Skip directly to content

Research Analyst in Constitutional Law, and formerly Federal Member for Griffith (QLD)

Like us on fb

Help Fight Child Protection's picture
on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 00:31

Your Will

Be Done

by

ARTHUR A. CHRESBY

Research Analyst in Constitutional Law, and formerly Federal Member for
Griffith (QLD) [1958-61] in the House of Representatives.

This book is reprinted in memory of the author

Arthur A. Chresby

in appreciation for his 53 years of research and study into constitutional law.

Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

Chapter 1 - What is the Correct Relationship of an Elector to a Member of Parliament? ............................ 3
To sum up this Chapter: ............................................................................................................................................7

Chapter 2 - What is the Legal Function and Duty of a Parliamentarian?....................................................... 8

Chapter 3 - What is the Legal Function and Duty of a Minister of the Crown? ........................................... 11
One Who Legally Governs ......................................................................................................................................12

Chapter 4 - What is Parliament, and its Function? ........................................................................................ 14
(a) The legal duty is to vote at election time. ............................................................................................................15

(b) The So Called "Lower House" .............................................................................................................................15

(c) The House Of Second Thoughts .........................................................................................................................16

(d) The Queen .........................................................................................................................................................16

Put Simply: ..............................................................................................................................................................16

To Sum Up This Chapter: ........................................................................................................................................17

Chapter 5 - What is the True Legal Role of the Queen & Her Vice Regal Representatives?...................... 18

Chapter 6 - What is a Political Party?.............................................................................................................. 20

Chapter 7 - Is there a Practical Democratic Alternative to the Party System?............................................ 23

Chapter 8 - A Few Thoughts on Extra Constitutional Safeguards for the People ...................................... 28

Appendix 1........................................................................................................................................................ 31
(a) Magna Carta 1215 .............................................................................................................................................31

(b) Extract from the Statute issued by Edward 1, in confirmation of the Charters, November 5, 1297 .....................31

(v) Bill Of Rights 1689 ..............................................................................................................................................31

(d) Crimes Act 1914 .................................................................................................................................................31

(e) Postage exemptions for material sent to the Governor General and the State Governors: ................................31

Appendix 2........................................................................................................................................................ 32
(a) Sample Petition to the Governor General ...........................................................................................................32

Alternative To A State Governor ...............................................................................................................................33

(b) Sample Petition to Federal Member ....................................................................................................................33

Alternatives: .............................................................................................................................................................34

Testimonial ....................................................................................................................................................... 35

Introduction
In the great controversy on the alleged need for constitutional reform
and the replacement of the monarchy with an Australian republic, there
seems to be an increasing airing of the views of those apparently bent on
destroying the faith of the people in their established parliamentary
institutions; that the real truths, safeguards and functions of our
Commonwealth and State Constitutions are being lost to the knowledge of the
nation.

This work is an attempt to put forward those truths, a sort of primer of
Constitutional Law; to bring to public notice the true legal functions and
duties of the institution of the Monarchy, the offices of Governor-General and
State Governors, Ministers of the Crown, Federal and State Parliamentarians;
to reveal the correct legal relationship between the electors and
parliamentarians; to show what can be done under both Commonwealth and
State Constitutions to bring Ministers and politicians to a full sudden stop ". .
. for reprimand or dismissal, without having to wait for a general election . ."

It may be contended that the people have been denied the abovementioned
knowledge; that our schools, colleges and universities have failed
to inform, as have the new media at large.

The history of parliament and politics in Australia shows that no political
party, few, If any, politicians, and almost none of the constitutional and
political text book writers has published this information, for it is knowledge
that, once grasped by the people, means the end of party political control over
the voice and votes of politicians, and the elimination of party political
dictatorship over the machinery of parliament.

Those who would seriously attempt to dispute the contents of this book
are advised that the law courts are open to them to do so. Any other form of
denial would have no legal validity.

Because this is being written for the information of Mr., Mrs. and Miss
Everyman, the writer has tried to keep the contents as simple as possible, to
avoid legal jargon, and to give quotations only where it is deemed essential to
clarify a legal point.

It is stressed that the sole purpose of this work is to show the Australian
People what their true Constitutional powers are, and how they can lawfully
use those powers to obtain the results they want their elected
parliamentarians to produce, e.g.,

Readers are invited to keep the following legally unarguable fact in mind:

The writer hopes that the following pages will open up the way to such
constitutional and legal guidance and succour.

This Introduction cannot be completed without acknowledging the debt,
which this writer owes to Bart Marney of the blue ribbon provincial daily
newspaper, "The Toowoomba Chronicle" (Queensland), without whose many
objective criticisms and encouragement this book might never have been
written.

Arthur A. Chresby

What is the Correct Relationship of an Elector to a Member of Parliament?
Both by Constitutional and Statute law an elector has no legal right,
whatever, to abuse, intimidate or demand anything of his Member of
Parliament, State or Federal, or of his State Senators.

Any such abuse, intimidation or demand, would enable a
Parliamentarian to take court action against an elector for attempting to use
unlawful pressure to force the Member or Senator to act contrary to their
judicially defined function and duty.

As an elector you have a right, and a legal duty, at election time to vote
for the candidate of your choice. Indeed, so long as you obtain a ballot paper
in a lawful manner and place it in the ballot box you cannot be compelled to
vote for the candidates on that ballot paper and may, if you wish, cast your
vote against all names on that paper by neatly crossing them out. As voting is
legally secret there is, at present, no legal way of stopping you from doing so.

Although such an action is classed as 'casting an informal vote", you
have legally signified that none of the candidates on that ballot paper meet
with your satisfaction and have, therefore, lawfully cast your vote against all
of them. If a majority of the electors were to vote "informal" it would force a
fresh election and bring forth fresh candidates, thus indicating that the
electors were casting their votes with care.

Political parties, of course, would cry that the electors were wasting their
votes; that electors were disenfranchising themselves. But this is only party
propaganda, because no party got any value out of your informal vote, and
that is all that concerns parties: they need your vote to grab for power.

Once the election is over that is the end of ballot paper voting until the
next election. However, under both Federal and State Constitutions and
Statute laws you have certain Implied legal duties and obligations.

The whole system of Parliament, and the SOLE reason for its existence,
is to make laws for the people, with the clear Implication that those laws
will reflect the WILL of the people on the subject matter of those laws.

By those legal implications you have a lawful duty and obligation to keep
your Members and Senators fully informed about what your WILL is upon

any issue or matter that comes before them in their Houses of Parliament, or
that should come before them.

