Attorney General Senator George Brandis SC

Former Attorney-General George Brandis in effect admits bribery of Federal MP’s is “common place”

Former Attorney-General George Brandis said in Parliament before a committee on the 24th of October 2017 that “It is very appropriate for backbench members of parliament to receive remuneration from third party sources not inconsistent with their responsibility as members of parliament. Both consistent and commonplace.

Some will try to spin it and say all it means is that some MP’s and Senators have second jobs. But it would be the easiest way to bribe federal MP’s. Most companies wouldn’t be paying MP’s and Senators without a result in mind. The Mineral Council admitted this week it wants something in return when it donates:

The Minerals Council of Australia has admitted it makes donations to political parties to gain access to politicians, an unusually candid statement from a donor about the influence of money in politics.

The mining lobby group’s submission to a Senate committee examining the role of donations in Australia’s political system contrasts with the explanations given by other lobby groups and businesses, which said their donations were intended to support democratic processes.

The chair of the committee, Greens leader Richard Di Natale, said the Minerals Council had “admitted what we’ve known all along” by saying it was paying for access.

“Our democracy is broken when a major mining lobby group feels comfortable publicly saying they pay for access to the old parties without fear of any consequences,” Senator Di Natale said. (Click here to read more)

The average person rarely gets access to politicians which is because we cannot afford a large donation.

Below is the video of George Brandis making the statement.


I’m no fan of George Brandis but he should be given some credit for at least being honest in the video.

Why the George Brandis statement didn’t get more media attention is a worry. It might also be another reason why it was announced in December 2017 that George Brandis “will leave Parliament to take up the post of Australia’s High Commissioner to the United Kingdom.

AAP reported at the time:

Malcolm Turnbull has stood by the ability of backbench MPs to receive income from third-party sources.

The issue arose after an internal government inquiry cleared former cabinet minister Bruce Billson of inappropriate behaviour over his position with the Franchise Council of Australia while he was a Liberal MP. (Click here to read more)

Generally speaking, it is splitting hairs to distinguish between a MP being on the payroll of a company and the company donating money to get the decisions they want from the politicians. A prime example is the Chinese political donation scandal that has been in the media for the last couple of years.

Shanghai Sam Dastyari

Even Shanghai Sam has spoken of the problem: “Labor senator Sam Dastyari has warned there is something “fundamentally wrong and rotten” with Australia’s entire political system, claiming there are 10 huge companies with so much power and influence they have killed proper democratic process at the federal level in this country.

“Four banks, and we all know who they are – the Commonwealth Bank, NAB, Westpac, and ANZ – three big mining companies, in Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, and Fortescue Metals, you’ve got your two big grocery chains, and you’ve got your big telco, which is Telstra,” Mr Dastyari said.

They have “unprecedented concentration of corporate influence” in Australia, he said. (Click here to read more)

Politicians who become Lobbyists

The list of politicians who become lobbyists is a mile long. The Conversation reported:

The “revolving door” of politics – the means by which government officials leave office to become lobbyists, and by which lobbyists become government officials – presents problems for modern democracies that largely go unrecognised, unaccounted for and unpoliced.

In certain respects, the revolving door is inevitable, a natural byproduct of political tragics fulfilling a varied career in politics. But when even the most senior politicians go on to work as lobbyists, it can profoundly undermine democracy.

Unprecedented access

A lobbyist’s efficacy primarily depends on their ability to gain access to decision-makers.

Of the 538 lobbyists registered by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet at the time of writing, 191 are former government representatives.

Working in government in any capacity provides knowledge that is invaluable to lobbyists. But the advantage is not merely informational: having worked with government officials means knowing them. It often means having had drinks with them, or knowing their loved ones’ names and birthdays, or their personal phone numbers.

The best lobbyists do not merely lobby a government contact: they lobby a friend. This immediately creates a conflict of interest that cannot be overcome; we are fundamentally biased toward those we like.

Incompatibility with the law

However, the conflict of interest does not end there. The revolving door makes it all too easy for corruption to take place, because it creates problems that aren’t adequately policed by anti-corruption laws in Australia (or in democracies generally). (Click here to read more)

MP’s and Senators who are beholden to others

Finally, I think we need to look at MP’s and Senators who are beholden to the people and/or companies who put them in parliament in the first place. An example is the Labor Party politicians who owe their position to the Unions who had the numbers to get them into parliament. The last number I remember seeing is the Labor Party was made up of about 50% ex union officials or have union backgrounds yet the Unions only make up about 17.4% of the workforce.

