|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Within the limits of their constitutional Acts and charters, such governors and parliaments may exercise all the ordinary authority of a sovereign, in the same way as the Queen in the British parliament, subject only to the same moral checks and restraints which have already enumerated. (Dicey, Law of the Constitution p. 95)
But colonies, dominions, or commonwealths, having such a system of government, substantially free and practically independent, are still subject to the original sovereign body, the Queen in the British Parliament. That power, though dormant, is not extinguished or abandoned by the delegation. There is merely an implied compact not to interfere with those communities as long as they govern themselves according to the terms of their respective Constitutions.” ( Markbys’s Elements of Law, pp. 3, 4, 20)
(Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth, pp 327, 328)
The above clearly illustrates that the Crown of the United Kingdom is indivisible.
As further proof that the Parliament have no power to change the title of the Queen, my
paperback “Australian Constitution Act 1900 (UK), which clearly states on the front cover
“As in force on 1 st
of July 1999 ,” shows no Queen of Australia , but the original version
of “ Her Majesty’s heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom,”
who is a totally different and legal entity.
The Solicitor-General for the State of South Australia also confirmed this in his Discussion
Paper No.3 (7), which was published just prior to the November 1999 Referendum. His
interpretation, however, that the Constitution effectively had been re-written, and that we
should now read Queen of Australia wherever it is written Queen of the United Kingdom,
is of course totally incorrect. Firstly, no valid authority exists to change section 2,
secondly no changes can be made, under the Constitution, without a referendum, and
thirdly the Constitution may only be interpreted according to the original framers
intentions (see various High court rulings).
“…it is now clear that Her Majesty the Queen of Australia is a separate legal
body from Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom… the effect of all
this
is that the Queen of Australia is a separate legal person , and a separate
sovereign from the Queen of the United Kingdom, although the same person
wears both Crowns.”
(Solicitor General’s Discussion Paper No. 3,
BMS.332\1999)
The above examples clearly show, that the Queen of the United Kingdom, the Sovereign who holds all powers and prerogatives under our Constitution, is a total different legal entity from the Queen of Australia, who holds none.
The Queen of Australia is only the title conferred by the Parliament of Australia upon the Head of the Commonwealth, who holds no authority whatsoever, under the Constitution. This is confirmed by s2 of the Constitution, and s8 of the Statute of Westminster, 1931 . Interestingly enough none of the States have ever legislated a Royal Styles and Titles Act, or a Royal Styles and Titles (Request and Consent) Act, and remain at all times under allegiance to the Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.
In 1986, in concurrence with the Australia Acts, UK and Commonwealth coming into effect, every Office of State Governor was appointed by Letters Patent issued in the name of Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, Her other Realms and Territories, Defender of the Faith. This is of course in stark contrast with the controversial Letters Patent, that appointed the Office of Governor General in 1984, signed by Bob Hawke, which were issued in the name of Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realm and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.
The latter appointment, as we now all understand, was made by the Head of the Commonwealth, who holds no legal authority under the Constitution, to confer the powers and prerogatives of the Queen of the United Kingdom upon the Governor General. As such the Office of Governor General was not established in accordance with the law and holds no legal authority.
That in turn means, that anyone appointed to the Office of Governor General under a Letters Patent in the name of the Queen of Australia, Head of the Commonwealth holds no valid appointment to exercise the Royal powers of the Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. It therefore follows that such Governor-General cannot issue any writs for elections, swear in Parliaments or give Assent to any Bill, and no laws can be passed.
WHAT IS THE VIEW OF THE HIGH COURT?
On each and every occasion the High Court has held the view, that the Australian Constitution may only be interpreted in accordance with the intentions of its framers. And as such the Constitution cannot be interpreted to suit a particular situation today, or be interpreted what might be seen to be in the best interest to our community today.
“ … However, the judiciary has no power to amend or modernise the Constitution to give effect to what Judges think is in the best public interest. The function of the judiciary, including the function of this Court, is to give effect to the intention of the makers of the Constitution as evinced by the terms in which they expressed that intention. That necessarily means that decisions, taken almost a century ago by people long dead, bind the people of Australia today even in cases where most people agree that those decisions are out of touch with the present needs of Australian society…The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers ”