8) FEW THOUGHTS ON EXTRA CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS FOR THE PEOPLE
In the previous Chapters the Constitutional and legal powers available to the people to get what they want, and to protect themselves against the manipulators of party politics, have been outlined.
The question now arises whether additional Constitutional safeguards are required to further protect the people. In this chapter a few thoughts are advanced.
Clearly, whilst the Commonwealth and State Constitutions give the people the power to have their Lower Houses of Parliament dissolved at any time of the people's choosing, there is presently no authority:-
(a) For the Upper Houses to be sent back to face the electors when they so WILL it.
(b) For any Senator or Legislative Councillor to be forced to face reelection at any time the electors so WILL it.
(c) For any electorate to have its existing Member, Federal or State, sent back to re-contest his seat if a majority of his electors so WILL it.
The inclusion of all three above powers in both Commonwealth and State Constitutions are essential to give the electors even more effective control over their parliamentarians and the machinery of Parliament, and make both more sensitive to the requirements of the people.
To bring any Senator, Legislative Councillor or Member back to face a re-contesting of his seat ought only to require a simple majority of electors in each of the three constitutional areas to inform the Govenor-General or State Governor - which ever is appropriate - that it is MY WILL that "so and so be sent back to recontest his seat in his House of Parliament."
It may be contended that such a constitutional provision would make the Houses of Parliament unworkable because the actions of opposing groups would involve Members and Senators in continuous elections. Such a contention, however, misses the point that electors would not be interested in recalling a Member or Senator who was giving public evidence of faithfully performing his judicially defined legal function and duty. Naturally legal safeguards would have to be included in the Constitutions making it illegal, even an act of conspiracy, for any recall of a Senator or Member to be initiated, organised and or financed from outside the electorate concerned.
In this work it is not intended to go into the question of the actual machinery necessary to allow the electors to replace any Member or Senator whom they have recalled. Rather it is the purpose to raise the point for serious study by the electors themselves as to how they may determine what basic protection changes they want in their Constitutions. Undoubtedly there would be many competent persons who could work out the machinery necessary to give full and proper legal effect to the WILL of the electors in this matter.
Another extremely vital protection element for the people is that no treaties, international conventions or agreements, and the like, should be entered into by Parliament, or by executive action, without the specific consent and authority of the people themselves. This point is raised because such things are agreed to, far too often, without the people having the faintest idea of the direct and indirect legal and other significances and consequences of such actions.
Indeed, few would be the politicians, let alone the people, who would have any conception of the far reaching effects that many such Treaties, agreements and conventions could have upon Australia and the Australian way of life. Under the influence, if not the manipulations, of international interests, theorists and idealists, Ministers of the Crown far too often persuade the legal government and the Houses of Parliament (under party control) to agree to bind the nation and States without the full implications of the legal, political and economic impacts being first thoroughly publicly debated.
Even at this moment of writing there are agreements and conventions afoot of which, in Australia, few indeed have any real knowledge; agreements and conventions that can have far greater impact upon the liberty and way of life in this country than some Ministers would care to fully explain.
The people should also insist that the Commonwealth and State Constitutions be tightened to make it absolutely impossible for Ministers of the Crown and Houses of Parliament to effect, what some would call, snide changes in the Constitutions without a referendum of the people. Those who have made long and deep researches into constitutional law are aware how these changes can be affected without the real understanding of the people and most politicians.
It cannot be denied that this country is suffering from "government by regulation" and many writers have drawn attention to this indisputable fact. In Commonwealth and State Parliaments the volume of legislation which is implimented by subsequent departmental regulations is quite unbelievable. Even during the last War, the noted N.S.W. constitutional authority, Dr. Frank Louatt, K.C., was moved to direct attention to the fact that for every 1000 pages of Acts of Parliaments there were over 5000 pages of regulations.
In their own interests the people should forbid the passing of any legislation which requires departmental regulations to impliment it. If regulations are thought to be required then the parliamentarians, party pressures notwithstanding, must be adamant that the departmental officers seeking those regulations shall be brought before the bar of the House of Parliament and made to publicly prove that such regulation is absolutely vital in the interests of the people.
