This web page is to publish considerations relating to the High Court of Australia Case No.S77 of 2016, regarding methods of selecting Senators for Australia, and Australian constitutional provisions relating to the Australian Senate.
This web page is a work in progress.
Please note - the opinions expressed on this web page, are published as the opinions of only the author, and, I am only a lay person - a member of the public; a pleb, who has not undergone any formal training in law or legal practice, and I am not a qualified legal practitioner.
Please note, also, that, as a member of the public, and, as an eligible "voter" (we are not allowed to really vote, as we are not allowed to choose for whom we vote), I would have locus standi, and would thence, be inclined to apply to be joined as a party to the proceedings, if not for the fees and the Kafkaesque procedure involved and the logistical difficulties, especially with the time constraints applicable in this particular case, had the High Court of Australia, not already, previous to this case, apparently, overturned the Australian federal Constitution, as mentioned below.
An application, number S77 of 2016, has been made to the High Court Of Australia, by Senator Robert (Bob) Day, challenging the constitutional validity of a bill recently passed by the federal parliament of Australia, to change the voting methods for selecting senators of the Australian parliament. The application is No.S77 of 2016, filed in the Sydney Registry of the High Court of Australia.
If I was not restricted by the applicable fees, and, the logistics with the time constraints imposed due to the probable imminent double dissolution of the federal parliament of Australia, I would be inclined to apply to be joined as a party to the proceedings in the High Court, regarding Sections 7 and 24 of the Australia Constitution, relating to the recent bill to change the method of voting for the senate.
If such application would be successful, I would argue the following points.
In the wording of Section 7 of the Constitution;
"The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting,"
and
section 24 of the Constitution;
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth"
the only compliant method of voting, is first past the post voting, which is necessarily required by those two citations.
(
At http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/australian_electoral_history/history.htm , as viewed on 23 March 2016, was
"
Updated: 28 January 2011
The history of federal electoral reform in Australia is a convoluted one, reflecting not only the influence of political factors, but also the massive changes in the nature of Australian society, technology and life which have taken place since Federation. Different historians place emphasis on different issues, and this article therefore represents a very personal view of what have been the high points.
The starting point of the process came in 1902, the first election having been held, pursuant to sections 10 and 31 of the Constitution, under the laws of the various States. The Commonwealth Parliament enacted the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902, which taken together provided for a secret ballot, votes for men and women (but not for aboriginals), and plurality ("first-past-the-post") voting for both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
The Commonwealth Electoral Act
Changing political circumstances led within a relatively short time to a review of some of these initial features. The Commonwealth Electoral Act was comprehensively rewritten in 1918 (the last such rewrite until 1983), and the new Act among other things introduced alternative ("preferential") voting for the House of Representatives; this was in response to the rise of the Country Party in the aftermath of the First World War, and the consequent prospect of loss of seats to Labor through a split in the non-Labor vote. The three-party system which preferential voting helped to support has remained fundamentally unchanged to this day.
A reform with profound implications for the conduct of day-to-day political campaigning, but with a partisan impact difficult to measure, was the introduction of compulsory voting in 1924. As a consequence of compulsory voting, parties do not have to devote to "getting out the vote" the sorts of resources which are deployed by, for example, the main US political parties. Compulsory voting has long been accepted without much complaint within Australia, while being regarded by outside observers as somewhat eccentric. In recent years the debate, such as it is, has taken a new turn, with attention being focussed not so much on the question of individual rights – any voter can if he or she so chooses avoid making a choice of candidates by casting a deliberately informal vote – but on the effect which compulsory voting has had on the overall quality of political discourse and government in Australia.
Commonwealth voting arrangement
Almost a quarter of a century was to go by before another change of comparable significance was made to Commonwealth voting arrangements. In 1948 the representational basis of the Senate was changed, with the introduction of proportional representation using the single transferable vote. This was partly a response to the very lopsided political balances which had been produced in the Senate by the previous voting systems: from 1946 to 1949 for example, there were only three opposition Senators, a leader, a deputy leader and a Whip, facing 33 government Senators. The effect of proportional representation since its first use at the 1949 election has been dramatic, though predictable: the balance of power in the Senate lies in the hands of parties which would, but for the voting system, be denied parliamentary representation. Recently, for the first time since 1948, questions have started to be raised in some political circles as to whether such a state of affairs is an appropriate one.