It is only when you fulfil that lawful duty and obligation that your
Member and Senators can properly fulfil their judicially defined function and
duty in their houses of Parliament. If you do not fulfil your lawful duty and
obligation, if you do not keep your Members and Senators fully informed of
your will on any issue, then you cannot blame them for what they do. You
have only your own laziness or indifference to blame.

How do you correctly inform your Members and Senators of your WILL?
It is so simple that only laziness and indifference ON YOUR PART stops It
from working. Yes, it is so very simple, and here is an example: Suppose, for
instance, you believe that income tax should be halved and sales tax
completely eliminated. You write, in this case, AN INDIVIDUAL letter to your
Federal Member, and each one of your State Senators, such as this:

Should your Member or Senators try to side step (and some of them are
extremely adept at doing this) or tell you what their party is or is not doing,
you simply write back and say:

Don't enter into written argument with a politician, for many politicians
are past masters in the art of avoiding that which they don't want to face up
to, and become experts in manipulating words to their benefit.

Although the majority of politicians would never publicly admit it, what
worries them most irrespective of majority or party is the percentage trend
in electorate thinking that is shown by the number of simple straight letters
clearly expressing THE WILL of the elector signing the letter.

To illustrate the above point further: Opinion polls claim to reveal THE
TREND of public thinking BY ASKING SIMPLE QUESTIONS of a given
number of people selected at random, and, more often than not, the trend
shown is reasonably accurate. BUT NOTE THAT THE TREND IS WORKED
OUT ON THE BASIS OF THE OPINIONS of people, and people can change
their opinions as often as they change their clothes.

The principle of percentage trends in electorate thinking as shown by
the above simple straight MY WILL letter Is an entirely different thing, and
certainly leads to greater accuracy, for politicians know from experience that
if one of their electors sits down to write such a simple " IT IS MY WILL" letter,
then that elector is not expressing a mere opinion, but knows what he wants
and says so in a no nonsense way. It is doubly impressed upon the
politician's mind if, after trying to side track the elector, he still gets back a
straight "IT IS MY WILL"

Experience of the various techniques used in opinion polls, and the
evaluation of same, reveals that one such "IT IS MY WILL letter indicates the
mathematical probability that a MINIMUM of four (4) other electors are of the
same conviction but have not written.

Even the least intelligent politician, where his Seat is concerned, can
multiply by four (4) the number of such 'MY WILL letters he receives, and if
he gets two or three thousand such letters he will know that he is going to
come up with a mathematical stomach twisting figure showing that he is not
in tune with his electorate.

Self preservation, even with a party ridden politician, is always of the
highest motivating priority to that politician, and, as the long experience of
the former Queensland Parliamentarian, Senator lan Wood, has proved, time
and again, a political party thinks many times when trying to remove a
determined straight Parliamentarian who has electorate thinking behind
him. (Senator Wood fulfilled his judicially defined function and duty and
refused, consistently, to bend to party pressures.)

On a subject like the drastic reduction of income tax, and removal of
sales tax, it is obviously something on which most people will have strong
convictions, not mere opinions. Thus, it requires only a few ordinary people
to get together in their various electorates and, after writing their own "MY
WILL letters get out amongst friends, relatives, acquaintances and others in
their own electorate inviting them all to write such "MY WILL" letters to their
Federal Member and State Senators. Such determined ordinary people also

have relatives and friends in other electorates and can invite them to do
likewise.

Thus, in no time, the work of, say 3, 4, 5 or 6 people can spread like
wildfire through the electorate, especially when most people are incensed
over one thing. To get two or three thousand individually signed "MY WILL"
letters is not a hard task for such ordinary determined people.

It must never be forgotten that ordinary people have the legal privilege, if
they wish to exercise it, of quietly approaching relatives, friends,
acquaintances and others inviting them to write such " MY WILL" letters to
their Member and Senators. It requires no committees, no resolutions, no
street marching, no formation of groups, bodies or associations with all sorts
of names and titles. No constitutions, no minutes, no wasting of hours in
fruitless arguing and discussions, no presidents, secretaries or treasurers.

All that is required is that an individual with a determination to act
lawfully to right or alter something he doesn't like, and with the initiative to
do so, is to write his "MY WILL" letter, show others and encourage them to do
likewise. There are a multitude of issues upon which people have strong
convictions and the simple "MY WILL" letter is their lawful simple way of
telling their M.P.

Don't argue that it will not work, or that people are stupid. If you feel
strongly enough about something, don't just moan and talk about it, write
your "MY WILL" letters. IT IS YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to do so,
not someone else, nor those never identified "THEY OUGHT TO DO
SOMETHING ABOUT IT". You have to be your own "they".

It is stressed again: it is your legal privilege, and your lawful duty, to
encourage others, peacefully and quietly, in the manner outlined in this
Chapter. A Parliamentarian, armed with the written proof of the 'WILL" of his
electors, upon any issue, can completely ignore party pressures and set
about faithfully fulfilling his judicially defined legal function and legal duty.
He is free to be a Parliamentarian and not, as at present in most cases, a
mere party yes man. THE "MY WILL" LETTER IS A LEGAL DEMONSTRATION
OF THE PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.

When your Members of Parliament, State and Federal, do something
that pleases you WRITE AND TELL THEM SO, as Members get plenty of
abusive letters and extremely few courteous ones. If a Member or Senator
knows that he is the centre of watchfulness from his area at all times he is
left with no alternative than to carry out his judicially defined function and
duty, no atter the protests and pressures of his party.

Thus, Politicians, secure in the knowledge of written electorate support,
possessed of the written "MY WILL", is freed from control of the party
manipulators, for the party has lost control over his voice and vote on all
issues on which the electorate has expressed its WILL. Wise politicians
would do well to continuously seek the written WILL of all their electors
on every issue and proposed legislation. After all they do have offices and a

secretary in their electorate, whilst Federal Members also have Research
Officers, so they have no excuse for not organising to seek the electors "WILL"
before casting their votes in their House of Parliament.

To sum up this Chapter:
It is your legal duty and obligation, and yours alone, to keep your
Members and Senators fully informed, at all times, of your 'WILL". That is
your true lawful relationship with your Members and your Senators.

What is the Legal Function and Duty of a Parliamentarian?
While there are many British and Australian judicial interpretations on
precisely what is the true legal function and duty of a Member of
Parliament it will be sufficient, here, to give two such. Heavy print in these
two quotations has been added by this writer to stress the points involved.

