.
Please note however, they are also the guardians of the State Constitutions.
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.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Pt 8. The QLD Constitution 2001 & the Removal of all Ownership Rights in QLD
Is it Legal
May I first say – that as this matter covered almost 30 years, there can be no doubt that every major QLD politician must have been aware of this plan, including Mr Kevin Rudd. There is also no doubt that every major Federal politician should have been aware of the plan including both John Howard and Kim Beasley. And finally there can be no doubt that the Governor-General of Australia was complicit in this plan.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. Chapter II. The Executive Government.
Section 61. The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative and extends, to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
The primary fact that all these changes and manoeuvres were done without a referendum of the People clearly shows that the politicians involved knew they would not succeed if the people were asked for their approval. There in lies the major area of illegality.
McHugh J in Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW), stated "[T]hat there is a common law of Australia as opposed to a common law of individual States is clear".
Lipohar v R [1999] HCA 65; 200 CLR 485; 168 ALR 8; 74 ALJR 282 (9 December 1999)
At 53. ………………….. If the common law were fragmented, it would be necessary to spell out of the Australian constitutional structure principles to resolve conflicts or variances between, in particular, "federal common law" and that of the particular State in which the executive government of the Commonwealth conducted its activities…………
Lipohar v the Queen is still law and subject to the section 77M of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) . It is only the High Court of Australia who can remove the common law from the State of QLD, not the elected members of the Legislative Assembly.
Is this happening in other states? Yes.
New South Wales removed the Governor in 1987 under the Consolidated Amendment Act 1987.
WA is almost in the same situation as QLD. The State Govt, the World Wildlife Fund and the Real Estate Institute of WA have combined to sell Bush Blocks.
All Governor’s of each state now obey the Premier’s in each state. See their websites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