"
Also, at http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Senate_Briefs/Brief01
as viewed on 23 March 2016, was
"
Prior to 1948 the ‘first past the post’ and the group preference systems used for electing senators meant that all Senate seats in any state could be won by candidates of the same party. The Commonwealth Electoral Act of 1948 provided for the adoption of a system of vote-counting known as proportional representation.
Proportional representation is a somewhat complicated electoral system, which ensures that political parties gain representation in proportion to their share of the vote.
"
and
"
The result has been that the membership of the Senate is now a truer reflection of the voters’ support of the different political parties.
In introducing the legislation in 1948 the Attorney-General of the time, Dr H.V. Evatt, said that ‘the fairest system and the one most likely to enhance the status of the Senate is that of proportional representation.’ (Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 16 April 1948, p. 965).
"
which clearly shows that the federal parliament has designed the senate, in contempt of the constitution, to represent the interests of political parties, rather than representing either the interests of the states, or, most importantly, the interests of the people.
)
(
Also, at http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/gleesoncj/cj_lucinda.htm as viewed on 31 March 2016, was
"
THE NINTH LUCINDA LECTURE MONASH UNIVERSITY, 24 JULY, 2001 THE SHAPE OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY MURRAY GLEESON
The circumstances that gave rise to the litigation in Bush v Gore[1] must have shaken the confidence of some Australians who believe that we all know what representative democracy means; that even if there are minor differences between the so-called Western democracies, the essential features are common to them all; that, like natural law, the fundamental principles of representative democracy are written on the hearts of all right thinking people; and that reflection upon those principles will expose far-reaching implications in the text of the Constitution.
Such confidence was never easy to reconcile with the facts. A useful way to show that is to present a series of pictures of representative democracy, with a gradually narrowing focus.
We all notice, perhaps with amusement, perhaps with indignation, that the title of democracy is sometimes claimed by governments in countries which appear to us to be distinctly undemocratic. What is often unremarked is the extent of the differences between our system of government and the systems of other nations we regard as politically comparable. Those differences can be illustrated by considering the broad outlines of the systems of government in five nations: the United Kingdom; the United States of America; Canada; New Zealand; and Australia.
Four of those nations are governed under a system of constitutional monarchy; one is a republic. Four of them have the same monarch, but she is no longer regarded as indivisible. Only in Australia is the possibility of republicanism a significant item on the current political agenda.
In four of the five nations, the national parliament is bicameral. New Zealand is the exception. But there are major differences in the manner in which the Upper House is constituted. In the United Kingdom that position is changing, but it is broadly true to say that the Upper House is constituted by members of the nobility. There is no such class in any of the other four nations. In Canada, as in the United States of America and Australia, the Upper House in the national parliament represents regions, but in Canada, unlike the United States and Australia, the members of the Upper House are not elected. They are appointed by the Governor-General, on the advice of the Prime Minister. It is the United States system of electing members of the Senate that is closest to the Australian system; not surprisingly, because in this respect our Constitution consciously followed the United States model. That model was described by the Supreme Court of the United States as "the Great Compromise, under which one House was viewed as representing the people, and the other, states"[2].
In all five nations, the members of the Lower House (or, in the case of New Zealand, the House) of the national parliament are popularly elected, but the methods of election are radically different. All five have universal adult suffrage, but only one, Australia, has compulsory voting. It will be necessary, later, to make more detailed reference to the Australian systems of election, but for the present it is sufficient to note that we now elect members of the House of Representatives by a system of preferential voting at a secret ballot. Parliament does not meet for fixed terms. In the United Kingdom, members of the House of Commons are elected on a first-past-the-post voting system for terms of five years, subject to dissolution. Until fairly recently, New Zealand also had a first-past-the-post electoral system. This was altered to a variant of the German multiple member system, under which the parliament consists of a number of members elected in single-seat constituencies, and a number elected by proportional representation from national party lists for those parties obtaining at least a certain percentage of the national vote. A certain number of seats are also designated for Maori representation. Members of the House of Representatives in the United States, and the House of Commons in Canada, are elected on a first-past-the-post system.
The difference between preferential voting and a first-past-the-post system is important. Systems of preferential voting vary, and include full preferential, partial preferential, and optional preferential voting. A first-past-the-post system operates on a winner take all basis that can deny parliamentary representation to substantial levels of minority opinion, and can produce large differences between the parliamentary strength of the majority party and the percentage of the population supporting that party. For example, in the 1987 general election in the United Kingdom, the Liberal Social Democratic Alliance polled 22.6% of the vote but won only 3.4% of the seats in the House of Commons. In the United Kingdom, governments commonly enjoy parliamentary majorities out of proportion to their electoral support, and election results, in terms of parliamentary representation, tend to be much more decisive than in Australia. And, of course, the member elected for a particular constituency need not receive the support, either directly or indirectly, of a majority of voters, let alone a majority of electors.
The first Commonwealth Electoral Act in Australia provided for a first-past-the-post voting system for the House of Representatives. Preferential voting was first used at a general election in 1919. Compulsory voting for general elections was introduced in 1924. The significance of compulsory voting is a matter for a political scientist rather than a lawyer. Whatever the precise significance may be at parliamentary elections, there is little doubt that it is a major factor influencing the outcome of the referendum process in connection with proposals for constitutional change. The low success rate of proposals to amend the Australian Constitution may be attributable to a number of factors, but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that one of them is the resistance to change that results from compelling people to vote when they feel that they are uncertain about the implications of change, and are not particularly unhappy with the status quo. The party political system provides guidance and assistance to voters at general elections, but it may be different at a referendum to consider constitutional change.
Of the five nations mentioned, three have federal systems of government, and two have unitary systems. A description of the system in the United Kingdom as unitary might now involve some over-simplication, but it is still broadly correct. A federal structure of government has a large influence upon the shape of representative democracy. In Australia, as in the United States, the two Houses of the national parliament are elected upon different lines. In each place, the members of the House of Representatives are elected to represent particular electoral divisions, and are chosen by popular vote of the people who live in those electoral divisions, although the method of election is different. Senators are elected to represent a State, and each State has the same number of representatives. In the United States, senators were originally chosen by the State legislatures, but this procedure was changed by the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1913.
"
)
That item is from Murray Gleeson; the last previous (as at 31 March 2016) Chief Judge of the High Court of Australia (see below for more reference to him, and, to the above article).
Now, that article shows a number of things, about the Australian federal Constitution, and, the intended method of voting for members of the Australian federal parliament, and, what has been changed, regarding the Australian federal Constitution, including the purposes of the parliament and the senate.
1. Five comparable systems of government, for five particular countries; "the United Kingdom; the United States of America; Canada; New Zealand; and Australia", are mentioned in the article. All of those five systems of government, were designed to involve first past the post voting, for the selection of members of the national legislatures (parliaments).
2. Regarding the senate, in particular, from the above article;
"
It is the United States system of electing members of the Senate that is closest to the Australian system; not surprisingly, because in this respect our Constitution consciously followed the United States model. That model was described by the Supreme Court of the United States as "the Great Compromise, under which one House was viewed as representing the people, and the other, states"
"
But, when the Australian federal Constitution was implemented, the USA did not have the senators elected by popular vote. That came about in the Amendment 17 to the USA Constitution, in 1913.
"In the United States, senators were originally chosen by the State legislatures, but this procedure was changed by the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted in 1913. "
"Ratified by the states in 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment provides that senators be elected by the people directly."
- from http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xvii as viewed on 31 March 2016 .
And, conspicuous by its absence, in Gleeson's article, as cited above, is reference to the particular method used for the "United States system of electing members of the Senate that is closest to the Australian system". Gleeson conspicuously omits mention of whether the USA method of electing members of the USA senate, is by first past the post voting (which is, by me, correctly or incorrectly, assumed), or by some other bodgy voting system, such as used in Australian federal elections.
Back to Gleeson's article;
"In the United Kingdom, members of the House of Commons are elected on a first-past-the-post voting system for terms of five years, subject to dissolution. Until fairly recently, New Zealand also had a first-past-the-post electoral system."
and
"Members of the House of Representatives in the United States, and the House of Commons in Canada, are elected on a first-past-the-post system."
and
"The first Commonwealth Electoral Act in Australia provided for a first-past-the-post voting system for the House of Representatives. Preferential voting was first used at a general election in 1919."
and
as cited further above, at http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/australian_electoral_history/history.htm , as viewed on 23 March 2016, was
"
In 1948 the representational basis of the Senate was changed, with the introduction of proportional representation using the single transferable vote. This was partly a response to the very lopsided political balances which had been produced in the Senate by the previous voting systems: from 1946 to 1949 for example, there were only three opposition Senators, a leader, a deputy leader and a Whip, facing 33 government Senators. The effect of proportional representation since its first use at the 1949 election has been dramatic, though predictable: the balance of power in the Senate lies in the hands of parties which would, but for the voting system, be denied parliamentary representation.
"
Thus, the clear intent of the people who created the Australian federal Constitution, was that the selection of the members of both houses of the Australian federal parliament, should be by first past the post voting, and, only by first past the post voting, as that was the method used for electing members of parliaments in each of the five countries mentioned by Gleeson, in his article, and, the clear intent of the people who created the Australian federal Constitution, was that the purpose of the lower house of the Australian federal parliament, was to represent the electorates, and, the purpose of the upper house of the Australian federal parliament, was to represent the states, but, the federal parliament then went on to corrupt the system, and, override the Australian federal constitution, so as to impose corrupt methods of selecting the members of the Australian federal parliament, and, to change the purposes of both of the houses of the Australian federal parliament, so that the sole purpose of both houses of the Australian federal parliament, became to be to represent only the interests of the parliamentary political parties, without regard for the interests of the people of Australia, or for the interests of the states of Australia.
Apart from other considerations, it is therefore, clear, that the intent of the Australian Constitution, is that the members of both houses of the federal parliament, shall all be selected by first past the post voting, and, that first past the post voting, was what was used in Australian federal elections, in compliance with the federal Constitution, until it was changed, by the federal parliament, in 1918, changing voting for the lower house, from first past the post voting, to the so-named "preferential voting", and, in 1948, changing the voting method for the senate, both changes by the federal parliament, being in defiance of the requirements of the federal Constitution, and, eliminating the right of the people, to choose for whom we vote in the "elections".
Therefore, those changes, should be declared invalid, and, first past the post voting be restored for the selection of all members of the federal parliament, in compliance with the constitution.
Now, there is the issue, here, of the voting method, as applied due to the wording of the Constitution; first-past the post voting, being changed, to benefit the interests of the members of the parliament, in defiance of the Constitution, but, there is also, the question, as to what is meant, and, what was meant, exactly, by the phrase "direct choice", as used in the Constitution, in sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution?
I think that a particularly good example, is the issue of the 2014 special senate election for WA, in terms of the result in the ALP candidates.
The ALP results listed in the results shown at http://results.aec.gov.au/17875/Website/SenateStateFirstPrefs-17875-WA.htm , are:
(Name, Party/Group, Number of votes, Percentage of valid votes cast, Quantity of "quotas")
TICKET VOTES Australian Labor Party 265,041 20.74 1.4519
BULLOCK, Joe Australian Labor Party 3,982 0.31 0.0218
PRATT, Louise Australian Labor Party 5,390 0.42 0.0295
HILL, Shane Australian Labor Party 319 0.02 0.0017
ANDRIC, Klara Australian Labor Party 362 0.03 0.0020
Group Total Australian Labor Party 275,094 21.53 1.5070
Now, the one that was declared elected, was Joe Bullock.
Did he get the most votes there?
No.
Who got the most votes there?
Louise Pratt.
But, was she declared elected?
No.
Who was the direct choice of the voters, out of that group?
Louise Pratt.
Do the results, in terms of who was elected, and, who was not elected, reflect that?
No.
So, does the method that was applied, reflect the "direct choice" of the voters?
No.
In first past the post voting, which makes clear, the direct choice of the voters, Louise Pratt would have won, from that group, having clearly, got the most votes.
So, that deals with the results reflecting the direct choice of the voters.
The voting system that was imposed upon us, was designed to prevent the direct choice of the voters, in contempt of the federal Constitution.
Then, there is the issue of the "voting above the line", on senate ballot papers.
In that WA special election for the senate, were 33 "groups", which means a possible 33 factorial (or, about 8.6 x 10 to the power of 36) different combinations of voting preferences, by "ticket voting", alone.
So, how many WA voters, knew what each of the “voting tickets” represented, in terms of where preferences would go, if the voter voted for a particular “voting ticket”, by voting above the line? Did anyone know, how each of the preferences of any “voting ticket” that a voter might have applied, would have been allocated? Did any voter know and understand, all of the possible preference allocation methods, for all of the different “voting tickets”, on offer? Unless the answer to all of those questions, for the last WA senate election, was “Yes”, then, how could the result of that senate election, be regarded as a selection that applied “direct choice”, as required by the federal Constitution?
I believe that, in WA, we had only 75 individual candidates, in that senate special election. That means 75 factorial, or, about 2.48 x 10 to the power of 109, possible combinations of voting preferences, if a voter "voted below the line".
In the gratuitously complicated system, that involves, in terms of how it all works, what is best described, using a phrase once used by a learned man; "Kafkaesque obscurantism, which, in this context, probably is best interpreted to mean designed so that nobody of reasonable mind, can understand it, how can anyone of reasonable mind, have any confidence, that any result from such a system, reflects the "direct choice" of the voters, who are restricted from making a "direct choice", by the rules that are applied? The way that this system works, a voter can vote for all of the candidates, in whatever order the voter wants, but, the voter is required to vote for the candidates that the voter would rather see summarily executed, to make a valid vote. There is no freedom of choice, when a voter is required by law, to vote for a candidate that the voter does not want, in order to make a valid vote. It is that simple. That is not direct choice, when a voter has no choice but to vote for candidates that the voter does not want elected.
And, that the objective of the federal parliament, is to flout the Constitution, and, prevent members of the parliament from being selected as required by sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution, is further demonstrated by the violation of Albert Langer, a man who tried to tell voters how they could comply with sections 7 and 24 of the federal Constitution.
The only valid "direct choice" method of voting, is, as was applied ab initio; the first past the post method of voting, where a voter puts a mark alongside a number of candidates, up to the number of vacancies for the particular electorate, and, the candidates are then ranked in order of the number of votes they so received, and, the top number of candidates equalling the number of vacancies, ranked, according to the number of votes received, are the direct choice of the voters.
It is that simple, and, as a well known judge; Judge Bullingham, used to say; "It is just a matter of common sense", or, words to that effect.
So, the only method of voting, in federal elections, that is compliant with the wording of the federal Constitution, is the first past the post method of voting, and, that that is shown to be the method of voting, intended by the federal Constitution, is demonstrated by that method of voting, having been implemented, when the federal Constitution was implemented.
However....
Unfortunately, however, apparently, the High Court of Australia overturned the Australian Constitution, and has legislated that sections 7 and 24 of the Australian Constitution, are of no effect, and, that the members of the Australian federal parliament, are not to be chosen by the Australian people, as the High Court of Australia, has apparently ruled that the people of Australia, do not get to choose the members of the federal parliament, and so, in Australia, the High Court of Australia has determined that democracy is irrelevant and precluded from Australian federal government.
At http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/gleesoncj/cj_lucinda.htm as viewed on 31 March 2016, was
"
THE NINTH LUCINDA LECTURE MONASH UNIVERSITY, 24 JULY, 2001 THE SHAPE OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY MURRAY GLEESON
"
and
"
Decisions of the High Court have established certain propositions.
First, "chosen by the people" does not require that all voters can please themselves whether to vote and whom to vote for.
"
So, "chosen by the people" DOES NOT, according to the High Court of Australia, mean that the people get to choose. According to the High Court of Australia, apparently, we have no right to choose for whom we vote. Thus, we are forced to vote for candidates for whom we do not want to vote, or, if we insist on not voting for people for whom we do not want to vote, then, we MUST cast an invalid, or, "informal" vote. It IS the requirement of the High Court of Australia.
??
So, the High Court of Australia, according to its last previous (as at 31 March 2016) Chief Judge, has ruled that the people of Australia, do not get to choose who gets selected to be the members of the federal parliament, and, that determination, is in clear contravention of the Australian Constitution.
At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Gleeson as viewed on 31 March 2016, was
"In May 1998, Gleeson was appointed Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, replacing Sir Gerard Brennan."
and
"His tenure as Chief Justice was also characterised by a large number of joint judgments, and a relatively frequent number of judgments that clearly and plainly provide the Court's ratio decidendi."
At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio_decidendi as viewed on 31 March 2016, was
"Unlike obiter dicta, the ratio decidendi is, as a general rule, binding on courts of lower and later jurisdiction—through the doctrine of stare decisis."
At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent as viewed on 31 March 2016, was
"
Precedent
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Stare decisis)
Not to be confused with Precedence.
In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Common law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases."[1] Common law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law (statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies), and Delegated legislation (in U.K. parlance) or regulatory law (in U.S. parlance) (regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies).
Case law or common law is the set of decisions of adjudicatory tribunals that can be cited as precedent. In most countries, including most European countries, the term is applied to any set of rulings on law which is guided by previous rulings, for example, previous decisions of a government agency.
"
So, it appears that it is absolute (as in absolute dictatorship?) and absolutely binding, that the people of Australia, do not get to choose for whom we vote, and, therefore, do not get to choose the members of the Australian federal parliament, according to the legislation and determination, made by the High Court of Australia.
The wording of Section 7 of the Constitution, in including the words
"The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting,"
invalidates section 15 of the Constitution, which is in defiance of, and, in direct breach of, section 7 of the Constitution, and, similarly, Section 44 of the federal Electoral Act, is in defiance of, and, in breach of, Section 7 of the Constitution.
Also, in the federal Electoral Act, section 39(1) breaches section 15 of the federal Constitution.
(At http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Senate_Briefs/Brief01
as viewed on 23 March 2016, was
"
Section 15 of the Constitution, as it was amended in 1977, provides that when a casual vacancy occurs in the Senate, through resignation or death of a senator, a new appointment is made by the Parliament of the state which that senator represented, or, in the cases of the territories, by their legislative assemblies. The 1977 amendment, however, provided for the inclusion of a condition, which had prior to that date been a convention only, that the vacant place should always be filled by a member of the same political party or group as the vacating senator. The new senator then holds the position for the remainder of the term of the senator replaced. This provision is designed to preserve between elections the proportional representation of political parties as determined by the electors.
"
which, once again, is in contempt of the provision of section 7 of the federal Constitution, that requires that all members of the senate, are to be selected by being "directly chosen by the people of the State, voting," and also shows the change made by the federal parliament, to replace the purpose of the senate, being to represent the states, or, more importantly, the people, with the purpose of solely representing the interests of the political parties.
)
I would therefore, argue that section 7 of the Constitution;
""The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State, directly chosen by the people of the State, voting,""
clearly, necessarily requires all casual vacancies of the senate, to be filled by by-elections. And, using only first past the post voting, which is clearly the intent of the Constitution.
In section 7 of the Constitution, is stated;
"The Senate shall be composed of senators for each State,"
and
"The senators shall be chosen for a term of six years"
of which, section 42 of the federal Electoral Act;
"The term of service of a senator for a Territory commences on the day of his or her election and expires at the close of the day immediately before the polling day for the next general election."
is in breach.of Section 7 of the federal Constitution, and, is in breach of Section 41 of the federal Electoral Act;
"(1) A senator for a Territory has all the powers, privileges and immunities of a senator for a State".
and, so is Section 43 of the federal Electoral Act;
"An election of the senators for each Territory shall be held at the same time as each general election."
in defiance of, and, in breach of, section 7 of the federal Constitution and section 41 of the Electoral Act.
And, section 99 of the Constitution states;
"The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade, commerce, or revenue, give preference to one State or any part thereof over another State or any part thereof."
The Constitution classes the Northern Territory as a part of the state of South Australia, and, therefore, is a "state or any part thereof".
Therefore, section 99 of the Constitution requires that the senators for the NT and the ACT, should not be discriminated against, and, should have the same terms and conditions as the other members of the senate, as the federal parliament obviously does "give preference to one State or any part thereof over another State or any part thereof", in that the senators that are not the senators for the NT and ACT, are given preferential treatment, over the senators for the NT and the ACT, in direct contravention of section 99 of the federal Constitution.
The cited text from sections 7 and 99 of the Constitution, makes it clear that the members of the Senate should have the same, equal, terms of office, without discrimination of the region of the Senators.
However, once again, the High Court of Australia, has overturned the Australian Constitution, and, has legislated so that the Northern Territory and the ACT, are not part of Australia.
Once again, at http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/former-justices/gleesoncj/cj_lucinda.htm as viewed on 31 March 2016, was
" Decisions of the High Court have established certain propositions."
and
"Secondly, the words "the people of the Commonwealth", in s 24, do not include the people of the Territories."
So, the High Court of Australia, has apparently legislated to overturn the Australian Constitution, and, has legislated so that the people of the Northern Territory, and, the ACT, are not part of Australia, and are therefore, not entitled to Australian citizenship.
Interesting.
This web page is authorised and published by Bret Busby, 2 Pelham Street, Armadale.
I can be contacted by email by clicking on the link at Bret
This web page was last updated on 31 March 2016.