Then of course there are so many lawyers in parliament that they all look after the legal fraternity. Times are changing fast and the days of politicians being on the take one way or another is unsustainable. The voters are slowly but surely seeing to that.

The main point of this article is the video admission by George Brandis. It’s only 15 seconds long so if you didn’t watch it make sure you do because I find it an amazing admission and one the politicians and media seem to have swept under the carpet fast

Admin: I should hopefully have some positive news on the legal front in the next few weeks. Won’t say anymore at the moment but will let you know soon.

Please use the Twitter, Facebook and email etc. buttons below and help promote this post.

Kangaroo Court of Australia is an independent website and is reliant on donations to keep publishing. If you would like to support the continuance of this site, please click on the button below to donate via PayPal or go to the donations page for other donation options. (Click here to go to the Donations page)

If you would like to follow this website, you can by email notification at the top right of this page and about twice a week you will be notified when there is a new article.

Thank you for your support.

32 replies »

  1. Interesting is there not any mention of any Law Firms having yet admitted that they have paid political bribes in exchange for Commonwealth funded retainers to in exchange pervert and defeat the course of justice to avoid paying public debts owing to global stock market disclosure wilfully omitted price sensitive Casualty of Telecom (CoT) Victim by wilful political acts of insider trading and market manipulation frauds in the Commonwealth’s three (3) various Telstra purported share floats, but in the T1 disclosures disclosed none price sensitive CoT liabilities to mislead and deceive the investors and stock markets globally?

    Covered-up by stacking & rigging the misrunning ASX, ASIC, ACMA, RBA, Future Fund and the ACCC.

    Indeed one such Law Firm partnership has now got an office inside the Treasurer’s Office and inside Treasury. Shadow directing the Australian Government’s finances no doubt. So why do we need any elected party politician at all anymore? Or any public servants?

  2. The problem comes back to our nation’s Primary Law – the antiquated and out of date 19th century British Act we are still using as our Constitution. A draft of a new Constitution for an independent Australia has been drawn up that directly addresses these problems, amongst many others we have experienced over the past century. This updated Constitution looks at politics from today’s perspective, not from the perspective of 50 politicians and lawyers whose only intent was to maintain the status quo of the 19th century. A book, “Australia’s Constitutional Journey to Independence” is in the process of being published. It includes the complete draft of the new Constitution along with the reasoning and philosophic basis behind each Chapter of the draft. Anyone interested can check it out at

    • There is nothing wrong with the Crowns Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia that we already have and will constitutionally continue to have.

      It is treasonously dishonourable Lawyers sitting in parliament by default who are the ones leading the charge of unconstitutionally and treasonously wanting to change and replace the constitution we already have.

      Those lawyers want it replaced to assist in concealing their own prior treasons of having wilfully already chosen to and having already failed to eligibly comply with the constitution and who have not constitutionally complied with their own thereby dishonestly given treasonously breached false oaths of office given so as they can profit from the Crown by the perjury they committed while giving oath, and for well knowing the penalty for their perjury, but with them controlling the Courts and the AFP they are not being charged and indicted for their unconstitutional treasonous perjury.

      Ask yourself? Why are they politically not complying with the constitution we have so why would they comply with any other purported new constitution?

      Why are they as lawyers politically and wilfully not currently complying with their current constitutional oath of office given by them to get paid under the penalty of perjury?

      Because largely the current lawyers masquerading as Commonwealth Cabinet Members it turns out that their faiths are the faith of the Pope, the spiritual head of the Vatican City which is a foreign power, and which constitutionally does treasonously conflict with the constitutional faith of the Crown.

      guggzie2013 You talk of independence, when what we need is to be independent and free from corrupt lawyers in politics and free from their corrupt law firms and their strategically positioned political spin merchants who wilfully and illegally keep unconstitutionally protecting each other to keep concealing their treasonously calculated failures of NOT lawfully complying with our existing Constitution.

