hello...i'm a student taking legal studies as one of my subjects under the south australian matriculation program. i'm doing a research on the topic: is australian constitution a peoples' constitution? i'm required to have two active participation task and this is one of them(getting in a forum to get feedbacks and stuff)
-representatives from the colonies to debate and to draft the constitution are elected?
-people through the representatived can change the constitution through referendums
-the Australian parliament is established by the constitution and with this the parliament in turn is accountable to the people..
-the australian reserves the right to bring a case before the High court to seek relief if there's a case that is ultra vires to the constitution
these are the five points that made me go 'for' the topic..so whaddya u guys think?
hope to hear from all soon...

peace..;)

we all know there is money in law, but have you considered the moral risk?

the short answer is no. it's a politician's constitution. a people's constitution is easy to spot, it begins:

"we, the citizens of australia, declare to all that in electoral assembly we are the masters of our nation."

there's more, send money if you need further help.

now, i'll turn the platform over to the nutters-

Rather then to repeat the same why don’t you log onto;

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=693

And also to my blog?

http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH

And, you can always check out my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com

As a constitutionalist I welcome anyone seeking to find out what the Constitution stands for but why repeat the same if you can check it out on the above web addresses and take it from there if you desire to know more.

Firstly, I am no expert at constitutional law. Second, I am not quite sure what you’re asking – are you asking whether the topics are interesting, or what we think of the questions? In any case I will proceed with giving my *very brief* objective opinion on the questions.

Q1 and 2. We live under a representative government where the bestowal of legislative functions are on representatives. And yes, they are elected through the existence of an electoral system. The Australian people do have power to change the constitution through referendums, but only in a very limited way. Referendums don’t exactly happen every other day - a referendum can only be instituted by the Cth parliament. The avenue of reform is through s128 CC. s128 is not easy to use (nor is it to read) as roughly 3 referenda have succeeded out of approximately 44.

Q3. As the principle of responsible government underlies the constitution, it necessarily demands that executive action should always be answerable to the people. Ultimately, government is held accountable to the people via elections. How effective is this? Most would probably say “not very”.

Q4. This question pertains to whether you have standing to bring the matter to court. The HC (note that the CC vests the judicial power of the Cth first of all in the HC: s71 CC) asks whether there is a sufficient controversy for the problem to be a matter under Chp III of the CC. ss76(1) and 75 confer jurisdiction on the HC in a number of matters, matters arising under treaty, where a writ of mandemus is sought etc. The court now focuses on the word “matter” as to decide whether it should intervene. It appears from case law that if an issue involves a matter that actually affects someone, then affected parties have standing (unless there is, of course, a breach of public law). So I would tend to say ‘yes but’ to this question - you cannot be just some ordinary Joe Blogs wanting to kick up a fuss about new legislation (which is reasonable).

arguments against:

its worth noting how tedious the referendum process is. and how hard it is to really pass anything through it. i suggest you look into the cons of the referendum process..

also the fact that we have not bill of rights.

arguments against:

its worth noting how tedious the referendum process is. and how hard it is to really pass anything through it. i suggest you look into the cons of the referendum process..

also the fact that we have no bill of rights.

SK, “responsible government” actually refers to the “responsible minister” being accountable to the Parliament! While we have Senators appointed as Ministers, this is a conflict of interest and the Framers of the Constitution intended that Ministers should only be drawn from the House of Representatives unless they were appointed for less than 3-months!

While many a person claims the Constitution is outdated, the truth is that it is not. When the Parliament proposes a amendment to the Constitution the People have VETO power to allow it or not. Generally the Parliament (POLITICIANS) pursue only to increase their own powers and then generally the People VETO this proposed amendment.
Nothing wrong with the Constitution where it reflects the wishes of the people as if we left it up to the parliament they would , so to say, write a blank cheque for themselves to do whatever they desire.

Regardless you may have learned in legal studies, Section 75 very much is to allow “Joe Blow” to pursue a redress of unconstitutional legislation but the judges being basically political appointments are no longer the “GUARDIAN of the CONSTITUTION” but rather the “WRECKERS of the CONSTITUTION”. The purported WorkChoices legislation is a clear example where the Court concealed from its judgment what the Framers of the Constitution intended and then took out of context other statements to pursue to justify its judgment.
The High Court of Australia refusing applications for writs to be heard and determined upon their MERITS as I view it to protect their political masters. Even to fraternise with the Governor-General when he was a party to proceedings! You appear to me to interpret the Constitution considerably different then the intentions were of the Framers of the Constitution!