The first is from a British case (for those of legal mind see A.C. 1910, at
p. 110) where Lord Shaw of Dumfermline stated, amongst other things:

The second is from a High Court case ('Horne v Barber' (1920) 27 C.L.R.
p. 500):

(The above judicial decision on the duty and function of a Member of
Parliament surely gives rise to the following legal question:

In debating and voting on strict party lines in his House of the
Parliament is not a Member of the dominant party in serious breach of the
law, and in contempt of the Court, for how can a member obey strict party
rules and High Court decisions at one and the same time?)

More simply put, these and other interpretations mean:

Of necessity, the following crucial questions must arise out of the
aforestated judicial interpretations:

(For the legally minded, it is suggested that the going would be extremely
rough, if not impossible, to claim the "implied and incidental powers" of the
Constitutions as the authority for such payments.)

More than ninety years of party political control over our seven
Australian Parliaments reveal that it is only on very rare occasions that
Parliamentary party leaders agree to allow their back bench Members to
have a free, or "conscience", vote. On all other occasions' party leaders and
party controllers, DEMAND ABSOLUTE LOYALTY to the party, and INSIST on
voting BEING ON PARTY LINES.

This raises the further crucial question of whether, under State Criminal
Codes and the Commonwealth Crimes Act, Parliamentary party leaders, and
controllers, are not severally and individually guilty of deliberately breaching
those codes and statutes, i.e., of being guilty of conspiring to prevent back
bench Members of Parliament from fulfilling their judicially defined legal
function and duty in their Houses of Parliament?

It also raises the basic question, touched in Chapter 1, of whether or not
back bench Members of Parliament themselves violated their legal duty to the
People by freely allowing themselves to be coerced by their leaders and party
into not correctly fulfilling their judicially defined legal function and duty
and, of a consequence, thereby rendering their Parliamentary Seat vacant by
an act of overt or covert conspiracy.

What is the Legal Function and Duty of a Minister of the Crown?
Over the years you have been encouraged to believe, quite incorrectly,
that:

Ministers of the Crown are the government.

Legally they are not.

The party with the greatest support in Parliament has the right to
become the government and to appoint its own Ministers to govern the State
or Commonwealth.

Legally this not so.

Ministers of the Crown are responsible to Parliament and, through
Parliament, to the People.

Legally this is not so.

The Ministers of the Grown, or government, have been elected with a
mandate from the People; a mandate to carry out the entire policy and
platform of the party (platforms which the majority of electors have never
seen, let alone studied),

Legally this is quite false.

Not one of the above beliefs could withstand constitutional challenge in
the Courts. They are wholly and solely political party propaganda without one
scintilla of Constitutional and legal truth. They are party political practices
developed to suit political parties and have no legal connection with the
Commonwealth and State Constitutions. They are falsely called “conventions
of the constitution”.

Ministers of the Crown ARE NOT and LEGALLY NEVER CAN BE the
government, for, as will be shown in later Chapters, the TRUE LEGAL
GOVERNMENT is non elective, residing in perpetuity in the institution of the
Monarchy and is exercised, for the Monarchy, by the Governor-General in
the Commonwealth, and State Governors in the States. That is precisely, and
legally, what the words “Governor General” and “Governor“ mean.

One Who Legally Governs
Ministers of the Crown are not legally nor constitutionally responsible to
the Houses of the Parliament nor to the people. They are solely responsible to
the Queen through the offices of Governor General, and or State Governors,
as the case may be.

Consequently, Ministers of the Crown can have no mandate of any kind
from the people, neither can the political party which claims, quite legally
wrongly, to appoint them. Any such claims are pure party propaganda with
no legal basis whatever.

Irrespective of whether they be Federal or State Ministers of the Crown
they have precisely ONE LEGAL FUNCTION and one LEGAL DUTY:

As already stressed above, Ministers of the Crown are the paid legal
servants of the permanent government, and their legal responsibility is
directly, and can only be, to that legal government and to no one else.

On the other hand, the permanent legal government or Monarchy IS
WHOLLY AND SOLELY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE DIRECTLY TO THE
PEOPLE, AND TO NO ONE ELSE. But this vital knowledge has, for party
political purposes, been carefully kept from the Australian People. This is
why the People do not realise, and have no real knowledge of, the full
significance of what the institution of the Monarchy legally means in their
daily lives. This will be explained in further Chapters.

A Prime Minister, or Premier, or Minister, who claims to speak as the
government, without first stating that he “is authorised by Her Majesty's
Government Commonwealth”, or State as the case may be is, whether he
realises it or not, making a legally false claim.

Under Commonwealth and State Constitutions ALL MINISTERS of the
Crown STAND EQUAL TO EACH OTHER IN LAW, none is subordinate to the
other; all are equal before Her Majesty. Thus, in cold hard legal law, no Prime
Minister or State Premier has any legal power of control over the other
ministers, unless a specific Act of Parliament gives him that control for
specific purposes AND ONLY for that purpose.

The correct legal role of a Minister of the Crown is that he can only
speak as a Minister of State in relation to his department. He speaks as the
paid public head administrator of his department and in no other capacity.

Under the non legal practices of party politics, Ministers are in
consistent breach of their true legal role when they claim to speak for “the
government'' or as “my government”.

What is Parliament, and its Function?
Most of us use our words loosely, sometimes particularly so. Thus, we
drift into a habit of using words and phrases without stopping to think what
they really mean and convey.

Take the word "Parliament"... We all say that "Parliament is meeting" or
sitting", or that "So and so is going to Parliament" ' At first sight it may seem
a mere splitting of hairs to state that, except when both Houses of the
Parliament (Queensland has but one House) and the Queen, or Governor
General or State Governor, is present together, it is a physical and legal
impossibility for a Parliament to meet.

This is because, in Constitutional law, Parliament both legally and
physically consists of the Queen or Her Representative, i.e., the Governor
General in the Commonwealth and State Governor in a State and both
Houses of the Parliament, in Queensland ONE House of Parliament.

Thus, Parliament, as such, does NOT debate anything. Parliament is
solely and simply a law making machine, and nothing else, The pivot of
that machine is the institution of the Monarchy, or in Australia in the
Monarch's absence the Governor General in the Commonwealth and State
Governors in the States. This will be explained further in the next Chapter.

It is common practice, when commenting on party political control over
the operation of the parliamentary mechanism, to refer to the 'Westminster
System. Indeed, in the inter party confrontations and power struggles, the
phrase 'the Westminster System' is hurled, with explosive expletives, that the
other side is destroying that 'democratic system'.

