Hey, I'm Kenneth. I am not a law student but Legal Studies is one of my subjects in the South Australian Matriculation(SAM) Pre-University Programme. I am doing a research study and would like to enquire on a few things regarding a republic system of government. I have posted something regarding the Constitution in the past which is more specific. I would greatly appreciate if you could state your opinion(whether agree or disagree) clearly according to each question and provide valid reasons.

1) Does a repulic form of government help to ensure a perfect seperation of power? In other words, does a republic prevent one body from dominating another body, such as the Executive Body dominating the Legislative Body since election is done seperately.

2) There are many roles of the Governor General that became obselete in the Constitution since Australia gained its independence in 1986. Hence, in your opinion, do you think that these roles should be removed from the Constitution through a republic?

3) Australia has evolved into a multicultural society throughout the years. In your opinion, do you think that an Australian Head of State should replace the current Head of State who grew up in Britain and is appointed by the Queen of England?

4) The British monarchy, by nature, discriminates against women as women are only eligible if no male heir exists. Also, the heir must not be a Catholic and must be a member of the Church of England. This is in conflict with Australia's anti-discrimination laws in which any arrangement of having males to gain precedence over females is prohibited. Therefore, do you think that democratic rights and equality between genders should be made obligatory with the presence of a republic?

Lastly, in general, do you think a republic should be encouraged to replace the current constitutional monarchy?

I hope that you are able to respond to this post as soon as you can. Thanks for taking time to even read about this also. I appreciate it.

-Kenneth Chaw-

ken, i mentioned in my response to your first inquiry that politics was about power, not about theory.

before you settle on an answer to "what must be done", it is wise to ask "how will it be done" and "who will do it".

there is endless talk about politics in australia, but the speakers are a very small part of the population and their talk is mere chatter. they are in truth 'chatterati' because all power to actually do things resides in parliament, and in fact in cabinet. although they chatter about democracy, most know nothing about it, simply because there is no vestige of democracy in australian history or culture.

consequently, any change to the constitution will be carried out by politicians for politicians. this fact was very visible in the last referendum and was a part of it's failure.

i presume you are merely filling out your academic resume, rather than actually educating yourself in any constructive way- let me commend you for initiative in getting the chatterati to rough draft your papers.

Ken
You are asking some complex questions and you have obviously given the issues a bit of thought.
There is a far greater chance that the "separation of powers" doctrine will remain intact under our current system. e.g. the US President has certain veto powers and the Governor-General and State Governors do not.
The Catholic church acknowledges the Pope as the superior authority so that a Catholic could not be King or Queen of England and still retain that separation of powers.
The law of succession could be changed to grant females the right to succeed.
Australia, as you recognise, is an independent country and the Governor-General has two roles - one is to be our head of state and the other is to be the Queen's representative in her role as head of the Cth. Republicans who try to say this is not the case either misunderstand or are deliberately trying to misinform people as to the role of G-G.
Monarchies on the whole make for very stable governments - they give people something to have allegiance to which has nothing to do with party-political issues. They may be anachronistic and elitist but I doubt there is anything better to replace them with....who wants to go the way of the US or Russia or some of the African states?

better a good monarchy than a bad republic, it's true. but why not a democratic republic? as opposed to a monarchy with 'work choices', slavish submission to america, and a legal system that is treated with contempt by all.

Kenneth,
As I stated in our email correspondence the Commonwealth of Australia is not independent and the judges of the High Court of Australia firstly recognised that not a single legislation was enacted to say so. They themselves had no constitutional power to amend the constitution by their judgment to declare the Constitution to be applied differently.
1/ The Commonwealth of Australia constitution Act 1900 (UK) is the only valid constitution.
Becoming a republic makes not one iota difference to the separation of power. It is based on constitutional provisions, and as long as they are followed that is all that is relevant.

2/ The role of the Governor-General has remained in the constitution however it is that the Prime Minister (albeit unconstitutionally) is taking over prerogative powers from the Queen, this is and remains unconstitutional and so ULTRA VIRES.

3/ Australia's head of State is not appointed by the Queen as she is the Head of State and constitutionally only a person born in the UK can be appointed , upon recommendation of the British Government, to be appointed Governor-General. Nothing to do with an Australian Prime Minister. the governor-General was never head of State but represents the head of State as the "Chief Executive"/"Administrator" of the Commonwealth of Australia. "Constitutionally" he and not the Prime Minister runs the country! The Prime Minister is his servant!