This Chapter advances but a few thoughts: a few of the many arising from many long years of Constitutional research, coupled with both parliamentary and departmental personal experience. They are offered to stimulate deeper thought and study by the reader of this book.
It has been said of the great Henry Ford_of the "tin lizzy" fame_ that he once stated:-
"It matters not how many degrees you may have after your name, unless you can think, you are uneducated."
The writer hopes that the contents of this book will make you
THINK!
AND THEN ACT.
"BUT THEY SHALL SIT EVERY MAN UNDER HIS VINE AND UNDER HIS FIG TREE; AND NONE SHALL MAKE THEM AFRAID;...."
MICAH I V, iv.
Showing posts with label crown. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crown. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
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
People of the Commonwealth
The People of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900
Justice M D Kirby stated in a 1997 oration:“Monarchical government tends to be strong and centralised – formerly in the person of the sovereign but now in whoever the Parliament elects to govern.”
In Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises P/L, Justice Lionel Murphy said:“The authority for the Australian Constitution then and now is its acceptance by the Australian people.”
Law schools well into the 60’s and later, taught that the historical origins of the Australian Constitution, and they alone, gave that document its legal authority.
Chief Justice Mason in the Aust Capital Television case observed:“The Australia Act 1986 (UK) marked the end of the legal sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament and recognised that ultimate sovereignty resided in the Aust people.”
Justice McHugh in McGinty v WA said:“The political and legal sovereignty of Aust now resides in the people of Australia.”
Justice Toohey in the Public Law Review 1993 stated:“Where the people of Australia, in adopting a Constitution, conferred power upon a Commonwealth Parliament, it is to be presumed that they did not intend that those grants of power extend to invasion of fundamental common law liberties.”
Justice Cooke in Fraser v State Service Commission said:“This is perhaps a reminder that it is arguable that some common law rights may go so deep that even Parliament cannot be accepted by the Court to have destroyed them.”
People, Person, Persons, Citizen, Individual
In the Commonwealth of Australia Act (UK) 1900, the word People is found 25 times; Person 24; Persons 6; Individual 0 times; Citizen in s44 only.
What do these words legally mean?
To determine that in Australian law we first go to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 , which is the "dictionary of meaning" for all words used in Australian legislation.
If the word is not found in there, then we take the meaning from a legal dictionary, in this case Blacks Law Dictionary #1 1891
People - (from Blacks): a state, as in the people of the state of the Commonwealth
Person - (from AIA 1901): includes a body corporate, office, commission, authority, committee, tribunal, board, institute, organization or other body however described.
(from Blacks): Persons are divided by law into natural and artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us; artificial are such as are created and devised by human laws, for the purposes of society and government, which are called "corporations" or "body politics."
Persons - (from AIA 1901): expressions used to denote persons generally (such as " person ", "party", "someone", "anyone", "no‑one", "one", "another" and "whoever"), include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual;
Citizen - (In English law from Blacks): An inhabitant of a city. The representative of a city, in parliament. When it is designed to designate an inhabitant of the country, or one amenable to the laws of the nation, “subject” is there employed.
Individual - (from AIA 1901): means a natural person.
(from Blacks): 'natural' is that which cannot be separated.
Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members. Ann Rand http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individualism.html
The legal meaning of People does not show in Aust legislation until the EPBC Act 1999 - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/epabca1999588/s528 Definitions that "environment" includes: (a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities
The word citizen is only used in the 1900 Constitution at s44, and appears to indicate that only a subject can hold office under this Constitution, being that a subject is an entity owing allegiance to that Crown and governed by its laws (common law), while a citizen does not, but owes allegiance to a foreign power (government).
Of course, where a foreign individual makes the choice to become a naturalized citizen under the 1900 Constitutional structure, they are then subject to the Crown and able to stand for office.
This was the focus of Sue v Hill & Anor 1999 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1999/30.html
So, a Person / Persons / People / Citizen are artificial words for an Entity.
An Individual is a natural, flesh and blood, thinking, feeling man or woman.
Now, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is an act OVER the entities of persons. You will find no reference to an individual, because an act cannot govern over an individual. And the act only refers to person / persons.