Critical analysis reveals that that phrase has no legal relationship what
ever to strict Constitutional law, the law that actually binds each and every
one of us in our daily lives. (Here the Reader is asked to refer back to the
third last paragraph of the 'Introduction' to this book).

It is extremely doubtful if the users of the phrase 'the Westminster
System', themselves, have any clear understanding of its true meaning.
Simply put it means the practices and usages of the various British political
parties in controlling, and using, the legal machinery of the British

Parliament in the interest, and for the sole purposes, of party political
Ideologies and power struggles.

The phrase, 'the Westminster System' has nothing to do with the legal
law of the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and six States of Australia. It
is only sacrosanct to Australian politicians, and parties, where it can be
publicly used to suit their propaganda purposes. Its use is completely
hypocritical and must be exposed for the absolute legal falsehood that it is.

To operate Parliament we have four (4) distinct and separate areas of
legal responsibility (in Queensland only three because it has only one
House of Parliament):

1. The electors, who have a duty and obligation as set out in Chapter 1.

2. The so called, and mistakenly called, Lower House, i.e., the House of
Representatives in the Commonwealth, the Legislative Assembly in
New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, Western
Australia and the House of Assembly in Tasmania.

3. The mistakenly called Upper House, i.e., the Senate, and the
Legislative Council in each State, excepting Queensland.

4. The Queen, or Her Representative, as above mentioned.
What is the function and duty of each of these four areas of
Constitutional and legal responsibility?

(a) The legal duty is to vote at election time.
As pointed out in Chapter 1, the electors have a specified legal duty and
a lawful obligation.

The lawful obligation is to keep your State and Federal Members and
your State Senators fully informed, at all times, about what is your WILL.

It has always been a fundamental principle of British and Australian law
that, within the limits of statute and where applicable common law, YOU,
and YOU ALONE, are solely responsible for the preservation of what you
believe to be your lawful inherent freedoms and privileges; that if you are too
lazy and indifferent to exercise the lawful avenues open to you to protect and
retain those freedoms and privileges provided always that you demonstrate
your responsibilities with respect to those freedoms and privileges then you
have nobody but yourself to blame for your laziness and indifference.

(b) The So Called "Lower House"
If the Members of the, so called, Lower House strictly carry out their
judicially defined function and duty, then that House is a place where the
WILL of the people is given effect to in the form of "A Bill For An Act" do so
and so, and in the formulation of that Bill the Members of that House are
constantly before the "bar of public conviction", not mere opinion.

(c) The House Of Second Thoughts
If the Members of the, so called, Upper House strictly carry out their
judicially defined function and duty, then that House performs its legal
responsibility of also being a House of second thought; of being a counter
check to ensure that the clearly expressed written WILL of the electors is
correctly translated into legislation.

In strict constitutional law both Houses act, or would act, if it were not
for party interference, as a constant check upon each other as a safeguard
against the misuse of the laid down Constitutional powers of each House.

(Of course, this rarely happens because of the constant party political
control exerted over the voice and votes of the Members of each House. Where
it does happen, it does so only because no party is in control of both Houses
and, as practical experience demonstrates, in the final analysis opposing
parties are primarily concerned in trying to destroy each other.)

(d) The Queen
If the Australian People only knew it, the Queen is the final legal
protector of the whole of the people, without regard to party, race, colour
or creed; a final check against the peculiarities of the operation of party
politics in the control over the machinery of Parliament, and of the voices and
votes of politicians.

No Bill for an Act can become law without the Royal Assent being given;
an assent that can be withdrawn within twelve months of its being given.
This final Royal check enables the people, if they only knew It, to determine
whether or not they wanted the Act and to ask the Queen to withdraw the
Royal Assent if they did not, or to request that the legislation be amended,
according to their WILL.

Even after 12 months, for there is no actual constitutional time limit, the
electors have the legal power to ask Her Majesty to re submit any Act of
Parliament for amendment or repeal according to their WILL. It is also the
legal privilege of the people to ask the Queen to have any legislation, that the
People WILL, brought down and passed in both Houses of the Parliament.

Put Simply:
Whatever it is physically possible to do, and the people want, then the
Queen has the final legal power to see that they get it, no matter how
politicians may protest.

The sole and only legal limit to the power and authority of the Queen is
the unknowable extent of what Her people, at any time of their
choosing, may directly request of Her.

This would also explain the reason for the campaign to replace the
monarchy with an Australian republic. Forgetting their judicially defined
function and duty, many politicians, as well as political parties and others,

like to believe that their party shall have the final determination of political
power and what the people shall have.

To Sum Up This Chapter:
Parliament is only a machine to make laws in accordance with the
written WILL of the people on the subject matter of the law.

The Houses of Parliament are both complementary to, as well as being a
check on, each other in their legal functioning.

The Queen is the final check and will, at all times, give assent to the
clearly expressed written WILL of the people, irrespective of parties and
politicians.

The function of the electors, apart from voting, is constantly and clearly
to inform their Parliamentarians of their WILL on any subject or issue.

If the Houses of Parliament disregard the written WILL of the people on
any matter, then the people have the legal power, and responsibility, to
directly inform the Queen that THAT legislation is NOT in accordance with
their written WILL, and request Her to have it annulled or amended,
accordingly.

With respect to the so called Lower House of Parliament it is the legal
privilege of the people to directly ask the Queen, through Her Vice Regal
Representative concerned, to dissolve that House so that they, the people,
may proceed to the election of a fresh set of Parliamentarians.

What is the True Legal Role of the Queen & Her Vice Regal Representatives?
Over the last few years, as referred to in previous Chapters, there has
surfaced the clear lines of what used to be a more subtle underground
campaign to mislead the Australian People in accepting the concept that a
republic is far superior in every way for Australia; that the monarchy is an
out dated medieval idea, having no logical place in modern thinking, whatever
that may mean, no real relationship with this nation, and no real power or
authority in our Parliamentary system.

YET NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! As stated in
Chapter 4:

Whatever it is physically possible to do, and the people want, the Queen
has the final legal power to see that they get it, no matter how politicians may
protest.

The sole and only legal limit to the power and authority of the Queen is
the unknowable extent of what Her people, at any time of their
choosing, may directly request of Her.

Put even more simply: the only true Constitutional and legal reason for
the existence, and the only true legal purpose, of the Parliament, the
institution of the Monarchy, and the offices of the Governor General and
State Governors:

Is to give the people what the people ask for, Not what others think
the people ought to have.

