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While many a person claims the Constitution is outdated, the truth is that it is not.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~