      If our constitution is again complied with by all, then we would have a vibrant and united Commonwealth of Australia once again. All we need is honest and honourable politicians who are constitutionally compliant to replace the treasonously hijacked lawyers who have a foreign faith and who are therefore dishonestly and treasonously masquerading as being honest and honourable politicians when not constitutionally honest, compliant or honourable.

      Indeed we last year had a purported Deputy Prime Minister who was constitutionally ineligible from 2004 to 2017 and was removed by the High Court of Australia, but who then, despite still having a foreign faith got himself purportedly re-elected at a by-election after dishonestly not resigning until he had constitutionally renounced one of his foreign allegiance’s, but did not renounce his treasonously still an unconstitutional foreign power faith.

      The same purported man Barnaby Joyce, who while ineligible to hold any office he
      had single handily thereby INVALIDLY passed in the Senate the Telstra full privatisation legislation in 2005 while constitutionally ineligible to hold any political office. So unconstitutionally we have an invalid legislation and global stock market frauds committed unconstitutionally and illegally.

      But politically Coalition Government’s Cabinet Members as mostly lawyers of a foreign faith still have not despite being constitutionally required to announce an immediate Telstra Share Trading Halt.

      The Telstra share trading halt is required until constitutionally they arrange the full buy-back of all Telstra shares sales, as those Telstra three float shares sales were unconstitutionally procured by Barnaby Joyce’s years of frauds committed in breach of his repeated false oath of office given but constitutional oaths Mr Joyce did not comply with.

      Are such offences of perjury not indictable crimes of falsely swearing a constitutional oath of office?

      Thereby is that not in fact serious crimes of wilful acts of perjury by failure to comply and by being ineligible to constitutionally profit from the Crown without Barnaby Joyce complying with that Constitutional oath of the Crown. See:

      Did Barnaby Joyce or anyone in the National Party ever take any bribes as in effect referred to by George Brandis QC?

      • Sorry to contradict you Kenneth, there is a great deal wrong with that terrible British Act. For examply, it sets the GG up as the dictator of Australia, and contrary to all the waffle spewed out by the legal fraternity and the media, Kerr did not use anything called “royal preogative” to sack the legitimately elected Whitlam Government – he simply used the authority given to him in Section 5 of that British Act.
        Also, there is no such position as a Prime Minister in the Act nor any recognition of political parties. If anyone actually bothers to read the Act the way it is is written they will find that the Westminster system of Government we use is not the system described in the Act.
        It is long past the time we got a true and honest Constitution that described the system of Government the people want, a democratic system, less corruptable by money and more accountable to the people.
        It is also a proven fact that the British Act has never been presented to anyone in Australia, and not one person in Australia has ever been offered the opportunity to vote or approve that Act.
        So much for “democracy”

      • A beautiful piece of commentary KCI the crooks in the LNP, HAVE NO SHAME!! BRING ON THE FEDERAL ICAC.

    • gugzie. I think we also need to change the legal system from adversarial to one which seeks only the truth. Such as system is known as an Inquisitorial or Investigative system. The adversarial system (based on the old English Common Law) does not deliver justice. The outcome often depends on bribery. Perhaps making this change first would facilitate independence. It is also possible that as part of the Brexit negotiations Britain will have to accept all European Community laws. This is mainly for reasons of trade but it would be of benefit generally. I understand that most if not all European countries use the above investigative legal system.

      • Totally agree Helen. The adversarial system is also the one used in our Parliament, and both the Parliament and the legal system are targeted in the draft Constitution. For example, the High Court is required to come to unanimous decisions, as they are not endowed with any executive authority to make law- only the Parliament has that authority. There is no justification to say a majority opinion is any more valid than a minority opinion, as neither are based on legalese. If there is a problem, the problem is with the way the law is written, and no group of seven unelected people should have the power to make law.

      • guggsie2013. The written law requires complete revision so it can be understood by everyone. And amendments should not be made on the basis of precedents as is often the case at present. Above all, judges,lawyers and others working within the court system must be made accountable. I have in mind a particular branch of the system but if I name it here my post is likely to be deleted.

        One problem is that many people feel that politics and the law are so complex that they cannot keep up. As a result, they no longer read newspapers and or watch quality news and current affairs programs.