If the Australian people are too lazy and Indifferent to ask for what
they want, then they can blame only themselves if politicians and political
parties impose their own ideologies on them.

It is legally unchallengable that the party system, with its direct and
indirect powers of manipulating politicians and people, has quite illegally
striven to drive a wedge between the people and the final source of all their
Constitutional and legal powers, i.e., the institution of the Monarchy, as a
prelude to transferring the unlimited power of that Monarchy into the
hands of the controllers and manipulators of political parties, including
the final party political control over the Armed Forces of the nation; a control

which, at present, is legally vested in the Queen to ensure that, where
directly expressed to Her, the WILL of the people shall at all times prevail.

In Chapter 3 it was stressed that Ministers of the Crown are not, and
never legally can be, the "Government" of the State or Commonwealth: that
the Government was legally non elective, and that an expansion of that
statement would be given in this Chapter.

Both the written Constitution of the Commonwealth and the so called
unwritten Constitutions of the six Australian States vest the "government"
exclusively in the institution of the Monarchy, to be legally exercisable in
almost every case by the Governor General in the Commonwealth and the
State Governors in the States.

Thus, constitutionally and legally, the Government CANNOT BE
ELECTED for it remains permanently embodied in the institution of the
Monarchy. It can "govern" only according to the direct or indirect expressed
WILL of the people, for that is its legal role as the protector of the people.

The legal WILL of the people can only be expressed in two ways:
indirectly through elected Parliamentarians by 'MY WILL" letters or directly
through the Queen's Vice Regal Representatives likewise. There is no other
legal way that that WILL can be expressed. Electing a candidate to
Parliament does NOT express it. All that an election does is to put a person
into a House of Parliament whom the electors believe will faithfully carry out
the written WILL of the people as and when so expressed.

Over the years the party system has cleverly hidden the fact that the
people have the legal freedom at all times to express their WILL direct to
the Queen, no matter what politicians and others may try to claim.

The Queen is the permanent "government" with a perpetual
"mandate" to govern according to the clearly expressed WILL of the
people. It is obvious, then, that no political party can lawfully occupy the
Constitutional seat reserved in perpetuity for the Monarchy, no matter what
political scientists, text book writers, academics, politicians, political parties
and other theorists may claim.

This writer codified the powers of the Monarchy back in 1941 in the
following sentence, and it still stands to be challenged before the High Court,
if legal minds feel competent to do so:

What is a Political Party?
If you will but pause to think deeply and seriously you will find that a
political party, despite its propaganda, constitutions, fine words and phrases,
eventually becomes an organisation in the form of a pyramid with final power
in the apex of that pyramid. The mass at the base being subject to
manipulation by those in the apex, or by those who control the apex from
outside of party organisation.

It is not an unreasonable contention that those who finally win through
to the apex of the pyramid, both organisational and parliamentary, have to
become manipulators of their fellows if they wish to hold their place of power
at the top.

A political party, by the very nature of its pyramidal structure, is not,
and cannot be, a democratic organisation, and the many years of party
politics in Australia since Federation, proves that it is not democratic, despite
beautifully worded constitutions, platforms, policies, and philosophies.

Here it might be wise to pause for a moment to define that much used,
and much abused, word "democracy". Consensus has it that "democracy" is
"Government of the people, by the people, for the people." However, whilst
Lincoln's definition, with its tremendous emotive tones, sounds and reads
well, experience has shown that in application this concept produces the
opposite result "Government of the many by the few in the apex.

It is suggested here that a far more practical definition of "democracy"
would be that it is:

In the light of the long experience of Australian party politics, it becomes
indisputable that political parties are incompatible with this new definition;
that the continued domination and control of the Parliamentary machine by
party politics must inevitably end in the wrecking of that machine, and the
transfer of power to party manipulators. The evidence for this is becoming
more painfully obvious each day.

The Australian history of parties demonstrates that every new party
comes into being on the claim that existing parties have become dictatorships
and that the new party is the only party capable of governing in the
name of democracy. However, once its candidates enter a House of
Parliament the new party quickly develops in the same mould as those it
strove to replace.

Thus, we find the breaking up and reforming, or splintering, of party
groupings as people foolishly seek to overcome the party pyramidal structure
and manipulation by replacing it with the same device and mechanism
clothed in fine emotive words and phrases. People do not stop seriously to
examine the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and the States, and the
court interpretations thereof, to find the real nature of the Constitutional and
legal powers that the Australian people possess to obtain the specific results
they want from their Parliaments and Parliamentarians.

In discussions with politicians and others, the existence of faults in the
party system will be admitted, to be immediately followed by the claim that
the people traditionally vote on party lines; that the people vote for the party
system because the people want the party system.

It is legally unchallengeable that the party system exists and operates
ONLY because the Australian people have been deliberately misled into
believing that, other than by a dictatorship, there is no other way that
Parliament could function effectively and efficiently; that despite its
many faults the party system is the only effective and efficient democratic
way of governing the country. This is Constitutionally and legally false.

The sole role of a political party, like any other lawful organisation, is
simply to recommend to the electors that "so and so" should be a good
parliamentary representative and would faithfully carry out the judicially
defined legal function and duty of a parliamentarian. Should the electors
accept the party's recommendation and elect that person then the party has
no further legal vested interest in that elected person.

Once the Australian people are given the opportunity to learn and
grasp that their Commonwealth and State Constitutions, and judicial
Interpretations thereof, provide the people with a practical legal
alternative to the party system to democratically (as defined in this
Chapter) operate the seven Australian Parliaments then, save those with a
vested interest in the party system and its manipulation, the electors will
cease to use the party system.

It is a matter of the printed evidence in the Hansards of all Australian
Parliaments that the most honest debating and voting only takes place, with
the rarest of exceptions, when the leaders of the parties agree that a certain
Bill shall be debated on non party lines; that their party parliamentarians
shall be allowed to speak and vote absolutely freely according to their
individual conscience. All other debates and votes must be on strictly
party lines.

To summarise the answer to the question 'What is a political party?"

A political party, in fact and in experience, is a device or mechanism
designed to enable manipulators, either elected or non elected, to obtain and
exercise the maximum direct control over the destiny of the people, clichés
notwithstanding, in accordance with the will of the manipulators and
controllers.

Is there a Practical Democratic Alternative to the Party System?
As was stated in Chapter 5:

The only true Constitutional and legal reason for the existence, and the
only true legal purpose, of the Parliament, the institution of the Monarchy,
and the offices of the Govemor General and State Governors is to give the
people what the people ask for, not what others think the people ought
to have.

