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. "
Showing posts with label Your Will Be Done. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Your Will Be Done. 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".
My Will - Part 2
2) WHAT IS THE LEGAL FUNCTION AND DUTY OF A PARLIAMENTARIAN?
While there are many British and Australian judicial interpretations on precisely what IS the true legal function and duty of a Member of parliament it will be sufficient, here, to give two such. Heavy print in these two quotations has been added by this writer to stress the points involved.
The first is from a British case (for those of legal mind see A.C.1910, at p. 110) where Lord Shaw of Dumfermline stated, amongst other things:-
"Parliament is summoned by the Sovereign to advise His Majesty freely. By the nature of the case it is implied that coercion, restraint, or money payment, which is the price of voting at the bidding of others, destroys or imperils that function of freedom of advice which is fundamental in the very constitution of Parliament. "
The second is from a High Court case ('Home v Barber' (1920) 27 C. L. R. p. 500):-
"When a man becomes a Member of Parliament, he undertakes high public duties. These duties are inseparable from the position: he cannot retain the honour and divest himself of the duties. One of the duties is that of watching on behalf of the general community the conduct of the Executive, of criticising, and, if necessary, of calling it to account in the constitutional way by censure from his place in Parliament - censure which, if sufficiently supported, means removal from office. That is the whole essence of responsible government, which is the keystone of our political system, and is the main constitutional safeguard the community possesses. The effective discharge of that duty is necessarily left to the Member's conscience and the judgement of his electors, but the law will not sanction or support the creation of any position of a Member of Parliament where his own personal interest may lead him to act prejudicially to the public interest by weakening (to say the least) his sense of obligation of due watchfulness, criticism, and censure of the administration. "
(The above judicial decision on the duty and function of a Member of Parliament surely gives rise to the following legal question:-
in debating and voting on strict party lines in his House of the Parliament is not a Member of the dominant party in serious breach of the law, and in contempt of the Court, for how can a Member obey strict party rules and the High Court decisions at one and the same time?)
More simply put, these and other interpretations mean:-
(a) THE SOLE LEGAL FUNCTION of a Member of Parliament IS TO FREELY ADVISE the Queen in the government of the Country, according to the clearly expressed will of the people, on any matter or thing, i.e., his sole legal function is to legislate.
(b) In legislating, his SOLE LEGAL DUTY is that, like a judge entering his court, he shall enter his House of the Parliament, each official Sitting day, and with judge-like dignity and decorum, he shall honestly, impartially, and searchingly examine all matters that properly may be placed before him and, with unbiased judgement, vote according to his conscience and his sense of legal responsibility.
No Member of Parliament has any legal function or duty outside of his House of Parliament, unless that House officially details him otherwise.
(d) It is no legal part of his function or duty to interview Ministers of the Crown or departmental officers for and on behalf of his electors or others.
(e) Such interviewing is purely a social and moral obligation that flows from his public status; obligations which can be, and are, performed by other non-parliamentary public figures without monetary rewards, either by salary or allowances.
(f) There is no constitutional-legal authority for paying Members, out of Crown revenue, for the performance of purely social responsibilities, whether that payment be a parliamentary salary and allowances, or just allowances - State and Federal Parliamentary Allowance Acts notwithstanding.
Of necessity, the following crucial questions must arise out of the aforestated judicial interpretations:-
(a) Who, or what, is it that deliberately prevents back-bench Members of Parliament from faithfully carrying out their sole legal function and duty, as judicially defined?
(b) If it is claimed that legal authority exists then, precisely, what Section of the Constitutions grant constitutional power to pay Members' of Parliament salaries, out of Crown revenue, for not faithfully carrying out their judicially defined legal function and legal duty?
(c) Where is the precise Constitutional power to pay allowances, out of Crown revenue, to back-bench Members of Parliament for the performance of judicially defined PURELY SOCIAL OBLIGATIONS of interviewing Ministers of the Crown, and departmental Officers, for and on behalf of constituents?
(For the legally-minded, it is suggested that the going would be extremely rough, if not impossible, to claim the "implied and incidental powers" of the Constitutions as the authority for such payments.)
Seventy-seven years of party political control over our seven Australian Parliaments reveal that it is only on very rare occasions that Parliamentary party leaders agree to allow their back-bench Members to have a free, or "conscience", vote. On all other occasions party leaders and party controllers, DEMAND ABSOLUTE LOYALTY to the party, and INSIST on voting BEING ON PARTY LINES.
This raises the further crucial question of whether, under State Criminal Codes and the Commonwealth Crimes Act, Parliamentary party leaders, and controllers, are not severally and individually guilty of deliberately breaching those codes and statutes, i.e., of being guilty of conspiring to prevent back- bench Members of Parliament from fulfilling their judicially defined legal function and duty in their Houses of Parliament?
It also raises the basic question, touched on on page 4, of whether or not back-bench Members of Parliament themselves violated their legal duty to the People by freely allowing themselves to be coerced by their leaders and party into not correctly fulfilling their judicially defined legal function and duty and, of a consequence, thereby rendering their Parliamentary Seat vacant by an act of overt or covert conspiracy.
While there are many British and Australian judicial interpretations on precisely what IS the true legal function and duty of a Member of parliament it will be sufficient, here, to give two such. Heavy print in these two quotations has been added by this writer to stress the points involved.
The first is from a British case (for those of legal mind see A.C.1910, at p. 110) where Lord Shaw of Dumfermline stated, amongst other things:-
"Parliament is summoned by the Sovereign to advise His Majesty freely. By the nature of the case it is implied that coercion, restraint, or money payment, which is the price of voting at the bidding of others, destroys or imperils that function of freedom of advice which is fundamental in the very constitution of Parliament. "
The second is from a High Court case ('Home v Barber' (1920) 27 C. L. R. p. 500):-
"When a man becomes a Member of Parliament, he undertakes high public duties. These duties are inseparable from the position: he cannot retain the honour and divest himself of the duties. One of the duties is that of watching on behalf of the general community the conduct of the Executive, of criticising, and, if necessary, of calling it to account in the constitutional way by censure from his place in Parliament - censure which, if sufficiently supported, means removal from office. That is the whole essence of responsible government, which is the keystone of our political system, and is the main constitutional safeguard the community possesses. The effective discharge of that duty is necessarily left to the Member's conscience and the judgement of his electors, but the law will not sanction or support the creation of any position of a Member of Parliament where his own personal interest may lead him to act prejudicially to the public interest by weakening (to say the least) his sense of obligation of due watchfulness, criticism, and censure of the administration. "
(The above judicial decision on the duty and function of a Member of Parliament surely gives rise to the following legal question:-
in debating and voting on strict party lines in his House of the Parliament is not a Member of the dominant party in serious breach of the law, and in contempt of the Court, for how can a Member obey strict party rules and the High Court decisions at one and the same time?)
More simply put, these and other interpretations mean:-
(a) THE SOLE LEGAL FUNCTION of a Member of Parliament IS TO FREELY ADVISE the Queen in the government of the Country, according to the clearly expressed will of the people, on any matter or thing, i.e., his sole legal function is to legislate.
(b) In legislating, his SOLE LEGAL DUTY is that, like a judge entering his court, he shall enter his House of the Parliament, each official Sitting day, and with judge-like dignity and decorum, he shall honestly, impartially, and searchingly examine all matters that properly may be placed before him and, with unbiased judgement, vote according to his conscience and his sense of legal responsibility.
No Member of Parliament has any legal function or duty outside of his House of Parliament, unless that House officially details him otherwise.
(d) It is no legal part of his function or duty to interview Ministers of the Crown or departmental officers for and on behalf of his electors or others.
(e) Such interviewing is purely a social and moral obligation that flows from his public status; obligations which can be, and are, performed by other non-parliamentary public figures without monetary rewards, either by salary or allowances.
(f) There is no constitutional-legal authority for paying Members, out of Crown revenue, for the performance of purely social responsibilities, whether that payment be a parliamentary salary and allowances, or just allowances - State and Federal Parliamentary Allowance Acts notwithstanding.
Of necessity, the following crucial questions must arise out of the aforestated judicial interpretations:-
(a) Who, or what, is it that deliberately prevents back-bench Members of Parliament from faithfully carrying out their sole legal function and duty, as judicially defined?
(b) If it is claimed that legal authority exists then, precisely, what Section of the Constitutions grant constitutional power to pay Members' of Parliament salaries, out of Crown revenue, for not faithfully carrying out their judicially defined legal function and legal duty?