  3. A very well thought out article. It is a shame the main stream press do not publish this exposure. These shenanigans are all “legal”. There are more than 52 lawyers in the federal parliament, based upon proportional representation there should only be half a lawyer in the parliament, hence we have a problem. Lawyers are over represented by 100 times in our democratically elected parliament. Lawyers aid and abet criminalisation of our society, if you are going commit a crime consult a lawyer before you commit the crime and they will advise you on how to commit the crime in such a way that it is not a crime. That is why business people hire lawyers.
    The position of Federal Attorney General is a short term proposition, is that because the lobster pot is very hot?

    • guggzie2013 is correct and furthermore the ‘Commonwealth Of Australia’, not The Commonwealth Of Australia as we know it is a private corporation with an Australian Business Number (ABN) 122104616 which is registered with the USA Securities & Exchange Commission No. 0000805157.
      Federal, State, Northern Territory, local Councils, Federal Courts, Aus. Post, Centrelink, Tax Dept. et al are private corporations each with an ABN.
      The above, our servants were never given permission to make any changes to a Constitution, or Consolidated Acts of The Magna Carta which still sits at Parliament House in Canberra and all the current wrongdoings are there for anyone to see, hidden in plain sight.
      It was moved to the new Parliament House in 1988, and in 2009 was placed in a more prominent position with enhanced interpretation and security.

      The Magna Carta is still valid, it has not been over-written by any trumped-up law, Head-Of State, judge, Minister Of Parliament, et al, and that is why The Laws of Australia are based upon it, under the sworn protection by every government.

      Mr S.D. was imprisoned, unlawfully for telling the truth relating to traitorous acts by a person or persons serving in office under the laws set down, without amendment in the Magna Carta

      Every word, every decision, by anyone in every department related to The Government(s) Of Australia is illegal for the current dictatorship.

      “No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be dispossessed of his freehold or liberties or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land. We will sell no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right.”

      • Thanks Jonde, but I think Sir Samuel Griffith, as Australia’s first Chief Justice of the newly formed High Court stated in a 1906 decision that the Magna Carta does not apply to Federal law. He may well have been correct, because at that time all the State Constitutions prohibited the States from making any law repugnant to the laws of the UK. That prohibition is not in the 1900 British Act. It wasn’t until the 1942 passing of parts of the Westminster Act that the prohibition was theoretically removed from the State Constitution. That Act, and the later Australia Act of 1986, both attempted to change the nature of the British Act in relation to Australia but neither Act went to referendum and both had to be approved by the UK Parliament.
        According to the historical truth, Australia was supposed to have become an independent nation on the 28th of June 1919 when we signed the Treaty of Versailles as an independent sovereign nation. Both international and domestic law acknowledges this document as the legal instrument that transferred sovereignty from King George V to the Australian people. The Commonwealth of Australia was now, in a strict legal sense, an independent, sovereign nation (Hansard 10 Sep 1919 – 1 Oct 1919). The legal power to enter into international treaties is possessed by sovereign nations alone. The Commonwealth of Australia joined the International Labour Organisation and the League of Nations in 1919, sovereignty being the fundamental requirement for entry.
        As at 1st October 1919, the Commonwealth of Australia as a new legal entity, technically ceased to be under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Peace Treaty of Versailles was incorporated into the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia by the Treaty of Peace Act 1919 which was assented to on 28th October 1919.
        As Billy Hughes knew, and tried to implement, two actions needed to be undertaken to legally formalise Australia’s independence. The first was for Australia to draft their own Constitution severing all ties with the UK, and the UK had to repeal their 1900 British Act creating the Commonwealth of Australia. Neither action was ever done, and all politicians and constitutional lawyers have been lying to us about Australia’s true and proper status with the UK since 1919.

  4. Simply a criminal, in charge of the law. Stating that politicians taking bribes is not just appropriate, but very common, and Turnbull is just as guilty, because he is the one that appointed a mongrel with this attitude, to the position!

  5. The First Law Officer of the country appointing law breakers on the positions as Senior Members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal-AAT does not allow our democracy to get any better. After allegedly getting exposed internally on many matters he still reluctantly takes up a position as Australia’s High Commissioner to UK. It is time that the UK rejects him as the wrong choice of the Prime Minister the Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP because Senator Brandis was censured in the Senate as unfit for the office. Senator the Hon George Brandis QC also wanted every request made to the Solicitor-General by anyone for a legal advice to land on his desk first and then at the last moment backed off. Why? He was also the architect of the Double Dissolution election with the expectation that there will be thumping majority for the Coalition. Another failure with one seat majority as a result.

    The backbenchers and the MP’s paid remunerations by third parties to protect our democracy can not be justified. Whenever there is a change in the government the same MP’s and the backbenchers receiving remuneration from third parties will probably cease and the money will then be for the people in the government. That is not helping democracy at all.

    Former AG George Brandis justifying the remunerations of the backbench members from the third parties is worth a full scale independent investigations.

    You openly call it as a bribe. Millions in our country will agree with you is my view. I will name two people here that were the Senior Members of AAT appointed by the former Attorney General George Brandis QC because I have serious concerns that our democracy is getting destroyed and our country is perceived as getting more and more corrupt every year on the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index.

    Dr James Popple who was the former FOI Commissioner walked out of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner straight into the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as a full time Senior Member. Dr Popple’s alleged corrupt conduct and criminal misbehaviour is well known to numerous people in the Parliament is my view. He is no more in the AAT and Senator Brandis is no longer the AG. Will any journalist from MSM take up this matter? Mr James Massola is not ready for anything that is as important as this.

    The other former Senior Member of AAT is Ms Geri Ettinger. She was appointed years after years by AG George Brandis. Her corrupt conduct and criminal misbehaviour to protect Australia Post from their corruption and crimes cover ups is very well documented . She left sometime last year or so. She was the former Postal Commissioner.

    When will our country realise that the people of this country have to wake up and not allow the corruption to continue.

    Why did Mr Ahmed Fahour resign? He was the highest paid Post CEO in the world. Who will put their hand up to expose ongoing corruption and crimes cover ups by number of high ranking officials-past and present in Australia Post? The cause of death of one of the highest ranking persons in Australia Post’s Corporate Security Group is suicide.

    We need to take lessons from our neighbours New Zealand. They have brought themselves to No.1 on TI Corruption Perception Index as the country with the least corruption.

    When will our politicians go for a study tour to NZ to make our country corruption free, FREE SOCIETY? Let our PM go first taking with him the Hon Peter Dutton MP- the Minister for Home Affairs with a long police career before entering politics.

    Demanding an excellent democracy and free speech is everyone’s right and we will have it by trying hard and exposing the highest level corruption in our country starting with Australia Post because we all own Australia Post.

    There are numerous questions for the PM to answer.

    Our country has to wake up because no matter who is in the government the corruption is not curbed.

    • Vasant. An recent example of what goes on in state administrative appeals bodies/tribunals can be seen in Queensland.  The QCAT overturned a decision of the State Legal Services Commission to de-register a lawyer guilty of attempting to groom and procure a child online.  The lawyer was given a 4-year suspension instead.

      In another state the state administrative appeals tribunal overturned a council decision not to allow  a very unsuitable development to which there were many relevant objections.  Thre so-called Tribunal consisted of one person, not three as the name implies. 

      • Helen, thanks for your reply. I did not mention anything about the former NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal as this post of was in relation to the Federal issues involving former AG George Brandis QC.

        All I can say is what you experienced or noticed is not uncommon is my view.
        I can say with confidence that whenever big names, police, AFP or high ranking corrupt people are involved and ordinary people decide to use the correct democratic processes to get a voice or justice it appears that it is highly unlikely that they will even get a voice in the tribunals. In my case Police officers lied in the witness boxes and the matter was dismissed as “Out of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal” in NSW ADT after one and a half years. The Tribunal Member who was hearing the matter was then made Commissioner of Land and Environment Court. Nice reward indeed. Who gave this reward? If was the Hon John Hatzistergos MLC-who was the Attorney General of NSW at the time.

        I did not mention in my comment that while he was the Attorney General George Brandis QC appointed the former Labor Attorney General the Hon Robert McClelland as the Family Court Judge. A Liberal AG George Brandis appointing a former Labor AG as a Judge? What was the deal?

        In the NSW similar appointment took place. The Liberal MP the Hon Brad Hazzard while he was the NSW Attorney General appointed the former Labor Attorney General the Hon John Hatzistergos as the NSW District Court Judge by watering down rules for such an appointment. Once again what was the deal?