Keeping this in mind leads to the logical next step, i.e. to look briefly,
but closely, at what the Commonwealth and State Constitutions provide for
the establishment and operation of a true democratic Parliament as
previously defined:

The Parliament MUST consist of the Queen, or Her Vice Regal
representatives acting in concert with both Houses of the Parliament.

Including the Senate, but excepting the so called Upper Houses of the
five States, the Constitutions provide that the people shall have the power to
elect parliamentary representatives to those other so called Lower Houses.

The elected representatives have, within limits, the right of laying down
rules and procedures for operating their own House of the Parliament and,
subject to the boundaries of the respective Commonwealth and State
Constitutions (and the judicial interpretations thereof), to enact laws for the
order and good government of the people and, where clearly expressed, the
written WILL of the people.

As stated in other chapters, the Queen or Her Representatives have the
sole legal right to appoint and dismiss Her Ministers of the Crown.

If the Houses of the Parliament wish to remove a Minister, the only legal
power available to them short of a special Act of the Parliament to do so is
to petition the Queen or Her Representative to dismiss the Minister or
Ministers concerned, and the Queen will do so unless the people ask Her not
to do so.

The removal, or dismissal of a Minister or Ministers does not legally
mean the dismissal of a government, for the government is permanently

vested in the institution of the Monarchy and the Queen cannot be dismissed
unless Her people, i.e., a majority of the electors, request the Queen to divest
Herself of all and every power and authority which the monarchy holds in
trust for the people, to be used as the people direct.

The removal of Ministers by the Queen, or Her Representatives, only
means replacing them with other appointees of the Queen, and has no more
legal significance than that. It is only the unwarranted interference of party
politics, which has given rise to a false understanding of the legal and
Constitutional facts.

Electors, in each electorate, have the legal power to select and elect one
Member to the so called Lower Houses and, in the Federal system, State
Senators.

Upon election, these Members and Senators have the legal power to
select and elect their respective Speaker and President and, additionally, to
appoint as many standing, or temporary, committees of the House, or Joint
House Committees, as they consider necessary within the bounds of the
Constitution.

These committees can hold legal enquiries, command the appearance of
any person or persons before them; command the production of any written,
printed, typed or Photostatted material or matter and, generally, commit any
person, for contempt of the House to prison, for not longer than the life of
that Parliament, i.e., 3 years.

With proper dignity, and sense of conscience, a Member may speak
absolutely freely and fearlessly in his House of Parliament. This right comes
down to Parliamentarians from the 'British Petition of Rights' and the 'Bill of
Rights'. Both these ancient British quasi statutes are the basis of the
judicially defined legal function and duty of a Parliamentarian, as referred to
in this work.

In a correctly functioning Parliament (which no House of Parliament
presently is) every Member has the right to ask leave of the House to present
a Bill for an Act on any subject matter within the legal boundaries of the
Constitution. Although a Member, theoretically, has the right to present a
Bill, under the operation of the party system, he is allowed to do so only if the
party leaders can see some political mileage for that party in that Bill, to the
discomfort of their opponents.

If he chooses to use them, every Member has unlimited research
facilities available to him, both within the Houses of Parliament and within
universities, colleges, big and small organisations and so forth. Few of these
bodies would not be happy to make their research facilities available to a
Member, so it is his own fault if he does not possess a well informed mind on
the various matters coming before him in his House of Parliament.

In each House of Parliament, the role of House attendants is, within the
rules of that House, to assist the Member in every way to fulfil that Member's

judicially defined function and duty. The House attendants, in every
Parliament in Australia, are an example of the finest service and a credit to
themselves and the House they serve.

Ministers of the Crown, in their paid capacity as administrators of
departments of State are legally responsible direct to the Queen, or Her
Representative, i.e., the Governor General or appropriate State Governor.
Unless incompatible with the respective Constitutions and Parliamentary
legislation, all direction from the Queen must be obeyed by the Ministers who
are also legally bound to correctly and properly enforce all legislation relating
to their specific department.

It is not within the Constitutional or legal power of Ministers to
determine what business, or order of business, the Houses of the Parliament
shall deal with. That is solely In the hands of the Members of each House.
Unfortunately party manipulation interferes with the Members' direct legal
control over their own affairs in their House, and this is a fact that Members
of all parties have complained about from time to time but do not exert their
legal authority to stop it.

Through either Mr. Speaker or Mr. President, or both, the Queen or Her
Representative may transmit messages and requests that the House or
Houses amend, reconsider, or introduce any Bill, except that in the so called
Upper Houses no Financial Bills shall be initiated in that House.

If the Queen or Her representative is asked by the majority of the people
to direct either or both Houses to do a lawful thing, then those Houses have
no legal alternative than to carry out the clearly expressed written WILL of
the people.

As stated in Chapter 2, the Members of each House are required, within
that House, to act with a dignity, decorum and solemnity not less than that of
a judge in his court. Members who do not, or who refuse to, act with judge
like solemnity and few Members do so act are guilty of a gross violation of
their judicially defined function and duty, and of their Oath or Affirmation of
Office, and the Speaker or President is equally guilty if he does not, in the
strongest terms and possible lawful ways strictly enforce that conduct of
solemnity amongst the Members.

The Speaker and the President are the sole direct legal contact between
each House of Parliament and the Queen or Her Representatives. Ministers of
the Crown illegally usurp the authority of the Speaker and/or the President
when they try to act as if THEY were the direct contact.

Contrary to the long standing clichés, party political and otherwise,
Ministers of the Crown are not legally responsible to Parliament or the
Houses of the Parliament.

Parliament, as previously stressed in this work, consists of the Queen,
or legal government, and the Houses of Parliament acting in concert. The
Queen is the supreme legal government and the Houses of the Parliament are

the legislative forming bodies. The Minister can be legally responsible only to
the legal government, that is the Queen or Her appropriate Commonwealth
and State Representative.

Members have complete legal power to bring public servants before the
bar of the House for any purpose whenever the House deems it is vital to do
so. It is completely outside of the legal jurisdiction of a Minister to direct his
departmental officers not to give information to the House when called before
the bar of that House. It is only party politics which makes this illegal act of
Ministers possible, despite resort to the authority of the Solicitor General
and/or standing works like "May's Parliamentary Practices." Such authorities
are wholly and solely based upon pure party political practices and not upon
legal grounds sustainable in court.