Therefore because our entity status, both singular and plural (person/s) was contained in the 1900 const, govt could not rule over that entity without permission, so they created a new entity for the new jurisdiction of environment - that being people.
It is our thought that all new restrictions are not over the person/s of the 1900 constitution, or over the individual (living, breathing) but over the people under the environmental jurisdiction.
In effect, you are being "protected" from yourself.
However, again, there was no agreement of the people to be re-created as another entity.
State of the Commonwealth
A state is not a physical land mass, but a political entity.
So, we have the state of the commonwealth, being the people.
The state of the Federal Parliament, being the Parliamentary structure as defined in the 1900 Constitution.
The state's of NSW, Vic, etc, being the Parliamentary structure governing the assets of that state on behalf of the owner of the land, Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and assigns.
Our Protection
As a subject of the Queen comes your ownership of land and your common law protection. Which defines what we know is our protection.)
Section 117 - as a subject of the Queen, and a resident of the state (of the Commonwealth), I shall not be subject in any other State (being NSW, VIC, etc) to any disability of discrimination which would not be equally applicable to me if I were a subject of the Queen in such other State.
WITHOUT
Section 128 - my agreement at referendum.
[Disability: The want of legal ability or capacity to exercise legal rights, either special or ordinary, or to do certain acts with proper legal effect, or to enjoy certain privileges or powers of free action. At the present day, disability is generally used to indicate an incapacity for the full enjoyment of ordinary legal rights.
Discrimination: to show a difference in treatment]
So, the States (NSW, etc) cannot make different laws in opposition or that remove my rights as a person of the Commonwealth (state) and a subject of the Crown, who holds my protection of ownership and personal rights.
Each State can make different parliamentary laws for the purpose of maintaining the assets of the Crown, but I am not an asset and that is their only Constitution 1900 area of jurisdiction.
So, as an individual I have the right to a religion of my choice, to thoughts, etc of my choice, because they are the only rights of pure and unconstricted ownership I can claim individually.
To participate in private ownership makes me a subject of the Crown and therefore subject to her protection under Common Law.
To my understanding, to be a member of the People of the Commonwealth, means I step into an entity role for the purpose of creating a stable community/society in which I can live peacefully as a subject of the Crown, and privately on my land or in my home as an individual.
However, we may interpret these words, our protection is in our agreement.
If we as an individual have not agreed, how then can we as an individual be enforced into a contract?
If we as a People have not agreed at Referendum, how then can the People be enforced into a contract?
Justice M D Kirby stated in a 1997 oration:“Monarchical government tends to be strong and centralised – formerly in the person of the sovereign but now in whoever the Parliament elects to govern.”
In Kirmani v Captain Cook Cruises P/L, Justice Lionel Murphy said:“The authority for the Australian Constitution then and now is its acceptance by the Australian people.”
Law schools well into the 60’s and later, taught that the historical origins of the Australian Constitution, and they alone, gave that document its legal authority.
Chief Justice Mason in the Aust Capital Television case observed:“The Australia Act 1986 (UK) marked the end of the legal sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament and recognised that ultimate sovereignty resided in the Aust people.”
Justice McHugh in McGinty v WA said:“The political and legal sovereignty of Aust now resides in the people of Australia.”
Justice Toohey in the Public Law Review 1993 stated:“Where the people of Australia, in adopting a Constitution, conferred power upon a Commonwealth Parliament, it is to be presumed that they did not intend that those grants of power extend to invasion of fundamental common law liberties.”
Justice Cooke in Fraser v State Service Commission said:“This is perhaps a reminder that it is arguable that some common law rights may go so deep that even Parliament cannot be accepted by the Court to have destroyed them.”
People, Person, Persons, Citizen, Individual
In the Commonwealth of Australia Act (UK) 1900, the word People is found 25 times; Person 24; Persons 6; Individual 0 times; Citizen in s44 only.
What do these words legally mean?
To determine that in Australian law we first go to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 , which is the "dictionary of meaning" for all words used in Australian legislation.
If the word is not found in there, then we take the meaning from a legal dictionary, in this case Blacks Law Dictionary #1 1891
People - (from Blacks): a state, as in the people of the state of the Commonwealth
Person - (from AIA 1901): includes a body corporate, office, commission, authority, committee, tribunal, board, institute, organization or other body however described.