        Former Premier of NSW the Hon Mike Baird appointed the former Australian Information Commissioner Prof John McMillan AO as the NSW Ombudsman after watering down the rules for such an appointment after he was unwanted by AG George Brandis as they wanted to abolish the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. The Liberal NSW Premier came with a helping hand to find work for Prof McMillan just to finish off the NSW police telephone bugging scandal that was unresolved and helped the Liberal Federal government. Prof McMillan has helped the allegedly corrupt former FOI Commissioner Dr James Popple in covering up his alleged criminal misbehaviour. This is why our country is going down and down and the ordinary people remain in the dark because they do not understand, if not having experience of their own, the level of dishonesty and corruption that keeps going on and on.

        Why did the Hon Mike Baird abruptly quit politics? Is there anyone in MSM to find out the truth?

        I can go on and on Helen but I have limited time today. If we unite we can change our country is my view.

        The person in Australia Post who passed away with the cause of death as suicide was the State Manager Corporate Security Group at Australia Post Headquarters in Melbourne. He was in Victorian Police Force for over 25 years before joining Australia Post.

        Mr Ahmed Fahour’s right hand man provided his name as a contact person to me only 19 days prior to this State Manager’s last day of his life.

        Each and every person named above knows about the corruption and crimes and they all failed to do their jobs while in their positions is my view.

        No wonder the people are demanding a Federal ICAC. If the police show the signs of corruption, if the elected representatives clear their office when their conduct is about to be questioned, if the watchdogs ignore corruption, if the courts and tribunals disrespect their own rules then exposing the highest level corruption jointly is the only option left. I will call our country great when my goal is achieved.

        Numerous people in the Main Stream Media have failed to respond to any of my letters. Many have Walkley awards. What is the point to boast about your award and then ignore the documented highest level corruption?

        Our country should never be allowed to spoil the way it is spoiling now. The following link will help you is my view. It is quite clear that someone else also wants answers.

      • Vasant I.m sorry that I misunderstood.   I agree that we need ICAC urgently. How can we co-operate to bring this about?  Perhaps we need a completely new political party which is not dominated by lawyers. Publicity is the only other means to make people aware of the corruption. I have evidence I can’t yet disclose, that one section of the main stream media is again interested in doing the job they all used to do.  So we must not give up.   

  6. guggzie2013 – You will find that the current purported Governor-General is constitutionally ineligible as he also is by his foreign rule faith treasonously
    not capable of constitutionally complying with the faith of the Crown thereby
    he swore a false oath of office to treasonously live and profit from the Crown
    by simply committing to swearing a false oath under the penalty of perjury.
    Indeed its the politicians who shield him with staffers to prevent him restoring

    He was also sworn-in by a purported Chief Justice of the High Court whose faith conflicted with the constitutional faith of the Crown. A clean broom is needed!

    A new constitution is not the answer as its dishonest and dishonourable people
    who are pulling the strings in backroom political parties.

    We need a constitutionally compliant parliament, judiciary, AFP and regulators
    not their cartels stacked & rigged politically strategically positioned fraudsters.

    Is it not morally easier to be honest and constitutionally compliant rather than an
    immorally dishonest perjurer who is treasonously unconstitutional?

    It therefore all comes back to conflicting and competing loyalty faiths, does it not?

    • Not sure how you work out that the GG is ineligible Kenneth, if that were true then legal action could be taken to have him stand down and be replaced. I don’t see where “faith” comes into it as there is an optional oath of affirmation that has nothing to do with God.
      It is a bit tricky when we look at the oaths the current crop are using as there has never been a referendum to change the two listed in the British Act.
      Still, that’s just a bit of legal nit-picking, on the same level as saying there is no constitutional position of Prime Minister in the British Act. But who gives a stuff about the way the British Act is written, when we’ve been interpreting it any way we want for the past century. It seems the way a law is written doesn’t mean what the words say and the politicians and lawyers can apply in any way it suits them at the time. If they can do that with the primary law of the nation why can’t we do it with any of the laws the politicians make?

  7. guggie2013 and helentastard , read The Magna Carta, the Old Common British Law still delivers justice …. human beings in authority do not … one cannot legally bribe ‘up-holders of justice’ within the law … any one who does is a traitor to himself his country and the ‘people within that country.’