If Members of Parliament really exercised the true legal authority they
have to bring top public servants before the bar of the House and make them
disclose the real or theoretical basis of much of the advice that these officers
give their Ministers, then you would see the beginning of the end of
bureaucracy and the emergence of true public service at all levels. It must be
obvious to everyone that, because of internal empire building and internal
office and interdepartmental politics, Ministers do not always get the
impartial factual advice that they are entitled to receive and, of a
consequence, many fine departmental officers have to carry a public odium
that is not warranted. It is time, therefore, that senior Officers, at least,
should be made to carry the full responsibility of the advice they give their
Ministers and, from this writer's inside knowledge most such officers would
welcome this responsibility.

The Queen, Her Governor General and State Governors are directly
responsible, not to the Houses of Parliament nor political parties but, to the
people in the respective Constitutional areas.

Except where any Constitution, or a lawful statute within that
Constitution, lays down that the Queen or her appropriate representative
shall act, in relation to a specified matter, only with the advice of the
Executive Council (be it Federal or State) there is no legal compulsion for the
Queen to do so. Nor is there any legal compulsion for the Queen or Her
Representative to give the Royal Assent to any legislation, unless directed to
do so by the clearly expressed written WILL of the people.

The Federal and State Executive Councils do not legally have to be
composed wholly of Ministers of the Crown. This is just a non legal party
political practice to keep party control over the machinery of government and
of Parliament. The Commonwealth and State Constitutions all provide that
the appropriate Executive Council shall be comprised of all Ministers of the
Crown and such other persons whom the Queen, or Her Representative, may
care to appoint as advisors on particular subjects or matters.

The Constitutions of the Commonwealth and States give the Queen, and
Her appropriate representatives, the sole power and authority, at any time of

their choosing, to dissolve the so called Lower House and send those
Members back to the electorate. If directed by the written WILL of the people
the Queen or Her Representative, MUST dissolve the Lower House.

This is one of the two most vital powers of control over
Parliamentarians and Parliament that the people possess.

The other is the power to ask the Queen to give them the specified
results they want from the Parliamentary machine.

Always remember this vital fact:

If it is physically possible, and the majority of the people want it, then
the Queen has the final power to make certain that the people get what they
want, and no court would rule against the exercise of the Queen's power in
that respect.

It is obvious that it is not in the best interests of the political parties,
and certain other writers, that you should have the above knowledge; for
your understanding of, and use of, that knowledge means the end of party
manipulations; the end of Party control over the voice and vote of Members of
Parliament, and this is unarguable,

It is stressed again that it is the lawful duty and obligation of every
elector continuously to inform his Federal and State Members of Parliament,
and State Senators, of what his WILL is on everything that comes before
Parliament or should come before the Houses of the Parliament. In not
performing your lawful duty and obligation you are giving Members and
Senators a plausible excuse for not carrying out their judicially defined legal
duty and legal function, thus enabling party manipulators and controllers to
retain their dictatorship over the voices and votes of your Members and
Senators and of the machinery of Parliament to impose their will upon you.

Shorn of all legal jargon, the Constitutions of the Commonwealth and
the six Australian States provide for the operation of an almost perfect form
of democratic parliament if you, the people, choose to apply the power and
authority which those Constitutions give to you.

The sole and only legal limit to the power and authority of the
queen is the unknowable extent of what her people, at any time of their
choosing, may directly request of her.

A Few Thoughts on Extra Constitutional Safeguards for the People
In the previous Chapters the Constitutional and legal powers available
to the people to get what they want, and to protect themselves against the
manipulators or party politics, have been outlined.

The question now arises whether additional Constitutional safeguards
are required to further protect the people. In this chapter a few thoughts are
advanced.

Clearly, whilst the Commonwealth and State Constitutions give the
people the power to have their Lower Houses of Parliament dissolved at any
time of the people's choosing, there is presently no authority:

The inclusion of all three above powers in both Commonwealth and
State Constitutions is essential to give the electors even more effective control
over their Parliamentarians and the machinery of Parliament, and make both
more sensitive to the requirements of the people.

To bring any Senator, Legislative Councillor or Member back to face a re
contesting of his seat ought only to require a simple majority of electors in
each of the three constitutional areas to inform the Governor-General or
State Governor which ever is appropriate that it is MY WILL that "so and so
be sent back to re contest his seat in his House of Parliament."

It many be contended that such a constitutional provision would make
the Houses of Parliament unworkable because the actions of opposing groups
would involve members and Senators in continuous elections. Such a
contention, however, misses the point that electors would not be interested in
recalling a Member or Senator who was giving public evidence of faithfully
performing his judicially defined legal function and duty. Naturally legal

safeguards would have to be included in the Constitutions making it illegal,
even an act of conspiracy, for any recall of a Senator or Member to be
initiated, organised and/or financed from outside the electorate concerned.

In this work it is not intended to go into the question of the actual
machinery necessary to allow the electors to replace any Member or Senator
whom they have recalled. Rather it is the purpose to raise the point for
serious study by the electors themselves as to how they may determine what
basic protection changes they want in their Constitutions. Undoubtedly there
would be many competent persons who could work out the machinery
necessary to give full and proper legal effect to the WILL of the electors in this
matter.

Another extremely vital protection element for the people is that no
treaties, international conventions or agreements, and the like, should be
entered into by Parliament, or by executive action, without the specific
consent and authority of the people themselves. This point is raised because
such things are agreed to, far too often, without the people having the
faintest idea of the direct and indirect legal and other significances and
consequences of such actions.

Indeed, few would be the politicians, let alone the people, who would
have any conception of the far reaching effects that many such treaties,
agreements and conventions could have upon Australia and the Australian
way of life. Under the influence, if not the manipulations, of international
interests, theorists and idealists, Ministers of the Crown far too often
persuade the legal government and the Houses of Parliament (under party
control) to agree to bind the nation and States without the full implications of
the legal, political and economic impacts being first thoroughly publicly
debated.

Even at this moment of writing there are agreements and conventions
afoot of which, in Australia, few indeed have any real knowledge; agreements
and conventions that can have far greater impact upon the liberty and way of
life in this country than some Ministers would care to fully explain.

The people should also insist that the Commonwealth and State
Constitutions be tightened to make it absolutely impossible for Ministers of
the Crown and Houses of Parliament to effect, what some would call, snide
changes in the Constitutions without a referendum of the people. Those who
have made long and deep researches into constitutional law are aware how
these changes can be effected without the real understanding of the people
and most politicians.