4/ the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 is unconstitutional as it is against the "general community" and Subsection 51(xxvi) only allows legislative powers against a "coloured race"! Therefore the commonwealth of Australia has no constitutional powers to deal with this as the constitution is above the Government, the Parliament and the Courts!
See also my website http://schorel-hlavka.com

If you get a flat tyer, do you then fix the flat or you just buy another car?
surely, the same with the current system, if politicians are vandalising constitutional powers then get rid of the politicians, not the system itself.

I suggest that this last correspondent needs to do a course in Constitutional Law.
Ken, he is misleading you.

Communicat, prove me wrong!

As I succeeded in a 5-year legal battle on all constitutional issues in Court it vindicated my position in that regard.

If you view I am wrong, then no doubt you will set out, using the statements of the "Framers of the Constitution" why you deem I am wrong!

A general response of that a person is wrong, without setting out what you refer to also itself indicates your comment is not particularly helpful!

You are entitled to your views, as I am, but when you attack another poster then at least do this with credibility to support your criticism and not merely rely upon LEGAL FICTION you may subscribe to.

I could not post again until this morning but look carefully at what you have written sir. If it was correct then all non-received Australian law would be unconstitutional and there would be many other limitations on us. These do not exist.
There was a reciprocal act in the United Kingdom signed at the same moment. The issues you raise were addressed and dealt with.
Constitutional experts and the High Court seem to believe that Australia is an independent country capable of making its own laws. (I was certainly taught that by Prof Leslie Zines.) Does Westminster rule us? I think not.

commcat, the fed constitution is a defective document in many respects, but the legal profession has no interest in pointing this out to the electorate. even if they did, politicians are well served by the present state of affairs and will make no substantive changes.

and if the general public wanted a better document, they are powerless to change it. so most of them very properly don't waste time on politics.

the result is a nation ruled by bandits, over-seen by an emasculated crown, and endured by a cow-populace whose ignorance and culturally conditioned submissiveness makes life at the top possible for a class of people notable for lack integrity, and not over endowed with management skills either.

Hang on Demos - I was not defending the Constitution (it IS defective - nobody anywhere has yet written the perfect Constitution). The issue we were discussing was quite different. Our mutual friend would, it seems, have it that we are not able to make our own laws, that all governments have been illegitimate and we are not legally able to take our place in the world. If this was actually so the ramifications would be breathtaking. Fortunately for us he is mistaken and, although not alone in his beliefs, noone is going to take him terribly seriously...however I do feel rather concerned for the student who started this thread.
Now Demos you do not like the status quo apparently...happily this is still enough of a democracy for you to be able to state your views here and elsewhere...please do it responsibly so that students like Ken can continue to ask questions and get a diverse range of views.

"Communicat" you attacked my posting and I challenge you to prove me wrong!

Currently, there are three court cases going on all using my books about constitutional issues, since I succeeded on 19 July 2006, after a 5-year legal battle, and despite a judge specifically ordered the DPP to set out if he agreed or dis agreed with each issues and if he disagreed to state why he disagreed, and was given three months to respond to this, the DPP failed totally to do so. The trial judge now has to decide if in view of the DPP failing to comply with the specific orders issued by him all proceedings are to be aborted on the basis the court has no jurisdiction, such as because not a single lawyer/judges/politician is validly appointed.
As the judge previously made clear to the DPP that the issues raised had to be addressed before the Court would be able to invoke jurisdiction, if at all!

So far, in more then 50-years not a single lawyer/judge has been able to prove me wrong in any of the constitutional issues I raised, because I use the statements of the Framers of the Constitution to back up what I claim!
I invite anyone to prove me wrong, not with some nonsense of LEGAL FICTION but to prove me wrong with credible material!
"Communicat" pursued that I ought to do constitutional law, but as a "constitutionalist" the last thing I need is some "lier for hire" to seek to brainwash me with nonsense!
Even professors in law of universities have so far been unable to prove me wrong, so "Communicat" the challenge is to you to do better!
After all, you seemed to attack my statements!

Oops, "lier for hire" ought to be "lair for hire".

Sir, since you have so far failed to give any of us any details of what it is you are talking about we are unable to comment, let alone discuss or refute whatever your arguments are.
Perhaps my ability to understand English is at fault here but I find what you have to say confusing. I have shown my colleagues what you have to say and they also find it confusing.
You did make some statements that the High Court would reject - but I believe you are aware of that.
If you wish to begin a debate about the issues you raise perhaps you could start a new thread and outline your arguments in detail so that people can understand what you are trying to say?

QUOTE
I suggest that this last correspondent needs to do a course in Constitutional Law.
Ken, he is misleading you.
Posted by Communicat, Tuesday, 12 June 2007 4:57:00 PM
END QUOTE
I appears to me that you attacked my previous post considerably, and as such I seek you to explain yourself.
It is not for me to explain it as after all you were the one who attacked my posting.

I am well aware that many lawyers/judges are in this FANTASY LAND being educated in legal studies on LEGAL FICTION, and perhaps this may have been what caused you to attack my post. As you attacked my posting I am entitled to seek you to clarify as to what you criticised and set out what you view is the alternative.
Whatever your collage’s may or may not perceive is not my concern, in particular if they have the same kind of LEGAL FICTION understanding.

I did not attack your posting but you did mine in a very brief but considerable manner.

As a “constitutionalist” I do not need to be given some garbage of LEGAL FICTION in some purported “course in Constitutional Law”, as I have proven my worth in the Courts, and proven to have been correct!

It seems to me that unlike myself, you are hiding behind some faceless identity and seek to attack upon the credibility of another person but lacking the ability and the guts to prove yourself and your credibility.
It serves no one, but perhaps your own ego, to attack another person from behind a assumed identity too scared to let people know who you really are. At least I have never done so, as I for one have no need to hide behind a fictitious identity.
As I stated previously, “PROVE ME WRONG” and failing this perhaps have some guts to apologise for your unsupported attack upon me.

In my view, it is sad that people with your kind of conduct hiding behind some fictitious screen name seem to have this misplaced kind of modus operandi as exitement.

What is “Australia citizenship”?

Australian citizenship is derived from State citizenship which is a political rights (includes franchise) it is not and never had anything to do with “nationality”!

What is the nationality of a person born in the Commonwealth of Australia or naturalised?

Constitutionally a person born in a State/Territory is a “Subject of the British Crown and as such has the British nationality.

Who is the Head of State?

The British Monarch Queen Elizabeth II.

What is the constitutionally valid method to appoint a Governor-General?

A Governor-General can only be appointed upon the recommendation of the Home Office at 10 Downing Street by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II the British Monarch.

Is the Commonwealth of Australia a country?
No, as like the European Union it is a “political union” between the different countries (British dominions) known as States, being WA, SA, Victoria, QLD, Tasmania, NSW.

Can the Commonwealth of Australia become a republic?
No, the Framers of the Constitution made clear the Constitution would not allow the Commonwealth of Australia to become a Republic.

Can the Federal Government deny an Australian a passport?
Not as to prevent the person to leave the Commonwealth of Australia unless ordered so by a Court of law.

Has the Commonwealth of Australia any constitutional powers to detain refugees in Commonwealth Detention Centres?
The Commonwealth has no constitutional powers to detain any person, as it has no legislative powers as to “civil rights” etc, but must hand over any person for this to a State (see Section 120 of the Constitution).

Has the Australian Federal Police any powers to arrest a person in a State?
The AFP has no constitutional powers to operate within a State jurisdiction, as only local police can do so.

Is compulsory voting in federal elections constitutionally valid?
No. The Framers of the Constitution specifically refused to make registration and voting compulsory and without referendum to amend the constitution to allow for compulsory voting it cannot be permitted. And On 19 July 2006 I succeeded in Court on this constitutional ground having refused to vote.

Who is the head of the Federal Government?
The Governor-General assisted by his Ministers.

Is the Commonwealth of Australia racist?
Yes, Section 51(xxvi) approved by all Colonies(now States) provide for racism. The Racial Discrimination Act 975 is unconstitutional as it is not a legislation regarding a “coloured race”.

Can a person loose “citizenship”?
Yes, if the Commonwealth of Australia has enacted a special race legislation against a specific race then all persons of that race are automatically by this without “citizenship”, hence loose their rights as to franchise with this also.

Has the Commonwealth of Australia constitutional powers to define/declare “citizenship”?
No, it is a State right and while since 1948 the Commonwealth of Australia simply legislated for Australian citizenship (commonwealth citizenship) it was never formally approved for this by referendum.

Can a State amend its own Constitution and/or refer legislative powers to the Commonwealth of Australia?
Not unless it is approved by way of State referendum to alter the “limits” of the State (see s123 and 128 of the Constitution).

Can the Commonwealth of Australia enforce its own laws against a “citizen”?
No, the framers of the Constitution specifically stated that Commonwealth law could only be enforced through a State Court by judicial decision. Therefore a decision by the minister of Immigration to deport a person is and remains a nullity unless so enforced by a State Court order by judicial determination!

