Homework Question - Thoughts on Australian Constitution

Discussion in 'Australian Law Students Forum' started by john welch, 10 January 2017.

  1. Tim W

    Tim W Lawyer
    LawTap Verified

    Joined:
    28 April 2014
    Messages:
    3,075
    Likes Received:
    650
    Admins...I suggest that @john welch no longer be heard here.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Iamthelaw likes this.
  2. john welch

    john welch Active Member

    Joined:
    10 January 2017
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Prof. Ann Twomey also be not heard?
     
  3. john welch

    john welch Active Member

    Joined:
    10 January 2017
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Murray Gleeson in 2008 confirmed the sloppy procedural thinking:

    "For a generation devoted to moving on, rather than looking back, what happened 20 years ago is ancient history; what happened 100 years ago is primeval. Many young Australian lawyers would be only dimly aware that, for most of the twentieth century, the apex of Australia's court system was in London, not Canberra.

    ... Australian appeals were abolished by a gradual, and messy, legislative process.."
     
  4. pierre

    pierre Active Member

    Joined:
    10 July 2019
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    ALL ELECTORS IN AUSTRALIA AND ALL AUSTRALIANS ARE VICTIMS OF THE FRAUD OF THE AUSTRALIA ACT 1986

    [​IMG]
    He’s laughing at us Aussies
    1. The following 10 facts of Fraud of the Australia Act 1989 have not been rebutted and therefore they remain facts.
    2. These material facts show that Australian Law emanating from the fraudulent Australia Act 1986 is based on fraud and therefore no law at all.
    3. The difference is between the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia and the CORPORATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.
    The Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901 was granted to the people by Queen Victoria.

    The CORPORATION is the ruling entity that owns, runs and controls the CITY OF LONDON which is not subject to, nor under any law of the Monarch of England

    This is the First Fraud

    Prior to Federation in 1900 Australia was divided into Colonies, after Federation the Colonies became States, but, each State was subject to the Constitution.

    Prior to the fraudulent 1986 AUSTRALIA ACT any bill either State or Commonwealth touching a Constitutional issue had to be reserved for Royal Assent involving the Two Houses of Parliament back in England in the process.

    By 1984 the International Socialist movement specifically the Fabian Socialists had succeeded in getting Mr Robert Hawke elected as Prime Minster of Australia. He then proceeded to “enact” the Australia Act. However, HM Queen Elizabeth 2 of the UK did not sign the Act. Instead, she placed her initials at the top right of the first page to indicate that the Act was subject to a referendum of the People of the Commonwealth of Australia. No referendum has ever been held.

    The Second Fraud

    In a 1996 Senate Standing Committee paper titled “Aspects of Section 44” Professor Blackshield submitted a paper to the committee which stated that Mr Hawke may have a case to answer in relation to Section 44 of the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1900 in that at the time of being Prime Minister Bob Hawke was also an Honorary Citizen of Israel. (Duel Citizenship)

    The Third Fraud

    Prior to the actual enactment of the Australia Act 1986 new “Letters Patent” were issued, it appears that the signature to the new Letters Patent signed at Balmoral in Scotland in 1984 was Mr R Hawke

    The Fourth Fraud

    To avoid having to send the 1986 Australia Act to the governed via a Constitutional Referendum, Mr Hawke and the Six Premiers involved decided to use section 51 (xxxviii) of the Commonwealth Constitution.

    Powers of the Parliament

    51. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:-
    (xxxvii.) Matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States, but so that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law:


    The Fifth Fraud

    By using Section 51 not Section 128 this activated State Request Acts and as such under their State Constitutions, Elector approval had to be sought prior to any Royal Assent being granted. (A referendum is required. )

    The Sixth Fraud

    [​IMG]
    In Western Australia, section 73 of their State Constitution

    (2) A Bill that —

    (e) expressly or impliedly in any way affects any of the following sections of this Act, namely — sections 2, 3, 4, 50, 51 and 73, shall not be presented for assent by or in the name of the Queen unless —

    (g) the Bill has also prior to such presentation been approved by the electors in accordance with this section, and a Bill assented to consequent upon its presentation in contravention of this subsection shall be of no effect as an Act. (A referendum is required. )

    In Queensland, section 53 of their State Constitution

    53.(1) A Bill that expressly or impliedly provides for the abolition of or alteration in the office of Governor or that expressly or impliedly in any way affects any of the following sections of this Act namely— sections

    1, 2, 2A, 11A, 11B; and this section 53 shall not be presented for assent by or in the name of the Queen unless it has first been approved by the electors in accordance with this section and a Bill so assented to consequent upon its presentation in contravention of this subsection shall be of no effect as an Act. (A referendum is required. )

    In New South Wales, section 7 of their State Constitution

    7(a) (2) A Bill for any purpose within subsection (1) shall not be presented to the Governor for His Majesty’s assent until the Bill has been approved by the electors in accordance with this section.

    7(b) shall not be presented to the Governor for Her Majesty’s assent until the Bill has been approved by the electors in accordance with this section. (A referendum is required. )

    The Seventh Fraud

    Within the Australia Act 1986 section 14 amends the Western Australian Constitution by amending section 50 and 51, but, these particular sections are bound to elector consent and approval at section 73 of the Western Australia Constitution. (A referendum is required. )

    The Eighth Fraud

    Within the Australia Act 1986 section 13 amends the Queensland Constitution by amending section 11A and 11B, but, these particular sections are bound to elector consent and approval at section 53 of the Queensland Constitution. (A referendum is required. )

    The Ninth Fraud

    After the purported enactment of the Australia Act 1986 “Reservation of Bills” for Royal Assent stopped and Royal Assent to Constitutional amendments operated within Australia after 1986 without any knowledge of the electorate, that “Primary Fraud” had occurred in relation to The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia as opposed to the CORPORATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA operating via the CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LONDON.