    • Jonde. I wonder if you are a lawyer. I know that bribery etc is illegal, but my point is that sometimes Australian personnel break the law and there is no accountability. If yo7u send me a friend request I’ll accept it and give you more details. I am the only Helen Tastard on Face Book. If I say more online I could repeat Shane Dowling’s experience. Until 2008 I too had been brainwashed into believing in Australian justice and I still had the utmost respect for judges. That has been destroyed.

      • Lawyers swear an oath to each other and the Bar, none should be in parliament.
        Long live the Constitution, without it’s carefully drafted chapters and Q&G ‘s notes we will be slaves with no protections as built into the Constitution.
        The problem is that the courts, pollies, and lawyers are corrupt and don’t uphold the Constitution.
        When I get the time, and the situation is finished, I will write about my recent experience as a self-represented litigant in a constitutional case with nearly everything mentioned in these posts rolled into one.
        Like Helen, destroyed.
        Australia, the greatest country on earth, just too many bastards at the top of the food chain.

    • Read it Jonde but the fact that it exists, and the fact that the politicians deceptively parade it in Parliament House does not mean Sir Samual Griffith’s decision doesn’t apply. The Magna Carta cannot be used as a defence in any Federal Court, but if one were to argue that the Wetminster Act and the Australia Act are ultra vires, because neither went to referendum, then the State Constitutions would still be applicable. I don’t like your chances of that argument ever being successful in our courts.

  8. Now everyone admits it: political donations buy access and influence

    The major political parties and their wealthy benefactors have long sought to perpetuate the mutually beneficial myth that political donations are somehow a good thing for the Australian people.

    The donors and their lobbyists claim their contributions are some form of civic philanthropy: they’re just helping finance election campaigns to ensure a vigorous contest of ideas and a healthy democracy.

    Read more:

  9. guggzie2013 In answer to your statement “not sure how you work out how the G-G is ineligible”

    Simply is the Governor-General not in fact actually constitutionally sworn-in or affirmed into office to act at all times constitutionally compliant and in allegiance full to the Crown, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors?

    As our Monarch is Her Majesty constitutionally not in fact still our lawful sovereign of the Commonwealth of Australia? Thereby the Governor-General is constitutionally sworn-in or affirmed in law to constitutionally comply in allegiance to only the faith of the Crown, thereby not to any other allegiance. Either way constitutionally by a sworn oath or sworn affirmation it is given under the penalty of perjury, if not complied with, is it not?

    Moreover, constitutionally Governor-General’s of say for example are of the Catholic faith and who are true to their faith (without wilfully committing perjury) they could not validly participate in the rites of the Church of England or take an oath that had the effect of repudiating the Pope’s spiritual authority of the Vatican City, could they?

    So, if a sworn-in Governor-General of such a competing loyalty faith has or was to constitutionally default on this sworn obligation of constitutionally upholding and complying with the constitution in allegiance to the Crown and the faith of the Crown then that Governor-General in such a high position of trust, his or her position as Governor-General if breached should be automatically vacated so he or she not? If that Governor-General was or is either honest or honourable then he or she would simply resign and stand down from that high office or must be forcibly removed and charged for perjury shouldn’t they?

    But, if a Governor-General is not of the faith of the Crown it could be acceptable providing that if their conflicting faith has not conflicted with and or does not hinder or prevent the Governor-General from immediately and honourably fully complying at all times with only his or her Constitutional oath or affirmation sworn in allegiance to the Crown as the Constitutional Crown of the Commonwealth of Australia and of we the people.

    But, when or if any Governor-General fails to constitutionally comply with or uphold instruments issued under the faith of the Crown and thereby does not protect we the people by not complying with say the special powers and exclusive court jurisdiction as invested in Notary Publics under the Bills of Exchange Act 1909 (Commonwealth), who thereby as Notary Publics of the Court of Faculties and whom within the Commonwealth of Australia have sole jurisdiction to act for and on behalf of Her Majesty (the Crown) with authority from above the authority of the people elected government of the day, in relation to bills of exchange and promissory note types of financial instruments then failure by any Governor-General is either constitutionally treasonous or is dishonesty being committed by the Governor-General if he or she ignores, refuses or fails to comply and do his or her high position of trust duty by dishonourably ignoring or acting contrary to the faith of the Crown and by therefore misacting as an unconstitutional fraudster by the Governor-General failing to comply with that Governor-General’s sworn constitutional oath or sworn affirmation given constitutionally in allegiance to the Crown and we the people.

