LawAnswers.com.au - Australia's #1 Legal Community

LawAnswers.com.au is a community of 10,000+ Australians, just like you, helping each other.
Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
Join us, it only takes a minute:

QLD Tony Abbott's Oath of Office - Is It a Verbal Contract?

Discussion in 'Other/General Law Forum' started by dickybeacholdalbion, 16 April 2015.

  1. dickybeacholdalbion

    dickybeacholdalbion Active Member

    Joined:
    12 June 2014
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    1
    Is the oath of office given by politicians to well and truly serve the people of Australia a binding verbal contract under contract law? Is the following something that might be considered by a court? Or is it pie in the sky? Along the lines of this:-
    Anthony John (Tony) Abbott of Level 2, 17 Sydney Road, Manly NSW, 2095, I am writing to seek relief for breach of contract to the sum of XX

    On 18 September 2013 you swore an oath of office to well and truly serve the people of Australia. This is a verbal contract between you and me as I am one of the people of Australia.

    You are in breach of that contract in that the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet in FOI 2014/159 stated that your renunciation of British citizenship papers do not exist. As the renunciation papers do not exist you are in breach of the Australian Constitution S44 and therefore your verbal contract to well and truly serve me as a person of Australia is broken.
     
  2. Rod

    Rod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    27 May 2014
    Messages:
    2,178
    Likes Received:
    262
    I haven't followed the constitutional debate on this matter. S44 of the constitution refers to oath of allegiance to a foreign power.

    All Australians are subjects of Her Majesty, the Queen of England, so is England considered a foreign power for the purposes of our Constitution? Has the High court made a ruling on this?

    The Judiciary until recently had to swear an oath to the Queen, at least in Victoria. Not sure if Federal Judges still have to swear on oath to the Queen.
     
  3. Tim W

    Tim W Lawyer

    Joined:
    28 April 2014
    Messages:
    1,722
    Likes Received:
    405
    No, it's not a contract.
    It's an oath.

    Looking back at your old posts, I see what you are about.
    Please feel free to resume your silence.
     
  4. dickybeacholdalbion

    dickybeacholdalbion Active Member

    Joined:
    12 June 2014
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    1
    Toll fines, section 44 of the constitution can only come into play via the high court,within 40 days of an election. It has been shown in the high court that England is a foreign power for the purpose of S44.

    Tim W, not Tim Watts MP are you?? LOL he likes me as much as you seem to. And asking people to shut up on a forum where voices are supposed to be heard seems inconsistent with the point of the forum and very political for an apolitical place.

    The query about oaths comes from parliament site itself, the link is
    Specifically Billy Hughes speech stating " That, in the opinion of this House, the honorable member for Kalgoorlie, the Hon. Hugh Mahon, having, by seditious and disloyal utterances at a public meeting on Sunday last, been guilty of conduct unfitting him to remain a member of this House, and inconsistent with the oath of allegiance which he has taken as a member of this House, be expelled [from] this House."
    And a story in the Newyorker (not a legal tome but a nice piece of writing none the less) " The swearing-in ceremony transforms the oath into a public, secular commitment: a verbal contract between the oath-taker and the nation rather than between an individual and God." in this
     
  5. Tim W

    Tim W Lawyer

    Joined:
    28 April 2014
    Messages:
    1,722
    Likes Received:
    405
    Nope.
     
  6. Rod

    Rod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    27 May 2014
    Messages:
    2,178
    Likes Received:
    262
    There is nothing in S44 that refers to within 40 days of an election. In fact S44 specifically says:

    "Any person who -

    (i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power: or
    (ii.) ..........................................................
    shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. ........."

    Have you taken this matter to the High Court?
     
    dickybeacholdalbion likes this.
  7. dickybeacholdalbion

    dickybeacholdalbion Active Member

    Joined:
    12 June 2014
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    1
    The Australian Electoral Commission and the High Court have determined the length of time in past cases,the AEC can't even investigated possible irregularities, a Special Minister for State determined they should not be allowed to look or ask about nationality.
     
  8. Rod

    Rod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    27 May 2014
    Messages:
    2,178
    Likes Received:
    262
    Sue V Hill made it to the High Court. Plus, the High Court determines which cases it can/will hear, not a minister.

    Have you taken this matter to the High Court?
     
  9. dickybeacholdalbion

    dickybeacholdalbion Active Member

    Joined:
    12 June 2014
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    1
    Contacted High Court offices and they said must be lodged within a set time after polls are declared. The court is acting as a court of disputed returns and under Odgers Australian Senate practice must be lodged within 40 days of the declaration of polls. The high court action is set to occur should Abbott stand for election again, but I doubt he will. That's why the breach of contract is being considered. I have tried to get politicians to act, Ms Butler did write to Abbott but he refused to reply, Senator Nash has written to the Attorney General but again no reply. Gone are the days when MPs were compelled to respond to communications. Even the proof of the renunciation papers not existing isnt enough to cause things to happen because the parliament no longer has the power to expel members.

    A writ of mandamus was requested from the UK but their supreme court refused to reply, their ministers, Cameron,May etal all refuse to consider demanding the Home Office declare the renunciation papers do not exist because they are protecting their own.

    The AFP commissioners office have said they can not consider fraud charges for Mr Abbott signing 8 false declarations to the AEC because the AEC has not the power to check citizenship, figure that one out..... I think a lot of that is tied up with him living with the AFP and promising the Commissioner the homeland security gig if it is created. Headbutting walls is fun compared to this.
     
  10. Rod

    Rod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    27 May 2014
    Messages:
    2,178
    Likes Received:
    262
    They are being misleading. You are not wanting to invalidate an election result. You are wanting to uphold S44 of the constitution against one sitting member.

    Have you spoken to a constitution lawyer about this?
     
    dickybeacholdalbion likes this.

Share This Page

Loading...