Why is it all done so wrong?
After federation the High Court of Australia (albeit unconstitutionally) denied Hansard records of the Constitution Convention Debates to be used as to seek to circumvent constitutional limits, and not until 1992 did the High Court of Australia permit the usage of the Hansard in that regard. Meaning that for all those decades students in legal studies, lawyers, etc all had it done wrong being basically brainwashed with LEGAL FICTION. Their problem is that now being faced with what is LEGAL REALITY their brain somehow cannot operate on this normal level and so they just continue to rely upon LEGAL FICTION.

Just prove me wrong!

Sir,
I suggested that you might like to start a new thread if you wish to debate the issues you have raised.
I believe that would be the most appropriate method of beginning a discussion.
You obviously feel strongly about many issues. May I suggest that you raise one issue at a time so that others will read what you have to say and then be able to respond to it?
No one is going to trouble to try and respond to posts that are lengthy or raise multiple issues. You are doing yourself and everyone else no favours by continuing in your present manner.

hi kenny,

im poojah from India!
Why do u wanttt to no bout the kangaroo land.
ill tell u all bout India
hayoh rama hare krishna.
bye kanna

Communicat you are free to deal with one item at the time. What I stated are merely some issues, so to say, the tip of the iceberg.
Because of the huge amount of material I have to go through in regard of the books I publish I am not at liberty to always post on the Internet, hence I listed some and you can deal with them one at the time. If then I can attend to it further I will and otherwise it takes a bit longer.

The issue nevertheless remains that you attacked me (randomly) severely and as yet haven’t even shown anything to justify that attack! At the very least you ought to have the credibility to apologise for this.

In particular where there are students who seek to obtain clarification about matters it is not helpful to them if a poster is raving on about another poster being wrong but not showing why another poster is wrong or claimed to be wrong.

OK, start on “CITIZENSHIP” and try to prove me wrong!

For example, show when a Section 128 referendum was held to approve an amendment of the Constitution to transfer legislative powers from the States to the Commonwealth of Australia?
For the record, on 30-9-2003 I published;

INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
(ISBN 0-9580569-6-X prior to 1-1-2007) ISBN 978-0-9580569-6-0

This book also then addressed the issue why Pauline Hanson & David Ettridge were wrongly convicted, and subsequently the Court of Criminal appeal in November 2003 about word for word used this legal argument to overturn the convictions!

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;
Mr. BARTON.-I did not say that. I say that our real status is as subjects, and that we are all alike subjects of the British Crown.
Dr. QUICK.-
I took occasion to indicate that in creating a federal citizenship, and in defining the qualifications of that federal citizenship, we were not in any way interfering with our position as subjects of the British Empire. It would be beyond the scope of the Constitution to do that.

And further:
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates;

Mr. SYMON.-
It is not a lawyers' question; it is a question of whether any one of British blood who is entitled to become a citizen of the Commonwealth is to run the risk-it may be a small risk-of having that taken away or diminished by the Federal Parliament! When we declare-"Trust the Parliament," I am willing to do it in everything which concerns the working out of this Constitution, but I am not prepared to trust the Federal Parliament or anybody to take away that which is a leading inducement for joining the Union.
And
Mr. SYMON.-
Dual citizenship exists, but it is not dual citizenship of persons, it is dual citizenship in each person. There may be two men-Jones and Smith-in one state, both of whom are citizens of the state, but one only is a citizen of the Commonwealth. That would not be the dual citizenship meant. What is meant is a dual citizenship in Mr. Trenwith and myself. That is to say, I am a citizen of the state and I am also a citizen of the Commonwealth; that is the dual citizenship.
And
Mr. SYMON.-
As a citizen of a state I claim the right to be a citizen of the Commonwealth. I do not want to place in the hands of the Commonwealth Parliament, however much I may be prepared to trust it, the right of depriving me of citizenship.
And
Mr. SYMON.-I would not put such a power in the hands of any Parliament. We must rest this Constitution on a foundation that we understand, and we mean that every citizen of a state shall be a citizen of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth shall have no right to withdraw, qualify, or restrict those rights of citizenship, except with regard to one particular set of people who are subject to disabilities, as aliens, and so on.

Considering this being a posting and limited to publish the above is some basics to indicate that Australian citizenship (Commonwealth-citizenship) is derived from State-citizenship, nothing to do with nationality!

Sir
I took the trouble to look your name up on the internet. It was interesting.
However I still find your words confusing and don't feel we can fruitfully continue this discussion.
I would point out just one thing. There is no compulsion whatsoever to vote. There is a compulsion to attend at the polling booth, take a ballot paper and put it in the box provided but there is no compulsion to mark it.
That mistake alone on your part would raise questions in my mind about the accuracy of what else you have to say.