    Despite the fact that all Notary Publics Head office of the Court of Faculties is still situated at Westminster in the United Kingdom admistered for Her Majesty by and under the authority of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.

    But when the Crown’s constitutionally faith by politicians with conflicting faiths have who have also by their constitutional failures given wilfully false oaths and who it appears have stooped to taking political party bribes as in effect admitted to by George Brandis QC and when theirs and even George Brandis QC’s own faith conflicts with the faith of the Crown. So then who is going to enforce compliance and enforce the constitutional laws of indicting and or with enforcing the sacking of an ineligible or treasonously unconstitutional Cabinet-Members and or the ineligible and unconstitutional Governor-General. Given also we have a conflicting faith it appears by held by most of the current High Court of Australia judiciary, whose judicial income and high positions of trust are financially beholding to purportedly elected governments whose faith is preventing them complying with their constitutional oath or affirmation in allegiance to the constitutional Crown of we the people. So who out there has a clean broom?

    We already have a Constitutional Crown, but the key positions of trust to uphold the constitution faith of the Crown have it appears all been treasonously hijacked by dishonourable, dishonest and or by treasonous people of competing faiths in high positions of trust within the Commonwealth of Australia. Who are republicans to boot!

    • This is where it gets complicated. As far as I understand it, the GG is appointed by the Queen of Australia through Letters Patent. If he or she is sworn in as the GG (and I do not know if that is the case or not) they could use the oath of Affirmation and bypass any religious connection. Presumably, the GG would have to be of the Anglican faith, if of any faith, and not the Catholic one, as no Catholics are allowed on the British throne.
      Swearing the oath of Affirmation also applies to the politicians who, technically, are not direct appointees of the Queen of Australia (if you believe she is a genuine article and not a fictional one – she was never agreed to by the people of Australia, as they were never asked if they wanted her)
      Again, this gets complicated, as we do not know for sure what Oath the politicians swear to. It seems the one stipulated in the British Act is no longer used, and as the there is none of the 39 perennial loopholes of “Until Parliament otherwise provides…” in relation to the Oaths, are any alternative Oaths legitimate?
      Hence Kenneth, while people often talk about “treason” in these sorts of circumstances, it seems there is no way anyone can ever be charged with the offence.

  10. I have also read that, and been told that is so, but it seems she is the “monarch” of other dominions apart from Australia. My understanding of the British law is she can only be the monarch of another country if Britian controls that nation’s foreign policy. It seem it is unclear when her title is changed, as in the case of Australia – she’s been dubbed the Queen of Australia but without asking anyone in Oz whether we wanted her.

    • Changing her title doesn’t get around the law, nor her relationship to other dominions.
      All the other arguments are irrelevant.
      This is why we have a Commonwealth.
      Lawers are dis-barred if they dare even think about challenging.
      The system is corrupt.
      That is the reality, I strive to be a realist.
      Under this fake system, the pollies can make any law they want and the courts interpret to suit.
      Wish I have an answer, but I believe there are some starting a political party to fix these issues.

      • On the contrary HMR, for exactly the reasons you stated. Changing her title can be twisted and manipulated to apply is any way the legal profession wishes to use it. If they choose to say the change annuls British law who is to contest that? The legitimacy of the Queen of Australia has been challenged in the British Courts by the Australian QC Fitzgerald, and lost on appeal after alleged pressure from John Howard on the English Judge. To my knowledge, Fitzgerald wasn’t barred but his livlihood may have come under threat. The English Judge is reputed to have said later that “he failed to do the right thing.”

      • There is an answer HMR – have a new Constitution that requires every new law coming out of Parliament to be stand alone laws and prohibit making amendments to any existing laws. If an existing law needs amending the new law can use the appropriate parts of the old law by rewiting them into the new law and automatically repealing the old law when assent is given to the new one. No retrospective action would apply to any decisions made under the old law. All new laws to be written in commonly used English language without any legalese terms. No law would need an explanatory memorandum – if the law cannot be read and understood as it is written then it should not be given assent.

Leave a Reply