(from Blacks): Persons are divided by law into natural and artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us; artificial are such as are created and devised by human laws, for the purposes of society and government, which are called "corporations" or "body politics."
Persons - (from AIA 1901): expressions used to denote persons generally (such as " person ", "party", "someone", "anyone", "no‑one", "one", "another" and "whoever"), include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual;
Citizen - (In English law from Blacks): An inhabitant of a city. The representative of a city, in parliament. When it is designed to designate an inhabitant of the country, or one amenable to the laws of the nation, “subject” is there employed.
Individual - (from AIA 1901): means a natural person.
(from Blacks): 'natural' is that which cannot be separated.
Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members. Ann Rand http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individualism.html
The legal meaning of People does not show in Aust legislation until the EPBC Act 1999 - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/epabca1999588/s528 Definitions that "environment" includes: (a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities
The word citizen is only used in the 1900 Constitution at s44, and appears to indicate that only a subject can hold office under this Constitution, being that a subject is an entity owing allegiance to that Crown and governed by its laws (common law), while a citizen does not, but owes allegiance to a foreign power (government).
Of course, where a foreign individual makes the choice to become a naturalized citizen under the 1900 Constitutional structure, they are then subject to the Crown and able to stand for office.
This was the focus of Sue v Hill & Anor 1999 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1999/30.html
So, a Person / Persons / People / Citizen are artificial words for an Entity.
An Individual is a natural, flesh and blood, thinking, feeling man or woman.
Now, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 is an act OVER the entities of persons. You will find no reference to an individual, because an act cannot govern over an individual. And the act only refers to person / persons.
Therefore because our entity status, both singular and plural (person/s) was contained in the 1900 const, govt could not rule over that entity without permission, so they created a new entity for the new jurisdiction of environment - that being people.
It is our thought that all new restrictions are not over the person/s of the 1900 constitution, or over the individual (living, breathing) but over the people under the environmental jurisdiction.
In effect, you are being "protected" from yourself.
However, again, there was no agreement of the people to be re-created as another entity.
State of the Commonwealth
A state is not a physical land mass, but a political entity.
So, we have the state of the commonwealth, being the people.
The state of the Federal Parliament, being the Parliamentary structure as defined in the 1900 Constitution.
The state's of NSW, Vic, etc, being the Parliamentary structure governing the assets of that state on behalf of the owner of the land, Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and assigns.
Our Protection
As a subject of the Queen comes your ownership of land and your common law protection. Which defines what we know is our protection.)
Section 117 - as a subject of the Queen, and a resident of the state (of the Commonwealth), I shall not be subject in any other State (being NSW, VIC, etc) to any disability of discrimination which would not be equally applicable to me if I were a subject of the Queen in such other State.
WITHOUT
Section 128 - my agreement at referendum.
[Disability: The want of legal ability or capacity to exercise legal rights, either special or ordinary, or to do certain acts with proper legal effect, or to enjoy certain privileges or powers of free action. At the present day, disability is generally used to indicate an incapacity for the full enjoyment of ordinary legal rights.
Discrimination: to show a difference in treatment]
So, the States (NSW, etc) cannot make different laws in opposition or that remove my rights as a person of the Commonwealth (state) and a subject of the Crown, who holds my protection of ownership and personal rights.
Each State can make different parliamentary laws for the purpose of maintaining the assets of the Crown, but I am not an asset and that is their only Constitution 1900 area of jurisdiction.
So, as an individual I have the right to a religion of my choice, to thoughts, etc of my choice, because they are the only rights of pure and unconstricted ownership I can claim individually.
To participate in private ownership makes me a subject of the Crown and therefore subject to her protection under Common Law.
To my understanding, to be a member of the People of the Commonwealth, means I step into an entity role for the purpose of creating a stable community/society in which I can live peacefully as a subject of the Crown, and privately on my land or in my home as an individual.
However, we may interpret these words, our protection is in our agreement.
If we as an individual have not agreed, how then can we as an individual be enforced into a contract?
If we as a People have not agreed at Referendum, how then can the People be enforced into a contract?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