There is a lot more to this, such as where the High Court of Australia participated to hijack the Constitution from the people!

In 1898, the constitutional convention was held in Melbourne. There were 2 reps from each of the colonies of WA, SA, TAS, VIC & NSW. There was no rep from Q'ld at all, so it could be construed as a conspiracy to deprive Q'ld of its wealth. Fast forward to the cyclone hitting Innisfail & howard pulling q'ld's wallet out of his pocket & giving over $100million out of the $170million in q'ld's gst revenues renegged on earlier that year. He only gave it over because of a disaster. That was only one year too. Since gst's inception the fe(de)ral govt has stolen about a billion from q'ld alone. Not to mention the total illegality of Income Taxes.

Australia's so called constitution is not an act of any parliament in Australia but is an invalid act of a foreign country's parliament due to the facts that said foreign country has no constitution of its own & that it refers to itself as a foreign power in this document. Wrap the fish heads up in it & throw it in the bin where it belongs.

the fe(de)ral system in Australia is a con & the sooner q'ld has a constitutional goverment restored & secedes the better

You are right and wrong, as I will explain about the Constitution.
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900(UK) is a British legislation enacted with the support of Queenlanders, as my books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series set out.
This Constitution being above the Parliament, the Executive and also the High Court of Australia. However, in 1996 in Sue v Hill the High Court of Australia sitting as a Court of disputed Return to decide on behalf of parliamentarians if Heather Hill was validly sitting in the Senate (She was) the High Court of Australia concocted their own version to, albeit unconstitutionally, declare that the Australia Act 1986, with a identical worded Constitution was now the new valid Constitution. By this the High Court of Australia on behalf of their political mates robbed Australians of their rights and shifted the powers to the Federal Parliament that it no longer was a “constitutional Parliament” but a Parliament that can now override the Constitution at will. Likewise, no longer a “constitutional Government” but a Government that can override constitutional constrains.
Basically, so to say, the High Court of Australia sold us out to the politicians!
As for the GST, I maintain this is unconstitutional and Section 123 is a clear example that the states could not give away their legislative powers without State referendum as it alters the legislative “limits” of a State. However out treacherous Premiers, so to say, went in bed with their federal counterpart, and now the issue is to get it reversed! By whom when judges are acting as I have stated is the big question!

I agree Gerrit, but that also means that those judges are foreign agents and surely protecting themselves from their otherwise demise and parlaimentarians.I remember an organisation in Melbourne challenged this with a HC judge whom agreed that if they would be challenged on their legality they would lose.By keeping it under raps they would not only protect themselves but this whole structure of old english law.

Gerrit, whilst I am on this subject,I have read all your online stuff (yahoo etc ..constitution) I noticed their was no mention on international issues concerning unelected "officials" representing health authorities regarding CODEX Alimentarius, and being an illigal
member of the UN and therefore not able to vote on world matters.
(You'll have to excuse my unprofessional language too as I am also not a native of this country:-)

I would love you to see our international members site: http://www.freedom-force.org/

thank you very much for all your views.Appreciate it. It has helped me a lot with my research on this topic. Have a good day, year, month ahead of you.:p

Once again thanks!
Cheers~

eftfnc,

OK you discovered that my website and blog do not cover everything (SMILE), but my books, up to 1.9Gib do set out a hell of a lot more.

As the Commonwealth of Australia is not a county but only a political union of the states, who remain to be dominions under the British Crown, then there can be no membership to the UN! This I canvassed also in my published books.

As to representation of Health Officials much depends on who and what they seek to represent!

The first issue is to establish matters in constitutional context. In plain terms, if it doesn’t fit in it then forget about the rest.

I have just added to my yahoo blog http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH another correspondence about Aboriginals, etc, which may also give you some understanding that unless proper observance is given to constitutional powers and limitations it will go wrong.

eftfnc,

I HAVE JUST HAD A BRIEF LOOK AT THE WEBSITE YOU REFER TO AND TO BE VERY HONEST I AM IMPRESSED, BUT CONSIDERING I ONLY READ THE FRONT PAGE AND DO NOT KNOW WHAT FURTHER IS STATED.
I HAVE DONWLOADED THE PAGE AS TO INCLUDE IT IN MY NEXT PAGE.

What I understand the website is about basically is what I have in my letterhead stated:

“PEOPLES POWER Reclaim our State and Federal constitutional and other rights, and hold politicians & judges accountable!”

You may have noticed also stated on my website?