The Australian Constitution is divided into “Jurisdictions” (i.e. parliament, executive, crown, judiciary)
Chapter 1 – The Parliament
Chapter II – the Executive
Chapter III – the Judicature
Govt have “read down” (ignored) Ch I & III.
They have found a loophole and “created” a new “constitution” out of Chapter II s61, s62 and s63. Hence the Australia Act 1986.
Thus – the Governor-General exercises the power of the Queen (61), under the advisement of the Federal Executive Council (62), therefore this provision of this constitution referring to him shall be construed as referring to him acting in advice (63).
In other words, the GG works in with the Executive to exercise the powers vested in him.
S63, therefore allows the Executive to assume the role of the Governor-General as Head of State.
This has created an entirely new jurisdiction INSIDE the Australian Constitution – the jurisdiction referred to by the High Court in several cases. Note: In most legislature “This Act binds the crown in each of its capacities”.
Remember, the Australian Constitution is STILL IN PLACE. This new structure operates like a cancer INSIDE the Aust Constitution.This new jurisdiction is known as the law of the body politic, or the law of public policy (e.g EPBC Act 1999, Local Govt Act 1995 & etc) .
It has allowed, over the previous 20 years, the dramatic amendments (parliamentary supremacy) to the Judiciary Act 1903 specifically during the Hawke/Keating years and more aggressively through the Howard years.
This jurisdiction (public policy) has the ability to create laws that remove, or weaken all and any provisions (Common law) normally found under the jurisdictions of Chapter 1 and 3 (remember they are being ignored).
The public policy jurisdiction (Statute law Miscellaneous Provisions) has its own Courts (Tribunals, or Committees), Rules of Court and employs a different type of public servant, that being a person, or authority in the service of the Government (assumed Crown) as differentiated from, in the service of the Crown.
In nearly all circumstances in the provisioning of statutory instruments made under this jurisdiction, the so called Government public servants attain the authority of “authorised officers” exercising similar powers to police officers (Crown employees) which include powers of search, power to obtain documents, power to demand answers to questions at a time and place of their choosing and the power to prosecute.
This jurisdiction operates WITHOUT restriction, or limitation. Nearly all the States, particularly Qld, make all law under this jurisdiction and there is absolutely no provision for cross-vesting between these two jurisdictions. Cross-vesting being the ability for a court to recognize both or either common law and/or civil law (ie. mercantile, admiralty).
In other words, this parliamentary supremacy has created a new form of law under public policy, new courts to administer that law and new public servants to police that form of law. The new courts do not have the ability to adjudicate under any form of common law, but at all times can only operate under civil law.
Look at your body, it operates under the laws of nature, thriving with the proper food, liquid, exercise. Natural rights each of us are entitled to.
A cancer creeps in, finds a home in a portion of your body and proceeds to build its own structure. With the end aim of taking over & perhaps killing you.
There is nothing illegal about this cancer, it comes from your own body, feeds from your own body, but it is against the law of nature as it creates its own kingdom INSIDE your body, taking over your right to health.
Government have simply found a loophole in the Constitution – except it is a loophole that is turning the people of Australia into slaves, with no personal liberties, no right of ownership and no ability to protect themselves legally.
We, the people do!
This brings us to a review of some of the objections which have been raised to the application of the Cabinet system of Executive Government to a federation. These objections have been formulated with great ability and sustained with force and earnestness by several Australian federalists of eminence, among whom may be mentioned the names of Sir Samuel Griffith, Sir Richard C. Baker, Sir John Cockburn, Mr. Justice Inglis Clark, and Mr. G. W. Hackett, who have taken the view that the Cabinet system of Executive is incompatible with a true Federation. (See “The Executive in a Federation,” by Sir Richard C. Baker, K.C.M.G., p.l.)
In support of this contention it is argued that, in a Federation, it is a fundamental rule that no new law shall be passed and no old law shall be altered without the consent of (1) a majority of the people speaking by their representatives in one House, and (2) a majority of the States speaking by their representatives in the other house; that the same principle of State approval as well as popular approval should apply to Executive action, as well as to legislative action; that the State should not be forced to support Executive policy and Executive acts merely because ministers enjoyed the confidence of the popular Chamber; that the State House would be justified in withdrawing its support from a ministry of whose policy and executive acts it disapproved; that the State House could, as effectually as the primary Chamber, enforce its want of confidence by refusing to provide the necessary supplies. The Senate of the French Republic, it is pointed out, has established a precedent showing how an Upper House can enforce its opinions and cause a change of ministry. On these grounds it is contended that the introduction of the Cabinet system of Responsible Government into a Federation, in which the relations of two branches of the legislature, having equal and co-ordinate authority, are quite different from those existing in a single autonomous State, is repugnant to the spirit and intention of a scheme of Federal Government. In the end it is predicted that either Responsible Government will kill the Federation and change it into a unified State, or the Federation will kill Responsible Government and substitute a new form of Executive more compatible with the Federal theory. In particular, strong objection is taken to the insertion in the Constitution of a cast-iron condition that Federal Ministers must be members of Parliament. Membership of Parliament, it is argued, is not of the essence of Responsible Government, but only an incident or an accidental feature, which has been introduced by modern practice and by statutory innovation.