    The Tenth Fraud

    The due process of law was not followed in any State or Territory when the State Requests Acts 1985 were purportedly enacted in 1985. (A referendum is required. )

    This is all evidence that shows that Australian Law emanating from the fraudulent Australia Act 1986 is based on fraud and therefore no law at all,
     
  5. john welch

    john welch Active Member

    Joined:
    10 January 2017
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    hear hear , well said
     
  6. Rob Legat - SBPL

    LawTap Verified

    Joined:
    16 February 2017
    Messages:
    1,825
    Likes Received:
    375
    Pseudo-legal discussion is not allowed on this forum, for good reason. However, I post this (and ask the moderators to let it stay) as a means to pointing out exactly why these conspiracy theory-esque notions are patently wrong.

    First, read this: The Australia Act 1986

    The Commonwealth Government had already been divorced from the UK Parliament via the Statute of Westminster in the 1930s – which is why we then got a Governor-General.

    However, the States were still tied to the UK Parliament. The Australia Act 1986 was designed to get rid of that quagmire of a legal situation.

    Now, to debunk these so called ‘frauds’:

    1. The Queen did not initial the top right of the first page – she signed the front page with the ‘royal sign-manual’ to signify royal assent. See the photos of the UK and Australian versions of the legislation at the above link. Even so, where is it supported that the Queen placing her initials signifies the need for a referendum?

    2. Although this question was indeed raised by Professor Blackshield, there was no legal challenge made: House of Representatives Committees – laca inquiryinsec44.htm – Parliament of Australia – see Chapter 2, page 18, paragraph 2.19. Accordingly, it was never tested as to whether or not Bob Hawke would have been disqualified. Given the recent challenges under the section in the last few years, which showed it is not a simple yes or no proposition, it remains an arguable proposition at best. Further, given the High Court has not seen fit to undo any of the decisions made by parliamentarians who have been invalidated under section 44 it’s a moot point anyway.

    3. There is no significance in this ‘fraud’ to the argument. The new Letters Patent were in respect to the method of appointment and operation of the Governor-General. They were signed by the Prime Minister of Australia, and also by the Queen. A copy can be seen here: Digital copy of Record: 4765086 – SODA

    4. That’s hardly a unilateral decision. This head of power allows the Federal Parliament to make laws with respect to issues which are referred by the States. The States each gave the request/concurrence necessary. It was a tricky method of allowing the Federal Parliament to do something which the UK Parliament apparently could no longer do because they’d already given up the power to do so. You’ll note that the original author of your piece has referred to sub-section 51(xxxviii) – but has quoted sub-section 51 (xxxvii). Whether this is accidental or intentional is unknown.

    5. Nope. Referendums are only necessary to amend a Constitution. No amendment was proposed at the time, so no referendum was necessary to make the referring legislation. In any case, the Commonwealth Constitution only relates to Federal matters, and the situation had nothing to do with any change to the Federal situation – so section 128 of the Constitution had no relevance.

    6. The States went around these requirements by referring the power to the Federal Parliament under the Commonwealth Constitution. Having a referendum is expensive and problematic. All of the State and the Commonwealth were in agreement with what they should do, and it was determined to be in the public interest; so they did it. This means they didn’t breach the State constitutions’ provisions – the States went around them, and the Commonwealth overrode them.

    7. Again, accomplished in a tricky way. The WA Constitution and WA government had no authority over the Federal Parliament. The WA government didn’t present a bill changing their State Constitution, and the section’s requirements are that “A Bill… shall not be presented for assent”. They didn’t present a Bill, so the section is not enlivened.

    8. Same as item 7.

    9. This ‘fraud’ doesn’t make any sense. It appears based on the false notion of the government as a “corporation”, and that that designation ascribes some sort of legal character to it. This notion is not factually established and is a convoluted fraud in itself. In any case, both Commonwealth and State laws are still made publicly, subject to royal assent, and pursuant to the rules of the respective parliaments.

    10. A referendum was required to make changes to the provisions of the State Constitutions - a referendum was not necessary to give a referral power to the Commonwealth. The ‘trick’ was that the States knew the Commonwealth would use the power to change the State Constitutions. Regardless, the State Parliaments, Commonwealth Parliament, and the judiciary, all upheld it. The UK Parliament ‘upheld’ it. The Queen assented to it. You don’t get more official authorisation than that.


    There is no ‘evidence’. There was no ‘fraud’ perpetrated. Anything else aside, this type of nonsensical argument is used as a justification to pick and choose which laws do and don’t apply. The law is an all or nothing proposition. You cannot pick and choose why laws affect you.

    Wake up and realise that the continued operation of law in any country, including Australia, is only assured by the continued assent of the people collectively. If the laws do not reflect the will of the people as a whole then they are changed or abandoned. Until that happens, the continued quiet assent by the community as a whole, in majority, is sufficient to validate the situation.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    Rod likes this.
Loading...

Share This Page

Loading...
gt;