It cannot be denied that this country is suffering from "government by
regulation" and many writers have drawn attention to this indisputable fact.
In Commonwealth and State Parliaments the volume of legislation, which is
implemented by subsequent departmental regulations, is quite unbelievable.
Even during the last War, the noted NSW. Constitutional authority, Dr. Frank

Louatt, K.C., was moved to direct attention to the fact that for every 1000
pages of Acts of Parliaments there were over 5000 pages of regulations.

In their own interests the people should forbid the passing of any
legislation, which requires departmental regulations to implement it. If
regulations are thought to be required then the Parliamentarians, party
pressures notwithstanding, must be adamant that the departmental officers
seeking those regulations shall be brought before the bar of the House of
Parliament and made to publicly prove that such regulation is absolutely
vital in the interests of the people.

This Chapter advances but a few thoughts: a few of the many arising
from many long years of Constitutional research, coupled with both
parliamentary and departmental personal experience. They are offered to
stimulate deeper thought and study by the reader of this book.

It has been said of the great Henry Ford of the "tin lizzy" fame that he
once stated:

The writer hopes that the contents of this book will make you

THINK!

AND THEN ACT.

MICAH IV, iv.

Appendix 1
(a) Magna Carta 1215
(39) No freeman shall be captured or imprisoned or disseised or
outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go against him or
send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of
the land.

(40) To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or
justice.

(b) Extract from the Statute issued by Edward 1, in confirmation of the Charters, November 5, 1297
"...; and that our justices, sheriffs and mayors, and other ministers,
which, under us, have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the said
charters, pleaded before them in judgement, in all their points, that is to wit,
the Great Charter as the common law "

(v) Bill Of Rights 1689
(5) That it is the right of the subjects to Petition the King, and all
Commitments and Prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.

(d) Crimes Act 1914
(24F) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this Part makes it unlawful
for a person:

(a) to endeavour in good faith to show that the Sovereign, the Governor
General, the Governor of a State, the Administrator of a Territory, or the
advisors of any of them, or the persons responsible for the government of
another country, has or have been, or is or are, mistaken in any of his or
their counsels, policies or actions;

(e) Postage exemptions for material sent to the Governor General and the State Governors:
Information from the stamp below must be printed or written on the top
left corner of envelope to the Governor General or State Governors. All
information abbreviated as given on stamp must appear on the envelope:

EXEMPT POSTAGE

Post. Serv. Act. 1975

Part 111; Div. 1. Sec. 14(5a).

Appendix 2
(a) Sample Petition to the Governor General
AN HUMBLE PRAYER AND PETITION TO HIS EXCELLENCY

His Excellency The Honourable William George Hayden, O.A.,

Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia and

Commander in Chief of the Defence Force,

Government House,

CANBERRA, ACT. 2600

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY,

I know it is my duty to keep you informed as to MY WILL on any matter that comes
before the Parliament or should come before the Parliament.

The Hawke Ministry has set up the Constitutional Commission for the purpose of
persuading the Australian People to accept changes to the Commonwealth Constitution as
propagated by the republicans and their supporters in the community.

The republicans want centralisation of power and control of every aspect of our lives,
which in turn will destroy the freedoms, which have come down to us from the ancient
statutes of Magna Carta 1225, Petition of Rights 1628, Bill of Rights 1688 and the Act of
Settlement 1701, through the British Commonwealth and State Parliaments to the present
day.

The Queensland Council of Agriculture is sending a submission to the Advisory
Committee on Trade and National Economic Management of the Constitutional Commission
in which the Council will be suggesting amendments to Sections 51, 90 and 92 in particular
according to their draft submission of February 1987.

It is not a question of being against the State Councils of Agriculture, Marketing
Boards etc. It is a question of the Australian People preventing the ultimate centralisation,
taking from their hands the right to live their lives in the freedom, which is their birthright.

It is MY WILL that no amendments or alterations be made to the Commonwealth
Constitution without the consent and express will of the Australian People by Referendum.

I do most humbly and respectfully Pray and Beseech Your Excellency to convey MY
WILL to both Houses of the Parliament.

I am one of Her Australian Majesty's respectful servants,

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

Signature ...............................................

PRINT NAME ...........................................

ADDRESS ................................................

.....................STATE

POSTCODE

DATE

Alternative To A State Governor
AN HUMBLE PRAYER AND PETITION

TO HIS EXCELLENCY

The Honourable Sir Waiter Campbell QC

Governor of Queensland

Government House

BRISBANE, 4000

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY

(b) Sample Petition to Federal Member
Federal Member for ..............………………………………………

Address .....………………………………………………...............

………………………………………….............….…......

Dear .....................

I know it is my duty to keep you informed as to MY WILL on any matter that comes
before the Parliament or should come before the Parliament.

The Hawke Ministry has set up the Constitutional Commission for the purpose of
persuading the Australian People to accept changes to the Commonwealth Constitution as
propagated by the republicans and their supporters in the community.

The republicans want centralisation of power and control of every aspect of our lives,
which in turn will destroy the freedoms which have come down to us from the ancient
statutes of Magna Carta 1225, Petition of Rights Bill of Rights 1688 and the Act of Settlement
1701, through the British Commonwealth and State Parliaments to the present day.

The Queensland Council of Agriculture is sending a submission to the Advisory
Committee on Trade and National Economic Management of the Constitutional Commission
in which the Council will be suggesting amendments to Sections 51, 90 and 92 in particular,
according to the draft submission of February 1987.

It is not a question of being against the state councils of Agriculture, Marketing Boards
etc. It is a question of the Australian People preventing the ultimate centralisation, taking
from their hands the right to live their lives in the freedom, which is their birthright.

It is MY WILL that no amendments or alterations be made to the Commonwealth
Constitution without the consent and express will of the Australian People by referendum

Signature ……........

PRINT NAME ……………………………………………………

ADDRESS ……………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………….

…………………………………………..STATE .............……..

POSTCODE …………………. DATE …………….

Alternatives:
TO FEDERAL SENATOR TO STATE MEMBER

Senator State, Member for ……………………

Address Address ……………………………….

Dear Senator Dear …………………………………….

Testimonial
Reproduced below is a letter of recommendation to the Secretary of the
publishing Committee, received from Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls in the
British House of Lords.

A fair copy of the letter follows.

The Lawn,

Herts, England,

16 Aug., 1989.

Dear Don Rackemann,

I am glad to have the copy of Arthur Chresby's booklet, "Your
Will Be Done".

It is a most valuable exposition in simple terms of the
constitutional link of the Queen and Parliament in Australia.
Some of the propositions in it may be the subject of controversy
but controversy is invigorating and leads eventually to correct
decisions.

Yours sincerely,

Denning.