The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The separation of powers, and the Australian Electoral Commission > Comments

The separation of powers, and the Australian Electoral Commission : Comments

By James Page, published 8/12/2014

However in modern societies there can be a different kind of despotism, and one such modern despotism is the despotism of bureaucracies.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
As a non-lawyer but one who is interested in the operation of voluntary organisations, I found this article to be interesting.

I came to it with the though that "despotism of bureaucracies" is not a real world problem and came away convinced that it is. My thanks for a very readable explanation of the subject.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Monday, 8 December 2014 9:30:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for that kind comment. My aim with this article was indeed to help make the notion of the separation of powers a more accessible. As I say, it is interesting that this notion is referenced in popular culture. James Page.
Posted by Dr James Page, Monday, 8 December 2014 10:17:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good article. Does the author wish to comment on the newly acquired powers of the Minister for Immigration in which it seems that he can make decisions about persons entering this country without reference to any legal process?
Posted by Sells, Monday, 8 December 2014 12:30:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When Menzies lost the Communist Party Case in 1949 in the High Court and the trial in the big jury with a referendum to ban the Communist Party he decided the Separation of :Powers was an obsolete Doctrine in the Commonwealth and allowed the High Court as then constituted as the Federal Supreme Court to write itself an “Unholy Bible” called the High Court Rules 1952, so that the executive and the High Court would in future travel in lockstep, and any pesky Constitutional question not supported by a huge hue and cry in the media could never again be raised in that supposedly independent guardian of Constitutional integrity. In 2004 Howard allowed this unholy congregation ( of seven) to write another “Unholy Bible” the High Court Rules 2004 abolishing the Queen and all She stands for from its unholy precincts.

Most people including the learned Professor have no idea that representative democracy has its basis in the New Testament. The Parliament of the Commonwealth starts each day with the Lord's Prayer from Matthew 6 Verses 9-13 of that hallowed tome the Authorised King James Version. The Institution of the Sovereign, has endured until now because until the end of WWII the separation of powers embodied in the Magna Carta which derives its force from Matthew 18 Verses 15-20, was still held sacred in the United Kingdom and Australia. The Principle or a Supernatural Power to deliver justice relied on the separation of powers, separating thye power of Administration which was vested in a Justice, from the power to judge, which was vested in a jury usually of 12 as in 12 disciples. The Magna Carta incorporates the principle of Matthew 18 Verse 20 into the law, as Jesus Christ said, For where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in their midst.

That enactment prevented blasphemers from imposing their will on an unwilling population. One of the strongest prohibitions in the New Testament is a prohibition on Judging. When the Australian Democrats proposed removing prayers from Parliament they committed political suicide.
Posted by Peter Vexatious, Tuesday, 9 December 2014 5:56:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An excellent summation of the incident and its ramifications, thank you. It is good to know that someone is guarding our guardians.
Posted by ybgirp, Tuesday, 9 December 2014 6:31:13 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Queen when she became Queen was required to take a Coronation Oath. Part of that was: Will you to the utmost of your power maintaine the laws of God the true profession of the Gospell and the Protestant reformed religion established by law? This appears in Halsbury's Statutes of England dated 1950. The Hawke Government in 1984 legislated in S 15AB Acts Interpretation Act 1901 that extrinsic material, not forming part of an Act was admissible to clarify the meaning of an Act. That means that the Holy Bible may be used to clarify the meaning of certain words and punctuation, two words come to mind.

The first is “court” uncapitalised whenever it stands alone in Ch III Constitution. It appears 23 times as a stand alone word. Only a very negligent or lazy scholar would pretend that it means the same as Court. The second is “judges”. During my education a word with an s on the end meant plural. This word appears standing alone twice, once in S 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, and again in s 79 Constitution. S 79 says: The federal jurisdiction of any court may be exercised by such number of judges as Parliament prescribes. Using the Holy Bible and its prohibition on an individual judging another, and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which say all persons shall be equal before the law, it is fair to say that a single Judge, merging the power to arrive at a verdict and administer that verdict are in fact merging the judicial power with the executive power and offending S 43 Crimes Act 1914, ( Cth).

Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister had the Parliamentary Draftsman change the word Court wherever appearing in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and Australian Security and Investments Commission Act 2001 to “court” to comply with Ch III Constitution. No Federal Court of Australia Judge has agreed to empanel “judges” as the tribunal of fact. Consequently Australia has one of the dirtiest legal systems in the civilised world.
Posted by Peter Vexatious, Tuesday, 9 December 2014 12:58:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most interesting, Peter V.
Are there any legal channels to rectify this so we have the 'cleanest' legal system?
Posted by ybgirp, Wednesday, 10 December 2014 6:11:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The separation of Church and State has become the catchcry of the conmen and women refusing to let anyone fix the system. I am declared vexatious in four jurisdictions because I have been trying for nearly twenty years to find an honest Judge. In point of fact we are all compulsory members of two State Churches, one called the Australian Government and the other from whatever State we live in, and the Priests of this unholy Church are the lawyers of Australia. Just like the Church on the Continent of Europe perpetrated the grossest unhumanities on the populations there, so too are the State Churches. It is not just the Electoral Commission thinks it is Almighty God but a whole raft of bureaucracies. One in particular that is very rotten indeed is the Insolvency and Trustee Service of Australia. It changed its name, to the Australian Financial Services Authority but a rotten apple still smells rotten, no matter what it is called.

I believe the real reason Julia Gillard, a lawyer stepped in and assassinated Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister was because he was actually about to reform the Australian Government Church, and reintroduce the separation of powers abolished by the High Court in 1952 on Menzies watch. There has been a persistent and not too dishonest person somewhere in the Parl;iamentary draftsmans ranks, whose work has been approved by the Parliament of the Commonwealth but ignored by the Cult that actually governs Australia. To protect the integrity of the Judicial Process in the Commonwealth the Parliament of the Commonwealth enacted S 42 and 43 Crimes Act 1914, ( Cth) and made it a crime carrying five years imprisonment to attempt to pervert the course of justice and the Parliament under Rudd increased that to ten years imprisonment. All Judges and Magistrates in Australia should be terrified.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been declared enacted in the Criminal Code Act 1995 and Evidence Act 1995 and is Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. No lawyer will accept it is law.
Posted by Peter Vexatious, Wednesday, 10 December 2014 7:28:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy