VICTORIA CONSTITUTION 1975.
IS IT LEGAL?
"DEMOCRACY IS THE NAME WE GIVE THE PEOPLE,
WHEN EVER WE NEED THEM''. ARMAN DE CAILLAVET,
3 I ST MAY 1913
A group of self styled "Democratic Activists" are about to
embark on a co-ordinated legal campaign in an attempt to deliver proper
democratic fundamentals to the Victorian people.
They claim to have overwhelming evidence that Victoria has been
in a "constitutional void" and that the current Victorian Parliament
is "unlawful" and "unconstitutional" as one member, states the Victorian
Parliament enacted a Constitution in 1975 which was unlawfully enacted.
The provision claimed to allow for the enactment of the Victorian Constitution
Act l975 to occur was section 60 of the Victorian Constitution Act 1855
which states - that the Legislature of Victoria as constituted by this
Act, shall have full Power and Authority from Time to Time, by any Act
or Acts, to repeal, alter, or vary all or any of the provisions of this
Act, yet when you look at the schedule of Victorian Constitution Bill 1975
it claims to have repealed the whole Act.
The Parliament only had the power to repeal the Provisions of
the Victorian Constitution Act 1855 and not the "whole Act". Another
Provision required by section 60 of the Victorian Constitution Act
1855 is that in order for the lawful passing of any repeal it requires
that every Bill which shall be so passed shall be reserved for the Signification
of Her Majesty's Pleasure thereon.
The Victorian Year Book 1984 states in relation to Sir Henry
Winneke (the Victorian Governor from June 1 - 1974 until March 1 1982)
on two occasions he reserved bills for the Queens assent; the Constitution
Act 1975 and the Constitution (Governor's Pension Act 1978.
HER MAJESTY'S ASSENT WAS NEVER GRANTED!!!
Our research of Hansard, of the Westminster Parliament which
is the only authority that could lawfully repeal The Victorian Constitution
Act 1855, shows no mention, at all, of any such repeal.
Indeed, further correspondence from an Archivist at the House
of Lords Records Office is even more damning, it states that according
to the Chronological Table of Statutes, the Victorian Constitution Act
1855 is still wholly in force. There is not even any mention of a partial
The process of the reservation of Bills for Her Majesty's
signification in Section 60 of the Victorian Constitution Act 1855
was not affected by federation in 1901 and was further entrenched by
section la of The Australian States Constitution Act 1907 which states
- 'There shall be reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure
thereon" every Bill passed by the Legislature of any State forming part
of the Commonwealth of Australia which -- (a) alters the constitution
of the Legislature of the State or of either House thereof.
The Victorian Constitution Act 1975 did not receive the signification
of His (Her)
Majesty's pleasure - as was required by Section 1a of the
Australian States Constitution Act 1907 and is therefore absolutely
void and inoperative as we can prove as follows.
The Victorian Constitution Act 1975 was subject to section
2 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 which states;
"Any colonial law which is or shall be in any way repugnant
to the Provisions of any Act of Parliament extending to the Colony to
which such law may relate, or repugnant to any Order or Regulation made
under authority of such Act of Parliament or having in the Colony the
force effect of such Act shall be read subject to such Act, Order or
Regulation, and shall to the effect of such repugnance, but not otherwise,
be and remain absolutely void and inoperative".
The Victorian Constitution Act l975 is repugnant to the provisions
of section 60 of the Victorian Constitution Act 1855 and Section la
of The Australian States Constitution Act 1907 it was not read subject
to such Acts and is therefore absolutely void and inoperative.
Then of course, when we look to The Australian Constitution
Act 1901 this whole charade falls apart as section 106 of this Act states
- "the Constitution of each state of the Commonwealth shall, subject
to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth,
or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may
be; until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State"
The Victorian Constitution Act 1975 is subject to this Constitution
"continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth"
and was not "altered in accordance with the Constitution of
The Victorian Constitution Act 1855, The Australian States Constitution
Act 1907, The Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 and The Australian Constitution
Act 1901 all applied to Victoria in 1975 and were all laws of PARAMOUNT
FORCE and could in no way be legally contravened beyond their provisions.
Another point to take into account is if hypothetically, Victoria did
become a new legal entity in 1975 would it not be required to seek admission
into the Commonwealth via the "New States" provisions, namely sections
121 and 124 of the Australian Constitution Act 1901?
No new states have ever been admitted into the Commonwealth.
I ask anybody reading this document to not be intimidated by
it, but rather, liberated by its contents. This is a great opportunity
for Victorian Citizens.
The arrogance by a group of a few dozen men in 1975 in thinking
they could trap millions of Victorians, for ever more, in their boy's
club constitution, without consulting the very people they inflict their
laws upon is an outrage and a wake up call to all of us. Our ancestor's
risked and in some cases, lost their lives in defence of our democratic
rights and freedoms.
We must take this opportunity to enact a "PEOPLES CONSTITUTION"
which includes a PEOPLES BILL Of RIGHTS, THAT COULD ONLY BE ALTERED
BY REFERENDUM containing a provision for CITIZENS INITIATED REFERENDA,
that ensures that politicians remain the Representatives of, and not the
masters of, our people for all time to come.
We could also look at a provision for the People to vote for our Judges,
thereby guaranteeing the SEPARATION OF POWERS.
Representative Government is the great oxymoron of modern
time. With the Telecommunication and Internet facilities available to
us now, why can't we THE PEOPLE; vote for or against our own policies
from our homes thereby ensuring, THE PARAMOUNT WILL OF THE PEOPLE AT
ALL TIMES and not once every few years at election time? We could save
a stack of money in the process. In the end it will be up to the people
of Victoria. I hope we choose wisely.
All the time we are told by our politicians, Federal and State,
Liberal, Labor, Democrat and National, about what wonderful institutions
our constitutions are.
0f course, as far as they are concerned, these constitutions
are wonderful as they are colonial in nature, all the power is at
the top, and with England now out of the picture, they have kept these
powers for themselves, and not passed them on to the people.
These constitutions give all the powers to the Members of the Parliament,
especially those that prostitute themselves to big business, and is
only interfered with at election time when we mostly, get to choose from
four shades of the colour Grey. Isn't it amazing that when the One
Nation phenomenon came a long, they grabbed their heads and moaned "how
could this happen"?
Take for example, The Australian Constitution Act 1901 and
see, upon closer inspection if it is the wondrous document our politicians
say it is.
Firstly, it is a law of The United Kingdom, A FOREIGN COUNTRY
Secondly, no women were allowed to vote for or against it and thirdly,
the only Australians existing at the time, the Kooris, (there was no
such thing, as an Australian citizen until January 26, 1949) were not
allowed to vote for or against it. White British males, some of them exercising
up to six votes each, voted for the Australian Constitution Act 1901.
The boys club was at work again.
People should never forget the GREAT CON that was almost put
over them at the 1999 REPUBLICAN REFERENDUM.
All along the SOCIAL ENGINEERS concentrated the debate on the
HEAD OF STATE issue, but I ask, do we really care who cuts the ribbons
at official functions?
WOULD WE THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ANY BETTER OFF?
The real reason I believe, behind this referendum were the
words in the preamble WE, THE PEOPLE, EMBRACE THIS CONSTITUTION THESE
WORDS ARE A MANTRAP. A YES VOTE WOULD HAVE ENSNARED THE PEOPLE IN COLONIAL
LAW, THE SO-CALLED REPUBLICAN VERSION' OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION
ACT 1901, FOR EVER MORE. Thank god the people voted no.
The High Court has stated that THE PEOPLE, NOT THE GOVERNMENT,
POSSESS THE ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY, and furthermore, The International
covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is Australian law, states
ALL PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION.
We have recently sent our soldiers overseas to secure these
rights for the East Timorese people; Isn't it time we, the people of
Australia, were given these rights?
THEY CERTAINLY, WERE NOT EXTENDED TO THE PEOPLE OF VICTORIA
We are in no doubt that the Victorian Constitution Act 1975 is
unlawful, unconstitutional and therefore ABSOLUTELY VOID AND INOPERATIVE.
All appointments of Governors, under this Act, are ABSOLUTELY
VOID AND INOPERATIVE.
All writs for elections of UNLAWFULLY APPOINTED GOVERNORS are
ABSOLUTELY VOID AND INOPERATIVE. ALL PARLIAMENTS of UNLAWFULLY CONSTITUTED
ELECTIONS are ABSOLUTELY VOID AND INOPERATIVE and ALL LAWS of UNLAWFULLY
CONSTITUTED PARLIAMENTS are ABSOLUTELY VOID AND INOPERATIVE.
In the famous words of the high Court case in the Australian
Communist Party vs the Commonwealth "THE STREAM CANNOT RISE ABOVE