(c) Where is the precise Constitutional power to pay allowances, out of Crown revenue, to back-bench Members of Parliament for the performance of judicially defined PURELY SOCIAL OBLIGATIONS of interviewing Ministers of the Crown, and departmental Officers, for and on behalf of constituents?
(For the legally-minded, it is suggested that the going would be extremely rough, if not impossible, to claim the "implied and incidental powers" of the Constitutions as the authority for such payments.)
Seventy-seven years of party political control over our seven Australian Parliaments reveal that it is only on very rare occasions that Parliamentary party leaders agree to allow their back-bench Members to have a free, or "conscience", vote. On all other occasions party leaders and party controllers, DEMAND ABSOLUTE LOYALTY to the party, and INSIST on voting BEING ON PARTY LINES.
This raises the further crucial question of whether, under State Criminal Codes and the Commonwealth Crimes Act, Parliamentary party leaders, and controllers, are not severally and individually guilty of deliberately breaching those codes and statutes, i.e., of being guilty of conspiring to prevent back- bench Members of Parliament from fulfilling their judicially defined legal function and duty in their Houses of Parliament?
It also raises the basic question, touched on on page 4, of whether or not back-bench Members of Parliament themselves violated their legal duty to the People by freely allowing themselves to be coerced by their leaders and party into not correctly fulfilling their judicially defined legal function and duty and, of a consequence, thereby rendering their Parliamentary Seat vacant by an act of overt or covert conspiracy.
My Will - Part 1
The People of the Commonwealth Constitution Act UK 1900 have the right to govern the politicians who are in their employ.
Arthur Chresby - a former Member of Parliament who spent 53 years researching our Consitutional rights, presented them to the People in a profound little booklet.
I present this booklet, to both honour Mr Chresby and to allow his work to keep teaching the People, who they are & what they must do to protect themselves and their fellow Australian.
---------------------------------------------------
Your Will Be Done
A booklet by Arthur A Chresby
Arthur Chresby - a former Member of Parliament who spent 53 years researching our Consitutional rights, presented them to the People in a profound little booklet.
I present this booklet, to both honour Mr Chresby and to allow his work to keep teaching the People, who they are & what they must do to protect themselves and their fellow Australian.
---------------------------------------------------
Your Will Be Done
A booklet by Arthur A Chresby
(Research Analyst in Constitutional Law, and formerly Federal Member for Griffith in the House of Representatives.)
INTRODUCTION
In the great controversy on the alleged need for constitutional reform and the replacement of the monarchy with an Australian republic, there seems to be an increasing airing of the views of those apparently bent on destroying the faith of the people in their established parliamentary institutions; that the real truths, safeguards and functions of our Commonwealth and State Constitutions are being lost to the knowledge of the nation.
This work is an attempt to put forward those truths, a sort of primer of Constitutional Law; to bring to public notice the true legal functions and duties of the institution of the monarchy, the offices of Governor General and State Governors, Ministers of the Crown, Federal and State Parliamentarians; to reveal the correct legal relationship between the electors and parliamentarians; to show what can be done under both Commonwealth and State Constitutions to bring Ministers and politicians to a full sudden stop "… for reprimand or dismissal, without having to wait for a general election…"
It may be contended that the people have been denied the above mentioned knowledge; that our schools, colleges and universities have failed to inform, as have the news media at large.
The history of parliament and politics in Australia shows that no political party, few, if any, politicians, and almost none of the constitutional and political text-book writers has published this information, for it is knowledge that, once grasped by the people, means the end of party political control over the voice and votes of politicians, and the elimination of party political dictatorship over the machinery of Parliament.
Those who would seriously attempt to dispute the contents of this book are advised that the law courts are open to them to do so. Any other form of denial would have no legal validity.
Because this is being written for the information of Mr., Mrs. and Miss Everyman, the writer has tried to keep the contents as simple as possible, to avoid legal jargon, and to give quotations only where it is deemed essential to clarify a legal point.
It is stressed that the sole purpose of this work is to show the Australian People what their true Constitutional powers are, and how they can lawfully use those powers to obtain the results they want their elected parliamentarians to produce, e.g.,
"I want my dollar to buy more tomorrow than it does today!"
Readers are invited to keep the following legally unarguable fact in mind:-
In the final analysis it is the Constitutions and Laws of the Commonwealth and the States, and the High Court interpretations of such, that determines what we can or cannot do in our daily lives. It is, therefore, to those Constitutions, Laws, and Court interpretations that we must continuously look for guidance and succour in our living, work and play, and not to the dissembling party politicians.
The writer hopes that the following pages will open up the way to such constitutional and legal guidance and succour.
This introduction cannot be completed without acknowledging the debt which this writer owes to Bart Marney of the blue ribbon provincial daily newspaper, "The Toowoomba Chronicle" (Queensland), without whose many objective criticisms and encouragement this book might never have been written.
(1) WHAT IS THE CORRECT RELATIONSHIP OF AN ELECTOR TO A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT?
Both by Constitutional and Statute law an elector has no legal right, whatever, to abuse, intimidate or demand anything of his Member of Parliament, State or Federal, or of his State Senators.
Any such abuse, intimidation or demand, would enable a Parliamentarian to take court action against an elector for attempting to use unlawful pressure to force the Member or Senator to act contrary to their judicially defined function and duty.
As an elector you have a right, and a legal duty, at election time to vote for the candidate of your choice. Indeed, so long as you obtain a ballot paper in a lawful manner and place it in the ballot box you cannot be compelled to vote for the candidates on that ballot paper and may, if you wish, cast your vote against all names on that paper by neatly crossing them out. As voting is legally secret there is, at present, no legal way of stopping you from doing so.
Although such an action is classed as "casting an informal rote," you have legally signified that none of the candidates on that ballot paper meet with your satisfaction and have, therefore, lawfully cast your vote against all of them. If a majority of the electors were to vote "informal" it would force a fresh election and bring forth fresh candidates, thus indicating that the electors were casting their votes with care.
Political parties, of course, would cry that the electors were wasting their votes; that electors were disenfranchising themselves. But this is only party propaganda, because no party got any value out of your informal vote, and that is all that concerns parties: they need your vote to grab for power.
Once the election is over that is the end of ballot paper voting until the next election. However, under both Federal and State Constitutions and Statute laws you have certain implied legal duties and obligations.
The whole system of Parliament, and the SOLE reason for its existence, is to make laws for the people, with the clear implication that those laws will reflect the WILL of the people on the subject matter of those laws.
By those legal implications you have a lawful duty and obligation to keep your Members and Senators fully informed about what your WILL is upon any issue or matter that comes before them in their Houses of Parliament, or that should come before them.
It is only when you fulfil that lawful duty and obligation that your ember and Senators can properly fulfil~their judicially defined function and duty in their houses of Parliament. If you do not fulfil your lawful duty and obligation, if you do not keep your Members and Senators fully informed of your will on any issue, then you cannot blame them for what they do. You have only your own laziness or indifference to blame.
How do you correctly inform your Members and Senators of your WILL? It is so simple that only laziness and indifference ON YOUR PART stops it from working. Yes, it is so very simple, and here is an example:- Suppose, for instance, you believe that income tax should be halved and sales tax completely eliminated. You write, in this case AN INDIVIDUAL letter to your Federal Member, and each one of your State Senators, such as this:-
Dear Sir,
I know that it is my duty to keep you informed of MY WILL on anything that comes before Parliament, or that should come before Parliament
IT IS MY WILL that you take immediate action to have income tax halved and sales tax removed completely.
Yours faithfully,
(signed)
(Insert your full name, address and date, as legal evidence that you are a constituent.)
Should your Member or Senators try to side-step (and some of them are extremely adept at doing this) or tell you what their party is or is not doing, you simply write back and say:-
Dear Sir,
I repeat that, in accordance with my lawful obligation to keep you informed of MY WILL, I again inform you that it is MY WILL that you take immediate action to have income tax halved and sales tax removed completely.
Yours faithfully.
Don't enter into written argument with a politician, for many politicians are past masters in the art of avoiding that which they don't want to face up to, and become experts in manipulating words to their benefit.
Although the majority of politicians would never publicly admit it, what worries them most - irrespective of majority or party - is the percentage trend in electorate thinking that is shown by the number of simple straight letters clearly expressing THE WILL of the elector signing the letter.
To illustrate the above point further Opinion polls claim to reveal THE TREND of public thinking BY ASKING SIMPLE QUESTIONS of a given number of people selected at random, and, more often than not, the trend shown is reasonably accurate. BUT NOTE THAT THE TREND IS WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF THE OPINIONS of people, and people can change their opinions as often as they change their clothes.
The principle of percentage trends in electorate thinking as shown by the above simple straight "MY WILL" letter is an entirely different thing, and certainly leads to greater accuracy, for politicians know from experience that if one of their electors sits down to write such a simple "IT IS MY WILL" letter, then that elector is not expressing a mere opinion, but knows what he wants and says so in a no-nonsence way. It is doubly impressed upon the politician's mind if, after trying to side track the elector, he still gets back a straight "IT IS MY WILL!"
Experience of the various techniques used in opinion polls, and the evaluation of same, reveals that one such "IT IS MY WILL" letter indicates the mathematical probability that a MINIMUM of four(4) other electors are of the same conviction but have not written.
Even the least intelligent politician, where his Seat is concerned, can multiply four (4) by the number of such "MY WILL" letters he receives, and if he gets two or three thousand such letters he will know that he is going to come up with a mathematical stomach-twisting figure showing that he is not in tune with his electorate.
Self-preservation, even with a party-ridden politician, is always of the highest motivating priority to that politician, and, as the long experience of the former Queensland Parliamentarian, Senator Ian Wood, has proved, time and again, a political party thinks many times when trying to remove a determined straight Parliamentarian who has electorate thinking behind him. (Senator Wood fulfilled his judicially defined function and duty and refused, consistently, to bend to party pressures.)
On a subject like the drastic reduction of income tax, and removal of sales tax, it is obviously something on which most people will have strong convictions, not mere opinions. Thus, it requires only a few ordinary people to get together in their various electorates and, after writing their own "MY WILL" letters get out amongst friends, relatives, acquaintances and others in their own electorate inviting them all to write such "MY WILL" letters to their Federal Member and State Senators. Such determined ordinary people also have relatives and friends in other electorates and can invite them to do likewise.
Thus, in no time, the work of, say 3, 4, 5 or 6 people can spread like wild- fire through the electorate, especially when most people are incensed over one thing. To get two or three thousand individually signed "MY WILL" letters is not a hard task for such ordinary determined people.
It must never be forgotten that ordinary people have the legal privilege, if they wish to exercise it, of quietly approaching relatives, friends, acquaintances and others inviting them to write such "MY WILL" letters to their Member and Senators. It requires no committees, no resolutions, no street marching, no formation of groups, bodies or associations with all sorts of names and titles. No constitutions, no minutes, no wasting of hours in fruitless arguing and discussions, no presidents, secretaries or treasurers.
All that is required is that an individual with a determination to act lawfully to right or alter something he doesn't like, and with the initiative to do so, is to write his "MY WILL" letter, show others and encourage them to do likewise. There are a multitude of issues upon which people have strong convictions and the simple "MY WILL" letter is their lawful simple way of telling their M.P.
Don't argue that it will not work, or that people are stupid. If you feel strongly enough about something, don't just moan and talk about it, write your "MY WILL" letters. IT IS YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to do so, not someone else, nor those never identified "THEY OUGHT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT." You have to be your own "they".
It is stressed again: it is your legal privilege, and your lawful duty, to encourage others, peacefully and quietly, in the manner outlined in this Chapter. A Parliamentarian, armed with the written proof of the "WILL" of his electors, upon any issue, can completely ignore party pressures and set about faithfully fulfilling his judicially defined legal function and legal duty. He is freed to be a Parliamentarian and not, as at present in most cases, a mere party yes-man. THE "MY WILL" LETTER IS A LEGAL DEMONSTRATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.
When your Members of Parliament, State and Federal, do something that pleases you WRITE AND TELL THEM SO, as Members get plenty of abusive letters and extremely few courteous ones. If a Member or Senator knows that he is the centre of watchfulness from his area at all times he is left with no alternative than to carry out his judicially defined function and duty, no matter the protests and pressures of his party.
Thus, Politicians, secure in the knowledge of written electorate support, possessed of the written "MY WILL" is freed from control of the party manipulators, for the party has lost control over his voice and vote on all issues on which the electorate has expressed its WILL. Wise politicians would do well to continuously seek the written "WILL" of all their electors on every issue and proposed legislation. After all they do have offices and a secretary in their electorate, whilst Federal Members also have Research Officers, so they have no excuse for not organising to seek the electors "WILL" before casting their votes in their House of Parliament.
To sum up this Chapter:
It is your legal duty and obligation, and yours alone, to keep your Members and Senators fully informed, at all times, of your "WILL." That is your true lawful relationship with your Members and your Senators.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
