Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Answer;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI®, persistency will in the end pay off. I have no doubt that in time a constitutional council will be created when they realise that they did it wrong for so long and the consequences no longer can be avoided. Just read the enclosed correspondence.

Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
   Mr. DEAKIN.-
In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten

This is why we need an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN, a constitutional council, that advises the Government, the People, the Parliament and the Courts as to constitutional powers and limitations. Then this OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN can expose what is embedded in the Constitution!

Take for example Prime Minister John Howard (Australia) bringing up some bold plan to spend about 10 billion dollars on water management issues, that is provided the States hand him legislative control over water.

*Well, isn't that good?

Answer;
Considering that the constitution already for over 100 years have given legislative powers to the Commonwealth of Australia to determine "reasonable use" of water and even so Malcolm Turnbull the new Minister for Water seems to claim that it has been over-allocated since the midst of the 20th century, somehow nothing was ever done by the commonwealth of Australia to legislate for "reasonable use". So, now they embark upon seeking more legislative powers, and so strip the States of their powers even so they cannot even manage the legislative powers they already have.

*What are the Premiers of the states stating?

Answer;
Some seem to agree already, because it appears to me they see dollar signs rather then to comprehend that constitutionally they have no powers to give away legislative powers of the State. This is why they need an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN, in each and every State and federally, so finally they can make some sense about constitutional powers and limitations already existing.
Take for example Premier Steve Bracks who seems to argue that as long as the Federal government will operate as the States desire then he has no particular objection to refer legislative powers to the commonwealth of Australia.

*What is wrong with that?

Answer;
Well, once the Commonwealth of Australia has the legislative powers then it can do as it likes as the States will have no further control. Somehow State Premiers have the view that they can take back powers they referred to the Commonwealth of Australia, just that it isn't that way at all. Once referred to the Commonwealth of Australia then that is the end of it.
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
   Mr. DEAKIN.-
Another difficulty of the sub-section is the question whether, even when a state has referred a matter to the federal authority, and federal legislation takes place on it, it has any-and if any, what-power of amending or repealing the law by which it referred the question? I should be inclined to think it had no such power, but the question has been raised, and should be settled. I should say that, having appealed to Caesar, it must be bound by the judgment of Caesar, and that it would not be possible for it afterwards to revoke its reference.

Yet, despite this, States continue to refer powers with clauses that it is revocable.

*Why is that?

Answer;
Because Premiers simply haven't got a clue what is constitutionally appropriate and regardless if they are lawyers or not, unlikely would ever have researched the Hansard debates to try to find it all out.
Members of Parliament are elected by the electors not because of their constitutional abilities but merely because they happen to be standing in an election, because they were some famous sport star, etc. As such, their skill in constitutional issues is more then likely next to nothing.
Even those who are lawyers may never have practice constitutional issues.

Look at the issue of "Australian citizenship" which is a kind of citizenship you obtain when becoming a "State citizen" and includes a persons political rights such as franchise, yet, the Commonwealth of Australia declared it to be some Australian nationality.

*What is wrong with that?

Answer;
Well consider the following;

Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
   Mr. BARTON.-Yes; and here we have a totally different position, because the actual right which a person has as a British subject-the right of personal liberty and protection under the laws-is secured by being a citizen of the States. It must be recollected that the ordinary rights of liberty and protection by the laws are not among the subjects confided to the Commonwealth.

(And in regard of citizenship;)
Mr. BARTON.-
 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. We might be citizens of a city, citizens of a colony, or citizens of a Commonwealth, but we would still be, subjects of the Queen.
And;
If we are going to give the Federal Parliament power to legislate as it pleases with regard to Commonwealth citizenship, not having defined it, we may be enabling the Parliament to pass legislation that would really defeat all the principles inserted elsewhere in the Constitution, and, in fact, to play ducks and drakes with it. That is not what is meant by the term "Trust the Federal Parliament."
And
Mr. BARTON.-
        We are all alike subjects of the British Crown.

It must be understood that Edmund Barton was born in NSW, Australia, and later became Prime Minister of Australia.
So, while the Framers of the Constitution specifically refused any legislative powers for the Commonwealth of Australia to define/declare citizenship, the Commonwealth of Australia simply nevertheless legislated in regard of citizenship and purported to make it all being different.

*What is the harm?

Answer;
Well, for example, children born to aliens, who are constitutionally born within the realm of the King/Queen and so are and remain "subjects of the British Crown" now are being deported as STATELESS!

On 19 July 2006 I successful challenged the validity of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 to define/declare citizenship, and it was and remained UNCHALLENGED in a 5-year legal battle with the lawyers of the Federal government, and my appeals succeeded. In fact I challenged numerous other constitutional issues, such as the compulsory voting that is unconstitutional and again I succeeded in it.

*So, why then does the Federal Government not rectify matters?

Answer;
Because they have put themselves a law above the Constitution! The Federal government appoints the judges to the High Court of Australia and so there is that bias. It is therefore extremely difficult to have constitutional provisions and limitations enforced as the Federal Government and also the States flaunt the Constitution as it pleases them. And this is why we need an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN that will without political bias, state what is constitutionally applicable to anyone.

*Surely the judges can do that?

Answer;
Look, I have researched many of the High Court of Australia decisions and many I found were an absurdity. The judges themselves not even comprehending what is "Australian citizenship". One judge even abstained from handing down a judgment making known he didn't know what was constitutionally appropriate.

*What?

Answer;
Yes, they appoint judges who may never have done any work in constitutional issues.

*But, isn't the High Court of Australia primary issue to deal with constitutional issues?

Answer;
Yes, but there appears to be no formal training in that respect.
The Framers of the Constitution referred to the High Court of Australia to be the Guardians of the Constitution, fat chance, where they lack to comprehend even an issue such as Australian citizenship and what it stands for.
If there was an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN then it would have the ability to present to judges the complete relevant history of certain constitutional issues and even could challenge the government or any State premier if any of them contemplated unconstitutional legislation.

*What is this making a difference to the man on the street?

Answer;
Currently, the ordinary person on the street would need more then likely several hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to challenge any unconstitutional conduct, and as such forget about that ability. Hence, more then likely unless some rich company takes on the Government, the Government gets away with any unconstitutional conduct, whereas if there was an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN then it could take up the matter and we would still have enforcement of constitutional powers and limitations without some poor devil being caused to pay a lot of legal cost where his case was railroaded by the judges.
With premiers willing to hand over legislative powers disregarding any referendum for the people to have their say, as is constitutionally required, it is going from bad to worse.
With an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN these and numerous other issues can be resolved without having people for example being detained/deported unconstitutionally.
There is basically a total breakdown in DUE PROCESS OF LAW where some Minister or some bureaucrat can have a person deported, regardless that person having been lawfully in the Commonwealth of Australia but merely because they cannot bother to follow proper legal procedures the Framers of the Constitution stipulated were to be followed.
The issue is we must protect the constitutional and other legal rights of any person, regardless of their standing in society! With an OFFICE OF THE GUARDIAN we may achieve this better.