Introduction
In the great controversy on the alleged need for constitutional reform and
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 new 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.
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 vote", 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
What is the Legal Function and Duty of a Parliamentarian?
While there are many British and Australian judicial interpretations on
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 ('Horne 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 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
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."
What is Parliament, and it’s 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 'Westminster
System. Indeed, in the inter party confrontations and power struggles, the
phrase 'the Westminster 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 what ever
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 Westminster 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
What is Parliament, and it’s Function?
Parliament in the interest, and for the sole purposes, of party political
Ideologies and power struggles.
The phrase, 'the Westminster 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.
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 except 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) The legal duty is to vote at election time.
The electors have a specified legal duty and a lawful obligation.
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
of the people is given effect to in the form of "A Bill For An Act" 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.
What is the True Legal Role of the Queen & 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 medieval 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!
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 un-challengeable 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
What is a Political Party?
If you will but pause to think deeply and seriously you will find that a
political party, despite its propaganda, constitutions, fine words and
, eventually becomes an organisation in the form of a pyramid with final
in the apex of that pyramid.
The mass at the base being subject to manipulation, by those in the apex
or by those who control the apex from outside of party organisation.
It is not an unreasonable contention that those who finally win through to
the apex of the pyramid, both organisational and parliamentary, have to
become manipulators of their fellows if they wish to hold their place of
at the top.
A political party, by the very nature of its pyramidal structure, is not,
and cannot be, a democratic organisation, and the many years of party
politics in Australia since Federation, proves that it is not democratic,
despite beautifully worded constitutions, platforms, policies, and philosophies.
Here it might be wise to pause for a moment to define that much used,
and much abused, word "democracy". Consensus has it that "democracy
" is "Government of the people, by the people, for the people." However,
whilst Lincoln's definition, with its tremendous emotive tones, sounds and
reads well, experience has shown that in application this concept produces
the opposite result "Government of the many by the few in the apex.
It is suggested here that a far more practical definition of "democracy"
would be that it is: The administration of the affairs of the country to
produce the specific results that the people request, not what politicians
promise they will give if elected to power.
In the light of the long experience of Australian party politics, it becomes
indisputable that political parties are incompatible with this new definition;
that the continued domination and control of the Parliamentary machine by
party politics must inevitably end in the wrecking of that machine, and the
transfer of power to party manipulators. The evidence for this is becoming
more painfully obvious each day.
Is there a Practical Democratic Alternative to the Party System?
The only true Constitutional and legal reason for the existence, and the
only true legal purpose, of the Parliament, the institution of the Monarchy,
and the offices of the Governor General and State Governors is to give the
people what the people ask for, not what others think the people ought to
have.
Keeping this in mind leads to the logical next step, i.e. to look briefly, but
closely, at what the Commonwealth and State Constitutions provide for
the establishment and operation of a true democratic Parliament as
previously defined:
The Parliament MUST consist of the Queen or her Vice Regal
Representatives acting in concert with both Houses of the Parliament.
Including the Senate, but excepting the so called Upper Houses of the
five States, the Constitutions provide that the people shall have the power
to elect parliamentary representatives to those other so called Lower
Houses.
The elected representatives have, within limits, the right of laying down
rules and procedures for operating their own House of the Parliament and,
subject to the boundaries of the respective Commonwealth and State
Constitutions (and the judicial interpretations thereof), to enact laws for the
order and good government of the people and, where clearly expressed,
the written WILL of the people.
As stated in other chapters, the Queen or Her Representatives have the
sole legal right to appoint and dismiss Her Ministers of the Crown.
If the Houses of the Parliament wish to remove a Minister, the only legal
power available to them short of a special Act of the Parliament to do so is
to petition the Queen or Her Representative to dismiss the Minister or
Ministers concerned, and the Queen will do so unless the people ask Her
not to do so.
The removal or dismissal of a Minister or Ministers does not legally mean
the dismissal of a government, for the government is permanently
A 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 or 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 House 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 re-election
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 is 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 Governor-General or
State Governor which ever is appropriate that it is MY WILL that "so and
so be sent back to re contest his seat in his House of Parliament."
It many 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
Appendix 1
(a) Magna Carta 1215
(39) No freeman shall be captured or imprisoned or disseised or
outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go against him or send
against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
(40) To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.
(b) Extract from the Statute issued by Edward 1, in confirmation of the Charters,
November 5, 1297 "...; and that our justices, sheriffs and mayors, and other ministers,
which, under us, have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the said charters,
pleaded before them in judgement, in all their points, that is to wit, the Great
Charter as the common law "
(v) Bill Of Rights 1689
(5) That it is the right of the subjects to Petition the King, and all
Commitments and Prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.
(d) Crimes Act 1914
(24F) nothing in the preceding provisions of this Part makes it unlawful
for a person:
(a) to endeavour in good faith to show that the Sovereign, the Governor
General, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Territory, or the
advisors of any of them, or the persons responsible for the government of
another country, has or have been, or is or are, mistaken in any of his or
their counsels, policies or actions;
(e) Postage exemptions for material sent to the Governor General and the
State Governors:
Information from the stamp below must be printed or written on the top left
corner of envelope to the Governor General or State Governors. All
information abbreviated as given on stamp must appear on the envelope:
EXEMPT POSTAGE Post. Serv. Act. 1975, Part 111; Div. 1. Sec. 14(5a).
Appendix 2
Sample Petition to the Governor General. You may change the details to suit
your purposes although, taking this line is pledging to the british allegence
therefore, this is also a questionable action to take but we have still included
it.
AN HUMBLE PETITION TO HIS EXCELLENCY.
His Excellency, the Honourable William George Hayden, O.A.,
Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia and
Commander in Chief of the Defence Force,
Government House,
CANBERRA, ACT. 2600
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY,
I know it is my duty to keep you informed as to MY WILL on any matter
that comes before the Parliament or should come before the Parliament.
The Hawke Ministry has set up the Constitutional Commission for the
purpose of persuading the Australian People to accept changes to the
Commonwealth Constitution as propagated by the republicans and their
supporters in the community.
The republicans want centralisation of power and control of every aspect
of our lives, which in turn will destroy the freedoms, which have come
down to us from the ancient Statutes of Magna Carta 1225, Petition of
Rights 1628, Bill of Rights 1688 and the Act of Settlement 1701, through
the British Commonwealth and State Parliaments to the present day.
The Queensland Council of Agriculture is sending a submission to the
Advisory Committee on Trade and National Economic Management of
the Constitutional Commission in which the Council will be suggesting
amendments to Sections 51, 90 and 92 in particular according to their
draft submission of February 1987.
It is not a question of being against the State Councils of Agriculture,
Marketing Boards etc. It is a question of the Australian People
preventing the ultimate centralisation taking from their hands the right
to live their lives in the freedom, which is their birthright.
It is MY WILL that no amendments or alterations be made to the
Commonwealth Constitution without the consent and express will
of the Australian People by Referendum.
I do most humbly and respectfully Pray and Beseech Your Excellency
to convey MY WILL to both Houses of the Parliament.
I am one of Her Australian Majesty's respectful servants, (questionable)
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN! (questionable)
Signature ...............................................
PRINT NAME ......................................
ADDRESS ..............................................
STATE...................................................
POSTCODE...........................................
DATE.....................................................
No comments:
Post a Comment