The High-Court-of-Australia it self acknowledged this in the Albert Lange case that the AEC (Australian-Electoral-Commission) cannot actually check if a person completed a ballot paper as required by law but held that if a person failed to vote relied upon what the AEC could prove in Court. I used this in litigation versus the AEC and the Court ordered that the AEC had to file and serve all relevant details/information to prove I had FAILED-TO-VOTE. This, even so I admitted I had refused to vote but challenged the Courts jurisdiction that it could not hear and determine the matters in the first place.
As I relied upon the Lange case, and use that in my books also, there is therefore nothing new you put forwards. Hence your claim that I was wrong again is your error. Actually, the AEC sought to rely upon Section 383 of the AEC1918 "averment" that they do not have to prove it that I FAILED TO VOTE but in that also I defeated them (the AEC)in that Commonwealth law cannot interfere with State Courts provisions and it was for this not applicable.
The AEC also had a problem that it was not challenged that I had attended to the pollingstation (as my wife was voting,) and I was a candidate in the election, as I even spoke with the Electoral Officer. My issue was that I could not be compelled to vote, not even to accept a ballot paper or filling it in!

I discovered that the Electoral Officer now simply has my name crossed off and he puts the ballot papers in the ballot box even so I do not accept them and neither gave them permission to do so and it is in breach of the regulations for a Electoral Officer to do so. it is tampering with an election!
They lost the 5-year long litigation and so seems to have opted to use unlawful methods where they cannot win against me in Court.
That way they avoid taking me to court again, and to loose again.

You were twice wrong then apologise

Communicat, the post started if Australia should be a republic or not. What I have attempted to show is that as much as you have misconceptions likewise so do about all lawyers/judges/politicians and who then knows what the Constitution really is about other then a “constitutionalist” like myself.
The worst thing would be for people to push for a Republic for the wrong reasons and find that if we were, so to say, become a republic nothing changes and the rot continues.
It is for this that it is essential people first address current wrongdoings and then evaluate what really is the difference between a DEMOCRACY running on the proper application of the Constitution and a Republic.

Regretfully, not even the judges of the High Court of Australia seem to understand the true constitutional meaning of “CITIZENSHIP” and so allow deportation of innocent people by this.
Vivian Alvarez Solon being one of them. We gain nothing by allowing ministers to wrongly deport anyone. All I seek is the Rule of Law permissible within the Constitution, however this is not occurring.
Currently, John Howard is about taking over WATER rights, and people are blind to the severe consequences this can have. The Framers of the Constitution refused to allow for this as they debated it at length.
Constitutionally the Commonwealth cannot detain anyone and the ASIO Amendment Act is unconstitutional for that to allow this but again there is a failure of proper training in constitutional matters and lawyers are appointed to the High Court of Australia with next to no competence in constitutional issues.

I am merely, so to say, a messenger to expose it.

Don’t shoot the messenger for this rather direct your attention to the wrongdoers before it is too late!

Kenneth,

perhaps you have learned that as I come across time and again with politicians/lawyers/judges they first argue that I am wrong, but the moment I put to them quotations as to what really is applicable they lack the decency to apologise and refuse to admit being wrong.
Australians are in my view one-of-the-dumbest-people-on-earth where they are pushing the republican issue without having got a clue that it is about. We even had a referendum to ask people to vote for or against it where people were unaware what they were really voting for, and I discovered neither did those people leading the push for a Republic.

Australians don’t understand what their real their nationality is, their national anthem, the national flag or that that they have a fictitious Queen called “Queen-of-Australia, even so there exist no such country as Commonwealth of Australia as neither exist a country called European Union.

For so far they know, so to say, the Governor-General is some Christmas tree decoration rather then being the heads of the Federal Government.
Ample of lawyers claimed that the relied upon what they learned during legal studies by their tutors. So, seemingly to dumb to check out the LEGAL-FACTS from LEGAL-FICTION.

The sad thing is that not are they so dumb to understand what it is about but in this perpetual state of being so to say “Zombies”, they than go along with whatever the tyrannical Federal Government pursues regardless that it is slowly more and more eroding constitutional rights.

A clear example is the deportation of children as “non-citizens” (because their parents were “aliens”) even so the children’s birthrights (other then children born to diplomates) are having every right to be Australians as any of my children born in the Commonwealth of Australia. So, we are unconstitutionally deporting children into a life of hell!
Seems to me before anyone can address the Republic issue they better first learn what their constitution is about and so are not competent to give you any proper information about something they do not understand themselves what it is about.

Hey kenneth. I assumed dat u r doing the topic australia should be a republic. I see dat i have two of ur main points. U oso at taylors college rite? How bout meeting up and discussing the ideas. My number is 0123411935 if u r interested. Thanks.